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. 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
  2. polish57
    Nov 10, 2010
    4
    Campaign pretty good: 7 out of 10
    Multi player: 2 out of 10 i was expecting a lot more i just feel like i own this game already. (MW2) 60 bucks to play MW2 again?...
    zombie mode is a sweet addition though
  3. 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
  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. gratedjuice
    Nov 15, 2010
    4
    This game suffers from the been there done that syndrome. Cod Fans will shower it with praise and anyone searching for realistic combat will be left with a bad taste in their mouths. The game boasts Black ops in the name and falls flat on it's face when it attempts to deliver. This is an expansion pack not an actual game.
  6. Puffinparoxysm
    Nov 15, 2010
    4
    I have to give this game a 4 because the graphics suck. The audio sucks. And the multiplayer. Has to much crap going on. The guns are a joke and look like garbage. And sniper rifles are pointless in this game. And the worst thing is that online is laggy as hell. And campaign sucks with no depth
  7. WoundedPatriot
    Nov 16, 2010
    4
    COD BO stinks. The only thing that changes with these guys is the maps. The game is still a big, run around and shoot anything that moves game, which completely destroys any semblance of a real combat game. For those of us who only play occasionally, BO is a step backward. The introduction of gambling, what is all that about? And the statistics are laughable. For example, "PlayersCOD BO stinks. The only thing that changes with these guys is the maps. The game is still a big, run around and shoot anything that moves game, which completely destroys any semblance of a real combat game. For those of us who only play occasionally, BO is a step backward. The introduction of gambling, what is all that about? And the statistics are laughable. For example, "Players have run around the earth 83 times so far". Huh? Leveling up requires you to buy everything? Again, what the heck? I guess the game makers want you to buy the $19.99 book to figure out what the heck to do. Now the remote control car is kind of cool the first 10 times you get hit with it, or blow up an opposing player, BUT after that, "ZERO enjoyment".… Expand
  8. fireblaze
    Nov 16, 2010
    4
    The story had a good twist, but the gameplay was boring, visuals were just OK . The multiplayer was more of the same. I enjoyed Medal of Honor way more than this latest COD installment.
  9. podunk411
    Jul 17, 2011
    4
    At this point, I think COD Black Ops is mostly riding on Multiplayer. The single player campaign was a disgrace--I actually felt embarrassed for Treyarch--who designed that ? Didn't anyone from Treyarch actually play the solo campaign? Everyone I know who's played it has found right away all the silly loops you get stuck on, or the wonderful "Barrel of Fail" where what--I don't hit oneAt this point, I think COD Black Ops is mostly riding on Multiplayer. The single player campaign was a disgrace--I actually felt embarrassed for Treyarch--who designed that ? Didn't anyone from Treyarch actually play the solo campaign? Everyone I know who's played it has found right away all the silly loops you get stuck on, or the wonderful "Barrel of Fail" where what--I don't hit one button right and I'll never get past the level? That's a mistake, not real gameplay. And as most have pointed out, multiplayer is just a new skin of COD MW2 --except with maps that seem a little less thought out. I sure hope MW3 brings something new to the table b/c this is getting a little old especially for the $. Don't even get me started on the Expansion maps that cost a third of the game itself!… Expand
  10. DerKrieger
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Many of my friends and various critics are raving about this jewel encrusted gift from the heavens, COD Black Ops; because of their rave review I went out and spent 60$ 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Schmidt
    Feb 8, 2011
    4
    The effort is obvious, and commendable. By recycling the same formula as usual, but adding a few new features, Treyarch have impressed the masses. But this is only filler, just like World at War, following the absolutely magnificent Modern Warfare 2 (possibly the best FPS I have ever played) and keeping the fans on their toes in preparation for the massively anticipated number 3. GraphicsThe effort is obvious, and commendable. By recycling the same formula as usual, but adding a few new features, Treyarch have impressed the masses. But this is only filler, just like World at War, following the absolutely magnificent Modern Warfare 2 (possibly the best FPS I have ever played) and keeping the fans on their toes in preparation for the massively anticipated number 3. Graphics are shameful for a modern game, as is the sound. The campaign is, although creative, quite uninvolving, and the multiplayer is extremely patchy, amateurish and tedious (the maps, too, are awful at times, although improvements have been made lately). It's a COD release, so that as a starter point obviously earns points, but Black Ops is hardly worth the attention of serious fans, despite going down a storm with 'pro gamers' who seem to think that running in circles and jumping up and down while aimlessly blasting poorly designed weapons is realistic, exciting and tactical. I'll take MW3 now, please!… Expand
  14. cancerouspete
    Mar 15, 2011
    4
    was fun up until the guns got nerfed, the host-match system sucked, and the lag made the game more painful to play everyday. I was thoroughly disappointed after all the hype. going back to MW2 was a breath of fresh air
  15. 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.
  16. THE_COCONUT_MAN
    Apr 11, 2011
    4
    In my opinion the story campaign is about as clever as CoD is ever likely to be. Good to see Zombies return. My one major gripe being that the multiplayer side of the game is horrible, we can all complain about there being no dedicated servers, but this really makes an impact on the core part of gameplay, the shooting. Bullet registration is beyond a joke, it seems like half the time youIn my opinion the story campaign is about as clever as CoD is ever likely to be. Good to see Zombies return. My one major gripe being that the multiplayer side of the game is horrible, we can all complain about there being no dedicated servers, but this really makes an impact on the core part of gameplay, the shooting. Bullet registration is beyond a joke, it seems like half the time you are lucky to make your mark and even if you try and evade your enemy by running round a corner the bullets are likely to follow you. All in all story campaign, yes, Multiplayer no!… Expand
  17. Chrislake94
    Jun 4, 2011
    4
    Overrated guns are terrible, Online is terrible. You die too easily. People are dumbasses calling it "Best Call of Duty game" It's second to worst after World at War.
  18. island
    Aug 30, 2011
    4
    Boring gameplay, the charachers seem like homelesses, predictable acts but the worst thing is the multiplayer. Lots of cheaters and campers, suck at all
  19. 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
  20. fail4me
    Oct 3, 2011
    4
    This is the same COD you know and love, but thats a problem. To familiar multiplayer, weird and irritating campaign, but zombies can be pretty good. Treyarck made what could be a great game, a lame game.
  21. SolidLinkSnake4
    Nov 4, 2011
    4
    I made a new review , because I accidentally gave a 10 to this game when I meant to give this 4. It is the same Call of Duty and an interesting story. So the thing is rent it or not get it at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  22. iAGR
    Nov 16, 2011
    4
    For sure one of the worst Call of Duty -games released. I had my fun playing this game for a month and then I quit. Also, what's with the pointless amount of map-packs? And I don't understand why Treyarch tried to turn a Call of Duty -game into Battlefield. They took away the fun factor and tried to make it as realistic as possible. That just ruined the game! Although Theater Mode was aFor sure one of the worst Call of Duty -games released. I had my fun playing this game for a month and then I quit. Also, what's with the pointless amount of map-packs? And I don't understand why Treyarch tried to turn a Call of Duty -game into Battlefield. They took away the fun factor and tried to make it as realistic as possible. That just ruined the game! Although Theater Mode was a good invention.… Expand
  23. danski46
    Dec 26, 2011
    4
    Just bought this for £10 & what a waste of money, horrible gameplay , unimaginative ways of making the game hard (infinite enemy spawns, grenade spam etc) all meaning you cannot use your own strategy to beat it , I should have learned my lesson from waw... no more cod for me.
  24. XxNightvHawkxX
    Feb 24, 2013
    4
    I am someone who went straight from CoD 4 to Black Ops, and let me tell ya, this game is TERRIBLE.

    Call of Duty: Black Ops is VERY repetitive and takes no skill. The developers did not try at all to add variety to the game. It got so boring.
  25. 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.
  26. 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!
  27. ravenXII
    Nov 10, 2010
    3
    Single player is horrible with same generic linear gameplay trying to tell a strory, but it falls in horrible ai and lazily scripted event with not even close ot enough triggers to make gameplay fluent and ai teammates to feel real. This is which breaks the flow of the game and cant really get into it no matter how hard i try. Same problems still exist to every cod game after COD2.Single player is horrible with same generic linear gameplay trying to tell a strory, but it falls in horrible ai and lazily scripted event with not even close ot enough triggers to make gameplay fluent and ai teammates to feel real. This is which breaks the flow of the game and cant really get into it no matter how hard i try. Same problems still exist to every cod game after COD2. Teammates keep emptying clips at visible opponents without actually killing anything until player finds the trigger which gets the teammates to move forward.

    Multiplayer is very normal cod quality though making snipers unusable makes the game faster which is better in arcade shooter like this. The new game modes are fun but not enough to merit buying this if you already own mw1, bc2 or even mw2.    … Expand
  28. Jestersheepy
    Nov 10, 2010
    3
    All this game feels like is that Treyarch is getting a piggy back ride from Infinity Ward. The game still feels of the old eras like World At War and it still feels like they have taken everything from infinity ward and added in a few more things here and there, personalized it and called it a game. When in reality, they add remote controlled toy cars, guided rockets, flame throwers andAll this game feels like is that Treyarch is getting a piggy back ride from Infinity Ward. The game still feels of the old eras like World At War and it still feels like they have taken everything from infinity ward and added in a few more things here and there, personalized it and called it a game. When in reality, they add remote controlled toy cars, guided rockets, flame throwers and more unbalancing, unrealistic items to the game. In my opinion the design in these games and even the graphics seem somewhat... Stale. Treyarch has gone way down in my expectations and I won't be buying a game from them, and yes even if it has a very successful name above it like 'Call of Duty'... Over hyped, overrated and took way too much credit where simple indie developers deserve better.… Expand
  29. 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
  30. SlipshodDread
    Nov 10, 2010
    3
    It is hard to know where to start with this game, due to it's massive failings and the new things it brings to the Call of Duty franchise.

    Graphically it is not even as detailed as Call of Duty 4, with chunky objects not smooth ones, washed out colours, really blurred textures. In fact the only models that have anywhere near enough detail are the guns and the players, everything else    It is hard to know where to start with this game, due to it's massive failings and the new things it brings to the Call of Duty franchise.

    Graphically it is not even as detailed as Call of Duty 4, with chunky objects not smooth ones, washed out colours, really blurred textures. In fact the only models that have anywhere near enough detail are the guns and the players, everything else (explosions, cars, walls, crates, buildings) should look far better than they do. I would compare it's graphics to COD 3, another one of Treyarch's feeble creations.

    To constantly see people saying how good the graphics are leads me to believe that the reviewers/general people, have never played COD4 or COD MW2. To say the graphics compare to Modern Warfare 2 is near blasphemy, and also incredibly ignorant. (My earliest COD purchase. Black Ops was my first title in the COD series developed by Treyarch, however I have played COD 3, 5 and obviously own Black Ops.) Looking back at COD 2, the graphics there are almost on par with Black Ops, at least online that is. However Let's be realistic, how many people seriously bought Black Ops for the campaign mode?

    The Music in Black Ops is suitably atmospheric, however it never captures the mood anywhere near a similar level to Modern Warfare 1 and 2, such as the epic finales of both games. As such it never renders any real level of connection with the character, unaided by the fact that the voice of the main character (Mason) was clearly done by Sam Worthington i.e. Jake Sully (Avatar), Marcus Wright (Terminator Salvation), Perseus (Clash of the Titans). This makes the game feel fake, and whilst the voice acting itself is good, the whole lot never meshes together fluidly, so you feel that you are an observer, nothing more.

    Now comes the really disheartening part. As if the poor multiplayer graphics were bad enough, the game engine lends the title no favours. The aiming system online is poor. There is almost no response as to whether you are aiming at someone, movement feels clunky and jerky, aiming is not the best experience either, and neither is the damage calculation. Suffice to say that if you have taken any damage whatsoever, falling off a ledge more than your character model's height, pretty much results in instant death. The melee system hits almost 100% of the time, whether the other person was actually aiming at you or not, and the response time between pulling the trigger and the gun firing is very noticeable.

    It feels like the game engine was also ripped straight from COD 3, and is so unrefined as to cause my Xbox to actually have to slow down. I have never had this problem on any other Call of Duty game I have ever played. Modern Warfare 2 runs flawlessly on my machine even after hours of play, whereas 10 minutes of Black Ops causes my Xbox to struggle even when there is no lag and I have a 4 bar connection. This is a major blow to the Call of Duty series, as Infinity Ward pride themselves in remaking the game each time they bring a new title out. Call of Duty 2 was well received and was one of the best FPS on Xbox for a long time. Call of Duty 3 barely even got mentioned, as it is basically the ugly sister: an unpolished, unfinished, unmotivated attempt at taking what Infinity Ward created and effectively cutting and pasting with a few lack lustre additions that negatively affect the game.

    Conversely, Treyarch have consistently shown that they can take a ready made and highly refined game engine and produce a sub par end product. Read: COD 3, COD World at War, and now COD Black Ops. Everything that Modern Warfare 2 brought, Black Ops seems to have removed. Highly detailed graphics, Smooth running game engine, innovation and addition to the famous multiplayer Call of Duty experience, taking the best of COD 4, and improving on it. Except Infinity Ward made a whole new game engine for MW2, they didn't copy the COD 4 engine, unlike Treyarch, who did copy it for World at War and managed to produce a low quality product from something that originally was done so well.

    Black Ops does bring new ideas to the Multiplayer area, such as the COD currency to buy perks, weapons, emblems, camoflagues etc. This could be refined slightly more, however as it is a new addition to the COD franchise, I will not be to picky about it, as it does work, and it is useful to stop everyone having the best weapons possible.

    This however does not make up for s seriously lacking game. Single player is good for about 2 hours, and multiplayer is fine for however long it goes on being repetitive until you become bored. Should still be at the drawing board, not as a fully released title, especially not in the COD franchise. Treyarch continuing what they probably always will do....    … Expand
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 »