The single player is about 1 of the worst I've seen. Very much story driven with very little action. It may actually be a good that it's so short.
The multiplayer and zombie modes are awesome. Clearly this where the focus of the company was when they built this game.
posted by LastDragon (MIDLOTHIAN, IL) Nov 16, 2010
Member since Nov 2010
Let me start off by saying I'm a big treyarch fan. Their previous games at least, because they dropped the ball on this one. 1 I noticed in multiplayer character models look terrible (while both still look right at their face). 2 is it just me or do you move a bit slower than previous games. 3 horrible lag during matchmaking almost every game.4 textures in most multiplayer levels look cheap (Nuke Town is worst 1). It's still cod if u love cod there you go then but as for me I dont care for a rehashed version of a game from last year (madden anyone). Deserves 5 but come on Zombies
posted by cernunnos (GAINESVILLE, FL) Nov 16, 2010
Member since Jun 2009
I was late to the party when the whole Modern Warfare thing happened so I played them out of order. I really enjoyed those games, alot. However, after playing two games that were basically clones of one another (MW1 and 2) I would like something a little different and Black Ops is not that game. Not sure who made this game compared to the MW's but Black Ops sort of feels like a cheap copy of MW. Kind of like how Medal of Honor felt like a cheap copy of MW. I do prefer Black Ops over Medal of Honor any day but they could have added a cover system or something to make it stand out from the pack. I am forcing myself to finish the campaign since Russia and 'Nam are two of my favorite places to fight but Black Ops is definitely not as thrilling/addictive as the MW's were. Not once has Black Ops had me on the edge of my seat. Here's to hoping that Homefront really does have an emotionally charged and engaging stroyline like the previews are claiming.