Chaos Ranks the 10 Worst Things Call of Duty Zombies Ever Did, From Xville to Treyarch Losing Control

Call of Duty Zombies has changed a lot over the years. What started as a simple bonus mode in World at War eventually became one of the biggest parts of the Call of Duty franchise. We have gone from four players trapped in a small room fighting increasingly ridiculous numbers of zombies to enormous maps, character progression, storylines, crafting, loadouts, currencies, all of that. So I want to look at the 10 worst features ever added to Call of Duty Zombies.

I do not claim to be the number one authority on zombies. I once shared what might be the most hated take in Call of Duty zombies history, though I do not think that counts here. But I do have my ear on the pulse of the community, and I think this time around I am going to make people proud.

10. Xville lets you quit the mission by calling in an extraction

Eventually you decide you are done with the game, and instead of simply quitting, you call in an extraction and try to escape. That is a decent idea on paper. The problem is Call of Duty zombies typically ends one way: you die. There is no victory screen, no extraction. You survive until you cannot survive anymore, or you reach the end of the game. It is one or the other.

That is why Xville feels bizarre to add to the game, because the game is now asking you, hey, do you want to be done, do you want to go home. "That sounds like a vibe killer for the experience." If you can just leave the mission before it is finished, it feels disconnected from what usual zombies experiences are, because a usual zombies experience has you trapped and fighting for your life. If you can just leave, why were you there in the first place?

9. Gobble gums in Black Ops 3 changed what zombies rewarded

Black Ops 3 introduced one of the most controversial additions to zombies: gobble gums, consumable power ups that gave players temporary abilities. Some were harmless, others were powerful, and then there were the mega gobble gums, which could fundamentally change an entire match. You could get free perks, extra points, extra weapons, extra pack a punch abilities, and I think you could even manipulate the mystery box or revive teammates in ways that normally were not possible.

Gobble gums were not necessarily bad because they were powerful. They were bad because they changed what zombies rewarded you for doing. Classic zombies was largely about learning the map, managing your resources, and surviving. Gobble gums introduced an entirely new layer of strategy, and some were so powerful they could trivialize parts of the experience, letting you get yourself out of situations that would have been impossible in earlier games. Some say gobble gums were put in for casual players. I did not say it, do not kill the messenger, but it introduced a resource management system into a mode I do not know if it needed it.

8. Armor in Black Ops Cold War turned zombies into system management

Black Ops Cold War introduced armor as a core part of player survivability. Instead of simply relying on health and Juggernog, we now had armor protecting us from incoming damage, which created a problem. For over 10 years, zombies had a very simple damage system: you get hit, you lose health, you eventually die. Armor adds another layer between you and death, and that does not sound particularly bad until you realize what it does to the flow of the game.

Zombies became less about avoiding damage and more about managing armor, since armor can be upgraded, repaired, and replenished, becoming another resource players constantly had to think about. This feature is not necessarily bad by itself, but it contributed to a much larger trend in modern zombies. Instead of learning how to survive, you learn how to manage systems, and at some point you started wondering whether you are playing zombies or a budget version of Escape from Tarkov.

7. Score streaks in Cold War let you call in an attack helicopter

In classic zombies, if you wanted to kill a large group of zombies, you had to earn it. You needed a powerful weapon, a good position, maybe a trap, maybe a wonder weapon. Cold War basically said, what if you could just call in an attack helicopter? Suddenly zombies had artillery, sentry guns, air strikes, every other powerful kill streak style piece of equipment you could think of.

They could be fun, but they fundamentally alter the power curve. There is something satisfying about reaching a high round because you mastered the game's mechanics, but there is something slightly less satisfying about reaching a difficult situation and responding by ordering an attack helicopter to solve your problem. This was not even completely necessary. Zombies already had a massive arsenal of unique weapons and equipment. The mode did not need to borrow another system from multiplayer. It had already figured out how to make players feel powerful; it just needed to let them keep doing it.

6. Modern Warfare 3's open world zombies barely resembled the classic mode

Modern Warfare 3 took zombies in a different direction entirely. Instead of being trapped inside a traditional zombies map, we were dropped into a huge open world environment. There are some genuinely cool ideas there, but it barely resembles traditional zombies. Classic zombies is built around a specific map: you learn the layout, open the doors, activate the power, find the pack a punch, discover secrets, learn the best training spots, and eventually master the environment.

Modern Warfare 3 zombies replaces a lot of that with an open world structure. You drive around, complete contracts, collect loot, extract for whatever reason, fight bosses, upgrade your gear, and then you leave. It was essentially a PvE extraction mode with zombies. That does not automatically make it bad, but it is a very different experience. If someone told you in 2011 that one day Call of Duty zombies would involve driving a truck across a giant map to complete contracts so you could extract with loot, you probably would have assumed they were describing a completely different franchise.

5. Vanguard's covenant system added complexity nobody asked for

The basic idea of covenants was that you could collect hearts and exchange them for different abilities that could dramatically change how your weapons performed against zombies. The problem was that it added yet another layer of complexity to an already complicated progression system. Instead of simply finding a weapon, upgrading it, and trying to survive, now you had to evaluate covenant options: which one is better, which weapon benefits from it, should you spend your hearts now.

This would not necessarily be a problem if the system had been attached to a good zombies experience, but Vanguard Zombies was already struggling with map design, progression, and overall identity. So the covenant system became another thing players had to manage without much reason to care. It was a solution to a problem most players did not have, and when you are playing zombies, that is a bad sign.

4. Black Ops 4's perk system removed the discovery of finding Juggernog

Black Ops 4's perk system was one of the biggest departures from classic zombies. For years, zombies had a relatively simple perk system: you knew what the important perks were, and other perks varied depending on the map. Black Ops 4 decided to redesign it, so instead of finding a familiar collection of perks around the map, you now chose four perks before the game started, which created a whole new problem. You no longer discovered your perks during the match; you planned beforehand.

That sounds like a small change, but it was not. Perks had always been part of the exploration of zombies, learning the map and discovering where each perk machine was. Black Ops 4 turned them into a loadout. The classic Juggernog perk was essentially removed and replaced with a different health system, and many of the iconic perks were moved around or replaced. The developers were trying to encourage experimentation, but a lot of players simply wanted the old perks back. "Sometimes you just need to keep Juggernog where it belongs."

3. Vanguard's objective system destroyed the flow zombies is built on

If there is one thing Vanguard Zombies demonstrated, it is that zombie players do not necessarily want zombies to play like multiplayer. Vanguard leaned heavily into objective based gameplay, so instead of surviving on a map, you had to teleport between different areas and complete objectives, defend locations, escort objectives, complete challenges, then return to the hub area and repeat the process.

The problem was that it destroyed one of the most important things about zombies to me: the flow. Classic zombies had a rhythm to it, and Vanguard frequently interrupted that rhythm with objectives. It could feel less like surviving a zombie outbreak and more like your manager had assigned you another task. The worst part is that objective based zombies could have worked; there are examples of zombie quests and objectives that were fun. The problem was making the entire experience revolve around it. Zombies did not need to become an objective driven multiplayer RPG.

2. Loadouts let players skip the journey from pistol to arsenal

This is probably one of the biggest philosophical changes to zombies. For years, you start with nothing. You had to earn it all, needing points to buy weapons, then finding better equipment, building your arsenal all throughout the match, getting lucky. That progression was a huge part of the fun, but then suddenly you could choose your starting weapon before the game began, and bring in equipment to customize your entire starting setup.

That changed the opening minutes of a zombies match. You were not starting with nothing anymore; you were starting with the weapon you wanted, creating a very different progression system. The early rounds used to be scary because of the difficult decisions they forced. Convenient is not necessarily better, and one of the best parts of zombies was watching your character go from a guy with a pistol and 500 points to a walking nuclear arsenal. Loadouts skip part of that journey, and when you remove the struggle from zombies, you also remove some of the satisfaction that comes with overcoming it.

1. Letting other studios besides Treyarch run zombies

I might be biased here, but I really do not think it was a good idea to let other studios have control of zombies. This is not really a feature, but it is definitely an aspect of the mode that left a pretty heavy impact on things. Aside from Infinite Warfare, has there been a good zombies mode without the same kind of care and love and attention that Treyarch brings?

I am not saying Treyarch has always been perfect. Obviously they have not. But I cannot help but feel like every year that was not made by Treyarch felt like a filler year. Call of Duty World War II, Vanguard, and Modern Warfare 3 all felt like dead years, and everybody started paying attention again once Treyarch was back at the helm, even when Treyarch was making missteps. "I just don't think anyone should be in charge of zombies other than Treyarch at this point." That might be a hot take, and I know my opinion is probably not very valued when it comes to zombies, but I have people every day telling me to keep making zombies content, so there you go.

Which of these do you think is the actual worst thing zombies ever added?