CheckGamesList

Gorgeous, expansive, realistic (or at least as much as an FPS can be), and simply loaded to the brim with content — in short, every bit as good as its predecessors. I don't mind the minor anachronisms (although I'm surprised that my fellow gamer Millennials cared about historical precision this much).

There are clearly a lot of people just giving this game a flat-out zero, largely because of the hate and resentment they have against this game. They have reasons, sure, but honestly, it's all centered on biased hate. Anyway, Call of Duty: Ghosts offers us a new experience, although some of it is quite expected already. It gives us just enough new experience in the campaign and multiplayer to have a fun but relatively unsurprising jump from one game to another. The graphics are acceptable, but not at the level of Battlefield 4, the storyline is fine, and the multiplayer is good but not mind-blowing, and overall, Ghosts is a considerably wel-made shooter.

As the final DLC, Apocalypse does a decent job of bringing us more content that adds to the fun with a reasonable price. The most interesting of this pack is probably 'Origins', the new zombie story and mode, featuring characters many years ago. The two remade maps were definitely better than the first versions of them, but the idea was slightly unoriginal. Still, this is not to say that the overall quality of the four maps were quite decent. Overall, Treyarch brings us a good, but not outstanding experience.

The latest game in the Splinter Cell series does an acceptable job continuing the series, but doesn't make it better. The graphics were pretty standard, the story was quite intriguing despite repetitive scenes, and the overall gameplay was fair. However, a couple of the negatives would be that enemies usually could only detect you when you were in front of them, and in one extreme case walking two feet behind an enemy didn't alert him one bit. Also, here and there, an animation was slightly off. In the end, Blacklist is a pretty good game, with a nicely designed multiplayer in addition. But in the end, it's not a groundbreaking one.

All the messing around here is unnecessary. First of all, this game is ten years old, and most of you guys are reviewing in the past few years. The graphics are bad, the realism is very off, and the game has too many bugs to count. Still, if you compare it to the mindless flash games which are played for a minute, then you'll have something to more or less compare to.

The user reviews are dipping lower and lower, because of practically nothing. Every time, I see at least a couple of reviews saying that Call of Duty is getting a lower level every time, when those people probably haven't even experienced much of it at all. How can you leave a rating on it when you've barely played it for only one or two days? Obviously, it is not much more than just blind hate, not appreciating the effort it takes to make a game like this. Critics are often much more fair on this topic, not blinded by all the minor errors in a massive shooter game, and a score of around 65-75 or so for them is sufficient. It is often more of the same, I agree, but it was good to begin with. I'm leaning towards an 8, which for me means a good but not great game.

Wow, this hate is overwhelmingly unreasonable. The majority of haters probably didn't even play it yet. Something that's delayed does not have anything to do with the quality. A great, fun, and casual but packed-with-content game as good as the first installment in the series, if not better.

The game seems slightly underrated to me. Apart form the fact that it relies solely on its 6-10 hour campaign, it has a good amount of action, destruction and fair plot with funny dialogue. While some cliches are at it in The Devil's Cartel, without any, you'd be playing a strange game. I understand that it's not the type that critics or some users like because of it's action, it's really what most shooter games center on. What some games excel at, others beat them in different categories.

Although barely hitting the standard of a near-perfect video game, it doesn't really take that to be at least in the 9/10 range. Apart from a few slightly unrealistic animations and concepts in the game (i.e. health regenerates almost instantly; your character grabs objects as if they were in different places), the game is amazing. The plot is pretty complex with a great backstory, the dialogue is immersing, and the graphics are excellent. Although not flawless, on consoles of this generation, only a handful of games can claim such a high acclaim. On a curved scale, like for nearly every review website, this game deserves my perfect ten.

This game is a very intriguing game, however, the actual gameplay isn't all that great. An FPS has to be mostly rated on the action experience. Nevertheless, a great storyline, good experience, and barely overrated is overrated at all.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was actually my first owned COD game, and my experience was very good. Let me state up front: Haters gonna hate. Opinions are opinions, but the fact that one out of virtually any five ratings are zeroes, which either means that they bought COD, played it for thirty seconds, and threw it out the window, or are other FPS shooter fans who haven't touched the game and pretended to be an 'unbiased' reviewer. The game took tons of effort, and for some reason flash games are appreciated more than this. The reason this isn't a perfect ten is just because of the occasional glitch, the less-than-preferred but still adequate graphics, and of course, I'll understand the community isn't very polite either. Other than that, the game's truly great. It's not the same game, having still played other games in the series (not owning them though), and the improvements are obvious.