User Score
4.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1439 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    8
    Well, uh, I had the privilege from good old steam to play "Call of Duty: Black Ops" multiplayer until to Saturday of that week. So I gave it a try, and it wasn't so bad after all. The sound designs are impressive as well as the currency system, which makes you more immersive to the game. Sure, the graphics are kinda outdated but think about COD:WAW and compare this to it. Feels better, doesn't it? Overall very well made, enjoyable, and addictive. Just find some healthy servers and this game will be the masterpiece of your life. Expand
  2. Apr 7, 2014
    9
    My brother bought black ops from games stop . i thought it sucked because the zombies and the background suck it did and fyi the zombies sucked too . but i was wrong the story was epic and the game rocks . grade A+
  3. Sep 22, 2013
    4
    Multiplayer still sucks, singleplayer is super short and relatively boring. Graphics look like they are from 2005, perfermance is the worst i've ever seen in a CoD game. What more can I say? It's a bad game.
  4. Jul 7, 2011
    6
    Black Ops certainly has reached where the developers want it to be POPULAR - that doesnt mean its without fault or even good and I certainly think the developers have made it popular at times at the expense of being good (or better). For instance the graphics do have high production values and may look realistic but they lack originality or style, Wind Waker will continue to look great in 10 years but will CoD? While many hate and argue about many things - that it should not be an annualized property, its a stale formula, the single player is a big explosion but lacks real substance, that Modern Warfare 2 is better, there is one thing that CoD does have going for it- its value for money. There is indeed very high value for money in Black Ops having very high production values, content and game play throught out its many modes, maps, and many hours that can be spent in its games. Its without doubt. The single player campaign was only ok but leaning to forgettable which is a big missed opportunity; the multiplayer does feature a lot of fun gameplay, personally I found the Zombie maps the most fun. CoD has to change a few things for it to reach a good Esport game in multiplayer, and I do really wish it would change its philosophy to its single player story. Black Ops has its good parts and its lame. Lets hope the next CoD will take many of these improvements on board, but I doubt it.â Expand
  5. Feb 17, 2011
    6
    If you own Call of Duty 4, you'll probably feel a little cheated when you play Black Ops multiplayer. There are very few new features or innovations and the gameplay is exactly the same. The coop zombie survival mode is a good addition and the single player is decent, but considering the steep price tag, it's difficult to justify a been there, done that game.
  6. Aug 8, 2012
    7
    After playing call of duty black ops on Xbox360, I played it on PC and the connection is definitely so much better, the dedicated servers make it so there is almost no lag at all as long as you play in your correct region. Although the gameplay still isn't exactly top notch, and Call of duty 4 is still better for me.
  7. Aug 13, 2012
    4
    I think I can confidently say that the only thing good about this game in the Zombies mode, although I still found it far less entertaining than the survival mode in MW3. The graphics and sound are mediocre at best--mostly just bad--and the gameplay alternates between frustrating and boring. The single-player campaign was more a chore than anything: I kept hoping that it would get better, but it never did. The story was moderately interesting, but the presentation was dull and confusing. There are plenty of explosions, ambushes, and near-death experiences, but I could never bring myself to care about anything that was happening. The 'characters' are all either shallow or completely lacking in personality, and nothing that happens really seems to matter much--not until the very end, by which time you're probably half asleep. Perhaps the multiplayer is worth trying, but from what I've seen of others playing it, there's nothing special there either. Expand
  8. Sep 5, 2011
    4
    The COD series used to stand for quality shooters, but everything after "World at War" has proven the series has lost its soul to the fat cats trying to please sad little console ****
  9. Dec 1, 2012
    4
    This game has quite a lot of technical problems. And if you are able to run it what you will get is a pretty average first person shooter. The campaign is as linear, scripted and braindead as you would expect from the genre. Decide for yourself if that is a bad thing or not. Gameplay wise has the series stood still for a while and black ops continues on that path by not changing a single thing. The shooting is still alright but everything from the bad visuals, forced turret sections, endlessly respawning enemies, linear maps and scripted events starts to feel dated and if you have played a military shooter or two you will definitely have seen this before. That the campaign is rather short for the games price doesn't help either. You do get to visit some interesting places in the campaign which is always nice and the story is better than you would expect from this genre even if its a bit cliche. The multiplayer will compensate for this for some. Personally i didn't get much fun out of the multiplayer. The reason was technical problems and lack of interest. I would give the game a 5 in score since i believe that the game is quite average but the technical problems manages to bring it down a score. If this is your thing and if you are a fan of the games multiplayer i would recommend buying the game for a cheap buck. Just be aware that you might have to deal with some technical problems. Expand
  10. May 24, 2012
    6
    While the game itself has an epic story and lots of flashes, the main issues of playing this game all goes with some rare bugs, glitches and server issues. Also the graphics are outdated. Even playing the zombie or skirmish modes require Internet access and that's unacceptable. Overall, a decent game that shall require lots of improvement to be made there.
  11. Jul 24, 2012
    1
    This game is totally pointless. Singleplayer not too brilliant but have good moments. Multiplayer like all Call of Duty titles trying to do game as much annoying possible with constant behind back spawning and camping sutable game types.
  12. Nov 10, 2010
    0
    An unplayable port - SP and MP. It looks 3 years old but eats resources like Crysis 7. Severe audio stuttering, deadly lags, server problems, gameplay breaking frame-rate drops on gaming machines well above the recommended configuration, laughable hodgepodge story... If they cannot somehow patch this load of manure into playability, I would not recommend picking it up even from the bargain bin - where it will pretty soon land. Expand
  13. Jul 1, 2011
    7
    Despite all the hate this game got, I loved it. In some ways it surpasses Modern Warfare 2, and in other ways, it doesn't. I do realize that this game doesn't give the best performance for even the best of PC's, but I still liked the game despite all that. The single player was absolutely brilliant, you can tell that Treyarch was trying real hard to step out of Infinity Ward's shadow. I would choose Black Ops multiplayer over MW2's any day. Expand
  14. Mar 9, 2014
    8
    Black Ops contains many things enough to have a good time. A good campaign. A great multiplayer. And a maniac addictive zombies mode. I don't want to go to work today. Let's play zombies.
  15. May 13, 2011
    8
    Let's get this right out of the way: I don't care about the multiplayer, and I've never cared about any CoD multiplayer. It's just another run and gun game, I resort to Battlefield for multiplayer goodness. That being said, the Call of Duty franchise has always been about intense, cinematic singleplayer games ever since Infinity Ward debuted with the first Call of Duty. When Treyarch took up CoD 3, it wasn't that great or bad, it was just meh. With World at War, they started to experiment more and I felt it was an honest improvement over the past CoD WW2 games. With Black Ops, a lot hype from Modern Warfare 2 bled over and people were already ready to either love it or hate it regardless of it's content. I am neither a Call of Duty fanboy, nor a hater, and I will say this. Modern Warfare 2 should have never came out. This is the true CoD 4 predecessor. In Black Ops, everything you know about Call of Duty is flipped over. You mainly assume the role of one character and the campaign is in the form of a frame story, where you are being held captive and every mission is a memory in the past. At first you very confused, but as you go on the pieces start to fall into place. You start to suspect something is terribly wrong and the game violently hurls you into the center of the conspiracy. In form, the campaign is actually a typical action movie conspiracy plot. However, this plot works beautiful in the game to help you experience a wide variety of levels and action. You will be in a group trying to assassinate Castro, having a talk with President Kennedy, mowing down the Viet Cong, flying in a SR-71 Blackbird marking objectives for the team below, playing as the team below, making your way through a pitch black rat tunnel with a flashlight and a revolver, and piloting (YES, PILOTING, NOT JUST GUNNING) a Hind through the jungles of Vietnam. Every mission is exciting and keeps your heart pacing and sometimes you can just look at the scenery completely dumbfounded, knowing that these are all within the realm of realism and yet the developer chose not the bash the fact down our throats. In the end, if someone were to ask me if I liked CoD 4 versus Black Ops, I would have a hard time answering. Yes, CoD 4 was revolutionary at the time, but Black Ops has definitely renovated it and is overall a much more enjoyable campaign. If this game were released last year when all the hype was built up for the pathetic failure that was Modern Warfare 2, the reviews would be far better and people wouldn't be so skeptical. But release yourself from the cynicism that plagues the population and you will be treated the one of the best single player campaigns you have played in your life. Expand
  16. Aug 13, 2012
    8
    Black Ops haves an addictive multiplayer, and a memorable story mode. Zombies is a blast fun that you will have, but the problem are the glitches and some complicated controls. But, impressive is that the PC version haves great graphics. Overall, the game is worth buying, and, for sure, I recommend for everyone, especially for the fast paced gamers. 80 out of 100.
  17. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    Super game, and lots of fun. I'm somewhat surprised at the ratings because I feel game has :the following strong points:
    nonstop action
    variety of weapons
    lots of different ways to fight, like tank and helo
    good explanatory notes
  18. Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Being a huge MW2 fan, I wanted to love Black Ops. Sadly, for PC the game is a technical failure. The engine runs very poorly and even though claims to run at 90 FPS, is choppy and stutters. Aside from the fact that it took months for the developer to patch the game to a playability state, the gameplay is just not as polished as MW2. I enjoyed the SP campaign for what it was, although there were several totally obnoxious parts where the game didn't indicate what you should do (stupid barrel section!). Overall, the game just failed technically, so it gets a 5 since it was playable, but not very good. Expand
  19. Dec 21, 2011
    6
    Black Ops is nowhere near the superb Call of Duty 4, but is still slightly better than Modern Warfare 2. The main reason is that PC players atleast got a server browser. The singleplayer campaign was interesting, but not as good as the modern warfare counterpart.
  20. Dec 1, 2012
    9
    lets call this game not the best of the series this game is fine but it not the best game in the frenchise if you are a cod and you want to buy a cod game i will tell you to buy black ops 2 not 1 if you want an awsome game expirence
  21. Jan 23, 2012
    10
    It'll make you feel like a real soldier spamming grenades, noobtubing and knifing everyone in your way. (Note: I don't use GL so yes, i hate noobtubers)

    Jokes aside, Despite the bugs and glitches here and there, this is one of the best COD MP you'll ever experience.
    As for the SP, it's very entertaining in some moments but it feels like a rail-shooter.
    They could have worked a little bit
    more on the storyline.
    As for the graphics, even if the engine is many years old, i love it.

    I never thought Treyarch would make a COD better than Modern Warfare Franchise, but they proved me wrong and really kicked some butts with this game.
    Expand
  22. Dec 22, 2010
    5
    This is what happens when you listen to the stupid community. Now unfortunately there is no class building as most of the weapons are just rubbish. Assault Rifles and only 2 of the SMGs are the only weapons in this game that are actually good. Snipers are useless, Shotguns are useless LMGs are just not superior to the good weapons etc. Lag is a pain in the ass and it is fairly buggy too. Due to the fact that most of the weapons are gimped, the game gets extremely boring. It is basically like playing a crappy version of counter strike. People are going to have to realise that the Call of Duty designers are just criminals out to steal your money. Expand
  23. Apr 22, 2012
    4
    Another example of Activision releasing the same game year after year to please a crowd of screaming 13 year old fanatics. Graphics are okay, and are nothing to write home about. The story is your standard CoD, and in other words, plays exactly the same as other titles in the series. When telling a friend of mine, I hated Call of Duty, he said "Then how come it is so popular?". CoD is only popular to 13 year olds, and in the mature gaming community, is regarded an average piece of crap. Play a decent shooter, like Bioshock or something else that is actually good. Expand
  24. Nov 18, 2010
    1
    Did the critics play this game? It is not very good, and the detail is awful. They have people using guns that did not exist until years after the historical events in the game. Come on, ACOG sites in 1962! Save your money and skip this game.
  25. Apr 23, 2013
    2
    Same run of the mill game. Same sounds, same engine,, same weapons, simple level design, arbitrary recycled level-up system. Good for a mediocre spaz session, else trash it.
  26. Nov 15, 2013
    4
    This was the last Call of Duty game i bothered to buy. 60 bucks and then later asking money for DLC was beyond me. I would sell this game along with MW2 but its stamped forever on my steam account, oh the shame. Its just an console port that is broken on the pc. And paying the money they asked for this mess is like stealing straight out of your pockets. It maybe good on consoles but its not for PC. Expand
  27. Jul 5, 2011
    1
    I can give Activision a 1 for tricking me in to taking it up the a$$ with this piece of sh!t game. This game sucked period, i hate to support companies like Activision there just in it for the money and don't care much about there quality of work.
  28. Feb 23, 2013
    9
    What the F*&K is wrong with the haters, this is by far the best call of duty, for me: GOTY 2010, even better than HALO Reach.
  29. Nov 20, 2010
    10
    This game was just as good as modern warfare 2 if not better.The graphics were macnificent and the storyline great, i only played the single player though but it was really another great C.O.D great experience and they still make M.O.H look like children!!!
  30. Nov 1, 2011
    7
    Ok first off i am not going to rate this game for MP but i will say it worked fine for me. I have no other C.O.D. title to compare to or go by as this is probably the only one i will ever purchase partially due to the fact they hardly ever have sales for it and since they have so many titles i just don't see the point. there are so so many other games out there to play. That being said, i really like Black ops one of the best newer Fps i've played but its on the lower rung. too long of cut scenes in single player and the story was ok with fairly smooth gameplay. it's a decent shooter but i believe if youve seen one C.O.D. youve seen them all. I found the Multiplayer to be quite enjoyable though i have to say they fell way short of BBC2 witch completely rocks C.O.D.s' socks off sorry i just had to say that lol.. this is a good game imo but not worth the price. Also i almost forgot to mention the main reason i chose this C.O.D. title was for the fact it seems it has the most to offer out of all of them. The arcade mini top-down zombie game is awesome and the fact they brought the zombie mp mode back is worth mentioning and fun as well Expand
  31. Jul 9, 2014
    5
    My previous review of this game, in my own words, was immature, juvenile, and selfish. While I can't factor out the fact that this game retreads the same typical stereotypes of Russians being evil (even if it uses an appropriate time frame to justify it), has bounds of DLC that charge so much for so little, pyrotechnics that either kill you through buildings that otherwise aren't flammable or just be invisible overall and kill you randomly, I can't entirely discredit the game for at least being functionally bland. I can't, however, give it a perfect score, but I will try to be more reasonable with the current reception of this game, and others in the future.

    While I am no fan of the continuing dismay of trading different filters of gameplay and trying to sell it off as new, at least the gameplay itself does work for the most part. Weapon damage and aim is consistent and substantial, noobtubes, while a crutch to any person's enjoyment, are still present, they aren't as overused as beforehand. And the only bit of credibility that I can give to Treyarch is that they do have a greater tendency to be more about the game than the graphics, unlike InfinityWard. Modern Warfare 2 pissed me the hell off because of that unexciting, jarring motion of getting killed from 8 different places if you looked at someone the wrong way, at least when I play Treyarch's renditions of the COD franchise, I can feel at least somewhat capable and compitent in battle. I might be a tad bit of a rage gamer, since even playing TF2 can get me into a downward spiral of anger that I want to brake my laptop in half. Spawn positions still suck, the bots that you can play against either locally or in the "combat training" still are dysfunctional to how real players play and are unrealistic, often being able to knife 2 seconds before you were even about to, have impeccable timing with the usage of grenades, and literally have no recoil to any of the guns they fire so they will never miss, unless you go out of their line of sight which they won't be smart enough to pursue you anyway.

    While this game is in no stretch of the word enticing, original, or even fun at some occassions, it is a mite game that you can spend at the most 2 hours tops playing and get some fun out of it, primarily with the Zombies mode (which should have had more content available, since most of the DLC maps are from Modern Warfare 1,which shows the poor demonstration of them trying to be bigger and better). Kind of like with Battlefield 3, I don't get pissed off over how bad the gameplay is, i just get pissed off of how exploitative the DLC and supposed excuse for originality that the game pretends it has. It doesn't, and you know it. You only serve as a bland, castrated bowl of potato chips. Do they feed you? Sure, but you won't get anything pleasant out of them from doing it.
    Expand
  32. Dec 1, 2010
    1
    This game does not deserve one sixteenth the hype it gets. The people at activision continue to rip off and rob 12-18 year olds blind. It is virtually the same game as MW2, for $60, what a rip off. The only reason why this new, despicable call of duty franchise is popular, is because it was released on a good platform during the right time. Despite all game play ideals and miserable healing (QUICK! ILL DUCK BEHIND THIS BARREL TO HEAL!) Nobody on the console side of the spectrum accurately judges the value of this pile of **** The BEST call of duty game by far was 2, but now they are on 8? The only reason they have survived is a pathetic shooter with a generation that does not recognize a good FPS. It is shameful to see where my generation is headed. If WE are going to lead the USA one day, we are truly screwed. I could talk about how the Xbox and stupid stuff like this is bringing down the fall of mankind, but this is a game review. BOTTOM LINE, IT SUCKS. COD4 and 2 where the best of all time, THIS IS A FLAMING PILE OF DOG **** ON YOUR FRONT PORCH. Expand
  33. Dec 26, 2010
    10
    While I hate FPS games, there's really no other franchise to go to if you like playing the same maps over and over during your free time for whatever reason you choose to do that. I like how rpg elements have crept into every genre, since you get feats and have to buy "loot" in the way of upgrades if you want to get anywhere. It's also worth it just to take the "1 less kill for a streak" feat and run rc cars into everyone even if you're not good at the game. Only Activision would amke a game that'll have people scared of a toy for a hot minute. However, please get it on pc if you've played an fps game before, as I don't have to tell you how awful a joystick is for competitive fps games. Expand
  34. Jul 30, 2011
    2
    A complete **** Long live COD4. It's single-player campaign proves to be a slight stroke of ingenuity by the developers which kept me entertained for a few hours (less than 10 as it was unbearably short like most action FPS's) and the multiplayer...considering the lag, and simple reskins, absolutely 0 innovation in combat), I probably will never touch this abomination of a game ever again. Did I mention, no replayability at all? Expand
  35. Nov 13, 2010
    3
    Modern Warfare2 was SO much better that releasing this in an insult to COD-players. Bugs, lag, and more bugs. I really don't believe the 'biggest launch ever' crap either. This 'game' is way sub-par.
  36. Nov 26, 2010
    9
    Upon release, the game was nearly unplayable. After a couple patches, Treyarch has improved upon the game's flaws but there are still obvious bugs that need to be addressed. Aside from a buggy release, the game is fantastic and extremely enjoyable. Loaded with features, game modes, and customization options, Black Ops is the best game to be released in the series so far... when it works.
  37. Nov 12, 2010
    0
    HAHAHAHA what a pile of garbage this game is, ps3 port, terrible graphics, lags like a **** same old same old. I really wish people would stop buying these games and then they might actually have to make a cod game for pc, and make it good, instead of giving us the crap that console idiots lap up as they don't know any better
  38. Dec 1, 2012
    4
    I pre-ordered it and full of regret. The storytelling of this game used way too much flashes and random objects that made me dizzy repeatedly. Only get this game when it is on cheap sale and collection purpose, otherwise, avoid this game.
  39. Mar 31, 2011
    4
    A better effort than the appalling MW2. Lean/peak is back - that's good. Dolphin jump is added - not sure why. Annoying perks. Especially marathon. A plethora of runners with knives appeared an most servers. If the noob-tubers were not enough... Dedicated servers - good. No public files for servers - bad - no life left in this game already. But the worst: lag - probably due to constant connection needed to Activi$ion servers. Not good. And only 18 players multiplayer? Hmmm - I play CoD 4 on servers with 50 players!!! And that is a 4 year old game. Will I play this in 4 years time? Probably not. Would I play Cod 4 four years from now? Probably yes. £12 DLC that gives you only 4 extra maps and not much else?!!!! Appalling - I was going to give it a five when I remembered about this. 4 for adding the lean/peak back. But that's it! Expand
  40. Jun 3, 2011
    6
    This review is for multilayer only since that is all I played over the free weekend on Steam. PROS:
    -Dedicated Servers -Bigger teams -Some new stuff -No quick-scoping(?) -You can now lean to peak around a corner -Lag? Well it's less laggy than MW2. -Zombies -You can play against bots. -Maps have trains that go by and other stuff, which I think was neat. -Less wait time between
    rounds.
    CONS: -The maps I played pretty much suck, most are too small for bigger teams (are there even that many included?). -Graphics don't look as good as MW2 for some reason even on high settings (isn't it the same engine?) -Overpriced map packs that you pretty much have to buy or you get rejected or kicked by most servers (well at least I did). -What happened to all the secondary weapons (I didn't see any machine pistols; did I miss something)?. -Interface takes some getting used to, seems a little too busy (why spend so much time redoing it?). -Why rename things in the game? Call them the same as they were called in MW2 -Why can't I change up my classes between rounds or look at new stuff I unlocked anymore? I have to exit the server/game I'm in just to do that? That is just dumb. -Sound effects seem cheap and poorly done (MW2's sound is so much better)...everything sounds almost muffled. -Weapons just don't feel the same as they did in MW2...overall it just feels like a cheaply made game. -What's with the long load times? MW2 didn't take nearly as long to load maps....there is always this hang time when the loading bar is at 100% for like 2-4 minutes.
    Overall the game is OKAY at best so I'm giving it a yellowish rating. It doesn't deserve an extremely low rating and it certainly deserves nothing in the greenish zone. This game is overpriced at $60, and even with the sale price on Steam over the weekend for $40, it's still overpriced. Given the fact that the game is not well made, it should have been priced at around $30-- especially since they price map packs at $15 that you pretty much HAVE to buy if you want to continue enjoying the game. Thanks for the free weekend Activision, but I'll save my money for a better game....MW3 maybe? Well given the fact that it just seems like Activision sees the COD franchise as a cash-cow now because fanboys will buy up any trash they spew out with the words "Call of Duty" on it, I won't hold my breath.
    Expand
  41. Nov 9, 2011
    4
    Graphics 6/10
    Gameplay 7/10
    Controls 9/10
    Story 3/10
    Characters 4/10
    Level design 7/10
    Weapons 8/10
    AI 5/10
    Multiplayer 8/10
    Presentation 7/10
    User Interface 8/10
    Sounds 7/10
    Music 5/10
  42. May 26, 2013
    6
    Not bad, not perfect. It does have a large variety of weapons, great situations, a great ending and so on, but why hate it? Yeah, its not the Holy Grail of gaming but its fun! Just because its a Call Of Duty game doesn't mean its going to be yet another terrible game, and I admit Nazi Zombies, World at War etc are better, but this has a smooth feel to it and isn't cheesy like other Cod games. Multiplayer is messed up beyond repair through little kids raging, cheating and being damn annoying, but Singleplayer Campaign is complete with a good story and a kick-off to the Black Ops series. Try it, but no promises you'll like it. Expand
  43. May 17, 2011
    3
    I don't like anything about this game. Single player is so scripted that it takes all the fun away, waves of enemies till you make one step more its ridiculous. Weapons sound like toys, multi player maps are lame too. And of course they had to release dlc shortly after game was out. Also it seems that activision bribed /bullied most professional reviewers since this game don't deserve more then 3-4 score. I don't think i will ever again buy activision game before checking it myself first. Expand
  44. Jul 19, 2012
    4
    What was activision thinking this is a sad excuse for a game i would rather play s.t.a.l.k.e.r. or crysis then this **** i mean seriously this is sad the 4 is for zombies its ok theres still lag on a top gaming rig ( 6 cores 32gb of ram and 4 7970 ) so if you tell me com sucks look above ok multiplayer screw it mw3 has better multiplayer i play it love it but yes multi sucks campaign sucks zombies 50/50 Expand
  45. Jan 6, 2011
    0
    Do yourself a favor, and don't buy this game. Its just another Call of Duty game that is created to suck our wallets dry, with little to no new upgrades to the series, Multiplayer is just stupid, if you want to play a good FPS just go buy Bad company 2, its better and you can save $40 in the process...
  46. Aug 27, 2011
    9
    The single player campaign is mediocre and multiplayer is repetitious and boring. Where Black Ops really pays of is in the zombie experience. Nothing in more fun that jumping online and slaying zombies with some friends.
  47. Jul 9, 2012
    4
    trully one of the worst call of duty games I've played. The storyline is confusing and gets boring after a while. The zombie mode is really good but I wanted more maps and better servers since it's really hard to connect with friends. The muliplayer mode was a pain in the ass... The MW2 server system was much better I did not like neither the maps nor the weapons and I found it reallt frustrating that I couldnt connect with any of my friends on private servers... Expand
  48. Mar 10, 2012
    1
    just how bad can you make a game people?Honestly the worst experience i ever had with a modern shooter,the multiplayer was a total clusterfu**,every bloody server filled with little try hards camping in the corners but i dont blame them because the game was built for them,perfectly crap over powered weapons.No balance between any of the guns.Spawn rape totally enabled,over powered killstreaks and finally a piece of shi* campaign with no good story to it. Expand
  49. Dec 1, 2010
    7
    IMO 2. best FPS of 2010 after BC2. I haven't had a single problem with performance, even though I think gameservers.com is one of the worst providers of all time. Camping is absolutely no problem in this game, the only people who even remotely suceed at camping are people with ghost, and even then just getting blackbird will solve that problem. I really love seeing all those goddamn campers with >0.50 score. The game is overall fairly balanced, there are a couple of the weapons that suck hard, but the rest are more or less equally strong, with the exception of the knife of course. Noobtube is no problem, flak jackets does a great job of making noobtube entirely useless, which I think is pretty nice :) Expand
  50. Mar 28, 2011
    0
    Reskin the models, rename protagonist and antagonist, rewrite location names, replace the wood barrels add draw roads here and there and voila new game to make moar $$$. COD: Ripoff of the century. It's linear, it's cliche and it has ancient graphics. It doesn't deserve a dime.
  51. Jun 15, 2011
    4
    Average, at best. Nothing more. It's too similar to every other COD that every came out. Yay. Oh and it's a Port to the Pc, so it doesn't exactly work the way it should. Broken, yes. Hackers, yes. Laggy, yes. It's not my internet, it's their crap servers. Oh and the DLC is a F'ing rip off, I mean $15 each? And this game has been out for months and months and they're still asking $60, what the hell... Broken Game. Expand
  52. Oct 26, 2011
    8
    On the MP side of things, BO definitely an improvement on the disaster of a game that MW2 was, unfortunately it's still not quite the game MW1 was (and still is). The maps have been expanded a decent bit, there are very cool customization options that help you give a personal touch to virtually every bit of gear right down to the totally unimportant player cards. Graphics are really good but only due to the excellent art design, if you start looking you will find signs of serious graphical fidelity the engine has experienced over the years. Sounds are also a definite improvement over previous cods as well as animation, all together these help to make the campaign quite memorable, no matter how confusing it gets at times. One downside of the multiple characters thing is that you don't leave hating the antagonists enough, otherwise as a whole it is quite varied and fast paced with some welcomed breaks in between stages. Camp-fests are virtually none-existent now and the killstreak rewards aren't particularly overused and OP either, leaving much of the fighting in infantry CQC form. Unfortunately Treyarch has yet to nerf the two most OP guns in the game (roughly a year after release o.O), which has put me off for a bit due to recent overuse by the community. The MP as a whole I prefer outright over MW2, and it's minor issues are overshadowed by this fact. Expand
  53. Nov 24, 2011
    8
    Black ops had it's flaws at launch (pc performance and 5 second pauses).
    I decided to wait and went back to MW2 until these problems were sorted.
    I came back to Black ops finding a very smooth and enjoyable experience, the main issue with lag is users having low powered cpu's as this game taxes the cpu more than your graphics card.
    I ranked all the way up to 15th prestige and can now
    say that this game is definitly worthy of a blast through.
    It's multiplayer is it's best part for sure as i tend to go straight for multiplayer on these type of games soley.
    I am giving this game an 8 out of 10 due to it's bad start but now without bugs it is a great game for multiplayer gamers.
    Expand
  54. Jul 4, 2013
    0
    I havent played the game, I hate call of duty games, I know I missed nothing. cod games are atrocious and artistically insulting. cod to games is as drum and bass to music.
  55. Dec 12, 2010
    9
    People love to hate whats popular. What it comes down to is that Black Ops is safe, but polished: What you should expect from a Call of Duty game these days. Multiplayer is a bit more balanced, but not perfectly, and its not likely to sway the people whose minds were made up before hand. Single player has a bit more innovative in the story, but not as well executed. MW2 was comparable to a Bond film, but Black Ops is just too easy to give up on, despite the entertainment of seeing some familiar, historical faces. Set pieces are wide, imaginative, and varied throughout, and though perhaps not quite as good as Modern Warfare, it has some top notch extra content to make up for it, however much Spec Ops is missed. Overall, if you still like being an army dude with real guns mowing down enemies while lots of **** blows up, Spec Ops is a great buy. If your looking for a game that shuns the safe blockbuster video game formula for something new and unexpected, you're going to be disappointed. Expand
  56. Feb 27, 2011
    8
    10 for graphics. 10 for storyline. I don't play zombies but that was absolutely hilarious the way you did it so 9. 10 for game play. 5 for bugs THAT FORCED ENTIRE RESTART OF LEVELS! 8 for relatively decent checkpoint placement but not perfect. 10+10+8+10+5+7=8 overall.

    Look, I dk about the MP, but if it weren't for the bugs, the single player was absolutely nothing less than amazing,
    so I dk what's with the Haters here. What more could you want from SP?? Expand
  57. TTT
    Aug 19, 2011
    8
    Not bad game . But you must have a good computer and a good internet connection . For the PC it's good , but the game it's realised fot XBOX 360 and PS3 . Zombie mode save this game to the 6 . For me Treyarch take a 8 for Call of Duty Black Ops
  58. Aug 8, 2011
    6
    A decent game. It's not extraordinary or anything, but it's a fun enough game. At release it was ridiculously buggy, but it's gotten a lot better since then. Most of the bugs have been patched up, and the irritating mouse lag that existed for quite a while after release was finally fixed.

    The single player campaign was alright. It was at least decent enough for a single play through, but
    every time I try and play through it a second time, I switch it off soon after. The multiplayer is where most of the fun is. Even the multiplayer falls short after a while, unfortunately. Personally, my biggest issue with the maps is how cramped most of them feel, especially compared to World at War. All in all, Black Ops is just ok. It's not horrid, but it's not great either. Definitely not worth a $60 + $45 price tag. Expand
  59. May 13, 2012
    10
    An awesome game an epic game on Xbox live zombies. You need to get this game. If you think this is awesome like me you will probably want to get Black Ops 2.
  60. Nov 11, 2010
    2
    Outside of the fact that the PC port is nearly unplayable in some situations, I finished the single player in a half a day. I bought a $60 multiplayer piece of junk. Never again, Activision.
  61. Jan 24, 2011
    0
    This is another stereotypical US/UK vs terrorist threat game, Counter-Strike would beat this game due to better game-play and variety then this piece of crap.
  62. Mar 4, 2011
    6
    The game itself technical issues aside is great. No real huge innovations other than Wager Match (and even there they simply copy from other games *counter strike*) but still the balance in the game is great, the customization is fun and the game play is solid. Technical Issues... just kill it. The first month after release the game was an epic disaster both on the server side and the client side. A bunch of patches later and we still get micro stutters, server crashes, and lost stats. The game to this date is still not 100%

    With the quote by fourzerotwo of Infinity Ward saying that "building a new engine would be counter productive", O_o, I think that CoD is now a paint by numbers franchise and it is only 1 or 2 games before CoD goes the way of Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero. In Battlefield 3 we Trust.
    Expand
  63. May 1, 2011
    0
    Highly unoriginal. A LARGE waste of money considering all the games in the past that are just like it. If you have lived under a rock for 5 years and missed the games that this clones, Id give it a 6. The solo missions are neat climatically if you ignore all the blood on the screen and superhuman feats that jon Mclain would laugh at, but the gameplay is just terrible. People have been saying it for years. Then they forgive it for its decent multi player (far to fast paced and ramboish for my tastes. Do the history of gaming a favor and SKIP THIS!! Expand
  64. Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Halllejuah Halllllejuah hallejeuh hallejuah halllehuah laaa laaaaa. this game is amazing! everyone willll love it! let me telll ya my peeeeps. i play it allll dayyyyy long. WORD. peace
  65. May 1, 2013
    3
    Quiet honestly I had no bugs or glitches while plying, the gameplay was just poor.
    I won't go over the campaign because I instantly became bored with the scheme of the story. It felt like Treyarch tried to push the envelope with violent and explosive gameplay during the campaign, but this never lead to a quality experience.
    Then there is the renowned multiplayer. Don't expect anything
    new from previous Call of Duty games. Maps don't look as colorful as MW2 and weapons feel slightly unbalanced. What seems to annoy me most about the multiplayer however is the PLAYER CONTROLLED SERVERS. There are countless issues with this. First, over 70% of the servers are Nuketown Team Death matches. It's hard to find a server that isn't 24/7 Nuketown. What's even worse is that players can set ridiculous rules to their servers like crouch only or clay only, making gameplay feel less free of choice. So even though player controlled servers give the illusion of freedom, it really makes the game feel more constraint by the players' ridiculous rules. Fortunately, there is a mode called combat training where you can face bots in the multiplayer modes, which almost saves this game, but bots can be real crack shots and games are limited to your slandered death match modes, making gameplay repetitive fast.
    Lastly, there is zombies. This could have been the best part of the game because I generally found no issues with the gameplay. Unfortunately, the mode becomes repetitive fairly quickly. There are only three types of zombies: standard zombies, dogs, and crawlers; and none of them seem unpredictable because they will only chase you in swarms. Because of this, you can easily round up a heard of zombies and once all in a swarm, blast them with an explosive and repeat for the next round.
    All in all, Black Ops is ok on PC, but there are other Call of Duty games that do the same thing Black Ops does only much better. The game becomes to repetitive fast, so its no wonder why COD fans are so eager for the next yearly installment.
    Expand
  66. Nov 10, 2010
    10
    I am amazed at the amount of trolls who are giving this game terrible reviews. Apparently halo fans got together to rate this game so it could look crappy. 4.5 average? that is obviously total crap because the real critics would of tore this game to pieces much more so then the users ever could have. Call Of Duty might be a yearly title. But this one goes so far beyond anything Infinity Ward has ever done. They took customization seriously, and took away the insane amounts of power people had in Modern Warfare. It is one of the best game you will ever play in the first person genre. As for these problems with lag, I have had little problems. And people need to realize that when servers are suddenly filled with millions of people, it is almost impossible to not have some problems. This game is worth the money, with the campaign, zombies, and the always solid muiltiplayer. They have made a near perfect game... Not to mention the ability to save your films and even edit clips together so you can show many angles of the same awesome event... Which for the record, Even Halo does not allow you to do. Do not believe all the haters, they are simply hating on a game because its so popular. Expand
  67. Nov 11, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To experience the game at quality graphics you will probably need to build a new computer, with the most current graphics and audio card. My Duo-core 2 Ghz processor and GeForce GTX 465 had just the bare minimum to play the game in Lowest-setting graphics at somewhat choppy 40 fps. Trying to play the game in Normal settings made the game stutter and unplayable. Even at lowest graphic settings I still experienced occasional stuttering in some heavy scenes. I also experienced stuttering audio about every 5 seconds during the movie sequences, but I was using USB headphones so it is forgivable. I can't help but feel that the coding is somehow off for the PC version, given that the quality of the graphics comes at such a huge cost. Yes, the things like motion capture and such are revolutionary, yet I feel the implementation was done with a sledgehammer instead of with a precision instrument. The game is very taxing on absolutely everything, perhaps the coding was inefficient in general?

    *possible spoilers*

    The game plot was interesting and I did enjoy the story. Towards the end, however the plot quickly comes to its end leaving you wondering and perhaps wishing for a bit more. Ethically, I had a small problem with how some of the criminal masterminds seemed to get off easy considering their war crimes. Take for instance, one scene where you see an innocent victim experience a gruesome death after being exposed to Nova-6 gas. You see him die a slow painful death- his skin boils off, his eyes pop out of his head, and he's throwing up screaming in agony. Later, there you hear someone acknowledge that they tested the stuff on newborn babies. The criminal mastermind responsible for this heinous act gets off way too easy in comparison, with such a relatively quick and painless death that it's almost an injustice to the plot. I would have liked to seen at least the Lead Scientist behind it all 'accidentally' have his gasmask come off in a room full of Nova-6. Character development I would give a D-, it could have been better. The hero NPC's have a predictable bio that you've probably seen in movies many times over. Pretty much zero character development on them, you don't even know their histories just that they are on the same team. Relavetively little character to character dialogue on a personal level, 100% of the talking is mission oriented. If you see a comrade die, you feel very little for them other than the fact you now have one less gun watching your six. I did find it interesting that much of the dialogue in the foriegn (Non-English speaking) NPC's was conviently in English. Take for example a part of the game where 2 Russian prisoners speak to eachother in English inside of a Russian prison. The plot suffers as a result. Overall, copy and paste characters in this game. The only character I found interesting was the protagonist due to the mystery surrounding his memories.

    That Spec Ops feeling that some people are looking for does exist in some parts of the game. It was a refreshing change compared to other war FPS.

    The game is graphical eye-candy if you have the system to play it. Just be willing to pay for it. You buy this game for the great graphical violence and the Spec Ops nostolgia, not for all the great things you see in other games.
    Expand
  68. Nov 11, 2010
    10
    Ignore the trolls here, COD BlOps is unashamedly Call Of Duty so if you don't like the series you won't like this and it's dumb spamming the reviews.... For the game itself it's at least as good as the Modern Warfares with extras such as the Wager Matches and COD Points system pipping the MP ahead IMO. Zombies and Dead Ops are much more enjoyable than MW2's Spec Ops as well
  69. Nov 13, 2010
    0
    it is a very poor release, it looks worse than WAW and plays woefully. the graphics are worse than bio shock and that was released 3 years ago and built on the UT2 engine!! The single player crashed constantly, just things going wrong with it like sound errors cut scenes that stop etc. The guns sound very lack luster and no difference between types. MP is a joke the hit register fails to work at the best of time its laggy and glitchy again. MW2 was a sellout for computer users but it is better than this. If you own an Xbox 360 or a ps3 hire the game for the week end and you will be over it by the end. Expand
  70. Jun 12, 2011
    9
    I don't know why so many people complain about Black Ops, i was skeptical at first thinking its just another COD game, but no it was better. Black Ops is a great game because of only 5 things, number 1 is split screen multiplayer. i hated switching with friends every time me and him died and it sucked. but now we have two screens which is awesome. Number 2 is combat training. i am a hardcore teenage gamer, but i still have parents friends with 7-10 year old kids come over, so we play combat training/split screen because it is fun. Number 3 is Call Of The Dead. I right reviews at the pinnacle of the game (not always), but Escalation was amazing with call of the dead i loved it. Number 4 is wager matches because they are fun, period. and 5 is that everything is unlocked in split screen so i can go on picacid and have fun. but other than that this game sucks Expand
  71. Nov 15, 2011
    3
    its cod i dont know why i brought it i knew what i was getting my self into ..
    sp is the more annoying the mw2 they take the control form you so much and cut scene after cut scene 1 lvl loads up you move like 10 ft o sorry your going to have to watch this now .. ai is not there but that's the sp you want this for mp right .. soooo 18 players thats more then the consoles but we get
    the same amout of spawns then you goto play with the cod players last stand noob tubes its just not fun .. Dont just think ooo you just suck because i can still get top places on the bored but who cant its cod ..
    grfxs looks worse then mw2 which is hard to do soo good job ?? performance when it came out was terrible .. you need a quad core for this i was fine but my buddy brought a game he could not play at a decent fps
    Expand
  72. Apr 20, 2013
    1
    I played this game after 3 years it came out, so my version should be the final. If it is, then it's a joke. BTW I played it on the PC and only single campaign. They shouldn't bring this title to the PC, because it has the worst controls of all time, and there is competition on this field believe me. You reverse mouse axis, but if you drive the guided missiles, it reverses back... Why? There are some special missions where you have to use some special weapons or some targeting system. But these are always different buttons, like or How on earth they came up with an idea like this? Not just different buttons but they're spread all over the keyboard. And to top it all they won't work! I pressed them and they aren't working It would be a shame if it was a free game, but it isn't (although I got it for a budget price, but still not worth is). So it never crossed my mind to play it multi. Were there anybody back in 2010 who actually played this on the PC, and liked it. And now it has a 2nd run :)
    What were the developers doing when they created this game? Nobody tried it out before releasing? Stay as far from Treyarch games as possibly you can :)
    There are many more pathetic things but it just not worth my time :)
    I give it 1, because there were no bosses in it
    Expand
  73. May 21, 2013
    1
    The only modern call of duty I've ever purchased and a huge mistake on my part. I couldn't even finish the campaign it was so "Michael Bay" ish. Obnoxious needless action over and over again coupled with a very poorly told story which was mediocre at best.

    Even the multiplayer is crap. I dabbled for a little while and found that there was a clear and dominant play style that was best
    for every cramped map this idiot game had to offer. The original call of duty had submachine guns, heavy machine guns, snipers, bolt action rifles, and semi autos that all had their place in the battle. Now the gunplay is assault rifles assault rifles assault rifles with your occasional variation of long rifles and submachine guns. Plus the idiot gimicks that reward you for kill streaks (just like real war! If only I'd known that when I was on duty). Expand
  74. Apr 9, 2013
    6
    Graphics: 8/10 Gameplay: 6/10 Story: 5/10 Enjoyment: 3/10 Value For Money: 6/10 5.6 (Average)
    I do not understand why there are so many 'awful' reviews... I do not play/or enjoy the Call Of Duty series and even I haven't give them an 'awful' score!
    This is an average game, an average game with an average (yet short) story and an average multiplayer. Also in this review does not include
    'Zombies' because... I do not intend to play that part of this game! The Multiplayer is the average "shoot that guy who is trying to shoot you because he wants XP and he has nothing better to do" and the story is the "Let's get a piece of and polish it with a short story line"...
    If it was up to me, do not buy the Call Of Duty series new when the come out, wait for them to be pre-owned and buy them for £2-6...
    Expand
  75. Feb 16, 2013
    3
    Awesome campaign, very interesting story and the missions were very fun. Unfortunately the multiplayer was terribly made and lagged something terrible, not only that, all the servers are ground war, which sucks, and nearly all the ones people play in are 24/7 Nuketown. The sniping doesn't work very either.
  76. Jun 2, 2013
    7
    I actually don't mind this game at all. I liked the campaign for what it was. It wasn't too long and not too short. Zombies was especially dead ops arcade. I also like Ascension. That was my favorite zombies map in this game. Moon in my opinion was too much. I like how they brang back the classic maps. Made me happy. The multiplayer as is, is what it is. It's not as bad as I initially thought it was at first, but I got used to the graphics as they were not the greatest graphics ever, but I managed. Overall, I like this game. Expand
  77. Nov 15, 2010
    0
    Black Ops has a lot of potential to be a fun game. It's an improved MW2 from both single and multi-player standpoints. However, I have to give it a zero because the game was not ready for prime time. Three words define the gaming experience: lag, lag, and more lag (ok, it's 4 words). Even if they resolve the lag issue, I don't think the game will ever play smoothly on my PC as I have a core 2 duo E6850 (as per Activison my CPU satisfies the minimum requirements, but I doubt the game will ever play on less than quad-core PCs). Expand
  78. Mar 7, 2011
    2
    Very little new in this game aside from the UI. Gameplay mechanics are the same as ever but the Treyarch engine seems to really really suck. This game doesn't even run properly on many systems that are way beyond the minimum system requirements, even on minimum settings. Many have asked for refunds and got them. Avoid, unless you know what you are in for. Overhyped rubbish.
  79. Mar 25, 2011
    0
    Isn't this the SAME game I've already played like, 3 times? And even if it is the same game, couldn't they have at least TRIED to fix bugs, glitches, and game balance problems? Couldn't they have fixed these game breaking problems after THREE TRIES? I just wish some of the non-user reviews were more honest. I don't understand how they can ignore the fact that the game barely runs, even on consoles. Expand
  80. Jul 22, 2011
    4
    Same crap from 2007 except with a few new things same boring engine. blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Final Thoughts: Do not buy.
  81. Nov 12, 2010
    4
    ** -- >>> I wanted to clarify to people that take issue with others saying that the reviews are bribed / paid off, that the claims of bribed scores are CORRECT, and it isn't just ActiVision who do this.
    Review sites make revenue by having people visit their site, and if other sites are putting up the first reviews of the latest hot game, people will go to them instead. Game publishers buy
    off high review scores by telling sites that they will receive an advanced copy of their game for review ahead of the retail release date ONLY IF the game receives a score of >80, or >90. They won't make this condition to all review sites, but they will to the popular ones, whose reviews will affect opinions the most.

    The incentives given for high scores also go beyond that. If a review site gives a score the publisher doesn't like, they won't receive an advance copy for future titles, putting that review site at a disadvantage to other sites that can review the game ahead of them - and when a site is blacklisted by a large publisher like ActiVision, that can mean a LOT of titles that will be missed. Call of Duty is ActiVision's biggest title, you can be damn that sure they've put more score manipulating muscle into this release than any other release has seen before it. This score manipulation regularly taints big-name games, and you should know to not trust review sites all that much, because their noses are often firmly up the arses of the companies whose games they depend on being able to review early to generate their site traffic for revenue. User feedback has become far more valuable that site reviews. However, a lot of simple users out there who don't have much game experience will assume that the game they're playing that got fifteen 100/100 scores is truly the best, and those don't-know-better easily manipulable people are the ones the score-doctoring tactics aim to influence.

    Metacritic, itself, has been lobbied by publishers to remove various negative scores from its site, to make games look like they were received better than they were. As far as I know, Metacritic has rebuffed all such lobbying.

    Now my review:
    I've played only the sp so far, and it's typical CoD boredom, for me. I hardly feel like I'm playing, and what I'm watching isn't very exciting, either. The graphics are bad, but hey, it's designed for ancient console hardware, and not contemporary PC hardware, so it's not very surprising. Frankly, I loathe the cheesy cliche Vietnam characters and lines, which now (if not already ages ago) seem like a bad parody of a bad parody. I have some un-ignorable performance issues, the same ones which many others are also experiencing, detailed on various forums (Steam forums, ActiVision forums, & others), despite having a robust PC. This game will satisfy the kiddies, who are wowed more by the constant scripted business of this rail-shooter than by involved and in-depth gameplay.
    Expand
  82. Nov 13, 2010
    1
    The developers don't care for this version at all. Usually, the PC version of a game is this version, but Treyarch failed at that. Definitely a do-not-buy.
  83. Jan 22, 2011
    0
    People buy CoD for multiplayer. New CoD game is released. Servers migrate to new CoD game. Old CoD game unplayable. Everyone buys new CoD game. Wow. Is that it? This is a pathetic money-grab scam fitted with a hashed-together single-player campaign. It's virtually a subscription fee. Paying £40 a year so you can still find a server to play on, if you can even play the server and ignore the ridiculous lag that renders the whole thing pointless anyway. Load of **** Expand
  84. Aug 23, 2011
    8
    Now that the appropriate patches have been made for the PC version, CoD:BlOps is one of the best online multiplayer shooters on the market. The single player has an engrossing story and exciting gameplay, even if it is short and linear and is basically a training mode for the multiplayer but with a plot. Zombie Mode is back from World at War and better than ever, with plenty of humor and witty dialogue to accompany the addictive zombie killing fun. Obviously the multiplayer is where it's at, and Black Ops is online fragging at its finest, with new weapons and modes and a new currency system to keep players coming back until the next installment. The graphics and sound are top notch, with environments and characters looking great, an excellent soundtrack, Hollywood-quality voice work and fantastic sound effects for weapons and explosions. Overall, this is another great CoD game, with every base covered to ensure a high quality, exciting and downright fun shooter experience. Expand
  85. Sep 6, 2011
    8
    the multiplayer is fair and and has less tuber and noob weapon like g18 in call of duty 6,the game is much better but the ping is really bad,why these guys give it such a low score?like tuber?if that is ture these guys are sick.the single player is not very good ,not the real thing ,but still i like it ,i think if we dont mind the ping,cod7 is the best cod multiplayer game,call of duty 6 is good but has too many unblanced weapon Expand
  86. Apr 24, 2013
    4
    This game has so much potential but the main campaign is a joke you can beat it in a day go to bed that night wake up in the morning and you will not know a single character's name none. All this is is Cod4 reskinned with some new guns and a new layout mind you Cod 4 is considered a masterpiece by a lot of people so that is where some potential shines through this fest. The multiplayer is broken because of the hackers and lag is ridicules i would sooner have a lama on my chest then go back to that bull most of the time you just spawn in napalm the only way its possible at all to enjoy multiplayer is to play with just your friends but even then why would you when Cod4 did it better and cheaper this game quickly becomes a bore to play. The single player is such a joke the A.I. in this game is abysmal they just let a retarded squirel orgasam on a keyboard for there pathfinding there can be a few good moments in it BUT I WOULD EXCEPT A LITTLE MORE THAN A FEW DECENT SET PIECES FROM ONE OF THE BEST SELLING FRANCHISES EVER. In Cod4 they upped the drama with having a nuke drop on your head and forcing you to try and survive but it doesn't matter what you do you will die thats original BUT THIS GAME IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT JUST MILKING THIS SERIES UNTIL ITS STAR WARS i get that it would be hard to up the ante after have a nuke dropped on the players head but to not even try is pathetic you activision for whoring out this series to the point its the laughing stock of all most gamers this is the hooker you see whos giving a blow job for 5 dollars in a back alley to anybody she can find maybe you even took one once and it was pretty good but now shes 70 and just look pathetic and is pathetic and should just be put out of her misery. Expand
  87. Nov 21, 2010
    9
    why do so many people hate this game? the graphics are not excellent but the gameplay is funny. i've had no problems at all. i haven't tested the multiplayer because i never do, but treyarch usually provides a good multiplayer. for what i've seen, this game deserves an 8.7
  88. Feb 12, 2011
    5
    Call Of Duty : Black Ops was very highly anticipated by me, and other COD fans, but to my utter horror, the game ran absolutely terribly and was completely unplayable. A few patches later, the game still doesn't run perfect and has a few bugs, but is mildly enjoyable.
  89. Nov 12, 2010
    0
    If you are going to buy this game, remember something. When Starcraft 2 came out it costed the same money and it offered you a great lasting campaign and a level WCG multiplayer. When Civilization V came out it costed the same and it offered you insane depth and game mechanics out of this world.

    Now, this piece right here, costs EXACTLY the same, offering you HEADACHE, FRUSTRATION and a
    free dictionary of all the F*** words you know. Wanna buy it? Be my guest. Why dont you pay G. Newell more money, he cannot get enough to become a billionaire. ON YOUR TAB. Expand
  90. Nov 9, 2010
    5
    So assuming they actually make multi-player playable this game may actually merit a better rating, from what I have managed to play online on our clan server & others there is no "lag" problem its just a really bad programming problem that is hogging almost all of your CPU power. Now I don't have the fastest computer in the world but I should be able to play without FRAME STOPPING every 15 seconds! Yes I said frame stopping even my buddies running i7's with the same or better graphics cards do it too.(my thought is the in game theatre is broken and doesn't need to be there its a novel idea at best) Anyway I have not played SP yet, however I am sure it is solid maybe not the best but I am sure it will entertain me. I am just too fed up to even launch the game at this point. Oh and don't even start me on the problems with running a dedicated server or even just supporting the server you paid for.... Expand
  91. Nov 29, 2010
    0
    This game is one of the worst in Call of Duty history, it's not polished and the lack of effort Treyarch have put into this game really shows how terrible it is, the so called 'Community' they were listening to were the XBOX360 Community while PC were abandoned with a poor sluggish console port, never in my life have I seen a cheap un-stable release. I feel like such an idiot for wasting 59 bucks on this, The Single Player is extremely short, boring, and repetitive, I feel like I'm playing World at War, simply because they haven't changed the engine much. This game should be worth $4.99 otherwise, it's not worth buying, save your money, wait for the next Call of Duty, read some feedback from the COMMUNITY, not BS reviewers bribed to give high scores, then decide whether you're ready to waste the next 365 days of your life. Expand
  92. Mar 28, 2011
    4
    Worth the money - not even close. The game simply has no real positive aspects what so ever. Or perhaps I lie, it does a fantastic job of showing the rather embarrassing state of gaming journalism with its 81 score
  93. Nov 18, 2010
    2
    I think this game supports only mouse and keyboard on PC. Till they give me something more that is my PC CAPABLE OF, I'm not going anywhere near Call of Duty series, or anything from their developers/publishers lets say.
  94. Nov 22, 2010
    6
    So I'll have to edit this later probably as I havn't played the SP of this game yet. The MP is the selling point of any COD game and 90% of FPS games so I'll make my comments on that.

    The gameplay is decent...I wouldn't say great. I think my clan is behind this game (i cant figure out why, other that the nostalgia of playing a cod title (we loved cod4)) so I will keep playing it.

    The
    graphics are VERY dated and the engine as a whole feels like a mixture of Doom64, CS:S and WaW, which were all good when they were launched but this took the worst parts of each with the bouncy avatar movement, TERRIBLE textures, and overall cartoon-ish and cheezy graphics. It is so distracting at times that I have trouble playing when i have to stop and ask "is this really the texture of a bush????a GIANT blob of green????no details whatsoever??? after games like BC2, MOH, Crysis, COD4, and Ue3? (yes, i just said COD4 and UE3 games have better graphics, which i thought was impossible from a "new" game).

    This game is a MOD that you have to pay $60 for. There's NOTHING new about it, and it isn't worth that. It looks like MW2 in videos, but it plays better than that thank god. It plays more like WaW, but with worse visuals. If they make MOD tools, maybe some modders can make better maps for this thing, but the ones I've played so far are very unimpressive. I gave it more than a 3 because the gameplay isn't terrible and there are HOPES of mod tools. Also, it's a backwards step from MW2 back towards allowing the PC aspects of a game to exist that we all love. It also, sadly, took steps back in technology and visuals. I don't know how they managed to make it look worse than their own game that launched 2 years ago, but they did. My only hope is that maybe with this step backwards, we can now head in a new "forward" direction and make better PC games learning from the mistakes of the past....hopefully anyway
    Expand
  95. Nov 11, 2010
    4
    This game actually surprised me a bit. The multiplayer, naturally is about as dull as it gets, even with dedicated server support returning, and if the game was simply based off of that then this game would have been a 0. The only thing I liked was zombies, and the campaign. This campaign is a lot different, and almost feels like a psychological thriller at some parts. However, the biggest issue with the game is the stuttering. Bad programming, and the lack of a true open beta, ended up driving a stake in this game's heart. Even with the best hardware many PC gamers have experienced this. While it's different with everyone, it's clearly a very huge problem and so far there is no way to solve it, although some ways work for a few players, there is no certified fix. This huge bug almost makes the game unplayable. Overall, very disappointing game from Activison, but what else could you expect from the money-hungry developers. Expand
  96. Apr 4, 2011
    7
    The series is starting to become somewhat stale and Black Ops is evidence of that. This game does not do enough new things to earn a very high rating and yet it is not bad enough to be given a shocker. The positives are that the single player storyline is engaging and easy to follow, something which is a big improvement on Modern Warfare. However, the actual play itself remains linear and uninspiring at times. The multiplayer seems to have stagnated. It was done really well in Modern Warfare but I just found things lacking in this respect with Black Ops. Finally, the graphics engine is in major need of an overhaul. Crysis 2 has demonstrated what can be done in this day and age. The CoD series needs to catch up. Expand
  97. Aug 19, 2011
    6
    makes me laugh the fact that Treyarch ALWAYS tries to copy directly what infinity ward does.

    But at least this time they actually put some kind of "recoil" (just a little bit) in this version, in mw2 recoil doesnt exist at all in any weapon!And besides there are those damn global servers designed for retarded ass console gamers that doesnt care of what they play.

    Besides the good things
    comes the bad ones: the maps... oh god they are designed from a 2 years old child that only wants to camp, and whats the deal with all these DLC's? 4 DLC's that costs 15 euros each???

    Treyarch WTF?
    Expand
  98. Apr 17, 2011
    0
    I used to be a great fan of the COD series, but however, even though the first few games where great titles, activision now just spits one out year after year as fast as they can to make profits, the overall gameplay hasnt changed much after an almost decade of the series, with insignificant things like zombies and currency thrown in every few titles to try to keep it fresh, Black ops itself has a short singleplayer with a more or less confusing story, and multiplayer gets boring extremely fast, I am now looking forward to the battlefield series where innovation and gameplay is key Expand
  99. Nov 24, 2010
    6
    It's pretty obvious why Activision flew most reviewers to a Hotel in Europe to play the game: because using a real world Internet connection, the game is unplayable. The lag is shocking, and the hit detection is garbage. Needs a major patch.

    The real disappointment for me was the single-player though - not only was it buggy, it was poorly-paced, and a blatant rip-off of the Manchurian
    candidate. One of the things Infinity Ward does well is keeping you in the action. Treyarch kept tearing away player control for no valid reason.

    And what was with Sam Worthington's accent? I'm Australian and I found it grating. Why didn't they do additional takes?

    Good sound track though.
    Expand
  100. Jan 1, 2011
    8
    NOTE: To anyone browsing through reviews for this game before buying like I was, please READ THIS before paying attention to all the other 0's and BS scores on here. It's really sad how the PC community has devolved into a bunch of spoiled brats that can't accept the fact that some people like an honest review about a game they might actually LIKE.


    I'll say it first and straight up, YES,
    at the moment Black Ops is still very much a broken game right out of the box for many people. That said, if you are willing to put in the time to look around online (have any of these "0" reviewers ever heard of google?) like I was, the majority of your freezing problems can be solved using simple tweaks or adjusting settings. For me, the magic solution was turning off anti-aliasing and setting the game to run with desktop composition turned off. Until Treyarch releases another patch, many of us will be forced to browse forums online looking for a solution.

    Performance-wise, i'm not sure why so many people on here are saying you need a supercomputer to run this game. I'm running it on a 2009 macbook pro, 2.6ghz intel duo core/ nvidia geforce 9600m gt/ win 7 64-bit/ 4 gb ram. As you can tell, this is no supercomputer. I currently am running the game on high settings, (textures on High, full AF, full FOV, native 1440x900 res) with AA, shader warming, and shadows turned off. I get anywhere from 45-65 fps in the game and in my opinion it is completely playable (and looks damn good, too). As far as gameplay goes, I will focus only on multiplayer in this review, as that is what I bought the game for and i'm sure the same goes for many others on here trying to decide whether or not to pick it up. Many reviewers have cited the Black Ops' similarity to MW2 as a primary reason for their low scores. While I agree the the overall gameplay is the same (after all, what COD since MW1 has really been all that different?), there are many customization options which make Black Ops stand out for me. First off, the COD points idea is awesome and I hope it becomes a mainstay in the franchise. The ability to buy crucial attachments such as red dot sights for new guns right off the bat rather than tediously leveling up with each weapon is a god-send. Also, the emblem system adds a whole new level of personalization to multipayer. The layered system and ability to modify the shapes and position of different symbols truly allows the player to create anything their imagination can think up. I believe the perks in multiplayer are also superior to those of any in the MW/WAW games. Mortars, Napalm Strikes, remote controlled car-bombs, and the Huey support chopper are all excellent additions and really add a sense of immersion and realism to the game that just was not present in MW2 (LOL @ Tactical Nuke).
    So far I have logged about 45+ hours in Black Ops multiplayer, and I can definately say that the maps do feel a bit smaller than MW2. However, they also feel a lot more realistic thanks to real-world settings such as Saigon, Hanoi, the jungles of Vietnam, Havana, etc. Simply put, I believe that Black Ops succeeds where MW2 failed miserably: in creating a believable an atmospheric environment to wage video war in. The original COD 1,2, and 3 were all based around historical events, and the relevance to real life conflict created an atmosphere which to me (maybe because i'm a history buff) really elevated what was actually a simple and generic gameplay formula. Black Ops returns to the COD tradition of focusing on historical events, rather than crafting some ridiculous WWIII scenario (the White House and National Mall looking like the front line at the Somme..... come on, really Infinity Ward?).


    All in all, I would give the game an 8.5, but unfortunately Metacritic's scale doesn't allow decimal points. Without the bugs and technical issues currently present in the game however, I would undoubtedly give Black Ops a score of 9-9.5. My final advice: if you are a long-time fan of the COD series and were disappointed in MW2, then by all means I would recommend buying Black Ops to get back into the series. However, if you're one of those people who are on the fence and still very much enjoy MW2, I would say hold off until a price drop, or at least until Treyarch releases another patch or two. I hope that this review is able to help some of you in deciding, and possibly will stand out among the biased and ridiculous reviews i'm seeing for the PC version of Black Ops. One more thing: DEDICATED SERVERS RULE and blow the crappy IWnet matchmaking out of the water!


    Hope to see you guys in-game. Enjoy.
    Expand
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 29
  2. Negative: 0 out of 29
  1. Jan 29, 2011
    84
    Its duffer solo moments are masked by imaginative and visual whizz-band-fizz. [Jan 2011, p.100]
  2. Jan 26, 2011
    68
    This score will likely come as a shock to many, but this game suffers from pathetic frame rates at times, both on console and on PC.
  3. Jan 12, 2011
    91
    Black Ops is one of the best first person shooters this year, and is a obviously must have for any action fan. Intense, gory and quite brilliant, maybe it's not refreshing but at the same time its a stunning game.