PC GAMER: Critical Review of Call of Duty: Black Ops

[QUOTE="gamer620"] So PG-13 rated films should throw in grown up words despite the fact that kids have access to them?millerlight89

COD's getting a tad repetitive. Would like to see a sci fi one though.

8 is fine if you ask me. I wouldnt mind a 7 but a 6.5? Its too harsh.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]8 is fine if you ask me. I wouldnt mind a 7 but a 6.5? Its too harsh.KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="dakan45"]8 is fine if you ask me. I wouldnt mind a 7 but a 6.5? Its too harsh.dakan45

*yawn* ... I really enjoy this game. I don't care who or what levies criticism against it, it's not going to change the fact that for me it's one of the fastest paced, most addicting games on the market now. Love it. :)

*yawn* ... I really enjoy this game. I don't care who or what levies criticism against it, it's not going to change the fact that for me it's one of the fastest paced, most addicting games on the market now. Love it. :)

psn8214

What you don't know won't hurt you.

First of all...let me say to you guys that iam not a big fan of COD MW2 or BO...In fact, i hate MW2 mp...It is my "all time" worst game purchased...

BUT, you cant say COD games suck...COD 2 it's one of the best (war based) fps ever made...COD4 is a very good fps also...now COD MW2 its also a good fps game and so its Black Ops...but just "a good" game,nothing more.Black Ops its not a AAA game thats for sure,but under no circumstances is a 6.5 game...

In my opinion the game deserves a 7.5 or even a solid 8...there are alot more fps's out there that are worst than COD BO...

I will not buy(i played BO mp a little...meh)COD OP because in my opinion its a clone of MW2...But this doesent mean the game sucks...it only means that the game is pricey as hell for an "expansion" and its not on my taste...

what is the maximum number of players you can play in mp? it is up to 60 players like previous cod's(2,4,5)?

I've enjoyed all the CoD games. But with each new installment it leaves me wanting some change in the formula more and more. At least with the singleplayer. I'm getting a bit tired of the advance, dominate endless AI spawns, advance again, dominate again, wash, rinse, repeat formula. And despite having friendly AI always attempting to give the illusion that they are helping me, I still always feel like I am fighting in a one-man army.

Then of course there is multiplayer. I've been getting sick of the multiplayer formula in all war shooter games. I know I am in the minority here, but the experience always feels the same, no matter what war shooter game it is.

" ... It's still grossly unfair, of course ... Yeah, give the players who already have the advantage ofskillandexperiencethe added advantages of better guns, more damage, more powerful perks, and – when they inevitably achieve a streak of kills – a ****ing helicopter to kill everyone on the map for them. That'll even things out ..."

Stopped reading there, it seems reviewers have lost site of games that try to be "e-sports" and are now writing complaints about the difference between skilled players and casuals?

Pathetic. oh no, a hard earned helicopter that anyone with a braincell can take cover from or shoot down with a simple ****change for one godamn life. THE HORROR.

Rewarding skill over casuals killstreak chaining? OH NOES LETS MARK IT DOWN.

This is not half as bad as thier Heroes of Newerth review though.... PC Gamer doesnt have a clue anymore.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Far from it. Why does it deserve more than a 6.5? Because it's an action FPS game with moderately decent production values? The gameplay ideas are constantly reused, along with that dated looking engine.KHAndAnime

I've enjoyed all the CoD games. But with each new installment it leaves me wanting some change in the formula more and more. At least with the singleplayer. I'm getting a bit tired of the advance, dominate endless AI spawns, advance again, dominate again, wash, rinse, repeat formula. And despite having friendly AI always attempting to give the illusion that they are helping me, I still always feel like I am fighting in a one-man army.

Qixote

i think a lot of people have felt like this for some time but, despite the formula you describe, previously the campaigns have always delivered some degree of thrills and excitement. this sp is the first that hasn't and instead has actually offended me in how ridiculously contrived and simplistic it is.

the top down level where you get to direct your team stands out as being one of the most utterly pointless and tacked on levels i can remember in any game ive played in a long, long time. i struggle to see how that campaign can impress anyone tbh and i stand by my comment that 6.4 is a fair score

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Far from it. Why does it deserve more than a 6.5? Because it's an action FPS game with moderately decent production values? The gameplay ideas are constantly reused, along with that dated looking engine.KHAndAnime

I understand I am really nitpicking here. Also, my dislike for MW 2 is all too popular, but I don't hate this series or anything, but the series is really beginning to get offensive.

Look, the series made tons and tons of money, and I would have loved to see them do something different. Instead, they give us THIS.

Does that mean the entire game is terrible. No. But it just goes to show that at some point, the developers got REALLY lazy.

Remember sections in Medal of Honor which were badly scripted? Call of Duty at this point is really no different. Its rather offensive that they are charging $60 for this.

So yes, I would say 6.5 seems fair.

chandu83

This is why I love PC Gamer. If it's a duck, they'll usually call it a duck.

Let's see.. A game that's priced at $60 that really doesn't bring much of anything new to the genre, and is essentially a rehash of 2 of the last 3 games in the series, all of which were released within the last 3 years? Yeah.. I'd say 64/100 is pretty fair. Maybe overly generous. The game looks old, plays old, and is overpriced.

I'm not sure what there is to defend. If these COD games were selling for about $30, then they might deserve better ratings. But honestly, what did you expect coming from a serious PC Gaming publication? They're not going to compare it to all of the other consolesque garbage that comes out and get caught up in the hype. They're comparing it to other PC games that have come out in the last couple of years. Sorry folks, it's not a particularly good game. Especially not for $60. I have to laugh at all the COD fanboys who ran out at midnight to buy Black Ops, and now insist that it's some great game. So many paid-off, butt-kissing reviewers out there giving the game 8's and 9's.. makes me sick. Forgive me if I don't get excited to run out and spend $60 on a game every year that's almost just like the last one in the series.

They are milking COD really bad.. and this reviewer is just calling it like he sees it. I was a huge fan of the original COD, as well as COD2. They kinda lost me with Modern Warfare, and bored me with World at War. I really don't like the feel of Treyarch games. They always felt like cheap imitations of the original Infinity Ward creations.

Sorry folks, it's not a particularly good game.

hartsickdiscipl

That's opinion more so than fact, but being 'good' isn't always makes a game fun.

The fairest review I've seen yet.

I shouldn't have bought it. Oh well, back to Reach.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="dakan45"] Well? I said i dont mind a 7 and you had to make it like its supose to get an inferior rating. Why? cant you be happy that i did not over-rate it like the previous cod game? Anyway i personally think that the production values are far superior from most multiplats and the new ideas are clearly better and higher in number than every average shooter that pops in the market and the engine and graphics look great in comparison with other multiplats. So i cant really see what you are seeing that made you state what you just stated.

Elann2008

you'd rate black ops, which you like, at least an 8 and mw2, which you didnt like, at least an 8? i dont think you should be lecturing anyone on rating games

i'd give it around a 7, it is fun but it's just another military shooter, does nothing new & it is too short.

i'd give it around a 7, it is fun but it's just another military shooter, does nothing new & it is too short.

PcGamingRig

[QUOTE="PcGamingRig"]

i'd give it around a 7, it is fun but it's just another military shooter, does nothing new & it is too short.

groowagon

[QUOTE="NeoStar9"]So is it a situation in the end that Treyarch/Activision simply don't care about the PC version of the game all that much? That the order in which they do are Xbox 360, PS3 and then a distant 3rd the PC and even at a more distant 4th the Wii?chandu83

We could speculate about whether or not they care about the PC version. In the end, the record books say, its sold millions.

So what can we take away from this?

If you don't like a game, don't play it. Simple. You would be doing your bit by letting your money do the talking. After I learned that the campaign is going to be 6 hours long, and I was reaasonably sure that the engine is still the same, and the gameplay is almost exactly the same, I decided not to buy this game.

There are quite a few people who would rather play a demo before choosing to buy or not. How can I be sure that I do or don't want to buy a game without a playable demo?

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

" ... It's still grossly unfair, of course ... Yeah, give the players who already have the advantage of skill and experience the added advantages of better guns, more damage, more powerful perks, and – when they inevitably achieve a streak of kills – a ****ing helicopter to kill everyone on the map for them. That'll even things out ..."

Baranga

False.

Of course, certain people will feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, having their self-righteousness validated. The same magazine gave The Witcher 67% ("An RPG in poor action-game disguise") and claims Dragon Age is the RPG of the decade. Need I say more?

I agree with the magazine on those scores completely. I also agree with the COD BO score as this plays just like all the other COD games. I don't get where people are saying this is so much better than MW. Most of all, I still don't understand why the Witcher gets so much hype for being a very boring mediocre game.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chandu83"]

We could speculate about whether or not they care about the PC version. In the end, the record books say, its sold millions.

So what can we take away from this?

If you don't like a game, don't play it. Simple. You would be doing your bit by letting your money do the talking. After I learned that the campaign is going to be 6 hours long, and I was reaasonably sure that the engine is still the same, and the gameplay is almost exactly the same, I decided not to buy this game.

chandu83

There are quite a few people who would rather play a demo before choosing to buy or not. How can I be sure that I do or don't want to buy a game without a playable demo?

That is another sad story. No demos. Well, what I usually do is, if there is no demo, I talk to people. Mostly on Xfire and on forums. I ask them specific questions. That should tell me what I want to know.

Not having demos has really cut down on the amount of games that I buy. It might be for the better.. for my wallet and health that is. I know that Black Ops isn't worth $60 to me in any case.

So obviously you hated Half Life 2 then because that is just a scripted!Daytona_178

not even nearly as scripted as CoDs. it gave you a lot more room to make your own decision. i actually played some parts multiple times, just because you were able to do things differently. not always, but often. they also used physics cleverly.