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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Mahdiar
    Feb 18, 2016
    7
    Gameplay : 7
    Graphics : 7
    Story : 8
    Sound : 8
    **********************************************************************************
    Overall : 7
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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!!
  12. greenbey
    Jun 29, 2020
    7
    A-
    Story is complicated and overall a bad writing.
    Gameplay is fun and diverse with different levels like burning zombie nazis and boss fights.
    Not a bad game.
    Multiplayer introduces class system for the series.
  13. Setox
    Aug 8, 2019
    7
    I'm wondering at the amount of massive negative scores. This game is not too bad or ugly, just yet another generic FPS shooter.
    The storyline so much worse than in BO or BO2, but in endgame becomes more interesting
    Visual is ok, even for 2k19
  14. SilverOrlov
    Sep 29, 2019
    7
    Black Ops 1-3 are about on the same level of interest and game-play for me. More or less tolerable plot, albeit with frequent silly moments. More or less good shooter, but with bag skill system. This game looked very "sugary and trimmed down", unlike the rest of the series.
  15. Greek_objektife
    Feb 21, 2022
    7
    С чего бы начать,сюжет полная срань,зомби режим и мультиплеер охрененый и сейчас я многим могу порекомендовать эту часть
  16. Pteromyin0
    Sep 4, 2023
    7
    Didn't play much of CoD, but we occasionally play this on LANs because it has extensive multiplayer features, such as local splitscreen, which is very rare nowadays. Could have had a bit more content for its price tag, expansions are also too expensive
  17. FireBroFilms
    Aug 15, 2022
    7
    ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎
  18. Young__fool
    Feb 3, 2023
    7
    I think CoD black op 3 is an okay game. The campaign is vefry confusing and the story is probably the most complicated story in call of duty history. But the gameplay that the campaign has to offer is pretty good and i liked the DNI mechanics. The multiplayer is okay as well and i like the fast paced shooting with wallrunning and all that stuff. But what i don't like is the skill-basedI think CoD black op 3 is an okay game. The campaign is vefry confusing and the story is probably the most complicated story in call of duty history. But the gameplay that the campaign has to offer is pretty good and i liked the DNI mechanics. The multiplayer is okay as well and i like the fast paced shooting with wallrunning and all that stuff. But what i don't like is the skill-based matchmaking and the multiplayer just doesen't feel like pure call of duty magic that the MW trilogy is known for. But i must say that i have really enjoyed the zombies mode. It's just pure fun and the lore is also fairly interesting.
    Overall from the more casual gamer perspective i like the game but from the call of duty fan perspective i don't like it that much.    … Expand
  19. threeoftendie
    Feb 5, 2023
    7
    Это одна из игр моего детства. И, несмотря на возраст и недостатки, о которых я сейчас узнаю от других, она не кажется мне плохой
  20. ConnorIMDB
    May 9, 2023
    7
    Campaign was a 4 at best. The ability to make me not care about a single character is an impressive feat. The multiplayer was great, some weapons balancing was needed for sure but I just got good (without sounding like an ass). The zombies is what I bought the game for though and that is easily the best part of it. It's the best COD game for zombies with 'Zombies Chronicles' and even theCampaign was a 4 at best. The ability to make me not care about a single character is an impressive feat. The multiplayer was great, some weapons balancing was needed for sure but I just got good (without sounding like an ass). The zombies is what I bought the game for though and that is easily the best part of it. It's the best COD game for zombies with 'Zombies Chronicles' and even the standard DLC is solid. I've put 2,000 hours into the game. I'd highly recommend skipping the Campaign though, it's possibly the worst of any Call of Duty.… Expand
  21. Mattie
    May 23, 2023
    6
    Gameplay - 6/10
    Graphics - 6/10
    Performance - 8/10
    Story - 2/10

    Total score - 5,5/10
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. hawkeye766
    Sep 16, 2016
    6
    Having been a bit out of the gaming loop as of late, and having some friends that played this game, I decided to check it out. I was enticed at first, but I quickly became bored. I first played the zombies mode, which brought about an interesting premise but as a casual player i really couldn't get much farther than about the sixth level, which made it frustrating. Especially becauseHaving been a bit out of the gaming loop as of late, and having some friends that played this game, I decided to check it out. I was enticed at first, but I quickly became bored. I first played the zombies mode, which brought about an interesting premise but as a casual player i really couldn't get much farther than about the sixth level, which made it frustrating. Especially because zombies has become less of an amusing arcade mode and actually features a narrative, which I'd really like to experience, but cannot because I lack hours to devote to a game that starts over when you die.
    This brings me to the campaign, which I have always thought to be CoD's most redeeming aspect. This was a really lazily developed story that had some fun parts, and dealt with some interesting Ideas that, if properly synthesized, could have made a decent experience. It just didn't though. In my opinion CoD is just too far in the future now to create a well grounded story. They try to provide the thrill of Geopolitical turmoil, but since you know next to nothing about the pieces at play, the political side of the game is just really flat. BO3 is also fettered by a cruddy customization system that leaves you finishing the campaign far below your potential. Not that it matters much because the objectives pretty much consist of running over here, running over there, (on a wall this time), and flying this way. Pouring as much ammunition as possible into whatever bullet sponge of an enemy thats shooting at you right now. Basically all your enemies are robots now, so you have to shoot everything twice as much.
    As for the most popular part of the CoD experience, multiplayer can be fun, but its mostly just a matter of fast movement. As a casual gamer, i started out just getting demolished by a bunch of experienced players with extremely fast awareness and reflexes. It is more or less a matter of who sees who first, because all elements of fps tacticality have been all but eliminated. This sounds like a joke, but its actually impossible to check corners or use angles to your advantage in any way because of the map design. It can sometimes be enjoyable, but after playing the battlefield beta, this multiplayer, and really this whole game are a largely pleasureless experience for me.    … Expand
  29. KittyWhisky
    Mar 24, 2017
    6
    Continued amazing series of Black Ops I was absolutely not expecting this. I think many did not expect this to continue. Doubt crept in since the announcement - the game has a cooperative. But co-op kills the narrative. The plot in Black Ops 1 and 3 was intriguing and crazy, the characters were wonderful.

    In the story it turned out better than I expected. The plot is very ambitious, but    Continued amazing series of Black Ops I was absolutely not expecting this. I think many did not expect this to continue. Doubt crept in since the announcement - the game has a cooperative. But co-op kills the narrative. The plot in Black Ops 1 and 3 was intriguing and crazy, the characters were wonderful.

    In the story it turned out better than I expected. The plot is very ambitious, but unfortunately it's not an RPG, and the writers failed in a shooter to submit a clever plot. What happened in the end we can only guess, as the writers gave us enough clues to get a complete picture.

    Gameplay with the last part changed, mainly because of the abilities is a good find and nicely dilutes the gameplay. It is a pity that combining styles is possible too late level. A lot to pass this game not everyone wants such a sad story (sad for Call of Duty series and Black Ops). I especially missed you at the stages when you need to gradually destroy the robots is boring.

    The multiplayer in the beta I really liked. On release, he was absolutely unplayable because of the lag and terrible ping. Repaired it for a very long time, and now to play it is not even desirable. Zambi the regime has become more entertaining, since we are in the unusual setting, and this mode is fun as usual. Although, why should it play, if there are more good games for shooting zombies.

    Black Ops 3 is not a sequel, which I shook. For Treyarch it is a huge step back. Graphics are surprisingly bad, much worse than in Advanced Warfare. Why you can recommend? In the story there are interesting locations, a bit of surrealism, very good gameplay - a fun run around, kill everyone, and move on to use abilities.    … Expand
  30. gold
    Sep 23, 2018
    6
    Сюжет - 7, графика - 5, геймплей - 6. Концовка - хороша, локации - круты, музыка - 9. И всё.
    ИТОГ: 6.890/10
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 »