User Score
4.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1461 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 21, 2010
    5
    Starting on a positive the single player of Black Ops was one of the best developed in the series thus far, however the storyline that accompanied it was a rather weak attempt at creating a dramatic drive. Perhaps it is unfair to compare it to the previous games of the series but I felt less pulled by the characters and the story than in the Modern Warfare iterations; placing the voice of Gary Oldman and various others in game is not enough to create compelling characters. The main upside to the single player was the unique action sequences, however they seemed rather tacked on and the remainder followed the usual mission formulas. Many complaints followed the initial release concerning the lag issues in the multiplayer, despite the fact that Treyark quickly made an attempt to solve the issues, it remained a rather inexcusable oversight on behalf of the developer and one that could have been avoided with the now industry standard of holding open beta programs. The available maps seem to lack a certain refinement, the layouts tend to promote a single class type, most often resulting in whole teams running about with SMGs. The maps were always at their best in the original Modern Warfare, which Treyark simply haven't followed up on, even their previous World at War had better designed maps. Again I'm making possibly unjust comparisons but the graphic quality of Black Ops seems to lack the detail present in the Modern Warfare games, textures do not seem to mach each other with various levels of contrast surrounding the screen making the together seem somewhat overwhelming. Perhaps this is simply because more color is present than Modern Warfare's standard grey, or if it is my own warped perception, all I know is that the graphics of Modern Warfare have always looked better in my opinion. Overall, while Black Ops has attempted to innovate certain areas, it remains incredibly similar to the previous incarnations of the series and as such will suffer from being compared to these predecessors, the level of which Black Ops simply does not meet. Expand
  2. Nov 12, 2010
    5
    as said before: this game has nothing realy innovating. the single player is very 'meh', IW does a far better job with single player campaigns. the maps are linear and the overal story is very confusing. a big 1 point to Treyarch for giving us dedicated servers, if the only worked well from day one... the overal graphics of the game are outdated, nothing special here. the gameplay itself is... treyarch style.
    just like World at War the gameplay is more 'slower' than MW2 and even CoD 4.
    this makes the gameplay less intresting but helps agains campers.
    the online gameplay is, for so far, balanced and fair.
    a very welcome feature is zombie mode,

    overal this game is OK, but is nothing special to the call of duty series.
    it does do a good job of making a playable, balanced game but withoud some innovating fun features it isn't realy that great.
    if treyarch took care of MW2 after it's release from IW (to fix big issues that ruin the game) it would be THE single best multiplayer game ever.
    sadly thit didn't happen and BO is like the oposite of MW2: balanced but boring.
    Expand
  3. 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.
  4. Nov 11, 2010
    5
    Call of Duty 7 in all the worst games of Call of Duty treyach the studio sold the games there are bugs out the games too fast.welcome too the jungle of lag Monkey ,

    You buy that games you are a big Monkey if of vote for 10 or 9 you dont no whats is COD !!

    The fist thing the most is MP in this games see all cod games all player buy thats for multiplayer too ave more fun whit it!!
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Dec 12, 2010
    5
    This game has all the new modern technology applied for the best playing experience. However, this creates a lot of bugs and errors, especially in Multiplayer mode. Many people, including me, are facing game crashes, freezes, errors, and the only way out is to get the task manager in front of your screen. Even people with higher specs than the minimum required specs face these problems.

    I
    still prefer the previous editions of Call of Duty because these editions are, in my opinion, made with love and money did not really influence the game. What I really do like is the zombie mode, as seen in Call of Duty World at War, but the Black Ops Zombies still can't beat the original from World at War. Expand
  8. 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
  9. Dec 31, 2010
    5
    Black ops is an alright game in my opinion.The new features like wager match were fun and so was
    multiplayer.The singeplayer was Ok there were some twists and turns but i could pretty much
    tell what it was going to be like.I just didnt really like it , it felt the same and im a COD fan.
    I got bored of it in about 2-3 weeks.
  10. Feb 9, 2011
    5
    Regressive. CoD: Black Ops shines in the presentation department. It looks and feels like a modern-day animated movie. Sadly enough, this stands in stark contrast with the shallow gameplay.


    The core action, shooting things, mostly resemble the classic rail-shooter. The narrow path is completely fixed, alternating with truly small open spaces. Straying more than 20 meters from teammates results in a mission failure and an accompanying message about abandonment. The single decision left to the player is where to point and shoot.


    Dumbed down for consoles, the controls are erratic. At moments not allowing certain avatar actions like crouching. In the same vain are the arcade sequences where the player has to rapidly, and sometimes repeatedly, press a certain key.


    These gameplay mechanics require a lot of exposition; press key x, watch the grenade indicator indicator etc.. The necessary guidelines keep popping up throughout the game, constantly breaking immersion .


    For a pc game this is a large step backwards, to the pre-Half Life era. If you have not done so, look into Far Cy 1 and Crysis for games offering better depth and balance.
    Expand
  11. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    This game has an enjoyable single player campaign, but short (as is traditional of all FPS' these days). As with the previous installments it's cinematic and flashy with lots of explosions etc etc but the story is typical action story lies and deceit (with the traditional evil Russians) but people don't buy these games for the single player they get them for the multiplayer.
    I could not
    get into the multiplayer, I tried, I really tried, but it just is not for me. If you liked WaW you might like it, if you preferred MW & MW2 then just wait till November when the next games out (we all know it will be) Expand
  12. Apr 23, 2011
    5
    ATTENTION ACTIVISION: IF MW3 turns out to be just like the CONSOLE PORT ABORTION that is Black Ops upon release, then I will NEVER buy another game PUBLISHED by ACTIVISION for your poor ethics of releasing a steaming pile of crap ported games, I can assume there are just as many FPS PC gamers as there are Console gamers...You know you have a following of gamers who enjoy Call of Duty games, I have enjoyed them since Modern Warfare 1 & 2, but since then, the release dates have been always November of each of the previous years...and black ops upon release to PC Gamers, was the beta itself, it took months just to fix the major retard issues with the games stuttering and lag issues, and even then, the game still runs like $hit.Not just MP but even the single player campaign is a crap shoot, glitchy as well, but apparently that was fixed,so I will say the single player is short, but enjoyable. But most people buy the game for the MP experience .I should give it a 1 for how bad the game runs, but it gets a 5 because the gameplay itself is incredibly addicting. I have played Black Ops on PS3/Xbox, and the game looks better on consoles than on my PC with a 1080P display and AMD Phenom II 1090T 3.6ghz OC with a Radeon 6950 2gb DDR5 and 8GB of DDR3 ram.... Expand
  13. Jul 2, 2011
    5
    This game is average. the campaign is epic and very fun. But for PC everything seems to lag a lot even on fast computers. Multiplayer is fun especially if you have friends to play with. the game is at times very buggy and there are a few hackers out there. i would say this game is worse than cod 6 and your probably better off playing on a console.;
  14. Jul 14, 2011
    5
    This game is highly overrated by many. The game contains poor visuals, robotic-feeling artificial intelligence, a somewhat bland storyline, and several historical inaccuracies.
  15. Aug 23, 2011
    5
    Black Ops is just another pointless COD shooter. Funny zombie mod, everything else is just repeat of old cliches. Boring campaign and frustrating multiplayer.
  16. Nov 20, 2011
    5
    When I saw the first trailer I thought, "Oh snap, these graphics are worse than MW2!", and they are. There is no reason for a new game in a series to have worse graphics than the one before (Crysis 2). On the upside, there are actually dedicated servers, unlike MW2's crap IWNet. The downside of the servers are the inability to have 18 players on a ranked server. Overall it's a mediocre game.
  17. Jan 4, 2012
    5
    I was extremely dissapointed with Treyarch's work, coming from a huge cod fan I was so sad when this game was unplayable the first 2 weeks because of lagg and freeze, and when they finally got rid of it, the game wasnt even that good, I didnt spent long time on this game before i returned to MW2. Multiplayer is complelety broken, Singleplayer was boring and slow bad story telling, Zombies however was kinda fun but it wasnt better than Spec Ops in MW2. Expand
  18. 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
  19. Dec 3, 2012
    5
    Such tiny little maps make this a grinder to play. After about a week it becomes repetition to the extreme. In the end I would have appreciated a mod kit to allow easy creating of user content of something of that nature.
  20. Sep 7, 2013
    5
    First bad installment in the series since CoD 3. It seemed like a step forward first: the trailers featured new interesting content, plot of the campaign looked like serious thing and there are not too much good shooters about Cold War era's covert operations and even about war in Vietnam. These things persisted in the final versions, the problem was there was almost nothing else to show! Now the CoD 4 formula worked bad as it was tiresome for the players. Developers needed to make something new, a little revolution in the series. Treyarch tried. But wager matches (all but gungame) quickly got boring, the money system become something strange and didn't settle down, etc. All these new features were just the holey cover for the old MW1. On PC, the rudimentary and outdated dedicated servers system was introduced, and I hate this fact. Still, the game re-introduced hilarious and interesting Zombies mode. But it's not worth buying. Expand
  21. Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Another pathetic money grab from activision. There's nothing innovative or fun about this version don't bother. Why on earth wasn't infinity ward used on this version? Treyarch is terrible. Remember when they released World At War?
  22. Nov 10, 2010
    4
    So depressing. Bugs galore, INSANE lag in both the campaign and in the multiplayer which makes MP pretty much unplayable. All this was a huge slap in the face after paying the full $60 for Black Ops on Steam (why it's still $60 even though there's no disc/case/booklet/shipping/etc i don't know) AND having to wait till 9 a.m. only to have the game be unavailable until 5 p.m. only to stumble into a world of issues that should have been dealt with before it was released. Even www.callofduty.com crapped out when I tried to post in their forums by redirecting you to the USA Today hompage and did so for a few hours afterward. Apparently nobody cares about their product or us lowly consumers anymore, just their revenue streams. This is far worse than the Fallout:New Vegas release, and I almost threw my Xbox 360 version of that in the garbage disposal. Too bad I got the digital download, I won't be tossing my comp out the window but COME THE F@#K ONNNN!!!!! Expand
  23. Nov 10, 2010
    4
    This game lacks any of the shine and polish for which the Call of Duty franchise is rightly known. The engine's performance is execrable on any but the most expensive hardware, the multiplayer feels more arcade-ey and cheap than in previous iterations and the game's AI is erratic at best. This is all particularly insulting given Activision's decision to charge 50% more for the game in Australia to gouge every cent it could given that country's favourable exchange rate to the US Dollar. Expand
  24. Nov 11, 2010
    4
    I did not have the lag other users have suffered. Game played great on my system. However, it seems all Activision is doing is beating an already dead cash cow for whatever milk's left. The story was a psychological thriller and that seemed fine but the graphics do look dated and I agree with the previous poster who mentioned weapon recoil. What were the devs thinking?? I can shoulder fire an MG and spray out 7.62 ammo with close to minimal recoil? anyone who's fired one in real life can tell you that is utter BS. It take a crap load of trigger discipline to even maintain your sights on your target.

    MOH lags on my high end system and has way more bugs, but I actually found it more refreshing and the weapons being more believable. I can't even believe I'm endorsing an EA game. But CoD:BO here just seemed a sad hackneyed rehash of the same old tried and true formula without any improvements whatsoever, and I have been playing CoD since its humble first release.
    Expand
  25. 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
  26. Nov 12, 2010
    4
    One word: Abysmal. Let's get one thing straight right off the bat; this is no successor to Modern Warfare 2. It's more like a cheap knockoff. Despite all the hype, BO is just another mediocre shooter marred by game-breaking issues. The PC release is unplayable, with famerate lags and jumps. Graphics are sub-par for a 2010 game. Textures are low-quality, graphics are flat and lifeless, the smoke grenades are a joke, and it looks like a game from four of five years ago. It can't even compete with stuff like Unreal Tournament 3. The sound is equally lifeless and uninspiring. Gun sounds are flat, weak and tinny. Directionally positioned footsteps seem to be broken. Very little will give your subwoofer much of a workout. Guns pretty much all feel the same and lack character. There are several other issues that are annoying. For instance, you can't adjust your class in between matches. There are several good ideas implemented in the game, like the economy system, lots of unlocks, wager matches and more gun customization then previous COD games but they don't make up for the unpolished final product. Overall it's a huge disappointment. Don't believe the hype, this won't dethrone Modern Warfare 2 or raise the bar of First Person Shooters. Even if the glaring performance issues are eventually patched, under the hood this is a sub-par game the lacks the finesse of previous titles in the series. Expand
  27. 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
  28. Nov 12, 2010
    4
    leider hat mich das game ein wenig enttäuscht. zu mw2 stellt das spiel keinerlei fortschritt dar. ich fühle mich von der grafik in zeiten von mw1 oder wow zurückversetzt. die waffensounds sind plastikartig, dünn und schrill geraten. die maps sind taktisch kaum durchdacht und das spawnsystem funktionniert nach dem zufallsprinzip. rückendeckung ausgeschlossen. Expand
  29. Nov 13, 2010
    4
    PC users have been left in the cold with a game that is entirely broken. Treyarch has failed on its promises to the community and should be ashamed that this game was released in its current state. An all around good game is crippled by technical issues that render the game unplayable. Even worse, the recently released "patch" does nothing to correct these issues. I believe that people wanted to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt, hoping they could keep the Call of Duty franchise alive even after the downfall of Infinity Ward. For now, things aren't looking too good. Expand
  30. Nov 14, 2010
    4
    This is good game for PC shooter, but not good enough for Call Of Duty franchise. You can have fun playing it unless you have not plaid previous COD releases.
  31. Nov 16, 2010
    4
    Absolutely pathetic.

    Read around, and you'll uncover a slew of of game-breaking bugs that I myself am experiencing as well. The PC community is NOT stupid. There is NO excuse for releasing a game like this. Congratulations, Activision and Treyarch - you have just reinvigorated the game piracy scene. You have robbed the WRONG people for a quick buck.
  32. Nov 16, 2010
    4
    Why am I paying for the same game that I already have?
    This just feels like the same **** I've already played over and over.
    Also Reznov was dead the whole time and mason was brainwashed.
  33. Nov 18, 2010
    4
    This is the first user review I've ever written for a game, but I feel compelled to do so due to the discrepancy between my gaming experience and the critic reviews. I'd like to preface this review with the fact that I found the multiplayer to be very enjoyable, accounting for the 4 scarce points the game gets from me. To be fair, they've added little in the way of new content for multiplayer, but they've balanced it well, added interesting and entertaining new game modes, and created well thought out maps. The knee-jerk reactions of other user reviewers to the latency issues are unfounded as they were smoothed out within a week of launch. The single player on the other hand has not only failed to impress, but has actually bored and frustrated me. The sections they add that attempt to add innovation to the genre fail horribly, such as the "rts" section they added which did absolutely nothing to better the fps experience. The gameplay throughout single player is lacking in any impressive moments, something that MW2 had in abundance, and simply doesn't have the high adrenaline action I've come to expect from a Call of Duty title. In their Vietnam level they bring back the unlimited enemy spawn in force, which actually had me laughing out loud as I played it. I wasted huge amounts of ammo on constantly respawning soldiers, and only completed each section of the level when I made a luck mad dash without even firing my weapon. The enemy AI only shoots at you, defeating the purpose of their reiterated "no one fights alone" motto, and the friendly AI happily ignores enemies behind them, leaving the player to think that a position is clear only to discover they have three enemies rifle-butting them in the back. Finally, the plot (which has never been something on which I focus heavily in any fps) actually manages to detract from the game, as they seem to be pretending that something is happening when every level you play feels like it has nothing to do with the plot the game is trying to force down your throat. In short, the game lacks innovation in both multiplayer and single player, and the campaign suffers from a lack of polish and fundamental mechanics necessary to make the most basic popcorn shooter enjoyable. If you want a good multiplayer experience and have exhausted all your other fps options, by all means buy Black Ops (I certainly did), but if you're looking for a fulfilling single player experience, I wouldn't recommend this game even if the price tag dropped by 75% tomorrow. Expand
  34. Nov 20, 2010
    4
    It's a poor rehash of mw2. The levels are complicated and poor, weapons are not balanced, aircraft are too powerful. mw2 is much better and kept me playing much longer, i'm already bored.
  35. Dec 2, 2010
    4
    Nice story, great soundeffects, state-of-the-art graphics in a totally wrecked environment.
    Released in beta stage with freezes, glitches and much more. It makes me angry that such a game costs about 60 EURO. I will never buy a treyarch game again.
  36. Dec 12, 2010
    4
    Bops was hyped up WAY too much and thats why it sold, sure they have added some good new features that mw2 didnt have but the online game-play is no where near as fun. The graphics are childish, and hardly an improvement not to mention that it uses way too much computer to achieve them. Browsing for servers is not amazingly easy. The campaign was boring compared to mw2.
  37. Dec 16, 2010
    4
    After playing through the whole game, I got pretty tired of the tension in the voices between characters, the exceptionally long and unnecessary cut scenes and the inability to save games mid-way through playing them. Although flying helicopters was fun.
  38. Dec 24, 2010
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game has been hailed as a capolavoro.ma is it? short, let us look into the face of infinity wards Treyarch is better than the single player campaign is great and better than the other code but the multiplayer is lacking, how unnecessary
    modernwarfare I played when I got to 70 hours are still a breath left him at 33, that game does not deserve the zombie mode is trivial
    Expand
  39. Dec 26, 2010
    4
    Un jeu nul ou le cheat règne déjà en maitre. Dommage cela aurait pu être pas mal. Mais à trop vouloir de "fric" activision fait désormais des C O D "passoires ou n'importe quel gamin immature s'achete un cheat via internet avec la CB de papa maman !!!!
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Apr 20, 2011
    4
    Pros:Fast pace game and its fun when you get kills easily.I can plug in a xbox 360 controller and sit back and relax after a days work.
    CONS:I'm a cod fan,and i'm pretty much disappointed in the PC version of this.Many broken promise(such as mod tools),not optimized for dual core and people with quad cores are having problems running this game.
  43. 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 ****
  44. May 19, 2011
    4
    I was prepared to give Treyarch a second chance (excuse the pun) after "World at War", considering they only had a year to develop that title, but Black Ops only confirms that my faith was misplaced in this terrible studio. You would think that being afforded close to two years of development time, Treyarch would be able to expand on a winning formula and create a worthy follow up to Modern Warfare 2. Don't fix it if it isn't broke, right?
    Not Treyarch. Unfortunately, Treyarch do things Treyarch's way for the sake of being different, and Treyarch, and not because it's good.
    What do I mean exactly? Let's take the sound for starters. The directional sound is completely muffled to the point where you will not be able to gauge the distance of gunfire. According to the developers, this is called "sound whoring". I call it listening, but Treyarch don't follow any pattern of logic when it comes to games development.
    In previous Call of Duty games, you would be able to detect an enemy by his movement - by the sound of his footsteps. Well, not in Ersatz Call of Duty: Black Ops. Footsteps are muted to the point where you will only hear an opponent when he is within knifing distance. What's even more puzzling is that there is a tooltip that sometimes appears on the loading screen that tells you that the sound of an enemy's footsteps will often give away their position. I should add that there is a Ninja perk in the game that reduces the sound of your footsteps, but you won't need it here. It's built in.
    Other bizarre sound design decisions include having your character shout out that he is placing a claymore (the enemy team can hear these call outs), completely defeating the purpose of your intention to set a trap.
    As for the balance, this is the worst balanced Call of Duty game to date. Many weapons are statistically the same in every way, with the only difference being the weapon model. Even then, that isn't much of a distinction as seven weapons use a negligibly different FAMAS sight from Modern Warfare 2.
    If you like to use sniper rifles in other games, you won't find much here. The damage view kick (the flinch when you are hit) is so strong in Black Ops that you will often find yourself damage view kicked to death from across the map at the very distance your weapon is supposed to excel at.
    Treyarch also copied many of Infinity Ward's perk ideas from Modern Warfare 2 and gave them a new name, while also bringing back the same redundant perks from Call of Duty 4, like Deep Impact (renamed to Hardened), which have really little function at times when it really matters. I have not begun to address the crippling lag on the game's multiplayer. More often than not you will find yourself staring in disbelief as your well aimed shots pass through enemies, who in turn will kill you in miliseconds with their FAMAS. These problems are exacerbated when you use a sniper rifle. A weapon that fires a lot of bullets quickly has much greater odds of overcoming the poor hit registration than one that demands precision.
    There is really so much wrong with Black Ops that I could easily fill two review sections writing about it. If it's any indication, the game had 150,000 players at its peak on its multiplayer on the first day. Fast forward six months later and player numbers have dropped to around 25,000 at its peak per day. Modern Warfare 2 has more people playing. I would recommend that game instead, or just hold on for more news of Modern Warfare 3.
    If you're looking for a game that has a variety of things to do, you won't find it here. The new CoD Points system makes everything accessible so you don't have to complete challenges to unlock attachments. Even if the traditional unlock system from previous games was present here, I don't think it would be enough to keep me interested. Black Ops is dull and uninspiring. Treyarch have proven why they are referred to as the Call of Duty B-Team with this pathetic offering.
    I give this game a 4 because features like Combat Training and the few good tracks within are its saving grace.
    Expand
  45. 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
  46. Jun 23, 2011
    4
    the game does not suit my play style, its a real let down after mw2 i think treyarch should quit while they still have the chance. They don't care about gamers but only the money and its a waste of countless hours playing this game over and over again until the next one is out, even though i still play it its boring and i only usually play 1 game every week now, i will much prefer the upcoming battlefield 3 with its 95% sandbox an the ability to drive and fly Expand
  47. Jun 27, 2011
    4
    Like the other games in the Call of Duty francise, it has slick controlls and a semi-addicting multiplayer, but there lies a problem. It pretty much IS the same as the other CoD games. The story is only semi-engaging with a predictable twist, the multiplayer is the same as Modern Warfare 2, excluding the addition of currency and gambling, the zombies mode just doesn't have that same sense of survival as in World at War, and it just doesn't have the pizas that Call of Duty 4 had. If you have CoD 4, World at War, of MW2, don't bother. Expand
  48. Jul 7, 2011
    4
    I have only played the single player campaign, and it was awful, generic, very repetitive and very boring.

    The storyline is fine, but the missions are honestly really bad.

    Shoot people, shoot more people, plant C4, shoot more people, run to objective, shoot more people, shoot more people, call for support, shoot more people, shoot more people in SLOOOW MOOTTIOOONNN, shoot more people,
    get hit by a random bomb and fall in a dramatic scene, shoot more people, enter a room and get pinned down by an enemy and watch your friend knife him, shoot more people.... MISHON COMPRETE. Expand
  49. Jul 10, 2011
    4
    This game is ok, but the skill factor is almost 0. The guns are like toys, water guns, there is no recoil even if we are walking and shooting whole magazine out at the same time, maybe it's because it's a console game and it would be hard to play with a pad with recoil. The game isn't also about tactic, you are just sprinting, shooting, sprinting, shooting and it has so few new stuff, that this game could be a DLC for modern warfare. Game is also very laggy (at least on PC). Expand
  50. 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.
  51. Aug 21, 2011
    4
    Am I the only one who notices the major historical inaccuracies of this game, Vietcong are using AKu-74s and the Russians and US are using Steyrs and FAMASs start production until 1979 & 1978 respectivly. SPAS 12s camoe out in 1979. The m16 started production in 1963 2 years after the bay of pigs. Masterkeys didnt come oround until the 80s and underbarell flamethrowers dont exist. Fortunate Son came out in 1970 but the game is set between 1961 and 1968. The MP5 went into production in 1966 so it couldn't be used in 1963. The only reason why I continued to play it was because it atleast works and the gameplay in alright but whenever I notice a historical inaccuracymy immersion is ruined Expand
  52. Aug 29, 2011
    4
    My first game with the CoD series was Modern Warfare 2, and even though it wasn't a bad experience I was hoping for something more in Black Ops, but all I got was the same game but with a different name and for 60$. The graphics are OK, nothing spectacular and they could have been alot better for such a cramped game. The singleplayer campaing was good, but nothing out of the ordinary. The multiplayer is the same, hit-the-floor-as-soon-as-possible and spray until your enemy is down. Quick reactions is your friend. The low score is due to that the fact that the game was to expensive for something that looks and acts like a clone of it's predecessor. Expand
  53. 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
  54. Oct 2, 2011
    4
    Terribly bad PC performance, campers, graphics à la Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. A rehashed version of earlier Call of Duty games. The Call of Duty franchise died for me with this one. There's a ton of better games on the market such as the Battlefield series. You've been warned.
  55. 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
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. Dec 5, 2012
    4
    I bought this game eyes closed. I regret. I didn't even finish the SP mode. It is boring. I played two time the zombie mode for the fun. But it is unbelievable that this game had good reviews... A shame, I will never buy a COD game again.
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Nov 13, 2010
    3
    It's really sad that, of all the "professional" review sites, only a handful had the balls to mention the lag and matchmaking issues the game has at the moment. Perhaps they were too afraid to criticize the mighty Call of Duty/Activitision combo?

    Yes, the game is nearly unplayable online now -- there is a lot of lag (regardless of the ping you have to the server, and how powerful your
    computer is). It really says something about game companies, when they think they can get away with releasing a product in this state and then patch it later. Expand
  67. 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.
  68. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    This game fails in so many ways it is amazing that Treyarch and Activision released this. It's no wonder they spent tens of thousands of dollars pampering professional reviewers, there is no other way they would give this game a good score. CoD Black Ops is just a plain bad game.

    Black Ops does nothing really new. The only real exciting thing about Black Ops is the extra layer of
    customization available for the online multiplayer. Dedicated servers for the PC version was a good way to win over the hearts of the anti-Infinity Ward group, but they should have probably done at least SOME testing, since it's obvious the server and clients just aren't on the same page. Using dedicated servers is actually worse than the P2P connections of Modern Warfare 2. As far as gameplay is concerned, it's the same ol' respawn and shoot 'em up. I really don't mind that, as I didn't expect this game to be anything different, but given its other flaws, they needed to do something new.

    The multiplayer gameplay is horrid. It's far too fast, and the game clearly favors SMGs with fast moving kits. Let me stop here, and stop the flames, I played CS2 as a part of a tournament invitational team, played every FPS under the sun, and I would consider myself pretty damned good at shooters. The multiplayer matches are chalked full of guys diving every time they see someone, even if they come up behind them. If they are not whoring out their prone key, they are bouncing around like a drunken night elf. The weapons behave as far from realistically as possible. I understand realism isn't necessarily fun, but it's almost as though Treyarch just pulled some numbers out of their ass as to how these weapons act and how much damage they do. And why are knife kills from the front still 1 shot kills? Every other modern game has addressed frontal melee kills, but not Call of Duty. I like a little bit of realism in games I play, and this game is far from that at every level. I was in the Army, and have extensive weapons and explosives training due to my MOS, so I think I can safely say I know what I am talking about here.

    The single player portion of the game does nothing new or different. In fact, most of the single player campaign seems ripped right out of Modern Warfare 1 and 2's playbook.

    In short, this game's flaws are frustrating at best, and infuriating at worst. Black Ops multiplayer is far too fast and favors the one who can hit their prone key fastest, and aiming seems to do little to help, as the characters move inhumanly fast. Save your money for Battlefield 3, and this is coming from someone who got through all 10 prestige levels of MW2 and WaW.
    Expand
  69. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    The game has gained so much expectations because of previous success of the COD series,but I think Black Ops was definitely a major disappointment for me.

    The game suffered from very serious graphic lags in both SP and MP on my PC,which can run Modern Warfare 2 at maximum setting without any problem. Even the intro movie and all the video clips between levels lag. In multilayer games, the
    graphics also lag so bad that I find sniper rifles almost useless. Disabling demo recording might help a little bit, but the lag is still quite an issue.

    The sound effects of Black Ops is terrible. In MP games, the weapons sounded like fireworks and the flash bangs make a really weird sound when you throw them.In-game voices sounds very retarded. Sometimes your own footsteps sound like someone walking behind you.The announcements from radio sounded like cheap ass recording too.

    MP maps are ridiculously CQB-focused.

    In-game texts look so ugly that it looked like some cheap ass rip-off of MW2

    When you hit shift to start sprinting,you can't stop sprinting by hitting shift again.You have to stop moving or wait till stamina runs out.

    The way characters move are much less realistic than MW2. It made the game seemed like CS.

    One tiny but retarded thing is that when you change the resolution,no matter which arrow you click,the resolution will always change in ascending order.

    There are also issues with connections as a lot of official servers are very unstable.

    The perks have been rearranged into different categories,and the categories didnt make much sense.

    The COD point was a good idea and I liked the new modes in wager match. just wish they had it in MW2. After a little while i realized that COD points are just worthless, since they are so easy to earn in ranked games and there's no point of gambling in wager matches at all.

    Anyways the above were my major complaints. Overall the gameplay experience is terrible compared to MW2. I'd say its a very average shooter, and because of being overhyped, my score of this game drops from average to bad.

    Lastly, the best thing about Black Ops is that it reminded me of how great MW2 is.
    Expand
  70. Nov 12, 2010
    3
    PROS:
    - lots of new content added for MP CONS:
    - story is for kids under 14 - one of the worst graphics of the history of video gaming ever created, period (and I got a good and fast PC) - textures, shadows+lights (in and outdoor) are failing very very badly, must be made by a complete beginner. - geometry of the surrounding reminds me of the playstation 2 times (in fact, I just
    checked and Black looks much greater tbh.) - worst scripting ever combined with the most stupid AI a programmer may come up with. (this includes things like teammate standing and waiting for you next to 3 NME solder while those solders do nothing about him, or teammates yelling about incoming tanks after all tanks are eliminated minutes ago, etc, etc got about a zillion examples) - sounds are from a average SNES shooter game (they must be!), some1 fires a shotgun next to your ears, and you hear a sneaky fart.
    - etc -etc -et................. the bottom line: its a cheap bad fps, and not a CALL OF DUTY game ------------------ To the devs: so many days of hard work, but why not spend your time and money on a worthy game? please give all the money back now!

    To everybody else: never trust game reviewing sites, and never buy a game without a trailer showing actual gameplay
    Expand
  71. Nov 13, 2010
    3
    I tried to like the game, I really did, but the flaws and poor story telling really got to me. On the whole, the game's graphics look pretty average as it uses a dated engine which does not bring anything new to the fold. An advantage of using this engine (in past instalments at least) is that it works well across a wide-range of PCs. Sadly this is not the case for me in multi-player where the game stutters and freezes randomly on all but one of my PCs (which by happy coincidence can only run it on low settings). From the 3 minute intervals in which I get to play the multi-player portion of the game without issue, the gameplay is similar to the previous modern warfare outings, with a lot more customisation options and a new system for purchasing upgrades, both of which actually work quite well. In terms of answering the communities criticisms of previous games, we can now browse for servers again (rejoice!) plus character customisation options are available (maybe heading towards a future world of call of duty title). The problem is, as an owner the rest of the series, the game does not add anything particularly new, instead being a re-hash of previous instalments with a few additions. All in all it feels more like an expansion pack than anything else. The single player campaign, whilst actually working, is also not without its flaws. Whilst the action is extremely fast-paced with some great sections of gameplay, the levels seem extremely short and entirely linear. In order to alleviate the boredom of playing through what is essentially Modern Warfare 2 with more explosions and a larger body count, the developers saw fit to break it apart with extremely chaotic, often surreal in-game cut scenes and set pieces; all of which are done in the best possible taste *cough*. All in all, I gave it a 3 because the multi-player experience is extremely frustrating at this time (bringing little to the franchise) and the single player is actually quite tedious and offers no replay value (unless you do not manage to acquire the myriad of simplistic achievements). Expand
  72. Nov 18, 2010
    3
    A game with potential to have alot of longevity in the competitive scene, was completely ruined by lazy development. Treyarch spent no time optimizing the game for the PC. High end machines run the game poorly, while some low end machines run the game well. There's no solid system requirements. Getting lucky with hardware configurations is the only way to have an enjoyable experience. The single player, while outstanding, also suffers from similar issues. However, we'll be real here. PC gaming is not about the SP experience. CoD is a multiplayer game. That is why people buy titles from this series. As of now, it's unplayable to many. Treyarch's Community Manager does a piss poor job of communicating with the PC community. The customer services is lackluster. Not to mention.. the game is directx 9. Get with the times, Treyarch. 3. That's being generous. Expand
  73. Nov 24, 2010
    3
    PC Multiplayer is unplayable for me due to the stuttering. Worst console port ever. People seem to have endless issues with crashes stuttering, lag, sound. If you're lucky it will work fine without errors. But most who own the game have some kind of problem, even if they can play without stuttering.

    Its unlikely there will be a patch that blows all the issues away soon. It will be fixed,
    little by little. Maybe next year or maybe not? 60e "well spent" folks. Expand
  74. Nov 29, 2010
    3
    When it's not crashing the game runs terribly on previous-generation hardware---40 FPS on an E8400 and ATI 4870---where all recent CoD games ran at the max of 90 FPS. "Well, is it a beast of a game?" No, it's arguably the worst looking of the last four CoD games, so what the hell? Plus the usual multiplayer balancing issues not addressed still after three weeks. CoD4 > MW2 > CoD2 > WaW > Blops.
  75. Nov 29, 2010
    3
    I have heard good things about this game, from xbox users, and mostly bad from PC users, for me the single player is completely unplayable, the menu stutters, and skips, and gameplay is worse with freezing, etc. They have managed to make the multi player somewhat playable, which does not make sense to me, if they are the same game, same engine. If I start the MP, and then upon entering a match, bring us the console, and enter several commands, I can play it for the most part. Dealing with lag spikes, and game stutters. The graphics are not on par with previous COD titles, from Infinity Ward that is, it looks exactly like World At War, which did NOT look as good as MW2, or even MW. The audio is horrendous, the repeating sound loops for background noises stutter so badly that I want to leave the match just to not hear it. The MP gameplay is somewhat solid, a very neat idea with the COD points/money to buy upgrades with, and the custom emblems are neat. Then...traditional rank up to unlock doesn't really apply in this game, anyone can buy anything (mostly) rank is almost meaningless. I managed to make it to Captain in less than 8 hours of gaming, that seems way too quick to me. Then there are the numerous game bugs, not being able to shoot through railings, the ridiculous 10 yard knife lunges, the terrible spawn system, and one thing that I really liked in the game trailer, the remote control car, in the game, is a real pain in the ass. I can't really write a review of the single player experience because I truly can't play it at all, and the worst part is, none of the companies responsible for this train wreck will acknowledge the problems, or let us know what is being done about any of them, so I would for one would really like to have my money back on this one. Expand
  76. Dec 15, 2010
    3
    I like Cod dont get me wrong but this has barely changed.

    This is mw2 with different guns, characters and sounds. i personnally think perks and classes have gotten worse. The only amazing thing about this game is Zombies. Thats it. So please activision, tryarch, infinity ward make the next game different, the whole game feels like its missing something. that something is GHANGE
  77. Dec 30, 2010
    3
    The game shows great improvement on content side of things from MW series. However technical execution of it is pretty miserable. Even beside performance issues many people having the game is plagued by bugs. Bugs with class editor, ranks resetting, freezes and crashes, poor netcode, broken bullet penetration, broken object clipping, etc. I wasn't able to get anything sensible in terms of support either as Activision and Treyarch point fingers at eachother and do nothing. The bottom line this game is a shameless cash grab milking the CoD series. Expand
  78. Jan 21, 2011
    3
    This is my first review for a game. I am so frustrated with Black Ops that I felt compelled to write something. I am not giving it a 0 because the game is playable, and that's about all you can do. Enjoying and having fun with this game is, for me, not possible. Where do I start?
    Single player is ugly. There's barely a storyline, and the flashback missions are NOT appealing. Graphics are
    horrendous. How can you justify releasing a new game in a series that has WORSE graphics than its predecessor? The scenery and player models are, for a lack of a better word, poop, even at the highest graphics settings. Sound? Ha! Multiplayer? Well. The guns do practically no damage. You are forced to play hardcore if you don't want to spend your entire gun clip on one or two enemies, and I'm not that bad at FPS games. I have played CS, CSS, COD MW1, MW2, COD 1, 2, 3, Farcry 1 and 2, and finally and sadly, this game. I can say with confidence that I'm not a noob :) In short, the bullet registry is nonexistent. I have a very good connection, so I can't complain too much about the connection lag, but honestly! Spike lags are almost to be expected. Technical issues? Where do I begin? Game crashes so often it's not even funny. I can run Crysis, Dragon Age Origins, and Civilizations V at max settings and I experience absolutely no lag or crashes. When I am bored enough to play this game, I crash about twice an hour. AT LEAST. Single player glitches are rampant. Completely over-rated and massively marketed PoS!
    I get upset every time I look on my list of Steam games and remember that I paid $60 for it.
    Expand
  79. Jan 27, 2011
    3
    This game has been in a Beta phase of development since it's release. The only problem with that is THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY $100 FOR IT.
    With incredibly frustrating spawns, maps which basically nulify the nessecty of sniper rifles and a very frustrating DRM system which they call "dedicated servers". Do not get this game, the critics must have been paid for their reviews by Activision, this
    game is a badly ported Xbox game that they didn't even bother testing before they released it on PC.

    So now they have fixed a couple of the spawning bugs, a couple of the lag issues (not all of either) and now they expect us to pay another $15 for a couple of extra maps which will probably bring about a whole other bunch of issues; such as splitting the community in two, and what will happen with the servers? Will THEY have to pay extra for the new maps? Time will tell, but basing my assumptions on the problems/solutions that have presented themselves thus far; it will not be getting much better.
    Expand
  80. Feb 2, 2011
    3
    Not too sure that this should be a game. The single player is boring, confusing and disjointed. The multiplayer is a "roster update" from the Modern Warfare. Treyarch continues to put out the same game that Infinity Ward put out years ago. Glaring multiplayer issues have not been fixed: Boosting, Hacked Controllers, and cord pulling. Host advantage is still a severe issue. On the side of new content, nothing is really great about anything. Zombies has been done (L4D, CoD:WoW). Wager matches are annoying at best.

    Recommendation: If you're going to only play the Singleplayer, Rent it or go over a friend's house to play it. If you're going to play the Multiplayer, I recommend getting a used copy, because it's not worth spending $60 US.
    Expand
  81. Jun 6, 2011
    3
    [Multiplayer]
    Black Ops is playable, if your computer's CPU has at least i5. The good thing is the new contents, but that's just about it. Hitbox (or hit detection) is okay and seriously, I HAVE NO TROUBLE AT ALL HITTING THOSE ENEMIES (with a 150+ ping and that's laggy for a pro-gamer). If you're talking about balance, it's so balanced that nothing is seemingly interesting to use.


    Graphic:
    Terribly below standard. Seems so, flat? It's like the new version of CoD4, nothing new about the graphics.

    Sound:
    This is what I dislike the most; the guns sound like water pistols, but that's in my opinion.

    Controls:
    I really hate the new maneuver called "sprint-diving". Seriously, it is the most irritating thing on the planet. Useless.

    Contents:
    The multiplayer has NO interesting content at all. The recoils are so small for every gun, which makes it look like a no-recoil game. I can easily shoot an ak47 across the map with pinpoint accuracy until the 20th round.
    Expand
  82. Mar 1, 2011
    3
    This game is absolutely awful. Neither the gameplay nor the graphics are any advance whatsoever over the state of the art from 3-5 years ago. The controls are incredibly wonky - for example, going prone often locks your aim so you can't rotate side to side. Finally, the levels are completely linear; there is no freedom to explore and no deviation from the extremely narrow path the developers have pre-scripted for you. I wish I could uninstall this from my hard drive and get my money back. I wonder how much the "professional" reviewers were paid to rate this at 81% on average. Expand
  83. Mar 11, 2011
    3
    This game was impressive to some degree. I actually like the mechanics of multiplayer, it was harder and more thrilling than MW:2 was in terms of multiplayer combat. The biggest problem with this game is performance. Being a supposedly "shelf ready" game, should not have had nearly as many performance issues as it did upon release. The first 2 patches fixed a lot of it, but it got progressively worse from there. It has gotten to the point where multiplayer is pretty much unplayable in a lot of cases. Not only was performance an issue, but for the first month after release there was a bug in the final stages of multiplayer that made it impossible to complete. During one of the cut scenes one of the characters would all of a sudden appear with an AK 47 in his hands and would just stand there staring at you. You were unable to progress past that point. Eventually (a month or two later) they released a patch that fixed that bug (and the character in question no longer suddenly appeared with an AK in his hands out of nowhere). This would have been a great game if it wasn't for the fact that the "patches" they keep releasing making the performance issues progressively worse. It also seems to be breaking the mechanics more and more every time they patch it. At present, you can fire off 5 perfect shots with a sniper rifle into someone's head and every single shot will miss. There's something really wrong with that. I stopped playing for about a month or so, when I came back I started having an issue where the game would just lock up at the server browser and had to kill the process from the task manager. I'm not sure why they are unable to fix this game other than there's something in the core design that is just making it worse when they do try to fix it. I would recommend you just save your money for Crysis 2 or something else. This is definitely not worth purchasing, and honestly I have never seen a release as bad as this one in terms of bugs and performance issues. Expand
  84. Apr 23, 2011
    3
    I am sorry, but, this is the worst game I have ever played. The developer needs to improve this game a lot! The developer also made a huge mistake by only having one server provider. GS.com is one of the worst game server providers out there. They overload their dedicated boxes and cause tons of lag. Not to mention that by only choosing one GSP violates federal antitrust laws. Do the world a favor treyarch and do NOT make any more games because you do not know how to make a good game. Expand
  85. 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
  86. Sep 2, 2011
    3
    I really wanted to like this game, but I can't. The competition in the FPS market is just too big nowadays for COD: Black Ops to shine. There is no single problem that makes me score this game so low. It's a combination of few things: awkward controls, mediocre level design, weapon handling etc.
    I honestly don't see why should anyone spend more than $20.00 on this title. I'm back to
    playing BF:BC2 and Borderlands. I will even play some BRINK, which heavily mimics TF2, but still has some charm and some element of fun.
    No game is perfect but some games are definitely more fun than others.
    Expand
  87. Sep 30, 2011
    3
    It's really really bad, i didnt like the singleplayer because its so annoying... its another fps tunnel where you can mostly view videos and scripted things you cannot skip at all. Also the teammates in sp are blocking you all the game, enemy AI is just stupid etc. Multiplayer is just not skilled, really buggy and dlc prices are not worth them at all. Nobody plays dlc's and its really hard to find servers without stupid rules. Its a completly FAIL game. TREYARCH AND BLACK OPS KILLED COD SAGA Expand
  88. Nov 14, 2011
    3
    This game is by far the worst game in the series. Right out of the box it started showing bad signs. I had the disc but had to download it from steam anyway. The game was stuttering a lot even on lowest quality, even though the specs of my pc were quite a bit higher than the minimum specs. Also the graphics were really cartoon-ish. The multiplayer game play was not fun at all. It was really based around killstreaks killing for you. It was also stimulating campy game play. To be honest, a disgrace to the CoD series. Expand
  89. 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
  90. 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.
  91. 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
  92. Aug 10, 2013
    3
    Maybe I was just so looking forward to this game, but what a let down. Awful graphics, terrible shot recognition, claustrophobic maps, useless weapons. Tryarch games are garbage compared to Infinity Ward. Absolutely awful...
  93. 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.
  94. 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.
  95. Dec 16, 2010
    2
    "Overpriced, overhyped, pieces of crap... just rehash and recrank that old engine out and release it as a new game, and you are going to get nominees, you are going to get game of the year, you are going to get best shooters and crap like that"

    I am seriously convinced that you critics are getting payed now, first GTA IV, then CoDWaW, then MW2, and now THIS! What the hell is this? Who the
    hell pays twice for the same game? This is EXACTLY the same game as CoD4. Just like CoD5 AND 6, there is literally more new additions in Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam, which is a 5 dollar DLC for Bad Company 2. In defense of this extremely bad game, CoD4 was an amazing game, I had some amazing times with it, so if you have barely played CoD or never played it, by all means go ahead and buy this, but if you already own another CoD that is the fourth one or one that is past that, DO NOT buy this, you are just going to be buying CoD4 again with a new box art. Expand
  96. Nov 11, 2010
    2
    I've got a pretty nice PC, but the multiplayer is almost unplayable. Single-player works, but the frame rate is extremely unstable compared to MW2.

    How could Treyarch **** this up so badly?
  97. Nov 10, 2010
    2
    Unplayable SP and MP yet another fail just like MW2 and overhyped game. If there isnt going to be a patch soon now then this will be my last COD. And i will stick with Counter Source and the Battlefield BC2 franchise forever.
  98. Nov 9, 2010
    2
    Pretty disappointing this time round from CoD: Black Ops, dedicated servers that is only available in the States that disallows the asians to play with low ping, Average ping is about 300ms. Can't even create your own game excluding private matches. Sound effects are utterly terrible, you have Helicopter killstreak chaingun sounded like some silenced chaingun. Choppy FPS as what LassKnacken has mentioned. Unfriendly Interface that people can't even figure out how to invite another friend to a co-op game. Expand
  99. Nov 10, 2010
    2
    Multiplayer is far too frustrating due to the terrible lag. I recommend staying away from this game until this is addressed.

    Single player is okay, but the AI really blows. Enemies are repetitive and lack any "intelligence"...which just ends up making them feel artificial. I'm basically just entertaining myself with SP until Online play is fixed. Not getting of the reported problem
    in single player. Gameplay is pretty smooth, with the occasional audio skip during a cutscene.

    Had to play BFBC2 because the lag was so terrible. Basically they've released a $60 beta for multiplayer...which is pretty disappointing to say the least. But at the same time, they've probably sold more $60 beta copies in the history of video games...so I can't imagine any of the studios/publishers involved with this game really care....they've just made a huge amount of cash.
    Expand
  100. Nov 10, 2010
    2
    Is the worst game I ever seen. Play black ops for computer is like play a beta game. Bugs everywhere and the cpu's lag problem. Black ops has 874000 kb cpu usage. And you die and lag in single player, in multiplayer and in the zombie mod. In multiplayer game i have between 20 and 75 fps at the low resolution; and i have a gtx 460. This game is unplayable until a patch that fix this problems. Without words. 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.