6. The "Professional" Reviews
I have to admit, I'm not one to listen to other reviews - perhaps it's the arrogance of someone deemed a "critic" because of what my job here entails - and very rarely have I ever based a purchase decision on someone other than a friend's opinion. But the huge disparity between some of the user reviews on Metacritic (even ignoring the obvious troll comments), and the so-called professional sites drew my attention - how come reviewers seemed to be enjoying or recommending a game that so many users were giving 0-2 out of 10? Presumably, judging by those user reviews, the professional sites must merely have enjoyed the game thanks to its disposable appeal, and despite its obvious, well-publicized problems? Let's see what they actually said...
GameTrailers: "It does so many new things so very well, making it the most groundbreaking Call of Duty since the first Modern Warfare. Shooters simply don't get much more deep, varied, surprising, or rewarding than this." IGN: "Combined with the host of subtle and overt improvements to the array of other systems, the additions to make it more appealing to Esports, and the more fleshed out Zombies mode, this is not just a fantastic Call of Duty game, but one of the best shooters of the last decade." Official XBox Magazine: "Call of Duty's three-pronged attack serves it well in Black Ops II, with the superb online play and Zombies co-op making up for a less-essential campaign this time - though its many changes and occasional high points still warrant a playthrough (or two) to see Treyarch's spin on the well-worn template." Eurogamer: "Ultimately, ambition is the word that best describes Black Ops 2 - and that's remarkable enough in itself. This is still Call of Duty, with all that entails, and anyone who has resisted the series so far likely won't be won over this time either. For the fans, though, Black Ops 2 offers the rare sight of a series at its height choosing to experiment and change rather than stay loyal to a proven, but tired, formula." Edge: "Backed by Activision's fantastic investment and support, Treyarch has succeeded, and made a sort of ultimate current-gen Call Of Duty. Not a reinvention that, hopefully, comes next year, on box-fresh hardware and a new engine but a refinement of the most successful series of its generation. Black Ops II is an excellent Call Of Duty game, then, but it's only a Call Of Duty game, with all that implies."
Are these reputable outlets suddenly idiots for enjoying the game? Or could it be, God forbid, that some people actually enjoyed a game that others had been saying since announcement would be a massive failure? The difference with these reviews in comparison with the the majority of the user reviews is that they actually look under the hood of the game, rather than simply slating it in a bite-sized morsel of a review.
Verdict: Some outlets might not be quite as taken on the game as others, but with a solid 83 critical score on Metacritic, and some of the most reputable game sites offering shining reviews, it seems that the game actually appeals to the type of people who actually like games. Those reviews are not simply based on the brand's strength and you'd have to suspect that the reviewers are not the kind of fans who come back every year no matter what, so it's extremely difficult to explain it's score as a product as such. Read on for my final thoughts on the matter...