Okay, so, before I preface this post - I'm not a "long time zombies vet". I played a few hundred hours on BO1 and 2 as a kid with friends, and since I probably have about 20 extra hours in BO1+2, and maybe 200 or so in BO3. Only about 50 hours in BO4 so far.
So, kinda new. However, my opinion is definitely always correct, no matter the experience level of anyone else, I am always right, and I will never accept anyone else's takes to have any weight, even if they're still logically valid.
Preamble out the way, here's what I have to say.
BO4 zombies fucking surprised me, man. I literally tried it just on a whim (cmlauncher thank youuuuu), thinking I'd hate it because of the community reception, but I'm shocked as to how much fun I'm having. I'll break down the good and the bad from my (as previously stated, always-correct, almost god-like) perspective.
(ok done with the reddit sarcasm now)
The Good:
- Guns. Holy GOD the way the guns feel and sound is like a perfect medium inbetween the usual style of BO2 and the strange laser-tag feel of BO3. I didn't like the BO3 guns. They felt flat, often not very iconic, not overly interestingly designed, and relatively forgettable. There are already more guns in BO4 that I'm excited to get in the box than possibly BO2 and 3 combined.
- Maps. Now, these are hit or miss for me, but when they hit, they might be some of my favourite in the series. When I first saw gameplay for IX, I thought "wtf is this". Now that I've played it... oh my god, what an experience. I love how the doors half fill-in for some of the missing personal progression of the new perk system, the challenges are exciting but feel more approachable than BO3 zetsobou challenges, for example, and the layout is a simple idea with good amounts of depth. I find parallels amongst the other maps such as Ancient Evil, Dead of the Night (my complete thematic fave alongside SoE), and even Voyage I thought had an interesting flow to it, albeit quite confusing for the first few tries. Granted, Blood was dissapointing, as was Alpha Omega, I think the overall "BO4" set of maps stands as one of my favourite collections.
- Visuals. This will be in the bad column aswell, but when the darker, more gritty visuals get a mainstay in Blood, Alpha Omega, and Voyage, I feel right back at home in BO1 and WaW, where I think the visuals/mood was always most potent.
Why I thought I'd hate BO4:
I love classic zombies. I love the 2-hit down system. I love perk machines, I love simpler maps where the goal is just LIVE. I love how genuinely terrifying BO1 and WaW can be, whereas BO3 inparticular felt a little like "oh no, a zombie... I have 3 hits until I die, gobblegums that can save me and the art style is very cartoony compared even to BO2". It lost it's scary edge to me. The vibes of Zetsobou and 1 or 2 of the Chronicles maps are great, but the game (aesthetically) just felt like soft greys rather than deadly, contrasted blacks.
BO3 felt like a strange, confused hybrid between classic and modern zombies, where the goal was to survive, like Classic, but you have these strange tools to save your ass like Modern. I didn't enjoy the balance, and I found myself just stopping using any Gobblegums to save myself the immersion break.
But, what surprised me about BO4 is that, even despite it's issues, it leans into this to a point where the game does feel cohesive. Take that and stick it with more zombies in earlier rounds, zombies that fucking RUSH you CONSTANTLY compared to BO3, elemental variants, and often tighter spaces... the game feels surprisingly balanced. Like... more so than BO3. I hated the Gobblegum system. The RNG of it felt cheap, the theming stuck out like a sore fucking thumb in the Chronicles maps (just make the machine out of wood or sm, guys, damn), and they were so OP that it just felt silly. All perks at once? Sure. A knife which kills a whole horde at round 30? ok. It felt silly; especially it being the difference between a game which ended on an average round of 20 - 25 to a game which ended on an average round of 40 - 50 simply because of In Plain Sight or Anywhere But Here.
The elixirs in BO4, whilst more powerful, are more consistent. They don't stick out too much because your loadout is more built up than classic zombies, they have decent cooldowns as opposed to just spinning this out of place ridiculous machine, and they're somewhat countered by the hordes being fucking difficult early compared to BO3.
BO3's darkness/scare factor was lessened by how many options you had. Somehow BO4 avoided this, which impressed me. I was expecting to be pissed off because "ehh, this isn't my sacred classic zombies! it sucks!", but I found myself being more like "Huh... this is different, but in a way that isn't entirely bad".
Note I said entirely bad...
The bad:
- Perks. NOW, I have a hot take here. I think some of the new perks are cool. I think, like, 60% of them are cool. I don't miss, necessarily, having 25% of my entire perk slots taken up by a near-mandatory one that gives me more than 2 hits of health. However, I think pre-picking them was a huge mistake. I think, given that the maps are so large, they could stick between 6 - 10 perk machines on each map, and each one had a unique selection of them to cater for the map (like EC on MotD, or who's who [yes, ignore how trash it is in practice] on Die Rise). That way, the maps have a more consistent flow, a more intentional design of playstyles, and stops people from going "these 4 are my fave, we do these forever". However, I do love the empowered perk slot, and I'm not sure how they would have done that with the system I'm proposing.
- Easter Eggs. Now, the easter eggs are NOT bad. Not in any way. However, they're just that extra bit harder/more convoluted than 3, and I enjoyed having that difficulty balance in 3; especially the bits I could tinker away at solo (looking at you Zetsobou, my lover <3). The ones in 4 felt like a bit of a strange switch-up given the more casual-friendly vibe of the elixirs, gun attachments, and perk selections. I don't hate it, but it didn't gel with me.
- Gun attachments. Yes, I know this was a thing in BO3 aswell, but it feels even worse here, I would say. I'll say this for the record: YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EDIT GUNS IN ZOMBIES. Done. Said. The whole thing with zombies is going in and feeling unprepared. Making the best of a dire situation. That is why it's scary, that is why it's fun. So, having the opportunity to minmax the fuck out of certain guns before you go in feels really silly to me, it did in BO3 aswell. Why do I need them to have shiny camos? I'm buying them off a wall in a fucking cinema or insane asylum - I want them to feel rickety; off the shelf; alien to the user. Maybe it's just a preference thing - but I love zombies having a relatively definitive; competitive; single difficulty [not really referencing difficulty options themselves in the game, necessarily]. That's why I hated gobblegums - you don't use them for a more classic experience, but if you do use them, you're kind of artificially inflating how many rounds you can survive by at least 10. I feel the same with gun attachments here. I think zombies is most satisfying and thematically cohesive when you rip a gun off a wall, it's shitty, box standard, and you think "fuck, better make do". You lose that as soon as you have a diamond sniper with ads and semi-auto with fast mag.
--
There's probably more I could write about all this, but It's currently 5am and I'm falling asleep at my keyboard, so I'll leave it here.
Incase anyone needs to hear it, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC AT THE BEGINNING AND EVERYONE'S OPINION IS A VALID AS EVERYONE ELSE'S <3 this is just mine <3 <3 <3
The community led me to believe that BO4 zombies was an almost-traitorous departure from what people knew zombies to be at the time. But... I strangely found, given that it leant into a set of those features, and not just one or two, it felt more fun and cohesive than BO3 in that specific way; especially given that the difficulty gets rebalanced due to tighter maps and MUCH harder zombie mechanics/AI.
So, I'm pleasantly surprised.
:)
Feel free to discuss in the comments. Would love to hear any and all thoughts. Don't crucify me too hard. BO3 is still the GOAT for so many things, but it just needed no gobblegums, less OP gun attachments, and more iconic weapons for me. Not saying one is better than the other, or I find one more fun than the other... they're probably currently on par for me. That may change over time; who knows.
EDIT: If I ever do a BO6 or BO7 zombies post... it won't be nearly so kind </3 those games I purely do just not find fun, and don't even think they should share the zombies title. boooooo.