Call of Duty: Black Ops II Xbox 360

User Score
4.8

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 2259 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 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 theWell-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
  2. Nov 29, 2012
    5
    At the end of it all I was left feeling sorely disappointed with Black Ops II, but I went into it knowing this would probably be the outcome. Compared to WaW and Black Ops 1 in terms of story I get the feeling Treyarch just didn
  3. 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 toThe 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
  4. Dec 2, 2012
    5
    More of same! Just worse. Bad graphics, forgettable music, cheap grenade kills. And while I loved BO1 this story in BO2 is something only a psycho Marxist could enjoy. Multi player and Zombies are merely Ok. All in all a waste of time.
  5. Dec 2, 2012
    7
    It is good to see that call of duty is finally different. The guns are amazing the audio is brilliant. I feel that zombies is good, however it needs to improve, which hopefully will come in future DLCs.
  6. Dec 7, 2012
    7
    Ah, Black Ops II. For some one of the greatest Call of Duty ever and for others a pile of crap (a lot more).
    I played every Call of Duty since Finest Hour and played like maybe 80 hours of Black Ops 2 altogether. Does this make me qualified? idk, well anyways le'ts split the review up a bit, into three sections, singeplayer, multiplayer, and zombies. First, Singleplayer, I have never seen
    Ah, Black Ops II. For some one of the greatest Call of Duty ever and for others a pile of crap (a lot more).
    I played every Call of Duty since Finest Hour and played like maybe 80 hours of Black Ops 2 altogether. Does this make me qualified? idk, well anyways le'ts split the review up a bit, into three sections, singeplayer, multiplayer, and zombies. First, Singleplayer, I have never seen such terrible railroading, disastrous plot holes, and sloppy writing on this scale for Call of Duty. Don
    Expand
  7. Aug 2, 2013
    6
    Sure there is no innovation and is just basically the same thing as the other games that came before it, but that's what some people like. Besides, a video game and video game maker's main goal is to entertain the player with a good experience with the game they're making, regardless if they bring something new or innovative or not, and this game definitely does that with it's newSure there is no innovation and is just basically the same thing as the other games that came before it, but that's what some people like. Besides, a video game and video game maker's main goal is to entertain the player with a good experience with the game they're making, regardless if they bring something new or innovative or not, and this game definitely does that with it's new futuristic setting, the controls work just fine, the graphics look good, and the multiplayer is still fun. Surem this game is just another rehash of the past games, but at least they're rehashing a GOOD game. But since it's basically the same as the other Call of Duty's it does feel repetitive and kinda boring to do the same thing as the other games. So bottom line, this game isn't exactly the best game ever, but it's nowhere near horrible, in fact it's not even a bad game in general, it's just repetitive to play the same game over and over, but besides that, there's nothing really wrong with it. Expand
  8. May 8, 2013
    6
    The only reason this score is so low is because of two words: Lag. Compensation. While you see something on your screen, the server has essentially decide your fate. The person you shot at is already two steps behind you and knifed your back. And don't even get me started on the knifing. Clunkiest melee combat system ever devised. The campaign was interesting, suspensful, and the best ofThe only reason this score is so low is because of two words: Lag. Compensation. While you see something on your screen, the server has essentially decide your fate. The person you shot at is already two steps behind you and knifed your back. And don't even get me started on the knifing. Clunkiest melee combat system ever devised. The campaign was interesting, suspensful, and the best of the series. Zombies is back and better than ever. Zombies was the main reason I bought this game. But I digress. If you come for the multiplayer, you are going to throw your controller at your screen a couple of times...like always. Expand
  9. Oct 11, 2013
    6
    Call of Duty is kind of like the bowling of the video game world. It's a game that you play with you're friends when you're bored and you want to chat but you want to do something while you're talking. It's also a game series that can be taken seriously to the point of rage and starting clans to compete with other hardcore CoD players. That's really all CoD games are meant to be now a daysCall of Duty is kind of like the bowling of the video game world. It's a game that you play with you're friends when you're bored and you want to chat but you want to do something while you're talking. It's also a game series that can be taken seriously to the point of rage and starting clans to compete with other hardcore CoD players. That's really all CoD games are meant to be now a days and the real question is does the newest cod game have enough new features to keep players interested. CoD Black Ops 2 is marginally better than Modern Warfare 3 with a fairer gun distribution between levels and better map design. Black Ops 2 for the most part also seems to have a decent internet connection for multiplayer. Zombies mode is also back, and it's still the same survive as many rounds as you can mode CoD players love even though I feel that the zombies mode in BO2 is a bit too story focused and the maps aren't nearly as creative. Campaign mode is, well, campaign mode. You go through an assortment of different missions to reach the goal, even though you can choose your equipment before each round it's still just your classic CoD campaign mode. The CoD series is meant to be a game series that is set to get a fresh code of paint every year so CoD fans can mindlessly shoot away with their friends with better graphics and new guns. There's not a whole lot of innovation trying to be made because, hey, why fix what's not broken? All the innovation is put into the campaign mode which nobody notices because CoD haters are too busy about how similar the multiplayer is to the last CoD game. Just judge the CoD series on the game it is, not what it could be because the formula stays the same for a reason, as a CoD game Black Ops 2 gets the job done just fine for anyone who wants that "new" CoD game. Expand
  10. 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 byOkay, 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
  11. Feb 13, 2013
    5
    I'm not going to complain about the game being the same as last years (it works for sports game and no one says a thing). This game has a bunch of flaws. Ever since COD1 there's been a horrible hit box. You can miss a person completely and kill them or shot a person in the knees and get a head shot. If the hit box was more accurate like the previous games I wouldn't have an issue with this game.
  12. Mar 29, 2013
    5
    If this was a new IP, this would be a fine game. probably a 7.5/10 or an 8/10. Instead it is plagued by many of the problems of it's predecessors. This is the biggest problem that i find with the CoD series of games. They are broken and then the next one is not fixed. Lets get on to BO2 though. 1st, presentation, the look of the game is fairly fluid. It runs at a smooth 60fps butIf this was a new IP, this would be a fine game. probably a 7.5/10 or an 8/10. Instead it is plagued by many of the problems of it's predecessors. This is the biggest problem that i find with the CoD series of games. They are broken and then the next one is not fixed. Lets get on to BO2 though. 1st, presentation, the look of the game is fairly fluid. It runs at a smooth 60fps but that still isn't enough to ignore the graphics that look like they are about 3 years behind. It's had to play a game like this after playing something like BF3 or Halo 4. When you actually stop and look at something you can tell the textures are very sub par. This wouldn't be a huge deal if that was the standard, but I know that there can be so much better. Best that I can tell, the developers are hoping you would be moving to quickly to notice such poor graphics. This is true for the most part. Most of the game play moves along very quickly which does help the graphics problem. Story, It's Call of Duty. It's a massive scale war that has Michael Bay as the Commander in Chief. It looks cool, it is adrenaline pumping, but after 6 games of the basically same massive scale war, different day. It gets old. The jumps in time are cool and an interesting way to break up the game. The game also tried to introduce something new called Strike Force mode. It is terrible, you are suppose to be able to control different units from above and jump between them and it just doesn't work. They are not smart enough and it ends up just being annoying. I found myself doing the one required strike force mission then skipping the rest. Gameplay: It's a CoD game, it plays very much like every other CoD game. Multiplayer: I've played a lot of multiplayer and it is fun. It can also be very frustrating. It, like many other CoD games is very unbalanced. The other problem is that they don't fix it. When the lifetime of your game is only 1 year, there isn't much of a motivation to actually release patches to fix issues with the game. So there are many things that ended up being heavily unbalanced and have been left totally unfixed. Also, the map design is the standard 3 lane maps. Zombies: I have not played much of zombies, from what I have played, it does not feel nearly as solid of flushed out as it was in BO or WaW. I feel like they tried to do to much and forgot what zombies was all about.

    This once a year release gets lots of money for activision but it doesn't help make good games. I could probably right the same review for the past 4 CoD's. They all share the same issues and these issues are never fixed. The graphics also need to catch up. They are way behind. Like I said before if this was a new IP, I would give it a 7.5/10 with hopes that where they go from here will improve the problems. But, seeing as how this is the 6th game in the modern CoD series, there are really no excuses at this point. I give it a 5/10
    Expand
  13. 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 CoDI 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
  14. Nov 16, 2012
    7
    Single player is a 10, multiplayer is a 0. Graphics and sounds is a 5. Clearly, all the money went into the story, which is the best COD story yet, but from the lousy multiplayer to the 3D ready graphics (which means most of us are delivered lacklustre poly detail and textures) to the weapon sounds where the reload "click" of the weapon is noticeably louder than the sound of the weaponSingle player is a 10, multiplayer is a 0. Graphics and sounds is a 5. Clearly, all the money went into the story, which is the best COD story yet, but from the lousy multiplayer to the 3D ready graphics (which means most of us are delivered lacklustre poly detail and textures) to the weapon sounds where the reload "click" of the weapon is noticeably louder than the sound of the weapon being shot, the graphics, sound, and multiplayer game-play are a bust. Some areas of BO2 look amazing in SP, too bad they couldn't apply that effort to the MP maps, which all look blurry and simplistic. The multiplayer is the lame level climb against vastly superiorly armed players that BO was. It won't grab you and hold your attention; first of all, that formula has been done before, done better and done with more effort focused on the multiplayer maps. If you were looking for a worthy successor to MW3, this ain't it. If what you want is a more balanced level climber, try Halo 4. If you want a more simulation of military combat, try the updated version of MOH:Warfighter. Black ops 2 multiplayer is just plain boring; and while the SP is worth the cost of admission, it's not what the majority of it's casual audience (those who don't hide penis size insecurity behind which game they prefer) expected or deserved. Warfighter and Halo 4 are out. Have a fun BO2 SP ride and then go back to whatever game it was you were doing. Expand
  15. Nov 13, 2012
    7
    Yet another Call of Duty title has been released and it is at least solid. This is not a great game, or even a good game really, but it is fun and will provide several people with hours of entertainment. People can say what they will about the Call of Duty franchise, but it has done well for itself and keeps fans coming back. Of course the game is the same year after year, but that'sYet another Call of Duty title has been released and it is at least solid. This is not a great game, or even a good game really, but it is fun and will provide several people with hours of entertainment. People can say what they will about the Call of Duty franchise, but it has done well for itself and keeps fans coming back. Of course the game is the same year after year, but that's because the developers don't really strive to be innovative, which is fine. It is the gaming equivalent of candy. By this I mean it is not satisfying and filling like a steak, but it still tastes good and I indulge myself every now and again. My main point is that even though Call of Duty has become like Madden it doesn't make it a bad game. Call of Duty has become stale, repetitive, and a little dull, but it has certainly not become boring. Black Ops 2 is probably best suited for die-hard Call of Duty fans, but others may get a couple of weeks worth of fun out of it. Just go into the game with the mentality that it is the same as it has always been and you won't be disappointed. Expand
  16. 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
  17. Dec 26, 2012
    6
    I wanna start off honestly. COD Blacops 2 is a DECENT game. It is in the top percentile of games to come out this year. That being said, it would have made a fantastic 10/10 dlc for black ops 1. I honestly cannot tell how the graphics havent changed in years. Shouldn't a graphic update not be too much to ask for? Love the new hunter killer in multiplayer, but camping and constant rocketI wanna start off honestly. COD Blacops 2 is a DECENT game. It is in the top percentile of games to come out this year. That being said, it would have made a fantastic 10/10 dlc for black ops 1. I honestly cannot tell how the graphics havent changed in years. Shouldn't a graphic update not be too much to ask for? Love the new hunter killer in multiplayer, but camping and constant rocket launchers stuffed down your throat has ruined decent multiplayer yet again. This is not the fault of the company that created the game, but rather apparently the type of player this game draws in. *spolier alert* Finally in campaign is (once again) a scene where you kill someone with a knife and pistol. It is sad, because other wise this campaign was actually (at least in my mind) slightly better than mw3. The music, as always in cod, sucked. With all of this being said, if cod releases another game with such a lack of creativity or at least a HUGE graphics update, I will not buy another cod game. This was their last freebee. Expand
  18. Nov 13, 2012
    7
    Pros:
    Multiplayer is still fun, gameplay is addictive, there are tons of stats to view and improve upon, maps are decent, new kill streak point system is solid

    Cons:
    Still feels like an expansion pack rather than a whole new game
    Graphics aren't the greatest
  19. 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. GraphicsCall 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
  20. 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
    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
  21. Mar 17, 2013
    5
    The game was decent. I was disappointing by the plot with it's obliviously short and easy ending, plus the weapons being way too powerful. Multiplayer has a poor selection of maps and no new, appealing game modes. Zombies, was decent on the other hand. I preferred the original BO in a long shot, but it's the same dog on a hot sidewalk.
  22. Apr 27, 2013
    5
    To be honest, I think CoD Black ops 2 was actually great. It wasn't perfect but it wasn't terrible either; it's average. The game is good and I really liked the story line. the zombie mode has become more fun but the multiplayer however has still not changed and fixed its flaws that people like us have been complaining about since Modern warfare came out. Other than that it is OK.
  23. Jun 11, 2013
    7
    Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is a game which tries to be original but ends up being another good shooter.
    Concept: 6/10
    Graphics: 7/10
    Sound: 9/10
    Playability: 10/10
    Entertainment: 8/10
    Total Score: 7/10
  24. Jul 12, 2013
    6
    It was fairly entertaining. The Campaign was a bit dull but the Guns on Multiplayer were completely different. The guns were a bit unbalanced but the zombies was my favorite part. The thing I liked about this game was that it was nothing like the other games. Even the attachments changed. All of those people who say this game deserves a zero don't have a clue. I strongly suggest anyoneIt was fairly entertaining. The Campaign was a bit dull but the Guns on Multiplayer were completely different. The guns were a bit unbalanced but the zombies was my favorite part. The thing I liked about this game was that it was nothing like the other games. Even the attachments changed. All of those people who say this game deserves a zero don't have a clue. I strongly suggest anyone should get this. Just wait for it to go on sale :3. Expand
  25. Jan 1, 2014
    7
    Would much rather play this game over ghosts. I thought this game had issues til ghost came along. Fresh breathe of air after switching discs. This cod game has a much better multiplayer unless you're a camper, then feel free to play ghosts and never come back
  26. Apr 16, 2014
    5
    Black ops II isn't too bad. Campaign is boring, but you can still have some fun in multi player with friends, and just mess around there. The only part of this game that I really come back to is Zombies, which feels a lot more fast paced and fun compared to the other things. It isn't the best game ever, but its good if you want to play with friends.
  27. Aug 16, 2014
    6
    This game has a very easy gameplay, even in veteran. At the campaign, you always have to do the same thing at every mission (kill and run) and it's really boring. The multiplayer is almost the same thing that "Call of duty: Modern Warfare" 's and stills very easy to learn.
    I think that "Call of duty" would be a perfect game with dynamic maps, a harder gameplay (not just "kill and run")
    This game has a very easy gameplay, even in veteran. At the campaign, you always have to do the same thing at every mission (kill and run) and it's really boring. The multiplayer is almost the same thing that "Call of duty: Modern Warfare" 's and stills very easy to learn.
    I think that "Call of duty" would be a perfect game with dynamic maps, a harder gameplay (not just "kill and run") and a new game engine. I put 6 as score for only one reason: I had good experiences with my friends.
    Expand
  28. Dec 7, 2012
    5
    How Black Ops 2 proves Treyarch is still a B company-----Before I begin, I want to say that this is not a rant against the Call of Duty series or a love poem for the Battlefield series. In my honest opinion, they both have their good qualities and their bad qualities and are on two different scales of comparison. With that said, I feel that this newest iteration of Call of Duty really doesHow Black Ops 2 proves Treyarch is still a B company-----Before I begin, I want to say that this is not a rant against the Call of Duty series or a love poem for the Battlefield series. In my honest opinion, they both have their good qualities and their bad qualities and are on two different scales of comparison. With that said, I feel that this newest iteration of Call of Duty really does show that Treyarch still cannot turn-up the heat and become a triple A gaming company.-----Single Player: For single player I have never seen a company take so many steps backwards. Let me just state that while Black Ops 1 had an interesting story for a single player, it also had probably the worst gameplay I've seen in a single player in the longest time. Black Ops 2 more or less has the exact same experience, but with a much less interesting plot-line to follow. First of all, as said by a Bungie employee, single player is about getting the gamer into a scenario in under five minutes. This includes starting up your console, loading the game/level, and then listening through that first cutscene. Anything over five minutes is bound to cause rage and hatred. Apparently Treyarch has never head this saying though, because each level starts off with a cutscene that is literally so long, boring, and drawn out that you really just want to shoot yourself before it is over. But if you do manage to get past these ridiculous cutscenes and to the gameplay, don't expect a triple A gaming experience. Instead, you end up with a very linear path to follow, very stupid NPCs to fight, and overall you will feel like you are being dragged along on a bad theme park ride. Finally, that new mode is about the worst POS you've ever seen where a game tries oh so hard to imitate another game. It's stupid mistakes like this that show that their Single Player experience is still that of a B company.-----Multiplayer: I would like to say that I have already played too much multiplayer for this game, over 200 hours easily. I wish I could get that time back. To begin, although multiplayer now has all these new looks and bells attached to it, this is by far the least interesting/fun multiplayer to date. Basically it's Black Ops 1 with absolutely nothing new. Sure, they change the guns, the equipment, and the way you can attach stuff, but its all the same in the end with how you use stuff. But the part that gets me, and the reason I will call Treyarch again a B company, is that you can honestly tell that Treyarch has decided to put innovation before fixing problems. They have a new "Pick 10" system in play here that works fine enough, but then not everything is created equal among all the items. For instance, they still have no balanced the SMG being overpowered or there are some perks that make you wonder why anyone would ever choose that one (Hardwired being one that always comes to mind). On top of that, it's like they want the system to be more broken than ever before. But even if this new "Pick 10" system isn't balanced, I can admit that through many complaints they could eventually get things right (though the balancing I will openly admit feels like a BETA and not a final version, the errors being that obvious). However, what cannot be fixed are the other problems, such as this game having literally the worst spawn system in the entire history of FPS games. I wish I was joking, but in 1 game I was spawn killed 14 times in 3 minutes. Just for your knowledge, no, I do not suck. What does suck is that they literally will move the spawn to the **** part of the map if 1 player on the enemy team gets even close to the other side of your base. Add on top of that the fact that Treyarch has literally taken out the best part of MW3 spawn system, the "Safe Spawns" (Protects you from killstreaks if you just spawned) and it gets worse. I am not joking when I say that Treyarch should fire the guy that worked on spawns, and yes they had a guy working specifically on spawns. Finally, map design in this game is like someone thought "Hey, Nuketown worked once, let's just make 10 more versions of it and call that good." All the maps are small, and if they aren't small then they are cluttered. It's literally SMG heaven, or in other words perfect for people to use the least balanced weapon. I think I could get over all of this, but then the thing that just tops it off, the thing that I can't believe they failed to correct since it was the NUMBER 1 COMPLAINT ABOUT MW3 is still in the game. Lag / Lag Compensation is by far the worst of any game yet and 3 yellow bars means don't play.-----Zombies: Transit mode is just obnoxious. Plain and simple. I hate hearing the bus call out for players and I really hate trying to navigate the large map. But to really just explain it, Transit mode is the combination of 4 bad survival maps into one, large, bad survival map. Guys, it doesn't work. So if you ask me, the best zombies map is actually Nuketown. Go figure.-----Skip This. Expand
  29. Nov 14, 2012
    6
    Campaign is ok. Multiplayer is a step up from MW3 and BO but no where as good as MW, MW2 or WAW. But its good to see its better then the last 2. Graphics are slightly better but its the same engine and the map design in this game and the last 2 have really taken a plunge. This game gets a 6
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. X-ONE Magazine UK
    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.