Call of Duty: Black Ops

 Xbox 360
User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1770 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 966 out of 1770
  2. Mixed: 419 out of 1770
  3. Negative: 385 out of 1770
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. r6ruffrider
    Nov 10, 2010
    3
    I'm sorry I bought this game. I've never been a big fan of the campaign but I have always loved the multiplayer of the COD franchise. But I felt this multiplayer lacks when compared to the previous titles. The graphics look worse than MW2, and the game play is EXACTLY the same. They added a few new killstreaks and call it a NEW game? The maps are small and boring, and I refuse to payI'm sorry I bought this game. I've never been a big fan of the campaign but I have always loved the multiplayer of the COD franchise. But I felt this multiplayer lacks when compared to the previous titles. The graphics look worse than MW2, and the game play is EXACTLY the same. They added a few new killstreaks and call it a NEW game? The maps are small and boring, and I refuse to pay 800-1200 Microsoft points to get new maps when they come out. Overall I wish I could have my 60 bucks back. I hate when major titles change developers, it ruined the Final Fantasy series and now the COD series. Bottom line.... Black Ops effin' lame.… Expand
  2. PsychoSimatic
    Nov 10, 2010
    1
    Quick look at the review:

    Conclusion: Wish i had not purchased this, it certainly shouldn't cost $60 and it was a big let down Pro: Story line was engaging Cons: A quick summary if you dont want to read below: Graphics are the same but run worse (ya i don't get it either, go figure) Shorter than the first, took me 4 hours 20 minutes to beat on Hardened collecting all but 2 pieces of    Quick look at the review:

    Conclusion: Wish i had not purchased this, it certainly shouldn't cost $60 and it was a big let down

    Pro: Story line was engaging

    Cons: A quick summary if you dont want to read below:

    Graphics are the same but run worse (ya i don't get it either, go figure)
    Shorter than the first, took me 4 hours 20 minutes to beat on Hardened collecting all but 2 pieces of intel.
    Multiplayer is buggy and laggy, constant kicks, crashes, disconnects make it close to unplayable.
    for $60 you get a poorly made expansion that will let you down.

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

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

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

    To the Critic's that have reviewed this. Did you even play Modern Warfare 2? How can people even suggest that this "tops" that? You had to crawl through a trench under heavy machine gun fire in front of the WHITE HOUSE in the first one, nuclear war, defending the homeland they managed to hit every button to get people to connect with their game. The story of this game is a giant flash back, that has nothing to do with us, and lets just say the ending was a joke.    … Expand
  3. ColdSpike
    Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Meh. Stuck on Rebirth Island in a loop. Standing behind the Russki he says I've been spotted and he just stands there and I'm looking around trying to see who spotted me, and trying to figure where all of the bullets are coming from.

    If I don't hit the marks that the developers say I should I die. I REALLY hate having to play a level over and over, and over, and over, from the start    Meh. Stuck on Rebirth Island in a loop. Standing behind the Russki he says I've been spotted and he just stands there and I'm looking around trying to see who spotted me, and trying to figure where all of the bullets are coming from.

    If I don't hit the marks that the developers say I should I die. I REALLY hate having to play a level over and over, and over, and over, from the start because I didn't jump fast enough, or read the BS directions about hitting X to deploy the parachute. BO is more frustrating than fun. Once I complete it I won't be replaying the campaign, and since I don't have Gold Live multi player is out. If the Zombies game sucks I'll be selling it back to Gamestop.    … Expand
  4. MichiganMotorz1
    May 15, 2011
    1
    Most people buy this game for the online play. The truth is that Black Ops is a failure for multiplayer use.
    Lobbies are never synchronized....leaving huge gaps in aiming and target hit markers. Often times you can be killed without ever having actually been in view of the enemy. The spawns are horrible. Enemy players can sit where you will spawn in front of them, allowing them to shoot    Most people buy this game for the online play. The truth is that Black Ops is a failure for multiplayer use.
    Lobbies are never synchronized....leaving huge gaps in aiming and target hit markers. Often times you can be killed without ever having actually been in view of the enemy. The spawns are horrible. Enemy players can sit where you will spawn in front of them, allowing them to shoot you without a chance of even getting one step taken. Poor design and a waste of money. I will NEVER buy a Treyarch game again.    … Expand
  5. holloway
    Jan 31, 2011
    4
    With a single-player campaign that, thanks to the frequency of cut-scenes and barely-interactive "action", Black Ops hardly qualifies as a videogame, and certainly represents a retrograde step even from the original Call of Duty. With a confused multiplayer suffering from featuritis and a lack of variety or coherence in its maps this is an inferior deathmatch experience to Modern WarfareWith a single-player campaign that, thanks to the frequency of cut-scenes and barely-interactive "action", Black Ops hardly qualifies as a videogame, and certainly represents a retrograde step even from the original Call of Duty. With a confused multiplayer suffering from featuritis and a lack of variety or coherence in its maps this is an inferior deathmatch experience to Modern Warfare or Modern Warfare 2, though the wager matches, particular One in the Chamber and Sticks and Stones add some interest. If this isn't the final nail in the coffin for the franchise, then they've at least measured-up the corpse.… Expand
  6. BChlid
    Dec 14, 2010
    3
    The reviewers obviously just see the cod logo and say ten. if any of them spent more than 10 minutes on they game they would realise how broken it is. it is nigh on impossible to play more than one game in a row in the same lobby and pretty difficult just to get into a game. once in a game you then get to the real heart of the problems. if you manage to get into the game without beingThe reviewers obviously just see the cod logo and say ten. if any of them spent more than 10 minutes on they game they would realise how broken it is. it is nigh on impossible to play more than one game in a row in the same lobby and pretty difficult just to get into a game. once in a game you then get to the real heart of the problems. if you manage to get into the game without being kicked out you will soon find yourself killed instantly by an impossible to avoid claymore or camped by someone sat in a corner with a motion sensor covering an objective. all this is ignoring the awful graphics as i am a big believer that aslong as the gameplay is sound graphics don't matter but to say they are sub MW2 is an understatement. from what is one of the biggest games of the year i find this a great dissapointment. Between the small frag friendly maps and the awful RC-XD i find it hard to continue playing this game. But the game does have a few game changing features one of which is the split screen multiplayer which keeps me from going back to MW2 the far superior game. aswell as the split screen we get wager matches which while i do not see them as better than normal game modes are a nice distraction. finally the theater mode is good as it allows you to save any of those wow moments.… Expand
  7. DerKrieger
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Many of my friends and various critics are raving about this jewel encrusted gift from the heavens, COD Black Ops; because of their rave review I went out and spent 60$ on this game. Put it in the Xbox and was immediately blown away by the fantastic opening cut scene and neat menu, selected my difficulty and began my experience. I though the whole interrogation thing was pretty cool, even though it was exactly like the one in Black for the PS2 some years ago, and began playing the first mission. Liked it at first and close up the graphics in the "cut scenes" were pretty good. Then I walked out of the bar and began shooting. that is when I noticed the terrible visuals. After about 30ft everything just blends together and becomes one massive blob of brown. I failed that mission a few times because I shot civilians instead of soldiers because I couldn't tell the difference; the visuals are that muddy. The weapon sounds also don't sound very good either. Whatever I thought, a bit of a sacrifice for good game play right? Wrong. After shooting a large number of endlessly re-spawning enemies, which all look identical by the way, I got to an alley with a car. I thought, "Wow please don't tell me I have to drive that?" remembering all the terrible driving sections in Treyarch's previous COD titles. Sure enough I have to drive it that was terrible, however, you smash through a road block which was pretty good but I missed most of the awesomeness of the situation because the screen fades and they yank you back to the stupid interrogation which just reiterates plot points that we all got hours ago. This wouldn't be so bad, but it seems, especially in the beginning of the game, they do this during every awesome moment of game play. After some more cut scenes I'm in prison with Reznov, and fighting my way past many Russian prison guards, that again, look all the same. This mission annoyed me. At one point a hallway opens up with a room at the end with enemies in, it turn out this is where they all endlessly re-spawn. if you walk down it it fails you. Not fair considering it never warns you or anything. It does this a few times in the game. It fails the mission for no reason, just because you didn't do something that the game never explained or because you walked down a hallway.
    So you escape and so begins the rather preposterous, linear and samey, story of Mason. You skip about time and every location on the globe killing everything you see, mostly Russians. The missions are very gimmicky and would only be appealing if you don't have a brain and are easily distracted by action cinema cliches. Missions involve you following a linear path doing the same thing again and again, fighting of waves of re-spawning enemies. Also, all of the characters confuse swearing for wit. More F-Bombs are dropped in the first minute of game play than in all COD games combines. The campaign isn't terrible, but it isn't anything new or exciting. It is a little longer than MW2s campaign but not nearly as good. Now as I'm explaining this to me friends the insist to me that the campaign isn't that good. They say to me, "Well hey yeah multiplayer makes up for it though." "It is the best in any COD game." I question why I should pay 60$ for a game that is only have good, but they convinced me to try it,
    Multiplayer is even worse. Let's start with the Zombie modes. Zombies had always been fun. Now it isn't. The maps are so huge, dark and confusing that it isn't fun. It is just frustrating. the characters and their voices are still as annoying as in WAW. Voice acting in this game is generally not very good, just so annoying. Now online multiplayer. the first thing I noticed was the extremely confusing menu. It has so many options and information hidden in so many menus that it makes Microsoft Access look fun and inviting. So I get into a game and the next thing I notice is the lame controls. The sticks respond even slower than in single player. Also, the maps are all horrible. Terrible lay outs and spawns coupled with the graphical issue make spotting enemies nearly impossible. There are very few good perks, weapons do no damage, especially early level ones. Not to mention they all have the same rear iron sight, that is on backwards, and the fact that half them weren't even invented yet. What really makes multiplayer unplayable is the lag and connections. It takes ages to find a game and when it does it usually lags so bad that you can't move or it just kicks you or someone in your party out of the game. Not fun. Unlocks are dumb as well. Why should I have to unlock game modes and buy guns and attachments that I already unlocked? So if you are stupid enough to wast all your money on a gun that isn't very good you're stuck with it. Kill streaks are even more game breaking than in MW2 . So to sum everything up, a very overpriced, over hyped, generic FPS. Not bad not good.    … Expand
  8. montana
    Apr 9, 2011
    4
    Sound design and visuals are simply bad, and there is nothing realy new here. The single player campaign is short, and you dont realy feel strongly about the characters or the storyline.
  9. VladimirLenin
    Nov 27, 2010
    2
    Total waste of money. Just like they added new maps and crappier skins to MW2. Stick with MW2 and save your money. They should ditch Treyarch, they are killing the series softly.
  10. socaldave
    Nov 28, 2010
    0
    I played this game for a couple of hours........incedible letdown.....same old same old......graphics are actually WORSE than MW2......rinse repeat.....UGH!....Battlefield Bad Company 2 craps all over this......
  11. reedissleeping
    Nov 11, 2010
    4
    I remember my first Call of Duty experience, fighting in the pacific, thinking "Wow, its really unique how these Japanese forces rush you so aggressively." Then as the years wen't by, I realized that this wasn't a unique take on island warfare but simply how every single AI in COD games operates.

    Then I played MW2, and fell in love. You felt free to act, and on veteran, the game was    I remember my first Call of Duty experience, fighting in the pacific, thinking "Wow, its really unique how these Japanese forces rush you so aggressively." Then as the years wen't by, I realized that this wasn't a unique take on island warfare but simply how every single AI in COD games operates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Halo got a lot of crap for repeated area designs, but at least there were multiple ways to attack each situation. As Bungie put it, it was the same â    … Expand
  12. Matteo217
    Dec 18, 2010
    2
    I bought this game having high hopes as many others did as well, unfortunately all i got was the same mess that Modded Warfare 2 already stirred up. Treyarch said they did not want their game to end up like MW2, well Congratulations its WORSE. at least MW2 had decent enough Hit Registration and the Spawn system was not completely broken. MW2 also had balanced maps where sniping was atI bought this game having high hopes as many others did as well, unfortunately all i got was the same mess that Modded Warfare 2 already stirred up. Treyarch said they did not want their game to end up like MW2, well Congratulations its WORSE. at least MW2 had decent enough Hit Registration and the Spawn system was not completely broken. MW2 also had balanced maps where sniping was at least possible. When they announced they were removing Stopping Power from the game i was ecstatic i thought they would finally realize that A BULLET IS A BULLET!!!! guns should not have damage stats. They should remove damage as a stat for weapons and focus primarily on range, accuracy, mobility and rate of fire. if you get hit with a bullet you DIE. just because my gun has 4 bars of Damage and yours has 5 does not mean u win a fire fight when i put 3 rounds into your skull. If you, like myself, loved sniping well then your out of luck in order to fight the "War on Quickscoping" that Treyarch believes is happening they made it so if you don't aim down the sights for a full 2 seconds your bullet flies in some random direction like a revolutionary war musket. Threyarch needs to stop making promises they cant keep. they said it would be close to impossible to hack this game well its been a little over a month since the games release and there are already Wall hacks, Aim-bots, God Mode, No Clip, Infinite Ammo and much much more. The spawn system is non existent as well the game will consistently spawn you in the same location so some retard can run over to you place a sentry gun at your spawn and rack up the kills. The lag is also an extreme issue, if you do not have a 4 bar connection then it is virtually impossible to get a legitimate kill. Even at 3 bars bullets fail to register and do almost no damage. In MW2 it felt as if maybe 10-15% of your bullets might go unaccounted for well in BO change that to at least 50-75% of them. That may be an over exaggeration to some people but when you unload 15 bullets into one guy just to have him wheel around and shoot you twice in the leg and kill you something is definitely wrong. This game practically rewards mediocrity, the RC car is the most OP kill-streak ever put into a game, a 3 year old child with down syndrome could get the 2 kills in a row it takes ( i know its 3 kills but since everyone turns hard-line on anyway, you might as well make it 2) to get that reward. people literally can just do completely **** the whole game and towards the end just say, " hey look i have ten RCXD's to spawn kill people with". This game literally has so many bugs that by gaming "law" is Literally considered BROKEN. just to name a few... Railings: the spaces between railings on balcony's and stairs are programed as "walls" so you either can or can not shoot through them while doing minimal damage, Wanted: this is just what I'm calling it since i do not know the exact term, but when people shoot behind you as you run around cover and despite not hitting you at all the bullets almost seem to curve around the corner and get you anyway,KNIFING: its broken now so don't even try. the prime rule is, If you think you got him...you didn't. If you think you didn't get him... then you did. Air knifes are much more common then MW2 and 3arc really doesn't seem to care about it. This game literally did nothing new to the Cod franchise beside steal a bunch of ideas from Halo like their "new" currency system and map selecting in Multi player. Overall this is a piss poor game with outdated graphics and a Company backing it, cough* cough* Activision, that's to greedy to give a **** that their game has some serious problems that need addressing. If you wonder why the graphics are bad then, again look at Activison, they thought it would be a good idea to make the game 3D compatible so they down graded the graphics to satisfy the 2% margin of gamers with 3D TV's. Seriously if your going to market to a certain group then you should pick a larger one then that. This game, just like Modern Warfare 2, was fun at first but now is just another failed project. And to those who might say, "Oh you just suck, thats why ur mad", no, my KD is 2.05 and it i have 15,000 kills so no. I just know what a good game is, and this is not it. I think ill go back to Bad Company 2 and wait for Vietnam in 3 days. Lets hope Sledgehammer games learns from this and doesn't screw up Modern Warfare 3.… Expand
  13. Remainz
    Feb 17, 2011
    0
    Weapon balance is a joke, there are couple smgs and a few assault rifles that overpower all the other weapons in the game. The knifing is understandable for the fast pace action this game strives on but is still frustrating when you put a few bullets into someone then die when he slices your arm. The single player campaign is just a bunch of random scenarios tied together with aWeapon balance is a joke, there are couple smgs and a few assault rifles that overpower all the other weapons in the game. The knifing is understandable for the fast pace action this game strives on but is still frustrating when you put a few bullets into someone then die when he slices your arm. The single player campaign is just a bunch of random scenarios tied together with a ridiculously predictable plot. The multiplayer maps are mediocre compared to modern warfare 1 and 2 maps. But I guess they are designed for people who would rather mindlessly run at each other than climb even a simple learning curve. Why else would nuketown be voted for over and over again for hours before the patch limiting replaying a map was released. Which leads me to spawn locations. In every CoD I have never been killed or got a kill within a seconds of spawning as much as I do in black ops. This games adds nothing new to the series besides tomahawks and wager matches that usually rely more on luck than any skill, so it drives me crazy how so many "critics" sellout and give this game such high ratings just to appeal to the masses when other game sequels are bashed for being just a reiteration of a previous release. Maybe if the next CoD brings back the quality and entertainment of the first modern warfare the "critics" will throw tens at it claiming it is the best fps ever created. Who knows, OXM might even give it an 11, of course then they would start giving tons of games 11 and make a 12 to justify the scores...

    Overall I would give this game a 6 just because S&D can be a lot of fun, but every time I play I remember how much more fun I had on better made maps with a wider variety of weapons worth using. But I'm gonna have to go with 0 to balance out the people giving 10's with reasons such as "by far the most complete and deep gaming experience in history" or "I don't understand why so many people are complaining about this game." or my favorite "I detect battlefield fanboys in these reviews. a 0 without any reasoning to back it up?", by the way he doesn't give a single reason why the game deserves the 10 he gave it.    … Expand
  14. ErosaScuderia
    Jul 9, 2011
    4
    The campaign is decent, and the Nazi Zombies game mode is very fun. But, as we all know, the multiplayer is where so many points are lost. The hit detection is a joke, where you can be aiming at somebody precisely, and the bullets don't seem to connect. What a joke. The knifing is a joke as well, where you don't even need to be facing the guy to counter him with the knife. You can runThe campaign is decent, and the Nazi Zombies game mode is very fun. But, as we all know, the multiplayer is where so many points are lost. The hit detection is a joke, where you can be aiming at somebody precisely, and the bullets don't seem to connect. What a joke. The knifing is a joke as well, where you don't even need to be facing the guy to counter him with the knife. You can run right past him, and he'll still hit you. It's absolutely ridiculous, and so stupid. The guns aren't really balanced well either. You can have guns that somewhat powerful, but some much kick and it will just not work at all. But then there are guns that have a ludicrous fire rate, no recoil, and a two-round kill (FAMAS, obviously). Like... What is that all about. It's also bloody boring where everybody just runs around with the damn thing too. It's hard to enjoy. Please, Treyarch, leave it to Infinity Ward to deliver us Call of Duty games where they have delivered us two decent CoD's in a row.… Expand
  15. Alan250
    Jan 27, 2011
    3
    Oh my... I'll write in short and simple lines what i think. This game is ugly and sucks. The campaign is the wrost of all, weapons as well, Multiplayer is simple Camper wars. The only thing cool here is zombies coop.
  16. xXAnthonyXx
    Mar 4, 2011
    2
    Hands down, the worst X360 game I've played, to date. The campaign is ok but, I found it to be repetitive. Ah yes, now the multiplayer. It sucks, I only found only that...uh, I forgot the name but it's a little "town" with models of people in it. Avoid please. Don't be suckered in. So much hype all for nothing.
  17. IILEO
    Nov 30, 2010
    4
    Another attempt from Treyarch to outdo Infinity ward's Modern Warfare series, another failure from Treyarch yet again. Ive played every Call of Duty and this instalment of the Call of Duty series left me disappointed. Why? Because trying to fix something that isnt broken seems to be what most big games companies think is a step forward in todays games market. It almost feels as if TreyarchAnother attempt from Treyarch to outdo Infinity ward's Modern Warfare series, another failure from Treyarch yet again. Ive played every Call of Duty and this instalment of the Call of Duty series left me disappointed. Why? Because trying to fix something that isnt broken seems to be what most big games companies think is a step forward in todays games market. It almost feels as if Treyarch have tried to be too different from previous titles. The campaign is still an over the top exciting story that flings you straight into the middle of an epic war (or in this case several) and lets you develop an attachment to the characters, only to have them predictably killed. This I can deal with, it's what the call of duty series has been good at, telling a great story. I have no quarrel with that. My frustration comes from other things such as the game mechanics. Heat seeking bullets are back, chasing you around corners and punishing you for the slightest glimpse of the enemy. Infinitely spawning enemies seem to be another needless mechanic to the game to make up for poor level design. The NPC's are completely redundant now and donâ… Expand
  18. GS83
    Feb 1, 2011
    1
    This game is pritty **** bought it solely for the multiplayer and it sux.The hit detection is bodgy and how many bullets does someone need before they drop?.Honestly tho im done with this series and the first person shooter series in general,how many first person shooters have we got now.
    Ps:To any of you people that did not like WaW don't by this garbage,what a waste of money..
  19. seifer
    Jan 5, 2011
    1
    To be quite frank... i see absolutely no purpose in this game, there is already plenty of C.O.D games out there, why need another?! Well I'll tell you... Money, not your well being it is for the companies well being so go find a new game instead of the same game just with some little extra details... just like a football game
  20. Busketboof
    Mar 31, 2011
    3
    Call of duty 4: Modern Warfare 4th edition. You know how it feels when you buy a college textbook and then can't sell it back because the publisher changed 2 paragraphs and called it a new edition, that's how I feel about this game. In fact that is the cod franchise since cod 4.
  21. Sci-Fi-Dude1456
    Jul 7, 2011
    1
    This is the worst shooter game ever played!!!! Same old multiplayer, same old graphics, and the only good part of this game is the campaign and that's pretty much it 1/10.
  22. CivBase
    Sep 16, 2011
    1
    Call of Duty provided a much more interesting story that previous games, but it wasn't great and, sadly, the story was the ONLY redeeming quality. If you haven't been living on Jupiter for the past four years, you probably already know that after Call of Duty 4, there have been no major improvements to the Call of Duty series - yet Activision still manages to pump out a new copy of theCall of Duty provided a much more interesting story that previous games, but it wasn't great and, sadly, the story was the ONLY redeeming quality. If you haven't been living on Jupiter for the past four years, you probably already know that after Call of Duty 4, there have been no major improvements to the Call of Duty series - yet Activision still manages to pump out a new copy of the game every year and charge the full $60 for each one. Call of Duty isn't a bad game, but it's just wrong to re-sell the same game every year like that! And now they've bumped up the map-pack price to $15! If you own any other Call of Duty, Black Ops is nothing new; save your money for something that actually has SOME value. Cooking Mama would probably be a better investment.… Expand
  23. liquor_sto
    Sep 19, 2011
    0
    If I could give this game a negative score I would. Lets just say MW2 was near perfect (take out the auto run with the knifing and the noob tube and easy nukes), this game reversed EVERYTHING good with MW2 and COD franchise and nerfed it. Only 5 guns are competitve (OP more like it), shotguns, smgs, sniper rifles, and LMGs completely useless compared to a select few assualt rifles. NoIf I could give this game a negative score I would. Lets just say MW2 was near perfect (take out the auto run with the knifing and the noob tube and easy nukes), this game reversed EVERYTHING good with MW2 and COD franchise and nerfed it. Only 5 guns are competitve (OP more like it), shotguns, smgs, sniper rifles, and LMGs completely useless compared to a select few assualt rifles. No chieves, not nearly as good perks/killstreak awards. MP just isnt fun. (I also dominated on most games). This is coming from a hardcore CoD fan, played all the games b4 unlocking 85-90% of chievements in each.

    Oh yea anyone giving this a 10 doesnt know jack or works for treyarch.    … Expand
  24. Daedra
    Oct 25, 2011
    1
    Quoted from my review of the PC version.
    Daedra Oct 25, 2011 1 Oh you KNOW the **** drill about Post-MW games. The multiplayer is basically the same stuff as MW2, only with a WIKKID AWSOM new currency system. The only fun part about this is is the zombies, which is still rehashed from WaW. Zombies is the only thing saving this game from a zero.
    I also forgot to mention that it uses a    Quoted from my review of the PC version.
    Daedra Oct 25, 2011 1 Oh you KNOW the **** drill about Post-MW games. The multiplayer is basically the same stuff as MW2, only with a WIKKID AWSOM new currency system. The only fun part about this is is the zombies, which is still rehashed from WaW. Zombies is the only thing saving this game from a zero.
    I also forgot to mention that it uses a modified IDtech 3 engine, which has been out since 1999.    … Expand
  25. Sideburn_Slayer
    Nov 17, 2010
    3
    This game sucks. Seriously. I returned it within 2 days. NOT FUN. Back to medal of honor, or Halo reach for me. This is a big step back for the franchise. DUMB!
  26. Leviathon
    Nov 11, 2010
    0
    Yet another dissapointment hyped up pile of yack. Really (although it won't happen) we need to boycott these rubbish developers and stop buying thier sub par graphics and gamplay. As already mentioned it's like playing a game from 6 years ago with glitchy textures to boot, waste of money.
  27. mafls001
    Nov 14, 2010
    3
    Im really disapointed but at the same time i feel sorry for treyarch considering they have had some big shoes to fill against infinity ward but starting with the good stuff the online experience is very good different and most of the maps are decent and being able to buy your perks and guns through cp is agood idea too. Now the bad stuff... the campaign was average a good story but theIm really disapointed but at the same time i feel sorry for treyarch considering they have had some big shoes to fill against infinity ward but starting with the good stuff the online experience is very good different and most of the maps are decent and being able to buy your perks and guns through cp is agood idea too. Now the bad stuff... the campaign was average a good story but the same epic feel i get when i play modern warfare 2 and cod4 their was something more special about the feeling when you play with soap cpt price etc. u feel more inrolled with the game, at lot of first person shooting with very very little vechile control included which is the right to go with call of duty unfortunately treyarch included a lot of vechile controlled missions which i hated. There was tooo many way to many epic moments in black ops and i felt as though the game was doing most of those moments for me especially the ending and i was feeling more and more like i just wante to know the ending and thats it. whereas MW2 their was an objective the whole way and 1 twist in Sheppard turning againt you i was building more and more excitement towards the endand the ending itself in MW2 was really well done with nikoli and price expertly leading onto mw3. I think and really hope that infinity ward make the next mw3 because they know best.… Expand
  28. Sunybun
    Nov 11, 2010
    0
    ALLLLLLLLLL HYPE.

    Farmer ate sucks , graphics far inferior than MW2 that came out a year ago, MP lacks excitement and oooomph, don't even get started on the sound effects, they're horrible , explosions go off with just a generic pop, you barely hear people shooting from 10 feet from you , on a big map you you never get to hear anything unless you're shooting, chopper gunner can be right    ALLLLLLLLLL HYPE.


    Farmer ate sucks , graphics far inferior than MW2 that came out a year ago, MP lacks excitement and oooomph, don't even get started on the sound effects, they're horrible , explosions go off with just a generic pop, you barely hear people shooting from 10 feet from you , on a big map you you never get to hear anything unless you're shooting, chopper gunner can be right on top of you killing you and you don't hear anything!!! I would not **** as much if the game was at least fluid , but it controls clunky and just like WAW!! They just used the same mechanics with new guns that's all! And since they used the same graphics engine from more than 2 years ago and they tried to add more detail they ended up making everything blurry it looks almost like you're playing in standard definition TV and also as a result causing the game's frame rate to constantly drop giving you a headache if you play too long. This is coming from a guy that has played previous installments to death and was very much looking forward to this one. I'm so angry and disappointED . I mean Activision should have the funds to make a graphics engine from the ground up and could have made the game run and look at least as smooth as MW2. Now we're stuck with a mediocre COD game until who knows!!!!!    … Expand
  29. Tpcool
    Nov 12, 2010
    2
    I've never been a CoD fan. I wanted to try this one out, and compare it to the 'bEsT gAmE eVaR' Modern Warfare 2. Multiplayer plays exactly like it, but sadly worse. I could never find a match with my friends, I had to search myself and it still took minutes to find a match. Maps are fine, still a wonderful camping site. Zombies is still fun, but gets old VERY fast. Don't make us unlockI've never been a CoD fan. I wanted to try this one out, and compare it to the 'bEsT gAmE eVaR' Modern Warfare 2. Multiplayer plays exactly like it, but sadly worse. I could never find a match with my friends, I had to search myself and it still took minutes to find a match. Maps are fine, still a wonderful camping site. Zombies is still fun, but gets old VERY fast. Don't make us unlock the last few maps, thats just stupid. So what I'm trying to say here is that it is just a rehash of MW2, but with zombies.… Expand
  30. Why_Lie
    Jun 3, 2011
    0
    Terrible in every aspect. Themultiplayer is so dull, and repetitive it makes you want to commit. Want a decent FPS? Buy BBC2 Vietnam. Biggest letdown of the century. Period.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

22
#22 Best Xbox 360 Game of 2010
3
#3 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2010
28
#28 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 89 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 89
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 89
  3. Negative: 0 out of 89
  1. Xbox World 360 Magazine UK
    Jan 30, 2011
    72
    A short campaign which is never spectacular and never very clever, but always solid enough. [Feb 2011, p.99]
  2. 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 »