Call of Duty: Black Ops III

 PC
User Score
3.7

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1426 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 324 out of 1426
  2. Mixed: 256 out of 1426
  3. Negative: 846 out of 1426
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. Gohax
    Oct 19, 2017
    5
    At first i bought this game out of the fun that i had with the zombies mod on the ps4 but at the end thats it thats the only thing that is enjoyable about this game if you want to buy this game its for the zombies and nothing else because nobody cares about multiplayer or campaign (plus it does not continue the story from one and two) and on top of all that this game is really bad on PCAt first i bought this game out of the fun that i had with the zombies mod on the ps4 but at the end thats it thats the only thing that is enjoyable about this game if you want to buy this game its for the zombies and nothing else because nobody cares about multiplayer or campaign (plus it does not continue the story from one and two) and on top of all that this game is really bad on PC its always crashing and its not worth the price due to the fact that you only buy this game for the zombies mod

    i give this game a 5/10    … Expand
  2. bigtimegamer1
    Nov 6, 2015
    5
    Another AAA game with severe technical issues?! Wow, just... wow. How this stuff continues to get released is baffling, and completely unacceptable. The game itself is decent if you can run it properly. It adds a few new, interesting things, but ultimately doesn't expand beyond what we expect from a typical COD game.
  3. XBurningDogX
    Nov 7, 2015
    5
    Call of duty is just going down hill, Black ops 2 was really good, the multiplayer, the map lay out, the mechanics, it's not super fast paced like advanced warfare. Now they put Destiny and Advanced Warfare into a blender and added awesome sound effects and slapped this game together, the map lay outs are poor, the weapons are meh, the maps just feel no where near as friendly as bo2 did. ICall of duty is just going down hill, Black ops 2 was really good, the multiplayer, the map lay out, the mechanics, it's not super fast paced like advanced warfare. Now they put Destiny and Advanced Warfare into a blender and added awesome sound effects and slapped this game together, the map lay outs are poor, the weapons are meh, the maps just feel no where near as friendly as bo2 did. I have a $700 evga sc 980ti graphics card and can't even run 4k because its a awful console port, like always more money from the console players so who cares what pc gamers experence. Zombies won't play with other players, everytime you join a lobby it disconnection you, no transit or other fun parts of zombies. And With my $130 logitech g910 keyboard i'd sure like to customize my g1,g2 etc. keys but no those arent on there, can't even customize your killstreak keys. don't waste your money on this game, I can't believe you treyarch.… Expand
  4. Indrigis
    Dec 13, 2015
    7
    Let me start by saying that the game deserves a solid 5/10 considering the server issues. But assuming they're fixed...

    Multiplayer: Gunplay: It's yet more of Advanced Warfare except now horribly mutilated. The maps are small and full of obstacles deliberately placed to promote close range SMG shootouts over long range shots. Moreover, maps went from 3D to 3Lane, introducing lots of    Let me start by saying that the game deserves a solid 5/10 considering the server issues. But assuming they're fixed...

    Multiplayer:

    Gunplay: It's yet more of Advanced Warfare except now horribly mutilated. The maps are small and full of obstacles deliberately placed to promote close range SMG shootouts over long range shots. Moreover, maps went from 3D to 3Lane, introducing lots of obstructions, headglitch spots and long corridors lined by invisible walls. Adding to that, all the weapons have been made a lot more precise and most SMGs are quite effective at 50 metres, rendering proper sniping moot. The FMJ attachment is supposed to improve penetration but any given obstacle being penetratable at all is wildly inconsistent. The movement mechanics, again, are, in a sense, more limited than in AW but with the shrunken maps they are more than enough.

    Scorestreaks: Instead of customizable scorestreaks from AW (a great improvement) there are now lots of one-trick vehicles which can be easily shot down with a few launcher missiles. No more map-specific scorestreaks either. Overall this feels like a great step back.

    Special abilities: Specialist abilities are just different from Exo-abilities. You no longer start with a full charge each life but rather charge it over time and score. On the other hand, specialist weapons tend to be a lot more destructive than anything else and some abilities are great for clutch plays.

    Overall: I would say that Black Ops 3 feels very forced. The borderline synthetic map design and weapon equalization waste the potential gained from what was fixed. And the whole "More like the classics" design idea doesn't work well with the futuristic wall running and explosive bows.

    Single Player: The campaign is not good. There are lots of fan theories explaining it all and creating a sensible timeline and plot but actually playing the campaign is not enjoyable. It's a disjointed experience devoid of really great moments or a global plot arc. More than anything, it's full of frustratingly stupid decisions made by every character without any player agency (since it's not an RPG, obviously).

    Zombies: Instead of a typical horde mode Zombies becomes an obscure adventure-like experience where you have to collect artifacts, perform rituals and do all sorts of songs and dances that have nothing to do with actual shooting. The biggest indicator of this is the "have one player kite the last zombie around while the other three are doing the item collection/beast transformation/easter egg completion" tradition. Is it fun? Maybe. Is it in line with the rest of the game? Not so much.

    And last but not the least, PC-specific issues: At the moment of writing several weapons are downright imbalanced, like Drakon, the semi-auto sniper rifle that is a 2-hit kill at any range, has very little recoil and can be shot repeatedly for quite some time due to a 28-round magazine. The server quality, at least in EU (and, I think, Australia too) is downright unacceptable with random disconnects and horrible lag and rubberbanding issues a lot of the time. Many bugs and absent features too, like mouse inversion when aiming scorestreaks by tablet, lack of separate control for ADS mouse sensitivity and the like. The matchmaking is somewhat questionable, mixing good players with all sorts of other players.

    Although Treyarch/Activision might get a solid B for effort, the post-release support and communication are almost absent. If it stays this way, the game might not hold its own on PC for very long.    … Expand
  5. J4MESOX4D
    Nov 6, 2015
    5
    Probably the best Call of Duty in recent years but despite a sterling effort from Treyarch in terms of a content-laden game; it is absolutely clear that the franchise has run its course. Also an inconsistent performance on PC and several old issues that have plagued the series previous, make this port an extremely disappointing release.

    Black Ops 3 is contains the usual 5 hour campaign    Probably the best Call of Duty in recent years but despite a sterling effort from Treyarch in terms of a content-laden game; it is absolutely clear that the franchise has run its course. Also an inconsistent performance on PC and several old issues that have plagued the series previous, make this port an extremely disappointing release.

    Black Ops 3 is contains the usual 5 hour campaign which is painfully linear, overly-cinematic and fails to inspire. The zombies mode will keep fans engaged for a while but if you want the complete experience; you'll need to spend a small fortune on the DLC and wait several months before the content starts flowing. The multiplayer aspect is a vast improvement over Advanced Warfare and Ghosts with fluid mechanics, lots of customisation and some enjoyable maps. Sadly the game is exceptionally buggy with crippling lag, dreadful bullet detection and very repetitive combat. Even the wealth of specialists, weapons and classes can't help the gameplay feel samey throughout.

    Treyarch were the last hope of salvaging the series and despite a strong offering in terms of a feature-packed title; it's simply not enough which indicates the franchise is at its end. With Sledgehammer and Infinity Ward up next; Activision would be better off calling it a day. Despite the strong positives of BO3; the series fails to have the same impact and quality that it once had and with games like Fallout 4 on the horizon; this game with all its woes will fail to keep you engaged.    … Expand
  6. plotlesviolence
    Mar 26, 2016
    7
    [OVERVIEW = 7]
    Another single/multiplayer FPS, not even the best CoD, but it does have splitscreen co-op.
    [PRESENTATION =4] (Graphics = 4) Whatever “tweaks” have supposedly been applied over the years, it still looks like it’s running on an unchanged 2007 CoD4 engine. It takes up 60 gigabytes but looks no better than CoD4 at 8 gig. (Visual aesthetics = 3) The problem with futuristic    [OVERVIEW = 7]
    Another single/multiplayer FPS, not even the best CoD, but it does have splitscreen co-op.

    [PRESENTATION =4]
    (Graphics = 4) Whatever “tweaks” have supposedly been applied over the years, it still looks like it’s running on an unchanged 2007 CoD4 engine. It takes up 60 gigabytes but looks no better than CoD4 at 8 gig.
    (Visual aesthetics = 3) The problem with futuristic is that, like MW3 and BlOps2, this just seems sort of bland. I preferred the realism of CoD4:MW, CoD:WaW, and CoD:BlOps1.
    (Sound Effects = 6)
    (Voice Acting = 6)
    (Physics = 2) Bizarrely, CoD continues to program in ragdoll physics but then strangles it by having it activate only after the same stupid pre-animated deaths as before, totally missing the point of ragdoll physics, which is to provide infinite fun ways to watch bodies gib and collapse. Worse, half the enemies are robots that don’t ragdoll at all.
    Worse, the CoD4 engine has always been very static: almost no background objects react to gunfire. By comparison, games like Stranglehold really make you feel powerful when you have a real, physics-based impact on the world every time your bullets miss.
    (Plot = 4) Skippable after it loads.

    [CONTROLS/MECHANICS = 8]
    (95% First-Person Shooter = 8)
    CoD BlOps3 has the same polished movement and firing scheme as past iterations. Aside from the Halo system, this is the best joystick-controlled shooting you can find, and it’s probably the best mouse-controlled FPS system if you prefer playing that way. It works without doing anything new. But the guns aren't that interesting, even compared to past CoD's; it’s pretty much just machine guns. You have your choice of a recharging “power” (i.e. hack one turret/enemy vs. bee swarm, etc.) but it doesn’t change much, and you can see enemies behind walls once highlighted, which is kind of cool. At least, unlike CoD:Ghosts, you can actually toggle nightvision on/off whenever you want.
    The thing is, the first-person-shooter as a genre is hardly dead. There are plenty of ways to make it interesting: fun weapons like Painkiller or Bulletstorm; destructible cover and environments like Red Faction or Battlefield:Bad Company; intelligent enemy AI like Half Life; enemies that blow up interestingly like Binary Domain; destroying enemy attack options with careful aim like Resident Evil 4 or Dead Space; or, giant Shadow-of-the-Collossus-like enemies like MGS:Peace Walker. And that's not even talking about combining FPS with other genres (like Deus Ex) or bogging it down with walking-simulator levels (like BioShock).
    Instead of innovation, we have the 8th expansion-pack to the 9-year-old CoD4.
    (5% Platforming = 8) The new change, slightly modified from CoD:MW3 (and ripped off of Titanfall), is the ability to jetpack double-jump and wall-run. It works pretty well, and adds a lot to the online multiplayer and certain sections of the single-player campaign, but it’s not a replacement for Mirror’s Edge.
    (Camera = 5)
    (Physics = 3)
    (Friendly AI = 5)
    (Enemy AI = 6) About half the enemies are robotic killdroids, which unlike the human enemies, can stand there and take a lot of punishment, which encourages taking cover more regularly. Whether this improves or aggravates is a matter of personal preference.

    [DESIGN = 8]
    (Menus = 5) The 3D home base you walk around in is a wasted concept for what should have been a simple menu.
    (Level Design = 7) It’s a linear corridor shooter, but you don’t get lost.
    (Difficulty Curve = 7) Regular checkpoints & co-operative players can revive you.
    (Upgrade System = 5)
    (Modes = Singleplayer/2-player splitscreen Cooperative campaign (10 hours, 0% padding), 2 Singleplayer/4-player cooperative Zombie horde campaigns (?), Competitive Multiplayer)
    BlOps3 does something commendable I haven't seen in an FPS in a long, long time: Splitscreen Co-Op on the PC version. I play alot of local multiplayer, and when we play FPS's that usually means Unreal Tournament 3 (4-player via hidden console commands) or Left-For-Dead 2 (2-player via hidden console commands). Serious Sam 3 is the only AAA-franchise PC FPS I'm aware of where the splitscreen is built-in and not hidden. When Halo 1 and 2 hit PC, Microsoft actually disabled the splitscreen that was already coded into the Xbox versions. Heck, Halo5 no longer offers even console splitscreen, even though fans would assuredly accept halving the supposedly restrictive 60 frames-per-sec to 30 during a co-op mode. For all the vitriol CoD games typically get, everyone should be encouraging this trend at least.
    Online multiplayer is fun, although I doubt it will still be populated in a year, and I prefer CoD4 online. I never touched the Zombies modes because shooting at slow unarmed enemies always bored me, even in co-op.

    [CONCLUSION]
    For all of my criticisms, mainly about the lack of improvements, I had an absolute blast playing through the splitscreen campaign with my friend and I recommend it mainly for that purpose.    … Expand
  7. N3V3R
    Nov 11, 2015
    5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Taylor -- " Imagine yourself in a frozen forest . "
    Me -- "You don't say mate! " ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously , this game feels like it's released in it's alpha state . Lag , freeze , fps drop . In main menu , all cores of my hex core processors is at 100% !! I didn't even    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Taylor -- " Imagine yourself in a frozen forest . "
    Me -- "You don't say mate! "
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Seriously , this game feels like it's released in it's alpha state . Lag , freeze , fps drop . In main menu , all cores of my hex core processors is at 100% !! I didn't even load a map / level yet! Is it a joke?
    However , If they fixes the performance issue , it has potential to be a great COD Multiplayer experience (single player su*ks - except a few areas , the level design is the worst till date. And - shooting robots is not fun at all!!)
    Let's see what IW does with COD GHOSTS 2. (Q4 2016 , hopefully).    … Expand
  8. Hack
    Mar 8, 2016
    7
    It's Call of Duty so of course the user score is unjustly low and you should ignore it as it's not reflective of the quality of the game at all.

    I have played every game in the series on the PC and Black Ops III is definitely one of the best in recent years, and probably in the top 5 of all time. I have absolutely no issues with performance, running the game on high at 120fps 99.9% of    It's Call of Duty so of course the user score is unjustly low and you should ignore it as it's not reflective of the quality of the game at all.

    I have played every game in the series on the PC and Black Ops III is definitely one of the best in recent years, and probably in the top 5 of all time. I have absolutely no issues with performance, running the game on high at 120fps 99.9% of the time (i5 3570k @ 4.4GHz / GTX 970) and the anti cheat works much better than what's used by Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games, so the amount of blatant cheating is minimal in comparison. If you enjoy Call of Duty and have a decent computer you will enjoy Black Ops III, but if you dislike the series in general it won't change your mind.    … Expand
  9. Krypto_Dogg
    Nov 12, 2015
    6
    Campaign review: I'm actually not a CoD fan, but I enjoyed Ghosts and Advanced Warfare's story campaigns very much. They were among my top experiences of their respective years. Blops III's campaign makes no sense. I'm near the end and can't wait for it to be over. I was a few levels in when I realized they forgot to make me care. Even when the main character gets ripped apart it neverCampaign review: I'm actually not a CoD fan, but I enjoyed Ghosts and Advanced Warfare's story campaigns very much. They were among my top experiences of their respective years. Blops III's campaign makes no sense. I'm near the end and can't wait for it to be over. I was a few levels in when I realized they forgot to make me care. Even when the main character gets ripped apart it never leads me to a connection.

    I'm just going to chalk it up to Treyarch making bad campaigns that are too much like the older last-gen CoDs. I'll be expecting the next two CoDs to have stellar campaigns.    … Expand
  10. MooseSpoon
    Nov 12, 2015
    7
    I see a lot of angry fanboys and keyboard warriors.

    I was pleasantly surprised by this game. The campaign though a bit short did offer a story that felt less like a typical COD game. The multiplayer is fun, but it seems the game punishes people who try to camp even in a tactical function. Performance issues are pretty rampant, but those can hopefully be fixed. COD is old and needs to go    I see a lot of angry fanboys and keyboard warriors.

    I was pleasantly surprised by this game. The campaign though a bit short did offer a story that felt less like a typical COD game. The multiplayer is fun, but it seems the game punishes people who try to camp even in a tactical function. Performance issues are pretty rampant, but those can hopefully be fixed. COD is old and needs to go in a new direction. I'm happy they tried to steer things a little differently with this one though it may not necessarily be in the right direction.    … Expand
  11. Blackcesar
    Nov 10, 2015
    7
    As always when speaking about COD, we see al kinds of **** in the user reviews. Don't trust people who are putting 0 either 10, they are both fanboys or haters, so avoid at all costs.
    This COD is all about content. You have 2 main campaigns in 4 co-op, they are both forgettable in terms of story but finally playing them in 4 makes all the point A to point B travel fun, hopefully from now    As always when speaking about COD, we see al kinds of **** in the user reviews. Don't trust people who are putting 0 either 10, they are both fanboys or haters, so avoid at all costs.
    This COD is all about content. You have 2 main campaigns in 4 co-op, they are both forgettable in terms of story but finally playing them in 4 makes all the point A to point B travel fun, hopefully from now on they will keep making them like this.
    Zombies I tried them a few times and seems like the best zombie experience to date, though I have to fully explore all the settings in any case well polished mode.
    Multiplayer is kinda of weird. First I have a lot of problems in aiming, due to the high mobility of all the players, so many times I'm going around just with hip fire. There are problems of lag although you can finally see your ping by pressing Tab, still something doesn't feel right and I guess they will optimized the netcode because some times is infuriating to shoot and not kill with a full clip and to be killed with few shots.
    Multiplayer maps (like always) I quite forgettable apart from 2-3 and unfortunately BO2 maps were much better at launch, still they need to sell DLC so I'm not surprised any more.
    Weird is that the thing AW made right (maybe one of the only ones) was the verticality of the maps, in this game there really unexplainable walls and you want to go across them but you cannot and it's stupid and limits the movement of the maps.
    Technically speaking we finally see some colors specially yellow, and the lighting is well done, some textures are bland and dunno if it is for the graphics card (MSI 970) or the game itself. In any case they are nice, still they could do better for a next gen title. Keep in mind that this is probably a porting from the consoles, so they will always based the game on their perfomances.
    To conlcude, BO3 is a huge game is terms of content, you will play for a long time if you interested in the mechanics of a fast-paced multiplayer with typical series lag problematics, forgettable campaign and awesome zombie mode.
    Advice: find 3 buddies and have fun.    … Expand
  12. Vertran187
    Nov 11, 2015
    5
    Best COD since MW2 but still pretty bad get it 2nd hand in my opinion MP is **** unless you have a perfect internet connection ur hate it.
    SP was like COD vs Halo mix up weird dumb and short like the last few games.
  13. Mahdiar
    Feb 18, 2016
    7
    Gameplay : 7
    Graphics : 7
    Story : 8
    Sound : 8
    **********************************************************************************
    Overall : 7
  14. Munkey
    Nov 26, 2015
    5
    Treyarch why? You had three years to make a good CoD and you failed...
    Campaign is boring and still really a corridor based shooter. You can go vertically up or down but the levels are still just corridors strung together. Story for me was very boring and doesn't really expand the Black Ops universe and the previous build up from BO1 and BO2 was wasted. No back story to the campaign why    Treyarch why? You had three years to make a good CoD and you failed...
    Campaign is boring and still really a corridor based shooter. You can go vertically up or down but the levels are still just corridors strung together. Story for me was very boring and doesn't really expand the Black Ops universe and the previous build up from BO1 and BO2 was wasted. No back story to the campaign why there was the disaster, why the world is in chaos and why in the first mission we need to save some dude? No back story.
    Multiplayer is just Advanced Warfare but without the exosuit. Played it but there is nothing new to be honest. Yes the classes with the passive and offensive ability is good but that's it. Maps are diverse and good looking but still on PC lags and cheaters as usual.
    The only thing that saves this game from a very low score is the Zombie Mode. Again Treyarch does this mode like champs. Zombies are just so good. The look, the voices and the sounds are just amazing. Whoever designed it should get a raise because it's great.
    For the price you get a lot single, multi and zombies but for me only the Zombie part is worth while.
    I thing people had enough of future shooters. Would really like to play a World War II shooter again or something like the first Black Ops which to this day is my personal best CoD.
    Final score for CoD:BO3 is a 5 out of 10.    … Expand
  15. Toothlessninja
    Feb 5, 2016
    6
    As you can see from the user score, a lot of people don't seem to like this game. Mostly due to the bad PC port (which they have since fixed) and the graphics (they wanted to create a game that could run on 2gb cards so everyone could play). I'm here to tell you that the game isn't that bad. It's not a game I'd call "legendary" by any means, but it's not another Ride to Hell: RetributionAs you can see from the user score, a lot of people don't seem to like this game. Mostly due to the bad PC port (which they have since fixed) and the graphics (they wanted to create a game that could run on 2gb cards so everyone could play). I'm here to tell you that the game isn't that bad. It's not a game I'd call "legendary" by any means, but it's not another Ride to Hell: Retribution like everyone is calling it.

    -Graphics and port job-
    I will admit, at release, this game ran like a slideshow on high end pc's. Now after NUMEROUS patches, the game runs flawlessly. I always ran above 60+ fps maxed out 1080p on a lower end pc (AMD FX-6300 and Radeon 7970). They clearly took the time to fix their mistakes and create a good running game now.

    -Story-
    The story is... ok at best. It's another one of those "robots kill humans" and "terrorist" plots that you see every other game. It's not really worth the play if you want to play campaign. It's clear that the focus was on the other gamemodes and NOT the story.
    One thing that I do like is the fact that it is multiplayer. If you want, you can go through the whole campaign with your friends. It'll get a few laughs out of you and your friends playing, even if it is cheesy.

    -Zombies-
    One. Map. ONE. MAP. Seriously, GimmieMoneyArch? Yup. There's only one map. Unless you buy the $50 season pass to fuel their Lamborghinis as they swim in money, you only get one map. The season pass isn't even that good right now, it just comes with The Giant from World at War with some updated graphics. Lazy.
    They did make a lot of changes to the gamemode though. It's a lot for someone who just touched zombies previously to have all of this information shoved in their face at once. It's quite a bit to absorb. Nonetheless, it's fun and got a few hours out of me, but it's nothing to throw $60 at for.

    -Nightmare mode-
    This was a lazy attempt for people to play the campaign again, but with zombies thrown in. They don't even change the cutscenes! They just mute the audio from them and slap a narration bit up! It's so lazy to see that they did this. When the game said "zombie campaign", I expected a whole campaign about zombies taking over the world and complex character development (like The Walking Dead or other zombie stories), but I got WAY to ahead of myself. It's also boring and repetitive to just kill nothing but the same zombie over levels you already played.

    -Multiplayer-
    This was where the game shines. The shining crown. I put over 200+ hours into this game after about a month of playing. It's a TON of fun and probably the only reason I bought this game.
    There are now classes or "specialists" as the game calls them, that now diversify play a bit. Each specialist can choose 2 abilities to use that can give them either a weapon or a small advantage for a short period. The classes don't have any personality though. All of them are serious and not funny. Nothing like Team Fortress 2, where each class had a different fun personality. It would've been nice to give the characters some kind of personality besides "Nomad, KIA" and "Ruin, KIA". They had so much potential to put tons of funny character quotes or quips that would've made me remember the characters apart from what they occasionally do every 2 minutes.
    As for balance of weapons, they need to fix them. Some of the weapons are straight up overpowered. The P-06, Sheiva, pretty much all smgs, Haymaker, and the Brecci, just to name a few.
    There are only 12 maps (not including the Nuketown for pre-orders only). Most of them are good and have a lot of ramps and walls for jetpacks. Also, I noticed a lot less camping by allowing almost every part of the map to have 2 entrances to eliminate camping. Sure there were still campers, but rarely any.
    Speaking of the jetpack, it's a really nice feature I'm glad they carried over from Advanced Warfare. I didn't play AW, but from what I've seen and heard from others, it was nice to have a lot more mobility so combat is a lot more diverse.

    -Final verdict-
    I kept playing. I don't know why, but despite all of these flaws, I kept playing. I put over 200+ hours in alone and that for me is enough to justify a $60 purchase.    … Expand
  16. adriandenan
    May 16, 2016
    7
    It's another CoD game. If you like CoD and want the newest stuff, then yeah it's worth it. It feels like Titanfall without the Titans, which is still enjoyable but still lacking some giant robots.
  17. leopoldo
    Dec 3, 2015
    7
    Call of Duty: Black Ops III was a game I was very excited before the release because everything in BO2 was great, but unfortunately was not what happened in that game. The story has no connection with the BO2, but at least it is Ok. The gameplay in the campaign is very simple, with nothing remarkable or different. At least the multiplayer is great fun, even remembering very AdvancedCall of Duty: Black Ops III was a game I was very excited before the release because everything in BO2 was great, but unfortunately was not what happened in that game. The story has no connection with the BO2, but at least it is Ok. The gameplay in the campaign is very simple, with nothing remarkable or different. At least the multiplayer is great fun, even remembering very Advanced Warfare, but has very leg.O zombies mode is better than ever. Call of Duty: Black Ops III could be one of the best CoD, but uninteresting campaign, and the leg of the game will not let that happen, at least the zombies mode is incredible. 7/10… Expand
  18. Ridash
    May 7, 2016
    7
    A fun multiplayer shooter to play with friends. Fine amount of maps which have pretty good design and don't get boring easily. The zombie mode is still the same as before, just on another map, which is actually a good thing. It also has splitscreen in every mode possible, including the campaign, though the campaign is painfully cringe worthy and not worth a singe play.

    As for the    A fun multiplayer shooter to play with friends. Fine amount of maps which have pretty good design and don't get boring easily. The zombie mode is still the same as before, just on another map, which is actually a good thing. It also has splitscreen in every mode possible, including the campaign, though the campaign is painfully cringe worthy and not worth a singe play.

    As for the performance, it's actually very good now and the people complaining about it are most likely coming from the launch of the game.    … Expand
  19. darek79r19
    Nov 22, 2015
    5
    Jako fan COD'a, którego ogrywam zawsze od pierwszej części powiem krótko: daję 10 za story i 0 za gameplay. Ani strzelanie w roboty, ani w zombi nie jest tym, co w tej grze powinno się znaleźć. Można powiedzieć, że zombi można olać... Otóż nie można. W singlu mamy wszystko, choćby przez chwilę, ale musieli upchać tam wszystko i przydeptać. Strzelanie do robotów jest czymś nawet gorszym odJako fan COD'a, którego ogrywam zawsze od pierwszej części powiem krótko: daję 10 za story i 0 za gameplay. Ani strzelanie w roboty, ani w zombi nie jest tym, co w tej grze powinno się znaleźć. Można powiedzieć, że zombi można olać... Otóż nie można. W singlu mamy wszystko, choćby przez chwilę, ale musieli upchać tam wszystko i przydeptać. Strzelanie do robotów jest czymś nawet gorszym od zombi. Strzelasz w ślamazarne roboty jak w tarczę, czasem zdarzy się, że robot odskoczy, po czym znowu ślamazarnie prze do przodu jak golem. Zero taktyki !!!! SI nie istnieje, zachowanie opiera się na jednym skrypcie!!! Tak monotonnego trzymania palca na spuście powstydził by się chyba nawet Serious Sam.
    Co do story, to pomysł nie był najgorszy, wręcz powiedział bym, że powiało świerzością, na coś takiego czekałem. Jednak zamiast skupić się na story i rozwinąć temat o agencje rządowe, obecną sytuację na świecie twórcy, skupili się na opowiadaniu nam krótkiej historyjki w rozwleczony sposób. Szkoda, mogło być dobrze a wyszło jak zawsze. Natomiast psychodela, jaką zaserwowali nam pod koniec ( efekt z ptakami), odradzanie zastrzelonych wrogów, to coś, co nigdy nie powinno znaleźć się w tego typu grze. Gameplay poległ, wytrwałem do końca dla story i nie chcę więcej tej gry oglądać.    … Expand
  20. Tgc
    Nov 16, 2015
    5
    It really depends what are your expectations. If you want a decent FPS you will be disappointed. If you want b-genre interactive action movie then you could be satisfied.
  21. hdlswaglord
    Nov 10, 2015
    6
    First, don't pay attention to the guys who spam 10/10s or 0/10s, cause they are just biased AF. Here is my take on black ops 3. The multiplayer is solid, with great weapon balancing and specialists character changing how the game is played... although I will say that character customization feels like something they tacked on at the last minute. Zombies is still as good as ever, theFirst, don't pay attention to the guys who spam 10/10s or 0/10s, cause they are just biased AF. Here is my take on black ops 3. The multiplayer is solid, with great weapon balancing and specialists character changing how the game is played... although I will say that character customization feels like something they tacked on at the last minute. Zombies is still as good as ever, the campaign, its co-op, and the nightmare mode add plenty to the overall package, while the currently barebones freerun mode can be beaten within 20 minutes. However, the PC port is poor compared to the console. You may want to take a raincheck on this game while they fix the problems with the port and add modding support… Expand
  22. grimmzy
    Nov 13, 2015
    5
    Honestly would be quite fun if it wasn't for god awful PC optimization, the only people that don't agree with this are mindless fanboys, the release state was horrible, it uses unjustifiable amounts of resources on any graphical setting, and as of a week later still no patch or acknowledgement from the devs.
  23. wonderirani
    Nov 21, 2015
    6
    Its a good game. Very powerful Graphics which caught my attention, story line was good better than black ops 2 and modern warfare. Its shift of story line was good and could become better mostly the last mission could become better and more fun but was not. Plz the developers must try to extend the story line in a adventures way. Overall goo game but not the best on Call Of duty franchise.Its a good game. Very powerful Graphics which caught my attention, story line was good better than black ops 2 and modern warfare. Its shift of story line was good and could become better mostly the last mission could become better and more fun but was not. Plz the developers must try to extend the story line in a adventures way. Overall goo game but not the best on Call Of duty franchise.
    Best of luck.    … Expand
  24. mrmatthew
    Jan 21, 2016
    7
    I thought this was a fun game until I kept dying. It is a little too hard I think! The controls and the stamina you have is not enough. If they only had more life in the characters it would be a great game!!
  25. Shaedrin
    Apr 18, 2016
    6
    While I have not played any of the previous COD games, this one really just seemed quite "meh" for me.

    I didn't have any of the lag or lock up issues on my system, and my rig is far from OP (Asus Z77 Sabeertooth / i7-3570K / MSI GTX 970 4g), and even with my rig I was still able to run at full graphics options with no performance issue....even ran 60+ fps the entire time. My biggest    While I have not played any of the previous COD games, this one really just seemed quite "meh" for me.

    I didn't have any of the lag or lock up issues on my system, and my rig is far from OP (Asus Z77 Sabeertooth / i7-3570K / MSI GTX 970 4g), and even with my rig I was still able to run at full graphics options with no performance issue....even ran 60+ fps the entire time.

    My biggest beef was with the gameplay. The story was interesting, and had just enough of a twist that I saw coming but didn't mind when it happened. But....some of these missions are HELLA long!!! Literally spent almost 45 minutes on a single mission in campaign...now while many will ask "you want a short game then?"....no. I don't want short, but at the same time, having a single run last almost an hour is a bit much.

    The AI difficulty needs to be looked at as well. Even running through the campaign the first time on "I'm a wimp" mode, I was still finding myself regularly getting dead. Mostly from the robots in the game. And don't even get me started on the assault on the last mission. ENDLESS WAVES OF ROBOTS between you and your objective to simply hack a door.

    All in all though, it was fairly solid. Will I be playing it again? Maybe in a few months when I get bored of World of Warships or something else. Until then...I will go back to Mass Effect 2.    … Expand
  26. elolugo
    Nov 15, 2019
    5
    Pretty average campaign with some cool features like customization and coop
  27. Mattie
    May 23, 2023
    6
    Gameplay - 6/10
    Graphics - 6/10
    Performance - 8/10
    Story - 2/10

    Total score - 5,5/10
  28. Tomle1202
    Mar 18, 2017
    6
    The story that Call of Duty: Black Ops III tries to offer the complicatedness expected from a Black Ops game, but the way Treyarch delivers such attraction is just as unappealing as its missed potentials and horrific optimization.
  29. tangosucka
    Jan 19, 2017
    5
    When advanced warfare was released back in 2014, i thought it was okay, not great, but okay, if only i had known what horror i would diving into the next year, call of duty black ops 3 is a game that suffers from bad writing, awful dialog and voice acting reminiscent of a low budget 80s action movie, the multiplayer is pretty much the same as advanced warfare, but you can now make yourWhen advanced warfare was released back in 2014, i thought it was okay, not great, but okay, if only i had known what horror i would diving into the next year, call of duty black ops 3 is a game that suffers from bad writing, awful dialog and voice acting reminiscent of a low budget 80s action movie, the multiplayer is pretty much the same as advanced warfare, but you can now make your character dance at the end of a match, we asked for improvement and this is what they give us -_- the campaign pretty much has nothing to do with the first two games and the characters are incredibly boring and underdeveloped, as well as completely irrelevant to the first two games, in a more technical point of view, the game seems to run just fine on the ps4, it mostly runs at 60fps but occasionally drops to 30 when things get hectic, the pc version from what i can tell is badly optimised and performs poorly even on up to date hardware, the last gen versions are multiplayer and zombies only, and are terrible, the graphics are even worst than the pc version at lowest settings, the resolution seems to somewhere around 480p, and the game seems to run between 60 and 2fps, the framerate is so inconsistent, id be better off playing the game through a slide projector, do not buy the last gen versions unless you buy it for extremely cheap or have way too much money, overall black ops 3 is completely irrelevant to the first two games, the multiplayer is average, and the game has a few technical issues, would i recommend it? If your a cod fan then the game might be worth it, but for me, it was a complete waste of 60 quid… Expand
  30. jelikey
    Nov 4, 2016
    7
    Another AAA game with severe technical issues?! Wow, just... wow. How this stuff continues to get released is baffling, and completely unacceptable. The game itself is decent if you can run it properly. It adds a few new, interesting things, but ultimately doesn't expand beyond what we expect from a typical COD game.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

21
#21 Most Discussed PC Game of 2015
35
#35 Most Shared PC Game of 2015

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
73

Mixed or average reviews - based on 10 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 10
  3. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Dec 3, 2015
    60
    A bit better than the Ghosts, but worse than Advanced Warfare – new Call of Duty is awkwardly trying to make some changes in single player, but adding a bunch of technical problems in the same time. Multiplayer it is flawless as usual. [Issue#258]
  2. Riot Pixels
    Nov 30, 2015
    60
    Treyarch should have created one awesome sci-fi campaign instead of three mediocre ones.
    Read full review
  3. Ragequit.gr
    Nov 14, 2015
    81
    Treyarch gives us a Call of Duty game that is brimming with content and is sure to provide hundreds of hours of entertainment to its buyers. It’s just a shame that the focus on the quantity of content ended up causing a lack of polish in some areas.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »