User Score
4.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1997 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 16, 2012
    5
    As far as the campaign is concerned, the game fared better than I thought it would. There were some nuances, and although the story line was linear and predictable, the game play was decent. I give the campaign an 8. My problem is with the multiplier game play. The controls are clunky, the guns are generic and the registry is terrible. Don't even bother using a suppressor, you won't get a kill. The spawn system is an absolute abortion. I die and spawn right in front of an enemy player. This happened twice in a row several times. Guns sights (including the ACOG) are an embarrassment. The multiplier just seems unfinished. There are too many kill streaks. The maps are boring and allow for too much camping. Knife kills register from 5 feet away. I give the multiplier a 2/10. The zombie aspect of the game may very well be the only saving grace. Its innovative and pretty darn fun. If not for the zombies this game would get a 2 or a 3. Zombies gets an 8/10. Save your money and don't buy this game. Might as well stick with the other CoD games. They're all the same anyways. Expand
  2. Nov 16, 2012
    5
    Though I was a bit let down by MW2 and 3, Blops1 was a great change of pace, not as gimmicky. I was hoping for a similar experience from Blops2. Campaign seemed well written but poorly executed, the Strike Force missions were a pain and the AI useless. Just broke what was left of the story's tempo. Multiplayer feels alot like MW3. The expanded create a class has a good deal of potential but the weapons feel off and the maps a bit of a cluster f*ck. It feels like Treyarch tried to amp the game up a little too much and failed to deliver on the hype. Haven't played zombies enough to say much about that, but overall I was pretty disappointed. Expand
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Dec 7, 2012
    5
    I want to like this game... As much as I hate to jump on the "It's the same thing over and over", they really didn't change enough to make it new. Even after the new era, the "pick ten", etc... Once you get in a game and start shooting, it feels like I'm playing every single COD game since MW1. Sorry, Treyarch, I've wasted enough time on the call of duty franchise for more ultra-fast paced arcade garbage whilst pre-teen testosterone junkies scream mom jokes at me. There's a time for every franchise to die... or at least take a long break. This is that time. Expand
  9. Mar 25, 2013
    5
    It's not bad but the Over-popular and overrated Black oops 2 doesn't give the entertainment awesome video games need. Fans(or should I say lunatics) will not be pleased.
  10. Jan 28, 2013
    5
    Same old Same old. I was really dubious when it came to buying Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and I wish I hadn't the campaign and zombies are decent and the graphics are good but lets be honest everybody buys call of duty for the multiplayer . Call of Duty started go downhill in my opinion after Modern Warfare 2. Call of duty 4 and World at War are the originals and the best because they are so basic and pay attention to detail. Expand
  11. Dec 18, 2012
    5
    Black Ops 2 is a good game, but it is spoiled by a sloppy online experience. Without giving anything away, the campaign mode has an engaging storyline that continues from the first Black Ops and gives you several ways of ending the story based on decisions you make. It could have been a little longer, but it's not bad.

    The zombie mode is fun, I particularly like how they give you many
    things to do in the new TranZit mode. It really refreshes the whole zombies game mode and keeps your mind off of the impending fate of being eaten alive.

    The multiplayer, however, feels very uninspired and rushed. First off, it seems as if the whole online experience was created by someone that despised being killed by someone he/she did not see. Ghost has been rendered useless in this game and you must run'n'gun to live. If you are hiding and say, waiting to plant a bomb, the enemy can still see you on radar with a UAV, even if you have ghost equipped. So, you MUST expose yourself and always keep moving to have a shot at not being seen on radar. Combine that with being able to see through walls and it's a very crude way to eliminate stealth and force players to run around even if they're not comfortable. It always feels like someone is coming up right behind you no matter where you are. It gets frustrating very quickly.

    The weapons are lacking a soul. I can remember my favorite gun on most any shooter I have ever played. There is always a gun that becomes someones' favorite, but it's not on this game. Every gun feels the same. Same look, same feel while shooting, especially with the lack of recoil on most weapons, even the machine guns. Nothing sticks out, there is no learning curve. You simply just pick one and go and that makes it a very cold experience.

    There are many useless weapons. They seem to be adding weapons just to say there's more of them. There is no point in the ballistic knife or the Millimeter Scanner. The shock charge is just a fancy concussion grenade. All that and more is designed to cater to children and jiggle something shiny in their faces.

    The biggest thing they can do right now is to slow the game down. It is just too fast. And the maps are too small to accommodate all the speed. You can probably run from one end of the map to the other in under 15 seconds, and it makes every map a big headache especially on the more active game modes like domination. I often find myself shooting at superhuman blurs that are running across the screen without even touching them once.

    Just go back to World At War and see how slow and calm the game was when moving around. Much calmer, much more enjoyable game with spacious map design.

    Black Ops 2 has tried very hard to eliminate stealth or "campers", in this game and it has just turned into a big mess. After a while you'll just be glad that the game is over, even if you lost. Because you'll finally be able to take an aspirin.
    Expand
  12. Jan 1, 2013
    5
    I'm going to be fair. You can only review in 3 different scores imo.
    Zombies: 7.510 They really screwed this one up.
    Multiplayer. 6.5/10 Same old crap with new maps, that are worse. All the bad things from BO1 mixed with MW3.
    Campaign: 4/10 Nice try, but it's still a piece of s***
  13. Jan 1, 2013
    5
    Another year another CoD. Black ops 2 was Treyarch's attempt to breathe new life into the franchise. Did they succeed? in a word, no. That's not to say the game didn't introduce some new concepts to the franchise, the introduction of player choice in the campaign is an example, or the pick 10 system in muliplayer, or Tanzit for zombies. Lets start with the singleplayer, you follow Alex Mason, son of David Mason from the original. Your mission is to stop a terrorist my the name of Raoul Menendez. You learn about Menendez's history through story time with Woods. Treyarch has tried to make a villain who you can sympathize, and relate too. This succeeded to some extent, Menendez was easily the best character in the game, i felt i could relate to him, but not sympathize for him, as he is still better off than a lot of other people. He is also a complete prick, which ended up making him more unlikable. Player choice is cool, and at times can greatly impact the story, but i felt it could have been better, many of the choices are optional objectives that have little impact on the story. I think this is a solid addition, but requires a longer, bigger and better campaign to have its potential fully realized. Then there is strike force, an attempt at RTS style gameplay, and to say the least it is **** there is no tactical element to it, you still pretty much do everything yourself, and it is immensely frustrating. Strike force however does alter the slightly alter the course of the story, so there is some value in it.Overall the story is boring, i didn't have a sense of purpose, or urgency. Thankfully this changes around the 2/3rd mark, and it became quite enjoyable. The graphics have had a minor tweak with facial capture technology, which makes the game look a lot better then it previously did, sadly i can't bring myself to award the game points for this, as the tech has been around for a few years now, and the graphics are still quite mediocre. The muliplayer is still the same, and is what you would expect, it has ridiculous killstreaks, OP guns, terrible spawning, and little variety for maps. The pick 10 system however is awesome, it allows for much more customization and creativity in loadouts, and is a solid addition to the game. Lastly, Zombies. Zombies has reinvented itself with Tranzit, you get on a bus and travel to multiple areas, while scavenging the area for equipment to build items to help you survive. This is a very cool mode, but does suffer, there are still bullet sponge enemies, the map also looks very unappealing, with very poor, dark, and muddy visuals. There is also a vs mode for zombies, where you try to stay alive while hindering other players, this can be quite fun, but could have been more inventive. Overall Black ops 2 is a 5/10, and i can't recommend this game. I think its time for CoD to take a break for a couple of years, and reinvent itself on the next gen consoles with a brand new engine built from the ground up. Expand
  14. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    Campaign was fine, Zombies is great... and then you see the multiplayer..... awful multiplayer i swear you can shoot someone 30 times and they shoot you once and bam your dead. Obviously something is wrong i dont know if it has to do with lag or what but it needs fixed and unless you just like zombies and playing the campaign 300 times dont buy the game... bought it for 25 dollars and it still is hardly worth it Expand
  15. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    As many will tell you, it's not as good as its predecessors, and because in general call of duty hasn't been making any notable improvements since Call of Duty 4. There are a few new features in campaign, that help, but don't exactly make it fun. The multiplayer is not as good as other Call of Duty Games. It does however still work better than a vast array of cruddy shooters that come out each year, so it's not the best, but its still better than many, thus a 5. Expand
  16. Jan 22, 2013
    5
    If Black Ops II were the first COD game you've ever played, then it'll probably be pretty good, but right now, it's pretty boring. I mean, it is fun when you play it with friends, but the gameplay is pretty dry. Although, the campaign is pretty good, the mutliplayer isn't. Zombies is pretty fun though. I would like to see more effort in making the game solid, as I believe the COD makers are just depending too heavily on the popularity of their series that they stop catering to the community's wishes. Expand
  17. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    Not nearly as bad as most of the negative reviewers would have you believe, but Black Ops II is definitely suffering from a strong case of Beenthereitis. The "Pick 10" system is a nice little addition, and I also liked how you could customize your load-out before campaign missions. Nice touches indeed.

    But back to the so-called "reviewers." Most of the douche bags giving this game a
    1/10 and so on are simply window lickers looking to bash CoD for the sake of bashing CoD. Plain and simple. I'd even go so far as to say that most of the aforementioned dickheads haven't even played the game. Sad when you think about it. Expand
  18. Mar 10, 2013
    5
    The game overall is okay, but the campaign really really sucks. The only part which improved was the zombie mode. The zombie mode is probably the best part of the game because it provides a lot of epicness in the game and the levels in the zombie mode are newer and better than the old ones, that game mode is the only mode thats good in this game
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. May 1, 2013
    5
    CoD, CoD never changes. Well that's not completely true. They do try to add new things to the each successive iteration. But the problem is that the changes done this time do nothing to make things better. Assuming that the rest of the game is the same old same old lets look at the changes shall we? (focussing on sp here) :
    -loadout screen in front of each mission ala ranbow six. While
    this might have been welcome addition, it really doesn't matter so much in the CoD universe. i mostly keep switch guns and the game also keeps many different types of guns for us to use during checkpoints anyways.
    -Semi optional tower defense/rts tactical game. Let me tell you, i am a rts enthusiast and even i was thinking "what is this doing inside CoD"? Besides, the units take too long to respond, new units spawn very slowly and the whole mission takes way too much time.
    -Choice system and multiple endings. While i have no proper with such a system,i wonder why was it suddenly given suddenly in blops2? and since the series is such a linear gameplay experience, i was kinda annoyed.
    A point comes in the game where u have to snipe a masked target. I tried to shoot at the guards holding the target and i got a game over screen. But its out you could've saved the guy by shooting his limbs off! Really? Why doesn't it give me a game over wen i do that
    -Story. Implausible on all levels. The bad guy gets caught and escapes so many times, its laughable.

    So there u go. 4 changes that could have improved the game but end up making it worse. Essentially because they are tacked on to the same old game
    Expand
  22. May 6, 2013
    5
    MW3 and all BF games these BO games

    I am a shooter fan. I don't care about COD versus BF, I want both to be good. The people making these black ops games should go work for resident evil team (since they can't make a good zombie game), and stop trying to make PvP shooters. The only good part about this or BO 1 is the mini-game, and this is supposed to be a warfare simulator not
    freaking Resident Evil.

    It is really bad for new players; the matchmaking does not separate the games by rank, only the teams. Which means if you are level 5 and you are in a game with 10 other max level players, you are going to be highly outgunned no matter what team you are on. The only people who ever use their mic's are 10 year old boys. All around poor playerbase, with very little focus on teamwork. The only way to get a good group with microphones is to be in a clan (or is it klan?), and they expect unrealistic level of dedication from people who play video games in their limited spare time between work and college courses.
    Expand
  23. May 18, 2013
    5
    ever since black ops 1 the call of duty games have lost their wow I mean the only great thing about this is its story but everything else is just awful like the graphics its just the same thing over and over again and the shooting it is just awful.
    Activision has to let call of duty rest for some time then the games could be more polished and also with a new graphics engine this is what i
    want but no they wont because is such a big money maker and will never stop being a money maker I have basically lost hope on the call of duty series now its just gone Expand
  24. Jun 19, 2013
    5
    This game was fun at the for the first month then i was done. Call of Duty's formula is really running thin. I appreciate at least an effort in trying to make changes in story and multiplayer but it still is relatively unchanged. The story, well i never finished it because the strike force missions were so bad that i didn't bother finishing it. I can't recommend Cod anymore there are better Fist Person Shooters out there. Expand
  25. Jun 19, 2013
    5
    Black Ops II is a decent Call of Duty game, but doesn't peak any records. The campaign was interesting and introduced a new twist. The characters were forgettable and the missions were somewhat fun. Campaign is a 6.

    The multiplayer was as awful as Black Ops with bad hit detection, huge amounts of lag, and bad map design.got to 1st prestige before I found myself back in Modern Warfare 2
    and 3. Multiplayer is a mediocre 4.

    Zombies was fun and entertaining, but nowhere near the amazing entertainment that Black Ops packed. Zombies is the only reason I still play Call of Duty Black Ops 2. It deserves a 7.

    Overall, Black Ops 2 earns a five from me, below normal Call of Duty standards. I've found that almost every game made by Infinity Ward surpasses Treyarch's crappy games. Hopefully Ghosts will raise the standard a little.

    Overall 5
    Expand
  26. Jun 17, 2013
    5
    Th game itself is a lot more enjoyable than past titles trying desperately to offer something new to the series with optional side missions that can alter the outcome along with important changes that can affect the ending as well, but it still manages to come out as the same game offering absolutely nothing new with multiplayer and zombies feeling again like a sloppily thrown together side feature.

    5 out of 10
    Expand
  27. Sep 16, 2013
    5
    "Sigh" Do we have to explain much its just your average call of duty with a repackaged multiplayer with a few tweaked features every now and then. Activision you need to try something new why keep milking the same idea over and over? Oh and be warned squeakers play this game so play with caution xD.
  28. Nov 5, 2013
    5
    After a year I decided to finally review this game. And man, it took some consideration
    On one hand you have a really well polished cod game, with a great zombie mode (that requires DLC to fully enjoy) and the same old multiplayer. Oh and maybe the campaign, if you're into dark psychopath stories.
    Then we have the darker aspects of the game, the hit detection, overpowered guns, host
    migration, boring tri-lane maps and the silly graphics.
    **** it, I try to find something positive about this game other than Zombies, but I just can't.
    Been playing Call of Duty regularly since Modern Warfare 2 and have invested considerable time into every cod, maybe apart from WaW. It's the same rehashed game, but it's the best rehashed game out there. The main thing that keeps CoD on edge to me, is its 60 fps. And if not for that, it would be outnumbered by Battlefield in every single way imaginable.
    But this game doesn't deserve a 0 either, but it sure as hell doesn't deserve a 10.
    5 is a nice middle ground, for a game that's the same old thing since Cod 4.
    Expand
  29. Jan 9, 2014
    5
    I think my review of this game sums up what the Call of Duty franchise is but in one word, uninspired. This game is just nothing new at all and it brings nothing new to the world of first-person shooters. It's saving grace is it's local multiplayer (Zombies especially) but it's just not enough to save this game from being just.....uninspired and lazy.
  30. Jan 7, 2013
    4
    This is the third review I've written. I've had to tweak it some as I played the game more and more. Simply put, this is only a story extension from Black Ops. There is no evolution of gameplay, nothing fresh or imaginative. The biggest step forward has to be the Zombies gametype, where there's more than just the straight-up exhibition approach of pick a level, fight the zombies (rinse & repeat). But the multiplayer, where the game is supposed to take its biggest strides, falls completely flat. For me, this comes for a number of reasons: bad weapon balancing, poor killstreaks, no dedicated servers (and their player-host approach doesn't do well most of the time), poor hit detection (including the impossible feat that is the headshot, for whatever reason this game rarely rewards the player with a headshot when the head is all that is showing!), uninteresting perks, the list goes on but those are the ones I can think of immediately. This game will be fun and compelling if you've barely touched Call of Duty in the past, but just like Modern Warfare 3, the franchise shows its age in all aspects of the game (especially the graphics department). One has to wonder where Treyarch and Infinity Ward are with hiring creative minds to bring the franchise into interesting and fun waters. Quite honestly, it might be time to let this franchise die out and start fresh. If I could put it in to one sentence, I'd describe Call of Duty Black Ops 2 as tiresome, boring, and overly recycled - to the point that it makes me want to never play the game every time I conclude a playing session. Sadly, people are rewarding the development and production teams on this game by playing it (with online populations in the 500,000s at times). Honestly, play MW3 as it has better killstreak rewards and a much better weapon selection. Play Black Ops only if you covet campaign and the zombie survival mode, because the story is okay (just okay, nothing more) and zombies is the only real challenge Black Ops carries anymore. I'd venture to recommend Halo 4 over Black Ops 2 simply because it feels like Halo but has incorporated popular trends in multiplayer gaming that never existed in the earlier games of the franchise. Expand
  31. Nov 15, 2012
    4
    I will start by saying this, Call of Duty:Black Ops II is not a terrible game. Its just as polished if not more so then the previous titles. Slight improvements in game play mechanics and zombie mode(s) don't go un-noticed. I've been a Call of Duty fan since the start (I'm talking the original COD and all its expansions on PC) but only a fool can play this game and say its ANYTHING more then MORE OF THE SAME!!. Nothing about the game stood out, nothing revolutionary and nothing mind blowing. The dated graphics engine is absolutely showing its age and cant hold up to gorgeous titles like Halo 4 or even BF3. I finished the campaign in about 6 hours and the multiplayer sadly did absolutely nothing for me, The level designs are un-imaginative and even the "futuristic" weapons lack the punch I was looking for. All in all Call of Duty Black Ops II is the solid 60fps shooter we've come to expect but nothing more. Sadly the back to back COD releases have taken their toll on most of the veteran gaming community leaving us all craving for something new. Expand
  32. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    Look at my review history. Am I someone who jumps on a bandwagon in any way? Look at my review of mw3, and by the way, BO1 was mt favorite COD. BO2 is a compete waste of my money and it makes me happy mw3 was so poorly recieved. Granted, I've only played it for 1 night. But, the campaign is as most basic as possible, and the multiplayer is so steriotyplical that I amost knew what was going to happen next based on a game I played 5 years ago, and that game is blah blah blah. I let mw3 slide even though I knew it was the same as usual but I can't let this slide because now I have to sell this and accept a $30 dollar loss because I didn't listen to a !,000,000,000,000 other gamers. Expand
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Dec 7, 2012
    4
    I didn't want to review this game at all, but after seeing some reviews with people saying " I hate this game, I thought it would be better since MW3 was crap" anyway it seems to me that I see this comment every year when a Call of Duty game is realeased. WTF do you people expect? CoD has been the same game since I can even remember, with minor changes. This game always gets poor user reviews every year and you people that complain every year keep buying it expecting it to be something else, the game has already made billions of dollars even though it's still the same generic shooter since CoD 4. I didn't buy this game but I play it at friends and I will say this again... THERE ARE BETTER SHOOTERS OUT THERE. However the people complaining about the same things every year are really stupid, no matter what company takes over the CoD franchaise it will still be the same game, because stupid people keep buying this drivel every year and ruin the gaming industry in the process. All I can say is if you do not like this CoD or the predessors do not expect to like future releases, they will use the same formula until it goes stale, which it has gone stale but it still makes a lot of money so nothing will change for the sequel so don't expect anything new. CoD is marketed to people who are not good at shooters, and I know I will get negative feedback for saying that, but the truth hurts. The game is built for players to make them feel good about themselves, even a 4 year old can get kills easy on this game. **** even a lot of women play CoD, that should tell you something, **** my granma probably plays CoD. Then again the only good thing about CoD is that you get to play with a lot of girls, but then again there are also too many kids playing it aswell. The game isn't a 0 either, because atleast the game works and truth be told that the campaign is a little better than previous CoD titles. I just don't think a game that has been recycled for years deserves a good score either, it's easy money without much effort. I can understand people liking it if you have never played many games before, but I can't understand the people who buy the same game every year, saying that it's good. It's generic, get used to it... Stay tuned for Call of Duty 56 dub edition remix. Expand
  36. Jan 16, 2013
    4
    Thanks to its yearly release schedule (six games in six years!) I personally now find it impossible to muster any sort of enthusiasm for new Call of Duty games. To be fair to developers Treyarch they have made more of an effort than usual to make changes to the well-trodden path walked by these titles but everything, from the scripted events during the campaign to the online multiplayer, that was once so fresh and new to console owners has all been done before. Black Ops 2 provides exactly what everyone would have expected and sales suggest plenty of people are still willing to buy each new version but I for one have no interest in purchasing new games in a series year on year when the formula was already virtually perfected back in 2007 with the first Modern Warfare. Expand
  37. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    Meh... I wasn't impressed. It's the same, frustrating, yearly COD game that you all know and have played in the past. There's not much else to say really.
  38. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    I like the game, but it is really showing its age. It would have been really cool to have all these new features with a new game engine, one that really pushes the hardware to the max. After Battlefield 3 and Halo 4, its really hard to go back and play a game like this. Just cause I'm playing the game a lot right now doesn't mean its the greatest thing ever. Activision needs to stop looking at numbers and sales and realize that this is not the best effort they could make. Expand
  39. 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!
  40. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    I really want to like this game, it's fast and fun but at the same time it really hasn't wowed me at all and I think this is going to be the last COD I buy on launch day. I like the new pick 10 system and some of the new features like the shock sticks and the millimetre scanners but the maps seem to be designed to encourage spawn trapping, the spawn system is broken and god help you if you're playing mp split screen! Yes I realise in games like domination you swap spawns at half time but that does not excuse spawning in the exact same location again and again if your team is spawn trapped! How is it that after all these years they still haven't done something about these issues!?!? When I played on my own it was a mix of fun and frustrating but this was down to the other players in all fairness (being paired with randoms against a full team is rarely fun!), however when I later played split screen with my wife it was almost unplayable! I have a 38MB broadband speed and I am a damn good player, other players should not need near enough a full clip to die! Oh and also what's the point of altering perks to discourage camping when the maps seem to do nothing but encourage camping!! I really, really wanted to like this game after the frustration-fest that was MW3 but so far I'm really not impressed. Expand
  41. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    When I saw Black ops 2 for the first time, I thought it looked cool. I had played previous Call of Duty's and found the first one to be great. Then, only every game afterwards, was the same thing. As great as Black Ops 2 looks, it is, the same damn thing. The campaign is ok, not going to keep you after your first play through. The multi-player is crap. Remember Modern Warfare 1? I almost thought I was just playing an awful map pack. It might be okay if the maps were well structered, but no, they are just awful and invite camping and cheap tactics. Zombies is the only thing I can say anything good about. It will keep you for a little while, but soon, and quickly, will get boring. I wish Black ops 2 was better, at the same time, I had wished, previous Call of Dutys had been better. Call of duty is just a cash cow now. Don't waste your money. Expand
  42. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    I'm glad I rented it first. The game really isn't that good. I'm not a COD hater. I used to love this franchise, but it just isn't the same...or actually that is the problem, it is the same. Same old same old. So they set it in the future, but the overall experience is just the same old thing and I just couldn't get into it this time. I got bored right away and this is going back to RedBox tomorrow. Infinity Ward and Treyarch both need to sit down together with Activision and figure out how to innovate and breathe new life into the COD franchise. Nothing they've done over the last 2 years has felt innovative. Its like lipstick on a pig. Come up with a new graphics engine, come up with some new ideas and figure out how to get that spark back. I really want to like COD again, but this is not the one that will get me back into it. Everything just feels tired and old. I know that some will point out that the futuristic technology is what sets this one apart. But you now what this feels like? BO2 just feels like that hot actress that everyone couldn't stop talking about 10 years ago, but now she's old, tired, washed up and raiding your medicine cabinet for prescription pain killers, but if she'd just invest some money in an extreme makeover and get herself checked into rehab, she could shine once again. Expand
  43. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    I'm really disappointed in this game. The campaign is so-so at best. The multiplayer maps seem to favor those that like to wait in a dark corner or behind a half-wall. It's not terribly difficult to spawn trap the opposite team. (No matter the game type.) What has made it fun so far is playing with friends, but there are other games out there can do the same.
  44. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    This game falls unbelievably short of the FPS graphic and sounds standards set by recent FPSes such as BF3, Warfigher and Halo 4. If you're the best selling FPS ever, the least you could do is spend some of that revenue and hire a decent team to build a new engine instead of using id Tech 3 for every single CoD game. Or buy the Frostbite Engine from EA, you're already spending money to pay off Critics anyways, why not spend some more? Anyways, onto the gameplay review. Campaign is a nice short 4 hours, and I'm glad it's short because it was bad and I wanted to play multiplayer. Multiplayer maps feel crowded and junked up with unnecessary **** Love the futuristic design of the new guns, but unfortunately, they feel like the old guns. The new pick ten system and the new perk system are good. So far though, this game plays exactly like Warfighter and IGN gave Warfighter a 4. That must mean the zombies mode is so good that it gives BO2 5 more points. Now I haven't played zombies yet, because all my friends are asleep, so I'm going to leave this here with a rating of 4, but I'll come back and make this rating a 9 if zombies absolutely blows my mind with how **** amazing it is. It had better not disappoint or else I'll know IGN is a corrupt review site who gets paid off by Activision so they can sell more copies of CoD and I certainly hope that's not true. On a side note, this game will probably be played at MLG and IPL because of how easy it is. MLG and IPL have to have SC2 otherwise it would be a casualfest. Expand
  45. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    I've tried to like this game, but its just no use. There's just too many flaws especially in multiplayer holding this game back. Instead of fixing past mistakes like bad spawns, bad hit detection, lag compensation, and terrible matchmaking service they've decided to relabel these as features and sell the same old crap to you. Lack of weapons, game-modes and uninspired maps makes it even less enjoyable. Zombies has been fun, though there's no real story in "campaign mode". It's just the same old move from point A to point B. The actual campaign for the game is not bad either, the multiple choices add some replay-ability to an otherwise forgetful 6 hour story. I fail to see how this game is "innovative or "the new COD standard" and not just the same thing you've seen every year. Expand
  46. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    I normally don't write reviews. I'll be honest. I bought it for the multiplayer and zombies. Don't care about campaign. And the multiplayer is good but the networking is making the game unplayable. Constant host migrations and drop outs. I shoot people and in the killcam it shows me standing there doing nothing. If/When they patch the networking I'll come back and raise my score. Until then it gets a 4/10 because zombies is pretty cool to play with friends. Expand
  47. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    I buy these games for one reason and one reason alone and that is multiplayer. While i can appreciate the steps Treyarch as made to bring in change to the facist regime that is COD the multiplayer falls short in almost every way, maps are crap, guns arent fun and the overall feel of the gameplay is just very off. I have been an advocate for the series since COD4 but my patience is wearing thin. STOP coming out with one every year take a break and bring us a COD we deserve, not the one we need right now.... Expand
  48. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    I'm sorry all you paid $50+k a year magazine and online critics, Activision seems to have their hand too deep in your pockets for this to justify your 9 scores that I've been reading all over the interwebs. Unfortunately my review comes after already being jaded from MW3 and that sell-out of a title as well. Treyarch TRIES to be different here by what....uhhhh making it a MODERN first person shooter?? Oy vey, so lets get to it; the story is a tack-on and feels like the same-ol story spun in a different time and setting. Sound familiar? It will be. Zombies are back, and actually has some fresh feel to it, but its all from the same engine and "feels" the same. The usual Multiplayer suspects are back and nothing really ground breaking has really caught my attention. Activision is yet again trying the "lets milk this cow" till its dry strategy and sadly millions of people are going to buy it anyway. Going to Gamestop to resell it and going back to my Halo 4. Expand
  49. 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
  50. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    I will start of with a disclaimer saying that I am not a COD fanboy nor am I a COD hater. I bought an XBOX 360 exclusively for COD 4 5 Years ago. I have played every one since and enjoyed all of them (at least for a little while) up until Modern Warfare 3. I am giving this game a 4 out of 10 and will explain in depth why (unlike other fanboys and haters on here giving ignorant reviews). If you are on the fence about this game and whether or not to buy it then read this. I'll start off with the good. This game introduced the Pick 10 System which works well. It opens up a bounty of options for everyones unique play style. If you want 6 perks and a pistol then go for it. If you want a shotgun, rifle, and grenades go for it. There is a limit to what you can do, but the limit is set high. At 60 frames per second this game looks excellent. Graphics are cartoonish in a way, but it is consistent with the other COD gas compared to Battlefield 3. The guns look great, the soldiers look great, and it is just an excellent looking game. Along with the graphics is the sound mix. The guns sound like guns and the explosions sound like explosions. The sound is what really pulls you into the game. Other than the variety in load outs, graphics, and sound this game has big problems. First is the campers. Now I know every FPS has campers, but this game brings it to the next level. The maps are cluttered and filled with windows, corners, and barrels to hide behind. I have never been so frustrated with campers in any other COD game, or any other FPS game for that matter. And the fact that Ghost is not unlocked until level 55 just adds to that problem. You cannot hide from the overused UAVs. Next is the lag. In every other COD I could run and gun and beast. I have found in Black Ops 2 that when I run up on somebody and get the drop on them they can turn around and kill me. EVEN after they have been hit 2-3 times already. And if I meet up with somebody rounding a corner and I clearly get the first shot off, I die. In the kill cam I don't even fire a shot. It is very aggravating. I researched it and turned the "search preference" to "best" and I still have the problem. So, what ever is causing this needs to be fixed before I play again. The last this is the aim assist. Every console FPS has aim assist due to the inherent non-precise aiming that comes with joysticks. I have not had a problem with this until now. As I am trying to track a moving opponent or shoot a stationary opponent My reticle drifts off target to the right about 80% of the time. I tried to turn aim-assist off, but that is a pain in the ass. With these problems outweighing the good stuff I gave this game a 4 out of 10. Until these problems are fixed I am going to stick with MOH: Warfighter. Unlike the critics on this site I love the multiplayer. Expand
  51. Apr 29, 2013
    4
    Black Ops 2 is just another copy/paste/edit game. You search for a terrorist, surprise? Not so much. The gunplay is once again the same as it always has been. Just point and shoot and nothing interesting to mix in between. The multiplayer is just as tedious considering its nothing but more hard work for no rewards besides guns and stuff.

    Lets face it, its a bandwagon that is milking the
    gamers dry of good money they could be spending on a brighter game. Call of duty isn't worth it anymore people, so why not play something more fresh? Expand
  52. Nov 24, 2012
    4
    Okay. That's all that needs to be said about this game. This game was a big improvement from Black Ops 1, but still lacks the needs of a great shooter. The graphics are okay, gameplay is solid, same game modes, mediocre campaign, and a worse zombies mode. Mediocre underperforming game again by Treyarch, but not bad at all.
  53. Apr 26, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Gosh, I hate this game. Never mind the fact that this is same game as the other games and have same multiplayer like other games from this franchise (only with different HUD), my biggest problem is that this game shouldn't be a sequel! I mean sure, you play as Mason half of the game but the other half is a futuristic FPS. WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH FIRST BLACK OPS?! To be fair, future part of this game has some pretty good features such as camouflage, sticky gloves, that let you climb a rock mountain and sky diving section. Sadly this happen only one or two time in this game. Anyway I don't understand a point of playing both Mason's campaign and future campaign, if Black Ops 2 only contains a Mason's campaign then that's will be fine. Only resemblance in future in BO2 is Woods... that's it!

    In other words this game will be better if they focus mostly about Mason storyline rather than on future soldiers one. If Activision wants to make a futuristic FPS in Call Of Duty, that's fine. But please don't put Black Ops name on it. Called it, I don't know, Futuristic War or something.
    Expand
  54. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    Looks the same, feels the same, and it just simply is the same. Don't get me wrong, that game isn't that bad. But every single call of duty game shouldn't be the same. The game is living of its name, not its gameplay. For the people saying don't buy it if you don't want to play the same thing.. WTF? That's the kind of **** that promotes video game companies to ram their manhood into you. The longer you say, "Hey, if you don't want to play the same CoD, don't buy it" the longer they decide to F off because they know people are going to keep buying their game. It's seriously disrespectful to the people who buy these games in hopes of having at least a slightly different experience. This game feels like MW3.. It was supposed to feel like black ops, but with more innovation.. They disappointed. Do yourselves a favor, get halo 4 and don't look back. Not that halo 4 was better by a long shot, but 343 did a much better job than Activision... Way to ruin another one Activision! Expand
  55. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    I use to be a fan of Call of Duty games, but now they have just gone down hill. I beat Call of Duty: Black Ops II within four hours, this was probably the shortest Call of Duty game, or any game that I have ever played. I also couldn't even follow the story line, it was all over the place and confusing. I didn't bother with multiplayer, I figure it'd be the same as any other CoD multiplayer. Don't bother listening to the journalists, this game is not intense, nor the best. If you're looking for a good Call of Duty game, go back to the first ones, that's all I can say. Expand
  56. Nov 15, 2012
    4
    I don't want to give this game a four, but words cannot describe how depressed it made me feel. I guess the campaign was alright, but it's time for a change, CoD. Especially when it comes to multiplayer, something Halo 4 actually managed to pull off.
  57. Nov 15, 2012
    4
    Call of Duty... what can be said? they have stretched the FPS Genre to its limits first they burned out the WWII era now the modern and slightly beyond era have gone down in boring flames.
  58. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    The game is good, nothing more. They changed the perks, the KillStriks but the game still the same. Didn't bring anything awesome to the franchise. I think one of the thing that has been holding the franchise is de strong name Call of Duty. It's time to change.
  59. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    I rented this game with a hope that It would breath some life back in to COD. Nope, same old rehashed crap, I am soooo glad I didn't buy It. The audio Is just horrible( and I though MW3 was bad). The graphics havn't changed from MW2. The campaign was not half bad, but not half good either. Multiplayer is the same multiplayer since MW2 with one or two new features that really don't change much. About the only real improvments seem to be that multiplayer seems quite a bit less buggy the MW3 and zombie mode Is far better then before but those 2 things alone are not nearly worth the $60. I will not buy another COD game untill I truly seem some changes. perhaps those changes may come in the next console generation, but I hold no hope of seeing any real change till then. Expand
  60. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    There are two ways to review a game such as Call of Duty, which is what I feel leads to the polarising effect thats often seen within the reviews. One way is to review the game solely on its own merits, its story, graphics, gameplay, controls and taking no other part of the franchise into consideration. In this regard, Black Ops 2, like so many other Cod games, delivers with slick controls, fast paced addictive multiplayer, class customization and all the other hallmarks of a quality product. The campaign is still more of an add on, with the majority of the focus being placed upon multiplayer, and still retains the tradiontional linea, "clear a room move on" style of level design, interspersed with set pieces and vehicle sections. New steps have been taken with the addition of multiple endings based upon your choices, however this feature fails to actually add anything to the experience, at most just dragging you into a second playthrough if your curious about the different consequences of your actions. Top down RTS style side missions have also been added, yet the implementation here is poor, hampered by the AI being used by the soldiers and almost forcing you to take direct control over your forces if you want to progress, thankfully though these are options and can be avoided if you find them not to your tastes. The game therefore seems like a decent product, a polished, professional piece of AAA game design, but there is of course one other thing to consider.

    The second way to review the game, and the one that overall I will be taking, is to look at it as part of the franchise as a whole. This sadly is where the game falls down. All of the points I've made thus far are valid, but the problem comes when you compare it to the other Call of Duty games, and realise that this is the exact same formulae that they perfected years ago. Set pieces, chases and other action sequences where you are basically forced to watch, your control reduced to panning the camera or what are essentially quick time events, still take you out of the action and reduce you to more of a bystander than an active participant. Missions are still linear, you clear a room of bad guys, move to the next one, rinse and repeat. The multiplayer may be fast paced and hectic, but its also once again the exact same format that has been served up for the last few years now, a few new game types are not the kind of innovation that should be expected when you reach this stage of a franchise. The maps are cramped, designed for solo players in mind and reinforcing the general veiw that this is in no way a team game. The new score streak system differs very little from the previous kill streaks, in some cases being even more unbalanced. One also has to question the logic behind rewarding the leading players with even more powerful and deadly weapons and abilites and further increasing their lead instead of providing these benefits to the losing team to enable them to close the gap and keep the game close, competitive and exciting. Its all designed around the unrealistic one man army approach taken in these games, which is what cultivates the negative attitudes of many of its online players, and whilst their behaviour is no fault of the games, activision, infinity ward and treyarch have never taken any great pains to make the online a more enjoyable, balanced or even fair place for its more reasonable players.

    Call of Duty is guaranteed to sell, regardless of the changes they make, so you have to ask why the developers dont try something new, it feels more as if they churn out these almost identical clones out of either laziness or an actual inability to create something new. The changes, as seen here with the RTS segments, are poorly implemented and they make never have enough of an impact to drastically change the core experience, always altering the periferal, inconsequential things rather than risk any potential backlash for changing the game. After all who wants to be the guy that killed "the best selling franchise in gaming history"? The thing is, you cant kill it, year after year people will buy it, so take the chance, innovate, change it up. If people preffered the old version, they can play that game, if they want a new experience, give it to them. Black Ops 2 works as a game, its a great example of one, but it fails as part of a franchise, because yet again it brings very little to the table that the previous games have not already covered. If you want a good, solid, slick modern FPS, go play Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare or your preference from the heap of sequels it has. Just dont think this is going to be anything you havent seen before.
    Expand
  61. 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
  62. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    The dirty little secret of the Call of Duty series is that the original creators left Infinity Ward to start Respawn Entertainment, and with them they took the intelligence and innovative spirit of the series. What was left were the bones of a great series left to be recast by two back to back developers who would futilely attempt to revamp the series again and again. The last great Call of Duty was Modern Warfare 2, and since them fans have been slowly exposed to a dying series that will eventually be a parody of itself. The core of Black Ops 2 multiplayer is broken because it doesn't not deal with fundamental aspects of fun and gameplay. The maps are chicken scratch attempts at creating an adrenaline fueled rat maze with no sense of intelligent direction. The spawns are absolutely horrid: spawn can often be a throw of the dice to see whether you manage to live or die. Finally, the lag in this game is still at a lower level than the MW1 and MW2 variations, the lag still puts you into that situations where you thought you had the jump on a guy, but the killcam reveals that you didn't even pull up your gun. Without addressing these core issues, the series is slowly withering away its hardcore fans, and eventually the rest of the community will start to catch on. Treyarch is a shady mom and pop used car sales lot who will praise the paint, but refuse to fix the engine.

    If the gun classes were balanced, the online gameplay fixed, and the maps completely redesigned with strong team deathmatch gameplay I would be inclined to give this game at least an 8 or a 9.
    Expand
  63. Nov 14, 2012
    4
    Boring! MP is complete garbage,zombies is the same and the campaign is meh at best. I have been a huge fan of the series but now i'm done! The fun factor doesn't exist in this game.
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Dec 3, 2012
    4
    When I heard that Treyarch was making another Black Ops I was unbelievably excited. The first Black Ops in my Opinion was the best Call of Duty to date, today I feel the same way. Ever since Call of Duty hit its peak with Black Ops the series has taken a turn for the worse and is declining at an alarming rate. I felt that when MW3 came out, Activision had begun creating the casket to lay this game to rest (I was not fond of the copy-paste job Infinity Ward did and called that Expand
  68. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This review is based on the multiplayer aspects of this game. The servers are horrendous. You will be migrating hosts much more frequently than any other COD game. The lag compensation is a joke. When two opposing players are fighting for a kill, you swear that you shot first and hit him 3 to 5 times. When you see the killcam, you only get one or two hits and the other guy gets off two or three shots on you and kills you instead. The maps are either too big, or way too small. Nuketown 2025 is a waste of development. It's the exact same layout as BO1. The spawning is ridiculous. Enemies spawn behind you so many times, or they spawn you in an enemies sights.

    The variety of weapons are pathetic. The gun stats in BO2 are awful. I'm an assault rifle guy, and I could barely tell any difference at all using the fully automatic assault rifles other than firing rate and accuracy. What kills me is that the last assault rifle you unlock has only average gun stats. When I work my tail off to level up, I should be rewarded with a gun that kicks butt, not a gun that has middle to below average stats. Pistols and SMGs are overpowered. Light machine guns are terrible, and take an eternity to reload. Shotguns have ridiculous range for some reason. Sniper rifles should be banned from any future COD games. Grenades/Semtex work well, but Crossbows are still as annoying as ever. I don't like the fact that you can't remove arrows or Semtex you get stuck with if you realize it just in time. You're able to throw back grenades other people send at you, so why aren't you able to do this? When it tells you "Stuck", it might as well say "Bye Bye". Finally, the tomahawk and knife melee. If you include weapons that cause instant death in a video game, the death better make sense! The tomahawk shouldn't be an instant kill if it just hits you, especially if it's been thrown from over 50 feet away. I'm not a game designer, but even I know how obnoxious that is. If it hits you in the head, I can understand. The knife melee, a simple knife swipe to a player shouldn't mean instant death. Maybe give him a few seconds after getting swiped to stay alive before dying. Also, when I do the knife melee on someone directly in front of me, it almost always misses. On killcams, the knife melee sometimes looks like it's missing the target, but hits anyway, which is complete BS.

    On to the Scorestreaks. Some of them are upgraded versions of what we already know. But, they got rid of the best part of BO1. I'm talking about if you didn't use your Killstreak reward before restarting a new Killstreak, it stacked up. I loved when I had 3 RC-XDs and used them all within a couple minutes. In this game, if you don't use your Scorestreak rewards and start a new one, you lose the rewards you previously had. Some Scorestreaks are extremely cheap, When a Lightning Strike Scorestreak is activated, you get no time at all to get to cover because the command lets you know almost right after the bombs drop. When a Napalm Strike killstreak is activated in BO1, you get a command and around 3 seconds to get to cover before it hits. In BO2, you're pretty much screwed when Lightning Strike is activated. Also, when Lightning Strike or Hellstorm Missiles are activated, sometimes even if you are indoors, it still kills you. Treyarch, you didn't program destructive environments in this game, so this shouldn't happen. The UAV has been severely nerfed, it's only up for barely 10 seconds, and is almost always destroyed by the opposition within about 5 seconds. The absolute worst Scorestreak is the attack dogs. Why is it when a dog jumps you it's instant death? Give the player a fighting chance when it jumps you to shake it off or knife melee it, but don't make it instant death. There are better options for Scorestreaks other than dogs. You know how in the loading screens, it says, "A well timed knife strike will kill an incoming attack dog"? With the knife melee almost useless now, it's nearly impossible.

    The Perks, along with the Custom Class system have been changed for the worse. They have introduced Wild Cards which you can use to double up on Perks 1, 2, and 3, add another attachment to your primary weapon, etc. This would have been great, but there's just one problem, you can only have 10 items in a class, and the Wild Cards count towards your 10 items. What kind of sense does that make? The Wild Card isn't an actual item you carry! Also, you can only carry one type of lethal/tactical equipment, which is a downgrade from all the other games before this. You were able to carry grenades and claymores/bouncing betties before, why change now? The only good thing they did is that the Ghost Perk can make you invisible from UAV only when you're moving now. Stop releasing these games every year, Activision. Spend more than a year of development on it to iron out the problems to make this an experience to remember, and not one to throw out the window.
    Expand
  69. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    Where to start on this one? The campaign of this game is fun with different endings depending on your choices but regardless of that it doesn't have a story that tempts you into playing the campaign for more than an hour at a time. And after you finish the campaign you'll have no desire to play it again.
    If you play games purely singleplayer then there are far superior games on the
    market.
    Zombie mode is disappointing, there isn't much variation between the maps or combat situations and it gets boring to fight off the same horde of exactly the same zombies for longer than 15 minutes.
    Multiplayer however is where this game disappoints the most.
    The maps are the worst i've encountered in any Call of Duty game, with head glitching and camping spots galore. On top of that there's not much room in the maps for flanking the enemy without getting taken out by headglitchers armed with shock charges and bouncing betty's. And since the killstreaks are now more difficult to get, people camp even more trying to get a stealth chopper in the air.
    The spawn system is horribly random, too often you will find yourself scratching your head wondering why you spawned right in front of your enemy or why you spawned at the enemies flag in the domination game mode.
    The lag compensation system however is where this game truly falls flat on it's face, this was also a problem in MW3 from time to time but it was more rare than in Black Ops 2. Way too often will you shoot a guy full of bullets only to have him turn on you and kill you almost instantly. Every Call of Duty game on console had lag compensation but in this game it's completely screwed. Activision makes hundreds of millions of dollars annually with this franchise, you'd think it wouldn't be a big effort to host dedicated servers for this game..
    The gun balance in the game also lacks, well balance.. The SMG's are the way to go, they easily overpower most if not every other weapon in the game at almost all ranges.
    And yes, it still has the Quake 4 graphics engine with some modifications..
    Combine all this and you have a very lackluster game. I can't believe Treyarch developed a game for two years only to come up with this over hyped disappointment of a video game.
    Not only that, this game does not feel like Black Ops at all, it feels like a modded Modern Warfare game. Black Ops 1 was a superior title, not only in gameplay but also when it comes to originality and general atmosphere of the game, you put up with it's flaws because it was fun to play.
    This game however, is not. Why critics give this game such a high score is beyond me, because Black Ops 2 runs the franchise further into the ground instead of giving it a breath of fresh air. Steer clear of this one people, you will lament wasting your money on this.
    Expand
  70. Dec 31, 2012
    4
    This game is so lame and tired, the graphics are dated, it's just not fun any more! Maps are so small, spawns are terrible, sound effects are muddy. Now get to work making a game for the next platform! HINT: Maps need to be larger with more vertical variety (terrain or buildings), spawns need to be more varied and spread out, graphics need to have more texture and make maps with interesting settings that combine all aspects of terrain and construction, kick sound in when you go into a factory, etc., have things moving, hell put innocent people in that takes points off your team when you kill em, just do something better than this! Expand
  71. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    Call of duty: Black ops 2 takes the action to the future. however it still feels like i'm playing a game in the past.
    Firstly the campaign is like always, just there so they can make the game. they really don't put any effort into the game. all they are looking to get out is the multiplayer and the zombies. So multiplayer is as always, the same spray and pray. however they do add a point
    system instead of a kill streak which makes it more objective run this time, this is not good though because you find yourself being bombed every couple of minutes. Zombies was ruined in every way possible. they took the the simple fun and turned it into a mess of building turbines and being downed in one hit due to the poor knifing system, its ridiculous.

    Would i play this or any other cod? yes. any other game? no
    Expand
  72. Jan 6, 2013
    4
    The single player on this game is absolutely top notch, as are all of the other CoD's campaigns are. But the multiplayer on this particular game, is one of the worst multiplayer experiences i have ever been in. Its crummy, boring and it ALWAYS feels as though you are dying first even after shooting first, and after trading it in 2 weeks after i purchased it, i am NOT regretting getting rid of it, as it is the worst CoD in the whole of the series. Expand
  73. Jan 14, 2013
    4
    A fun game at times but the multiplayer is nothing new and gets boring after a day or two. The campaign is a bit entertaining but the only time you get to use new gadgets is normally once and is to just get to the next objective. If you're lucky you'll get 20 seconds with your new gadget. Anyway, bad campaign and a bad multiplayer. The Zombies mode is alright but soon gets boring seeing as there is basically only one map. Expand
  74. Feb 5, 2013
    4
    this game kind sucks now. dont get me wrong I will still play it. Whenever I want to play a spray and kill type game. BO2 has become so reptitive, its starting to get boring. The single player missions were so short because Tryarch was just concentrated on the multiplayer. There is really nothing to it just be the first person to pull the trigger and you got yourself a kill. I still like playing it, but its time for a new way to play the game if that makes sense. Expand
  75. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    Basically the same as every other Call of Duty game, but half of it is set in the future. Too samey for me to give anything more than a 5. But I have to knock a point off for the fact it has been dumbed down to the point where anyone with half a brain can finish Veteran mode. Enjoyable for a few hours, but it's nothing you haven't played before. Developers are milking fans for all they're worth.
  76. Dec 17, 2013
    4
    If there is any word I would sum up this game with it would be "over-hyped." Every single CoDfish that drools over this game are either stupid or zealous fanboys. The game itself is merely a cut-and-paste version of Black Ops and, for the most part, the entire Modern Warfare series.

    First off, there's the campaign. Somehow I finally managed to work up the courage to play the damn
    game, since I played World At War a couple months back. I usually play games for their story and in my honest opinion, the story for this game is absolute garbage. The plot twists were horribly predictable and, despite the very few choices you actually get to make in the game, it feels like many of the crap you get put through is just scripted to happen. The plot is some B-movie story that any idiot writer in Hollow-wood could come up with. The story is so convoluted that it ends up being laughable at how poorly it was written.

    The mechanics are downright awful. Like most CoD games I've played, oftentimes the enemies will hit you cheaply. I mean, you're supposed to be a damn SEAL, whose fighting reflexes are supposed to be good. Instead every melee shot requires a brief "cooldown" before you can swing again. Meanwhile, the enemy you're fighting against swings again and again in no time at all (for every one swing you get, the enemy throws *at least* two, usually resulting in a very cheap death). And don't get me started on the same stupid thing that Treyarch just loves to put in that every serious gamer absolutely despises: infinite spawners. This means that enemies will just keep coming endlessly until you're able to actually push through the area (running very low on ammo in the process), and when you pass the area, the enemies just suddenly stop. Infinite spawners are just a cheap way to keep the player "entertained" while doing more cut-and-paste AI bulls*** in the next area. At one point, I even found that a simple jump across a space to an open balcony seemed simple enough if I sprinted the gap. However, I somehow fell short every damn time until I did a regular jump across, which somehow did the trick (I mean REALLY?!?! I couldn't make the jump with a faster sprint-jump?!?! I raged so hard at this obviously-scripted point).

    Multiplayer. Hate it. Cut-and-paste Modern Warfare. No skill using weapons that are already stabilized for you. That's all I have to say.

    All in all, Black Ops II is a game that was overly hyped with almost no difference between Modern Warfare and Black Ops. I won't be surprised if Ghosts turns out to be more of the same cut-and-paste drivel that Treyarch calls a "much-improved sequel." Just quit lying to us and admit that your modern-era CoD games are all pretty much the same game wearing different skins. Verdict: skip it unless you're an easily-fooled, diehard CoDfish.
    Expand
  77. Feb 23, 2013
    4
    I give this game a 4. The reasons are simple. The Campaign mode seems great, although I will admit I haven't gotten all the way through it yet. The main reason for my giving this game a 4 is Multiplayer. It's horrible. The hit detection sucks, I can not tell you how many times I've shot someone only to not have it count. Another reason is the damage system seems wholly inconsistent to me. For example: sometimes I can kill a person with 3 shots from a pistol, other times I empty the whole clip only to end up being killed by them whilst reloading. Keep in mind I'm getting hit indicators the whole time. Another reason is I have had many, many people just walk straight past my claymore mines without taking any damage (I watch the killcam). It's just not done well. I'd recommend the Original Doom over this game. Expand
  78. Mar 10, 2013
    4
    By far the worst of the Call of Duty games, Graphics are actually worse than the previous 2. My favourite is Black Ops, so i was hoping this would be great but unfortunately it went on eBay within a week of buying.
    Only thing that was a slight improvement was the Zombies Tranzit mode. But £40 just for a new zombies mode is a bit ridiculous
  79. Apr 22, 2013
    4
    Ah, the Call of Duty franchise… What can be said about it which hasn’t been said so many times by so many people? It’s seems to be a franchise which continues to divide the waters of gamers: You either love it or hate it. There really doesn’t seem to be any middle ground on this one.
    So where do I personally stand?
    My problem with this particular FPS franchise lies very much with the
    developer, Treyarch, the overprotecting parents of game developers. Treyarch seems to live in constant fear of relinquishing some of their control of the game to the player, leading to one of the most scripted and linear shooter franchises on the market, at least up to this point. One notable thing about Black Ops 2 is that there are attempts from Treyarch to give more control to the player, but then it seems like they regretted their decision and pulls the players right back where they want them.
    One notable example of this is in Afghanistan where you have to stop a Russian assault with heavy armour, helicopters and infantry while on horseback. This initially seems like opening up for a bigger area with more freedom of movement and ways to take out the tanks and helicopters. However, this turns out just to be show, because in fact the whole stage isn’t as big as it would have you believe, there are really no options as to how to approach taking out the tanks and helicopters, and if you try to stray just a little bit, you are without warning killed off for going off the map.
    It seems like Treyarch tried a more open level design, but then thought better of it, making the player feel like a dog who just got a longer leash. Surprised by this it starts to run to stretch its legs only to get pulled back with a neck breaking jerk.
    Another attempt are a couple of tactical Strike Missions, which try to blend some real-time strategy into the franchise as well as giving the single player campaign a multiplayer “feel”. Now, this would have been a welcomed addition if it had been executed better than it actually is.
    The problem is twofold: First of all the strategy is extremely simplistic, leaving you with only four different squads at your command, and only being able to tell them where they to go using a quite useless overhead tactical map which I never used. You can then jump into any individual squad member and control it, whether a soldier, a gun turret, a rolling gun turret, or a small, slow walking tank. And this leads to the second problem: The AI. You get more out of just going commando on the enemy and try to do the tasks yourself, than rely on the orders given to your squads, as they will be killed off faster than a sloth on the MI5. On several occasions I have also seen squads taking the longest, and most enemy infested route possible to the destination I had set for them, resulting in them getting massacred in seconds.
    These strike missions are fortunately optional, but they are still frustrating to play.
    Other than that there really is nothing new in the single player campaign which, as usual for the franchise, is as short as ever and plays out more like a Michael Bay movie than anything else, though the cutscenes and set-pieces are as spectacular as ever.
    What really gets to me with this franchise is Treyarch’s reluctance to let go of the player’s hand. At one point you are on the side of a cliff, swinging on a line with you buddy using "high-tech gloves of the future" to stick to the side. Now, rather than actually letting the players do it on their own and actually climb around on a cliff surface, the whole thing is done with a tedious quick-time event.
    The following section which sees you gliding over mountains could have been a lot of fun, if it weren’t for the fact that it might as well have been set in a tunnel, as straying even a few meters too far from Treyarch’s very short leash will result in a restart.
    It's the same story with the "stealth". As usual you are left blindly playing "follow the leader", failure to do so results in you being discovered even if in cover.
    And that’s really my whole problem with the franchise and Black Ops 2. There are so many things which could have been so cool if you were just allowed to actually DO it.
    I like just a minimum of freedom and a minimum of control in my games and this franchise gives me neither.
    It treats the player like a little child learning how to cross a street, and never ever at any time does it let go of the player’s hand, squeezing it to a point of stopping blood circulation.
    That said, the multiplayer is still quite solid (if you liked it before) with a new league feature and other additions. The Zombies are back, but this time they are actually the most boring and quite ugly part of the game
    So other than the Strike Missions, Black Ops 2 is very much business as usual.
    If you like the franchise you won’t be disappointed, and if you like me don’t see what all the fuss is about… well, you still won’t.
    Expand
  80. Apr 11, 2013
    4
    They need to learn that they can only re-release the same game so many times before people start to take notice.

    There's nothing wrong with the CoD formula (except a rather short and mediocre campaign, but Black Ops 2 did a little better at that aspect) it's just that they keep release game after game, year after year, barely changing anything. And they're releasing another this year.
    It needs to stop. Now. Expand
  81. Apr 16, 2013
    4
    Man, this was really disappointing. I can see what they were trying to do, and I respect that and understand it. But I just couldn't get in to this game. The campaign was very poor, zombies was an improvement but still not great and the multi player was more of the same. The campaign like I said, was the poorest I've played in COD history. I was just utterly confused throughout and it was a pain to play at times. Expand
  82. Apr 19, 2013
    4
    is this a call of duty game? yes. does it play like call of duty yes! is that a bad thing? well.....in my and many others opinion...YES!! they have been using the same formula since modern warfare 1! now yes of course they have added extremly minor new features, yes i get that. the only thing this game is truly good for honestly is its zombies mode.
  83. May 18, 2013
    4
    This game is not an AAA fps-shooter its only an arcade Xbox shooter with an outdatded old crap engine And ugly graphics and a short,boring Classic story but the multiplayer content is even better.But a month later is became boring.Now I think its only 4 out of 10.
  84. May 29, 2013
    4
    This is black ops 2. Like almost every other Call Of Duty, this game says it is the best call of duty yet. Yes BO2 is the bet COD yet to me at Lear, it doesn't mean that it is a great game. This game's campaign is horrible. You at least can choose some weapons you use in missions but the story is completely terrible. The narrative is pretty much bland and the strike force missions are just a waste of time. Sure you can make choices in the game, but there are only about 6. The zombies: I love this mode. This is the only reason I bought DLC So I could play more. Zombies is addict ing and fun. The bad thing is, zombies sucks if you don't have a friend to play with and if you don't have a mic. Public matches on zombies is bad. You get paired up with really bad people and you don't get very far into the rounds. The multiplayer. It was fun at first and I got to prestige three in a couple of months, because I don't play that much. But the multiplayer gets repetitive and gets worse with campers and little kids. The only fun I found in multiplayer was playing quick scopes with my friends, but even that got tedious. I don't know about all these COD fans but this game is repetitive and the only good game mode is zombies if you have friends that play it There's a reason everything's the same, because each company decides to make a new one every year even though it is a different developer, most everything is the same. Releasing a COD game every year is just stupid. Almost nothing changes. Expand
  85. Jun 2, 2013
    4
    I'm only giving this a 4 because of the zombies maps. The multiplayer was probably the most boring out of the whole franchise. When you were running around as menendez and were literally getting shot continuously, was just ridiculous. It was easy and it was a safe route in my opinion. I didn't like the multiplayer when it first launched and I still have issues with it. Servers are awful worst I've seen in a Call of Duty game. Graphics aren't that great, but they're not the worst. LMG's most overpowered thing ever. Maps are way too small. Connections are terrible. Hosting is a joke. Zombies maps are fine except for the one in China. that one was too confusing and dumb. I could be wrong, but my opinion. Expand
  86. Jul 24, 2013
    4
    This game is a 6 out of 10 at best. Black Ops 2 is a copy-paste of all the call of duties since MW2. Many of the previous Call of Duty games did each of the 3 gameplay parts so well but not bo2. Overall, I hate is the cartoon graphics, gun models, audio, and gun sounds. First of all, campaign was a huge disappointment. Before this, the campaign wasn't really important but this year, they started to care about it. They pushed the campaign as important from the beginning and added create a class and challenges. However, it seems like they spent more time with that than the gameplay. The gameplay was repetitive, boring, and forgettable, unlike previous call of duties. (aside from MW3.) The story was good in theory, but it was executed poorly and forgettable as well. There really isn't any urge for me to go back and play more of the single player. Strike force was good in theory, but it was too easy and short, and the controls are terrible. Now, for everyone's favorite, multiplayer. It is the worst of any FPS i have played. The balance is horrid the shotguns (particularly the R-870) and the sniper rifles are EXTREMELY overpowered. The SMG's are also OP to a lesser extent, and now the LMG's are overpowered as well. (when so called "camping" especially, and using target finder.) the assault rifles, asides from the full auto SMR and FAL, which were nerfered, are underpowered and have no real purpose in the game. the automatic pistols are also overpowered, and leave the other ones useless. The knife is all messed up it's inconsistent and is pretty much useless except for a few lucky times. The maps are the worst of any cod I've seen they're small and don't feel right, or like call of duty at all. i loved the MW2 and BO1 maps, and i really don't like the MW3 and BO2 maps. the pick 10 system is bad and the weapon leveling system is bad too. the pick 10 i find awful because a smoke grenade costs the same amount of points as a machine gun. also, it's weird that it takes a full point for something that you could run out of, (a gun, grenade) but so do your perks and they don't run out. they ruined domination by splitting it into two rounds, and the maps only seem to be made for a couple game modes. the community in this game is the worst that i have ever seen in a cod game, and they don't help with all the overpowered weapons. Zombies was a huge letdown. It feels weird and the maps are bad. Green run maps are forgettable, way too small, and don't feel like actual zombies maps. It was made for tranzit which you have fun for the first few times you play it, but then you get bored of it. (tranzit is only really good for messing around with random people online). Nuketown zombies is forgettable as well. The dlc maps were better, but still not as good as BO1 or World at war. Die rise was bad but better, mob of the dead was good, and buried was okay. At least they added join in progress for zombies. (this is one of the few things I think they did right with this game) Overall, this game was a big disappointment and a waste of money. The weapons, gameplay, graphics, audio, and overall themes of the game are forgettable.
    PS don't buy the extra camos, backgrounds, etc. they are a waste of money and the money just goes to two undeserving companies (treyarch and activision)
    Expand
  87. Nov 3, 2013
    4
    look,activision
    if you are going to do a call of duty game for year
    try to innovated something
    its so lazy and so stupid to make a game with the SAME GRAPHICS
    WITH THE SAME GAMEPLAY,WITH THE SAME BORED STORY,
    and THE SHORT CAMPAIGN
    do you think that multiplayer and call of duty fanboys is a pretext to do a call of duty?
    CALL OF DUTY SUCKS MAN
  88. Jan 7, 2014
    4
    It's pretty much MW3, but with a slick, James Bond-esque theme instead of the dull military theme of the last cod. Damage is still wildly inconsistent, sniper rifles dominate the game, and spawning is still as bad as ever. The campaign is dull and boring-why make a new cold war when there's still so much of the real Cold War left unexplored?
  89. Feb 20, 2014
    4
    Do not get me started with this game. The lead developer, David Vonderhaar, is quite possibly the most idiotic man the gaming industry has ever seen. There are a few select guns in the multiplayer that are entirely unbalanced and require little to no skill to use (generally speaking, the snipers, light machines guns, and a couple of shotguns). The latency is unbearable as the developers deliberately do nothing to fix it. "Let's released weapon camo DLC microtransactions instead of fixing the lag!"

    The campaign isn't bad, nothing new.

    However, the one redeeming factor about this game is its Zombies mode. It's a whole load of fun, and the development team for this game mode clearly put much more work into the game (yes, it's a different team) and genuinely care about their players. I highly recommend you play Zombies in this game at least once, as it is a stark contrast and a huge step up from the previous games.

    Multiplayer: 1/10
    Campaign: 4/10
    Zombies: 8/10

    Average, overall rating: 4/10
    It's important to remember that these three game modes are very different and you should not judge any of them based off of the others.
    Expand
  90. Jan 5, 2013
    3
    How many times a year can they release the same, generic FPS game for $60? This only goes to show that if you build up enough hype, people will buy any old crap. I think it's safe to say that if you want value for money these days, stay away from the big publishers like Activision and EA...
  91. Nov 14, 2012
    3
    I made the mistake of playing this straight after Halo 4. Maybe if I played this game 5 or 10 years before Halo 4, it wouldn't have seemed so bad. Everything about Black Ops II feels old, tired, linear, on-rails. The graphics engine is dated and looks cheap, flat and synthetic compared to numerous recent releases I could mention. The game play requires no thought or tactics. A.I. is barely existent. It's just an unsatisfying experience all-round. But the hype, fan base, and ridiculously favourably high critic reviews will ensure it sells millions. And I, amongst many others, was duped into wasting my money on it. Expand
  92. Nov 15, 2012
    3
    If you or your kid have been diagnosed with ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) or Kalnienk vision disorder this game is designed especially for YOU ! This is not the Black Ops game you were hoping for... This is Super Turbo Edition ! Treyarch came to the conclusion medium size maps are boring and not engaging enough.Play area has been shrinked significantly (on most of the maps) to accommodate extremely engaging close quarters play-stile of spawn chuck a grenade and then either kill something or get killed by whatever flew out of opposite side. Every map has been build around simple principle of tiny area and 3 corridors to flow the gameplay in the middle left and right side. I dont care about single player or will be talking about it but I assure you its Michael Bay style showcase from killing Vietcong soldiers, wing-suit flying all the way to some idiotic command and conquer RTS style mini-missions 0_o why ? I don't know... and YES ! There is dubstep, because every game in 2012 needs some of that wub wub. The only redeeming factor could be zombies, but why would you be willing to pay full price for it when there are more engaging brain eating themed games available for a lot less (L4D series) So far I've spend 5 hours in online battles and had no fun at all ! I'll try to sell this game by the end of the week or trade with somebody for something else. Meantime I'm going back to battlefield, maybe I won't have shiny 60 frames per second but at least game is not forcing me to have fun doing escapades inside rat maze size of a shoe box ! Expand
  93. Dec 12, 2012
    3
    Traded this piece in after a week. This game is horrendously unimagined. Every weapon feels like re-skinned version of something from a previous COD. Melee attack misses constantly. Constantly got shot behind hard cover. Graphics are god awful, especially the "lightning strike" score streak. Audio is poor. Maps are forgettable. Campaign story was weak, only highlight there was the array of armaments available. Zombie maps are okay, but not nearly as amusing as the prior installment. Expand
  94. Dec 4, 2012
    3
    While no game deserves a 0 as a score this game definitely does not deserve a 10. Single player basically comes down to more of the same old formula Activision has forced these development companies to work with. The AI is laughable at best, but every one knows the Call of Duty franchise has never had the best coding for AI. The story line in general is 5 hours long and is really bland, unimaginative, and well, more of the same. They try to deviate from becoming a linear corridor shooter by supposedly providing player with options but they don't truly affects the game. The ending on the other hand might. Which is suppose to add re playability to the first person campaign, but there's really no reason to play over the same campaign for just a different ending. Multiplayer, this is the are where this game should shine but it seems the MP portion of this game feels a lot similar to that of MW3 and of course Black Ops. Small scaled maps with tons of areas to camp. Basically comes down to which ever team can camp the middle ground the best wins the game. The rest is just protecting the same corner through out the game with occasionally moving 3-6 feet away from your old camp spot to corner camp in a different spot. There are no need to watch your back as certain equipment and streaks do that for your. The game is slow paced and also suffers from the same old bad hit detection. While it does some what fix old issues like knifing people from miles away, it does at times glitch and can cause your character to launch at another player. Kill streaks seem re-hashed but with an added "futuristic" approach. There's always lag and horrible host selection, the spawn points are mediocre at best, but what can one expect from such small maps that are crammed with buildings to make them seem "big." The leveling system online has been set to keep players from playing. While it gives players who have been playing the game longest the upper hand with over powered weaponry and the best perks. The new set up is suppose to force players into playing the objective, that is not the case. The way the maps are set up actually encourage players to whore kill streaks and never actually go for any objective. Word of advice, try to level as fast as you can to get ghost perk, it's a uav whore type of game. Zombies: This is where this game shines. It's somewhat new but refreshing at the same time reminds me a bit of Left for Dead. Which is great fun to be honest. If this game was just a zombie installment I would definitely recommend this game. Other wise, save yourself some money and just rent this game or save up for MW5 or BLOPS 4; Skip a generation or two just like any one in their right mind would with Fifa games. Expand
  95. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    Remeber CoD4?? Well if you don't or haven't played it I'm truly sorry. Black Ops 2 brings with it the same things made famous by MW2 with a twist Killstreaks are now scorestreaks nice addition to the game makes things more rewarding to players that go for the objective. Next the weapon selection is by far the best improvement to this game and the series this is however where the Pro's of BO2 MP end. MP is plagued, it makes me yearn for MW2 again. SMG's are the flavor of this game as are 3 Pistols that are overpowered to a large degree. Now why are these overpowered well the recoil on some isn't there okay its the future I get it that, but this is MP level playing field needs to be present currently there damage is to great it needs to be less. Another issue that would help this is the atrocious hitboxe's used in this game, Ever year it gets worse and worse to make lesser players better and make great players greater and more frustrated by the bullet that truly missed you in the killcam but hit you in-game. Quick scoping is still present although not as prevalent thus far It does however need to go fast pace has taken over realism something CoD4 did fairly well to a degree. Lastly my biggest complaint is when a 9mm smg bullet goes through a wall but my .30 cal cannot..........or when I get shot through a metal cargo trailer but can't shoot through a haybarrel. These things add to one at times Fun but utimately frustrating experience that we've come to love and hate about CoD series. I however truly miss the glory days of CoD4 and CoD:UO where things worked properly......before the console generation of xbox live ruined a once great series. Expand
  96. Dec 2, 2012
    3
    If i had to sum up my feelings about this game in four words it would be "More of the same". The campaign is mediocre at best. The multiplayer is the same multiplayer you have played in the last 4 call of duty games. Yes, there are a few changes to the core systems but its not anything groundbreaking by any means. I've officially decided that i won't be purchasing any future call of duty games, the gaming industry right now is in desperate need of innovation. I'm getting incredibly sick and tired of seeing numbered sequels to everything. Expand
  97. 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
  98. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    I am SO glad i did not pay for this game. YES! I went and instead i rent it. I AM GLAD I DID. Saved money. This game is an ABOMINATION. The Graphics are as good as a Free-To-Play Shooter on PC, they are WAY OUT-DATED, ALOT of graphical Bugs, the Campaign Story is absolutely HORRIBLE. The Gameplay is ordinary at best. Nothing fresh, nothing new. The same crap Activision tried to sell to Kids each year. The Multiplayer is SO MUCH uncomplete, it's even more horrible. This game is like an Add-On Pack (Or Map Pack) for Call of Duty: Black Ops, i do not know why Treyarch are called Game Developpers, because they are horrible. Want Ideas on Good Shooter Games? Go check out Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3, Rainbow Six: Patriots (Coming in 2013) and even better... Wait for Battlefield 4. DO NOT BUY THIS PIECE OF CRAP SOFTWARE, you've been warned. COD is NOT what it USED TO BE anymore. Expand
  99. Apr 22, 2013
    3
    I play it frequently, because it's like cocaine in video game form. It numbs your mind, but doesn't do much else. I've come across far too many bad glitches and crashes that it renders the game almost unplayable. In hardcore, you get kicked (and placed on 'probation') if you kill your teammate too many times. Most often it's because they are stupid as hell or they die in unavoidable ways. I've seen weapons fail to spawn in classes (leaving you with no primary weapon), 7 (sometimes 8) players to a team in 6v6 matches, and spawns so bad you die instantaneously on maps way too large for that to happen. I feel like Activision has turned it's back on their fans; it's not about the quality, only the money. Save your time and play some indie games or stuff by less autocratic developers. Support the people who still make good games. Expand
  100. Aug 15, 2013
    3
    Before I start, I'll say this: I don't hate Call of Duty Black Ops 2, its just way too similar to the previous entries in the series. Similar enough that it basically adds little to the franchise in terms of innovation.
  101. Nov 16, 2012
    0
    I give this a 0. I can not believe I paid 60 bucks for this. The animation is horrible, the voice acting is C rate at best, and story line is meh, the weapons choices not so great. Multiplayer really sucks, unless you live in your parents basement and drink monster all day, I like realism, this is far from it. A lot of the characters words are no lined up with there speech, and by the way, the graphics look the same as they did in 2009/2010. I am happy to say that this is the last COD game I will by, from now on battlefield and Medal of Honor games only for me, they are way better!

    I also think someone should sue these people for providing a product full of errors for this price, did they test anything in this before releasing it? NOOO!!!!

    This is on the PC for me.
    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.