Call of Duty: Black Ops II PlayStation 3

User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 907 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

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 13, 2012
    7
    It's easy to see who the trolls are here giving "0"'s. Just check their profile and you can see that they apparently bought this game for 3 different systems and gave them all a "0". If you hate CoD so much. Stop buying it. Activition makes a lot of money with this franchise and they will continue to do so until people stop buying the game. They don't care how much you hate the game, asIt's easy to see who the trolls are here giving "0"'s. Just check their profile and you can see that they apparently bought this game for 3 different systems and gave them all a "0". If you hate CoD so much. Stop buying it. Activition makes a lot of money with this franchise and they will continue to do so until people stop buying the game. They don't care how much you hate the game, as long as you buy it. So next year, don't buy it, and let the people who do buy it, rate the game. Expand
  2. Dec 15, 2012
    7
    Singleplayer was pretty good interesting ending choice but still good. The multiple endings leaved much to be desired but it still worked. While somehow I believe most players hated the mode where you change between individual units, I actually found it a refreshing change. The slight changes to multiplayer were good too. IMO there is no way this game could score less than a 6/10 but thereSingleplayer was pretty good interesting ending choice but still good. The multiple endings leaved much to be desired but it still worked. While somehow I believe most players hated the mode where you change between individual units, I actually found it a refreshing change. The slight changes to multiplayer were good too. IMO there is no way this game could score less than a 6/10 but there are always going to be haters and as they say haters gonna hate. Voice acting and cinematics A+ as you would expect from this title. Expand
  3. Nov 18, 2012
    7
    Due to the fact that the online multiplayer is incredibly broken and very hard to tolerate as of this moment. I will skip reviewing that and focus on the single player campaign. For the most part the campaign is EXTREMELY easy. There is barely any challenge even to playing BO2 on veteran I think it took me around 4-5 hours to complete and only had to continue a handful of times... IT ISDue to the fact that the online multiplayer is incredibly broken and very hard to tolerate as of this moment. I will skip reviewing that and focus on the single player campaign. For the most part the campaign is EXTREMELY easy. There is barely any challenge even to playing BO2 on veteran I think it took me around 4-5 hours to complete and only had to continue a handful of times... IT IS 100% casual friendly unfortunately. It is full of scripted scenes and what not but the game does provide an interesting way of going about the missions. You have multiple choices for different outcomes within the game so there is actually a reason now to replay the campaign. Choosing an option may trigger a different scripted scene in the game and change the way some parts can be played. Prior to this call of duty I think the only game that had any form of choice would be World at War with either Sgt. Roebuck or that other dude dying (can't remember his name!). Aside from all this I believe Treyarch's call of duty's keep getting better while Infinity Ward's keep getting more and more dumbed down to the point where they are just boring. Call of Duty 4 was their peak - they're done give it up. This is a far superior installment to Modern Warfare 3 - aside from the freezing and multiple bugs I would say it is one of the more fun FPS I've played. I enjoyed the campaign and enjoyed the futuristic guns and different style of weapons. This is not a complete rip off of Ghost Recon FS or Halo, it does do it's own things and it is it's own game and that should be praised. I would score it higher but due to the bugs and, god I don't know how this happens, but LAG? In single player? I cannot just bring myself to give it an 8 9 or 10. It's good, it's playable, it's enjoyable but it has it's share of problems. I can finally put away Boringfield 3 and enjoy a decent call of duty after the issues are hopefully fixed with this game. On a side note: I'm glad Treyarch only made a few tweaks to their old formula - it would be a shame to see Call of Duty go down the Socom route and die when there are barely any other shooters these days that are as enjoyable as a Call of Duty. Expand
  4. Jan 31, 2013
    6
    I was looking forward to Black Ops II because of the single player campaign. The new story choices, sci-fi overtones and the new tactical RTS elements looked intriguing. Unfortunately, the campaign turned out to be lackluster. Sure, there was the odd occasional mission that was special (such as the one where you body glide off a cliff) but it was mostly just linear shooting galleries. ItI was looking forward to Black Ops II because of the single player campaign. The new story choices, sci-fi overtones and the new tactical RTS elements looked intriguing. Unfortunately, the campaign turned out to be lackluster. Sure, there was the odd occasional mission that was special (such as the one where you body glide off a cliff) but it was mostly just linear shooting galleries. It was a far cry from the fun of Modern Warfare 2's highpoint. The new RTS missions are also laughably simplistic. They just don't seem to work very well. The multiplayer is solid but unspectacular. The best part of the suite is the fact that you're rarely overwhelmed by scorestreak attacks. There's nothing more frustrating than being relentlessly hounded by helicopters for the duration of an entire match! Sadly, the maps are too small and boxed in. This negates any real strategy and results in a reflex heavy twitch-shooter where players dart about like they're competing in a marathon. Basically speaking, Call of Duty: Black Ops II has sank from promising to disappointing. Expand
  5. Jul 7, 2013
    7
    I have to give it to Treyarch, they seem to make the more bearable versions of this highly iterative franchise. This year Black Ops II admittedly has a better campaign than its predecessors. The choice element is a little fresh but isn't implemented all that well, but the missions were fun enough to keep me advancing, even if I did end up tiring of the story. The multiplayer is as slick asI have to give it to Treyarch, they seem to make the more bearable versions of this highly iterative franchise. This year Black Ops II admittedly has a better campaign than its predecessors. The choice element is a little fresh but isn't implemented all that well, but the missions were fun enough to keep me advancing, even if I did end up tiring of the story. The multiplayer is as slick as ever, but it really doesn't add all that much. Zombies is perhaps innovated most in this title, but it still feels a little weary with age. Its a good game, but Activision should really pack their bags now and leave on this one, because even though this game is decent, it is not going to save this franchise from an inevitable end. Expand
  6. Nov 18, 2012
    7
    Black Ops 2 is for me the best CoD game since CoD4, it's a different take on the formula which proves that good things can still be done with CoD. Don't get me wrong though, just buying this game for the multiplayer wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, the singleplayer really needs to be played. You really see that the singleplayer has gotten more effort this time around with multipleBlack Ops 2 is for me the best CoD game since CoD4, it's a different take on the formula which proves that good things can still be done with CoD. Don't get me wrong though, just buying this game for the multiplayer wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, the singleplayer really needs to be played. You really see that the singleplayer has gotten more effort this time around with multiple endings depending on your actions throughout the game. The story is pretty good this time around, with a good villain that seals the deal, some plot elements weren't as explored as I would have liked to, but still an enjoyable ride. Still, the zombies mode is improved but still pretty familiar, as is the multiplayer itself. It's ironic that for me, the singleplayer is what sells the game, considering that CoD today is famous for its multiplayer. I give this game a 7/10, for making a valid effort, being fun but still being kinda familiar. Expand
  7. Nov 6, 2013
    7
    I like the near-futuristic approach to Call of Duty. The weapons are fun to use, and are slightly more varied than in previous installments. The muliplayer is exactly the same, otherwise. Same game modes, and pretty well the same maps. Spawns are slightly less bad than in previous games, and the maps remain small. The singleplayer is decent, with specific actions that result in differentI like the near-futuristic approach to Call of Duty. The weapons are fun to use, and are slightly more varied than in previous installments. The muliplayer is exactly the same, otherwise. Same game modes, and pretty well the same maps. Spawns are slightly less bad than in previous games, and the maps remain small. The singleplayer is decent, with specific actions that result in different endings adding a minor difference to the Call of Duty formula. Zombies is back and is as boring as ever. The formula is getting extremely stale at this point. Since there are no other decent multiplayer games coming out for a while, guess were stuck with this one. Expand
  8. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This is not a bad game, not in the slightest, though nor is it a great one. There are however a number of fundamental issues that can make this a very frustrating and jarring experience, and sadly all too often this can prove to be the rule rather than the exception. Multiplayer suffers from largely mediocre map design, whereby CQC is clearly given clear preference and prominence, and mapsThis is not a bad game, not in the slightest, though nor is it a great one. There are however a number of fundamental issues that can make this a very frustrating and jarring experience, and sadly all too often this can prove to be the rule rather than the exception. Multiplayer suffers from largely mediocre map design, whereby CQC is clearly given clear preference and prominence, and maps are not just predictable (3 largely symmetrical routes in most maps), but encourage a relentless, unsubtle, tactless pace and momentum that quickly leaves an unsatisfying taste, especially for those who like a more strategic approach to at least be possible. If this were the only issue, then it could be attributed largely to personal taste (if you prefer run and gun, frenetic, twitch based, 10 second bursts of gaming, it might well be for you), but the fundamentals of this type of close combat, twitch reaction shooter are severely undermined when things such as lag, dropping frame rate, and very poor hit detection become not a rare annoyance, but a frequent (often debilitating) hindrance. For a game of this type, that feeling of randomness (both when you do well, and when you're being pummelled), create an extremely dispiriting, frustrating, and occasionally enraging experience. When you add to this the inconsistent balancing of matches, the persistent connection issues, poor balancing of scorestreaks and weapons, these feelings just exacerbate the sensation that this activity you undertake to relax is all too often anything but. Overall a game like this hinges on a feeling of personal culpability or achievement, and far too often it feels as though you are the victim or beneficiary of factors completely out of your control, that is just not acceptable in a competitive online game like this.
    I speak here primarily of the Multiplayer mode, mainly because it's the mode most will play most, but furthermore because sadly both the zombie mode and the campaign just feel a little lacklustre and stale, more a distraction than modes you'll be eager to commit much time to.

    I have no biases against the COD franchise, I racked up over 15 days of play time over the past year on MW3, and have played for just over 2 days on BO2 thus far. But these nagging annoyances have become too much to deal with for me personally. There is undoubtedly fun to be had playing this game, but be very aware of the severe issues you will probably have to deal with should you decide to purchase it.
    Expand
  9. Apr 5, 2014
    5
    Story: 7 out of 10 Graphics: 8 out of 10 Gameplay: 8 out of 10 Fun: 5 out of 10 Controls: 9 out of 10 Ease to Learn: 8 out of 10
    Length: 7 out of 10
    Re-play: 7.5 out of 10
    Audio: 8 out of 10
    Bugs/Glitches: not much
  10. Nov 28, 2012
    7
    OMG seriously, what's with all the **** conspiracy. This game is fine. It's just more COD. You get what you expect. Don't listen to these nuts. Go rent it from Redbox. It's still a good time.
  11. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    The game is good, it's beatiful to see 3 modes in a single game but the maps are too small especially the zombie maps, also there are many bugs in ps3 version and graphics is crappy compared to the 360 version
  12. Nov 21, 2012
    7
    I was pleasantly surprised, most of all with the story. Written by David Goyer, one of the screenwriters of The Dark Knight Rises, it makes a nice change for the laughable cliche-ridden plots of the Modern Warfare games that feels ripped from a Michael Bay movie. With Black Ops II's campaign, the story takes us into the future where the US is heavily reliant on robotic technology to defendI was pleasantly surprised, most of all with the story. Written by David Goyer, one of the screenwriters of The Dark Knight Rises, it makes a nice change for the laughable cliche-ridden plots of the Modern Warfare games that feels ripped from a Michael Bay movie. With Black Ops II's campaign, the story takes us into the future where the US is heavily reliant on robotic technology to defend themselves. The villain inevitably takes control of the technology and turns it against them, and while this might not seem like a completely original story, the characters and exciting plot moments make up for it. Raul Menendez is a very cool, memorable villain and the soldiers have more personality. There are choices that change the course of the story which are pretty cool, making you more than just a triggerman saving the world. There are challenges now that add longevity to the short campaign. Multiplayer is almost identical to the other Call of Duty games, so don't expect to be enthralled by it if your not already a fan. Tranzit is basically an updated Zombies mode with more objectives than just surviving waves of zombies, making it more fun to play. All in all Call of Duty: Black Ops II is refreshing. Treyarch are trying new things here with what was becoming a very monotonous franchise and making it fun to play again. Despite this, the length of the campaign leaves more to be desired and the multiplayer is largely the same so Black Ops probably won't convert new fans, but it will change the way Call Of Duty games are made and has restored hope for this annualised franchise that was quite frankly outstaying its welcome in my book. Expand
  13. Dec 31, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I understand all the bad reviews for this game. The multiplayer mode is what people buy this game for, or the Zombies mode. But I think most people don't really understand this game, and therefore think of it as a bad game. The new class setup for Black Ops 2 is a massive improvement from earlier games. Instead of just being leveling up for the sake of leveling up, it actually feels like it does have a point, and the point is obvious. When you level up, you both unlock more weapons and you get tokens you can use to be able to use these weapons. because there are only 55 levels, and you earn one token per level, you will not unlock everything in the game, which is a great thing. The main complaint that many people have with this game is the difficulty. The hit box for this game might seem a bit small compared to other games, but there is a reason for it. Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2 is the most complex and advanced tactical game out there right now. Because of the way that the class setup is made, the room for improvement is big, and you have endless of possibilities when it comes to customization. Every player has a role in Black Ops 2, and you'd be a fool not to realize yours. With a wide range of Score Streaks that are stackable with each other, tactics is very important here. Example: If your team is mainly consisting of people reaching for the objective, you can make their life easier by taking out enemies from a distance using Sniper Rifles, if you are one of the charging people, you can use smoke bombs and thermal sight to see through the smoke to capture flags more easily. You can also make good use of the perk system and wildcards to make the perfect assassin. Because of the point system and the wildcards, you can choose to discard all your weapons, put your points into wildcards and receive twice as many perks. With several perks for advanced movement, and a knife you become a deadly opponent. What I am trying to say is that, the multiplayer in itself is worth the $100 it costs for this game in Norway, and that the Single-player and the Zombies mode makes it even more so. The Zombies mode is good as usual, but not as good as Black Ops'. The Zombie maps are interestingly designed, but feels empty and sometimes quite boring. The single-player is good. It's not as boring as Black Ops, but not as good as Modern Warfare 2. Don't expect a good story, but the weapons are cool. The theme for Black Ops 2 is the future, and that is very apparent in the weapons. Some are very futuristic both in looks and in how they work (like the Kap-40) while others look like normal ones. The game is not quite like Halo in terms of the futuristic looks, but it is noticeable in both the maps and weapons. Overall this is a must buy game for all fans of shooters and Sci-fi, as it provides many many hours of fun. Expand
  14. Apr 14, 2013
    7
    After playing this game for a few months, I can say it is honestly impossible to not rage at this game with all the lag and BS that goes on. Pistols are OP'd, snipers run around quickscopin. I could write a 2 page essay about the flaws of this game's multiplayer. However I still don't believe it deserves a 4, its probably still better than 90% of fps out there
  15. Jan 27, 2013
    7
    I don't see why people hate this game so much. It's certainly not a bad game, but it's certainly not a great game. The story and the general themes seem quite racist, with every non-white character (apart from Tony Todd) betraying the pure, hard working white characters seems racist, as the idea of killing white people will make Treyarch run for their safety blanket. But the story seemsI don't see why people hate this game so much. It's certainly not a bad game, but it's certainly not a great game. The story and the general themes seem quite racist, with every non-white character (apart from Tony Todd) betraying the pure, hard working white characters seems racist, as the idea of killing white people will make Treyarch run for their safety blanket. But the story seems like it has some deeper meanings, as it has room for exploring the theme of unmanned military and how it greatly effects war, but most of the time it just wants you to lose yourself in shooty action xenophoby-fun. The bog-standard shooting remains intact and the level design has been changed up from 'run down this corridor, kill the under-privileged' to 'go down these optional, slightly non-linear paths and kill the under-privileged whilst also being able to optionally man turrets and drones'. The choices have been fleshed out pretty well too, even though they are made fully explicit. I like how you can choose to shoot Tony Todd in the head or shoot him in the leg, but if you wait long enough the black guy will just knock him out for you. That's pretty neat. I like how the choices effect your future game, and it a great new take on a series established as being a linear conveyor-belt of linear linearity. The strike force missions are definitely the best part about the game and are heavily replayable, I just wish there were more of them. But I cannot praise competence as if it's excellence, as there have been more meaningful shooters that have come out this year that are generally more risky. Black Ops 2 is by all means safe, it doesn't try to challenge the player mentally, but is above average which is surprising because all other COD campaigns have been bog-standard at best. Overall, it's a refreshing game, and if you're a fan of multi-player shooters or zombie games, this is a must play. It's pretty much 3 passable games in one, and for $60, what more could you ask for? Expand
  16. Nov 30, 2012
    7
    This was a classic case of "damned if you do damned if you don't" for treyarch. the cod series has needed a change for a while now, but if you change it too much you anger your core fan base and lose money. Black Ops II does a good but not great job at finding the middle between these two. Though it is nice to be able to create your own class in the campaign often times if you are playingThis was a classic case of "damned if you do damned if you don't" for treyarch. the cod series has needed a change for a while now, but if you change it too much you anger your core fan base and lose money. Black Ops II does a good but not great job at finding the middle between these two. Though it is nice to be able to create your own class in the campaign often times if you are playing on a harder difficulty it adds an annoying additional challenge if you dont use the gun or sight that the game recommends. it is also very cool that there are a couple decisions that you make that can mildly change the outcome of the ending. other than these it's just your typical run n gun cod campaign. the multiplayer is the most dissapointing thing about this game in my opinion, mostly because activison/treyarch obviously ignored the backlash they got from lag compensation in MW3 as it had made a return and its very frustrating. as far as gameplay i feel they made the game far to friendly to people who use SMG's/ shotguns (even though it benefits my play style) because of how the maps are designed. there seems to be many ways to get into every window/building and this hurts objective based game players because there is NO way to really controll the map/spawns. that's not to say there aren't good things about multiplayer. the new points system for create a class allows for players to play much better to their playstyle. but mainly the spawns and lag need to be fixed before i can say the multiplayer is good. now the two reasons this game gets a 7/10 from me is 1. because im trying to balance the score more from the butthurt battlefield fanboys that come on here and give the game a 0/10 without even playing it, and the morons who give the game a 0/10 because "it's the same thing every year!" even though you have the option to look at gameplay before you buy the game (shocking right?), or you could use your brain and realize that the game is a SERIES and its not going to have a groundbreaking change when each one has to be developed in less than 2 years time.

    And 2. the zombies mode is absoloutly amazing. if you are a fan of zombies this game is worth the $60. if you aren't a fan of zombies and are buying the game only for the multiplayer my opinion is to stay away. at least untill the lag/spawns get fixed (but don't hold your breath on that).
    Expand
  17. Jan 14, 2013
    6
    Wow! Amazing story! I didn't buy Black Ops 2 for the story though! I bought it for Zombies! I was and still am totally let down by the 3 maps the game came with I just hope dlc saves this poor game! Wow what a let down! Make a Mars map and save this poor game!
  18. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Let's be honest here. COD4: Modern Warfare was great, new, exciting, fun to play, etc... World at War was a nice attempt to stay in WW II. MW 2 started to become a copy with some extra's, but still ok and since then it all went down in a massive downfall. Come'on, what is the difference between CoD: MW 2, COD: BO, CoD MW 3 and apparently CoD BO II? Nothing, except the environment. TheyLet's be honest here. COD4: Modern Warfare was great, new, exciting, fun to play, etc... World at War was a nice attempt to stay in WW II. MW 2 started to become a copy with some extra's, but still ok and since then it all went down in a massive downfall. Come'on, what is the difference between CoD: MW 2, COD: BO, CoD MW 3 and apparently CoD BO II? Nothing, except the environment. They were allready re-using the same game for 3 years now....
    Seriously, anyone who bought the game and is complaining about it that it isn't new, should smack themselfs in the head. It's what was to be expected... What did you think? Quick cash for the developers and you just gave it to them. Probably half of the complainers now will be buying CoD MW 4 too :-)
    Expand
  19. Dec 6, 2012
    7
    I'm going to divide this review up into 3 sections. 1) Campaign - 10/10. This is the best part of the game in my opinion. The story is very interesting. One really awesome new feature is that in certain parts of the game you get to choose what happens. Example: Press this to shoot him, or press that to shoot the other guy. This means that there is a variety of endings! The only thing II'm going to divide this review up into 3 sections. 1) Campaign - 10/10. This is the best part of the game in my opinion. The story is very interesting. One really awesome new feature is that in certain parts of the game you get to choose what happens. Example: Press this to shoot him, or press that to shoot the other guy. This means that there is a variety of endings! The only thing I didn't really enjoy was the Strike Force Missions, but you can skip them if you would like. Multiplayer - 6/10. Overall, the multiplayer is fun and what you would come to expect. The last CoD I had played before Black Ops II was World At War. And the multiplayer from WaW was pretty much the same from BO2, but with just a few differences. There's a new Pick 10 class system where you can pick a combination of 10 weapons, perks, attachments, lethals/tacticals, and wildcards. And the "Killstreaks" are now "Scorestreaks". Zombies - 9/10. Zombies are just like before, but better. There is a new TranZit mode, where its a huge world where you ride a bus and go to different locations to find parts to build different things. Then there is Grief, which is like regular Survival, but there are 2 teams instead of the regular 1. Last team standing wins. Now there is also custom Zombies, where you can choose different options like: which round to start on (1, 5, 10, 15, or 20), Hellhounds, headshots only, and a few others. Overall - 8/10. This is a good game, they just need to do something about the multiplayer and maybe get a better graphics engine because the engine is starting to show its age. Expand
  20. Dec 29, 2013
    6
    There is a lot of haters out there and to be honest I am half a hater myself, for how bad the graphics are when compared to games by EA, SCE etc., for how they never have any innovation on anything, but there is no deny that CoD is a pretty solid franchise. It might be repetitive, but it is always functional and definitely playable.
    bo2 is a mediocre shooter, but it definitely isnt a 0
    There is a lot of haters out there and to be honest I am half a hater myself, for how bad the graphics are when compared to games by EA, SCE etc., for how they never have any innovation on anything, but there is no deny that CoD is a pretty solid franchise. It might be repetitive, but it is always functional and definitely playable.
    bo2 is a mediocre shooter, but it definitely isnt a 0 out of 10. It did earn infinity ward more than it deserves, but cmon we cant expect them to come out and be like "we know our game sucks so we are asking our fans to please stop buying them" right? So let's just give them a break and hope CoD gets better in the future.
    Expand
  21. Nov 24, 2012
    6
    Repetitive, unimaginative and above all conservative. Treyarch has done little to change or at least refresh the very core of COD franchise depending too much upon the appealing and fun multiplayer set since Modern Warfare. The campaign isn't something that has much space for improvement since it's a stereotypical FPS but in the end everything in the game is quite underwhelming not onlyRepetitive, unimaginative and above all conservative. Treyarch has done little to change or at least refresh the very core of COD franchise depending too much upon the appealing and fun multiplayer set since Modern Warfare. The campaign isn't something that has much space for improvement since it's a stereotypical FPS but in the end everything in the game is quite underwhelming not only the (expected) campaign mode. Few things have had a significant change and above all the parts where changes have come it's a mess. No innovations or new improved situation within the game just added "cool stuff". Black Ops 2 is a game that CAN be fun and the multiplayer is good enough but generally everything in it shows the huge fall of the COD franchise. My personal complaint is the atmosphere and the options available. The atmosphere feels nothing like warfare and I find myself wondering if it's some kind of paintball with real guns rather than a REAL war. As for the options there are many but lacking any real essence. No true influential option exists really. Expand
  22. Nov 13, 2012
    7
    In my modest opinion, this game is a big meh. Graphics are pretty bad if we take as a reference some other games as Battlefield 3 or Uncharted. Enemy IA is as bad as usual. The campaign, as far as I've played it, looks a bit forced an unbeliveable, bringing back characters just because they felt like doing it, but this may be as well due to the huge dissapointment that the graphicsIn my modest opinion, this game is a big meh. Graphics are pretty bad if we take as a reference some other games as Battlefield 3 or Uncharted. Enemy IA is as bad as usual. The campaign, as far as I've played it, looks a bit forced an unbeliveable, bringing back characters just because they felt like doing it, but this may be as well due to the huge dissapointment that the graphics provoqued on me. Seriously. They are unworthy for a late 2012 game. But there are some features that I liked: the option to change the equalizer is interesting, and also, at least in Spanish version, the sound has been greatly improved since BO (where it was terrible, with big changes of volume between cinematics and gameplay and even missing cinematic sounds). I enjoyed, too, being able to choose my pickup before some missions, making it more customizable than previous CoD games.

    Obviously the strong point of the game is the multiplayer. But the multiplayer is very similar to the BO1 multiplayer. I felt like there were no innovation, excepting the killstreaks, which are pretty cool, and the way to get them (instead of a certain number of kills, you have to get a certain amount of points. For example, if you make more headshots, you will have the streaks faster). I really liked this feature, since it feels a bit innovative and easier but not too easy.

    The maps, despite of the graphics (altough in multiplayer I understand a non-greatness in this aspect) and since I always praise post-apocalyptic dystopian scenarios, are amusing, beautiful and well designed. The spawns are OK, much better than in MW3.

    The weapons are a mix between BO1 and MW3; different names but identical functionality and usage. There aren't very OP weapons, but they insist to maintain the akimbos in some weapons. The sound of the weapons is, as the spawn, OK but much better than in MW3, and they look good.

    In the aspect of customization, it is a stereotypical MW, but with some differences which make it feels refreshed. For example, you can customize a class with 10 "objects" at most. "objects" include weapons, weapon sights, grenades and perks like marathon and stuff.

    They kept the cinema mode. This is just great if you want to watch and edit videos, a really good feature as it was on BO1.

    TL;DR: A good game; not innovative in some aspects but it tries to refresh the way you play, pretty **** graphics and a meh campaign. 7/10 and not worth 65
    Expand
  23. Nov 22, 2012
    6
    Black Ops 2 is a solid game. It's not great and suffers from many faults. Personally I don't care for the futuristic angle but that's just my taste. Kudos to Treyarch for release a working game and not a broken one like Warfighter (yeah, I hate that game). Crashes happen rarely and when they do, you don't lose anything. The match just migrates servers and starts where it left off. VoiceBlack Ops 2 is a solid game. It's not great and suffers from many faults. Personally I don't care for the futuristic angle but that's just my taste. Kudos to Treyarch for release a working game and not a broken one like Warfighter (yeah, I hate that game). Crashes happen rarely and when they do, you don't lose anything. The match just migrates servers and starts where it left off. Voice chat works (yeah, I'm looking at you EA.) and I haven't come across any serious bugs. The main flaw which prevents a higher rating is that the game in multiplayer doesn't feel like combat at all. It feels more like a game of paintball. Other shooters like Bad Company 2 does a much better job at creating a engaging atmosphere even in multiplayer. But Black Ops 2 is still miles better than BF3 and Warfighter. Expand
  24. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Firstly, the cartoon graphics lend the game to more a video game than authenticity which isn't a bad thing as it is just a game. In my opinion doesnt have the sophistication of Medal of honor or the true leader of FPS action Battlefield BUT it is addictive and fun just not as classy as its predecessor Bops1. Its ok as COD version ??? but as a leader not anymore.
  25. Nov 19, 2012
    5
    Another disappointment. I thought that Call of Duty Black Ops 2 will be different, or will make some improvements, sadly, this game does only a few improvements in graphics, nothing more. The campaign is solid, with some great cutscenes. Multiplayer is the same, as always. It is with less killstreaks and It's more slow paced, but still frustrating. Zombies is complicated, so, It's lessAnother disappointment. I thought that Call of Duty Black Ops 2 will be different, or will make some improvements, sadly, this game does only a few improvements in graphics, nothing more. The campaign is solid, with some great cutscenes. Multiplayer is the same, as always. It is with less killstreaks and It's more slow paced, but still frustrating. Zombies is complicated, so, It's less fun than original Black Ops's zombies. (5.0) Expand
  26. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    Campaign is decent in comparison to other CoDs but still pretty mediocre. Multiplayer maps are also mediocre, and the game has some serious technical problems. The weapon balance is excellent, however, but in typical Treyarch fashion, there is very little variety among the weapons. Generally not enough recoil on them either. Zombies is actually a lot worse than it was in WaW and BO, butCampaign is decent in comparison to other CoDs but still pretty mediocre. Multiplayer maps are also mediocre, and the game has some serious technical problems. The weapon balance is excellent, however, but in typical Treyarch fashion, there is very little variety among the weapons. Generally not enough recoil on them either. Zombies is actually a lot worse than it was in WaW and BO, but still playable. The game is decent overall, but it lacks in innovation and change, as we have come to expect from Call of Duty titles. Overall, very meh. Expand
  27. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    So I bought the game, hoping it'd be better than the last CoD I bought (MW2). A bit disappointed.

    Started playing the campaign, and what I found was an interactive movie. Gameplay is easy even on the higher difficulties where you'll only die if you think yourself Rambo and start running and gunning. The story is decent. The scripting was OK, and overall the sequences felt well played
    So I bought the game, hoping it'd be better than the last CoD I bought (MW2). A bit disappointed.

    Started playing the campaign, and what I found was an interactive movie. Gameplay is easy even on the higher difficulties where you'll only die if you think yourself Rambo and start running and gunning. The story is decent. The scripting was OK, and overall the sequences felt well played out. If you want a cinematic experience, you'll get one. If you want something more, such as gameplay and replay value... this may not be your game.

    Multiplayer is the same as always, with some added stuff. It's enjoyable as long as you turn off voices or can bear being screamed at by the frequent twelve year old.
    Zombies are always a fun addition.

    Overall I don't think the game is bad, but it's nothing great either. A mediocre game in my opinion.
    And seriously : update your graphics engine, the game is starting to feel old.
    Expand
  28. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    Better than MW3 but still a mess. The campaign is somewhat decent and the create a class system is a breath of fresh air however it's all for naught as they have made aiming down the sight pointless. SMG weapons now have a huge accuracy making all other weapons obsolete and ruining any fun to be had. The maps had potential but where ruined by placement of barrels and random cover nearBetter than MW3 but still a mess. The campaign is somewhat decent and the create a class system is a breath of fresh air however it's all for naught as they have made aiming down the sight pointless. SMG weapons now have a huge accuracy making all other weapons obsolete and ruining any fun to be had. The maps had potential but where ruined by placement of barrels and random cover near doorways and alleys to make sure that camping is encouraged. The only thing worse than the game is it's community who are presently "Learning the maps" by hiding behind every doorway and wall with an SMG to smite you down with an instant kill. The game is having a lot of connection problems on PS3, it's community are cancer and the game is generally broken. I suggest waiting until the masses trade it back in as they do every year to get it cheaper. This game is worth £20. Expand
  29. Nov 15, 2012
    6
    While not perfect, CoD: Blops 2 is a good improvement over CoD:MW3, but it suffers from the same mistakes the developers have made these past 6 years. Which is kind of saddening if you think about it. The singleplayer is decent and offer some little additions in comparison to the previous installments. But in the end it's still the short and forgettable rollercoaster ride you'd expect fromWhile not perfect, CoD: Blops 2 is a good improvement over CoD:MW3, but it suffers from the same mistakes the developers have made these past 6 years. Which is kind of saddening if you think about it. The singleplayer is decent and offer some little additions in comparison to the previous installments. But in the end it's still the short and forgettable rollercoaster ride you'd expect from a COD game. The graphics show little improvement and the engine really starts to feel old, even if Treyarch really tries to stretch it. The series is really getting behind on this aspect, especially compared to last year's BF3.
    The zombies mode features some nice new modes and will keep co-op lovers busy for a while, but I would have loved to see more than 3 maps in the retail game. And finally we arrive at the most important part of the game: the multiplayer. The mp gets a small overhaul with a new menu-UI and the 10-point system (which we also saw in the excellent M.A.G.). The maps look nice, with a lot of variety. All the classic Blops mp modes are back and the game offer some great features for competitive play. But in the end it remains the run-and-shoot game, with little teamwork and the same annoyances in casual games we've seen since MW2. I find it also baffling that Activision still doesn't offer us dedicated servers, resulting in lag, disconnections, connection errors, host migrations,... Let's hope we"ll see some improvements in the future, but the past has learned me to have little confidence in Activision.
    Expand
  30. Nov 20, 2012
    5
    I have mixed feelings about this CoD. Treyarch defenitely put a lot of effort in the multiplayer, campaign and zombies. However, it did not pay off. The biggest problem in multiplayer is STILL lag compensation and hit detection. For those of you that don't know, CoD does not have dedicated servers but picks 1 player as the host, which is far worse. It makes multiplayer a horribleI have mixed feelings about this CoD. Treyarch defenitely put a lot of effort in the multiplayer, campaign and zombies. However, it did not pay off. The biggest problem in multiplayer is STILL lag compensation and hit detection. For those of you that don't know, CoD does not have dedicated servers but picks 1 player as the host, which is far worse. It makes multiplayer a horrible experience, I have 50mb/s internet and it's still horrible. However, the perks and weapons are pretty balanced and they did a good job there.

    Then there is zombies, which is what I bought it for actually. Huge dissapointment. The tranzit mode is kind of fun, yes, but its far too complicated compared to BO1. There are no good spots to walk in circles and just shoot them up like in Der Riese or Ascension. The maps Town, Bus depot and Farm are flat out HORRIBLE. There is lava everywhere, bus depot doesn't have any perks, no wonder weapons, it's overly crowded and in Farm you can't see more than 2 meters in front of you because of all the mist. The lava sets you on fire every second. If you love WaW/BO1 zombies DO NOT BUY THIS. It's really horrible.

    The campaign is okay, just okay. It looks good but CoD has been running on the same quake engine since 2007 so this is as good as it get folks.

    Then there is the bugs. My PS3 fat keeps freezing about once per hour. I thought the patch would fix it but it didn't.

    Conclusion: Great effort. They tried and made some innovative things but they really messed up zombies and multiplayer is unplayable until certain things mentioned before are improved.

    Cheers from a loyal CoD player since 2004.
    Expand
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 21
  2. Negative: 0 out of 21
  1. Play UK
    Jan 12, 2013
    80
    One of the most complete, albeit shaky, packages the series has ever seen. [Issue#226, p.68]
  2. Jan 3, 2013
    90
    While the campaign length is fairly standard of past iterations of the series, it's worth multiple playthroughs and the multiplayer offers endless hours of fun and enjoyment; whether it's slaying zombies or facing off against other players in a wide range of multiplayer modes with an endless number of loadout combinations.
  3. PSM3 Magazine UK
    Dec 23, 2012
    78
    Worth checking out for online and the sci-fi novelty value alone. [Jan 2013, p.95]