Review: Call of Duty: Black Ops

[Treblaine]

1) it's only a fucking copy, the original is still back at the house, swarming with Makarov's men or the Russian Military
2) why didn't they just rip the fucking hard drive out of the computer or take the entire thing, it's not like this was supposed to look like didn't want the their presence noticed.
3) if Shepard wanted the data destroyed, why not just bomb the fucking building, hit it with napalm. Why did he order a copy made and brought to him?
4) why did he kill these loyal soldiers who suspected nothing of him, hell there wasn't even a hint of this betrayal? Just invite them onto the helicopter and discretely at a later date destroy the drive, if they ask them anything tell them the info was useless and send them on another mission to catch Makarov.
5) if he had to kill them, why kill them WITH HIS OWN GUN! Smart thing to do would be to just leave them there for the militia to kill, or order them killed from range... make it look like friendly fire. Less witnesses.
6) I mean the US Army/Air-force pilot "say, what's that burning smell and OH MY GOD, Shepard MURDERED those two British special forces personnel! Burning their bodies, didn't even try to arrest them! Not self defence at all"

This is the problem with conspiracy theories based around killing off "loose ends" every one you kill you have to kill 5 more for those who witnessed said killings or who committed the killings themselves. How can Shadow Company keep this secret but not Task Force 141?!?!

Because then he might have won.

Why do you think he outfitted half of his super-elite mega-secret private army with 60 year old Russian machineguns instead of U.S. standard issue or something actually modern?

Not sure what you're getting at.

It still makes no sense why Shepard wants a mere copy of this data and why he even needed to kill them in the first place... especially with so many witnesses and in a way that so directly incriminated him.

 

[Uri]

the ending made me laugh, weeeee!

 

[ThorUK]

Well done Treyarch, you spotted that the 'Modern Warfare' games were popular, so you decided to join in and go from making games set solely in the 1940s to a game set in 1960-70. We done. Next time, try to concentrate on keeping the plot and gameplay well paced, and not limping along erratically like a one-legged horse with epilepsy and some sort of retard complex (quick time events and arcadey helicopter shooters, anyone?).

 

[razelas]

Review: Call of Duty: Black Ops

Call of Duty: Black Ops lacks the "wow" that elevates previous installments in the series.

Read Full Article

Just wondering, how on can you honestly "review" a game that you don't fully understand, as demonstrated by your lack of ability to accurately explain the plot? I found the single-player frustrating for different reasons (i.e. 2-dimensional characters: Woods and Hudson, return of the infinitely respawning enemies that stop respawning when you cross a line/event, useless friendly AI, biased enemy AI who seem to always target the player, pace of the plot seemingly catering to people with ADD, etc.).

But shit, at least I could explain the plot of the game more accurate than in the "review" and throw in some interesting background historical references (MKULTRA, ). You even forgot to mention the return of certain characters from a previous CoD title. Your review makes even less sense than your description of Black Ops. And your analogy about the "flashing lights" was dreadfully inaccurate as a "distraction. The use of constantly disorienting the player was to convey the sense of disorientation that the main character was feeling. But apparently "immersion" is not something you seem to know, lest you would have criticized such an attempt.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Well the Metro 2033 was based on the 360 version only, which was an afterthought to the PC version

...for once. lol

After the colossal disappointment of MW2, I actually liked Black Ops. Multiplayer alone is leaps and bounds better.

Yeah I'm a PC gamer and I approve this message. Which means a lot since Black Ops is the complete opposite of Metro 2033 as mentioned above; they ported the former from console. Not only that, it's still a laggy mess of a multiplayer on PC, which I've been told by someone playing the 360 version is not the case when he plays it on his console.

 

[razelas]

I'm not going to lie, Mw2 did a rather shitty job on pacing the single-player so as to make it comprehendable, never mind the numerous plot holes.

It doesn't make sense WHY Shepard killed off the Task Force, what had he actually done? Had he ordered the massacre in the Russian Airport? Or had he just allowed it to happen? Had he helped the Russian's invade? Left the back door open? What? Either way the task force knew nothing and they only suspected anything when Shepard tried and failed to kill all of them yet Price suddenly psychically knows Shepard's entire plan even though he only suggested anything to Roach who died immediately afterwards.

Shepard killed the Task Force because they were searching for Makarov, which would lead TF141 to Shepard. Simply put: the situation is analogous to Nixon's Smoking Gun [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#The_.22Smoking_Gun.22_tape] and the resulting Saturday Night Massacre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#.22Saturday_Night_Massacre.22l]: imagine Shepard as Nixon, who lied about the White House plumbers, and TF141 as the Attorney-General's investigators assigned to investigate the White House plumbers, and ultimately Nixon (or in this case Shepard) himself. The Smoking Gun part is the data that Roach and Ghost retrieved linking Shepard to Makarov. The Saturday Night Massacre (which is when Nixon fired the top 5 people who assigned the investigators to Watergate) is what happens when Shepard killed Ghost, Roach and the rest of TF141; he was cleaning his tracks.

And then Price is like "We're gonna kill him" and I'm like "But WHY??!?"

Sure he tried to kill us but he's also America's best hope of defending against Russian invasion, and bringing Makharov to justice? They killed hundreds of US soldiers (or mercenaries, it's not clear) for a petty personal vendetta and some bullshit ideological babble about "the victor writes the history books". Just because he dies that DOES NOT mean you have won, that just turns his from a hero into a martyr.

Lol, it looks like you fell into Shepard's trap. Apparently, you don't know that Shepard conspired the Russian invasion of the US with the help of Makarov.

Loose Ends was such a stupid level.

Roach COPIES the intel (doesn't destroy the original) and hands it to Shepard without any way he could have viewed it... and then Shepard upon acquiring this calls it "One less loose end" then kills both him and Ghost.

Shepard hoped that TF141 would die in the final search for Makarov. This is the "Saturday Night Massacre" part.

 

[Delta 3 Actual]

Review: Call of Duty: Black Ops

Call of Duty: Black Ops lacks the "wow" that elevates previous installments in the series.

Read Full Article

Maybe, but the "wow" that Black Ops may lack I was able to supply after watching the video supplement to this review. I disliked it so much in fact that not only will I never watch or read anything by Russ Pitts, but I will be hard pressed to ever watch or read a review on this site again.

And for the record, as someone who despises Treyarch and was previously nostalgic about the first Modern Warfare game, Black Ops was and is amazing.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Why do you people insist on pissing and moaning about the campaign when Treyarch admitted in pre-release it was essentially just a tack-on to the multiplayer... they were never going to put as much work into the story so that they could focus on the online aspect.... and the bloody zombies!

Anybody who genuinley cares about how good COD's story is by this point wasn't paying attention for the last few years... it's all about the MP now... for the simple reason that that's where the replay value, and ultimatley, the money is.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm not going to lie, Mw2 did a rather shitty job on pacing the single-player so as to make it comprehendable, never mind the numerous plot holes.

It doesn't make sense WHY Shepard killed off the Task Force, what had he actually done? Had he ordered the massacre in the Russian Airport? Or had he just allowed it to happen? Had he helped the Russian's invade? Left the back door open? What? Either way the task force knew nothing and they only suspected anything when Shepard tried and failed to kill all of them yet Price suddenly psychically knows Shepard's entire plan even though he only suggested anything to Roach who died immediately afterwards.

Shepard killed the Task Force because they were searching for Makarov, which would lead TF141 to Shepard. Simply put: the situation is analogous to Nixon's Smoking Gun [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#The_.22Smoking_Gun.22_tape] and the resulting Saturday Night Massacre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#.22Saturday_Night_Massacre.22l]: imagine Shepard as Nixon, who lied about the White House plumbers, and TF141 as the Attorney-General's investigators assigned to investigate the White House plumbers, and ultimately Nixon (or in this case Shepard) himself. The Smoking Gun part is the data that Roach and Ghost retrieved linking Shepard to Makarov. The Saturday Night Massacre (which is when Nixon fired the top 5 people who assigned the investigators to Watergate) is what happens when Shepard killed Ghost, Roach and the rest of TF141; he was cleaning his tracks.

And then Price is like "We're gonna kill him" and I'm like "But WHY??!?"

Sure he tried to kill us but he's also America's best hope of defending against Russian invasion, and bringing Makharov to justice? They killed hundreds of US soldiers (or mercenaries, it's not clear) for a petty personal vendetta and some bullshit ideological babble about "the victor writes the history books". Just because he dies that DOES NOT mean you have won, that just turns his from a hero into a martyr.

Lol, it looks like you fell into Shepard's trap. Apparently, you don't know that Shepard conspired the Russian invasion of the US with the help of Makarov.

Loose Ends was such a stupid level.

Roach COPIES the intel (doesn't destroy the original) and hands it to Shepard without any way he could have viewed it... and then Shepard upon acquiring this calls it "One less loose end" then kills both him and Ghost.

Shepard hoped that TF141 would die in the final search for Makarov. This is the "Saturday Night Massacre" part.

You know Nixon got found out... firing the people did nothing but delay (and ENSURE) the inevitable, it was sheer desperation.

Also, how does Task Force 141 finding Makarov in any way incriminate Shepard? WHat is he going to blurt out "Nuaaah don't shoot, things aren't as they seem... but Shepard sent and undecover agent to my organisation and we dumped his body to incriminate America... OoOoOoooOoh that changes everything!"

I don't see any indication in the game that Makarov in any way co-operated with Shepard:

"The American THOUGHT he cold trick us, but when they find his body Russia will cry for war"

Frankly it's more like this was a plan for RUSSIAN military recruitment. Makarov's history and list of terrorist atrocities make him working with Shepard about as likely a Osama Bin Laden and Cheney going duck hunting together. NEITHER would want to do anything, they hate each other's guts.

The only thing that possibly makes sense about the No Russian level is he wanted to frame America for the crime... but the fact that he is an infamous Russian Terrorist and committed the act with no mask... and the body left to incriminate USA was an American who had adopted a Russian identity (even Russian prison tattoos). BTW, what an incredibly dumb idea, sending a combat soldier on a spy mission in a culture and country he knows nothing about apart from the little he can be taught on short notice.

America would just have to say "WTF? American? Doesn't look like it. What about the other three bodies of armed terrorists at the airport, those are undeniably Russians affiliated with Makarov and his terrorist empires."


"Apparently, you don't know that Shepard conspired the Russian invasion of the US with the help of Makarov. "

How do YOU know? All we know is he sent Allen undercover in Makarov's organisation. Then lied about it to the secretary of defence.

Where is the evidence he let Russia in the back door? Where is the evidence he isn't absolutely committed to finding Makarov and bringing him to justice and ultimately defending America from a fight he started but he definitely wants to win.

I still stand by that killing him would only make him a martyr... not because I am confused but because reasonably everyone else is going to believe he was just a good patriot doing his job.

I can't stand these conspiracy bullshit because they are under the utter fantasy that they never get found out, but Nixon couldn't hide some bloody burglaries.

 

[Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi]

Wow, everybody is taking this review way too seriously. Anyway the story isn't bad, just confusing. Go on call of duty wiki yo understand. "And waiting to shoot stuff?" YOUR SUPPOSE TO SHOOT STUFF. It's called a fps for a certain reason. And before anybody says, "I knew this game would be terrible, so I bought something else instead" you didn't play the game yourself and yet u say it's terrible?! Seriously guys...

 

[Torrasque]

Do not buy this game if you hope to enjoy the Campaign. Get your achievements done, and never play the Campaign again. It is really really fucking terrible.

That aside, I don't even like the Multiplayer.
In MW2, when I shot someone with my FAMAS, so long as 2/3 bullets hit the person, they would usually die.
The M16 doesn't do this. I have to land all 3/3 bullets for them to die, or 3 bursts of 2/3? Any less, and they just lol and kill me.
If you put a Silencer on your gun, the damage suddenly drops off the face of the earth, therefore making Silencers completely moot.
If you like Assault rifles, don't use them until you have the final one or the AUG; every single assault rifle that isn't one of those two, sucks dicks. Stick to SMs and you'll do fine.
Do not buy upgrades for guns unless you decide you like that gun. It is money you cannot get back, and it is meaningless to upgrade every single gun with every single upgrade.
If your internet connection is less than absolutely amazing, do not try to win a knife fight with someone, their knife will kill you first every single time.

And again, all that aside, this game was a waste of $71 fucking dollars.
After beating campaign, I went back to Reach, and don't even want to get the rest of the achievements? Maybe later when my rage has subsided.

 

[stuhacking]

My first thought after finishing Black Ops was:

Spoiler

"Fight Club is shorter, and would have been more fun."

 

[camazotz]

Just a note to say I really appreciate focusing on the single player side and the multiplayer side separately, but maybe there would be a better way to integrate the reviews in a manner which preserves the individual ratings as well as the concluding final rating (such as how some sites provide a series of ratings for the game's different features....graphics, replayability, story, game play and so forth) by adding a "single player rating, multiplayer rating, and combined rating."

The main reason for this being, of course, that a 3 star review reflects an average game, and it seems both misleading and unfair to provide such a score if the multiplayer, say, is worthy of 4 stars but the singelplayer is a lousy 2 stars. Keeping the original scores as intended along with a "final total score" seems like the best way to go, and the best way to serve your audience, whether they are interested in it for the single player (like me) or the multiplayer (like most CoD players).

This will also help with continuity between the review and score. A 3 Star rating at the end of the single player experience really doesn't jive with the review reaming this game got, for example; thus why preserving the individual scores (along with the final combined score) is a good idea, to help understand the consistency of each review.

 

[Buizel91]

Do not buy this game if you hope to enjoy the Campaign. Get your achievements done, and never play the Campaign again. It is really really fucking terrible.

That aside, I don't even like the Multiplayer.
In MW2, when I shot someone with my FAMAS, so long as 2/3 bullets hit the person, they would usually die.
The M16 doesn't do this. I have to land all 3/3 bullets for them to die, or 3 bursts of 2/3? Any less, and they just lol and kill me.
If you put a Silencer on your gun, the damage suddenly drops off the face of the earth, therefore making Silencers completely moot.
If you like Assault rifles, don't use them until you have the final one or the AUG; every single assault rifle that isn't one of those two, sucks dicks. Stick to SMs and you'll do fine.
Do not buy upgrades for guns unless you decide you like that gun. It is money you cannot get back, and it is meaningless to upgrade every single gun with every single upgrade.
If your internet connection is less than absolutely amazing, do not try to win a knife fight with someone, their knife will kill you first every single time.

And again, all that aside, this game was a waste of $71 fucking dollars.
After beating campaign, I went back to Reach, and don't even want to get the rest of the achievements? Maybe later when my rage has subsided.

I can easily pull off a kill with 1 shot from my M16, and silencers are MEANT to drop the power of a gun, your not mean to charge out with them, you need be cautious when using them!

All assault rifles are fine, the Famas, M16, Enfild, Galil, admittedly i cant use the FAL or M14 properly, but that's because I'm better with automatic weaponry. But who's to say other people can't use the FAL or M14?

The campaign for me has alot of replay ability, something MW2 did not have.

Admittedly with the internet connection your are right, but that can be sorted. Usually it's just a case of resting your XBL/PSN/PC connection or just completely resting the modem, which is not difficult.

The thing about this COD is that it has alot more balance than previous titles apart from COD4. you just need to learn who to use that balance to your advantage, remembering that what ever your enemy can do, you can do.

 

[balazamon0]

Strange how far off some of the escapist reviews are... I'm glade I bought this game before reading the review here because after playing it your scores should be swapped for myself. The single player all boils down to what kind of movie you like really, I like suspense and plot twists and black ops had plenty of it. Most people I would think want more story, I really don't see how this isn't an improvement over MW2, I'm just happy they didn't go crazy and made you play a character that died as that was getting old.

The multilayer is a different story, I hate how limited you are on unlocking gear and attachments. Just reaching the level to use the gun should be enough and then completing challenges to use the attachments would be nice, giving you something to specifically work towards.

 

[Alon Shechter]

Russ, I am dissapoint in your neatpicking.
For a site that plays a lot of Minecraft I find it idiotic to complain about graphics.
Also, these flashes are NOT those things, they all had a meaning, and if you don't realize that, you did not finish the game, so you shouldn't review it solely on singleplayer in the first place.

The singleplayer was fantastic, and if you think otherwise,
and I will now quote a famous troublemaker in this site,
you must be STUPID!

 

[cheese_wizington]

The campaign to me has been the most entertaining and varied of all the COD games that I've played.

I have no idea what your on about.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Do not buy this game if you hope to enjoy the Campaign. Get your achievements done, and never play the Campaign again. It is really really fucking terrible.

That aside, I don't even like the Multiplayer.
In MW2, when I shot someone with my FAMAS, so long as 2/3 bullets hit the person, they would usually die.
The M16 doesn't do this. I have to land all 3/3 bullets for them to die, or 3 bursts of 2/3? Any less, and they just lol and kill me.
If you put a Silencer on your gun, the damage suddenly drops off the face of the earth, therefore making Silencers completely moot.
If you like Assault rifles, don't use them until you have the final one or the AUG; every single assault rifle that isn't one of those two, sucks dicks. Stick to SMs and you'll do fine.
Do not buy upgrades for guns unless you decide you like that gun. It is money you cannot get back, and it is meaningless to upgrade every single gun with every single upgrade.
If your internet connection is less than absolutely amazing, do not try to win a knife fight with someone, their knife will kill you first every single time.

And again, all that aside, this game was a waste of $71 fucking dollars.
After beating campaign, I went back to Reach, and don't even want to get the rest of the achievements? Maybe later when my rage has subsided.

You honestly think all of this isn't the same for every person?

Let me draw your attention to some COD standby issues, as well as some stuff about Black Ops... Silencers have always affected damage otherwise there would be no reason for everyone not to use them, connection influences the outcome of a kill occaisionally (but not often, normally it's the player's fault), knifing is a bit broken, the final gun is not always nescissarily the best, as playing online is technically infinite you eventually get enough COD points to comfortably buy everything anyway so don't worry about wasting them.

Also, i know that everybody took stopping power for granted, to the extent that now it is gone we all think "WTF my gun is less powerful", but at the end of the day if it's the same situation for everybody it's still fair. You just have to learn to adapt to a changing situation, rather than pissing and moaning about how you wish it was back how it used to be.

Complaining about these issues (apart from the points of course) as an argument about Black Ops specifically rather than the COD series in general is, as you put it, 'moot', because these are issues which COD players have had to live with for the last 3 games. Black Ops has merely inherited them, and in my opinion, unlike MW2, has suceeded well in not adding too many of it's own specific annoyances to the pile of 'COD conventional annoyances'.

 

[Pyrokinesis]

Well finnaly someone who isnt biting their tongue for the sake of the COD name. Game was awful and multiplayer has combined the very essence of why multiplayer shooters are going bland and unfun. I mean seriously killstreaks straight got kicked in the nuts hard. Why should i go for 10+ kills in the bs game of either famasing (aka the op gun of the week) or tubing or nade spaming if it all culminates to a weak killstreak that is taken out by the multiple sam turrets before it can shoot anything. I can appreciate being the killsteak murderer back in MW2 but now its an anybodys job, they dont even have to spec for it.

So yea
campaign: weak and predictable (seriously plot twist can seen 1/3 of the way in if your smart)

Multiplayer: In essence the blandest of the bland. No real fun to be had unless you enjoy dieing... alot... otherwise just do the cheap moves everyone else is doing and youll geta killstreak that gets shotdown with relative ease.