User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 912 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 10, 2010
    Hello there, I felt compelled to write my first review of a computer game after playing Black Ops, for reasons that will become clear. To set the scene I'm 29 and have been playing computer games since I was about 8, i love FPSes and all sorts of other genres but particular favourites are CoD, MOH, and the Battlefield series which I play on the Ps3 and PC. I was looking forward to Black Ops for a variety of reasons but mainly because I wondered how MW2 could be improved upon and I thought MW2 was pretty darn good. I held off buying MOH as I thought i'd go for the old favourite having played CoD on both systems since its' inception. I felt it right to try and wrtie an evenhanded review of this game in order to assist anyone wondering if they should fork out their hard earned cash for it. I forced myself to play to Level 19 so I could experience Hardcore mode (which was annoying to say the least to have to 'earn' that) and I played the single player campaign on veteran. I have played the game for 21 hours.

    Single Player: The graphics are atrocious. They remind me of some of the worst elements of the graphics on MW or perhaps earlier. There are various parts of the compaign that ...simply put....dont work. For instance in the cuban villa, a guard wrestles a 'baddie' over a railing. Hang on, go back, if i run in a little earlier they magically appear in front of me. In addition, I stab a guard hitting a man on the ground in the jailbreak, the man on the ground continues to flail around and then disappears. such obvious but joy-undermining flaws are abundant. Let it not be said the campaign story is not immersive if a little trite. What it fails to do is harness the basics, it does not feel like you are in a fight, it does not feel like you are firing real bullets and it does not feel like the enemy are clued up. In addition, whomever had the idea of your two buddies being bullet proof through a shower of bullets needs to check the definiton of 'realism'. How could this be fixed? I am not sure, but I would suggest that not having key characters indestructible would be a good start. Now I have to say, to be fair the guys at treyarch did get one important thing right: if you stand on a grenade your leg gets blown off. CORRECT. This type of realism is a blessing and something that should be echoed hereafter. Not since F.E.A.R have I felt that a programmer has attempted to harness 'gore' in such a way. That is something that all other FPSes so far fail to acknowledge or accomodate. However, if this is at the expense of the graphics, textures etc then perhaps it is too early, as in CoD:BO (sorry). Multiplayer: I guess that if i was 15 and loved to run around with an SMG spraying the crap out of people, or drive a tiny car that exploded this would be the game for me. Perhaps somewhere along the line I grew up (although my gf would beg to differ), or maybe CoD and in particular Treyarch didn't. What we have here is a lot of guff that will amaze the teenager in you, but for the old hands, will probably wear off in the first 6 hours of gameplay. This is of course, not an in-depth review (although some of the 'in-depth' reviews I have read should be more appropriately titled "What I Loved About CoD: BO, being as they appear to ride roughshod over the very obvious and 'epic' failings of the MP structure)., so I can only say the following. 1. The maps are tiny 2. The graphics are even worse (compare to BFBC2 for example) 3.The upgrade system is interesting but ultimately gloss 4.The modes are no different in essence to Mw or Mw2. There is nothing of substance here that could genuinely be called 'groundbreaking' or indeed 'new'. Add to those complaints the connectivity delays, the sudden closure of a server and reboot within another, the appalling sound, and the general lack of detail and what you have is a glossed up version of MW2 without any of the glorious detail or depth.Some other things that annoyed me:This cost me £39.00. not a fortune but relatively a lot of money, and what I feel like I purchased was MW2, that had been actually stripped down of its essential detail, to be replaced with gloss but no substance. It feels like a remake for a lower budget and it feels like a rip-off. The term 'expansion' springs to mind. I accept that the audience to which this game is sold is far more likely to be about 15 years of age and into the run-and-gun modes. I also accept that is where the money is, and that this game has its positives, but they appear to be so limited in imagination that I feel like I have stepped into 'Arcade CoD' and after 21 hours played I want to get right back out again. I had the night booked into my Ps3 to play online with some mates and at 20:30 I turned it off and came on here. That is how annoyingly bad, unimaginitive, and, it pains me to say. un-CoD like this game is. In summary? Save your money and avoid gushing reviews.
  2. Nov 9, 2010
    Personally I think it is 100% over-hyped, and an average game at best. Modern Warfare 2 is more fluid and vibrant and more fun to play. Black Ops feels clunky and unresponsive, with dated saturated graphics and glitchy textures. The stereoscopic 3D is very poor as well compared to games like Wipeout HD and Moterstorm which look amazing in 3D. Poor.
  3. Nov 10, 2010
    I was looking forward to this game after reading about all the new features it promised online. As I am at Uni, I play a lot of split screen mw2 with friends so when I read 'bots in splitscreen' I thought great now we can play team matches rather than all v all. When I got the game, I find that the graphics are worse, the gameplay is slow and boring, the splitscreen offline is limited to no bots with only player 1 being able to create a profile with classes, you START with all the guns unlocked (wtf?) which removes any incentive to play, and only player 1 can even use killstreaks whilst on splitscreen. Furthermore, to fully utilise the splitscreen mode (bots, profiles, unlocks etc.), you need to be logged in to the PS Network, which makes no sense at all seeing as the game you start then, is hosted on your own PS3 not online. I mention being at Uni because I cannot connect to the internet on the PS3, hence playing splitscreen, hence massive annoyance at the 'Online local splitscreen' seriously what a joke. Even the splitting of the screen is done badly as with 3 people the 3rd player's screen doesn't fill the whole bottom half. Why not? Its not like i'm playing profesionally with 2 other professionals for money or something. use the whole damn screen.

    The online multiplayer mode is the home of the only new content in the game, and it is good, wager mode is fun and gives new urgency to games. However, all of the equipment, perks and costumes, are dull. None of the guns are as pleasing as the ones in mw2, the snipers look like peashooters and make a similar noise, the M16 looks like a toy and the general sounds of battle are essentially the same bang noise over and over again. None of the perks are appealing, in mw2, you wanted all the perks at once and sometimes took a while to choose which one was best, in Black Ops, 80% are dull and useless and you end up making every class with the same perks and equipment. The costume idea is new, but stupid, as you have to change it every map to blend in. Granted zombie mode is back, this is fun as most people know from WaW. But honestly, 1 map...the same thing over and over again until they make me pay more money for a new one. It's not worth it, and if I wanted zombie mode to be the best part of the game I would just go and play Left 4 Dead...

    Ok so the final mode is the Campaign. After having a long few hours trying to make the best of the crap splitscreen and multiplayer games, I decided to start this up figuring it might redeem the game. I get 30 minutes into the first mission, the guy 'Woods' who i'm supposed to 'support' freezes and cant move just moving his pixelly mouth up and down making no sound. Essentially, a bug. I think ok, should be fine if i revert to the previous checkpoint like i'm sure you can do from the menu. Oh cant. Looks like a restart of the whole mission. F**k that *turns PS3 off*.

    Overall the gameplay is slower, worse looking, more boring, more repetitive and less fun than all the other Call of Dutys. Regardless of the fact that 99.9% of the content is made up of the previous 3 put together. I am very disappointed with this game and would not recommend it to fans of mw2 or WaW because it isn't as good. Oh yeah and also, they got rid of quickscoping (something fun).....and replaced it with something much more annoying.....the Crossbow. Enjoy, noob tube fans.
  4. Nov 9, 2010
    well after a single session this game looks and feels like a reskinned world at war, which to me was awful.

    the game feels slow, unpolished and sounds terrible. grenades appear to be ineffective and the smoke looks awful. I hate to hate, but I would say save ur money or try a friends copy b4 investing as this game just doesn't seem to work.
  5. Nov 9, 2010
    HORRIBLE graphics. Clunky gameplay. Poor sound. It's a MAJOR step back for COD. I'm very, very disappointed. I definitely wouldn't recommend this game...
  6. Nov 9, 2010
    Overall, this is a step down from Modern Warfare 2. I think a lot of people are too caught up in the hype to take an objective view. I'm not claiming I'm the objective one, but this game is unworthy of all the 10 out of 10 scores fanboys are so eager to slap on it. On the positive side, Theater Mode seems like a cool idea. I'd love to have a record of any epic moments. Unlocking many items, upgrades, and perks through purchases is a plus for me as well. The weak graphics are an embarrassment to the makers. I think the game would look pretty much the same in standard definition. Back in 2004, these graphics might have been neat-o, but in 2010 they're a bit hokey. The sound is also disappointing. Most everything that explodes, as an example, has a sort of generic "pop." With regard to gameplay, I agree with another reviewer who said Black Ops feels clunky and unresponsive, lacking the smoothness and fluidity I now realize I took for granted in Modern Warfare 2. As a matter of fact, Black Ops' biggest impact on me has been to help me realize just how great MW2 is. A few minutes ago--and without remorse--I decided to sell my copy of Black Ops to a friend. There are too many good PS3 games out there for me to force myself to love a mediocre one. Expand
  7. Nov 11, 2010
    Activision must slob a good knob to get such good critical reviews. Critics are raving about this game wherever you turn, but the real story is that the game is quite lacking and hopefully it's garbage enough that Activision has finally slaughtered the golden goose they've been milking for the past 3 years.

    Graphics, sound design, and AI characteristics are on par with Call of Duty 2
    from 2005. While no FPS to date seems to strive for super realistic AI; MOH and BFBC2 at least have better graphics and sound design. At what point does intensity just become annoying... with an explosion every two seconds and being knocked down with fuzzy vision 3 times a level and more bullets flying than were fired in all of WW2... I'd say it's a bit too much, but hey more is better for some people.

    M3chaGr4n nails it and writes a better review than I do, so read his below. Let me just say that you're probably better off buying Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2011.
  8. Nov 10, 2010
    BLACK OOPS! This game is appalling, do not buy. I have now wasted £40 on something that could have been fished out of the toilet. Bad Graphics, 'Laggy' online play and bad spawn points all contributed to the most overhyped and biggest dissapointment of the century. This game only recieved a 2 because the mildly entertaining campaign amused me for a while. However you buy COD for online, which is this game's achillies heel. Expand
  9. Nov 11, 2010
    This game is the biggest piece of garbage, ever since Activision made the mistake by letting Treyarch develop call of duty games. They really hit an all time low by re-skining the same game. Your bascially buying call of duty 4 for $60. Its like buying halo reach which is the same game!. The game engine is just an enhanced IW4.0 engine. Nothing new. The biased critics gave the review to high of a score. They were bribed or just plain old sucking some ****. I was a call of duty fan since the first game came out made by infinity ward. But since they fired the original creators and half of the employee's left infinity ward. Call of duty is garbage now. You guys can keep buying garbage games made by Treyarch. I'll stick to superior FPS games like battlefield bad company 2 and medal of honor. It really is sad. I USED to be a call of duty fan. Expand
  10. Nov 10, 2010
    I don't understand all you people giving this game a 10. I love MW2 and the Call of Duty series but please Black Ops is garbage. I mean the campaign is fine but the online multiplayer is horrible. 1. Graphics seem like PS2. 2. Sound FX are awful. 3. The game engine Treyarch uses sucks. 4. It's produced by Treyarch. 5. Gameplay seems speed up 1x and is clunky. 6. When you melee someone the knife doesn't have the same effect like it's going into the guy as in MW2. Bottom line wait for another Call of Duty produced by Infinity Ward. Also the two top guys from Infinity Ward and (co-founder) of Call of Duty set up their own studio, Respawn Entertainment. So keep a look out for them! Expand
  11. Nov 9, 2010
    Frankly this game is disappointing. The multiplayer game mechanic is solid, obviously but that's not enough to raise this latest effort from the pit of mediocrity it languishes in. And let's face it.. the graphics are atrocious. This game was supposed to be a cut above mwf2, not a huge step down. It's not as fluid an experience either, instead of the polished, clicking mwf2 fun machine that was expected, this game for all it's good points just goes.... clunk. Expand
  12. Nov 10, 2010
    First of all, I got This game just to play it with my friends. I never liked COD series and Getting this game mad me see why I dislike so much this franchise.
    -Graphics: I'm not so impressed by the graphics of this game, any other big FPS game has better graphics. If you want to see good graphics just wait for Killzone 3. MAG and BO have about the same graphics.
    -Physics: The
    physics are terrible, the characters move like a fast forwarding-movie, the hit-detection is bad, the accuracy fails, it's rubbish.
    -Gameplay: The game has the same game modes as always, very fast action, not enjoyable. You die every 15 seconds, no team play, You don't get the feeling of being playing against real people. Very laggy. I keep getting disconnected every single game. Takes to much time to start a game with friends/join them.
    Sounds: The sounds aren't improved from the last game and they are really poor. The gun sounds are very bad. I don't feel a feeling of being in a war.
    Visual Effects: The lightning effects are really good for this game I love the night time shadows and lights effects.
    The multiplayer maps are very small.
    The single player campaign is very simple and brief.
    You can have I little fun with this game but it won't last.
    There are better options for FPS for the PS3 including MAG, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Killzone 2 and Medal of Honor.

    Don't waste your money, Save it for Killzone 3 or Gran Turismo 5.
  13. Nov 11, 2010
    From all the thing it lacked luster being it didn't even live up to the COD franchise benchmark . I would like to add this important news flash when you make a game stereoscopic 3D you need to @ least have 1 3D affect in the game cause it just looked like a bad attempted @ 3D . Infinityward please stop publishing COD games . Have your Developers make a new IP FPS . Killzone 3 alpha code Beta looks sounds & runs better then Black Ops could ever wish too & in 3D too Expand
  14. Nov 10, 2010
    Frame rate sucks , graphics far inferior than MW2 that came out a year ago, MP lacks excitement and oooomph, don't even get started on the sound effects, they're horrible , explosions go off with just a generic pop, you barely hear people shooting from 10 feet from you , on a big map you you never get to hear anything unless you're shooting, chopper gunner can be right on top of you killing you and you don't hear anything!!! I would not **** as much if the game was at least fluid , but it controls clunky and just like WAW!! They just used the same mechanics with new guns that's all! And since they used the same graphics engine from more than 2 years ago and they tried to add more detail they ended up making everything blurry it looks almost like you're playing in standard definition TV and also as a result causing the game's frame rate to constantly drop giving you a headache if you play too long. This is coming from a guy that has played previous installments to death and was very much looking forward to this one. I'm so angry and disappointed . I mean Activision should have the funds to make a graphics engine from the ground up and could have made the game run and look at least as smooth as MW2. Now we're stuck with a mediocre COD game until who knows!!!!! Expand
  15. Nov 11, 2010
    Call of Duty has truly become the Apple product of fps...

    Waste of money.
    2005 Graphics.
    PC/Framerate/CPU/GPU issues everywhere even for people with state-of-the-art rigs.
    Multiplayer issues.
    RC Car.
    Poor Storyline/Campaign.

    Prepare yourselves, begun has the death of video gaming.
  16. Nov 11, 2010
    What the hell happened to this game! It used to be greatness on a disc now it's just mediocre, If it didn't have COD in the title you would think it was a different game. This game is **** from a greedy company and ****ty developer. Black Ops was such a disappointment and I can't believe I was taken in by all the hype from reviews! That just goes to show you that you can't trust reviewers they are journalists, not gamers so they wouldn't know what a good game is. I could not believe how ****ty this game looked, there was a gun I was using that looked like it was from Golden Eye N64! That's how bad the textures are, idk if it was the same on the xbox 360 but it was awful on the PS3. Every texture in this game was awful from the guns to the maps and also I noticed that the sound effects were cheesy too, the guns sounded like bb guns and explosions sounded like balloons popping. And the MP maps, wow don't get me started on the MP maps, they were downright terrible I never seen such bad level design I always felt like I was traversing a maze, sometimes I wouldn't even see more than 8 people during a game because of how big and mazy the maps are. Yes there is serous lag, cliping and frame issues. I will never pick up another Treyarch game again I was let down by WAW and now Black Ops. Treyarch is definitely Activisions B team for Call of Duty.â Expand
  17. Nov 11, 2010
    Being a older gamer i have come to the conclusion. That i have become more critical of all games. Which brings me to Black ops. Its the same old same old. I feel i am giving activision money to be lazy and not to push the bar higher. When i play games i want ground breaking, i want unique. This has neither of that. It has new perks but really all the same just new names, it has new maps, could have just put this on a map pack for MW2, This has custom guns big deal. I guess if you need a change from The quick scoping and hackers then buy black ops. its still fun and it does have new maps. That is all that has changed. I expect more from a game maker like activision. Positives: New game, new rank up system ( sort of), customize guns. cons: Plays like all the rest. To sum it up buy it, play it, and i guess enjoy it. For what its worth. I for one will be counting the days until the next big Fps. Expand
  18. Mar 1, 2011
    Black Ops summed up. -AK47 looks like a motherf**kin duracell battery, no joke. -rolling thunder lags more than a virgin in bed
    -I swear I bought this game on N64 before, yep, I remember, it was on NES! -Yeah um RC cars...yeah.NO. -dolphin diving. WHO'S F**KIN IDEA WAS THAT?!
    -COD pts, if I gave a sh!t about shopping I would play hannah montana the game and chop my d**k off. -Guns noises
    sound like some cheap magician's prop you'd buy at a Mexican's drug dealer's shop. -Oh yay no more nuke boosting! TOO BAD THIS GAME IS BORING AS F**K! -Nuketown = what came out of treyarch's as*hole after smoking 2 tons of crack -Servers - I don't know BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET INTO ONE GAME WITHOUT SEEING THIS F**KIN SIGN "UH OH! Lost of connection! Sorry for the inconvenience we're just to busy being jews to give a **** -Map names: JUNGLE, Oh this maps has bushes and sh!t so we're just gonna name it jungle, DERP
    - Single player - no, victor resnov was a figment of his imagination?! OH I DIDN'T SEE THAT except WHEN I TOTALLY F**KIN SAW IT. Zombies - Luigi's mansion anyone?
    Sniping - yeah, i decided that swearing would be too much to handle so will leave it at that. DLC - rofl. Wait you're serious? Summed up: I don't know what to say, if you want to give your money so the penny licking jews at treyarch can wipe their ass with it then go ahead. As for me, I'm gonna get drunk so I can forget this huge steaming pile of whale's vagina ever existed.
  19. Jan 4, 2011
    This game could've been a great game, but it isn't. Animations are stiff and boring and makes pretty much all of the gameplay feel unrealistic. In game scripting is horrible and could've used quite a few tweaks. (Pre scripted paths that doesn't change regardless of how many VC soldiers you kill, enemies that despawn once you enter triggers, inadequately placed save points etc.) More coding support could've been used too. (Seriously - check the suger canes in the sugar cane field on Cuba and notice how they don't move in the wind with their roots being connected to the ground, they all have a swiveling point about a meter up from the ground which makes it look like the roots are moving back and forth in the ground. This and the fact that they all pretty much move at the same time makes this part of the game feel like it's tilting to your right, it's hilarious.)
    Sound is utter crap, how can you make a game and pretty much have the same random set of sounds regardless of whether you're hitting a concrete wall or a metal pipe with your knife? Gun sounds are weak and bland, pretty much like in CoD3. They simply don't feel like guns. Indoor reverb is horrible and does not change when you move from a small corridor to a large warehouse, it all sounds like a huge tin can. What made it completely horrendous to me was the attempt at plot/story. Why? I'd rather run around and just shoot at stuff rather than replay this game with a story, considering the quality of the script and the acting.
  20. Nov 10, 2010
    Very disappointing game. Feels like a rubbish map expansion pack of Mw2 with added in crap. Single player is very average and the multiplayer is riddled with issues.
  21. Nov 10, 2010
    Singleplayer is horrible as it is still plagued by horrible ai, but this time the problem lies with programmers as well. There isn't even close to enough triggers on the maps to make the teammates to appear even semi real. Finding the trigger point after flanking enemies can be pain. On top of that the respawning enemies still exist and teammates are still firing blanks at a guy standing 3 feet from you completely visible.

    Multiplayer is faster due to making snipers unusable which is good in a arcade shooter like this and the game modes can be conceived as fun. I don't think its enough to merit buying the game if you own mw1, mc2 or even mw2.
  22. Nov 12, 2010
    Feels like a toygame after MW2. Sounds lack depth, multiplayer has lag issues, it looks uglier than it's predecessor. Nazi zombies are still a lot of fun, too bad the multiplayer isn't as good as MW2's mp.
  23. Nov 14, 2010
    Graphics: Very Decent in my opinion. On par with MW2, textures and "build" of the spaces in the game were detailed and thought through. Sound: In a word; HORRIBLE. It seems to me that 3Arc decided to cut the budget in the sound department, and only record 2 sounds for every shotgun, grenade, assault rifle, claymore etc. Everything sounds the same. Game play:
    Not great, not bad. In
    comparison to Modern Warfare 2 (which I thought was brilliant) they screwed up a few key elements. For one, when running then attempting to slouch into a prone position, instead, now you do a Superman jump and baseball slide an extra couple of body lengths from where you expected to be prone. Also, they changed the function of the d-pad to control more of the introduced elements, in a very annoying way. I team killed a few people when erroneously throwing semtex near them, instead of placing a claymore. Which brings me to...
    While having a lot more to offer than previous titles in the way of customization, many of those features are useless in multiplayer. Worse, there is a lot of ambiguity amongst all the assault rifles and sub machine guns. Unless it's one of the 3-round burst weapons, or single shot, the differences between the automatic weapons are a split hair from one another. Sniper rifles are next to useless in multiplayer. Partially because none of them offer much advantage over their single-fire assault rifle counterparts. Partially because recoil and idle sway ruin any attempt for a refire or second hit. And partially because staying hidden and remote enough to make a scoped, slow weapon useful is impossible. Shotguns are too limited in range, and don't offer enough punch to make them effective in anything but urban maps in hardcore mode. For all of these faults, there should be some gaming worth playing in COD:BO multiplayer, but unfortunately it plays really, really badly. As evidenced in many a kill-cam, persons killed without being hit, knife thrusts that strike at shadows of enemies somehow getting the win. Of course this is all a product of lag, and poor connections, but its so pervasive in Black Ops that it infuriates and frustrates to no end. To this end, the game would have scored a full 3 or 4 points higher for me if more attention had been payed to making multiplayer sharp. At the end of the day, once you've beaten the campaign, and you want to play the other $50 of your $60 game, multiplayer is only worth about $6.50.
  24. Nov 15, 2010
    From a multiplayer perspective, I cannot understand people such a weak game. Yes, the ability to buy weapons and perks was a great idea and allowed for customisation. Additionally, the ability to vote on a map to play was very cool. HOWEVER... 1) The graphics were a total step back from Modern Warfare 2. 2) The audio was very weak. Explosions almost sounded apologetic. 3) The gameplay was slow.
    4) The framerate dropped on almost every game I played, despite selecting to play against local people.
    5) Not being able to drop your secondary weapon to pick up another primary weapon makes no sense.

    Treyarch should be ashamed to have created such rubbish. Never again will I buy one of their games. Thank god that EB refunds for games you don't like.
  25. Nov 13, 2010
    Played this game at a buddy's house, and watched him play online. Was not impressed, to say the least. Stupid A.I., bland level design, horrid graphics, idiotic storyline, cheap looking and sounding guns, heavily scripted combat, and lackluster, laggy online multiplayer. Nowhere near as good at MW2 (and that's means quite a bit, seeing how the MP in MW2 was unbalanced crap). Stay away.
  26. Nov 12, 2010
    What was Treyarch thinking... I now understand why they had a closed beta!

    One of the worst COD games I have played in the last 4 years. Biggest mistake made was losing Infinity Ward! Only reason I gave a score of 2, is the campaign mode. Do not buy unless you have lots money to waste and don't mind getting an inferior product.
  27. Nov 12, 2010
    ** -- >>> 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.
  28. Nov 12, 2010
    I got this game the day it came out and have been playing it since then so far from my experience i have decided that this game is ultimately a step back and a step forward. While this game is easily better than world at war and is a step forward for Treyarch, it is a complete step backward from games from infinity ward and the Call of Duty franchise as a whole.
  29. Nov 12, 2010
    Black Ops is an insult to FPS gamers. My rating of 0 is based only on the MP as that is the only reason I buy COD. The design and concept of the game is the best I've seen but the lag makes the game completely unplayable at a competitive level. This is not the first time Treyarch has pulled this crap at release and I don't care if its later patched they knew how many players would be on the servers day one and the were completely unprepared its amazing that this is legal $60 for a broken product times 6000000. Expand
  30. Nov 16, 2010
    I fell for the hype and pre-ordered the hardened edition of Black Ops. I wanted the extra zombie maps, and based on how good MW2 was, I didn't think I could go wrong. After about a week of playing Black Ops I am very dissapointed. The poor graphics were the first thing I noticed. A sequel should at least maintain the same level of quality in graphics, if not improve upon them. The sound quality also seems below par compared to MW2. These aren't even my biggest complaints. I could overlook the sound and graphics if the gameplay was improved. In my opinion the maps are not designed as well as those in MW2. MW2 maps have more variety and combine close quarters fighting, sniping, etc... into the same maps. Because of the map design I can't find a reason to use the sniper rifles on any of the Black Ops maps. The spawn system is much worse than in MW2, especially in team deathmatch. I thought the spawn system was one of the major issues they were supposed to address in this game. Also, apparently they haven't stopped boosters and other cheaters. Within a few hours of release I was playing against people who were level 48 or 50. Really????WTF??? And as far as noob tubers and campers, I have been noob tubed more in one week of playing than I have been in my last several months of playing MW2. Also, camping is still a big problem. I think that in order to get their 9 or 11 kill streaks people are camping more than ever. The kill streaks are seriously overpowered. The chopper gunner and gunship lay waste to the other team on these small maps. I do not understand why they put the "dolphin dive" or "dive to prone" or whatever they want to call it in the game. All that move is good for is getting killed. All they have succeded in doing is messing up the smooth gameplay of MW2. The feel of the guns is not as good as MW2. The guns all feel similar. Each gun in MW2 had its own personality. They have also ruined the sniper rifles. Now when you scope in the crosshairs are off target and you have to correct. This was done to stop quickscopers. I don't quickscope, but this ruins it for me too. You are at way too much of a disadvantage using a sniper rifle. There seems to be many redundant or useless attachments for the guns. The ACOG sight would be an example of this. The ACOG sight has no magnification and there is an annoying reflection and fisheye effect when you look through the lens that obscures your view. You are better off with iron sights. In general the attachments in MW2 were better and actually did something for the gun. The gun customization also seems to be a joke. You can clownify your gun with wacky colors/camo and emblems. You can also clownify your character with facepaint. Now those are some great innovations that have improved the game! I am a fan of first-person shooters and the Call of Duty franchise in general, but this game is not better than MW2 or any of the other preceding Call of Duty games. I am shocked at the lack of honest reviews. I guess there are a lot of fanboys out there and it is not in the interest of the gaming media to not promote this game. I hope people continue to play MW2, because thats were I'll be until something better comes out. Expand

Generally favorable reviews - based on 58 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 58
  2. Negative: 0 out of 58
  1. Call of Duty: Black Ops still represents one hell of a hefty package. It's bursting with hundreds of hours of entertainment that caters to every conceivable configuration of gamer out there, be they an adversarial gamer, a co-op connoisseur or a staunch offline soloist. [January 2011 p60]
  2. Jan 18, 2011
    By dint of obstinacy, Treyarch delivers probably its best with Black Ops Call of Duty to date - but probably not the best in the saga.
  3. Jan 16, 2011
    There are more highlights in the first two missions of Black Ops, then in Medal of Honor. The requirements of Treyarch seemed to be better, than in the past few years. They made an interesting setting. In addition, there's a nice zombie mode and an overwhelming multiplayer. No doubt, this is Treyarchs best Call of Duty ever!