Call of Duty: Black Ops

 PlayStation 3
User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1459 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 835 out of 1459
  2. Mixed: 357 out of 1459
  3. Negative: 267 out of 1459
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. ClayG
    Nov 21, 2010
    4
    Dissapointing to say the least, this game does not feel any different from MW2, I actually still enjoy MW2 much better. The zombies are lacking and do not stand up to the fun of the W@W zombies. Have not played campaing but i expect it to be pretty good as most COD campaigns are. DO NOT GET THIS GAME, rent it first it is not worth 60$..
  2. M3chaGr4n
    Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Hello there, I felt compelled to write my first review of a computer game after playing Black Ops, for reasons that will become clear. To set the scene I'm 29 and have been playing computer games since I was about 8, i love FPSes and all sorts of other genres but particular favourites are CoD, MOH, and the Battlefield series which I play on the Ps3 and PC. I was looking forward to BlackHello there, I felt compelled to write my first review of a computer game after playing Black Ops, for reasons that will become clear. To set the scene I'm 29 and have been playing computer games since I was about 8, i love FPSes and all sorts of other genres but particular favourites are CoD, MOH, and the Battlefield series which I play on the Ps3 and PC. I was looking forward to Black Ops for a variety of reasons but mainly because I wondered how MW2 could be improved upon and I thought MW2 was pretty darn good. I held off buying MOH as I thought i'd go for the old favourite having played CoD on both systems since its' inception. I felt it right to try and wrtie an evenhanded review of this game in order to assist anyone wondering if they should fork out their hard earned cash for it. I forced myself to play to Level 19 so I could experience Hardcore mode (which was annoying to say the least to have to 'earn' that) and I played the single player campaign on veteran. I have played the game for 21 hours.

    Single Player: The graphics are atrocious. They remind me of some of the worst elements of the graphics on MW or perhaps earlier. There are various parts of the compaign that ...simply put....dont work. For instance in the cuban villa, a guard wrestles a 'baddie' over a railing. Hang on, go back, if i run in a little earlier they magically appear in front of me. In addition, I stab a guard hitting a man on the ground in the jailbreak, the man on the ground continues to flail around and then disappears. such obvious but joy-undermining flaws are abundant. Let it not be said the campaign story is not immersive if a little trite. What it fails to do is harness the basics, it does not feel like you are in a fight, it does not feel like you are firing real bullets and it does not feel like the enemy are clued up. In addition, whomever had the idea of your two buddies being bullet proof through a shower of bullets needs to check the definiton of 'realism'. How could this be fixed? I am not sure, but I would suggest that not having key characters indestructible would be a good start. Now I have to say, to be fair the guys at treyarch did get one important thing right: if you stand on a grenade your leg gets blown off. CORRECT. This type of realism is a blessing and something that should be echoed hereafter. Not since F.E.A.R have I felt that a programmer has attempted to harness 'gore' in such a way. That is something that all other FPSes so far fail to acknowledge or accomodate. However, if this is at the expense of the graphics, textures etc then perhaps it is too early, as in CoD:BO (sorry). Multiplayer: I guess that if i was 15 and loved to run around with an SMG spraying the crap out of people, or drive a tiny car that exploded this would be the game for me. Perhaps somewhere along the line I grew up (although my gf would beg to differ), or maybe CoD and in particular Treyarch didn't. What we have here is a lot of guff that will amaze the teenager in you, but for the old hands, will probably wear off in the first 6 hours of gameplay. This is of course, not an in-depth review (although some of the 'in-depth' reviews I have read should be more appropriately titled "What I Loved About CoD: BO, being as they appear to ride roughshod over the very obvious and 'epic' failings of the MP structure)., so I can only say the following. 1. The maps are tiny 2. The graphics are even worse (compare to BFBC2 for example) 3.The upgrade system is interesting but ultimately gloss 4.The modes are no different in essence to Mw or Mw2. There is nothing of substance here that could genuinely be called 'groundbreaking' or indeed 'new'. Add to those complaints the connectivity delays, the sudden closure of a server and reboot within another, the appalling sound, and the general lack of detail and what you have is a glossed up version of MW2 without any of the glorious detail or depth.Some other things that annoyed me:This cost me £39.00. not a fortune but relatively a lot of money, and what I feel like I purchased was MW2, that had been actually stripped down of its essential detail, to be replaced with gloss but no substance. It feels like a remake for a lower budget and it feels like a rip-off. The term 'expansion' springs to mind. I accept that the audience to which this game is sold is far more likely to be about 15 years of age and into the run-and-gun modes. I also accept that is where the money is, and that this game has its positives, but they appear to be so limited in imagination that I feel like I have stepped into 'Arcade CoD' and after 21 hours played I want to get right back out again. I had the night booked into my Ps3 to play online with some mates and at 20:30 I turned it off and came on here. That is how annoyingly bad, unimaginitive, and, it pains me to say. un-CoD like this game is. In summary? Save your money and avoid gushing reviews.    … Expand
  3. x__ME__x
    Nov 11, 2010
    4
    Being a older gamer i have come to the conclusion. That i have become more critical of all games. Which brings me to Black ops. Its the same old same old. I feel i am giving activision money to be lazy and not to push the bar higher. When i play games i want ground breaking, i want unique. This has neither of that. It has new perks but really all the same just new names, it has new maps,Being a older gamer i have come to the conclusion. That i have become more critical of all games. Which brings me to Black ops. Its the same old same old. I feel i am giving activision money to be lazy and not to push the bar higher. When i play games i want ground breaking, i want unique. This has neither of that. It has new perks but really all the same just new names, it has new maps, could have just put this on a map pack for MW2, This has custom guns big deal. I guess if you need a change from The quick scoping and hackers then buy black ops. its still fun and it does have new maps. That is all that has changed. I expect more from a game maker like activision. Positives: New game, new rank up system ( sort of), customize guns. cons: Plays like all the rest. To sum it up buy it, play it, and i guess enjoy it. For what its worth. I for one will be counting the days until the next big Fps.… Expand
  4. Mandala
    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
  5. Carnivale
    Nov 12, 2010
    4
    Feels like a toygame after MW2. Sounds lack depth, multiplayer has lag issues, it looks uglier than it's predecessor. Nazi zombies are still a lot of fun, too bad the multiplayer isn't as good as MW2's mp.
  6. Hugo_B
    Nov 16, 2010
    4
    I fell for the hype and pre-ordered the hardened edition of Black Ops. I wanted the extra zombie maps, and based on how good MW2 was, I didn't think I could go wrong. After about a week of playing Black Ops I am very dissapointed. The poor graphics were the first thing I noticed. A sequel should at least maintain the same level of quality in graphics, if not improve upon them. TheI fell for the hype and pre-ordered the hardened edition of Black Ops. I wanted the extra zombie maps, and based on how good MW2 was, I didn't think I could go wrong. After about a week of playing Black Ops I am very dissapointed. The poor graphics were the first thing I noticed. A sequel should at least maintain the same level of quality in graphics, if not improve upon them. The sound quality also seems below par compared to MW2. These aren't even my biggest complaints. I could overlook the sound and graphics if the gameplay was improved. In my opinion the maps are not designed as well as those in MW2. MW2 maps have more variety and combine close quarters fighting, sniping, etc... into the same maps. Because of the map design I can't find a reason to use the sniper rifles on any of the Black Ops maps. The spawn system is much worse than in MW2, especially in team deathmatch. I thought the spawn system was one of the major issues they were supposed to address in this game. Also, apparently they haven't stopped boosters and other cheaters. Within a few hours of release I was playing against people who were level 48 or 50. Really????WTF??? And as far as noob tubers and campers, I have been noob tubed more in one week of playing than I have been in my last several months of playing MW2. Also, camping is still a big problem. I think that in order to get their 9 or 11 kill streaks people are camping more than ever. The kill streaks are seriously overpowered. The chopper gunner and gunship lay waste to the other team on these small maps. I do not understand why they put the "dolphin dive" or "dive to prone" or whatever they want to call it in the game. All that move is good for is getting killed. All they have succeded in doing is messing up the smooth gameplay of MW2. The feel of the guns is not as good as MW2. The guns all feel similar. Each gun in MW2 had its own personality. They have also ruined the sniper rifles. Now when you scope in the crosshairs are off target and you have to correct. This was done to stop quickscopers. I don't quickscope, but this ruins it for me too. You are at way too much of a disadvantage using a sniper rifle. There seems to be many redundant or useless attachments for the guns. The ACOG sight would be an example of this. The ACOG sight has no magnification and there is an annoying reflection and fisheye effect when you look through the lens that obscures your view. You are better off with iron sights. In general the attachments in MW2 were better and actually did something for the gun. The gun customization also seems to be a joke. You can clownify your gun with wacky colors/camo and emblems. You can also clownify your character with facepaint. Now those are some great innovations that have improved the game! I am a fan of first-person shooters and the Call of Duty franchise in general, but this game is not better than MW2 or any of the other preceding Call of Duty games. I am shocked at the lack of honest reviews. I guess there are a lot of fanboys out there and it is not in the interest of the gaming media to not promote this game. I hope people continue to play MW2, because thats were I'll be until something better comes out.… Expand
  7. peacej74
    Nov 16, 2010
    4
    Preview:
    I have never looked forward to any game this much in over 20 years of gaming! I never imagined I could be this disappointed! Online is a shambles with all the server problems! Zombies is really boring, if I want a zombie game, I'll play resident evil! So i pinned my hopes that the campaign would be good, started ok but then the siege of Khe Sanh, is this the worst designed level    Preview:
    I have never looked forward to any game this much in over 20 years of gaming! I never imagined I could be this disappointed! Online is a shambles with all the server problems! Zombies is really boring, if I want a zombie game, I'll play resident evil! So i pinned my hopes that the campaign would be good, started ok but then the siege of Khe Sanh, is this the worst designed level ever? I wanted this game to be so good, bought it on release day and reserved opinion despite the views of friends but they were all right, and now I'm going back to MW2 online to play a game that is actually fun!!    … Expand
  8. Inzo
    Nov 16, 2010
    4
    Judging from what Killzone 3's beta had to offer and from what I have seen from Crysis 2, COD Black-ops is about to get a black eye but putting poor graphics and mediocre sound aside COD Black-ops fails in much more important areas of the game for instance the AI, especially the buddy AI, too often I found my self being pounded in the head by a rifle while the squad members at my sideJudging from what Killzone 3's beta had to offer and from what I have seen from Crysis 2, COD Black-ops is about to get a black eye but putting poor graphics and mediocre sound aside COD Black-ops fails in much more important areas of the game for instance the AI, especially the buddy AI, too often I found my self being pounded in the head by a rifle while the squad members at my side will keep firing away at some distant enemy it also happened a few times that my squad members would run past the enemy lines to get to the objective marker leaving me stranded to see off the enemy.Getting to the story I have to say its not the worst story ever told but by no means near the standard of what we have gotten use to,I could rant on and on about the disappointments of this game but I wont I just want to conclude with this, Is the critics completely open with us and they truly believe that this is a great game or is there something deeper going on here.Its your call.… Expand
  9. allstar3500
    Nov 17, 2010
    4
    Call of Duty is a Great serious, but this version does not deliver a product we are used to. (although Treyarch never seems to impress with its version of the series anyway) However i felt this version would change they're streak, it failed to do that in my mind. The sound effects first off are so anti climatic and pathetic it made the game seem funny. The health system baffles me when ICall of Duty is a Great serious, but this version does not deliver a product we are used to. (although Treyarch never seems to impress with its version of the series anyway) However i felt this version would change they're streak, it failed to do that in my mind. The sound effects first off are so anti climatic and pathetic it made the game seem funny. The health system baffles me when I turn red sometimes to let me know I'm being shot but other times I just die within a half of second. The new weapons and maps and perks are all fine and nice but those should be present in the game. They just failed to go above and beyond with the multi player. It seemed like I was playing Modern Warfare 2 all over again, but with lesser quality graphics in my mind. The campaign was an overall improvement from World at war but still didn't match anything Infinity Ward has done. All in all the series is going to be on a decline with Infinity Ward and all the critics know and are just trying to save this beloved series for a little longer by giving it decent reviews. Infinity Ward is gone, Activision is still pushing out the game too often, and no company has been brought in to take over the vacant spot. Hopefully something is done soon to change this or the most popular shooting series of our generation won't be around for much longer.â… Expand
  10. Vinny_Errero
    Nov 24, 2010
    4
    Hi, why the people choose 5.7 to be the mark. This game is so good! The Single player, the multiplayer, zombies! The game is so amazing!! The Platinum trophy is other challenge. Good graphics, good story, Amazing Multiplayer. I like Wager Matches!!!!
  11. Edrikk
    Nov 24, 2010
    4
    I love COD. I loved COD4:MW, I loved W@W, and also MW2.
    The campaign for Black Ops is good. I don't know if I would say better than the previous 3, but at least compare to W@W, the game doesn't "cheat" by throwing infinite grenades as much.
    HOWEVER, the reason people buy (and keep) COD is for its multiplayer, and this game's multiplayer is: 1) Just "off"... Doesn't feel right... I    I love COD. I loved COD4:MW, I loved W@W, and also MW2.
    The campaign for Black Ops is good. I don't know if I would say better than the previous 3, but at least compare to W@W, the game doesn't "cheat" by throwing infinite grenades as much.

    HOWEVER, the reason people buy (and keep) COD is for its multiplayer, and this game's multiplayer is:
    1) Just "off"... Doesn't feel right... I can't quantify it, but having played for so many years, I can tell you when this games just doesn't "feel" right.

    2) The sniping in this game sucks. It is simply broken. Not just for "quickscopers", but also for "normal-scoping" snipers. 3) The introduction of "COD Dollars" devalues everything in my opinion. Previously, seeing someone with a "Red Tiger" would mean that person was quite good with that weapon... In Black Ops? No problem.... Anyone can "buy" any camo for the money they earn in a single match.

    4) The lag in the online is horrendous! Don't remember it being this bad in any other iteration.


    In short, I'm afraid for the first time in this game's iteration history, I've stopped playing the "latest version" and have gone back to the prior version (MW2 in this case).


    Such a shame.    … Expand
  12. doc31
    Nov 28, 2010
    4
    Well it had to happen, you look forward to a game for months and when it arrives its a huge let down, i bought the game at midnight and have given it 12+ hours of game time over 3 days to give a fair opinion.

    Treyarch really have messed up with this installment in the COD series, its truly awful. Firstly the game looks rubbish, i cant believe how bad the graphics and animation are, im    Well it had to happen, you look forward to a game for months and when it arrives its a huge let down, i bought the game at midnight and have given it 12+ hours of game time over 3 days to give a fair opinion.

    Treyarch really have messed up with this installment in the COD series, its truly awful.

    Firstly the game looks rubbish, i cant believe how bad the graphics and animation are, im playing it on a 42" screen in HD and it looks terrible, its like playing a game on a PS2. When you compare the graphics and the game engine to MW2 its no where near as good, true, graphics should nt be the be all and end all but in 2010 you expect a certain standard, BO just looks awful.

    The sound is my biggest problem, its so bad i find myself laughing when im playing, i play with 5.1 surround sound and it does nt work properly, im constantly thinking there is someone behind me but its my own footsteps which are coming out of the wrong speakers, then sometimes you have no footsteps fx at all, terrible. Then theres the guns, explosions, aircraft fx etc, what a joke, how can they have sat in the recording studio doing the sound fx and thought 'this sounds great'? Truly awful, some of the worst sound fx i have ever heard in a game, when you throw a grenade it sounds like you a throwing an empty tin of beans, laughable. The guns all sound the same and i have to turn up the volume 8 or 9 levels higher than MW2 just to get some oomph!

    Most of the maps are rubbish, big sprawling boring rat traps, nothing interesting about them at all, and as for nuke town, whats the point?

    I know its launch week, and obviously a lot of people are playing online but should nt they have anticipated this and had the servers to cope? The game is juddering around all over the place, i dont think ive played 1 game that didnt glitch, judder, motion blur or have some glitch, so dissapointing.


    The point im trying to make is regarding the graphics & the sound, is that in a series (COD) or a sequel, surely the game must at least match what has gone before? and the goal should be to better the previous installment.

    The graphics, animation & sound especially, are all a step backwards from MW2. Of course gameplay is the number 1 priority in any game, BUT the enjoyment of playing BO is hampered by a bad graphics engine, jerky animation and some truly awful sound fx.

    I really wanted to like this game, every time ive gone to play it ive thought 'maybe this time i'll get it' but i come away disliking it even more, such a shame as there are some great ideas in there, wager matches and the theatre mode are great, but the game itself is a turkey.



    Roll on MW3.    … Expand
  13. Armin
    Oct 27, 2011
    4
    Minimum effort has been put into this game as the technology has been recycled from modern warfare 2. You could basically get this game as a mod on pc for modern warfare 2. It is that bad.
  14. cronker
    Dec 18, 2010
    4
    I like the campaign in this game although it is of course very short. It was my favorite of all the COD's. The downside to this game is the multilayer which is what most everyone is playing it for. The PS3 version of this game is plagued with problems in multilayer and it seems to be getting worse as time goes on. I've had problems with the multilayer matches disconnecting midway through.I like the campaign in this game although it is of course very short. It was my favorite of all the COD's. The downside to this game is the multilayer which is what most everyone is playing it for. The PS3 version of this game is plagued with problems in multilayer and it seems to be getting worse as time goes on. I've had problems with the multilayer matches disconnecting midway through. Now since the last patch (Dec.16th ?) its considerably worse. I estimate 75% of the matches I try end up disconnecting for everyone in them halfway through. It's frustrating to say the least. From looking around it seems that everyone is having trouble with the PS3 version. When this is fixed I'm sure it will be a good game but until then I would not recommend buying it. Bad Company 2 is a much better buy.… Expand
  15. REDTRAPGAMERS
    Apr 11, 2011
    4
    This Call of Duty was a real disappointment, The reason was the campaign and multi player the campaign because it was just not interesting at all, and the multi player because well it was the same thing just new maps.
  16. Matorka
    Jan 6, 2011
    4
    I'm a real FPS maniac, and I'm pretty darn good at it. I played CoD MW2 for a very very long time, I loved it! When Battlefield released Bad Company 2 I bought it just to try it out and to tell people the major difference. The campaign mode OWNED, and the online mode OWNED even more after playing it a couple of times. It seemed so much more realistic than MW2. The sound of the weapons, theI'm a real FPS maniac, and I'm pretty darn good at it. I played CoD MW2 for a very very long time, I loved it! When Battlefield released Bad Company 2 I bought it just to try it out and to tell people the major difference. The campaign mode OWNED, and the online mode OWNED even more after playing it a couple of times. It seemed so much more realistic than MW2. The sound of the weapons, the graphics, everything. But after a while BLACK OPS came out on Treyarchs ordinary SOOO un-original propaganda sh!t! I bought this one too see how it was, if it's as good as the ''critics'' say it is. After playing for 1 hour I got tired, I mean, really tired. I stabbed and ran around with my weapons and I got it to my head that, there's no blood?! I mean, what is a war game without blood?

    I continued playing and i did not like it, at all! Too many interruptions within the campaign mode and the creators seemed to just care about some things in the game, the interruption parts when 'Victor Reznov' was talking and that other crap. It was just too much. I've never played a game like this, when I play I play with love, I want to play the game until i clear all the missions, and I enjoy when i do that! But when I played Black Ops... I didn't want to to it, it was so crappy!

    I mean, Dice does a much more better job than treyarch do, but they get no cred at all. It's all about propaganda. Yes, BO broke all the records, but they broke one more record, most dissapointed costumers EVER!

    Thats just my opinion about this game, and i ought to tell you allt that BFBC2 and -Vietnam is soooooo much better than BO. So much better!    … Expand
  17. Fahed
    Jan 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Black Ops is one of my best games ever ,, 10 / 10 ,,
    Call of Duty " in general, one of the best games on (PS - DS - PC - Wii - Xbox), it's really fun game and good and contains many things that make you play with relish .. ;D ..    … Expand
  18. Clockwork_Soul
    Feb 11, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They did improve a few things over the last CoD and had some pro's going for them: The unlock system is much better. The bots are a nice touch. The story was cool enough; it captured a popular theme from those good old days (*cough* Manchurian *cough* Candidate *cough*). You can customize a lot about your character and weapons (well, some of them). You can create your own emblem (tho, the amount of phallic & pornographic imagery when the game first released expresses all too well what treasure there is to be gained in the US public education system).

    Now the things that were wrong: One would assume that realism would lend itself to the concept of a game based on the player assuming the part of a soldier operating with real-life military tactics rather nicely. Would've been the way I would've taken it. AK-47's, 74u's & MAC-11's easier to control on full-auto than an AUG or a FAMAS, let alone ANY of them being controllable on full auto. Primary weapon shotguns with a range of what seems to be 10' and not even mag modification attachments (look up the Ithaca 37, there were about a billion versions. Arguable the Stakeout was one specific version - still you can shoot something more than 10 friggin' feet away with it!). Dual-wielding any gun at all (again, maybe that was an action-movie concept). And, my favorite, snub-nosed pistols that become MORE accurate? Combine these realitively minor personal beefs, which probably only burned 2nd amendment enthusiasts, with the step back in graphics, the poor server quality (at least rurally), the low-quality maps which lack any type of cover or decent overlook spots, unbalanced options for successful character specs (they REALLY want you to use those SMG's, don't they), and the bugs & gliches (just tap the trigger if hipfiring, you'll hit dead-on almost everytime & with the small maps that practically force close-quarters, why ever ADS if you take one of the many preferred SMG's?), it really is a step back for the series from MW2 (the natural comparison). Still, since you can barely play MW2 online at this time, this is what's available (or MAG).    … Expand
  19. seieko_pherdo
    Jul 14, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Oh Black Ops, as a game you confuse me. While your multiplayer player is a fun endeavor and zombie mode entertaining (more so with friends for those you with lives and real friends). However your first player mode is where all the failure lies. And I mean all of it. If you read the summary you'll know this takes during the Cold War Era where American decided to be the biggest idiot ever. The story follows one guy who get to relive a bunch of missions like they were deranged flashbacks. As fan of story and character development and I can safely say this game has none. Since it's the cold war the big evil terrorist guy is some Russian and it is never explained why he hates America, or why Cuba is allied with them, or why he needs to brain wash random people with number codes, or why there's Russians in Korea. And why are all the big bad guys taken out with cut-scenes and quick time events? This is a First Person Shooter not a JRPG. The levels aren't that long ether, they take a while since two hits gets you killed and you spend most of it hiding behind a chest high wall making most weapons kind of useless. You might as well not bother with anything other than a machine gun. Not to mention finding out who is on your side or not only something you figure out after you shot them dead. Yes it looks nice the first player mode is a mess. Also I fail to see why they have hidden Intel, realistic shooters aren't the kind of games where you go exploring. That works better is game with health meters, where you don't recover from a gun wound by sucking your thumb behind a wall. Not to mention they could have made great impact had the game shown the assassination of JFK instead of a rap song and sudden mode of zombies. And if your not here for the online or multiplayer experience just pay attention in history class to get the cold war run down. At least the class will explain what the hell is going on.… Expand
  20. XxASSa33inxX
    Oct 23, 2011
    4
    call of duty black ops was a very big dissapointment to me. The graphics werent good lots of frame rate and texture issues. the multiplayer was really fun. the only fun i had was in the campaign. the campaign was one of the best in all of call of duties.
  21. Gamerwillz
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    What an awful game, multiplayer is plagued with framerate problems which is making it almost unplayable. It's not as smooth as MW2 and MW3 which are running at 60fps. The best part in this game is single player which is quite good. If you're buying this for multiplayer, steer away!
  22. DominikCZE
    Nov 9, 2013
    4
    I found this game to bring nothing new to the table. Sure there were some new game modes and weapon modding and stuff like that, but in its core, it was still the same game as Modern Warfare, repackaged for the 4th time, with a new 3 hour story and chaotic multiplayer that has nothing to do with skill.
  23. AwesomeGamezXL
    Jan 21, 2016
    4
    I'll just come out and say it: to me it felt like this game was made just to make it just to make more money. It was fun at parts, funky at others (zombie-killing was a bit out there for co-op mode), and frankly difficult enough at parts to not be fun. It just felt like the creators knew they'd made just about a perfect FPS game in COD MW2 that they wanted to throw something out there toI'll just come out and say it: to me it felt like this game was made just to make it just to make more money. It was fun at parts, funky at others (zombie-killing was a bit out there for co-op mode), and frankly difficult enough at parts to not be fun. It just felt like the creators knew they'd made just about a perfect FPS game in COD MW2 that they wanted to throw something out there to continue riding the wave of success.

    I give it two (for fun) and three (for overall) stars because it was a standard "ok" FPS game. I gameshared with a PSN friend, and I gave him CS GO for it. I didn't hate it, but it did not feel like it was at all worth trading CS GO for. It felt like it was cheaply/quickly made to sell, which they succeeded in doing if one looks at the sales figures. I look at some of the positive reviews and wonder if people are just giving 10 stars out of some sense of loyalty to a franchise they love, or if they're being influenced by the high Metacritic rating from professional reviewers. I prefer honesty, which is why I gave the PS3 Bad Company 2 game a low score, even though I loved the first one.

    I won't even go into a "why do they create video games with the primary purpose to be for online gamers???" rant. I tried it briefly and it was not fun. 16 year olds shouting racist things at 12 year olds, constant disconnecting from matches and generally bad netcode, unoriginal smallish maps, getting annihilated constantly by people who I guess do nothing else with their lives than play online gaming 24/7.

    To note: I did not have any problems at all with any OFFLINE aspects. There was no freezing, lagging, or anything else, it all worked fine.

    The plot had a good overall sort of loosely based on history feel, which I liked probably most about this game.

    Bottom-line: This game felt contrived and designed simply with the mindset of making money more than being actually fun. As with any future Battlefield games, because of how little this actually WAS fun I will wait a few months to purchase or trade anything for any future Call of Duty games until I read reviews. I would not pay more than $5 for this game.    … Expand
  24. ChuckWoolery
    Jan 25, 2011
    3
    Review of PS3 Version:

    I actually played Black Ops the other day at my girlfriend's house on the 360 and it looked sharper, the colors were more vivid although the graphics are not impressive, the PS3 version looks washed out and the sounds for each gun are terrible. Sounds: Guns are generic and indiscernable between an AK-47, Enfield, an M16 or a Skorpion submachine gun. Suppressors    Review of PS3 Version:

    I actually played Black Ops the other day at my girlfriend's house on the 360 and it looked sharper, the colors were more vivid although the graphics are not impressive, the PS3 version looks washed out and the sounds for each gun are terrible.

    Sounds:

    Guns are generic and indiscernable between an AK-47, Enfield, an M16 or a Skorpion submachine gun. Suppressors make it sound like a paintball gun. It's to the point where you feel like your weapon is underpowered all the while you can't tell them apart anyway in the battlefield. For multiplayer, grenades sound like they got thrown into a basement which come off as muffled and unimpressive.

    Killstreaks sound effects like dogs, chopper gunner, etc. have good sound but the overall battlefield sounds take away from the fun and becomes really distracting to people who regilarly played MW2 or BF:BC2.

    Graphics:

    Graphics were manageable but ugly in Multiplayer. Whats worse is on the PS3 version, the combination of horrible online lag and fugly graphics make a COD as others said "step backward" from IW's MW2 last year. Gameplay:

    Treyarch (the company that produced this year's COD game, last year Infinity Ward created Modern Warfare 2 for those whom may not know) made significant improvements (removed the tactical nuke, One Man Army, Commando, Tactical Insertion limited to team based games, Killstrak kills don't count towards Killstreak multiplier, etc.) in theory but the basic gameplay and fluid feel that we were used to in MW2 are non-existent.

    Treyarch includes Nazi Zombies, which was interesting but a good way to breakaway from playing MP and SP, added more customization allowing you to create your own emblem with pre made artwork and included new types of MP matches (Wager MAtch to gamble your earnings) but despite all the hype and granduer, it simply suffers from not being able to handle basic tasks as a fun shooter.

    For a game hyped as much as this, its a shame that Treyarch could not shake the negative perception of the quality of their games. Any true hardcore gamer or even casual gamer can read past the glowing reviews from gaming sites that conveniently omit any of these major issues on the PS3. The lag makes it impossible to line someone up in your sights to finish a kill, the maps are tiny, create lots of hiding spots for campers and are not conducive to snipers, graphics look sloppy/fugly and the sound of each gun is laughable for a game that set records...again!

    Bottom line: I really want to try and enjoy this game. All of the extra new features, Zombie Nazis, the Cold War feel of the SP, cleaning up the cheap tactics from MW2 and improving the MP experience but I can not convince myself that this is a game worth my hard earned money.

    I played this game until I reached level 21 in MP and regret I even decided to go that far.

    I first got into playing FPS online with my PS3 playing COD4 MW but it seems like Infinity Ward has more polish, ingenuity and skill at making games for the COD series.    … Expand
  25. Dell_Boi
    Nov 9, 2010
    3
    Personally I think it is 100% over-hyped, and an average game at best. Modern Warfare 2 is more fluid and vibrant and more fun to play. Black Ops feels clunky and unresponsive, with dated saturated graphics and glitchy textures. The stereoscopic 3D is very poor as well compared to games like Wipeout HD and Moterstorm which look amazing in 3D. Poor.
  26. RadarE33
    Nov 13, 2010
    3
    Played this game at a buddy's house, and watched him play online. Was not impressed, to say the least. Stupid A.I., bland level design, horrid graphics, idiotic storyline, cheap looking and sounding guns, heavily scripted combat, and lackluster, laggy online multiplayer. Nowhere near as good at MW2 (and that's means quite a bit, seeing how the MP in MW2 was unbalanced crap). Stay away.
  27. tozana
    Jan 19, 2011
    3
    I must say I had great expectations for the game. However, my PS3 version just doesn't work well. It's really awful. Constant problems with frame rates, network connections, failed migrations, etc. What a disappointment. I returned to MW2 when I want to play a FPS. I bought this game almost exclusively for the multiplayer.
  28. Wulfe
    Mar 3, 2011
    3
    Simply put, it is one of the most unbalanced and poorly constructed games on the market today, but it also happens to be very addicting. Unfortunately that means that there's going to be more like it in the future.
  29. Sideburn_Slayer
    Nov 17, 2010
    3
    Black ops is a HUGE step back for the series. I was very excited to play this, but when it arrived and I had tested it out I immediately could tell this was a downgrade. The graphics are sub par. SUB PAR!!?! For a HUGE budget game? Simply unacceptable. Not to mention the broken multiplayer. Shotguns take at least 2 hits no matter how close. Thats simply stupid. Does not live up to hype
  30. Plush
    Nov 9, 2010
    3
    Overall, this is a step down from Modern Warfare 2. I think a lot of people are too caught up in the hype to take an objective view. I'm not claiming I'm the objective one, but this game is unworthy of all the 10 out of 10 scores fanboys are so eager to slap on it. On the positive side, Theater Mode seems like a cool idea. I'd love to have a record of any epic moments. Unlocking manyOverall, this is a step down from Modern Warfare 2. I think a lot of people are too caught up in the hype to take an objective view. I'm not claiming I'm the objective one, but this game is unworthy of all the 10 out of 10 scores fanboys are so eager to slap on it. On the positive side, Theater Mode seems like a cool idea. I'd love to have a record of any epic moments. Unlocking many items, upgrades, and perks through purchases is a plus for me as well. The weak graphics are an embarrassment to the makers. I think the game would look pretty much the same in standard definition. Back in 2004, these graphics might have been neat-o, but in 2010 they're a bit hokey. The sound is also disappointing. Most everything that explodes, as an example, has a sort of generic "pop." With regard to gameplay, I agree with another reviewer who said Black Ops feels clunky and unresponsive, lacking the smoothness and fluidity I now realize I took for granted in Modern Warfare 2. As a matter of fact, Black Ops' biggest impact on me has been to help me realize just how great MW2 is. A few minutes ago--and without remorse--I decided to sell my copy of Black Ops to a friend. There are too many good PS3 games out there for me to force myself to love a mediocre one.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

13
#13 Best PS3 Game of 2010
4
#4 Most Discussed PS3 Game of 2010
19
#19 Most Shared PS3 Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 58 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 58
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 58
  3. Negative: 0 out of 58
  1. Playstation Official Magazine Australia
    Jan 25, 2011
    90
    Call of Duty: Black Ops still represents one hell of a hefty package. It's bursting with hundreds of hours of entertainment that caters to every conceivable configuration of gamer out there, be they an adversarial gamer, a co-op connoisseur or a staunch offline soloist. [January 2011 p60]
  2. Gamekult
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Cynamite
    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!
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »