User Score
6.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1311 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Meh. Stuck on Rebirth Island in a loop. Standing behind the Russki he says I've been spotted and he just stands there and I'm looking around trying to see who spotted me, and trying to figure where all of the bullets are coming from.

    If I don't hit the marks that the developers say I should I die. I REALLY hate having to play a level over and over, and over, and over, from the start
    because I didn't jump fast enough, or read the BS directions about hitting X to deploy the parachute. BO is more frustrating than fun. Once I complete it I won't be replaying the campaign, and since I don't have Gold Live multi player is out. If the Zombies game sucks I'll be selling it back to Gamestop. Expand
  2. Nov 10, 2010
    1
    Quick look at the review: Conclusion: Wish i had not purchased this, it certainly shouldn't cost $60 and it was a big let down Pro: Story line was engaging Cons: A quick summary if you dont want to read below: Graphics are the same but run worse (ya i don't get it either, go figure) Shorter than the first, took me 4 hours 20 minutes to beat on Hardened collecting all but 2 pieces of intel.
    Multiplayer is buggy and laggy, constant kicks, crashes, disconnects make it close to unplayable.
    for $60 you get a poorly made expansion that will let you down.

    Now I'll explain it a bit more for those who want to know my reasoning

    The graphics of the game are the same as the first, It looks the same, nothing new, if anything i almost feel like they pushed the bar even less. Really no moments that are visually stunning. Given that somehow they've managed to make it run less efficiently. During my setup for single player graphics i experienced instense lag, my screen would flash yellow and i had to lower the settings down on AA AASA. At this point the game still had moments of extreme choppiness though i could play with the settings further because of the poorly done menu. Every mutliplayer game i've joined has people lagging out or crashing because of graphical issues. I run a Nvidia 480GTX, Quad-core Intel, 8GB of ram and I STILL get lag in this game (yes i have the latest drivers). The game play is the roughly the same as the first but it feels less fluid, the AI does nothing but get in the way the entire time, you basically feel like your just running through a movie and only you down know the script. You end up having to kill everything you see as your AI squad members really dont do anything except follow their scripts. In this game they've simply reused what they had and spent even less time on making it feel "epic" and even less time on the menu system of the game which at this point its so PC unfriendly that it makes me want to cry.

    The list of complaints tends to drag on but over all the fact that this was a $59.99 for an even shorter game than the first, using the same engine, same everything is really just criminal. I regret spending my $60 for something that should have been in the $30 price range as an expansion.

    To the Critic's that have reviewed this. Did you even play Modern Warfare 2? How can people even suggest that this "tops" that? You had to crawl through a trench under heavy machine gun fire in front of the WHITE HOUSE in the first one, nuclear war, defending the homeland they managed to hit every button to get people to connect with their game. The story of this game is a giant flash back, that has nothing to do with us, and lets just say the ending was a joke.
    Expand
  3. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    I'm sorry I bought this game. I've never been a big fan of the campaign but I have always loved the multiplayer of the COD franchise. But I felt this multiplayer lacks when compared to the previous titles. The graphics look worse than MW2, and the game play is EXACTLY the same. They added a few new killstreaks and call it a NEW game? The maps are small and boring, and I refuse to pay 800-1200 Microsoft points to get new maps when they come out. Overall I wish I could have my 60 bucks back. I hate when major titles change developers, it ruined the Final Fantasy series and now the COD series. Bottom line.... Black Ops effin' lame. Collapse
  4. May 15, 2011
    1
    Most people buy this game for the online play. The truth is that Black Ops is a failure for multiplayer use.
    Lobbies are never synchronized....leaving huge gaps in aiming and target hit markers. Often times you can be killed without ever having actually been in view of the enemy. The spawns are horrible. Enemy players can sit where you will spawn in front of them, allowing them to shoot
    you without a chance of even getting one step taken. Poor design and a waste of money. I will NEVER buy a Treyarch game again. Expand
  5. Nov 10, 2010
    2
    This game is pathetic. I'd say it was a let down but I didn't expect much. The only reason I play COD is because it's ally m friends play for weeks after it comes out. I hate that the COD franchise is the flagship of gaming. It' such a disgrace and i miss the days when good games were what brought people to gaming. Not this junk that gets spit out in front of it that is always the same game with new skin and a new title. I mean look at halo. In every sinlge one of their new games, they made leaps and bounds and pushed their limits. Even someone who doesn't like halo has to admit that the games are very different from one another and the graphics are at least always upgraded from the previous installment, unlike this game. Don't waste your money. I don'tlike anything in the cod franchise other than number 2, but if you really want a copy of black ops, just take a sharpy, write black ops on the cover of your modern warfare 2 case, and scratch the disc a little so it doesn't run as smooth. And bam, you just got your very own copy of black ops for free.

    Whole franchise is whack as hell.
    Expand
  6. Nov 9, 2010
    0
    This doesn't surprise me, since I saw it coming for a long time. Long story short: Black Ops is practically the same thing as MW2. I hated MW2. So, why should I be surprised?
  7. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    Single player is horrible with same generic linear gameplay trying to tell a strory, but it falls in horrible ai and lazily scripted event with not even close ot enough triggers to make gameplay fluent and ai teammates to feel real. This is which breaks the flow of the game and cant really get into it no matter how hard i try. Same problems still exist to every cod game after COD2. Teammates keep emptying clips at visible opponents without actually killing anything until player finds the trigger which gets the teammates to move forward.

    Multiplayer is very normal cod quality though making snipers unusable makes the game faster which is better in arcade shooter like this. The new game modes are fun but not enough to merit buying this if you already own mw1, bc2 or even mw2.
    Expand
  8. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    All this game feels like is that Treyarch is getting a piggy back ride from Infinity Ward. The game still feels of the old eras like World At War and it still feels like they have taken everything from infinity ward and added in a few more things here and there, personalized it and called it a game. When in reality, they add remote controlled toy cars, guided rockets, flame throwers and more unbalancing, unrealistic items to the game. In my opinion the design in these games and even the graphics seem somewhat... Stale. Treyarch has gone way down in my expectations and I won't be buying a game from them, and yes even if it has a very successful name above it like 'Call of Duty'... Over hyped, overrated and took way too much credit where simple indie developers deserve better. Expand
  9. Nov 27, 2010
    2
    Total waste of money. Just like they added new maps and crappier skins to MW2. Stick with MW2 and save your money. They should ditch Treyarch, they are killing the series softly.
  10. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    It is hard to know where to start with this game, due to it's massive failings and the new things it brings to the Call of Duty franchise.

    Graphically it is not even as detailed as Call of Duty 4, with chunky objects not smooth ones, washed out colours, really blurred textures. In fact the only models that have anywhere near enough detail are the guns and the players, everything else
    (explosions, cars, walls, crates, buildings) should look far better than they do. I would compare it's graphics to COD 3, another one of Treyarch's feeble creations.

    To constantly see people saying how good the graphics are leads me to believe that the reviewers/general people, have never played COD4 or COD MW2. To say the graphics compare to Modern Warfare 2 is near blasphemy, and also incredibly ignorant. (My earliest COD purchase. Black Ops was my first title in the COD series developed by Treyarch, however I have played COD 3, 5 and obviously own Black Ops.) Looking back at COD 2, the graphics there are almost on par with Black Ops, at least online that is. However Let's be realistic, how many people seriously bought Black Ops for the campaign mode?

    The Music in Black Ops is suitably atmospheric, however it never captures the mood anywhere near a similar level to Modern Warfare 1 and 2, such as the epic finales of both games. As such it never renders any real level of connection with the character, unaided by the fact that the voice of the main character (Mason) was clearly done by Sam Worthington i.e. Jake Sully (Avatar), Marcus Wright (Terminator Salvation), Perseus (Clash of the Titans). This makes the game feel fake, and whilst the voice acting itself is good, the whole lot never meshes together fluidly, so you feel that you are an observer, nothing more.

    Now comes the really disheartening part. As if the poor multiplayer graphics were bad enough, the game engine lends the title no favours. The aiming system online is poor. There is almost no response as to whether you are aiming at someone, movement feels clunky and jerky, aiming is not the best experience either, and neither is the damage calculation. Suffice to say that if you have taken any damage whatsoever, falling off a ledge more than your character model's height, pretty much results in instant death. The melee system hits almost 100% of the time, whether the other person was actually aiming at you or not, and the response time between pulling the trigger and the gun firing is very noticeable.

    It feels like the game engine was also ripped straight from COD 3, and is so unrefined as to cause my Xbox to actually have to slow down. I have never had this problem on any other Call of Duty game I have ever played. Modern Warfare 2 runs flawlessly on my machine even after hours of play, whereas 10 minutes of Black Ops causes my Xbox to struggle even when there is no lag and I have a 4 bar connection. This is a major blow to the Call of Duty series, as Infinity Ward pride themselves in remaking the game each time they bring a new title out. Call of Duty 2 was well received and was one of the best FPS on Xbox for a long time. Call of Duty 3 barely even got mentioned, as it is basically the ugly sister: an unpolished, unfinished, unmotivated attempt at taking what Infinity Ward created and effectively cutting and pasting with a few lack lustre additions that negatively affect the game.

    Conversely, Treyarch have consistently shown that they can take a ready made and highly refined game engine and produce a sub par end product. Read: COD 3, COD World at War, and now COD Black Ops. Everything that Modern Warfare 2 brought, Black Ops seems to have removed. Highly detailed graphics, Smooth running game engine, innovation and addition to the famous multiplayer Call of Duty experience, taking the best of COD 4, and improving on it. Except Infinity Ward made a whole new game engine for MW2, they didn't copy the COD 4 engine, unlike Treyarch, who did copy it for World at War and managed to produce a low quality product from something that originally was done so well.

    Black Ops does bring new ideas to the Multiplayer area, such as the COD currency to buy perks, weapons, emblems, camoflagues etc. This could be refined slightly more, however as it is a new addition to the COD franchise, I will not be to picky about it, as it does work, and it is useful to stop everyone having the best weapons possible.

    This however does not make up for s seriously lacking game. Single player is good for about 2 hours, and multiplayer is fine for however long it goes on being repetitive until you become bored. Should still be at the drawing board, not as a fully released title, especially not in the COD franchise. Treyarch continuing what they probably always will do....
    Expand
  11. Nov 11, 2010
    0
    ALLLLLLLLLL HYPE.


    Farmer ate sucks , graphics far inferior than MW2 that came out a year ago, MP lacks excitement and oooomph, don't even get started on the sound effects, they're horrible , explosions go off with just a generic pop, you barely hear people shooting from 10 feet from you , on a big map you you never get to hear anything unless you're shooting, chopper gunner can be right
    on top of you killing you and you don't hear anything!!! I would not **** as much if the game was at least fluid , but it controls clunky and just like WAW!! They just used the same mechanics with new guns that's all! And since they used the same graphics engine from more than 2 years ago and they tried to add more detail they ended up making everything blurry it looks almost like you're playing in standard definition TV and also as a result causing the game's frame rate to constantly drop giving you a headache if you play too long. This is coming from a guy that has played previous installments to death and was very much looking forward to this one. I'm so angry and disappointED . I mean Activision should have the funds to make a graphics engine from the ground up and could have made the game run and look at least as smooth as MW2. Now we're stuck with a mediocre COD game until who knows!!!!! Expand
  12. Nov 10, 2010
    1
    Wow all I can say is that the single player in Black Ops is a huge disappointment. I agree that the story is good and I enjoy the fact that the main character is re-living the memories of what happened. But that is where is kind of ends for me. The graphics are not good and I am being gentle with that description. The collision detection is horrendous. I don't know how many times I have been stuck to the wall, a brick on the ground, or one of my own idiot partners. The constant spawning of enemies and grenade spamming is ridiculous. I would like for a little more reality when I am in a situation and people keep showing up from out of nowhere. Tossing smoke grenades is absolutely useless. I have been killed every single time I have tried to employ the strategy of using a smoke grenade to clear a room or hallway. It is as though the enemies have heat vision. I can't vouch for any part of the multiplayer as that is not my bag but I can tell you that Treyarch really lacks the know how when it comes to making a great single player experience. I had these same exact issues with WaW. I really do not recommend playing the single player. The 4 hours it took to play through Medal of Honor was more fun than this piece of garbage. Expand
  13. Nov 11, 2010
    0
    Yet another dissapointment hyped up pile of yack. Really (although it won't happen) we need to boycott these rubbish developers and stop buying thier sub par graphics and gamplay. As already mentioned it's like playing a game from 6 years ago with glitchy textures to boot, waste of money.
  14. Nov 11, 2010
    0
    Poor Sound, Bad Graphics awfully Buggy and laggy. On PC this game is shockingly bad. Taking it back for a refund. Activision should be ashamed.

    Many of the good reviews are I think for xstations and wiiboxes. Of course it will probably seem better on those since the graphics are locked in and its doubtless less buggy.
  15. Dec 14, 2010
    3
    The reviewers obviously just see the cod logo and say ten. if any of them spent more than 10 minutes on they game they would realise how broken it is. it is nigh on impossible to play more than one game in a row in the same lobby and pretty difficult just to get into a game. once in a game you then get to the real heart of the problems. if you manage to get into the game without being kicked out you will soon find yourself killed instantly by an impossible to avoid claymore or camped by someone sat in a corner with a motion sensor covering an objective. all this is ignoring the awful graphics as i am a big believer that aslong as the gameplay is sound graphics don't matter but to say they are sub MW2 is an understatement. from what is one of the biggest games of the year i find this a great dissapointment. Between the small frag friendly maps and the awful RC-XD i find it hard to continue playing this game. But the game does have a few game changing features one of which is the split screen multiplayer which keeps me from going back to MW2 the far superior game. aswell as the split screen we get wager matches which while i do not see them as better than normal game modes are a nice distraction. finally the theater mode is good as it allows you to save any of those wow moments. Expand
  16. Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Campaign pretty good: 7 out of 10
    Multi player: 2 out of 10 i was expecting a lot more i just feel like i own this game already. (MW2) 60 bucks to play MW2 again?...
    zombie mode is a sweet addition though
  17. Nov 10, 2010
    0
    It's another call of duty game, save your money and put it toward something good. The graphics look like a N64 game. The game play is terrible being a call of duty game that was pretty much a given. The on-line is still completely broken and cheaters are everywhere. This is a complete waste of money and I truly feel sorry for anyone who wastes there money on such a poorly developed game.
  18. Nov 10, 2010
    0
    My main complaint is Graphics. Why release a new game in the series when it actually looks a lot worse than the last installment? Treyarch failed to deliever good looking game. I just played CoD4 and it actually looks better than this game. And I'm not even talking about MW2. Just look at those gun models! They look cheap, the same as WaW! Not recommending that game to anyone.
  19. Nov 11, 2010
    4
    I remember my first Call of Duty experience, fighting in the pacific, thinking "Wow, its really unique how these Japanese forces rush you so aggressively." Then as the years wen't by, I realized that this wasn't a unique take on island warfare but simply how every single AI in COD games operates.

    Then I played MW2, and fell in love. You felt free to act, and on veteran, the game was
    still challenging. The worlds were large, and the enemies didn't re-spawn to infinity. This allowed you to actually be creative in your strategy, instead of tunneling. You could fall back, flank, snipe, or rush. Level design facilitated all strategies and the AI responded. Some levels set up better for different strategies, but the important thing is that it felt organic. When players died, they felt they could do something different--that they had control.

    A majority of the positive reviews for this game focus on its numerous improvement over other Treyarch offerings, which is a valid statment. The graphics, story, voice acting, and music are a step up, as well as the addition of some "cool moments," and extras like Zombies. However, there are serious problems that get brushed over. I feel like multilayer issues have been covered. So this review will tackle single player.

    On easier difficulties, it does seem fluid. The fundamental problems only express themselves at the more difficult settings. This is largely due to the fact that Treyarch uses infinite enemy spawns to compensate for poor, predictable level design and sub-par AI. Eventually you realize that besides a few "cool" roller-coaster moments type moments--fun but there's only one track, most of the game consists of a long corridor or enclosed "box" with predictably placed pieces of cover. Yes, you are in a box. Even though there are things going on outside the "box" and the graphics seemingly connect them, you cannot interact with them. Visually its a large world; in practice it's claustrophobic. Enemies advance mindlessly in single file from the back of the cover to your position, eventually charging recklessly from the last piece of cover. To "kill" them you need to toss smoke grenades, sprint past some imaginary line, and hunker down. If you get unlucky and get shot in the face, prepare to live the last 5 minutes of your life over and over again.

    Lets be frank--in the early versions of the game, this was a necessity because of inherent technical limitations. The "box" existed because large interactive environments weren't possible. The endless spawns were needed because AI was terrible. It was necessary to have smoke grenades because these other compensations made certain configurations of enemies and cover frustrating. Purists might say "This is Call of Duty," but how many other games get bad marks for refusing to innovate from their predecessors?

    In Black-Ops it feels like you just got unlucky playing the exact same interaction over and over again in the only way possible to play it. More specifically, it feels like you are forced to engage in the same interaction, requiring the same strategy with the same probability of success again and again. You are bound to get unlucky and die, even doing the right thing. When you do, unpredictable load points reward you with the with the same set of identical interactions and identical solutions.

    Throw smoke and run into it seems like a poor mechanic after a while. In IW games you throw smoke to get a tactical advantage, get a way, or provide temporary cover to move to a new position. In Treyarch games, you do it because its the best way to stop infinite spawns. The former feels immersive, the latter feels like band-aid for poor game design.

    Halo got a lot of crap for repeated area designs, but at least there were multiple ways to attack each situation. As Bungie put it, it was the same â
    Expand
  20. Nov 11, 2010
    3
    What the hell happened to this game! It used to be greatness on a disc now itâ
  21. Nov 13, 2010
    1
    ................................more of same......... single player sucks, Multiplayer sucks, graphics sucks, Treyarch sucks...................................
  22. Nov 14, 2010
    3
    Im really disapointed but at the same time i feel sorry for treyarch considering they have had some big shoes to fill against infinity ward but starting with the good stuff the online experience is very good different and most of the maps are decent and being able to buy your perks and guns through cp is agood idea too. Now the bad stuff... the campaign was average a good story but the same epic feel i get when i play modern warfare 2 and cod4 their was something more special about the feeling when you play with soap cpt price etc. u feel more inrolled with the game, at lot of first person shooting with very very little vechile control included which is the right to go with call of duty unfortunately treyarch included a lot of vechile controlled missions which i hated. There was tooo many way to many epic moments in black ops and i felt as though the game was doing most of those moments for me especially the ending and i was feeling more and more like i just wante to know the ending and thats it. whereas MW2 their was an objective the whole way and 1 twist in Sheppard turning againt you i was building more and more excitement towards the endand the ending itself in MW2 was really well done with nikoli and price expertly leading onto mw3. I think and really hope that infinity ward make the next mw3 because they know best. Expand
  23. Jan 31, 2011
    4
    With a single-player campaign that, thanks to the frequency of cut-scenes and barely-interactive "action", Black Ops hardly qualifies as a videogame, and certainly represents a retrograde step even from the original Call of Duty. With a confused multiplayer suffering from featuritis and a lack of variety or coherence in its maps this is an inferior deathmatch experience to Modern Warfare or Modern Warfare 2, though the wager matches, particular One in the Chamber and Sticks and Stones add some interest. If this isn't the final nail in the coffin for the franchise, then they've at least measured-up the corpse. Expand
  24. Nov 13, 2010
    1
    I'm gettin tired of these contrived, senseless, and empty, new Call of Duty games since 2008. Black Ops is a lot worse than MW2. The game is just as unbalanced as ever, no character development, trying to put the JFK conspiracy. I don't have much to say on this this because the game is so small its not funny. It offers nothing new to shooters and this game just comes to show that Kotic will just eventually kill this once good franchise into dog **** Black Ops is so just... It's better World at War, but that's not sayin much. Call of Duty is just done. Long live a good franchise that once existed. My guess, we'll never see it ever again thanks to games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops. Expand
  25. Nov 28, 2010
    0
    I played this game for a couple of hours........incedible letdown.....same old same old......graphics are actually WORSE than MW2......rinse repeat.....UGH!....Battlefield Bad Company 2 craps all over this......
  26. Nov 17, 2010
    3
    This game sucks. Seriously. I returned it within 2 days. NOT FUN. Back to medal of honor, or Halo reach for me. This is a big step back for the franchise. DUMB!
  27. Nov 11, 2010
    0
    Graohics and game play are early 2000. The game is totally abysmal when compared to such titles as crysis and mafia ii. It feels as if the game reviewing industry sold out its reader base. I have no other explanations for the rave reviews it got from such sites as GameSpot. Watch out - don't waste your money on this title.
  28. Nov 14, 2010
    3
    really enjoyed the single player, i would advise anybody who likes cod to rent it and play the single player, but they ruined the multiplayer, its not even close to as mw2 or cod4, its just like waw but slightly updated. the snipers are almost usless, the maps are shocking in general. even zombies isnt as good as in waw. this is the last treyarch cod i buy.
  29. Nov 15, 2010
    0
    Now, my rating has dropped to zero! I decided to give it the benefit as a good campaign mode game... I'm sorry folks but if you release a game... make sure it's finished. Yeah, I'm sure to hear "it's just your copy. Exchange it for a new one." Really? you think people should have to settle for that? I have a few friends that have had problems with this game. My original review was about issues I had with multiplayer. I can't even finish campaign mode now!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzyJpMhXQc
    Expand
  30. Apr 19, 2011
    0
    This is without a doubt just a game to get money, hardly any changes apart from time from previous games, same engine, same graphics, same gameplay and its absoloute rubbish!
  31. Nov 23, 2010
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Many of my friends and various critics are raving about this jewel encrusted gift from the heavens, COD Black Ops; because of their rave review I went out and spent 60$ on this game. Put it in the Xbox and was immediately blown away by the fantastic opening cut scene and neat menu, selected my difficulty and began my experience. I though the whole interrogation thing was pretty cool, even though it was exactly like the one in Black for the PS2 some years ago, and began playing the first mission. Liked it at first and close up the graphics in the "cut scenes" were pretty good. Then I walked out of the bar and began shooting. that is when I noticed the terrible visuals. After about 30ft everything just blends together and becomes one massive blob of brown. I failed that mission a few times because I shot civilians instead of soldiers because I couldn't tell the difference; the visuals are that muddy. The weapon sounds also don't sound very good either. Whatever I thought, a bit of a sacrifice for good game play right? Wrong. After shooting a large number of endlessly re-spawning enemies, which all look identical by the way, I got to an alley with a car. I thought, "Wow please don't tell me I have to drive that?" remembering all the terrible driving sections in Treyarch's previous COD titles. Sure enough I have to drive it that was terrible, however, you smash through a road block which was pretty good but I missed most of the awesomeness of the situation because the screen fades and they yank you back to the stupid interrogation which just reiterates plot points that we all got hours ago. This wouldn't be so bad, but it seems, especially in the beginning of the game, they do this during every awesome moment of game play. After some more cut scenes I'm in prison with Reznov, and fighting my way past many Russian prison guards, that again, look all the same. This mission annoyed me. At one point a hallway opens up with a room at the end with enemies in, it turn out this is where they all endlessly re-spawn. if you walk down it it fails you. Not fair considering it never warns you or anything. It does this a few times in the game. It fails the mission for no reason, just because you didn't do something that the game never explained or because you walked down a hallway.
    So you escape and so begins the rather preposterous, linear and samey, story of Mason. You skip about time and every location on the globe killing everything you see, mostly Russians. The missions are very gimmicky and would only be appealing if you don't have a brain and are easily distracted by action cinema cliches. Missions involve you following a linear path doing the same thing again and again, fighting of waves of re-spawning enemies. Also, all of the characters confuse swearing for wit. More F-Bombs are dropped in the first minute of game play than in all COD games combines. The campaign isn't terrible, but it isn't anything new or exciting. It is a little longer than MW2s campaign but not nearly as good. Now as I'm explaining this to me friends the insist to me that the campaign isn't that good. They say to me, "Well hey yeah multiplayer makes up for it though." "It is the best in any COD game." I question why I should pay 60$ for a game that is only have good, but they convinced me to try it,
    Multiplayer is even worse. Let's start with the Zombie modes. Zombies had always been fun. Now it isn't. The maps are so huge, dark and confusing that it isn't fun. It is just frustrating. the characters and their voices are still as annoying as in WAW. Voice acting in this game is generally not very good, just so annoying. Now online multiplayer. the first thing I noticed was the extremely confusing menu. It has so many options and information hidden in so many menus that it makes Microsoft Access look fun and inviting. So I get into a game and the next thing I notice is the lame controls. The sticks respond even slower than in single player. Also, the maps are all horrible. Terrible lay outs and spawns coupled with the graphical issue make spotting enemies nearly impossible. There are very few good perks, weapons do no damage, especially early level ones. Not to mention they all have the same rear iron sight, that is on backwards, and the fact that half them weren't even invented yet. What really makes multiplayer unplayable is the lag and connections. It takes ages to find a game and when it does it usually lags so bad that you can't move or it just kicks you or someone in your party out of the game. Not fun. Unlocks are dumb as well. Why should I have to unlock game modes and buy guns and attachments that I already unlocked? So if you are stupid enough to wast all your money on a gun that isn't very good you're stuck with it. Kill streaks are even more game breaking than in MW2 . So to sum everything up, a very overpriced, over hyped, generic FPS. Not bad not good.
    Expand
  32. Apr 9, 2011
    4
    Sound design and visuals are simply bad, and there is nothing realy new here. The single player campaign is short, and you dont realy feel strongly about the characters or the storyline.
  33. Nov 12, 2010
    2
    I've never been a CoD fan. I wanted to try this one out, and compare it to the 'bEsT gAmE eVaR' Modern Warfare 2. Multiplayer plays exactly like it, but sadly worse. I could never find a match with my friends, I had to search myself and it still took minutes to find a match. Maps are fine, still a wonderful camping site. Zombies is still fun, but gets old VERY fast. Don't make us unlock the last few maps, thats just stupid. So what I'm trying to say here is that it is just a rehash of MW2, but with zombies. Expand
  34. Jun 3, 2011
    0
    Terrible in every aspect. Themultiplayer is so dull, and repetitive it makes you want to commit. Want a decent FPS? Buy BBC2 Vietnam. Biggest letdown of the century. Period.
  35. Nov 11, 2010
    0
    A pretty pathetic re-hash of Modern Warfare 2. It seems like yet another game that was built around the multiplayer first, and the single-player second. Not only was the campaign an apparent afterthought, it's a bad rip of the MW2 campaign. You can play them side-by-side and see where the two have the same traits. Not to mention an "infinite care package" glitch was discovered mere hours after the game's release. Go figure. I'm done with Call of Duty altogether, I'm glad I only rented this. Expand
  36. Nov 12, 2010
    4
    ** -- >>> I wanted to clarify to people that take issue with others saying that the reviews are bribed / paid off, that the claims of bribed scores are CORRECT, and it isn't just ActiVision who do this.
    Review sites make revenue by having people visit their site, and if other sites are putting up the first reviews of the latest hot game, people will go to them instead. Game publishers buy
    off high review scores by telling sites that they will receive an advanced copy of their game for review ahead of the retail release date ONLY IF the game receives a score of >80, or >90. They won't make this condition to all review sites, but they will to the popular ones, whose reviews will affect opinions the most.

    The incentives given for high scores also go beyond that. If a review site gives a score the publisher doesn't like, they won't receive an advance copy for future titles, putting that review site at a disadvantage to other sites that can review the game ahead of them - and when a site is blacklisted by a large publisher like ActiVision, that can mean a LOT of titles that will be missed. Call of Duty is ActiVision's biggest title, you can be damn that sure they've put more score manipulating muscle into this release than any other release has seen before it. This score manipulation regularly taints big-name games, and you should know to not trust review sites all that much, because their noses are often firmly up the arses of the companies whose games they depend on being able to review early to generate their site traffic for revenue. User feedback has become far more valuable that site reviews. However, a lot of simple users out there who don't have much game experience will assume that the game they're playing that got fifteen 100/100 scores is truly the best, and those don't-know-better easily manipulable people are the ones the score-doctoring tactics aim to influence.

    Metacritic, itself, has been lobbied by publishers to remove various negative scores from its site, to make games look like they were received better than they were. As far as I know, Metacritic has rebuffed all such lobbying.

    Now my review:
    I've played only the sp so far, and it's typical CoD boredom, for me. I hardly feel like I'm playing, and what I'm watching isn't very exciting, either. The graphics are bad, but hey, it's designed for ancient console hardware, and not contemporary PC hardware, so it's not very surprising. Frankly, I loathe the cheesy cliche Vietnam characters and lines, which now (if not already ages ago) seem like a bad parody of a bad parody. I have some un-ignorable performance issues, the same ones which many others are also experiencing, detailed on various forums (Steam forums, ActiVision forums, & others), despite having a robust PC. This game will satisfy the kiddies, who are wowed more by the constant scripted business of this rail-shooter than by involved and in-depth gameplay.
    Expand
  37. Nov 12, 2010
    1
    Earlier I posted an inquiry about Metacritic's removal of a negative review from escapistmagazine.com (the only one for Black Ops). I received the following response, which actually sounds pretty legitimate, so I rescind my prior inquiry and comment (especially in the hopes that the person who posted it does not get reprimanded in any way). In any event, here is his explanation for the removal of the negative review:

    "I posted it before I realized that it's not a review of the full game - it was single-player only. We don't carry reviews of partial games. I posted it without realizing what they were doing there."

    So, again, it makes sense to me.
    Expand
  38. Nov 13, 2010
    1
    Downright awful game. The campaign is a bit longer that of MW2's, but what it has to offer are simply a few shoot-outs and scripted cinematics collabed into an awfully written story. So, what is to expect next, the multiplayer? It's balance issues are unbelievable. It's as if Treyarch took everything that Infinity Ward put in MW2 that sucked, had it give birth, then tried an abortion and it managed to survive. It's a hideously ugly and deformed baby with things that make the multiplayer unbearable. Do not buy. Waste of your money. This is, by far, one of the reasons for the downfall of gaming. Expand
  39. Nov 15, 2010
    4
    This game suffers from the been there done that syndrome. Cod Fans will shower it with praise and anyone searching for realistic combat will be left with a bad taste in their mouths. The game boasts Black ops in the name and falls flat on it's face when it attempts to deliver. This is an expansion pack not an actual game.
  40. Nov 15, 2010
    0
    There is no doubt that Activision marketing scheme also includes paying off gaming critics. This game is sh*t , there is not one aspect of this game that is worth paying $60 for.

    I have played every Cod game and have enjoyed the single player campaigns but this one takes the cake at being the worse.
  41. Nov 15, 2010
    4
    I have to give this game a 4 because the graphics suck. The audio sucks. And the multiplayer. Has to much crap going on. The guns are a joke and look like garbage. And sniper rifles are pointless in this game. And the worst thing is that online is laggy as hell. And campaign sucks with no depth
  42. Nov 16, 2010
    4
    COD BO stinks. The only thing that changes with these guys is the maps. The game is still a big, run around and shoot anything that moves game, which completely destroys any semblance of a real combat game. For those of us who only play occasionally, BO is a step backward. The introduction of gambling, what is all that about? And the statistics are laughable. For example, "Players have run around the earth 83 times so far". Huh? Leveling up requires you to buy everything? Again, what the heck? I guess the game makers want you to buy the $19.99 book to figure out what the heck to do. Now the remote control car is kind of cool the first 10 times you get hit with it, or blow up an opposing player, BUT after that, "ZERO enjoyment". Expand
  43. Nov 16, 2010
    1
    In online Multiplayer, the enemies respawn behind you, the controls are sluggish, the graphics poor and not as fluid as MW2 and the sound FX seem to have been borrowed from the 1980s. How on earth can they be given the bare bones of a masterpiece and turn it into this pile of rubbish. Treyarch have created a poor relative to the series and taken the whole franchise back-in-time to an age when the N64 ruled the world. What few inspired ideas there are, are lost in this nasty, horrible (and cynical) pixelated mess. Expand
  44. Nov 16, 2010
    3
    Not good. Compared to what Infinity Ward has done, Treyarch really shouldnt be making games like this anymore. The very first thing I noticed were the graphics, at the very least the should be identical to Modern Warfare 2, but theyre not. Theyre worse. Second thing was the sound, listen to how a napalm strike sounds and you'll think you're playing a side scroller on a playstation one. And lastly, what did they improve on? remote control cars? really? come on, i'm sick of every other call of duty sucking.. Expand
  45. Jul 17, 2011
    4
    At this point, I think COD Black Ops is mostly riding on Multiplayer. The single player campaign was a disgrace--I actually felt embarrassed for Treyarch--who designed that ? Didn't anyone from Treyarch actually play the solo campaign? Everyone I know who's played it has found right away all the silly loops you get stuck on, or the wonderful "Barrel of Fail" where what--I don't hit one button right and I'll never get past the level? That's a mistake, not real gameplay. And as most have pointed out, multiplayer is just a new skin of COD MW2 --except with maps that seem a little less thought out. I sure hope MW3 brings something new to the table b/c this is getting a little old especially for the $. Don't even get me started on the Expansion maps that cost a third of the game itself! Expand
  46. Dec 18, 2010
    2
    I bought this game having high hopes as many others did as well, unfortunately all i got was the same mess that Modded Warfare 2 already stirred up. Treyarch said they did not want their game to end up like MW2, well Congratulations its WORSE. at least MW2 had decent enough Hit Registration and the Spawn system was not completely broken. MW2 also had balanced maps where sniping was at least possible. When they announced they were removing Stopping Power from the game i was ecstatic i thought they would finally realize that A BULLET IS A BULLET!!!! guns should not have damage stats. They should remove damage as a stat for weapons and focus primarily on range, accuracy, mobility and rate of fire. if you get hit with a bullet you DIE. just because my gun has 4 bars of Damage and yours has 5 does not mean u win a fire fight when i put 3 rounds into your skull. If you, like myself, loved sniping well then your out of luck in order to fight the "War on Quickscoping" that Treyarch believes is happening they made it so if you don't aim down the sights for a full 2 seconds your bullet flies in some random direction like a revolutionary war musket. Threyarch needs to stop making promises they cant keep. they said it would be close to impossible to hack this game well its been a little over a month since the games release and there are already Wall hacks, Aim-bots, God Mode, No Clip, Infinite Ammo and much much more. The spawn system is non existent as well the game will consistently spawn you in the same location so some retard can run over to you place a sentry gun at your spawn and rack up the kills. The lag is also an extreme issue, if you do not have a 4 bar connection then it is virtually impossible to get a legitimate kill. Even at 3 bars bullets fail to register and do almost no damage. In MW2 it felt as if maybe 10-15% of your bullets might go unaccounted for well in BO change that to at least 50-75% of them. That may be an over exaggeration to some people but when you unload 15 bullets into one guy just to have him wheel around and shoot you twice in the leg and kill you something is definitely wrong. This game practically rewards mediocrity, the RC car is the most OP kill-streak ever put into a game, a 3 year old child with down syndrome could get the 2 kills in a row it takes ( i know its 3 kills but since everyone turns hard-line on anyway, you might as well make it 2) to get that reward. people literally can just do completely **** the whole game and towards the end just say, " hey look i have ten RCXD's to spawn kill people with". This game literally has so many bugs that by gaming "law" is Literally considered BROKEN. just to name a few... Railings: the spaces between railings on balcony's and stairs are programed as "walls" so you either can or can not shoot through them while doing minimal damage, Wanted: this is just what I'm calling it since i do not know the exact term, but when people shoot behind you as you run around cover and despite not hitting you at all the bullets almost seem to curve around the corner and get you anyway,KNIFING: its broken now so don't even try. the prime rule is, If you think you got him...you didn't. If you think you didn't get him... then you did. Air knifes are much more common then MW2 and 3arc really doesn't seem to care about it. This game literally did nothing new to the Cod franchise beside steal a bunch of ideas from Halo like their "new" currency system and map selecting in Multi player. Overall this is a piss poor game with outdated graphics and a Company backing it, cough* cough* Activision, that's to greedy to give a **** that their game has some serious problems that need addressing. If you wonder why the graphics are bad then, again look at Activison, they thought it would be a good idea to make the game 3D compatible so they down graded the graphics to satisfy the 2% margin of gamers with 3D TV's. Seriously if your going to market to a certain group then you should pick a larger one then that. This game, just like Modern Warfare 2, was fun at first but now is just another failed project. And to those who might say, "Oh you just suck, thats why ur mad", no, my KD is 2.05 and it i have 15,000 kills so no. I just know what a good game is, and this is not it. I think ill go back to Bad Company 2 and wait for Vietnam in 3 days. Lets hope Sledgehammer games learns from this and doesn't screw up Modern Warfare 3. Expand
  47. Feb 17, 2011
    0
    Weapon balance is a joke, there are couple smgs and a few assault rifles that overpower all the other weapons in the game. The knifing is understandable for the fast pace action this game strives on but is still frustrating when you put a few bullets into someone then die when he slices your arm. The single player campaign is just a bunch of random scenarios tied together with a ridiculously predictable plot. The multiplayer maps are mediocre compared to modern warfare 1 and 2 maps. But I guess they are designed for people who would rather mindlessly run at each other than climb even a simple learning curve. Why else would nuketown be voted for over and over again for hours before the patch limiting replaying a map was released. Which leads me to spawn locations. In every CoD I have never been killed or got a kill within a seconds of spawning as much as I do in black ops. This games adds nothing new to the series besides tomahawks and wager matches that usually rely more on luck than any skill, so it drives me crazy how so many "critics" sellout and give this game such high ratings just to appeal to the masses when other game sequels are bashed for being just a reiteration of a previous release. Maybe if the next CoD brings back the quality and entertainment of the first modern warfare the "critics" will throw tens at it claiming it is the best fps ever created. Who knows, OXM might even give it an 11, of course then they would start giving tons of games 11 and make a 12 to justify the scores...

    Overall I would give this game a 6 just because S&D can be a lot of fun, but every time I play I remember how much more fun I had on better made maps with a wider variety of weapons worth using. But I'm gonna have to go with 0 to balance out the people giving 10's with reasons such as "by far the most complete and deep gaming experience in history" or "I don't understand why so many people are complaining about this game." or my favorite "I detect battlefield fanboys in these reviews. a 0 without any reasoning to back it up?", by the way he doesn't give a single reason why the game deserves the 10 he gave it.
    Expand
  48. Apr 11, 2011
    4
    In my opinion the story campaign is about as clever as CoD is ever likely to be. Good to see Zombies return. My one major gripe being that the multiplayer side of the game is horrible, we can all complain about there being no dedicated servers, but this really makes an impact on the core part of gameplay, the shooting. Bullet registration is beyond a joke, it seems like half the time you are lucky to make your mark and even if you try and evade your enemy by running round a corner the bullets are likely to follow you. All in all story campaign, yes, Multiplayer no! Expand
  49. Jul 9, 2011
    4
    The campaign is decent, and the Nazi Zombies game mode is very fun. But, as we all know, the multiplayer is where so many points are lost. The hit detection is a joke, where you can be aiming at somebody precisely, and the bullets don't seem to connect. What a joke. The knifing is a joke as well, where you don't even need to be facing the guy to counter him with the knife. You can run right past him, and he'll still hit you. It's absolutely ridiculous, and so stupid. The guns aren't really balanced well either. You can have guns that somewhat powerful, but some much kick and it will just not work at all. But then there are guns that have a ludicrous fire rate, no recoil, and a two-round kill (FAMAS, obviously). Like... What is that all about. It's also bloody boring where everybody just runs around with the damn thing too. It's hard to enjoy. Please, Treyarch, leave it to Infinity Ward to deliver us Call of Duty games where they have delivered us two decent CoD's in a row. Expand
  50. Jan 27, 2011
    3
    Oh my... I'll write in short and simple lines what i think. This game is ugly and sucks. The campaign is the wrost of all, weapons as well, Multiplayer is simple Camper wars. The only thing cool here is zombies coop.
  51. Mar 4, 2011
    2
    Hands down, the worst X360 game I've played, to date. The campaign is ok but, I found it to be repetitive. Ah yes, now the multiplayer. It sucks, I only found only that...uh, I forgot the name but it's a little "town" with models of people in it. Avoid please. Don't be suckered in. So much hype all for nothing.
  52. Nov 12, 2010
    2
    This game is a major disappointment. The online play is just hands down terrible. It seems that the developers had been playing a lot of that horrible PS3 game "MAG" before writing this incarnation of CoD, complete with the awkward gun feel and horrible sound effects when shooting. I've owned every CoD since it came out, and unlike a lot of people I highly enjoyed the online play from the last Treyarch title World At War. This is a major downgrade from that, much less the Infinity Ward Modern Warfare titles. Expand
  53. Nov 13, 2010
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I didn't like the first Call of Duty games. WW2 is sooo boring to me. I was huge fan of the Modern Warfare. Then this comes along and wipes poop on the franchise.
    Since this game starts int he past it was already a yawn. Then it goes even further in the past and at some point I find myself playing the very WW2 / Vietnam game that I wanted to avoid at all costs.
    The game itself is good. The controls and the weapons are fined tuned but having to use them in those boring History Channel missions sux. And by the way, the ending.. Really? Really!? So Lame.
    Expand
  54. Nov 16, 2010
    2
    I give this game 2. 1 point because of the bots available in split screen, and 1 point because of the cool new game modes and weapons. Those are the only good points about the game.

    Online- it lags very bad, and freezes up on ps3 and xbox 360 in HD mode. Two of my friends have already had their disks be scratched from the lock up that requires a hard power down of the console.
    There are
    also bugs that randomly reset your rank and weapon unlocks.

    Zombie mode is back, and basically the same thing.

    Graphicly this game is horrible, The graphics in this title are worse than modern warefare 1. The screen shots of this game are basically the only good looking parts of the game. Multi-player maps look cartoonish and have bad graphics. Single player has bad graphics. They used the same engine as modern warfare 2, but made the graphics worse. Why? my only guess is so they could have more ai on at a time, but that should not effect the online maps. Campaign is very short, easily beat in four and a half to five hours even with taking time to explore ( little exploration since every map is linear.


    Basically this game is a huge disappointment. I am a big fan of the call of duty series and this just over hyped let down. This game was clearly over rushed and under developed.

    The fact that there is an issue with games freezing and cause scratches in the disks shows a severe lack of beta testing.
    Expand
  55. Nov 16, 2010
    4
    The story had a good twist, but the gameplay was boring, visuals were just OK . The multiplayer was more of the same. I enjoyed Medal of Honor way more than this latest COD installment.
  56. Nov 30, 2010
    0
    The backlash against negative user reviews here needs to be addressed, for example... "luuek" wrote this drivel - > "metacritic needs captcha, most of the bad user reviews are the same word for word. they are computer generated accounts from a rival company. everything about this game is solid, you just need a good gaming computer ,not a 2 dollar piece of ****" How big an idiot do you have to be to think that a "rival company" is behind poor reviews of this game? And how big an idiot do you have to be to write a rant against the negative reviews and suggest that they are coming from people with deficient Pcs (despite this being the 360 listing)? You guessed it, you have to be a spectacularly gargantuan moron, much like the neanderthals who line up to buy anything in this franchise and any DLC they crap out, despite the fact that the series continually releases criminally short single player campaigns and mulitplayer infected with bugs and exploits that never get fully resolved. These throngs of mindless consumers have built the COD fortune and marred the gaming industry by making it stampede toward the Hollywood assembly line model, chasing the blockbuster profits this series sucks out of gamers, and then they have the nerve to complain about bias and negative user reviews. Poor graphics, poor sound, extreme linear paths you are constantly pushed down and forward (like being on an amusement ride that has no confidence in it's bag of tricks so it keeps pushing forward so you cant get a good look), no innovation, and more standard multiplayer where angry kiddies can rage at each other and dream of being the next youtube sensation that nobody watches ("I wantz to be likez teh Hutch"). This game is the lowest of the low, and the fools that lap up the same bag of crap every year have more of a negative impact on gaming than anything else. Expand
  57. Nov 29, 2010
    1
    I never play the normal online multiplayer, just the single player campaigns and online coop modes. So my review only pertains to the latter two. Multiplayer might be awesome - I don't know. As for the rest - it is anything but awesome.

    In fact it is by far the worst COD I have played. Unfortunately.

    Had it on pre-order and was bitterly disappointed when it arrived. It has none of the
    refinement and nuance that the last installment had. I've come to the conclusion that Infinity Ward are easily the more superior studio. By a long way.

    1-P Campaign.
    I have found tedious and monotonous. You are essentially forced down a very narrow corridor throughout the entire campaign. Meaning you have very little choice in how you approach the different levels. No choice of tactics or strategy - just do what they tell you to. In some instances it goes as far as telling you the exact point in time you have to click a button to stealth kill a guy. What's the point in that? I didn't buy Dance Dance Revolution or some other press-the-buttons-in-a-rhythmical-sequence game. Treyarch's attempts at varying the levels falls way short of the helicopter and AC-130 gunner missions of MW2, to name but two. Online Coop.
    And as for the supposed online coop. Despite marketing claims, it doesn't exist. Running around shooting AI bots who continually respawn (obviously) is not by any stretch of the imagination what I would describe as online coop. There is no mission, no objective, no goal to work towards as a team. Just you and a bunch of bots running around aimlessly shooting at each other. You don't even get all the multiplayer modes. Just deathmatch and team deathmatch. Nice work Treyarch. Which marketing genus decided to call that coop?

    Here's hoping the next installment is produced by Infinity Ward and is a damn sight better.
    Expand
  58. Nov 30, 2010
    4
    Another attempt from Treyarch to outdo Infinity ward's Modern Warfare series, another failure from Treyarch yet again. Ive played every Call of Duty and this instalment of the Call of Duty series left me disappointed. Why? Because trying to fix something that isnt broken seems to be what most big games companies think is a step forward in todays games market. It almost feels as if Treyarch have tried to be too different from previous titles. The campaign is still an over the top exciting story that flings you straight into the middle of an epic war (or in this case several) and lets you develop an attachment to the characters, only to have them predictably killed. This I can deal with, it's what the call of duty series has been good at, telling a great story. I have no quarrel with that. My frustration comes from other things such as the game mechanics. Heat seeking bullets are back, chasing you around corners and punishing you for the slightest glimpse of the enemy. Infinitely spawning enemies seem to be another needless mechanic to the game to make up for poor level design. The NPC's are completely redundant now and donâ Expand
  59. Dec 11, 2010
    0
    Simply more of the same and certainly not worth $60. Serviceable graphics and sound are not nearly enough to excuse the fact that this title is virtually identical to last year's installment. Also, the lack of local multiplayer options, at least at launch, is inexcusable. Why should a game made in 2010 have inferior customization to a game released in 1997? Or the game's own forerunners no less? Expand
  60. Dec 18, 2010
    1
    This game is absolutely terrible. The multiplayer is so bugged and they keep saying they fixed it but they haven't almost every match winds up disconnected or cant connect at all. And the campaign is so cheap. The storyline is so predictable. I couldn't keep myself laughing at the whole numbers dialogue. This is the last time I buy a Treyarch game.
  61. Feb 1, 2011
    1
    This game is pritty **** bought it solely for the multiplayer and it sux.The hit detection is bodgy and how many bullets does someone need before they drop?.Honestly tho im done with this series and the first person shooter series in general,how many first person shooters have we got now.
    Ps:To any of you people that did not like WaW don't by this garbage,what a waste of money..
  62. Jan 6, 2011
    0
    Who designed this? A monkey? The game is ugly, and uses horribly outdated sounds and visuals. It sounds like perfect dark for the n64. The maps are stupidly designed and failtastic. I have no idea why they even put a sniper rifle in. There is no quick-scoping and nowhere to snipe. Utterly DISGUSTING how obviously bribed the reviewers are.
  63. Jan 5, 2011
    1
    To be quite frank... i see absolutely no purpose in this game, there is already plenty of C.O.D games out there, why need another?! Well I'll tell you... Money, not your well being it is for the companies well being so go find a new game instead of the same game just with some little extra details... just like a football game
  64. Feb 16, 2011
    1
    The campaign was a major disappointment, and the multiplayer didn't live up to it's name. Clearly they spent too much on advertising that the actual game. Infinity Ward makes better games. Hands down.
  65. Mar 10, 2011
    2
    Call of Duty Black Ops is Modern Warfare 2 with a few balanced tweaks, but in the end, nothing's different. The story still jumps around more than a toddler with coffee, the multiplayer is still incredibly simple with no talent required. If you're looking for an easy shooting game in which you can hold random buttons and get 5000 kills, Black Ops is for you. If you prefer a challenge, look somewhere else. Expand
  66. Mar 26, 2011
    0
    Leave it to Treyarch to try and fix what wasn't broken. In an attempt to appease those who endlessly complained about MW2 Treyarch made an FPS with no fun factor at all. The guns are boring (Treyarch copy and pasted many recoil patterns, rates of fire, and even iron sights), the maps are boring (no color, very square and camper friendly), and the game play is slower and boring thanks to Ghost being the new go-to perk. Not to mention that the hit detection/net coding is some of the worst I have ever seen in an online shooter. Bottom line is that this is an FPS where the S doesn't work.
    Oh yeah, there's a story mode too. But that's not why you bought the game. The only thing I have to say about story mode is the same with every COD- there are ways to increase difficulty without making your enemies aim bots with the ability to hip fire an automatic rifle in your face from a map away.
    Expand
  67. Mar 31, 2011
    3
    Call of duty 4: Modern Warfare 4th edition. You know how it feels when you buy a college textbook and then can't sell it back because the publisher changed 2 paragraphs and called it a new edition, that's how I feel about this game. In fact that is the cod franchise since cod 4.
  68. Apr 17, 2011
    0
    I used to be a great fan of the COD series, but however, even though the first few games where great titles, activision now just spits one out year after year as fast as they can to make profits, the overall gameplay hasnt changed much after an almost decade of the series, with insignificant things like zombies and currency thrown in every few titles to try to keep it fresh, Black ops itself has a short singleplayer with a more or less confusing story, and multiplayer gets boring extremely fast, I am now looking forward to the battlefield series where innovation and gameplay is key Expand
  69. Apr 17, 2011
    1
    All these years I've been wasting money on call of duty games, COD4 being alright, MW2 was less good than COD4, and black ops just being outrageously hideous, its horrible game, treyarch f$ck it up this time, and whos even heard of treyarch before they just came out of nowhere. Zombies is what made me give a 1 otherwise it would be a 0!!!!
  70. Apr 19, 2011
    1
    Another rushed out call of duty game. Over-hyped boring game that is too similar to all the other call of duty games. It feels like an expansion to Moder warfare 2, just worse.
  71. May 5, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I didn't expect much when i got the game but after playing it for over an hour, i knew i got ripped off. To start off. the single player campaign is horrendous. Call of duty is supposed to be a realistic war simulation game. This is anything but, the story is like a bad action thriller, it's supposed to be clever and psychological, but it's more annoying and predictable. Especially the ending, finding out that Reznov isn't real. We've already seen that in almost every movie since Fight Club. The Cold war had so much potential for a realistic story, like in the first COD's. Of course i do have to give Treyarch some credit, co-op campaign can be fun. And secondly, the multiplayer, it's a mess. You can't take a single step on any map without getting killed by a camper, claymore, noobtuber (people using the grenade launcher attatchment), chopper gunner, etc. My point being, there's no skill involved in this game. I can camp on a small map for no more than a few minutes, rack up enough kills for a decent kill streak reward without going through any trouble. The maps are designed for camping. Take Nuke Town for example. It's the smallest map in the game and by far the most annoying one. Camping on this map is as easy as possible. This is where you start to notice that killstreaks such as Chopper Gunner and Gunship are way too overpowered. Not everything is bad about this game. Zombie mode for example can be really fun with a couple of friends, or online with strangers. But other than that, i highly reccommend anyone considering to purchase this game to look further, because it isn't worth it. Expand
  72. Jul 7, 2011
    1
    This is the worst shooter game ever played!!!! Same old multiplayer, same old graphics, and the only good part of this game is the campaign and that's pretty much it 1/10.
  73. Sep 16, 2011
    1
    Call of Duty provided a much more interesting story that previous games, but it wasn't great and, sadly, the story was the ONLY redeeming quality. If you haven't been living on Jupiter for the past four years, you probably already know that after Call of Duty 4, there have been no major improvements to the Call of Duty series - yet Activision still manages to pump out a new copy of the game every year and charge the full $60 for each one. Call of Duty isn't a bad game, but it's just wrong to re-sell the same game every year like that! And now they've bumped up the map-pack price to $15! If you own any other Call of Duty, Black Ops is nothing new; save your money for something that actually has SOME value. Cooking Mama would probably be a better investment. Expand
  74. Sep 19, 2011
    0
    If I could give this game a negative score I would. Lets just say MW2 was near perfect (take out the auto run with the knifing and the noob tube and easy nukes), this game reversed EVERYTHING good with MW2 and COD franchise and nerfed it. Only 5 guns are competitve (OP more like it), shotguns, smgs, sniper rifles, and LMGs completely useless compared to a select few assualt rifles. No chieves, not nearly as good perks/killstreak awards. MP just isnt fun. (I also dominated on most games). This is coming from a hardcore CoD fan, played all the games b4 unlocking 85-90% of chievements in each.

    Oh yea anyone giving this a 10 doesnt know jack or works for treyarch.
    Expand
  75. Oct 19, 2011
    0
    GOD DAMMIT, the biggest piece of crap i have ever seen, 12 year olds can make better games on gamemaker! The only reason it sells is because it targets brain dead monkeys. AHHHHHHH!
  76. Oct 25, 2011
    1
    Quoted from my review of the PC version.
    Daedra Oct 25, 2011 1 Oh you KNOW the **** drill about Post-MW games. The multiplayer is basically the same stuff as MW2, only with a WIKKID AWSOM new currency system. The only fun part about this is is the zombies, which is still rehashed from WaW. Zombies is the only thing saving this game from a zero.
    I also forgot to mention that it uses a
    modified IDtech 3 engine, which has been out since 1999. Expand
  77. Oct 27, 2011
    4
    The game was good for at least 3 weeks when it came out but then the developers starting making map pack after map pack when one was just released their was just a "rumour" and "picture" of a new map pack which then made the game boring.

    The guns in multiplayer feel weak and all the powerful ones are at a later level.
    In my opinion the game isn't very good and I would suggest waiting for
    the new Modern Warfare 3 Expand
  78. Jun 29, 2011
    1
    The game has not changed at all since the last release, and is unlikely to change in the next. The areas are bland and boring, the textures and graphics look outdated and the maps are uninspired. The storyline may as well not exist, but it's even more insulting that it thinks it is good. If you buy this game, you buy it for the multiplayer, and even that isn't great. Regenerating health still makes me hate this entire franchise. The one redeemable thing about this game is the zombies mode, which multiplayer is actually quite fun; however, it's very limited and doesn't have much lasting appeal. Expand
  79. Nov 17, 2010
    0
    I cannot believe many of these reviews for Black Ops. Treyarch must be paying you for putting up such B*&& S&^% for such a Lousy, yes Lousy game. I was really looking forwards to this game coming out, what an unbelievable disappointment !! . I tried to like it but its so poorly made, so in the garbage it went. Modern Warfare 2 still tops this god awful piece of crap ten times over. If your a real first person shooter gamer, no more needs to be said. Save your money. â Expand
  80. Nov 18, 2010
    2
    I found this game very disappointing especially online.I really should have expected this considering I hate WAW but I thought Treyarch would step up.Being an avid MW2 player I find Black Ops considerably inferior.The sound of the guns is terrible,the grenades sound weak and your own footsteps sound distant and when running like you're galloping like a horse.
    Having only recently got a
    HDTV all my games look fantastic,like having new games,especially MW2.The graphics in this look 3 or 4 years old,the weapon animations are terrible again compared to MW2.
    I did enjoy the single player although it is short and a bit dumb.Also I couldn't get past Masons terrible accent,obviously an Englishman trying an American accent.
    Well it looks like its back to MW2 for at least another year until Infinity Wards new release.my expectations of this have dropped too considering the trouble there at the minute.
    Expand
  81. Nov 18, 2010
    0
    Huge disappointment. Dont buy this game! you only get to play 2 out of 5 games in multiplayer because of the constant kick outs you will experience from host connections. I cant believe they actually launched such a game in the market, its ridiculous! Plus, why do they even have snipers in the game? its useless, the maps are not designed for a good gaming experience, its just going around corners and doors waiting to be knifed. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS GAME HAS SUCH GOOD REVIEWS, WTF PEOPLE???? Expand
  82. Jan 22, 2011
    0
    Once again Treyarch does not come close to the standard set by Infinity Ward. The multiplayer has been tweaked, but not in a way that makes it better. Instead it encourages camping and makes a once solid multiplayer shooter a more manic and uncontrollable experience. The single player offers difficulty in the cheapest ways imaginable. From areas that have literally unlimited amounts of enemies coming, to ally AI that simply ignores enemies, the difficulty rarely comes from skillful challenge, but rather from cheap tricks. There are at times unacceptable glitches that force you to restart levels because you can't continue, causing you to lose much time and progress. My rating is drastically low, this is still an overall solid shooter. The critical acclaim is misleading however, and you should be warned before purchasing this game. Expand
  83. Mar 13, 2011
    0
    Id rather play halo 2 than play this crappy game. BORING BORING BUGGY BUGGY BORING BUGGY BORING BUGGY BORING BUGGY BUGGY BUGGY RUSHED RUSHED CRAP!!!!!!!
  84. Jan 9, 2011
    0
    Unbelievably hyped up and overated. As what i see as the only decent game series or game on the XBOX, i was massively dissapointed when i realised what had become of Call of Duty. The story line began as engaging and interactive, but soon enough the repetativeness sets in. After playing wi-fi battles for over 4 hours with still no luck in seeing what was so good about this game, i simply gave up. Goldeneye 007 for Wii was a far better effort than this. Expand
  85. Jan 9, 2011
    2
    that was terrible.this is just like every other cod game they throw in some cool new gadjets about an hour of story mode gameplay and some new maps.the online feels like im playing MW2 whitch suked also I was expecting something new frome cod Black Ops but sure enough it was like the other cods and suked balls
  86. Jan 10, 2011
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For a game worth £45 or $60 (in the US) I expect the following features as standard; *SINGLE PLAYER*
    DECENT GRAPHICS - This is comparable to WAW sometimes worse with the amount of grain on screen it's as if the grain were introduced to hide the fact of how little time was spent on the graphics. CATCHING STORYLINE - Main character relives events that bring him to current timeline; brilliant, very interesting and I love conspiracy theories. (Spoiler: the experience he shared with the guy that saved his ass from prison is his schitzophrenic self) WTF... so your hero technically is a villian..
    BANG FOR YOUR BUCK - After the helicopter mission found in the jungle(Single Player) I unloaded a clip of the FAMAS into the enemy; who was standing in a truck; inside the cave. He is still standing after i emptied my sidearm and threw whatever grenades I had. I almost had to collect pebbles or small rocks to finish him off. SOUNDS - This was quite good in single player. The guns sounded powerful even if the bullet spluttered on its way out and dies after shortly exiting the barrel.
    Conclusion = 1/10 "It sounded decent."

    *MULTIPLAYER*
    MAPS - If you're a runner and gunner, this will work for you but otherwise forget quickscoping, no scoping or just forget picking up a Sniper rifle because due to the number of industrialized buildings in each map, you will never find enough range. SOUNDS - I purchased an RPK (yes you have to rank up and buy **** it reminded me of my nephew farting uncontrollably after eating a sweetcorn or 3.
    WEAPONS POWER & ACCURACY - Very Average power, most weapons are completely inaccurate unless you lie down on the floor and set up camp. Conclusion = 1/10 "I killed someone!!" (A random tomahawk throw killed someone on the otherside of the map. They sent me hatemail after that and then I had to block him as a user)

    So don't buy this new but give it a once over when it hits the bargain bucket which at any rate with COD titles might take awhile.
    Expand
  87. Jan 27, 2011
    2
    I am not a fan of the online, multi-player aspect of any FPS games; I buy them for the single player campaign only. This game has one of the most disappointing single player campaigns that I've experienced in quite some time. It's uninteresting, way too scripted/on rails, and the game in general looks and sounds outdated. I generally don't trade games in either...but this one I will. What a waste of $60. Expand
  88. Oct 9, 2011
    1
    A stain on the Call of Duty franchise. A campaign that is short, forgettable and completely ridiculous, and multiplayer that to this day is still plagued with game breaking issues and lacking any kind of spark. Outdated graphics that look years old, and a most empty and hollow experience that left me bored after one week. The only redeeming quality, and the 1 point score of this review, is the Zombie mode, which is beginning to lose the originality and unique feel of World at War, and becoming victim to the money hungry Activision, where they believe quantity over quality everyday. The sooner this game is forgotten, the better off the gaming world will be. Expand
  89. Jan 30, 2011
    2
    Just another yearly Call of Duty. Although this game did have one thing unique from all other Call of Duties, I've never had a game so anachronistic that I had to stop playing for a week to recover from the shock of G11's, Famas's, Walther WA2000's and M60E3's in the Vietnam War. It has it's entertainment "Value" if you can look past all of that, however I can not.
  90. Feb 3, 2011
    2
    Maybe its just because I've never really been a team death match guy (tho I am loving Crysis 2 TDM demo) but the kill feel cheap and most are got by snipers and campers, and the fact that you kill someone by shooting them in the leg is ridiculous, the only reason I pick up these games anymore is for the cinema quality single player (even then it doesn't top Uncharted 2) and that is the reason it gets a 2 instead of a 0 Expand
  91. Feb 8, 2011
    4
    The effort is obvious, and commendable. By recycling the same formula as usual, but adding a few new features, Treyarch have impressed the masses. But this is only filler, just like World at War, following the absolutely magnificent Modern Warfare 2 (possibly the best FPS I have ever played) and keeping the fans on their toes in preparation for the massively anticipated number 3. Graphics are shameful for a modern game, as is the sound. The campaign is, although creative, quite uninvolving, and the multiplayer is extremely patchy, amateurish and tedious (the maps, too, are awful at times, although improvements have been made lately). It's a COD release, so that as a starter point obviously earns points, but Black Ops is hardly worth the attention of serious fans, despite going down a storm with 'pro gamers' who seem to think that running in circles and jumping up and down while aimlessly blasting poorly designed weapons is realistic, exciting and tactical. I'll take MW3 now, please! Expand
  92. Feb 8, 2011
    3
    BLACK OP'S makes MW2 look very very good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Expand
  93. Feb 21, 2011
    0
    This game sucks, everything about it, play uncharted 2 instead. Uncharted 2 is totally awesome and black ops is exactly like every single other **** shooter i have ever played, it **** sucks nuts. if u have a 360 play halo, if u have a ps3 play UC2

    UC2>COD
  94. Feb 26, 2011
    2
    Anyone who tells you this is a great game has obviously not played many games. I did not have very high hopes for this game, however I had read good reviews and was excited for the campaign. After playing through the campaign, I was thoroughly disappointed. It was not the story that upset me (because I will give Treyarch credit for coming up with a superb story), it was the execution. Too many glitches, to many set pieces in which you simply had to walk places, the objectives seemed repetitive, etc. The AI was simply atrocious, and people would do nothing but roll around on the ground half the time. And a lot of the time Treyarch was just lazy. Puting infinite spawn points in places which eliminated any sense of tactics other than sprint as fast as you could and pray you dont die. None of the characters seemed particularly memorable. However, despite its shortcomings, the single player was not god awful. I was able to finish it and there were sections that i really enjoyed, but overall, not spectacular, not even close. Now on to multiplayer, which, for me, is the most important part of any game. Unfortunately, Black Ops's multiplayer was simply atrocious. Its an unbalanced mess. The guns are all either underpowered or overpowered. There was really nothing new brought to the table at all with the exception of the ability to customize your soldier, which still had been done before in other games multiple times. I found nothing good about the black ops multiplayer experience. In their attempts to make the game more fun, Treyarch removed perks such as Commando, and Slide of Hand. While many would argue that this is a good thing, and makes the games more realistic, I would say that these were some of the only reasons i ever came back to MW2. Also, instead of fixing MW2's problems (laggy, glitchy, hackers, "Host migrations") It seems like Treyarchs MP is just as, if not more littered with problems.

    Now, on the things like graphics, Sound effects, etc. Graphics seemed like three steps backwards. Modern Warfare 2 had much better textures than this game. Black Ops makes everything seem too... colorful. As in cartoonish. The explosions were boring and dissapointing. Sound Effects: ...wow... were do i start... sh*tty as f*ck. And while the voice acting was okay, the sounds of the guns and explosions all blended together and sounded two dimensional.

    Overall, this game is going on Ebay. For a game with such huge funding from Activision, this is probably the biggest dissapointment of the year, however, because its name is "Call of Duty," it will get praise from IGN and is bound to win several awards for no reason. If this game had not been a COD game and did not get the support of the Cod fanboys praising it blindly and calling it the "best game ever made" without ever playing any other FPS's, this game would have an average of 2.0 or lower
    Expand
  95. Nov 14, 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
  96. Mar 15, 2011
    4
    was fun up until the guns got nerfed, the host-match system sucked, and the lag made the game more painful to play everyday. I was thoroughly disappointed after all the hype. going back to MW2 was a breath of fresh air
  97. Mar 16, 2011
    1
    this game is an absolute abortion, a waste of developer time and so horrifically last gen that it could have been made for the ps2. from a lack of options to the hideous graphics as soon as you put it in the 360 (or ps3) you will know that you have been robbed. the controls are so clunky that a simple task like turning round can be a chore, the framerate suffers too.i completed the whole game in less than 45 minutes, hardly value for money. if realistic shooters are what you are looking for then go and buy battle for the pacific as it is better in every possible way Expand
  98. Mar 16, 2011
    0
    This game is complete and total garbage--game play is weak at best. There is NO TEAM PLAY, and no real skill (other than hand-eye coordination) required. Strategy is non-existent and the number of bugs that negatively affect game play are off the charts. Playing this game simply makes me angry--I do not enjoy ANY aspect of the game itself. The Easter eggs were a fun novelty on day 1, but not enough to overcome the overwhelming sense of buyer's remorse I felt after suffering through several hours of playing this atrocious game. The dynamic team play, strategy and realism of BFBC2 & MOH is much more enjoyable than the childish running and gunning of the COD franchise. Lone Wolf snipers do not win games of BFBC2 or MOH--TEAM PLAYERS WIN. COD is for younger players who lack real FPS skills or the patience for a game that requires working together and employing different strategies against different types of opponents. Activision is well-known for releasing bug-filled games that they have no intention of making work properly--because they have already gotten paid, and they plan to take your money on the next version--that you HOPE didn't have as many bugs as the last. Then they throw so many features in the game that you hope make you overlook the obvious, glaring problems that make game play so poor.

    I'm sorry I took my chances with Treyarch and Activision...they have once again proven their inability to make a good game. I too ran like a lemming and bought into the hype...but I have been fooled too many times...but not there won't be a next time for COD.
    Expand
  99. Nov 10, 2010
    0
    I'm sorry I bought this game. I've never been a big fan of the campaign but I have always loved the multiplayer of the COD franchise. But I felt this multiplayer lacks when compared to the previous titles. The graphics look worse than MW2, and the game play is EXACTLY the same. They added a few new killstreaks and call it a NEW game? The maps are small and boring, and I refuse to pay 800-1200 Microsoft points to get new maps when they come out. Overall I wish I could have my 60 bucks back. I hate when major titles change developers, it ruined the Final Fantasy series and now the COD series. Bottom line.... Black Ops effin' lame. Collapse
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 89 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 89
  2. Negative: 0 out of 89
  1. A short campaign which is never spectacular and never very clever, but always solid enough. [Feb 2011, p.99]
  2. Jan 18, 2011
    70
    By dint of obstinacy, Treyarch delivers probably its best with Black Ops Call of Duty to date - but probably not the best in the saga.
  3. Jan 16, 2011
    90
    There are more highlights in the first two missions of Black Ops, then in Medal of Honor. The requirements of Treyarch seemed to be better, than in the past few years. They made an interesting setting. In addition, there's a nice zombie mode and an overwhelming multiplayer. No doubt, this is Treyarchs best Call of Duty ever!