180 of 232 people found the following review helpful
on December 2, 2013
I wanted to love this game. I wanted to love it so badly. The last COD game I played a lot was MW2 in college, and I left off gaming for a few years to focus on my career. Coming back to this was rough at first, and I chalked it up to me being a newb and getting owned. I figured after a week or two I'd start getting better.
It's been a month.
In this last month, I've realized some fundamental flaws in the game that keep it from being fun for a gamer like me. First, you get shot in the back a lot. You need to just accept this fact if you want to play COD Ghosts. So, I figured I'd compensate for this by adjusting my strategy to check behind my character a lot; however, you get shot a lot in front then. It's a no-win scenario. Second, the spawn points are absolutely abysmal. No, they really are.... the people on here aren't just venting because they suck. You need to expect to die from spawning in front of a player 1 or 2 times per game minimum. Lastly, you die too quick. I know that they tried to fix the "halo effect" that people complained about. I know that they tried to make it more "realistic" in this game by making you die quicker. However, the net effect is that you now get shot in the back routinely with little or no way for you to respond before you die.
Please, learn from my mistake. Save your money, and go buy another game. Heck, if you hate BF4, then just wait out this round of shooters. Please, just don't buy this game. Because the 26-year-old graduate student who never, ever leaves reviews is warning you - STAY AWAY!!!
82 of 106 people found the following review helpful
on November 12, 2013
**Final update - early Feb 2014**
I was curious after having happily sold this game a couple months ago to see what people are saying about it, so I decided to look at current reviews on here to see if any of the issues that made me hate the game and get rid of it were fixed. All of the recent reviews on Amazon pretty much have the same short, vague, generic script. They appear to me to be fake. If you look at the profiles of the people, you can see they either copy-and-paste the same brief language on multiple products (ie, "Bought this [insert type of product] for my son and he loves it..." etc), or they only posted the one review for this game. I have no idea how to report this to Amazon since I don't know if it violates any sort of terms of service or could even be remedied, but it is pretty messed-up since it defeats the entire purpose of allowing comments on a product.
SO... all I can say is read the slightly longer reviews if you are interested in this game. Maybe not mine because it is now novel-length, but basically I would suggest taking a random sampling of reviews for the game by looking at reviews with SPECIFICS as to why people liked or hated the game. The game still sounds like it is not worth paying the price for.
**End of final update, 1st update below***
**1st Update 11/29/13**
I sold Ghosts last week and it is gone from my home, for which I am happy, and I have deleted the information from my PS3 so zero space, physical or data, would be taken up further by this game. Do not buy this game for $60. I tried and tried to find a way to make this game fun, and just could not. I changed this game to 1-star overall too, since it is simply not a well-made (solid) game in terms of its basic game play.
People can keep whacking my review here, but not even a "COD fanboy" should be supportive of this product, if anything they should be even more disappointed. Perhaps IW have since released enough patches for the game to make it is more fun then it was last week before I got rid of the game, but releasing an unprepared game itself is enough reason to not support a series further.
Campaign mode was terrible for reasons I mentioned below (I did not bother finishing it), Extinction was immediately boring and made me miss the offline challenge modes from MW2 & MW3 even more, the free DLC map that came with ordering through Amazon did not work for online multiplayer with the main rotation, the online maps are at PS1 levels in terms of load times, even the bots which I thought MIGHT be the saving grace for a few more weeks of this game were difficult to kill since once again the screen just seems SO zoomed-out and hard to see guys.
It is truly a remarkably crappy game considering it is a billion-dollar game, I think. And I am SURE they are well aware of it, and maybe like the big banks they just don't care since people will still buy it and sing the praises.
This and Homefront are the two biggest wastes of money I feel I have ever spent on a major brand video game (or game with major advertising blitz) (since the PS1/N64 days). I have been playing FPS games since "the old days" (Wolfenstein on the computer, then Medal of Honor on PS1), so 20 years or so now, and I realized the same thing as with Homefront: this was not fun. It was not a fun game. And a game that is not fun is not a game worth paying hard-earned money for.
**End 1st Update, original review below**
After having played a bit since its release date both offline campaign mode and online mode, I'm just already tired of this game and wish SINCERELY I had not spent $60 on it. It MIGHT be a fun-enough $20, I guess, but unless you are a diehard fan of the series, this is definitely not worth paying $60 for new, particularly if you are more of a casual gamer.
My pros are: 1. the multiplayer maps look pretty and the height & added interactive map features of many of the levels are cool, 2. the player customization is cool. That pretty much concludes my positive thoughts, unfortunately.
Call of Duty: Ghosts gets pretty much the same review as Homefront, which was the previous biggest video game ripoff I've played. It's generic now. It's been done.
The offline campaign mode is all about its own premise, and that's it. It feels like you're battling against some ridiculous grouping of bad guys in a ridiculous way (oh no, a random South American allied group, because... N. Korea was already taken previously by Homefront as a good new enemy...?) and you're basically playing every level from every other game you've ever played in any other FPS game.
It feels like these games are becoming more and more you are just a spectator, playing an interactive movie. That was my problem with COD MW3 - you just back off and let your squad do all the work, and it's not as though you have much of a choice. You get hit once by some random bullet you don't know where it came from, and you have to hide so you don't die, and then either it happens again once "blood vision" goes away, or your squad has all the fun for you and kills everyone. AND YOU GET HIT BY RANDOM BULLETS OFTEN, so you are thus having to HIDE often to keep from dying.
And the amount of times my squad would get in my line of fire drove me CRAZY. When I wanted to, you know, play the game, like, shoot the bad guys with my guns, my squad would run in front of me a lot of times, making me shoot them as well as the enemy. More then a couple times did I get whatever the "friendly fire will not be tolerated" is screen. That felt like Homefront-levels of AI poorness of quality.
Getting repeatedly killed by sharks was both an extremely random addition to the game (though not as random as controlling Lassie) and really really irritating. The prerequisite chopper and tank levels are also irritating and you can't wait until they're over.
There are so many levels where they just kind of throw you at them, throw you into them, they last a few minutes, then they are over as quickly as they started, leaving you going, "...ohhhhkayyy...that level happened and is now over..." You never fully get immersed into the game, and you end up feeling like you just want to play it to beat it so it's done and so you are then one thankful step closer to chalking the game up as a financial loss and pawning it/trading it in.
Ultimately, like Homefront, the campaign mode is hard enough in the wrong ways that it is tedious and simply unsatisfactory. The high point for me was probably the semi-stealth jungle portion, which lasted about ten minutes, but they were somewhat enjoyable ten minutes. I just killed everybody. It made it fun, I was in control of the game for that period without my AI fellas taking over and doing everything, and the enemy didn't automatically see me because I was, well, in the jungle. But then I remember the shark part and go back to shaking my head and thinking about the $60+ I spent on this game again.
Multiplayer (Online, ugh):
The way they did the maps in multiplayer, it is like Battlefield in that... you cannot see your enemies. This game is far worse than any other I've played online in how you die extremely quickly. Half the time you never see the person who shoots you. It seems like it is full of either snipers or stabbers. I doubt it would be very hard for a first-time player to get 100 deaths in their first 8 times trying.
The people who enjoy sprinting through levels stabbing are as always incredibly annoying - that is about as cocky as you can get, and seems like either a twisted way to approach a video game, or perhaps desperate I suppose if you're sick of getting quick-scoped. And Quickscopers in this game... ugh. You just see a person and you die. It's just not that fun. It is WAY too easy to die in this game (that goes for campaign mode too). "Realism" should always be balanced with FUN in video games, with fun always being the key goal. And frankly many of the kills I have gotten have been by me spawning behind someone who obviously has no idea I am suddenly there. It's not a satisfactory way of killing someone, but then you figure it happens to you every other time so whatever. Ugh.
I find myself "rage-quitting" often, because this is a VIDEO GAME and I bought it TO HAVE FUN, not to constantly get screwed. They MUST make these games for people who are more CASUAL gamers too, besides people who apparently have the time to just do nothing but play these video games online for hours and days at a time. Seeing some of the score and point skews of the winners is pretty pathetic. I'm sure people cheat with this game, but who knows how, and who has the time or energy to really investigate much further, other than to just report sociopathic people (why else cheat, and then try to justify it and make it the problem of those who play honestly, as all cheaters do?) who are clearly too good, of cheating.
If you are a casual gamer, like you just like to play every few evenings a week for a couple hours, you will not enjoy this game for its multiplayer - do not spend $60 on this game. It's been literally just one week since the game was released and there are already players at the very least at Level 58 that I have seen.
Multiplayer (split screen, boo!):
One of the biggest disappointments of all to me personally, is that they got rid of the offline multiplayer challenge modes that made COD MW2 and 3 so fun and re-playable for those of us with actual friends in the real world we like to hang out with and play these games with. Instead they brought in some zombie-like alien mode that I have not yet tried because what is the point. Playing next to a friend the screen feels like it's zoomed-out somehow, maybe because it's more stretched wide, where it is just more difficult to see.
I don't know if it's the developers or who, but this game is another over-priced disappointment, for me the biggest one since Homefront. The graphics do not seem that impressive, everything else is pretty unoriginal, and online play is pretty bad unless you have some mega-100" giant screen or I guess are a person who gets to just play all day and is on high volumes of caffeine or something.
Angry review. I won't give this one star, because it has enough different things that you can play through and it is a way to spend time, though not perhaps the best way to spend time. And for those people who may read this review and say the game is NOT for "casual gamers," so why I am knocking it so much, I paid the $60 for it like you did, so the game is just as much for me as it is for you.
Not worth the money at $60. I would not be happy with having spent anything more than $20 on this game. It's fun in that: it's a new COD game. That is all. Nothing more. At all. This was not a step in the right direction, other than the size of the maps online and the player customization. The size of the maps online are great. Except you can't see who is killing you.
As always, I don't care what series a game is, I have pretty much tried them all, owned a few, and I only have loyalty to whether a game is fun or not, and worth spending the cost at the time. I realize I pretty much just make fun of this game a lot here and do knock it heavily, but it is with disappointment and frustration that I do so. I would have much preferred the game being fun, re-playable, and worth having dropped $60+, and it was just not much of any of those things. This game is pretty bad. And that is pretty disappointing. It feels like a prettier version of Homefront, with some elements (and levels) "borrowed" from GoldenEye Reloaded. It will, once again, make me think twice about purchasing games brand new.
123 of 164 people found the following review helpful
on November 7, 2013
I believe that honesty is the best policy, and so I wanted to give what I feel is a fair review for this game. Please note that I DO NOT play campaigns for any of the C.O.D. series, as I feel this game is best experienced strictly for what it's popular for: multiplayer.
How is this years C.O.D.? Simply put, it's OK. There are two types of C.O.D. fans out there- those who prefer Black Ops/Treyarch and those who prefer Modern Warfare/Infinity Ward. I find myself a fan of the former, as I like Treyarch's take on multiplayer. My reasoning behind this is that since MW2, Infinity Ward has made more of an "arcade" style shooter, with its tendency to over exaggerate everything. Call of Duty Ghosts borrows from what MW series has evolved to be, as level design, guns, and kill streaks all seem similar to previous entries in the MW cannon.
The things that I like:
-Customization. I am not talking about dressing up your solider, who cares what he/she looks like, you can't see them anyway. I am referring to the way CD:G lets you customize you load out by splitting up 8 pts for your PERKS, instead of letting you have the standard 3 perks per loadout as in previous entries. Where BO2's perk points counted towards your guns, grenades, and perks, CD:G points distribution doesn't necessarily count to your attachments and grenades. What this means is you can have 3-6 different Perks attached to your custom class, rather than Black Ops 2 only letting you have 2-3 perks plus your attachments and grenade loadout.
-Maps. Maps are HUGE! The large maps are a double edged sword. On one hand the large area gives you more room and places to hide and take cover, but on the other hand it plays to the advantage of people who use scopes and sniper rifles to camp. This also seems to give an unfair advantage to those who use the new class of "Marksmen" rifle, which act as both assault/sniper rifles, as it encourages them to stake claim to a hiding spot. The large maps try to balance out the camping by forcing players to work and stay together to overcome the opposing side. Instead of going rogue like in previous entries players are advised to stick together to eliminate being picked off by snipers while they are traversing across the larger open area. It is very fun and intense when you and your team are posted across the way from the opposing team and engaged in a large scale firefight. You will come to find that if you aren't working together you will frustratingly be picked off over and over again.
Things that I don't like:
-The "destruction" of levels. This was put into the game to play on Battlefield's successes, yet it is SO limited in what can be destroyed, and it really doesn't have any effect on the outcome of the levels or the match. To me, this is very false marketing and a useless edition. If you aren't going to do it right, don't do it at all.
-The arcade style of the game. You will find briefcases being dropped by certain players that you must pick up and complete before being killed, if you don't complete your objective you lose out on critical points for your character. This was handled in previous entries as challenge objectives that you could select from pre-game and work to complete. The pick up briefcase, read objective, and then try to complete objective (which range as unnecessary as killing someone while jumping, to killing three people without a kill streak) just act as a complete distraction considering you will most likely be "baited" into picking up a briefcase by a camper who will pick you off in route, or you simply won't have enough time to pick up read and execute before your next death.
-The unbalanced variance in weapons. First there is the marksman class which is basically an assault rifle with a scope that includes high damage range and rate of fire. The added marksman class of guns rewards those who just want to hide out and camp and quick scope. Now instead of one shot quick scoping, players can fire automatically down a scope while camping, eliminating pop shot quick scoping technique. Why include this class, yet include attachments such as scopes for assault rifles? It is a decision that makes little sense when choosing and dividing up your points per customization. The same can be said for the honey badger gun which comes with a silencer attached. Why include a gun that comes with a silencer attached, that is still balanced at high damage, range, and fire rate, yet counts nothing towards you load out points to include a silencer? You will find that 90% of online players are using a gun from marksman or the honey badger simply because it costs nothing additional to use what you otherwise would spend load out points towards.
-Kill streak awards. The killstreak awards this year seem very useless to me. CD:G forces you to choose a load from either assault, support, or perks, and you get the standard 3 tiers of awards. The problem lies with the killstreak offers themselves. These include one of the worst UAV detection systems in COD history, a dog which stands next you and basically does nothing unless someone is right on top of you, a sentry gun that is virtually useless do the the map sizes and number of hiding spots, a MANIAC which is a joke of a man in armor who runs you down and kills you with a knife (really?) and numerous bombings that seem to be endless, and useless again considering the map size and hiding places. The bombings would be necessary if CD:G "destructible" environments actually were able to show any signs of destruction, but unfortunately that is not the case.
-Ghosts of great things past. Gone is the great tactical insertion, and even more depression the fantastic Demolition game mode! I cannot stress how disturbed I am that one of the greatest tactical items and arguably the best game mode in the Call of Duty series since Modern Warfare have been left behind in CD:G. The decision to not include Demolition is inexcusable, and I really hope a patch comes out that adds the most tense and exciting and strategic mode in Call of Duty history back where it belongs.
-Design decisions. There are some minor problems that only long time fans will recognize such as longer wait times to get games started because of the new servers (for example it takes about 20 seconds to wait for a game whereas old entries took about 5). You can't mass mute everyone in the lobby, it can only be done in game.
Will you like CD:G? That depends on what kind of fan you are to the franchise. Do you prefer CD:BO take on multiplayer-if so you may not like Ghosts. If you enjoyed the MW series, than you absolutely will love this entry. I gave Ghosts 3 stars because while it has it's problems and in my opinion is nowhere near the quality that Black Ops has been, it still has good multiplayer and is showing signs of taking the series (slowly) in a new direction.
FYI, and for what it's worth here is my rating system on the series:
CD:MW - 5/5
CD:WAW - 3/5
CD:MW2 - 3/5
CD:BO - 4/5
CD:MW3 - 2/5
CD:BO2 - 5/5
CD:G - 3/5
92 of 124 people found the following review helpful
on November 5, 2013
Campaign: I like it quite a bit. I haven't finished it, but so far, so good. I think the storyline is simple, but engaging. The K-9 is fine, not great. I think the AI likes to play stupid when you are using the dog for recon purposes. The campaign is rather restrictive and linear because it doesn't allow you to flank the enemy as much, which can be frustrating at times. However, I will be finishing this one for sure. I didn't finish BO1's or BO2's campaign, but if I remember correctly I have finished all the others.
Multiplayer: This is one area where I feel BO2 is more fun and feels lighter/quicker. I bought 3 out of the 4 DLC's for BO2 because they were putting out quality maps. I didn't buy the last one, because I knew Ghosts was coming out soon. In BO2 maps are not too big, and you can move quickly across the maps. NOW, Ghosts plays a little different. I don't mind the fact that you can customize your character, but I didn't buy the game to play dress-up. Some maps feel rather large, especially when you include the many levels in them. Snipers will like them, but I'm not one of them. I do miss Hardcore Domination. It was the one I played the most in BO2. Also, I hate having to wait to re-spawn in Hardcore, especially in Team Deathmatch. The opponents blend to damn well with their surroundings making matters worst. I don't want to spend most of the game running across a map to get sniped, and then have to wait 10 seconds to get back in the game. At least in regular Team Deathmatch you don't need to shoot opponents a billion times before you kill them. Graphics look fine overall. They are not as crisp as BO2, but they are not a step backwards. There is only so much you can do with the PS3 hardware at this point. Hopefully, they will look great once I get my hands on the PS4.
If you can borrow it or rent it first, then I suggest you do. Let me put it this way, this game is like a party that you are not too excited about going to, but you are still going because most of your friends will be there. Sometimes it's all about the company, not so much about the game.
61 of 82 people found the following review helpful
on December 4, 2013
I really wanted to like this game - and I have the entire collection for Call of Duty games - I just don't like the maps. I am not a sniper, and in my opinion, the maps are mostly set up for snipers. I spawn and get shot by a sniper before I can even move - over and over and over and over. Now, to the great part. Forget the Team Deathmatch. Finish the Campaign mode and play Extinction. You have to rank up ... way up ... in order to complete the challenge. Once you are ranked up and find 3 other ranked up players, you can complete the challenge (takea about an hour) by wearing a riot shield on your back, by picking the Sentry Gun option, by building up the Sentry Gun option to the point where you can have two at a time, and by meeting all of the challenges along the way - e.g. knife all the aliens, use only shotguns, shoot while prone, etc. Each challenge allows you to improve your resistance to alien attack. Be sure and call in the helicopter (second story building after killing the first main hive) - we try to call it in twice. You have to totally play as a team. Don't forget someone will need ranked up Feral Instincts after starting the nuke countdown and everyone will need it to run all the way back to the extraction point. Best way to play is if you are all a different role: medic, mechanic, tank, etc. and all have Sentry Guns. Also, at the end, place Sentry Guns and/or mines all along the path back to the extraction point. Good luck. I cannot wait until there is another Extinction Map Pack. Don't forget to buy the gun "chain saw" for 3,000.00 before starting the nuke countdown - you are going to need it, along with ranked up ammo.
21 of 27 people found the following review helpful
on November 8, 2013
First I would like to say that I have loved the CoD series, but this one will keep me playing Black Ops 2.
The maps seem too big. The graphics and audio are subpar. Now I feel like I have wasted $60.
Disappointed to say the least. I know they can do better than this.
20 of 27 people found the following review helpful
on November 20, 2013
I'm up to level 50 or so and I have to say that I'm starting to agree with the negative reviews. So far the game's a big step backwards in all areas, particularly disappointing as a "fun game to play". I'm all for change, but with this game all of the changes are for the worse. This is a huge disappoint and slap in the balls from Infinity Ward as I skipped buying Black Ops 2 and waited specifically for Infinity Ward's Ghosts, as I am/was a huge fan.
-I agree that the levels are a campers paradise with lots and lots of windows for campers to peek through. Basically the levels all suck.
-In COD MW3 personally I would use Support Strikepackage and the rewards, like Stealth Bomber, were fun to unleash, watch & would actually create a few kills. With Ghosts I am constantly changing my Support rewards because they are all lame. Especially that little worthless ball above me that follows me around.
-In MW3 the top Support Strikepackages (EMP/Juggernaut/Escort Airdrop) were worth working towards and rewarding to have unlike the retardedly worthless Odin Support top reward in Ghosts. The idea of giving us three awesome top Strikepackage rewards to pick through was great, now with Ghosts I don't even use the top one (and one only) because it's boring & worthless.
-In Ghosts Juggernaut's do not recover their health and are killed pitifully easily. I do not even pick Juggernaut as a killstreak reward because it's now so slow and easily killed where before it was slow and powerfully intimidating.
-In Ghosts there isn't as many helicoptors flying around, and I loved the chess match of Assault players bombarding the skies with helecoptors only to have me unleash and take them all down with an EMP. Hearing the screams of anger & broken controllers against the walls from apartments and bedrooms around the world. I understand that there were a lot of complaints regarding Pave Lows/Reapers/AC130/AH6 Overwatch, etc., and how powerful they were and "ruined the game play" but as long as there is a way to take them down and counter them, I sorely miss having them to use, and as well, defeat and challenge,
These are the fun little things that are no longer in Ghosts. And last but not least, getting rid of TACTICAL INSERTION is the worst mistake this game has made. Now I am forced to run from the far ends of the map back towards the action each and every time I am killed. What a friggin' burden and knucklehead move. In conclusion the game just seems very rushed and not well thought out, especially in terms of its funness factor.
I've been a big time COD fan and in constant arguments with my Battlefield friends, but It's starting to look more and more like I will be converting to BF as I just purchased BF4 & FIFA Soccer with the Amazon buy 2 get 1 free awesome deal.
22 of 30 people found the following review helpful
on November 17, 2013
I could write a whole novel on different aspects, but I'm just going straight into MY main takeaways - Be sure and read what others are writing!
NOTE: This review is for the PS3 version, multiplayer mode.
PROS - Quick downtime between rounds
Cool new gameplay modes
The 3 different perk modes like MW3
Multiple (more than 3) perks
CONS - Takes too long to prestige
Takes too long to unlock certain perks
Confusing "squad" thing
Not alot of operations, and small payoff
Maps lack uniqueness
First, the pro's - Like above, the downtime between rounds is very short, leading to continuous gameplay. Love it. And the host integrity for the most part has been solid. Very few drops. Second, I like the gameplay modes - it has a few from MW3, plus some variations on old faves like Search and Destroy. I like the new Cranked mode, and Infected mode is back. Finally, I like the three different perk modes are back - Assault, Support and Specialist. I'm not the best player in the world, usually a K/D ratio of .500, and a low kill count, so for me, having a Support mode that's not based on killstreaks is sorta nice.
Finally, having several perks is awesome. Black Ops two was so limited, not only in perks but that you could only have 10 "assets" for your soldier between perks and weapons. Dumb!
Now the cons of this latest installment of COD. First, I like to prestige. I like to see how many times I can before the next COD comes out. Right now I'm at level 18, and it feels like it's been an eternity. The thought of getting to 55 or 60 or whatever, is sorta deflating.
Similarly, I hate that it takes so long to lock certain perks. What's the use of an unlocked perk if you can only use it for a few levels (assuming you prestige). Total bummer.
Third, is the whole squad thing. I only started playing back at Black Ops 1, so I don't know if they've done this before, but having several squad members, with 5 different setups, is confusing. Who cares already man! I just want one dude, with a few different setups and I'll be fine.
Also, since I like to prestige, I enjoy the operations. It gives me something to work toward, and gives extra XP. It breaks up the monotony of gameplay. In this game, there are only so many, and most pay you 500 XP. That's alot of work for not alot of XP if you ask me.
Finally, the maps. Alot of people have been saying they're too big; I can't tell much a difference. What I WILL say about them is, none of them so far do I really love. In the past there's always those ones that are unique - Firing Range, Nuketown, Terminal, Stadium... these just lack any creativity and don't dial me in. Hopefully the DLC will be better.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on December 28, 2013
I've read several reviews, and people's stupidity is annoying. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but when people think Infinity Ward removed custom emblems, I can feel my brain cells commiting suicide. Treyarch did the custom emblems, Infinity Ward never did. They always used pre-made emblems. They're different companies with different styles, and different builds. As for the class system, it's different, but I love it. The only downside is the perk points and the lack of camo for secondary weapons, which was introduced in Ghosts' predecessor, Black Ops 2. But there are upsides. The attachments, particularly on handguns, are better. Now you can combine Akimbo with other attachments, something BO2 couldn't do, and there are some better scopes. Lots of people hate Thermal, but now there's the Thermal Hybrid Scope. As the name suggests, it's a Hybrid scope with a primary thermal function, but when people get close, Thermal is bad, so switch to the red dot function. They also have the VMR sight, which is like a Red Dot Sight with Variable Zoom without that bulky ass exterior. Now the scorestreaks are purely awesome. There are even Juggernauts now, three in fact. The Juggernaut with a Minigun and handgun (I believe it's the P226, but it could be the MP443 Grach), a Juggernaut with a Riot Shield and .44 Magnum, and a Juggernaut with a knife and throwing knife. All of these have strengths and weaknesses, such as a strength or lack of speed and strength or lack of armor.Then there's the ODIN and LOKI satellites, which let you deploy a Minigun Juggernaut, Care Packages, and strike down foes with large and small "rods". Now downsides would be the lack of small maps, so far the only one is Free Fall, and the small amount of health you get. Now it's easy to die, which can be annoying, though I understand their (Infinity Ward's) desire for realism. The new modes are great though:Cranked, Hunted, Blitz, and even the return of Infected (though I believe it was called Infection in MW3). Now the Extinction mode is both super difficult and super fun. As long as you play with friends who are good, because some people will screw up easy Challenges. Challenges earn extra Skill Points, and in Extinction, Skill Points are King. Also, a good class and ability variety is recommended. Everybody shouldn't be Tanks with Death Machines and Team Explosives, but should be spread out, so there should be a Medic, Weapon Specialist, Tank, and Engineer. Each class has buffs earned at higher levels, such as increased health and melee damage, acid invulnerability, Sleight of Hand (Faster Reload), and increased wallet capacity. Prestiging in Extinction, by leveling up once more after Lv.30, allows access to Relics, which increase the difficulty by increasing damage dealt to you, reducing damage dealt to enemies by you, or even halving wallet capacity, or stripping you of your class and it's perks. The campaign is great, with plenty of variety and plenty of action, and also chances to try out new weaponry, such as the Mk32 Grenade Launcher and controlling a Guard Dog (named Riley in the Campaign), and even a remote sniper. Now, in terms of difficulty, this game's campaign is probably the easiesr I've played, even on Veteran. And I've tried MW2 on Veteran, beat through Act 2, Black Ops 1 and 2 on Veteran, which are both really hard, and MW3 on Hardened, which was still pretty hard. And to all the arrogant pricks that may read this, be quiet, nobody wants to hear how easy you think any of those game's Veteran difficulties were or weren't, I'm just using them as a comparison, showing how easy Ghosts is, especially if your good at Multiplayer in any game or Zombies in the Black Ops games. The graphics aren't as bad as everybody says, and most certain;y not to the point of abandoning this game. If they're poor, they have a reason to be. The PS4 and Xbox One versions were launch titles, so they had to worry about those first, but still wanted to sell the game for PS3 and Xbox 360, so they just quickly downgraded the grapchics. Though I still think they did a great job. So for all those people who quit for the lack of custom emblems or the realistic damage (except you can still die by getting shot in the foot), I hope you enjoy your unrealistic FPS'. Oh, and for those freaking out that they're making another COD next year, look it up: They've been doing yearly releases since COD2, some have been remakes for consoles like DS, but I bet they play like totally different games. I hope this review helps attract some gamers who enjoy realism and difficulty to Ghosts, and you can add me on PSN as DASAZ_Z0MB13 or Deaths_Lullaby if you want to. I play this at my friends, but welcome playing with non-randoms with open arms. As long as your not a Halo Jumper. And I apologize if I offended anyone reading this.
72 of 102 people found the following review helpful
on November 9, 2013
Calling this the worse game in the series is not enough,mainly because the series is good, this game is not. I've been a huge CoD fan since the original Modern Warfare and while some of the games have not lived up to expectations I would not say they were a waste of money. CoD Ghosts is not only a waste of money it's a waste of time, space, and opportunity.
The game looks a bit cartoonish. It reminds me of the first generation of PS3 games. It just looks odd and not at all realistic. I know it's just a game, but I don't want my first person shooters looking like Bubble Guppies. I also feel like the maps are horrible. I could not find one map that I enjoyed. They are frantic and designed to push the pace to an insane pace. If you like to camp you're going to have a field day because people are basically forced to run around like a Chilean with its head cut off.
They have also changed the way you unlock items and perks. It's confusing and unnecessary. There is no organization involved in it and I found myself not even wanting to change from the default settings. I finally decided to make a few custom classes and it took forever.
The one good thing they changed is it takes longer to rank up. This good news for the better players out there however you can still get the best weapons and perks at the beginning due to the unlocking system. This game really does not reward good play at all.
I could go on and on about the things I do not like about this game, but I will just end it with a bit of advise. Rent it before you buy it!!!! I guarantee you will be happy you did.