User Score
4.6

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 2047 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 23, 2012
    0
    Freezes your system, camper friendly, overpowered weapons, crap campaign, etc. This is just the start if you buy this game. It's horrible. The worst game I've ever played in my life. This, coming from a person who doesn't get disappointed easily or demands a refund. If I purchase something and I don't like it, it's usually no biggie. But I literally feel unclean owning this. I don't even think selling it will help at all. I warned you. -ex Cod fan. Expand
  2. Nov 23, 2012
    2
    I have owned every duty title and this is by far the worst. Massive lag spikes regardless of your own internet speed, terrible level designs, unimaginative level system, and terrible gameplay are only the beginning of the problem. The single player is the only reason this game got a 2, if i was rating only the multiplayer I would give a 0. Only sniper rifles can kill enemies with a headshot, other guns require 2-4 bullets in the head to kill. The lag is so horrendous you need to aim 5-10 feet in front of your target to make up for it. Only 1 new game type which is hardpoint is nothing but headquarters but leaving you more exposed which turns the game in to a die-a-thon. PLEASE do not buy this game. Expand
  3. Nov 23, 2012
    1
    This game is an absolute waste of money. The multiplayer gameplay is nothing new from any other cod game and the online servers are not only poor quality but the lag in games and terrible respawn locations make the game unbearable. It's impossible to have a good K/D because the lag times. I have never been so disappointed with a game purchase and I'd rather pay GameStop to take this game back than play another minute of it. Expand
  4. Nov 23, 2012
    7
    Finally. A major change in the series for the first time since Call of duty 4. That sentence alone restored hype to this game for me and many others.

    After the huge failure and frustration MW3 was, thousands of people gave up on cod, hell nearly even me. But then Treyarch randomly comes out of nowhere and announces some big changes, and people got excited. Not only is Black ops 2 in the
    near future with brand new technology. Campaign

    I first thing I played was campaign. It's great, a lot better than MW3's. However, it's still not the best cod campaign. I LOVED the create a class and challenge system. It added so much replay value. There are also choices throughout the story. The choices are fewer than I imagined, which disappointed me, but they have a pretty big impact on the story and it's ending. The campaign, like the others, is a blast. It's full of action and there's a twist at every turn, and it's VERY fun to play. You'll be utilizing a lot of vehicles such as a jeep, a VTOL jet, a chopper gunner, and much more. And a lot of it isn't just on rails either. You get to fully drive it through a pretty big world, not just one path, and it provides a fresh experience that is overdue. My favorite part was when you're playing as a spider robot, and you had to use strategy to maneuver throughout the vents and find a good route, and it's very cool and unexpected.

    The story is good, but there is still so many unexplained things and plotholes, and cheesy lines. I expected a bit more from the story, and it's probably the most unrealistic one to date, but it's still good. There are a few unneeded scenes like main characters getting brutally tortured and killed in front of you, like they're just minor characters, and unnecessary twists or moments.

    Menendez is a good villain, but I barely felt any pity or empathy for him, which is what the writers tried to achieved, but failed. I just hated him even more.

    They put a TON of work into the campaign, with great pre-rendered cutscenes that took a lot of work to probably do, and with all the custom animations instead of re-using others like in the MW games. Strike force missions are great, although a little confusing at first, and offer up a hugely new experience that I liked, but didn't love. The story is also surprisingly long, being as long as Cod 4. The story is also very violent, sometimes unnecessarily violent. Some deaths are just brutal and aren't needed. One interrogation that happens in the story involves someone stabbing a knife through his hand and watching him suffer, and although the guy you're interrogating is a huge jerk, it's still kind of unneeded. And some characters and plot elements could've been expanded upon, especially one character in general (you'll see who I mean).

    Zombies

    A lot of people just buy call of duty for the zombies, and it's obvious why. It's addicting as hell. Zombies in this game is fun, but not as good as the last two games. You can play tranzit, which is fun at first, exploring and finding out the huge amount of easter eggs, but once you've figured out how to do everything, it gets boring, and it's pretty damn hard. You can finally customize zombies and even change difficulty, but the only thing i've noticed is that slightly more power-ups spawn on easy. You also have that one option for tranzit, which dissapointed me. There also aren't very many guns you can get from the box, in fact a lot are from the first black ops.

    Survival is classic survival on one of the maps in tranzit. Every map except one is terrible, containing no pack a punch and limited guns. One map has all the guns, perks, and a pack a punch, but it's still small as hell and gets boring.

    Grief is survival but with two teams, and it could even end up as 8v8. It's a fun change, but it would've been SOOOOO COOOLL on tranzit, but it's only for survival.

    Multiplayer

    Some argue that the multiplayer has been the same since cod 4. And it basically is. Want to know why? It's call of duty. Call of duty 4. CALL OF DUTY Black ops 2. Get it? If you changed in, not only would nobody buy it, but it wouldn't be call of duty anymore.

    Multiplayer overall is good. The maps are a definite improvement from MW3, although they still aren't amazing, mostly because they are very small, even the larger maps, so SMG's dominate. Lag compensation is still there, but it isn't as bad as when black ops 1 came out, or MW3, which is good. It's still very annoying and it breaks the gameplay, but it's not too bad and i'm sure they'll make it better like they did in Black Ops 1.

    The pick 10 system is awesome. It adds so much customizability and it's just awesome. I love all the different combinations you can do with it, and it allows me to play more like how I want to play.

    Overall Black ops 2 is a good game. It didn't meet my expectations, but it's a definite improvement over MW3, and it offers some change.
    Expand
  5. Nov 23, 2012
    5
    The Call Of Duty series of games polarize opinion these days, when we got Modern Warfare it changed FPS multilayer standards massively bringing on board a whole new generation of fans, people who never played the first 3 were well on board after its genre defining success. While the series has stuck rigidly to its scripted, shooting gallery single player since the first game its the multi-player changes of MW1 that really brought the series to the top of its tree. That was 2007, since then we've had 4 more COD games and according to many its the lack of change in the series that has brought the recent negativity around the series which started getting very noticeable with the MW3 release. Well i didn't buy MW3, the last one i had was Black Ops 1, my favourite of them all was World At War and i have to say that overall this is nothing new.

    Firstly the campaign, yes it offers choices which are cool as they affect the ending, good idea. However the narrative, the actual missions themselves, for me its all so boring now. The story flicks between the 80's and 2025 and after few missions you really dont know why your doing anything or where you are. You just shoot hordes or re-spawning grunts until you pass a 'trigger' which progresses the action. Its uninspired and tedious, i was doing all this in COD1and i found it difficult to motivate myself to persist with it and its plethora of clichés and stereotypes.

    The new Strike missions are supposed to introduce a limited 'strategy' element to the single player. You command some squads of troops, some drones etc. and can control from a command view. The big problem is that the AI of your forces is so bad that the only way to succeed is to personally take control of troops and basically do the job yourself, which means you just end up doing what you were doing in the main story missions but with no recognisable characters or reasons to care, and they were lacking enough in the first place.

    Graphics and sound design is the same as before really, maybe a slight improvement but nothing to write home about, its good enough but i cant help but think its about time they introduced a significantly better graphics engine and stopped recycling the same textures and animations throughout every game.

    The multi-player suite returns with zombies bolted on again. Zombies is improved with some new content, game modes and equipment which breathes some new life into it, but it does not retain the appeal it had when it was a completley new feature, it doesn't feel that they innovated enough to me. They have tried to improve it no doubt but its not as exciting as it was, largely due to the fact its nothing new. Its functional and fun though and can still be a good blast with friends.

    As for the multi-player? Well its COD's bread and butter right? Its not evolved much at all.The introduction of the ten point system is good but hardly warrants the buy alone, score streaks over kill-streaks? Not really a big change, you still need to stay alive as with a kill-streak so same principles.

    The action is fast paced as usual, reliant on fast-twitch reactions more than tactics. Still no destructible environments or vehicles. Same game modes bar hard point which is a poor version of headquarters for me. Domination is the most fun but overall its all the same stuff as before, same animations, same graphics, same game. League play is a nice addition for those willing to invest the time and not addicted to unlocks and levelling up.

    Having really enjoyed the open environments and more warfare like BF3 multi-player i cant help but feel restricted and confined by COD (and i'm a fan of both series), they really need to freshen it up, it feels recycled and cheap. It wouldn't be overly harsh to say its BLOPS1 with a map pack, weapons pack, few new game modes and a little bit of polish. If you want more of the same then you wont go wrong, if you were looking for further evolution in the COD series the you'll need a time machine, the year 2007 and MW1 because that's where it remains.

    Disappointing. 5/10
    Expand
  6. Nov 22, 2012
    5
    I haven't even played the game but its fair to say that this is just another update.Fifa started this crap a long long time ago.It takes min 2 years to develop a game.3 years to develop a good game.CoD is always fun to play and that's all it is.Why do have to have two different developers?It makes no sense.Only to Activision who are just plain greedy.Let Infinity Ward develop the CoD series and let Treyarch develop the zombies.Thats what they're good at.All we ever wanted was more maps for CoD 4. Treyarch should spend their 1-2 years developing decent zombie maps instead of some of the recent rubbish they released on the 1st BOps Expand
  7. Nov 22, 2012
    0
    I really wanted to like this game. I have given it a lot of chances. It is the same game as all CODs have been. What ruins COD the most, IMO, is the community. Not just the fact of how they play online, but the fact they play, and defend at all costs, an FPS game that has strewn so far away from the very core of what and FPS should be: gun v. gun gameplay. Just like previous CODs, they primary focus in online gameplay is to ignore any objective that is required to win the game for your team, and instead sit back and get enough kills to get killstreaks. With this new installment, there are so many different ways to kill your opponent without using the weapon you are holding it is crazy. Scavenger once again replenishes grenades, C4, claymores, ect. making your weapon nearly unnecessary. Do not even get me started on the connection issues I have had with this game. Issues that make the game close to unplayable on their own. I wanted to like it, I had medium expectation from this game, I didn't expect to be blown away by anything in it, but my lower expectations could not even be halfway met.

    I can not in good conscience recommend this game based off my connection issues alone. Add in the lack of gun v. gun focus in and FPS, and I can only recommend this to the most casual of gamers who couldn't care less about how a game's mechanics work.
    Expand
  8. Nov 22, 2012
    8
    I like the multiplayer, there you go I said it. Being a long time FPS player (I started with Doom 2 on the PC). I enjoy this game. It's an arcade filled shooter of pure madness, which for me is fine. The weapon unlock system... It's addictive. I'm not going to lie. I do get a kick out of unlocking loads of items.

    Depth wise? The game has depth and plenty of content. Loads of different
    multiplayer modes. And very many different types of weapons with different play-styles. There's really nothing not to like except maybe the reason that the game is easy to play. Automatic weapons are overpowered and dominate. But I have seen skilled players dominate with other weapons such as snipers rifles also. The only downside to this product is the fact that Activision won't stop recycling the COD4 engine. I'm running this game maxed out at 180 FPS. The second issue I believe are the maps, some of them are random and make no sense. Too many buildings and corners which clutter and are confusing for the player memorize. They just don't seem that well made.

    All in all good game. Worth the money? For content yes, for the fact that the game runs on the same engine as the last four or whatever installments, then no.
    Expand
  9. Nov 22, 2012
    7
    Bought it on the cheap to play through the campaign. I have to admit, after playing all recent CoD games since CoD 2, this is my favorite campaign. It features some really tough (albeit linear) choices, but they offer plenty of incentive to play the impressive and dramatic campaign. The villain is fleshed out really well this time around, and has plenty of personality as compared to past CoD villains. There are 3 or 4 really memorable missions, mainly accentuated by incredible set pieces or an incredible plot twist. Yes, the campaign is very good and requires a bit of brainpower to put together all of the relationships between characters and the multiple timelines. Strike Force missions, which break up the story mode, are both a success and major failure. The missions themselves are really interesting and it is incredible how they worked them into the overall story of the main game, yet playing them is a different story. AI in these missions is really touch and go, in which you either have to baby the squads through the map or just go completely Rambo and take down everything. The RTS element is really exciting, and I can see it working really well; but as it stands they are frustrating and unfun missions with incredibly spotty AI...all I really wanted to do is continue the stellar story. Multiplayer is still a love it or hate it affair. It does little to alter the formula, although the pick 10 system is quite ingenious and surprisingly well balanced. Never been a fan of Zombies, but Tranzit is fun, yet the zombie formula has been done before. I'm really hoping to see a huge leap in CoD because, deep down, I really do like the series. Blops 2 is less of a major step forward and more of a major refinement of the series, which is to be expected. Blops 2 is solid - excellent campaign, same old multiplayer, and stale Zombies - yet it doesn't wow or blow away expectations in all of its departments to truly create a stand out experience. 8 Expand
  10. Nov 22, 2012
    7
    Black Ops 2 Review
    The Call of Duty series revolutionized the FPS genre in 2007 with COD 4 Modern Warfare but in the series recent years the games have been a simple re-skin each year since. Treyarch (the dev of World at War, 2 and Black Ops) tries some new things in this entry. As usual the story is standard, invaders invade and you have to stop them but a first in the series is the
    dynamic story that molds to your decisions (even though there are a small number of them compared to other games). Really what happens is that your main enemy Raul Menendez is trying to start a war between China and America and you David Mason (the original BLOPS protagonist) must stop him. The game is set in 2025 mostly but there are some flashback sections where you play as Alex Mason. These are told by Woods to let you know why Menendez wants this to happen. There are 2 sections where you play as Menendez though and these have some objectives that are a bit counter progressive to the good guys story and you are just adding work for yourself. Black Ops location were all very bland in the past games but now there are some very interesting locations. But what stood out to me was the inclusion of sandbox levels. It doesn Expand
  11. Nov 22, 2012
    4
    I originally gave this an 8 but after playing it for over a week ish.......................... 2 words LAG COMPENSATION!!!!!! Enough said..... games f**ked... like mw3............. RIP COD!
  12. Nov 22, 2012
    2
    This game is pretty much garbage. The campaign is one of the worst of any "AAA" title I've played. Sure it's cool that you can choose what weapons you want at the start of the mission, but everything is so poorly thrown together it feels like it was designed by a team of poorly trained monkeys. The multiplayer is the same old crap from before. No changes were made, and a few of the maps are pretty much just reskinned versions of old maps. The only thing that is keeping me from giving this game a zero is zombies. Zombies is moderately fun, but gets old fast because lets face it: its still pretty much the same thing as it has been for the last three treyarch games. I would not recommend this game, and I urge everyone to quit buying these games.... actually, I don't care. This game pretty much killed my enjoyment of video games in general Expand
  13. Nov 22, 2012
    3
    ...I really wanted this to be good, I was hoping more black ops was my favorite COD and I wanted to get the same experience I did from black ops with black ops 2 but no, the maps are terrible, hundreds of glitches, bad sound and it takes the game forever to start without freezing. Also, many fans such as myself pre-ordered the game to obtain what they called "nuke town 2025 24/7" but no they cant even get that right, they lied and only put it on for 2 days but don't worry, to make it up to us they made a gamemode calles "chaos mosh pit" so we can play nuketown but in order to play it we have to play through all the other terrible maps so thanks for deceiving all your fans. treyarch get your game fixed! Expand
  14. Nov 22, 2012
    1
    Same game as any other Call of Duty after COD 4, adds absolutely nothing new. Campaign fells like a boring B-movie. What a huge disappointment and a waste of money.
  15. Nov 22, 2012
    7
    I think there are a few fan boys rearing their heads again, 0, really ? look we all know what we were going to get here, just like the poor cousin battlefield series and its 2 min single player campaign. Pretty much what I expected really, and now people are up in arms about it, seriously !! It's a fun free for all shooter and I love the zombies all ways have, me and a few mates get online and blast away at those zombies,we brought cod 2 just for that. Yeah more of the same....so what !! Get over yourselves and go play the Wii !! Expand
  16. Nov 22, 2012
    6
    Singleplayer - Cant brush the arcade shooter feel (Feels like time crisis). I kill 100 people per level. Awesome. Do rate the create a class at the start of each level, and why does my offsider look like a soldier who should be marching in Mardi Gras.

    Multiplayer - Too complicated, UAV overkill, over powered scorestreaks (Lightning Strike, Hellstorm), Boring guns and maps.

    I remember
    playing mw and mw2 and loving how each gun was different but fun to use, dont enjoy any of these weapons. the maps a forgettable im still to find a crash, makin, favela quality of map. Also, why are is all the cool stuff unlocked at the high levels (scar, m8, ghost.) Lag compensation is homo also. All these games were built off modern warfare's success. But none of them have ever got to that level again. Black Ops 2 is an alright game has a cool story that doesnt have the means to be given justice. I kind of want to play this story with battlefield mechanics and less mass slaughtering of the enemy. Expand
  17. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    Basically still CoD 4: Modern Warfare re-skinned and re-hashed again. Don't get me wrong, CoD was an amazing game but they need to stop the yearly releases and start putting in some hard work.
    I feel sorry for developers who can't compete with CoD because they can't afford to compete which in turn is terrible for us gamers in the long run, mark my words.
    The reviews give it decent
    scores, and that is because it isn't a bad game in itself if you haven't played the last ~5. Expand
  18. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    Same engine, same multiplayer, worse campaign, even zombies is repetitive. There is absolutely no upside, especially with the marvel that is Halo 4. Sorry treyarch, but its 2012, not 2007. Change it up for once.
  19. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    Terrible. The multiplayer encourages camping and headglitching and features tons of overpowered and annoying killstreaks. Also, hit detection is terrible, and I'm constantly on a 4-bar! The campaign is terrible, besides a few cool set pieces, and is not satisfying at all. And the new RTS mode is probably the worst part of it all. Zombies is a retread, featuring lame maps (Nothing like the original classics or ascension), and there is lava along the ground which lights you on fire and turns zombies into annoying exploding zombies. There is literally nothing in this game that would justify even a 20$ price tag. COD, your days are numbered. Expand
  20. Nov 21, 2012
    8
    BLOPS 2 is a really good game, but never hits a great status. The campaign is really good and honestly, its actually a bit of fun on how you can actually change the outcome of the ending depending if you failed certain objectives or whatnot. The characters are classic COD but they arent annoying and while the plot is semi predictable, its still quite a bit of fun to play [especially the Afgan mission]. However, the top-down special forces missions are really not memorable and they are kinda difficult to use. Its also a little frusterating making those mission what determines if you get a good or bad ending. but whatever, its peanuts.

    Mutliplayer is just the same stuff you are used to. Still tons of fun and addicting [everything feels more balanced] and kill streaks seem more reasonable. Maps arent all that great however. And the pistol as a secondary is ACTUALLY USEFUL for once. What I mean by that is just that pistols previously were decent in the campaign but always useless against players online. You always seemed really impervious to pistols and its nice to have a backup weapon that actually does damage that isnt a machine pistol.
    ZOMBIES: fun, addicting, and has a ton of eastereggs or little secrets you can unlock. The Bad? some annoying bugs, really difficult if you dont know what you are doing or what to do in Tranzit [not self explanatory]. The characters you are playing are also not memorable and have [from what it seems] less quips and lines than the previous games. They repeat the same thing over and over again to the point its noticable the first time you play it. Also, the bus idea is really cool and fun, BUT its there you can fall out of the map and die inexplicably, also, they shouldve turned collision off in the bus. Super and I mean SUPER FRIGGIN ANNOYING to have 4 people on a bus that is the size of a tin can. is it defensible? kinda yeah, but almost impossible later one due to the fact that eveyrone is getting stuck on everyone and cant shoot straight. However, long story short, its still a really fun game mode to play [PLEASE FIX THIS BY PATCHING THIS TREYARCH! :)]

    Overall, its more of the same, and thats not really a bad thing. Graphics are outdated though but thats really just a minor annoyance]
    Expand
  21. Nov 21, 2012
    6
    The campaign seemed to need more, and quite more. Multiplayer felt a lot better than bo1 but it still had this sort of not fair type of game play at parts. Just one day try the riot shield and find out how dumb the riot shield mechanics are. Meanwhile zombies mode has improved ten fold with tanzit being ridiculously fun and challenging, the guns were a treat to use especially the lmgs and the new way to open doors and turn on the power by collecting parts is great. grief mode(8 player 4v4 mode) coulda used some more work its not that it wasnt fun its thatit was eerily quiet during the match and there were hardly any zombies so it seemed boring and, when my team won...nothing felt accomplished it was dull and disapointing that i didn't get this "WOOO YEAH WE DID!!!" feeling when we won. in summary multiplayer get a " i kinda like this" from me, campaign get a "needs work", and zombies gets an "awesome" but it genuinely was not worth $60 maybe if it was $40 but no $60. either way its up to u now whether to buy it or not Expand
  22. Nov 21, 2012
    3
    Ever have the feeling of Déjà vu? well you will if you buy this game.
    They really is nothing new with Call of Duty: Black Ops II same graphics that are really outdated these days and gameplay as before.
    How long can Activision get away with chargeing full price for what should be half price or DLC?.
  23. Nov 21, 2012
    1
    this game wasnt really that as good as people say it is. it is the same thing as all of the other call of duty games. if they wanted to kill zombies they can play resident evil games or left 4 dead games. so i feel this name needs to get tweaked in order for it to be ranked higher than it is.
  24. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    i call it waste of money!!!!!! even MOH warfighter multiplayer looks better than this **** my 680 lightnings were in sleep mode...looks like the old half life games...pweh
  25. Nov 21, 2012
    8
    I have played ALL the COD as I rank them. COD 4 MW GREAT, WaW ok, MW2 WHACK, BO GREAT, MW3 I am going to stop playing COD games, BO2 AWESOME! People will would hate ALL the COD because of MW2 or 3, say that ALL the COD games are the same or say the phrase MAKE A NEW ENGINE. Well let me "objectively" give my opinion. Let talk lag. Lag and camping is here to stay. Can't do much and about the lag (its in every game) but you can be smart about the camping. Lag is in every game but its very weird when it comes to any COD series. Why? My guess is because of the frame rate. Pushing out 60 frames is no easy task for sure, but even more so when running games online. The current gen systems don't have the bandwidth to push such visuals and mask them appropriately so thats why COD game lag is way more annoying than other game, it would leave you to believe their is none (super smooth 60 frames while you shoot but die by one bullet. It's just WAY harder to mask the lag in COD than Halo 4 because of the 60 frames. When games like BF3, Halo 4, Gears all run at a smooth 29-34 frames of animation its easier for current gen consoles to run them. But with all that said I to say this despite all of the felt complaint in the community BO2 lag is by far the best in all CODs after COD 4. For me, for me. I can still pop in Halo 4 and the game plays seeming plays flawless compared to any COD game but its the gameplay in BO2 that keeps me coming back. Believe it or not BUT now there is a "grind" learning curve w/ BO2. Yes a COD game has a grind and learning curve. SMGs are killer at close (which they should) as are Shotguns (balanced and very hard to use, they could a slight buff). You will rarely lose a "CLOSE RANGED" SMG battle against a "naked" Assault Riffle (wrong or no attachments). In other COD games this was a coin flip depending on who is host. Now the LMGs are FUN and very USEFUL. In what COD game this is true other than BO2? Assault Riffles kinda suck, UNTIL YOU GRIND THEM OUT. Example, the M8A1 sucked, Its a 4 round burst Assault that was ONLY good at mid range. But as I was on my grind learning the maps and using this gun, I unlocked the suppressor, fore grip, and fire select attachments. Now this gun is SO BEAST. Who knows what other gems are out there in this game. First COD with a TON of depth... Can't say the same for snipers. The only weapon class that is OP because of QSing and Toe killing. (Quick Scoping and I can shoot you in the toe and kill you). Now onto camping. COD games before BO2 Ghost was super OP NOW WAY TO COUNTER IT. But now Ghost is sooo underwhelming that most people just dont use it or know how to. (It only works WHILE MOVING) Great design choice IMO. But to balance this the map (although some are VERY annoying) have a ton of COVER spots. Not so much head glitching but more cover like. Most Def head glitching it still in the game unfortunately... But the maps have a even HIGHER learning curve than the weapons do. Its soooo much to talk about in the MP of this game, and I didnt even mention the Campaign which has Multiple endings and Zombies mode. The people who are saying this is the same game is either still BUTT hurt or just haven't played this game yet... Great game not perfect but a Great one! Expand
  26. Nov 21, 2012
    8
    I'm not a Call of Duty fanboy, but I have not given up on it like some other people. Looking at Black Ops 2 I had no intentions of getting it because BO1 was average. But my brother got it so I played the campaign. Wow. Treyarch really took some leaps of faith and some great improvements. The online is much improved over BO1 and overall this saves a franchise that was (pardon the cliche) bleeding out. Expand
  27. Nov 21, 2012
    5
    I had high hopes for treach to make this series better, I loved MW1+2 and BLOPS 1 was meh. They tried on the SP side with strike missions but that was not enough I do not think to be ground breaking. The MP has a few new additions like MMS and shied deploy but most of it is the same as MW3 and this was hugely disappointing for me since I never liked MW3, any of it. I Tried to play zombies it has been about 4-5 days aver i have installed and it still will not work freezing and crashing every 5 minutes.

    Overall this game is OK, but nothing incredible.
    Expand
  28. Nov 21, 2012
    7
    Okay, I finally played for a while and here's my verdict... (not that it matters), in terms of content the game is really good. A fully realised Campaign mode with pretty good innovation in comparison to the others and possibly the best Campaign mode so far. Then we have the Zombies mode. I personally don't find the Zombies mode to be too great compared to BO1 and WaW. BO1 was the best by far because in BO2 nothing really feels fresh anymore. It's hard to explain but I feel like the maps (I'm looking at you Tranzit) are way too big and that's why I found WaW's Nazi Zombie mode to be so attractive since it felt so much more personal and fun. Now the Multiplayer... probably the best and CoD4 comes close in most places. I'd say: the gun selection is worse than BO1, the maps are worse than B01, the gun play is much better than BO1, the Create-a-Class is much better than B01, the progression is much worse than BO1 and the game modes... I'm not too sure on yet. But first let's go into why the progression is way worse. I personally enjoyed the system in BO1 where it was completely open to trial and error and all that. In BO2 it uses the IW progression system with the "unlock the gun at level 41 and then use it to get more attachments!" crap! I loved the BO1 system where you could just get what you want, maybe experiment with it and then invest in attachments and what not! But I do like the "Pick 10" system. So my final verdict is an 7/10 and I would have given BO1 an 8/10. P.S. FIX THE DAMN SERVERS ALREADY! Expand
  29. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    COMPLETE GARBAGE! I wasted 60 dollars on this stupid game!!!!
  30. Nov 20, 2012
    8
    It's a solid 8. Campaign is ok for what I have played. I really like the music. The multiplayer is good. Controls well and most of the issues will be ironed out in the next few weeks. I like the new create a class system and the new perks. People complain that they are to weak but I think its a good balance. It is funny that the internet seems to think CoD is going to fail yet each year is sells more copies. I think some innovation would be good but if they change something people will complain that it was better before. That is the sad truth. Expand
  31. Nov 20, 2012
    5
    Well... Today, I thought I'd go out and purchase Black Ops 2 instead of Xcom. After a couple of hours, I have realised that was a mistake. I'll write this in 3 parts, Campaign, Zombies and Multiplayer.

    Campaign: From what I've played (which admittedly isn't a lot) I am relatively impressed with the way Treyarch have handled this part of the game. I don't know the story so I can't
    really comment on that so far but I like having the ability to choose which weapons I want to use before a mission begins. I like being able to pick numerous attachments and I'm sure I'll go back to the missions when I have unlocked every thing to play it with a different style. Graphically, it's Call of Duty, a bit more polished than before, but once again nothing ground breaking. I'd give the campaign over all a 7/10, the story all ready seems a bit muddled, the load out options are cool and the maps seem good but I'll reserve judgement.

    Zombies: Map-wise and gameplay-wise this is the best part of the game. It just sucks that Tranzit is less of a story mode and more of a glorified survival. Treyarch could have done so much more here. They could have give players custom classes to start out with, they could have made each area much bigger and they could have added a level and unlock system. It had so much more potential but to be honest, it fell short but is still good fun to play. Survival hasn't really changed, it's still fun with friends, Grief adds something new and is also fun and Tranzit, although lacking, is definitely the best mode. It's just a shame they skimped on it being more of a 'story.' I'd give Zombies a 7/10. Certain areas like Tranzit had much more potential but fell short. Still extremely fun to play though.

    Multiplayer: Wow... what can I say here.... I'm not a bad player by any means. In fact, across all the previous CoDs, I have generally had a K/D always over 2. I always try to help my team win by going for objectives, I play as many different modes as possible and I usually do well with my wingman. This game however has massively irritated me on these aspects so far. Firstly, other players. Maybe it's just me, but when I shoot at other players, I have masses of recoil on my weapon. I have turned target assist off because, well, it's douchey to lock on the your opponents, but honestly, every time I die (and it has been stupid amounts today) it is from some guy who has literally no recoil, who locked on to me as soon as I came around a corner and they always seem to kill me with 2 bullets on my screen when they themselves take 4. The create a class system is a pain in the arse. It seems like they are skimping on points purposely to make it that you screw yourself in one way or another. Why does picking a wild card take a slot and then the option you choose take another? That's just stupid. The wild card and the choice should be one point! The maps and spawns are absolutely terrible. Numerous times I have spawned and two seconds later either been shot in the back/hit my a hunter missile/blown up by a grenade/shot by a helicopter etc etc etc. Sort it out! Where the hell is the 5 second spawn protection?? It is amazing how much it can put someone off when they can't even spawn without dying. Certain weapons are once again not balanced, matchmaking is, to be blunt, disgustingly bad. I've had the game 20 minutes, I'm level 4, why the **** am I being put AGAINST prestige 3 clans when my team is full of people my rank? It's awful. Not aiming to get kills is so God damn annoying, drop shotting is back in full force and just everything falls flat. Higher ranked people blatantly have a massive advantage over the lower ranks and it just pushes them away. If they want to fix this, they have a lot on their hands. I'll be generous and give it a 4/10. The create a class system looks good, but doesn't give enough, a few maps look good, the weapons look and sound good, challenges are there but feel pointless and emblem maker is back (****ing annoying when you unlock stuff for it though.) The multiplayer itself is just a mess of spawn kills, what feels like the enemies have no recoil on their weapons, cover seems to work for them but not me, lower ranks aren't matched with other lower ranks and the higher ranks have such an advantage it hurts. Some weapons are over powered and Target Assist should be turned off for EVERYONE. Even writing this out it feels like I should give it a 3/10 because it isn't ENJOYABLE.

    That's my opinions anyway. Thanks for reading.
    Expand
  32. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    #BringbackNuketown24/7 is the general gist of my review. Acitivison lies to us and uses a bait and switch tactic to get us to preorder the game. Everyone under was the assumption that the map would be forever because it said "We will never close".I have never seen a company treat its customers so poorly in my entire life. And when we took to the official forums to protest activision banned most of the forum accounts. Class move activision. It really shows how much you care for customers Expand
  33. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I started the campaign and the cut-scenes looked decent, but damn the graphics were horrible for the introductory mission! I always disliked how simple, small and fake the vehicles look in CoD games. The graphics are neat in other places but still look outdated, reminded me of Black Mesa source in mission 2. They haven't improved anything much, even with the new post futuristic setting its all terrorist this terrorist that. The multiplayer is more of the same, still remains imblalanced with bugs everywhere, and worst how Nuketown was removed and now only available in special occasions, incredibly unsatisfied. Expand
  34. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    i was prestige 3 level 41 before i jumped ship. i really gave the game a chance. was third prestige when everyone hadnt even completed the first one. everything is wrong about this game. sound is dreadful blury and **** noob friendly with no recoil whatsoever and the worse thing is the lag. i am the kind of player who does always a 30-5 score in ffa. in this game no matter what i play call it team deathmatch kill conformed or free for all i was doing scores like 2 kills and 30 deaths 9 out of 10 times. it is not just laggy, you are 2 seconds behindtheenmy at least. i just put back mw3, i was playing with 2 bars and it felt magical compared to this abomination. i am already selling it and never trusting treyarch again. this game is **** and they need to get punished. they did some small good things but the lag is the main flaw. and they do not aknowledge it, they stick their heads in the sand to avoid the problem. enough is enough. back to mw3. all i wish is cod 4 was not hacked id be playing it all day long Expand
  35. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    This map pack is definately a must buy if you are into call of duty, the main reason i bought it was because i have MUG written on my forehead, you have to shine a UV light to detect it but its still there unfortunately, this means activision has implanted me with a chip that blips off when a new call of duty is released and makes me go and buy it or if you have the V2 chip you immediately pre order it 4 months in advance, upon release you buy the game play it for 2 hours and wonder how you spent your money, then you have 8 months of life to live until they activate the chips again. Expand
  36. Nov 20, 2012
    6
    In my opinion, CoD in general is a fun shooter that gets boring after a while. The graphics haven't changed all that much, the guns are pretty much the same and the new loadout system is different in a bad way. The loadouts limit you to ten points, and the annoying gun progression system is still there. CoD is a fun aimless shooter that is fun in quick doses. Once again, the campaign is horrible, but that is because I like a good story, not just a campaign which is you shooting dudes like BLOPS 2. The reason I don't like CoD in general is because of the lack of teamwork and skill. I find that luck is a bigger factor than skill and teamwork. There is no aim involved, just spray bullets at an enemy and hope they die. CoD is only fun if you don't really want to think and just want to shoot something. Zombies is the only fun mode and the only reason why I gave this a 6. My opinion is wait until this goes on sale hopefully, not worth 60$, and buy something like Dishonored, AC3, Borderlands 2 or Halo 4. Expand
  37. Nov 20, 2012
    3
    Doing the same thing every year and the lemmings still buy it!!! FOR SHAME taking advantage of low IQs. Got this game for free. I would never pay for one of thses games past COD4. Lazy presentation, same graphics as cod4. Halo always improves the graphics from game to game why can't COD??? Playing this on a PC at 1080p and it looks like utter rubish!!!!
  38. Nov 20, 2012
    10
    Questo gioco si merita 10 altro che! Come fate a mettere 0 e adire che fa schifo x motivi come sonoro o gameplay ecc.. siete fusi?? Questo gioco e fatto benissimo! Grafica dettagliata e al passo coi tempi armi divertenti futuristiche e ben realizzate game play sempre innovativo e quasi mai noioso! Il multiplayer e fatto benissimo piu equilibrato e nn ci sono armi troppo overpower come in mw3 anche un livello 3 puo uccidere un 1 prestigio! Molto divertente e accattivante con un bel po di novita x l aumento di livello e la personalizzazioni delle classi! Compratelo e nn date ascolto a sti buffoni che mettono voti basdi! Ma cosa volete di piu??? Expand
  39. Nov 20, 2012
    10
    Best game of the series to date. Multiplayer is king.. graphics are awe-inspiringly gorgeous ... the game just abounds with class. I can't wait to see what these guys do on the next generation.
  40. Nov 20, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The worst COD ever, worst kill-streaks ever, and you only get 1 killstreak (scorestreak) for all of your classes. Assault rifles are a joke, the handguns kill more than them. No pro perks, what you see is what you get.....
    Sounds: All the guns sound the same, footsteps sound fake and are really loud, even when you use dead silence. Connection: (when you enter a game) Incomparable lag compensation issues, you can fire a whole clip in an enemy, he will kill you with 2 bullets, and looking at the killcam your character won't have even fired on shot. Not to mention that you will spend more time in the lobby than actually playing. If you want an "almost decent connection" you will have to spend 60% of the time in lobbies (on PS3). The hit detection is a joke, it was bad in BO1 but this one is even worse. Weapons: have the weirdest name (Like PDW 47 WTF is that????), and beside the MP7 none of them are real, seems that Treyarch wanted to cut costs (as well) on license names.
    The graphics don't look real, they look like a HALO, or a cheap Scifi shooter Game, full of unlikely colors.
    Back to MW3, and will wait for MW4. Don't throw your money away.
    Expand
  41. Nov 19, 2012
    6
    A huge improvement on the disaster that was MW3 but it still doesnt convince me and many other people. This game is mediocre at best.

    -Single Player: 7/10
    -Multiplayer-5/10
    -Zombies 7/10
  42. Nov 19, 2012
    0
    I have played MW2, BLOP1, and MW3 and I have to say that this game is the first to get me frustrated enough to throw it out the window. This game is unplayable, and there is no sign of fixing it. While @DavidVonderhaar is keeping silent and giving himself props for making a good game. He has giving himself the reality distortion field. The net code is garbage, with all the lag after week one you would think they would have a patch by now. All they have done is made sure Double XP is in effect. Great Hot fix guys. Everyone and the Mother is using UAV so this game is now a read dot chasers dream. Hey don't worry you will get Ghost at Rank 55. They talk about balance, there isn't any this time around. He too busy giving themselves a job well done. In Short, don't waste your money on this game. It isn't worth it, your better off staying with MW3 for another year. Because this game is really broken at the moment. I wanted to like this game, but at this point Activision has started to Tony Hawk this franchise. I am done after this game. Even if they fix, if you plan to get this game wait till January. Expand
  43. Nov 19, 2012
    7
    The campaign is rubbish. There's really no other way to describe it. Each iteration of the series just gets more and more scripted until finally in BlackOps2 you are now just a bot with a controller. You are on rails, any deviation from the script equals death. Come on, I understand invisible walls and unaccessible areas but this game goes too far. Want to drag out a battle and find new ways to defeat the enemies? No, you will die inexplicably until you finish the scene. Cutscenes take longer than the gunfights. Story is incomprehensible. The focus of the battles are now simply to get you from cutscene to cutscene as quickly as possible.Typical CoD death and respawn into grenade or deadly fire so you can find yourself spawned into a rage inducing situation if you die at the wrong moment. Shameful. This is not a campaign it is a movie in which you play your part and hit your marks or die. No fun. All sizzle and no steak.

    The guns feel good, though. No complaints there. Probably feel and act as good as any game since MW2. Gadgets are gimmicky but sorta cool. The battles are decent when you can finally fight if you aren't bludgeoned into following the script. Very short, though. Your soldier will still be stymied by the odd milk crate or clump of bushes and must be in horrible physical conditioning because he can't run more than fifty feet without grinding to a wheezing trot. Enemies still key on you even when there are ten allies around you. Friendly AI feels marginally better than past games but they're still absolutely useless. That's okay because we all know they are only there to provide new weapons and ammo as we play, no change from any CoD ever. You can still knock off a friendly to get his gun.

    The Command & Control portion left me perplexed so not going to say much one way or the other. If that's your thing then maybe you'll enjoy it. MP seems okay from my end. No big complaints. Seems you can be competitive right off the bat. The token system for perks/guns/attachments seems rather complicated. On the other hand the token system may do well in encouraging balance simply because there are so many choices it may take a bit to discover the "One True Loadout". Maps are okay. Need to play it more before I get a true feel but so far haven't been victimized by too many revenge spawns. That's an improvement over the last two CoD's I played.
    Expand
  44. Nov 19, 2012
    2
    This is a review for multiplayer only. I have played every COD online since COD 2 and they have had some hits and misses but this one is an abomination. The maps are the worst in any game in the series so far. It seems like they have catered to the Nuketown crowd. Most of the maps are way too small. Carrier and Hijacked being the two worst of the new maps. Cargo, Meltdown, Plaza, Raid, Slums, Standoff are just a little less worse than the first two I mentioned. The only half way decent maps are: Turbine, Overflow and Drone. At least those maps you can move 5 feet without getting shot in the back.

    Lag is another huge problem. Is it lag compensation? I have no idea but something is definitely wrong.

    The only good thing I can say about the multiplayer is the new "pick ten" feature in the "create a class" menu.

    To sum up, I am thoroughly disappointed.
    Expand
  45. Nov 19, 2012
    2
    Coming this winter, from the folks who just can't take a hint, it's Call of Duty: Black Ops II! The multiplayer is exactly the same as before, yet somehow been made worse than before! The morons over at Activision and Treyarch have somehow taken the laziest kind of FPS on the market, and become the Beavis and Butthead of it. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of being handed the exact same thing every year that's somehow progressively worse each time. With Ghost only unlockable at the last level, it's frontline-on-frontline, with little or no chance of flanking or stealth. This is what happens when a game company caters to whiny little kids and those with an IQ lower than 40 who know nothing except the traditional Ulysses S. Grant cavalry charge that's been failing AI enemies since the 90's. But now it's somehow mandated. Run and gun, or die trying. There is no other option now. These are the same people who complain about campers, in a series that already has a wide array of tools for weeding out campers. Flashbangs, grenades, launchers of both kinds, and -- god forbid -- actually CHECKING your corners. I do it all the time. But now, those of us who genuinely want to use flanking and stealth just get left in the dust. The game also feels like it was geared only towards people who've been around long enough, so I can't see how anyone new to the FPS genre would enjoy this game. To its credit, the campaign is somewhat passable, as you can actually pick your loadout before each mission. But once again, the campaign was too short, and I beat it in under a day. This is a series where multiplayer is the main focus. Here's one player who's selling the game back for a full refund before the receipt expires, probably the last chance I'm giving Call of Duty. Expand
  46. Nov 19, 2012
    1
    This game is the disappointment of the the year! Hands off... unless you want to waste your money. It's all the same over again but with a bit more futuristic weapons and surrounding. The graphics is really outdated these days and can't compare to Medal of Honor Warfighter or Battlefield 3. The singleplayer is short and sometimes even a bit ridiculous as it's not authentic at all. The multiplayer is still aimed at the same type of egoistic non-cooperative player type. Don't make the same mistake as I did... don't buy it. Expand
  47. Nov 19, 2012
    9
    I will jump to the point. This game is fun to play. That is my truest test. I knew when, after a full afternoon of playing, every time I went to set controller down I kept saying "maybe just one more round, this game was a hit. I do not condone the way this game is basically the same format COD has been promoting for years, that being said, this is the most fun COD game I have ever played. It feels balanced, there are tons of huge maps so you don't feel like other players are right on top of you and there are plenty of perks and gamemodes that de-emphasize camping and balance out gameplay. I love all the unlockables and I love the look and feel of the weapons. If you are going to play COD or Halo, this is the game to play. I still greatly prefer Battlefield but this is a different game with different objectives. Treyarch has surpassed Infinity Ward where it really matters...fun. ANyone can pick this up and start unleashing deathstreaks. Skilled players will be able to do much more and dominate in there own way and in their favorite modes, but this game has something for everyone and is really fun to play and I have not been able to say that since World at War or maybe the first Modern Warfare. It would be nice to expand this world into larger settings with vehicles and a cover mechanic, but this is the next step forward and will give us all plenty to do until the next gen. I am not ignoring the obvious faults and still complain like anyone at how frequently I get shot in the back or when an enemy spawns right behind me, but my complaints are few compared to the moments of joy when I scored a triple kill or defused a bomb with only seconds left on the clock. I have really only reviewed the multiplayer because that is all I play, I tried the campaign and it seemed okay, a little wonky with the collision detection on the shooting and skill didn't seem to matter much, but combined with the multiplayer and zombies, Treyarch has given us all plenty of bang for the buck. This and AC3 should be the only games you need...and Battlefield 3, let's not forget the king. Expand
  48. Nov 19, 2012
    0
    It is unfortunate that such a great series has fallen from grace with the same lackluster BANG that Call of Duty Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 has hit us with. I will explain to you the stale formula: 1. A new Call of Duty: (whatever) is released 2. The critics love it and the users hate everything it stands for 3. Fanboys and Sheeple buy it anyway 4. Profits are past expectations and sales are AMAZING
    5. A new Call of Duty: (whatever) is added to the production line
    6. The cycle continues...

    I can no longer see myself supporting Activisions Call of Duty series... and that is sad. MW2; I'm coming back baby!
    Expand
  49. Nov 19, 2012
    6
    This is an honest review, Im not just bashing the game. First of all the campaign.. WTF!?!?!... graphic wise, some times I felt I was playing a wii game, they are terrible, a lot of missions are boring and got you doing stupid stuff like the one in the dessert riding a horse, honestly TERRIBLE STUFF. Zombies? well I dont know why this **** mode keeps getting so much praise when there is L4D 1 & 2 out there, movement is slow, zombies are overpowered, etc. Multiplayer.. well, its way more of the same every year. This constant wave of yearly COD keeps feeling more like a DLC. I yet have to see the day when a COD game beats what once was done by COD:MW1 Expand
  50. Nov 19, 2012
    9
    One of the best FPS ever. The history is very well told and has its epic moments. We have secondary missions and choices that affect the history. The characters have charisma. The graphics are very good, they are improved, but its the same engine. The multiplayer is the same too, maps and weapons new. The zombie mode is bigger and better, and its very, very fun. You can play it in 3D, you have just to put the glasses; no 3D TV necessary. Expand
  51. Nov 19, 2012
    10
    This game is actually amazing, Aaron Whisker is cynical cod fan and cannotmake a decent comment on an amazing game nuff said aaron aaron aaron aaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronaaron aaronWhisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Whisker Expand
  52. Nov 19, 2012
    7
    Unfortunately, Call of Duty games tend to have two bandwagons; Bandwagon A consists of non-gamers buying into the marketing and hype, and will often rate Call of Duty games a 10 because they don't have much else to compare them to other than Fifa. Bandwagon B consists of snob-gamers, who make up their minds to give the games 0 before even playing them, simply because it's popular and almost "cool" to dislike them and say they're made for 12 year olds. I'm 25, and I don't care for bandwagon's and the like, so let me give you a much more honest review: Black Ops II isn't a bad game - certainly not worth the 10 so-called professional critics are giving it, but definitely not deserving of a 0, which equates it to some rushed 007 game. Despite what people have said, it's not a cut and paste of its predecessor, as it introduces a whole new futuristic setting, complete with a very different soundtrack, weapons and on-rails scenes. It also introduces the new strike force missions, which are essentially strategy-based missions and a world away from linear first person shooting. Black Ops II also switches between past and future missions, which allows for a fantastic way to learn the story, which is packed full of plot twists and an opportunity to play from unlikely perspectives. Of course, the game isn't without fault; it does suffer from being a little on the easy side. Without intentionally c0ck swinging, even on Veteran, the game feels like it has been made to predominantly cater to bandwagon A (as stated above). Some of the weapons are a little overpowered (a sniper rifles that can shoot through walls) and there are constant weapon cache's with the chance to refill ammo. Not once will you feel as under pressure as you did in World At War or even MW1. It's also a little on the short side, and I don't care much for the zombie mode. With so many pros and cons, I was close to giving the game an average 6, but to be honest I enjoyed it too much to give it anything less than a 7 - it's worth a rent, but not the retail price tag. Alternatively just wait until the price lowers. Expand
  53. Nov 19, 2012
    8
    I haven't played the single payer campaign yet (and most people aren't buying it for single player) so I can't comment on that but my score is from what I have experienced on multiplayer and zombies. The changes to the class creation system are fantastic. The pick 10 system is genius and really lets you play how you want to. It was a bit confusing at first but I soon got to grips with it. The maps have been great to play on and the whole presentation has been given a facelift. For zombies, the maps are brilliant and tranzit is amazing. If you loved the zombies on the first game then you will like this one. Overall I am very happy with the game so far and intend to put a lot of hours into both of these modes. Expand
  54. Nov 19, 2012
    6
    Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 does everything that the earlier installments did, sure, but it does it better. The pick ten system works and gives you tough choices. Score streaks feels good and probably implemented for the more casual player that couldn't rack up enough kills to earn them in previous titles. Certain guns can feel overpowered, but will probably be balanced over time. Graphics are good enough, but could be better. Zombies is a bit confusing, me and my friend fired it up and were confused of what was what. Transit is a nice little side campaign, but confusing as well. You're suppose to grab these parts to build things, but the game doesn't do a good enough job telling you what to do. I believe if the characters you play as, talked about what to do (much like Left 4 Dead), it would clear a lot up. The main issue here, is the multiplayer. Lag Compensation is back and harder than ever, it seems. In this day and age, there should be dedicated servers. As much money as Activision makes on this franchise, there could very well be dedicated servers. I have pretty good internet, but have to suffer because of it. Again, probably for the casual player who refuses to upgrade their internet, because they don't game too much (have a friend like that). If lag compensation was not apparent in this, it would make a better online experience and it would have gotten a bit higher of a score. But as it stands, it makes online a very frustrating part of the important part of the package. You want to give the gamer a 60 frame per second experience, but when lag hinders your precious 60 fps, what's the point? Next Call of Duty? get rid of lag compensation, change up the formula a bit more, as it does get a bit stale, different engine, dedicated servers. Expand
  55. Nov 19, 2012
    5
    To me ops2 is a very poor game. Mp is so full of bugs and lag. There isn't anything new in this game right down to the maps. It really is a copy and paste game. I gave it a 5 do to the fact that the game loads up and plays. I really hope that this is the end to cod with the 2025 setting as I'm tried of getting the same old game each year. This game really could have been a dlc pack for mw3 than called ops2 as in fact it's faster game style of play is set more to that than in the first ops game. They added score chain to kill streaks and qs is back with the sniping in this as well. Lag comp is worse than mw3 or any other cod out in the past right now. I'm sure they will give a lame we fixed it in a few days but by then my copy of the game will be setting at a store for resale. So long ops 2 ): Expand
  56. Nov 19, 2012
    7
    The game is good in most of its parts, the multiplayer is solid if you don't mind the occasional loud mouth. not much has changed but the score streaks is interesting everything you do earns points and those point go to unlocking you reward to unleash, you don't lose all you progress when you die but if your half way to your second streak an die you lose it all. the single player tires to make your decisions seem like they matter, when they only sort of alter outcomes, I guess in a attempt to make you want to play through again. The villain is very bondish and tragic and there are some weak plot points that I just wont go into all in all the story was adequate but I expected a futurist endeavor but what you get is flash backs thrown in there for flash backs sake. Then the poorly done strike force missions that just arent as polished as everything else trying something new is good when it works and strike force barely works, when you team often stands there and gets shot, rarely takes cover or provides cover, you find yourself taking control just to get things done it seems that they tried for a rts feel only to get a poor mans version of ghost recon. this company needs to make sure they bring there A-game as they know people will be dropping money on this but because they failed to ensure the quality of this new addition, this is something that should have been in multiplayer were poorly done a.i. wouldn't have been an issue. maybe in the next tryarch COD they will fix this or completely omit it. chances are you gunning for a new mp to shoot your friend in and considering that you'll end up buying this or halo 4 but buying a game just for a mp that is almost exactly the same as its predecessors you might as well save your money and keep playing whatever version of cod you already have. Expand
  57. Nov 19, 2012
    5
    I watched my 13 year old nephew play this all weekend and he loved it. All I could think about was how we went from SOCOM, Ghost Recon, and Rainbow Six to this. There are studios going out of business left and right trying to make games with passion and something like this gets whipped up in a year and sells 10 million copies. I dont have much faith in the future of FPS on consoles or PC for that matter. Expand
  58. Nov 18, 2012
    0
    This review exlusively addresses the multiplayer element of this game.

    To preface this I just want to inform you that I consider myself to be one of the biggest Call of Duty fan boys out there. I look forward to the release of Call of Duty each year and spend multiple days engrossed in the multiplayer element of this game each year and always reach the prestige cap. I have since
    release spent a day and a half of time with the game.

    That being said I am utterly disappointed to find that this game is completely broken. For me it has been one of the most trying experiences I have ever had with a game. I really want to like this game and have tried, but I just can't play this game without coming away frustrated and completely disappointed. Therefore in the end I have to give this game a 0 for being broke and unplayable.
    Expand
  59. Nov 18, 2012
    4
    I really wanted to like this game. I kept thinking "Ok this game will change it up, its not gonna be just another cheap copy of the last game", but now I can see that was a fool to think that. They made it look so much prettier in the previews up until the games release, and I'm ashamed to say I fell for it. I mainly play for the multiplayer so that's what I'll focus on here. It's the same crap, sure there a few new cool killstreaks and stuff but that's not enough to set this game apart from other Call of Duty games. I play on the PS3 and the PS3 version is plagued with problems. First I was not able to connect to any matches. Then I could connect to matches but my customized classes were not there for some reason. Then the stupid thing freezes on me. It's so ridiculous that these problems still exist and the morons that make the game try and act all sympathetic to the gamers by promising to work non-stop to correct the issues. Anyway, I have not given up on it 100%, but if these issues with connecting and disappearing custom classes don't get fixed very soon, I'm done with COD forever. Expand
  60. Nov 18, 2012
    3
    To what i got this game for; zombies. I was excited to have some new maps. Then I find i don't actually get nuketown zombies, I just get the nuketown map for multiplayer; If i wanted the map i should have gotten the more expensive or i can get the season pass for 4000 microsoft points... Okay, there are "3" maps. It's one map that in terms of "walkable" space is probably about the size of ascension. The other two maps are sections from the bigger map. The bigger map is limited by the transportation of a buss you take to areas. It's plagued by very little ammunition, it makes me think of a survival horror game such as Resident Evil where you used to get little to no ammunition. For exampled the town only has hand grenades which are only accessible by use of an item and they are off the beaten path. This game type feels very long simply because of the bus. Another problem is the connections. The game has been released for less than a weak but it already has serious connection problems in zombies and online. The online is the same how it usually is, exept in this one there is no ghost until the final level... It makes uavs a requirement to shoot down as they are often times mini blackbirds. The connections are horrible and as always the los of the kill cams don't match and dont make sense. someone sees your whole body before you see them if they are going around a corner etc. The saddest thing is this is my least favorite campaign of the cods ever. I could continue to go on, but i will stop. Expand
  61. Nov 18, 2012
    0
    Awful glitches and graphics, this is a completely stupid game, catering to the whiny ass brats who buy into competition that takes no skill whatsoever.
  62. Nov 18, 2012
    4
    Had the opportunity to play the first three Missions before buying. I'm very, very glad i did. They're absolutly ridicioulus. If Black Ops 2 would aim for a B-Movie Style or Parody it could work, but they want you to take this for real. For almost two hours i ran trough a absolutly exaggerated setting, shooting at endless amounts of respawning enemies in ridicioulus amounts and situations. Most of the time without a clear goal or reason. The cutscenes are nice, and somehow made the impact that they're where from a entire different studio. Since they great atmosphere had nothing to do with the actual gameplay. To make people pay 60 Euro for this and another 50 for a season pass is just...wow. Expand
  63. GLN
    Nov 18, 2012
    0
    It's the same old **** every single year, and it is extremely broken. **** the fanboys, nothing in this game works, and one gun in the game is just so over powered, no one online uses anything else.
  64. Nov 18, 2012
    9
    i stopped liking CoD after the first modern warfare. black ops 2 changes enough to make me a fan of the series again. multilayer feels like cod and wont change peoples mind on the series but the campaign and ZOMBIES is refined to near perfection.
  65. Nov 18, 2012
    4
    Hello, Firstly I would like to express my disappointment with the release of Black Ops 2. I have owned and played every Call of Duty title since the very first. I have bought every DLC and every game. I know and (used to love) the entire series. Black Ops 2 has reverted back to previous editions of the series. I dont understand how you can go back on adaptations of the mechanics that made things better. My biggest complaint is about the Hardcore game play. Where is ricochet? Why are we back to team kills? Why are there only 4 game modes for Hardcore? Most if not all the game modes have been around in Hardcore at one time or another. The layout of almost every screen, starting from after the start up screen, looks overly complex and doesnt flow. The equipment load out screen and system needs revising. What I dont get, and what really makes this game a disappointment is that you have all of these problems worked out in previous game releases. But you choose to ignore them and we are now playing the waiting game for you guys to fix them. It really is a let down. I was looking forward to this game. I even bought the elite edition. I feel like I was robbed. And its not about the money, hell, id pay again if you guys fixed the game! Expand
  66. Nov 18, 2012
    9
    People voting this down are probably just watching videos on youtube and basing their reviews on that, like the typical Call of Duty hating trolls. Black Ops 2 is an amazing game. Multiplayer is refreshing with the Pick 10 system, Zombies TranZit is genius and The Campaign is amazing. I will be the first to admit that the Modern Warfare series is stale and outdated, but the Treyarch series is always original, engrossing and addictive. If Battlefield sold as much as Call of Duty, would you hate that franchise too? My gut instinct is yes. Success brings haters. But thank god the non-trolls out number the trolls by roughly 220:50. Check the sales, compare it to the hating trolls giving it 1' and 2's. I rest my case. Expand
  67. Nov 18, 2012
    8
    Like COD 4 Modern Warfare. It's still a COD game in many ways, but some very welcome changes in the Multiplayer, Zombies and even the Campaign (a rare pleasure) make this a more enjoyable experience than past games
  68. Nov 18, 2012
    10
    greatest shooting game ever created in the history of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  69. Nov 18, 2012
    8
    Black Ops 2 was a rather favorable game. Black Ops' campaign was a sort of short and sweet type of ordeal, while Black Ops 2's is longer and more in depth. Your actions control the outcome of the story, as do missions being failed or completed successfully. You also get to customize your loadout before each mission rather than the game just handing you weapons and expecting you to use them, really allowing you to tailor it to the experience in which you wish to play. Small modifiers also exist to help enhance this, such as an ability that lets your bullets do more damage, or an ability that lets you gain access to otherwise unreachable parts of the campaign that give you weapons, ammo, and other such things. There were plenty of surprises and plot twists that were much different than what I expected, and let me tell you, the campaign is hardly one where you're exclusively boots on the ground the entire time: there's plenty of interesting other experiences thrown in there, such as piloting a jet, controlling a drone, or driving a car.

    Multiplayer is the main part that dragged this game's score down. Is it fun to play? Oh yeah, definitely. They brought back all the gamemodes from the original Black Ops, and even added a few, such as kill confirmed. So what's the issue? Mainly, maps and loadout customization. The maps not so much, but there definitely is some reason to complain. The maps don't have any interactable pieces with them, and something about their designs just no longer carries the magic of Black Ops' maps as well as Black Ops did. If you sit and look at some of the maps though, you get an almost deja vu feeling, because some of them seem to be based off of maps from Black Ops in design. As for the loadouts, they just aren't as fulfilling as far as customization as the original Black Ops' loadout system was. Rather than earning money from matches that may be used to buy weapons, attachments, perks, and all that other stuff, you instead now unlock them based on weapon usage and ranking up, sadly similar to the Modern Warfare series' design. Where as in Black Ops you had a main weapon, one or two attachments for it and a skin and custom crosshair, a secondary, one or two attachments for it, equipment, one or two lethal and tactical grenades, and 3 perks that may be pro or not; due to the pick ten system, you can now only have ten or less of those. You might have a primary with two attachments, 3 perks, a modifier allowing you to have two lethal grenades, two lethal grenades, and a single tactical grenade, and that's all you get; you can't have a secondary or second tactical grenade. It was a cool concept on paper, but actually playing with it, it really limits your experience. To add on to that, pro perks no longer even exist, and neither do equipment or crosshair customization. Getting your emblem and clan tag on your weapon also requires "weapon prestiges," which I can only assume means getting rid of every attachment and such for your weapon and starting over. So what happens if after you get them, you don't like that weapon any more? Oh well, all that hard work is down the drain, and you better find a new weapon to get working at to get that same stuff. Generally, the pick ten system and the whole system of customizing your loadout and weapons just does more to ruin the experience, than it does help it; the old system was much better. It's not all bad though. The emblem creator was overhauled, and the game is still fun to play regardless of the previously mentioned issues.

    I haven't touched zombies yet except for a couple of minutes, but they made some radical changes that I can already tell will make things quite fun, especially with a few friends to tag along, so if you were a fan of zombies in the original Black Ops, you'll probably enjoy Black Ops 2's even more.

    Overall, Treyarch took some interesting design choices that makes Black Ops 2 feel both familiar, and different. If you liked Black Ops and weren't particularly a major fan of MW3, you're more than likely to enjoy this game quite thoroughly, at least for a little while anyways.
    Expand
  70. Nov 18, 2012
    0
    I had great expectation for this game since I really liked the first one. I've been playing Call Of Duty multiplayer on xbox live since Modern Warfare.
    I won't talk about the single player part I never played a single player campaign on any call of duty game.
    I won't talk either about the good things BOPS2 did good since they don't mean anything if the game is broken at it's core.
    The
    big problem is that they implemented the lag compensation system again that Black ops 1 and modernwarfare 3 had at launch. I won't explain what this system is since it's common knowledge.
    The game is not fun because of it. They need to fix it like modernwarfare 3 did.
    Expand
  71. Nov 18, 2012
    7
    this is a review for the campaign only as I haven't had the chance yet to try out the multiplayer.

    Graphics: I realize that it is an older engine but the game still looks great and easily on par with warfigher but not with BF3. The lighting, clarity and detail in the foliage in the jungle type areas is great. the indoor environments though are pretty basic. overall, i give the
    graphics an eight. i suppose Infinity ward or the publisher? is waitng for the next generation consoles before they develop a new engine. the Guns: this is arguably the most important part of any first person shooter. The guns were a big let down. gunfire seems muted and lacked punch. In addition, the guns all sound very similar to eachother. the first black ops had much better sound. these days warfighter carries the torch for realistc gun sounds with ghost recon close behind. Only two of the modern weapons were really innovative namely the flechette gun and one of the sniper rifles that could penetrate through walls The one standout feature of this game was the new overhead tactical viewpoint for one modern set where you could control individual men or machines. I hope they turn this type of warfare into a stand alone strategy game. It worked incredibly well.

    The biggest let down is that none of the missions seemed very black ops. they are more like missions you would expect the marines to do. Black ops missions should rely on a bit of stealth (ghost recon), silenced weapons, and special goggles with night vision, infiltration, assasination.

    further, I think the story back arc to the 80's was uncessary. they should have kept the story confined to the modern era. It was uncessary to tie the current events into what happened in Afghanistan for instance or Africa for that matter.

    The weakest part of the game was the story. the main villian was completely unbelievable. This was a perfect opportunity to set up China as the main protaganist. they could have used teh korean or vietnam wars as backdrops if they really wanted to provide some context to the future events. Further, chinese soliders would actually have advanced and interesting weaponry to provide some sort of challenge. It is totally unbelievable that a former drug runner would turn into a terrorist and be able to finance technological innovations for weaponry and software which be capable of challenging established governments. His background and so called rise to power was really boring too. Not as boring as the warfighter drama with that guy's wife and kid, but pretty close.

    My harshest criticism for the game though it lacked what I call an "air of reality" which some shooters achieve. It's that feeling that the people on the screen could be actual soldiers out there, doing this incredible sh#t and you feel a part of that. the first modern warfare had heaps and heaps of that feeling. even modern warfare 3 had it to a certain extent.

    this game did not have it at all. It's like it was missing its shooter mojo or something. Warfighter did a much better job with shooter mojo than this in the campaign, even though the campaign itself wasn't as good. So, in summary, the game had one brilliant moment with respect to the tactical view and control system. that was ingenious. Otherwise, the game was pretty average. I'm looking forward to the multiplayer to see how it compares with warfighter. to my mind warfighter, with the exception of BF3, has the best multiplayer going at the moment. Cheers,
    Expand
  72. Nov 18, 2012
    1
    Boring game, couldn't finish it because I was falling asleep. Same game every year, same characters, very similar story, outdated graphics. The only cod I ever liked was the first Modern Warfare (cod 4). It was original at the time and a huge jump, this is literally and so blatantly a money grab it's not even funny. At least I did not waste money on this joke of a game. I can tell you that I'm not even looking forward to any more COD in the future. Expand
  73. Nov 18, 2012
    9
    This is quite simply the best Call of Duty (CoD) yet. With a campaign that has a good storyline with memorable characters; there is a want to play the game to the end not just simply to complete it but to enjoy the experience. Multiplayer is of course just as good as all the predecessors and has a new loadout system which allows for extra customisation. Levelling remains largely the same and could maybe do with some sort overhaul. Zombies is a an added extra and gives you something else to do if you are waiting for friends for multiplayer or just fancy a bit of horror. Not sure why people complain about the CoD; it does the games industry wonders. Expand
  74. Nov 18, 2012
    8
    It's made some vast improvements since Black Ops, with non-linear level design, choices that effect the future of your game, and some RTS missions to do once you get bored. I found the story quite engaging. If you haven't played the first one to the end, you'll be lost, no doubt, but I still cared about the characters and the writing is largely believable and actually quite funny at times too. Yes, the general gameplay is quite dated, it doesn't feel as organic and as free-flowing as some other shooters do, but it still runs at a consistent 60 FPS. The aesthetic is also consistent, and it's quite effective too. You really feel like you're in the future, and you get immersed in the world you're in. To those who think this is just the same thing over and over again, you're largely wrong. It has the same shooting gameplay, but that doesn't mean it's the same as previous ones. You can't say Black Ops 2 is the same as Black Ops 1 because you're shooting people with a gun in first-person. If you were to come up to me and say that Half-Life 2 is exactly the same as Duke Nukem Forever because in both games there's first-person shooting, I would be forced to kick you in the balls. I would say it's audacious for Treyarch to do this, but they knew that COD was going to sell regardless, so they mixed up the formula and the end result is actually quite surprising and really good. The level design means everything to me; I love different branching paths in which you can clear out enemies, and I like having one set area in which I can run and gun and have a **** great time. People are just giving this game a low score because of prejudice, I'm sure many of the people that rated this haven't even played it yet. Their theory is: Call of Duty is popular, therefore it is **** I had this prejudice too, I was expecting an aggressively linear, nonsensical, poorly paced, piece-of-**** retread of the previous COD games, because what else would you expect? You weren't expecting a masterpiece, nor did we get a masterpiece, but we did get something that is entirely different from its predecessor and also something I would recommend. Up to this point, I've hated the Call of Duty series, with MW1 being the only good one (it was actually quite fantastic) and all the others being rather **** and boring. Black Ops 2 is a huge turn around for the series, and to those people who say it's exactly the same, you obviously haven't played it. Expand
  75. Nov 18, 2012
    0
    baddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd i think. Expand
  76. Nov 18, 2012
    10
    I give this game 9 but so much users give this game bad score.before MW 3 I think COD it gone,but Black Ops this is new page in this series,campaning give emotions like in first MW.Story very cool,especially for COD.Zombies very cool bonus and multyplayer good.In this game really good soundtrack!Peoples this game one of the candidates on GOTY.This my opinion.
  77. Nov 17, 2012
    10
    This time around I believe Treyarch has come out of the shadows of Infinity Ward. They deserve great COD fan respect and the highest accolades ever for the well thought out fine tuning they have brought us with COD Black Ops II. It is incredibly fun to play, most especially the multiplayer. It's the best COD multiplayer experience to date and one big reason why is the refinement of the perk system and the emphasis on teamwork and it's relation to gaining xp, scoring higher, and winning matches. This makes the objective based mp games better than ever. The realistic graphics beautifully go beyond what I thought was possible for the Xbox 360 to handle. Splendid job Treyarch! Expand
  78. Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Graphics and audio are fine. Until the next gen consoles come out they have more or less peaked. The campaign is lackluster. Its hard to feel a connect to any of the characters as it jumps back and forth between past and future. 3d models of the voice actors are nice as you can see the person that is performing the voice fairly clearly. The new strike force missions are a cool twist but the AI of your team is dumb making it more of a babysitting task.. Zombies is fun, for those that like it. Easy mode is nice for beginners and split screeners. So far the main gripe I have is with Multiplayer. Aiming and recoil seem to be major problems. Hit markers fly when shooting but notification on you are slow, seeming as if you die with one shot. And with the addition of the laser sight, hip firing has gotten a huge boost almost to the point that unless its a cross map shot its not worth it to use the mechanics of aiming down the sight, which is disappointing. Assault rifles feel underpowered and SMGs and shotguns slightly overpowered, mainly in effective range. As far as the maps, they are a nice nice change from the close quarter combat of MW3 and overall are pretty balanced. Expand
  79. Nov 17, 2012
    5
    It's funny, all the people that vote 0, only vote on Call Of Duty games (which vote 0)...get a life....

    Black Ops 2 is fine. I am sure if you like the other COD games, you will like this one.
  80. Nov 17, 2012
    8
    Gotta admit, this game took me by surprise. I had previously written off the CoD franchise in favor of Battlefield for it's vehicles & many different & new modes of game play & variety. Black Ops II is so different from the other CoD's that its gotten me hooked again. The campaign is no better or worse than Warfighter's & as a matter of fact, I think I enjoyed Warfighter more. But the Multiplayer in Black Ops II has so much more to offer its worth every penny you'll pay. My only gripes are the limited selection of weapons & for Chrissakes, beefup the gunfire sound effects. I shouldn't be able to hear someone in the game trying to explain something to me when I'm discharging my weapon. Battlefield's sound is far superior. The revamped score streak as opposed to kill streak makes the game a bit more fun for those of us that aren't dead-eye sights & aimers....

    You should buy this game. Nice job Treyarch!
    Expand
  81. Nov 17, 2012
    0
    I give it a zero for the fact that no major changes were made to the game besides the new killstreak system.There is almost no reason to buy this game other than saying you got the new COD. When in reality if you had MW3 in your collection you don't need this.
  82. Nov 17, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one of the best games ever made I love this game because it is always fun and the graphics are extremely realistic It's AWESOME!!!!!!!! AND COOL!!!!!!! Expand
  83. Nov 17, 2012
    0
    This game does not deserve to be released. I would rather eat chicken nuggets without sour cream than playing this game, yes i said without sour cream. The game is a cancer to the gaming industry and that is all that needs to be said.
  84. Nov 17, 2012
    3
    Well once again, Treyarch refuses to fix even one of the issues that makes anyone that respects and plays any sort of first person shooter cringe. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is a disgusting mess of a game. It features a grand total of four different spawn points per game, a shallow thoughtless campaign, rehashed graphics from 2010, and hit markers that are once again dysfunctional. I really need to stop giving this franchise chances, because they don't even try anymore. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. Expand
  85. Nov 17, 2012
    10
    This is the best COD since the first!!! The campaign is longer and allows replay with differents ends! The multiplayer is very comprehensive: fifteen maps and many game modes!!! A great game despite what the "anti-cod" can say!!!
  86. Nov 17, 2012
    4
    My score is 4 out of 10. I'll star with the good points first ONLY for multiplayer : This Cod is fun for the fast-paced action and for the time a played to reach lvl 25 seems really balanced with the nes system of scorestreak it seems like there is less cheap streak weapons so the game feels more like a shooter game than a over the top explosing cheap war unbalanced mess like MW2 and MW3. Sounds are really great, they really improved on that. They new token equipment system with tokens are really well implemented too, it feels really more balanced and you have to make sacrifice to make your class more well rounded. Gameplay is as usual good and easy to pick up and play for casual gamers and feel rellay responsive like all call of duty, one of the strongest point of this serie.Now the bads... be ready : Graphics are OK but Treyarch clearly has a step back from Infinity Ward's games even MW2 looks better IMO than BO2. Assault Rifle's madness...damn it might be the weakess part of that game, assault rifle are very too powerfull ther is almost NO recoil at all with it so you can 'snipe' easily with long distant without no problem at all with the new scopes for zooming, you can even spray without fearing to be killed by a real sniper user, so frustrating for sniper users like me...I might not be the best sniper user in the world but I kinda did well in previous COD with it. The maps : They feel really blend and without being memorable at all and there are too many shadow corners for camper to just wait and have cheap kills... they tried to make it look like a medal of honor game and it fails at it seriously. The cheap hide head hitbox : In tis COD when you hide behind a barrel the opponent will have a hard time to kill you mostly if he uses an assault rifle or smg because there is almost no head hitbox from yours it's really not realistic you would not supposed to be able to fire from that point since the opponent don't even see the reste of your body... every cod is like that but that damn that one is VERY exagerated. The menu music : WHY please why....add some dubstep music in a COD wow?! really!? They really force to target kids smoking week and listening to that crappy music and only play cod and thinking it's a competetive shooter while it's not. The community : Well it's cod so you know what to think about it... The servers and online aspect : Ok for the launch it was a big time fail... always getting lag spike on the menu.. can't join with a party that exeeds more that 2 players, kicking out of game without reason, games try to find other player even if it's fully causing games to wait a really long time to start, loading for reconnecting to parties... THEY have to fix it quickly or people will stop playing it. That's much of it, IMO it's the worst COD yet I skipped MW3 cause it looked really bad thinking the next one would be improved but I was wrong and now this is the last time I bought a COD game, this serie is dead but it's sad because it will always make money from the hype and the kids who still think it's the best serie ever, the new FPS generation is very different but not for the good, brought the game back and bought BF3 and yet feels so refreshing compared to COD see you there for the people who have taste in FPS games! I hope the next COD will fail big time on sales, this is absolutly unnacceptable to release a recycled peace of crap with the engine runing for 5 YEARS! Macdonald's food sells well but doesn't mean that it's good but it gattered so much popularity and it's easy to buy and eat when you have nothing else, it's the same case with COD serie. R.I.P COD and Treyarch and Infinity enjoy the your money from the mcdonald's sold out I hope you like it! Expand
  87. Nov 17, 2012
    3
    Derivative. That's all I can say of Call of Duty. It's a sad decline from the greatness of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. A slow decay and entropy towards oblivion. It no longer became a shining sun it once was, no a crushing black hole for the FPS genre to slow die in. There's less "future" in it compared to games such as Metal Gear Solid or Deus Ex. Only a few guns and vehicles are changed. The story line might as well been written by Michael Bay, even though they hired the writer for the Dark Knight. The fanbase and monetary transactions have become more and more cancerous, and I only see a cliff ahead for this speeding train. RIP COD, you will be remembered but not missed Expand
  88. Nov 17, 2012
    9
    First thing: I bet 1000 bucks that not even the half of all the red reviewers have even played Black Ops 2 and still write that there is nothing new or changed compared to MW2. I played MW3 and Battlefield 3 last year and enjoyed both of them equally. I cant get all the hate on Black Ops 2.
    Everyone shouted out for innovations and new ideas and Treyarch delivered them. A non-linear
    storymode, all-new zombies, completely overhauled multiplayer with new perk- and prestige system and still everyone says that there is nothing new.
    The graphics are not really uptodate but they are far better than in every other CoD with new lightning effects. Why would you need a new engine anyway? Was there such a huge difference beetween the Frostbite 1 and Frostbite 2 engine except the advertisment for new bashing material on CoD? No! The graphics of Battlefield 3 on the consoles were horrible and even MW3 delivered a smoother (if it was better is a matter of opinion) experience with 60 FPS. But MW3 didnt made ANYTHING new. Nothing. It made it even worse with support killstreaks and stuff like this and got ratings way higher than Black Ops 2.

    Black Ops 2 is way more than a simple Call of Duty. Its the (last) try of a great development team to make the Call of Duty franchise fresh and feel good again. MW3 was a shame in playability online with all the Akimbo and Assassin noobs but Black Ops 2 made good with its multiplayer to be fair. The connection may not be the best everytime but its not that bad. Like in every game you have good and bad rounds.

    All I can say is that most of the haters here are just BF fanboys. This ratings should all go to Modern Warfare 3 and even the press bashes on Black Ops 2 for not being original what I cant understand. Its doing the best job possible on making a shooter feel fresh and Treyarch gets spitted in the face like this? I can see Modern Warfare 4 in the future with the same sh**play like Modern Warfare 3 and it will get 90+ again from everyone because it makes everything better and has nice Coop. That's a joke such as all the 0.0 ratings. They don't make any sense at all. If you played (and I mean not only 2 matches online and the first three missions in the story) Black Ops 2 you know that it just can't get 0.0. In my eyes Treyarch did an amazing job on make Call of Duty feel fresh. After disappointments this year like Medal of Honor or some other mediocre games I can just say that Black Ops 2 is with Dishonored and XCOM one of my Game of the Year. Period.
    Expand
  89. Nov 17, 2012
    9
    The bottom line to this game is that haters are gonna hate, that's all there is to it.

    Don't believe the 0's since their goals seem to just be to spend $60 on something each year that they know they're gonna rip on. And for the people complaining about glitches, well there are, but Treyarch has pointed this out and are fixing it so there is no need to give it below a 5 for online
    glitches.

    Defiantly not a 10 but a lot of fun, and at least has a lot more creativity in it than MW3 multiplayer which I played for about 2 weeks. This game I will probably play for at least 3 months, maybe more depending on how into it I get.
    Expand
  90. Nov 17, 2012
    0
    Just no. This is it. This is clearly the year that Game Critics are revealed to be the crooked bribe taking losers they really are. Just look at the users scores and how out of touch the critics scores are. This game is a blight on the COD franchise. Its just gone beyond a joke - its like Treyarch weren't even trying to come up with anything remotely grounded in reality. From gunfights on horseback to some very uncomfortable attempt at an RTS thrown into the middle of the game... this is just an all round no thankyou.

    The graphics are also cartoonish and horrendous compared to the last Black Ops.

    Granted that the multiplayer is fun for a short while - but it does NOTHING new whatsoever and once the initial buzz has worn off the player numbers will fall like flies.

    This is the first COD I have hated to the core.
    Expand
  91. Nov 17, 2012
    7
    Well-fleshed out campaign: granted it is completely unrealistic and off the wall. The graphics sincerely need an overhaul, its now lacking in that department critically. The guns feel nice when shot. The MP as of now, in my experiences, is just shy of a train wreck. The lag even on 360 is atrocious, the maps are decent enough...when the spawns actually flip and its not both teams on the same side. The worst part of the MP is the hit detection, it is awful, you feel you should have won a gun fight but some how become insta-dead. People were complaining about Warfighter, this is worse, and they out in the theater mode again so you can watch yourself have crosshairs right on a guy and not even get a marker. Its bad. I feel they spent too much time on Zombies, that part is great, its new and different but not completely away from what made it popular. Overall this game is good at best, maybe if they fix the online MP problems it will be decent. Expand
  92. Nov 17, 2012
    4
    Black ops 2 has lost its touch! black ops 1 multiplayer was all about, tactics, less crowded maps, proper gameplay, fun and its fair... Black ops 2 copies what modern warfare is! which isn't the trade mark of black ops! black ops 2 mutiplayer has no balance, all weapons are super powered even hand guns, I always loved black ops 1 I never played Modern Warfare Multiplayer coz its too crowded and poor gameplay, no tactics just shoot and kill and sadly to say so is black ops 2! Expand
  93. Nov 17, 2012
    7
    If you have friends to pay with, you don't have to worry about whether this game is worth buying. Because of course it is. It adds enough to warrant as a new game, but BARELY enough. Regardless, it's still unabridged, pure stupid fun.
  94. Nov 17, 2012
    0
    That franchise is destroying the industry, stop buying it if you care about good games in the future, this cancer must be exterminated or there will be a day that all games will looks like it.
  95. Nov 17, 2012
    3
    I will openly admit that I haven't bought a CoD game since MW2 and haven't truly played one since BO due to the lack of innovation in the games I was spending $60 every year on, but I read and watched the previews about the new game modes and changes to multiplayer and decided that maybe this will bring back the fun of the CoD. I am sad to say that I was wrong.

    While the game does offer
    slight innovation with new Zombies modes, the addition of Pick 10, and a branching storyline, I couldn't help but feeling like I just paid $60 for a DLC. It's still the classic CoD formula which is always not good or bad, but it sure does get old. An excellent marketing strategy nonetheless for appealing to casual gamers, but it leaves hardcore gamers questioning: when will the edge-of-seat, nail-biting, adrenaline pumping feeling come back?

    The branching storyline campaign was what really appealed to me getting the game, but following the overly paid detail to the action of the story never made me care about how the storyline branched (and I will not give a name, but how did he survive after that?). Overall, CoD fans, casual gamers, and 12-year-olds that shouldn't be playing the game anyway will love the simplistic additions to the run-and-gun gameplay. They're on the right track with the innovation process, but the lack of depth leaves many holes in their attempt.
    Expand
  96. Nov 17, 2012
    2
    I imagine this game as a ''face-palm'' of the gaming industry world. What a failure. I don't see how any can enjoy this; it's literally the same thing as all other games with improved graphics and a couple of new, mainly aesthetic features. Why are we throwing money at something so terrible? We're only encouraging it.
  97. Nov 17, 2012
    10
    I've been incredibly critical of the Call of Duty franchise in the past but BO2 is a massive step in the right direction.

    But after the pitiful attempt last year with MW3, the only way was up, right? Treyarch have tweaked the mechanics of the game to the point whereby it has become the best of what it can possibly be. Now I understand it may not be everyones cup of tea, but those
    individuals need to ask themselves a serious question. And that questions is, if they no longer enjoy the core mechanics and the gameplay then why do they continue to purchase CoD and waste their money annually? Call of Duty is Call of Duty. It has ALWAYS been Call of Duty and it will ALWAYS BE Call of Duty. Like it for what it is, not for what you want it to be because guess what, if developers retract too much from what it is, then it becomes something different. It becomes something other than Call of Duty. I can't understand why it doesn't register with people the fact that Madden never changes from year to year, why NBA games never change from year to year or why Hockey games never change from year to year but have no qualms about negatively mentioning a CoD game. What exactly do these people want Call of Duty to be? I'm not sure but it definitely isn't Call of Duty. Take the sports games I mentioned, players throwing a ball around a green pitch, or players bouncing a ball around a court or skaters passing a pug around an ice-rink - what should the developers do to these games....perhaps throw in dinosaurs and wizards? Of course not, that would be absurd. So why not use the same logic to Call of Duty?

    I think the negative peoples' gripe is not with the developers of the franchise, it's with themselves. The people acting negatively or showing CoD in a bad light are not frustrated with Treyarch for the game they made. The problem with them, is that they refuse to see that BO2 as well as CoD's that went before it - is not a NEW game. It is nothing new. We have to realise (as I am fully aware of when I hand my money over every 12 months) that we are not buying a brand new game. What we're purchasing is an updated version of mechanics that work. BO2 is not a new game and MW3 certainly wasn't a new game. We've been playing these games for the last five years minimum. This is what Call of Duty is and it's high time people realised it.

    If they feel bored after the fact that they've played this game for the last five years, perhaps it's time to move on?! There is a whole world of video games out there and perhaps now, having received all you're going to get out of Call of Duty as a franchise, would be better accommodated in new companies products. BO2 is a welcomed evolution of a lagging series. MW3 as far as I'm concerned was such a wasted year in the franchises history that anything that isn't MW3 should be applauded and celebrated.
    Expand
  98. Nov 17, 2012
    7
    After MW3, I bought black ops 2 with the ideal that I might actually just end up playing the single player and selling it back after i'd been killed 100 times in one game in the online multiplayer. After sinking days and days of playtime online on COD4, and WaW. And having sunk about 2 days into MW2 and MW3 online player and frankly hated it, i had no idea what to expect for BLOPS 2 (I thought BLOPS 1 was a great game). However, the online multiplayer on BLOPS 2 in all honesty saves the game. But first the story mode: It would be too harsh to say the story mode was a complete disaster, but really, it comes nowhere close to any of the other call of duties. There are no 'stand out missions'. The strike force missions and clunky and hard to use, and it lacks real emotion and a good soundtrack which in my opinion has made some of the games like COD4 and Waw whose sountracks cement those good moments of gameplay into your mind forever. I'd give the single player 4/10, 2 of those points coming for the impressive cutscenes preceeding the missions, some of the cinematics really are good but dont let that shadow the missions which really lack any substance. As for zombies, im underwhelmed, the maps are bad, with fire all over the floor so you can be running away from zombies and suddenly find yourself downed because you stood over a crack with flames coming out, which span the entirity of the map. But i guess you should decide for yourself. The muliplayer? It was average for me until i found the FAL DSW, its a great gun, and has the old school, classic, 3-shot body kill that was in COD4 and hasnt reutrnined since, I think no cod games will be good again until default damage is 3 hit kill, all of the round ending kill cams are of a filthy, over used, SMG probably with a silencer spraying about 15 bullets around the general area of someone without any real precision. But for Me the multi player, if cod 4 was 9.9/10 ( my opinion) black ops to is around the 8/8.5 mark. Expand
  99. Nov 17, 2012
    5
    From an avid COD fan that has enjoyed every iteration of the series up to date (besides MW2) this game is a huge disappointment to me. I am truly saddened and shocked at Treyarch's porous decision making while developing this game. The zombies is at its best, and a very addicting part of the game, and i can't speak to to the single-player because I don't care for it. The multiplayer is where the game falls. The maps are horribly designed and a campers heaven, there are numerous and countless boxes/crates/cars/barrels to hide behind. The maps are designed like duel fort fields that lack the flow of previous COD games. The weapons are not fun to use and poorly designed. The MP gameplay in general feels sluggish and clunky, every game I have played (even on the smaller, more fast paced maps) is significantly slower and longer than games of previous COD games (they lack excitement). The hitmarker noise is reduced and the reward text is white and hard to see, this may seem like a small deal but those are thing you have to see constantly and when killing someone just isn't very satisfying then the game just isn't too much fun. Statistics are essentially missing as all your combat record tells you is how long you've played, how many kills you have, and your K:D ratio. No death count or any of the numerous fun statistics that were in nearly every other COD. The only reason I give this game a 5 is because of zombies and perhaps you might enjoy the camping playstyle. But in general, STAY AWAY. Expand
  100. Nov 17, 2012
    9
    The only reason why this game is not getting a 10 is because of the aging multiplayer and engine. The multiplayer outdoes MW3's. If you liked the previous multiplayer of the other call of duty's then you'll like this one too. The single player is just as great as the previous call of duty's. It's really intense. The zombies is the best part of this game. The TranZit mode is perfect for those who are continuing the story from Black Ops 1 and W@W. It also includes smaller survival maps that are boring for old timers but are sure to bring new people into zombies. The new grief mode is fun and refreshing and really entertaining. Looking forward to more zombies, don't care for multiplayer in the end. Expand
  101. Nov 14, 2012
    0
    It used to be Infinity Ward would make a CoD title and update the assets (CoD1,2,MW1,MW2). Then, while they worked on the next "real" iteration, Treyarch (started doing the original CoD expansion packs) would make a filler (CoD3,WaW,BO) and they would use IW's assets and add some crazy innovation (like vehicles in CoD3 and zombies in WaW). Unfortunately, the founders of Infinity Ward (Camp and Zampanella) left the project/were fired (insubordination) before MW3 was done and half of their employees left with them to form Respawn Entertainment. The Infinity Ward that was left was just a shell of the company it had been, which is why they brought in other developers to finish MW3 (Treyarch included (primarily for the MP aspect)). Respawn Entertainment, Infinity Ward and Activision have basically spent the last several years just suing each other left and right over the IP (royalties, rights to make new games, competition). Bottom line is that Treyarch is still doing what they've always done, but they flounder without the assets/tools (game engine/graphics/mechanics) that the franchise founders created for them. Treyarch doesn't know how to make new tools, so they have had to use the same ones over and over since MW2 (many would say MW1).

    And... that's why we can't have nice things.
    Collapse
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 73 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 73
  2. Negative: 0 out of 73
  1. 80
    This is not to say it's a bad game, it's just not different enough from previous Call of Duty titles. The story isn't memorable, the maps and weapons aren't any different to what we've previously experienced, the gameplay is near identical to previous games, and when it's not identical it falls flat and fails to impress.
  2. Jan 19, 2013
    80
    It's fun, and an indication that Treyarch is willing to explore ideas that Infinity Ward has thus far ignored. [Issue#93, p.74]
  3. Jan 7, 2013
    95
    If the original Black Ops was Treyarch's coming-out party, then Black Ops 2 is the studio's affirmation that their COD expertise was no flash in the pan. If you're one of the 16 people who hasn't played this gem yet, go buy it now. Conversely, if you're among those who bought the game but hasn't ventured into the single-player campaign (yes, it happens), there's a great narrative and divergent gameplay awaiting your experimentation, so check it out.