User Score
4.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1998 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 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
  2. Jan 9, 2013
    2
    There's a common misconception going on that just because a game breaks sales records; it's a good game. The only reason COD Waste of Money 2 made any sales is because of the hype it generated prior to its release. It's just that all the 12 year old fan boys can't see it. I think they should just make a really **** COD this year, kill the series and be done with it. Why waste time on another one if all you're ever going to do is lie about how great it and then get other people to lie for you? I mean, an 83 over all from critics? Seriously? So if I made a game about me taking a **** in a different toilet every week and paid the right people then I'd get a high score too? The critics who gave this game any score above 60 should be ashamed of themselves. You want to know what the most frustrating thing is? You stupid ass users who review the game like a bunch of tit sucking fan-boys expecting us to feel the same way and shooting us down from a dizzying height when we don't. Seriously: **** you guys. If I say this game is **** then it's my opinion, go take your drool and **** stained diapers somewhere else. Okay, done ranting about that. Back to COD! or rather, never again back to COD. Not until they A) Make a game with a compelling story that doesn't feel like it was written for 5 year olds, B) Actually upgrade the graphics (Battlefield 3 still looks better after 2 years. **** sakes guys) and C) Not have the pretentious micro-penis it requires to actually charge more than the average first person shooter for a sub-par game. Bye. Expand
  3. Nov 14, 2012
    3
    This title jumps past the previous black ops game in many ways but fell short in a few. The graphics are much better but the texture quality and overall look of the terrain still leaves a huge gap between treyarch and infinity ward whos had better looking faces facial animation and texture usage all the way back to the scene in mw2 where your scaling the icy cliff. Therefore you always feel like youre playing an older cod game. Second is there custom icon.there are far fewer options in this than in the first black ops. Not to mention a lack of weapons to pick from. They greatly improved the eeapon addons however. The target scope and quick aim forgrip are a few solid examples. All the maps feel small and full of close quarters corridor fighting and with the poor spawn system thats been with all call of duty games it makes those shots from behind in an area surrounded by teamates all the more annoying. None of the maps are in my opinion memorable such as crash terminal ambush or firing range which is another downside to the entire black ops series. No maps pop out and make you crave them.

    Pros-better graphics than the first black ops
    -no death streaks
    -more useful weapon attachments
    -good variation of game modes for normal core

    Cons-textures and graphics look far older than okder cod titles made by infinityward
    -small gun selection
    -less icon customization options
    -no larger maps open alot of corner dodging
    -poor spawn system putting you steps away from an enemy.
    Expand
  4. Mar 15, 2013
    6
    This game is fun. Basically every criticism I've heard about it is true (i.e., doesn't innovate, is the same game as CoD4, etc., 100% linear). But it's fun. The linear CoD design has solved my biggest pet peeve from pre-1990s games: not knowing where to go next and feeling like I'm wasting my time. Before, I would just look up a walkthrough, but the objective marker just keeps me immersed in the game. Aside from the sandbox shooters, all the competitors copy CoD because it works. Also, it's a pretty, polished game with lots of spectacle.
    So why not a higher score? Because it doesn't innovate and it is more like an expansion pack to CoD4 than the 5th sequel. The new stuff (a pseudo-rts mode and a cool see-through-walls scope) is pretty minor, and I probably won't be replaying the single-player mode ever again. Also, while I really liked the revenge-driven plot of Modern Warfare 3, the plot of BlOps 2 doesn't really do anything for me. So I'd say slightly above average. Worth playing once if you like the linear FPS genre, but not something I'd stake my reputation recommending to my friends.
    Expand
  5. Dec 11, 2012
    1
    I will start by saying I'm one of the people that doesn't partake in the annual map add-ons that Activision calls "Full Games" I still play World at War and Black Ops 1. I don't understand why a franchise that sells this much can't afford to do some real R&D and develop an excellent game through and through.

    I tried playing the campaign it just had a more stale feeling to it than any of
    the other CoD's I've ever played, unexciting, I played half way through before I was so bored I couldn't take anymore, I've never been too much into the Multiplayer so I can't comment on that.

    The only positive side I can mention is the Zombie mode but even that's a mixed bag, on one hand it's fun and interesting, although I'd like it better if those annoying flying babies could be turned off so exploring between areas was fun and strategic, but no, your stuck in these tiny areas.

    The Zombie mode now requires friends to get anywhere, running around by yourself good luck with that not as fun as BO1 and WaW Zombie modes in my opinion, hopefully there DLC will breathe more light into the Zombie mode. They really didn't innovate anything here, and those parts where you command units and tell them where to go etc, feels worthless and thrown in as a last minute attempt to be "Different" which failed miserably.

    I am done with the CoD series until they seriously do some work on it, these games have become bland and stale. So I will sum it up two stars only cause the Zombie mode is kind of fun (only when you have good people to play with) but the rest of this is a add-on with the CoD name slapped onto it.

    Luckily, I didn't buy this game, I borrowed from my brother and had it for a few weeks. He to was disappointed and traded it in the second he got it back from me to get Far Cry 3 (Puts this game to shame). I know there's a lot to be said with the Cod and Halo series, but at least the Halo's aren't every single year, if your not going to change anything give us a break in between at least...
    Expand
  6. Nov 16, 2012
    7
    CALL OF DOODIE: CRAP OPS 2. People get suckered into spending $60 every November for the same game w/minor changes; it's too bad the COD franchise milks people for sales every year. Name a company that's gonna turn down the opportunity for multi million dollar sales every single year though. That said, it's understandable that another installment releases every single year. What I don't understand is why so many people feel compelled to spend $60 on it again and again and again. I shoud point out that I'm not one of the stupid, immature peope on here who submit reviews on games just to give them undeserving scores of "0" in order to pull their score down. The "reviewers" who are doing that should be banned from Metacritic because they're just ruining the site. If games like this deserve a "0" then what the does a truly bad game deserve to get? I think this game deserves a "7." The graphics are great. The campaign is epic and the game boasts lots of multiplayer modes. Zombies is still there too. The reason I only give it a 7 is because it doesn't do anything that previously released COD games haven't already done. It's simply another $60 rehash. My recommendation to fellow gamers is to STICK WITH INFINITY WARD. They're the true creators and developers of COD. Treyarch sucks in comparison because their games are plagued with glitches and they try too hard to make their games "over the top." Also, while on the subject of comparisons, Infinity Ward's "Special Ops" is way more impressive than Treyarch's "Zombies." Modern Warfare 4 will be out in November next year so there's no good reason to waste $60 on BO2. Get Halo 4 since it's a breath of fresher air, enjoy the DLC you likely already invested in for MW3, and look forward to MW4 kicking BO2's ass in a matter of months. :) Expand
  7. 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 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
  8. 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
  9. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    Campaign is decent in comparison to other CoDs but still pretty mediocre. Multiplayer maps are also mediocre, and the game has some serious technical problems. The weapon balance is excellent, however, but in typical Treyarch fashion, there is very little variety among the weapons. Generally not enough recoil on them either. Zombies is actually a lot worse than it was in WaW and BO, but still playable. The game is decent overall, but it lacks in innovation and change, as we have come to expect from Call of Duty titles. Overall, very meh. Expand
  10. Dec 9, 2012
    7
    A game that shouldn't be getting as many negative reviews as it has been getting from the users , Black Ops 2 delivers what I was expecting from the campaign with a few surprises. I really loved the fact for once in the CoD series you get to have choices that will alter the ending! You can also choose on what missions you get to do that will also change the story line. The story line itself is action-packed and great! The gameplay is generally the same, but that's expected for most FPS games (for me at least). Although the campaign was great, the multiplayer was still the same as the modern warfare and above. Although I like the fact that it has 'score-streaks' instead of kill-streaks ( I don't know that was in MW3 as well, didn't play the multiplayer since i was disappointing with it in general). But I still have fun with it nevertheless. The guns in multiplayer are somewhat off-balanced, being that the SMGs are the superior weapons in multiplayer (like it has been since mw2) but it is not too bad (although the mp7 is a bit too good). Plenty of gamemodes to choose from.

    Zombie Mode though is great! It is improved and a bit more polished from Black Ops 1. It has 1 additional perk called Tombstone (wanna learn about it? Google it.) And of there is a good amount of weapons to choose from with few being worthless. Although there is one thing that disappointed me a a bit. The lack of maps on there. There is technically 4 maps ( Tranzit, Farm, Town, and Nuketown) but it only feels like their is 2 maps. Farm and Town can be played on Tranzit ( which is just basically one huge map) and Nuketown is only obtainable at the moment for Hardened Edition, Deluxe Edition, and the Care Package (The Collectors Edition). I know I could of payed gotten them easily, but I'am not spending 20$ extra dollars on a game for just one map and a few crappy other additions. But overall I'am still pleased with Zombie mode.
    Expand
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Nov 28, 2012
    0
    This game has the worst campaign ending. The multiplayer is the same **** **** The only thing good this game has is the zombies. Mass effect 3 has a better ending!!!!
  14. Nov 13, 2012
    3
    As a regular player of the original Black Ops I had hoped to enjoy almost every aspect of COD Black Ops II (with the exception of Zombies) but now that I have actually played the sequel I can only say what a massive disappointment it is.
    I bought this game at midnight and queued for an hour and a half to get it on release.
    When I got home and first loaded the disc I was greeted with a
    mandatory update - 24 Mb - hardly a good start and increasingly common these days. Then came the Nuke-Town DLC - 125 MB - and when that was done I had the chore of setting the graphics / sound / safe zone options. Half an hour since the disc went in and I haven't actually fired a shot yet.
    When I did actually get to play I selected multiplayer first - and a quick look at the leader-boards revealed that some people at the top of the leader-boards have had nearly two (2) days game-time played already!! That's game-time folks - not time that they've actually owned the game but time spent playing BEFORE the game was officially released.
    When I did get into my first multiplayer game I had to select my weapons from the default classes - and no weapons were familiar favourates. It seems that 'just to be seen to be a bit different' all default weapons have to be ones I was unfamiliar with. Oh well it was getting late so just get on with it.
    Although the graphics looked very 'cartoony' I was impressed by the effort that went into the way the game looked - a lot of it seemed very graphically simular to MW2 and 3 though. When playing I did seem to be dying too easily and taking too many shots to kill people though - a nasty sign that lag compensation has reared its ugly head again. I am on a 56 mbs (15 ms ping) fibre connection so someone on a 2 mbs landline will own my ass because Trayarch seem to not understand or care how fast internet connections actually put the person with the fast connection at a massive disadvantage or that the faster your connection and the lower your ping the more clients will try to join your host and those clients will be further away so will lag more and your ping will be artificially increased to 'make it fair' for slower clients at your expense AND IT DOESN'T WORK.. grmbl.
    The Pick 10 system doesn't work either - it annoys me and restricts load-outs and I spent too much time compromising on stuff I couldn't have rather than picking the stuff I could have. I did miss the option to buy new stuff using the money from challenges/kills/contracts from Black Ops I. The contracts and option to buy should never have been removed as this again brings this new game closer to to MW3 - just the same way that all the good weapons are only available late in the Presige ladder it will encourage people not to bother Prestiging so again Trayarch got it wrong. By now I was yearning to just play a good game and realising that it wasn't going to happen.
    I played the Single Player mode the next morning - in 3D and in Regular difficulty. Very impressed with the cut-scenes which oozed quality. However, the game itself was a joke. I was surrounded by a huge number of enemies only to be getting slight grazes by their weapons and gunships, seemingly superhuman in the face of impossible odds. My AK-47 worked in a way that was massively different to the multiplayer game in that it mowed down wave after wave of enemies. Disappointed in yet another COD let-down, I ended the game.
    This will sell in millions. It doesn't deserve to.
    Expand
  15. Nov 13, 2012
    3
    Multiplayer was what I was looking forward to, yet the graphics are cartoonish. Difficult to know when you've killed an opponent at long distance. Non-intuitive Create a class section. Not worth commenting further. waste of money.
  16. Nov 27, 2012
    0
    I gave this game a medium rating when I first played it since it was a step up from MW3. I am now giving it a zero after playing it for a couple of weeks. In an effort to make a balanced game, Treyarch has gone through and muted everything fun about this once great series. The guns are blanned and boring, the perks do very little to improve the experience, the graphics are the same as MW1. BO1 was original. Money/Wager system, exciting weapons, weekly assignments. All gone. And their lag comp system makes %70 of the games unplayable. Really disappointing effort, if you can call it an effort at all. Expand
  17. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    I was excited to pick this game up after reading some reviews by critics. They made it sound like a lot had changed in this new cod game. After spending 60 dollars and playing the game, i realize these critics must have been paid to write all those good reviews. The games campaign is still the same on rails garbage that holds your hand through the entire game. Still has stupid enemy's that just run out in the open are just stand in one place and shoot. Its just a boring tin can shooter like all the other cod games. I know most people buy this for multiplayer, but I still would like to play a good fps campaign. The multiplayer is the same, so you will either love it or hate it. Expand
  18. Nov 14, 2012
    1
    My Son and I purchased the Hardened edition and were so looking forward to it. It is a let down, the game play is too simular to Ghost Recon, and the maps might as well have been issued as map pack for Black Ops 1. I find the whole feel of this greatly dissapointing and feel I have totally waisted my money. My Son, after just 20 minutes, "Dad, its crap". Sorry. But if you know the previous maps you can even work out where they have just re-skinned them too. Look for launch forinstance, or Ait Plane wreck in COD 2, diverse examples of copied mapping. Expand
  19. Nov 29, 2012
    7
    Update since I gave the game a 5 within the first few days. The campaign is great and with the ending changing depending on your choices, it actually adds replay value, unlike previous COD games. Zombies is fun for a while but the maps grow old after a while but it is still a very fun mode. Zombies will probably be better once they release more maps and perks. Multiplayer is a combination of MW3 and Black Ops. If you liked either multiplayer, BO2 multiplayer may grow on you. The pick 10 system is great since you won't see two people with identical classes. The system adds great variety and constantly makes you adapt your classes. This game does however have one major flaw: the players. In pretty much every game I go into, people camp on the second floor of a vertical building with either bouncing betties or shock charges (immobilizes you). The people who don't camp in buildings run around the map with all stealth perks or shotguns which both become extremely annoying until it becomes available to you. There are very few players who just play the game normally without using the most overpowered setups. This takes away all the fun for me in multiplayer. If anyone gives this game a ten they are lying because COD has a long way to go before it becomes perfect. While this game is fun for the first few hours, it just won't last. However, I still find it better than MW3. Expand
  20. Nov 23, 2012
    9
    What is wrong with you people? this game is Great! Sure its not perfect but it is FAR better then the last Black Ops and almost better then MW3.... The game looks great the sound and sound effects are awesome not to mention the control is flawless. No there is nothing ground breaking about this game but they did manage to get everything wright. There are not to many games that can claim that. I have been playing games since Pong, that's right 30+ years exp. I say this games a HIT and a must have for any COD fan! Expand
  21. Nov 14, 2012
    8
    Ok Ok, this game has its downsides, I won't deny that. The campaign wasn't as "personal" as many thought it would be. The graphics/ game engine is a bit old and outdated. There still were tons of set pieces during the campaign and the "expanded choose your path" campaign that was so heavily advertised didn't branch out into any extra levels. But you got to look at the big picture here. The multiplayer element is back in full bloom and thats what most people play. I can't say exactly why, but the feel of the multiplayer reminds me of mw2's, and it got me hooked unlike the first blops and modern warfare 3. Almost every single map is fun to play, and the guns are varied enough for most of them to be able to stand out on their own. Zombies continue to expand with the new tranzit mode, and also a grief mode, to add onto the original survival game mode that has still not gone stale. The campaign itself showed signs of improvement, with the both non linear and strike force missions(which were quite fun tbh). Both are rather weak, but still shows signs that the franchise is headed into the right direction. So overall, though it's not the perfect game and it didn't really deliver on all of its expectations(which is why i think everybody is giving it a bad rep), it still is a good overall game with lots of replay value (awesome multiplayer and zombie modes). Expand
  22. Nov 15, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game combines the best of black ops modern warfare 2 and 3 as well as a new look to the series, good class system so as to bet puntos.Treyacht streak for risking and renew the series and they went well, I give it a 10 if tubiera dedicated servers. Expand
  23. Nov 25, 2012
    9
    black ops 2 is awesome just to let every konw treyrach had pacth update's for the mulitplayer a long list of thing's there fixing for xbox360 ps3 and the pc it well take time to fix all of this but in the mean time just hold on and wate till there down
  24. 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
  25. Nov 15, 2012
    2
    It is beyond me how we still have people who buy Call of Duty. It s the same thing it always is. The only thing i keep hearing in Trey Arcs case is that the game has zombies. So what? To any body that buys this game over many other great zombie games I say shame. If trey arc wants zombies, make a real zombie game, not a gimmick inside of a war shooter. Back to Call of Duty. Nothing changes to the point where I want to spend another 60 bucks. Id rather wait for much better FPS games like Far Cry 3 or just play current great FPS games like Crysis 2 or Borderlands 2. Sequals that took what was good about the first game and then multiplied it to make it its own without ruining what made them great. Call of Duty is just been played out.

    I do however give the publisher activision much respect in the fact that they keep producing the same game year after year and get millions to buy it.

    "Its cause its great. People wouldnt buy it if it sucked."

    Good point. To that I say take out single player. See if people will buy it it if its only online. They would.

    The whole basis of my opinion is that they dont know how to make an engaging story.

    Bottom line. Buy it, dont buy it. I dont care. I know where I stand.
    Expand
  26. Nov 16, 2012
    3
    Starting in the Campaign. It had a good story line but It offered no challenge on Veteran, I was finished with it in 3 hours. Next is Multiplayer. Maps are horribly designed, head glitches are ridiculous, too easy to die on core, when you shoot someone half the time its not even the person, and all around horrible experience. The only this that brought my score from a 0 to a 3 is Zombies. I believe this new zombie idea is awesome. There maps added together though don't seem as big as they were talking. Tranzit is about as comparable as any other HUGE zombie map but is not actually HUGE. I want an expansive map that i can roam around and find something i haven't found before. Ranking of CoD 1. CoD 4, CoD WaW, CoD MW3, Cod BO, CoD MW2, CoD BO 2 THIS GAME DOES NOT DESERVE A 10!!!! Expand
  27. Nov 16, 2012
    2
    Worst game to date . Graphics are terrible . It's embarrising to think I support crap like this. With all the money they make they should get better graphics. I'd rather play a game on ps2 cause that's what it looks like .
  28. Nov 16, 2012
    6
    Black Ops 2. 1) The campaign is pointlessly gory. Why do we need to watch people's heads getting cut off and listening to women getting raped? Who with a right mind takes pleasure in that?
    2) Multiplayer is boring. Some new killstreaks, guns maps but in the end its CoD MW3 and Black Ops in one.
    3) Cod is lost. The game designers are stupid. They are trying to do their best to make this
    game good, but in the end its even worse.
    The only thing that stops me from hating this game is zombies. I love zombies and always will, If I will ever buy another Call Of Duty game it will be a zombies only game.
    Oh by the way the ending is even worse than Prometheus.
    Expand
  29. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    The whole point of Call of Duty is the online. That's pretty much why it's bought anymore. The only problem is that Treyarch can't overcome the fact that Call of Duty online is always poorly done. I've been playing Call of Duty games online since COD2. Black Ops 2's online is terrible. It just is. They implement lag compensation that punishes good connections and rewards bad. The submachine guns, like in every CoD, are obscenely overpowered to the point the other types are useless. They put in a new tactical grenade called the shock charge. For some reason, they felt the need to make it combine every feature of every grenade: can't move, does some damage, blinds you, and can be set in a spot to be triggered by passer-by. Probably the biggest problem is the map design. Every map leans towards the people who play Call of Duty by sitting in one spot where you're almost unkillable. Windows, random sandbags, boxes, upper floor buildings, etc. are all spots where only the tip of your head is able to be seen, while you can see everything, and they are literally at every corner. All-in-all, the online is dumbed down some more to appeal to the people who are no good at games in general. Expand
  30. Nov 16, 2012
    0
    Same old same old year in and year out. This series is a blatant exploitation of adolescent hormones. It's popular for the same reasons a certain young Canadian pop star is. Complete Rubbish!
  31. Jan 16, 2013
    0
    Quite potentially the best CoD after a long time!...That's not saying much, unfortunately. I made the major mistake of purchasing this game. however, I'm not jumping on the hate bandwagon. I've played the game up to level 52, played the campaign, and multiplayer, and after all of this time, I think it's time I give it a fair review.
    Call of Duty: Black Ops II, is the newest installment in
    the call of duty series. However, it's not at all a new game. It does not DESERVE the title, "New game". It is the exact same engine from every other cod since cod 4, and the guns are also the same. They may look different, but it's still not different at all. Exact same. Just different stats. The balance is awful, and sad. It's incredibly unfortunate. The series lasted decently for a while. CoD 4 and 5 were good. But that's it. The classics were too. But the series since has taken a drop. nothing to see here. Don't even waste your time. 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.