User Score
6.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1468 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 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 KoticI'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
  2. 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 andDownright 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
  3. 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 unlockI'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
  4. 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 theEarlier 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
  5. 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
    ** -- >>> 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
  6. 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 fromThis 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
  7. Nov 11, 2010
    3
    What the hell happened to this game! It used to be greatness on a disc now itâ
  8. 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 mereA 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
  9. 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
    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
  10. 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.
  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
    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 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.
  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 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
    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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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 haveWow 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
  19. 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 payI'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. Expand
  20. 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
    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
  21. 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 sameThis 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
  22. 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
    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
  23. 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 andAll 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
  24. 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.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
  25. 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?
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. Xbox World 360 Magazine UK
    Jan 30, 2011
    72
    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!