Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro

Platform: Xbox 360|Edition: Standard|Change
Price:$15.98+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on May 28, 2012
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier screams rushed product from the arduous title screens, (yes there are multiple) game crippling lag during online play, & random equipment items that just do not work for whatever reason. This game plays like an alpha or beta build & needs several more months in the development cycle for polish. I have never been a huge GR multiplayer fan but decided to give this a day in court & it resembles last years Resistance 3. Innovative ideas with good maps but broken gameplay & horrible lag, and that's when the servers are up & running. But here are the pros & cons IMHO:

Pros:
1. Long campaign (13 levels with built in challenges = a lot of fun)
2. Innovative ideas for modern shooters
3. Smart team A.I. (sometimes, especially early on)
4. In game graphics are good, cut scenes not so much
5. Sounds are good when they work (patch?)
6. Wide weapon & equipment variety. It's seriously on par with any CoD game on that front period.
7. Maps vary in size & play.

Cons:
1. Frustrating menu system
2. Horrible lag during multiplayer
3. Story: missed character development opportunities. And I'm sick of "military" game makers getting so many details wrong, regular sailors don't have goatees and soldiers never say "oh" for zero, they say "zero" as in zero five thirty. This may not seem like a big deal but the devil is in the details, and it shows that a foreign company developed a game about US soldiers.
4. Lack of split screen features even though the game case says there is 2-player split screen campaign...there is not (rushed?)
5. Very slow progression system that does not reward players fast enough. Have we learned nothing from Halo or Call of Duty in the last decade?
6. No matchmaking for campaign or Guerrilla, seriously what is going on here because you have achievements for these modes but unless you troll the forums at Ubisoft or talk your friends into buying this your outta luck with those achievements.

Overall this is good game to kill time with over the slow summer months but be warned you will get frustrated often. I can't help but think how good this could have been with a few more months of development or launching with the next generation of systems that might be able to keep up with lofty Ubisoft ambitions.

Verdict: Buy
0Comment|5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon April 12, 2013
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a fan of Call of Duty-style shooters that revoke all creative tactical license, but was a HUGE fan of the original Ghost Recon series. For me, GR:Future Soldier is a hearkening back to those roots with a smart, modern take. I'll also admit to not caring about online multiplayer, so for that you should seek a different review. I'm here for the game, the actual story.

Ghost Recon has always been about a small team, weapons choice, and moving unseen. Or, for those who really want to pick a firefight, its always had that option, too. In GR:FS, the new customization options for weapons makes significant gameplay difference. The storyline itself follows a very classic GR model of infiltrate, gather intel/eliminate target, exfiltrate. There is also some great homage to the original games, from laptops lying around in enemy buildings (in the original you would gather them) to a very classic tank attack (in the originals, tanks were your arch-nemesis) to sneaking in and planting pack-demolitions (fortunately no longer requires a specific team member like the old days). Stylistically, this is also a return to the tactical roots of Ghost Recon, in which you can silently eliminate enemies one-by-one like a carefully calculated puzzle or you can slip by unseen entirely in true Ghost fashion.

And therein will lie the problem for many modern gamers: GR isn't a run-and-gun game. It will allow you to play that way, but it isn't well rigged for it so the experience will be lackluster. GR is a puzzle to solve, where you observe enemy movements and calculate strategy. In GR:FS the drone is your surveillance lifeline and is used to spot, tag, and eliminate targets.

All of that love given, there are some peculiarisms that preclude a five-star rating. There are times when I can see a room is empty (with drone, sensor, or scope), but when I enter the room there is a guard. I'm also not a fan of the "get shot, duck down, you're fine" healing in modern games, and preferred the original "once you're shot you're wounded for the mission" type realism of the old games - especially in GR where you should never get shot. And my biggest dislike: everything about the game for 12 missions is built around stealth, calculation, and execution. In the last mission, this style is inexplicably thrown aside and you are railroaded into a timed run-and-gun at the end of which you stack up and are forced to use an imprecise submachine gun (which I had never used prior in the game) - leading to an unnecessarily-complicated ending that should have been resolved with a sniper rifle 10 minutes earlier. On the up side, your AI team members are fairly good (but not god-like) and don't require constant supervision. They are there to execute your tactics, not be in your way - and they're (usually) pretty good at it. And the enemy AI, while not moronic, is not there to press you so much as it is to be pieces in your puzzle.

This is the first Ghost Recon game in a decade that has actually felt like Ghost Recon to me. The addition of some variable-style missions, open weaponry, and new technology brings the feel into the modern era and I thoroughly enjoyed the game.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 23, 2012
I recently purchased Ghost Recon Future soldier after holding off so long; and I have to say, I'm glad I didn't purchase this game full price.

Onto the review-

Graphics-

This may have been one of the worst parts about this game. While I can still play GRAW2 and still be impressed by the graphics, GRFS does not hold up much at all. The game has intense glare that hurts my eyes, some of the textures are muddy looking and the background details are mediocre at best. One thing I did like was how the in-game characters looked. I felt they were highly detailed and moved smoothly and throughout the course of the game, there are some moments in which the game does look good. (For example, the sandstorm level looked really good) The explosions are slightly dumbed down from the previous Ghost Recon titles; but they're not bad.
My main complaint would be the glare in some bright backgrounds such as the white sands in Nigeria which are so bright that I have to finely tune my TV's contrast as to not hurt my eyes. Also, there are certain quirks with the physics like killing an enemy and watching them float in mid air.
The good parts again would be the characters themselves and certain effects such as explosions, the water and the camo effect was alright. Nothing too special; but nothing really bad either. It looks about average to be honest.

Sound-

In comparison to the past GR titles, the sound in this really stinks. Some of the dialogue is really off. At times, I'd hear my team mate say "3 o' clock" only to turn that way or study the area and the enemy is in a different position altogether. The gun sound effects are just alright. But sound no different than the generic COD FX you'd hear quite often.

Gameplay-

This aspect was also quite different than what I was anticipating. While in the past GR games you'd rely on squad tactics and commands, this game ditches that in an effort to cater to the casual market, however, it replaces such with stealth gameplay that is flawed for the following reasons-

1. The game dictates how you use stealth at times. How in the world would a regular enemy soldier see me whilst using invisible camouflage? Invisible camouflage? Really? Ok.

2. Soldiers would find a dead body at times when they weren't even near them or they'd walk right past a dead body and say nothing.

3. Soldiers can't seem to see my team mates when they're walking in the open, but see me just fine if I do the same.

With that said, there are certain things I really like about this game that was introduced to the series and seems better than the previous games. For one, the introduction of hand to hand combat in the form of take-downs. I personally found that to be a cool addition rather than running out of ammo and being helpless. You can even stealth shoot an enemy which looks really cool. The control scheme is better in my opinion. The previous GRAW games had controller options that were all over the place while this one is simplified.
There are some moments within the campaign that were satisfying, rewarding you with a wow moment, but once the dust settles and the campaign ends, there's really not much of a reason to play.

The multiplayer isn't much better. To be honest, I played this more for single player being that I'm not a MP type gamer.
There is co-op and Guerilla Mode which I checked out a bit and found to be good additions. But to be honest, if you're looking for another GRAW experience, then don't get this game. However, if you're just looking for a TPS that's military themed then this is a decent effort. If you can find it for cheap then get it or get Spec ops- The Line which is largely superior to GRFS.

Not a bad effort by Ubisoft, but I'm waiting for the next Splinter Cell to get my taste of stealth action.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 27, 2012
The 4 & 5 star reviews have it right, but so do the one star reviews. Personally, I give it around -5 stars (much worse than terrible). I'm reviewing from the standpoint of a HUGE fan of its predecessor, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (GRAW 2). In criticizing GRFS (this game) mercilessly from that viewpoint, hopefully the features that other players are sure to like will also shine through. With limited play time and a poor memory, I may get a few details wrong, but I've looked VERY carefully at GRFS, and think I have it sized up pretty well.

I almost exclusively played the various co-op campaigns in GRAW 2 (up to 16 humans against AI opposition), avoiding the single player campaign totally, and dabbling only a little in the various team and solo human-on-human conflicts. I was looking for a followup to GRAW 2, in the co-op campaign area. Let's got through GRFS to see if there is something to like.

My least favorite GRAW 2 co-op campaign was "Defend", where up to 16 people slaughter an endless onslaught of very stupid AI, for up to an hour (full hour needed to get the "achievement"). GRFS has a rough equivalent, in "Guerrilla" mode, that is much better. Here, up to 4 players team up to attack a rebel outpost (AI defenders), and then occupy it as wave after wave of AI attempt to take it back. After 10 waves, you fight your way into a new and different outpost and then defend it for 10 more waves. In between each wave, colored smokes just outside mark the spot of a helicopter drop of ammo and weapons, allowing you to rearm for the next wave. You'll have time to rearm if you don't dawdle. Better in many ways than the old "Defend", but for me has the same lack of appeal. Good mode - just not for me. (This mode also has a Huge Fail - shared with the other co-op mode, so see below.)

GRFS is lacking almost all of the remaining co-op modes of GRAW 2, having only a single additional one: playing the single player campaign (discussed below), but with up to 3 human friends, rather than 3 AI teammates. I've not played this, largely because you can only play with FRIENDS. You can invite people from your Xbox Live Friends list, and that's it. Since that list is limited to 100 people, and most won't be playing this game at any particular time, getting a full room is very hard. You'll find people on fora giving out their Gamer Tag, begging you to add them to your friends list so they can get a 4 player co-op mission going. Sad.

This is a Total Fail - GRAW 2 (and other modes in GRFS) allow random matching. Better still, in GRAW 2 you could "Host", where someone set up a room, chose a play mode and map, difficulty level, respawns, turned on or off various play aids, etc., and either invited people or let anyone just jump in (a search mode showed all the games of a given type running). If you wanted to play with a select group, a private room could be set up, invitation only. A lot of the fun was joining new groups and adapting to the playing style of new people, helping newbies get into the game, learning from experienced pros who knew all the maps and were deadly, etc. Now this spontaneity is gone. Maybe the "Clan" concept will save this - where groups of players join a clan and play together on a schedule. Sometimes these are loosely associated, sometimes with a hierarchical command structure of military precision (NOT my thing, never joined one). I don't see a provision for clans here, creating them, inviting people, etc., maybe I missed it. If it isn't here, you'd have to create your clan in other games, in online fora, or by causal meeting in other GRFS game modes that at least allow random matching.

Guerrilla mode has this same limitation (hinted at above), though it can be played pretty well with 2 or only 1 player. These limitations largely defeat the social aspects of GRAW 2, where people met and played in loose associations, as well as clans. That spontaneity is largely gone. The player isn't in charge, no hosting, etc., a theme that runs throughout GRFS - this is a game where you aren't in charge, and Ubisoft is. I'll highlight more of this, but it permeates the entire game.

Now we get to the human-on-human competitive modes, where two teams fight it out. These are both much better and infinitely worse than GRAW2, depending on what you like. They are better because they mix fighting and objectives. The idea isn't just to kill opponents, but to reach objectives, perform operations, etc., and to do so requires a lot of teamwork. The objectives come in a variety of flavors, all the way from one team defending, and the other attacking, to various supplies, intel locations, bombs, etc, which have to be captured, dominated, moved, etc. All good, a lot here for those of different tastes, and a big step up from a simple slaughter. (No every-man-for-himself who can kill the most mode, beloved by some.)

Here we get into character classes: Scout, Rifleman, Engineer, each with his own strengths, and special weapons. The selection of weapons is wide and there is immense customization in the so-called "gun shop" mode, where you assemble and test fire your weapons. The selection of secondary weapons and accessories is also large, too large in my view. Want a "drone" to mark enemies for you and your team? There are several - steerable, fixed, ground, air, toss-able, built into special gunsights, etc. Want to "hack" your enemy's com system and see all of their locations? Stun one and hack him with your computer (used to speed up some objectives too). The enemy will know that they are hacked though. You've got x-ray glasses that can see through anything, for a ways at least, and see metal objects (like guns), heat goggles to see enemies by heat through smoke (yup, smoke grenades), but also EMPs to knock out the enemy's high-tech. Want Harry Potter's cloak of invisibility? Your Scout class has one.

There are an almost infinite array of measures and counter-measures available, each cancelling the other out somewhat. It can get daunting, but players more tolerant of complexity than I am, and less interested in traditional battle tactics, will find the gadgets cool.

ONE BIG PROBLEM: they are almost all "locked". You'll start with very mediocre weapons, and gadgets, and as you "level up" and get XP, gadgets, gun accessories, weapons, etc., will either unlock, or can be "purchased" with XP. Since there are two sides in the competitive modes, you'll need to level them both up and equip them, but the two sides level together, so keeping them both similarly equipped won't be too big a chore. There is the issue that the 3 classes level and gain XP separately, so you'll have to fight in each mode and level them independently. You'll likely prefer one class, and level it most rapidly. You'll not want to get them TOO far out of sync, as each has special talents that you'll want to use occasionally. The Scout has the magic cloak, the Engineer has the drones and intel equipment, etc. So long as a team has some of each class you'll be OK, but don't depend on a random team being well balanced. You may have to be the Engineer if no one else is.

I've NEVER liked this kind of play, where the weapons you've acquired, and not your actual skill, is so determinative, but here the dislike is INTENSE. You'll have to play for a long time to unlock all the best weapons and gadgets, and this will take days and days of intense play (if you have a life, and can't just play 24/7). The guys with the high-tech weapons will DOMINATE you. This game has its share of fools, who'll not be helped that much by the best weapons and gadgets, but for the tactically sophisticated, the high-tech stuff will give them a prohibitive advantage over a new player who hasn't leveled up. There are self-guided bullets, proximity mines (of more than one kind), etc., etc., etc. A leveled up player will be the ultimate Predator, invisible at times (including on the move, unlike you poor noobs), able to defeat all of your technology, overpower your weapons, kill you from afar, and up close, able to stun you and have his way with you, etc. Want the definition of "pwned" - start fresh in GRFS after a lot of players have leveled up and you'll BE the definition.

Worse, I've seen no evidence of level matching when teams are assigned. Right now a few of the higher level players are slaughtering a good many low level ones, but if there isn't level matching, this will soon become a blood bath. Surely Ubisoft has taken this into account, and I've just not seen evidence of it.

Let's shift to the single player campaign. Word is that it takes 10 - 12 hours to complete, but is a bit easy (play in "elite" mode right away, and you'll likely not have that complaint, though some still do). Here we begin to see some of the Ubisoft tyranny in operation. This mode is very much "on rails" a good deal of the time. In GRAW 2 you ran the team, in GRFS you just tag along. It is up to you to mark targets for simultaneous kills by the team, a neat feature that Ubisoft is justly proud of, but which will start to get old fast. If you screw up, and alert the AI opponents, a nasty fire-fight will erupt. Like nasty fire-fights? They will erupt no matter what you do, when Ubisoft decides that they should. You're following a story here, and no matter what you do, things will go wrong when and how they need to for the story to unfold.

What do I mean by "on rails"? Well, you HAVE to stay with the team. Fighting up a street and want to flank around a house? "Signal is fading, signal is fading"; take another step and you just die. Rescued a guy? You HAVE to take him out into a hailstorm of bullets, the bag still over his head so you're guiding him with one hand with only your pistol in the other (oddly, later, in a similar situation, you get your primary weapon). The rest of the team is hollering a lot and shooting very little. It is up to you, with your pistol, to do it all (not impossible). You can only go one way, on a tight path, to one point of cover with your hooded rescuee. Lame, lame, lame. Of course all of this is prefaced, punctuated, and ended with cut scenes, usually unavoidable, where stupid and boring things happen to further the story, and over which you have no control. The visual quality of these scenes varies a lot - with sometimes ridiculously grimacing human faces "wrapped" onto GCI characters.

Like all the classic "cut-in" action from other games? Ubisoft has helpfully stolen it for you to play here. Door gunning from a helo, riding in trucks, commanding the War Dog as it spews shells and missiles. All good stuff if you like it, too bad I'm interested in tactics, not cut scenes, kick-azz armor tech, and set-piece shooting galleries. If you like it, it is here for you.

Your AI teammates are a mixed bag. They have personalities that come out in cut scenes, and while they aren't bad guys really, "shallow" does come to mind, as they are tough-guy cliches in many ways. Spare me this, I care about how they fight.

They actually fight pretty well, sometimes. They don't steal all of your kills, or trigger unwanted fire-fights (unless the script calls for it). They tend to talk a lot, some of it helpful (calling attention to enemies and movement), some of it distracting (calling attention to enemies and movement that seem to be imaginary). They are much more immune to being killed or observed that you are, and can get away with things that would get you spotted or killed in an instant. The idea is obviously that you determine how stealthy the team is, and you either live or die, but sometimes their relative immunity stands out. You can even use it to advantage in firefights sometimes, as they wade in where you'd be killed, making a few kills, but most importantly drawing fire to them, leaving you open to carry the load shooting from behind the team. It is a little odd, not being in command, but still responsible for finding enemies, calling shots, and sometimes taking the tactical initiative. For the most part it works, and you are at least relieved of the chore of ordering them around all the time.

Those who have played all the way through campaign complain of a few poor missions, especially the last one. Campaign has an unfinished feel, with some poor continuity and missions that violate the "rules" that apply elsewhere. Silly complaint really. A couple of poor missions don't ruin the good ones, and some are really good (despite the tendency to be "on rails" too much of the time.)

Don't listen to people who tell you the graphics suck. They're fine in every mode. It even has that nice traditional Ghost Recon look, just better. Same with glitches, all games have them, so does this one, but they rarely ruin it for you. Most can be worked around, others will likely be fixed soon. Not a reason to avoid the game at all.

To get back to the tyranny of Ubisoft, consider one of the team modes (some kind of assault, forget the name). If you are on the defend side, you'll notice a red fence near your base sometimes. Cross it and you die. Why? To enforce the teamwork aspect. This is one of the (many) big flaws in GRFS - the tendency to FORCE teamwork. If you wonder away from the base that you are supposed to defend, then you'll lose. The punishment for poor tactics is losing, but Ubisoft has to reach in and FORCE you to have good tactics by killing you if you don't. Weird & gratuitous. This mode, BTW, is one where you DON'T get infinite respawns like most of the team combat modes. That's nice, as it forces players to play seriously and not just run, gun and respawn. Fortunately, these only last about 5 minutes, so the wait isn't too long if you die early.

Another weird intervention: if you defend your team's Engineer as he hacks the objective in one mode, he "works faster" because he's "more confident". How close do you have to be to help his "confidence?" Your HUD will tell you (indirectly). Again, the price of not defending a player engaged in a "task" is losing. No need to enforce it with nonsense. Similarly, XP is earned by various teamwork actions, which is fine, but again gratuitous, as teamwork has its own reward: success.

I know this is rambling, but there is so much here. Don't like the complexity of the gadgets, and want a simpler or more "old-school" game play where all the paths aren't laid out and hidden enemies highlighted? Too bad, you can't turn off or restrict the gadgets and "aids" in use (Ubisoft proudly says that there are a "plethora" of them). Like the idea of an "I win" button? You're in luck - "X", the melee button, kills in one stroke, so if you round a corner and meet a fussilade of full auto, in your face, a quick "X" will win. Knife or bare hands beats machine gun - gotta love it! Not a great shot, but want a one-shot-kill at close range (remember the full-auto .308 won't usually do that)? The Engineer's shotty is for you. The Remington 870 has a wide spread and hits hard (too wide, too hard) and lays them down in one shot.

Want to trump the melee or the shotty? The stun gun might be your weapon. Too bad you were offered the choice of either it or smoke and went with smoke - you get one chance to choose, and once you make it you're stuck with your choice (except you aren't, eventually you can "earn" a do-over on your choices, but only one or two). Same with the self-guiding bullet, the long-range bolt from the blue that will take down someone on the run from across the map, too bad you chose the magic enemy-marking scope instead when given the choice. You're going to see "are you sure, this choice is permanent?" WAY too often (once is too often for me).

Want another in-your-face, Ubisoft Uber Alles, trick? Uplay is just your ticket then. The online modes are all (or almost all) locked when you start the game. How to unlock? Use the unlock code packed in the game to automatically set up a Ubisoft Uplay account, and you're in. Oh, you rented the game? Bought it used? Your cousin played it a while and then gave it to you. Too bad for you, the code only works for one Gamer Tag (even if it is still in the box), so you're out of luck, no online for you. There must be a way out (everything in GRFS has something else that trumps it). And the trump is? Why, THE Trump, the Old Spondulix, Jack, Benjamins - MONEY YOU FOOL! Ubisoft wants you to BUY online access for a game they've already sold. Not completely implemented, as far as I can see, Ubisoft has stolen (again) an idea from other gaming companies, that got started last year. Lock up online access so that rentals and resales have to pony up to get online. All the rage, coming soon to a game you play, GRFS being the 3rd recent release that Ubisoft has put this into.

There is so much, but I'll end with a little thing, that if you don't like you can just ignore, but which gives away the mindset behind GRFS - how it is targeted at the mass market for this kind of game, the lowest common denominator, with NO thought to continuing the Ghost Recon franchise, beyond superficial graphic similarity. Every time you start up, in the menus, you'll see a list of "taunts" from any of your friends who've played the game. Jack has more headshots than you. Jill more melee kills. Tom has leveled up higher than you. Dick is a better team player. Harry is hairier than you. Whatever. Don't take offense - Ubisoft is just monitoring all of your friends and putting up this trash, without them having any say in it. For those who WANT to, proactively, taunt their friends, Ubisoft has an Ap for that (a topic I'll brush past - look online), and an in-game method of issuing "challenges", to do certain things, so many times, before the taunter does. Worth accepting because you'll get XP if you succeed, and even if you aren't trying you might succeed just during normal play (and boy do you need leveling and XP to unlock goodies).

This silly automatic taunting is ridiculous. I happened to kill a couple of people (entirely accidentally, I have no XP, no levels, poor weapons, few tricks in my bag), while one of my friends happened not to be playing. He's been killing, leveling up, etc. What does he see, next time he starts up? A taunt that I have two more kills than him - BECAUSE I HAPPENED TO GET 2 KILLS WHILE HE WASN'T PLAYING. Sad.

Sounds like I hate the game, doesn't it? I do, passionately, since it has effectively ruined my favorite shooter franchise of all time. It has eliminated everything I liked about GRAW 2, and added everything I hate about a lot of other shooters. But, here's the thing - you might like what I hate, and hate what I like. Those stolen bits from other games were stolen from popular games, and the guys at Ubisoft think they are bits key to their popularity. It isn't just theft either, as there are some fairly original details here that look like winners (just not for me and my style of play).

Take a look at GRFS, maybe watch a friend play, etc., especially the online matches. This may be a great game for you (those with a sharp eye will see things that they like in my criticisms). For me it is the opposite of fun - hence the long review. For you it may be a fresh take on everything that you like in shooters. I hope that it is.
66 comments|32 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 27, 2014
To be fair, I only played the single-player campaign.

I enjoyed MOST of the game. It is clear that the game designers had a particular way in mind for players to play the game, so the levels are incredibly linear with odd, arbitrary boundaries on how you progress through. For example, there are levels you apparently are NOT supposed to be able to sneak past enemy troops on, but I did...only for the message "losing connection" (you are leaving the battlefield) to appear until my team just starting blasting away at the enemy. This was strange to me because most of the game is designed for you to at least try to sneak past the enemy or even requires it! "Run and gun" does not usually reward you as a player in this game. As another reviewer pointed out, there are some very strange parts to levels, like the 15-story stair climb where the NPCs actually complain about having to climb 15 flights of stairs...as you monotonously walk up 15 flights of uneventful stairs. I also found the "timer" missions to be absolutely frustrating. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a challenge...when the game is designed to let you play through it and overcome it! When you have to chase some fugitives through the woods, constantly being shot at by their henchmen, and without letting them get a certain distance away from you was the worst part of the campaign for me. That one level was an entirely different game than what the campaign had been. I don't know how many times I died trying to keep up. Again, very linear. I didn't play the multiplayer or co-op, so I cannot review that. But I'm never a fan of games that require you to not only have the Xbox Live account/Playstation Network account but also the producer's account (and a paid multiplayer access code).

Graphics were pretty good during gameplay, but the cinematics could have been WAY more polished! Some of the cinematics between missions also just seemed out of place and weird. Some really did nothing for the story. I forgot the plotline at a couple points and had to look it up again. The sound of the game was well done. The weapon customization was fun to play with and intuitive once you learned it. (So many options!)

Overall, I'm glad I picked this game up when it was way cheap rather than brand new. I don't feel like there is a ton of replay value here for me, sadly.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 22, 2012
I picked up the game last night and absolutely love it. Cover system is the best out of every game I have played so far, third person (with first person zoom) adds a new dimension to the genre, and overall, Ghost Recon is an amazing game. Possibly one of the best features is that every mode, including the 12 hour campaign and 15 hour guerrilla mode, includes Co-op, which for me, makes the game even better. I love call of duty and battlefield, but this game is so refreshing. You actually have to play extremely tactically and if you are tired of the sometimes irritating and boring run and gun gameplay of duty and battlefield, you should definitely pick up this game. Kudos to Ubisoft
1313 comments|30 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 28, 2012
I love this game. The campaign is long and a very involved experience. This is not your typical run and gun. This requires using your team and the equipment in very tactical ways. This game is great for so many reasons. First off, the campaign is fully playable with up to four people. Get your friends together and play the campaign. When that is done there is the multiplayer experience which is really engaging. You can easily get into matches with friends by simply joining them from the friends screen. No more long complicated invite processes, you can simply jump in and out of lobbies as you want. The game play is fun because it is team goal oriented, just killing people is not enough. I love the different equipment that is available through the leveling system. Each class has different choices of guns, grenades, and equipment through out the game. Each gun can be specifically designed to your needs. Layouts and classes can be easily switched at the re-spawn screen. Third person game play is fun and you can still aim in first person if you want. I know this game has received mixed reviews but I think it is more a question of personal choice over actual game play being the problem. If you like run n' gun COD game play this might not be for you but if B3 and Tom Clancy stealth/strategy games appeal to you this may be a good way to spend some time with friends. This is a great reintroduction of the series and I hope that any complaints about this game will be fixed in a sequel.

Update 10-06-2012 With the constant addition of good DLC I would still rate this game a strong buy. I know other shooters are debuting this fall but I think this game still has legs on it.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 23, 2013
I love this game. It is one of my all time favorites. I think it is the best multiplayer shooter out right now. I usually play cod, but since they havent had hardcore headquarters I haven't like playing that much anymore. I really like that you have to work as a team and take objectives; its alot better than just running around and shooting people and not really having any strategy or team effort, which is what i love about this game. Single player is amazing with quite a bit of replay value, to get the extras. Multiplayer is also amazing, and is my favorite. If you like shooters you will like this game. If you like shooters that require teamwork, or being stealthy, you will probably love it. Only thing i dont like about this game is the servers; you will lose connection quite a bit, and you will get host migrations all the time. Also if you play the new maps it is kind of hard to find games, but thats it. There can be lag also, but that is with any game online. If it had better servers i would give this game 100/100, but how it is right now maybe a 90 or 95%. The original maps are great and have tons of matches. most of the map packs are worth getting if you play alot, especially the one with the extra guns. I would pay a bunch of money for this game. It is such a great value at around 20$
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 23, 2012
This review is some of my likes and dislikes of Ghost Recon Future Soldier and other key things players might want to know before purchasing.

Game
- Game requires a Uplay pass, which comes free if you buy the game new
- Graphics are okay, the level design as well done but the character design needed more detail
- No screen tearing that I have noticed but I installed the game on the HD
- Controls are amazing, but there is no option to change them
- Future gadgets like the active camo and UAV drone are fun and easy to use
- Third person view at is finest, making looking around very clear
- Sound is okay as well, but I have noticed it go out or sync at times
- Gunsmith is a nice new feature, enabling the player to customize their weapon in a variety of ways

Campaign
- You play a team member on the Ghost Recon team but are not the Squad Leader (odd)
- Not as detailed on Squad control as GRAW
- Story is nothing new but is good enough for a war game
- Lasts about 10 hours
- Hostage rescue moments are really exciting
- Stealth kills are always fun
- Kill syncing is nice
- One to two new gadgets added for every new level
- Levels are very linear and don't provide much freedom of exploration
- A.I. teammates seem to control themselves well enough
- Up to four players
- Coop is limited to Xbox Live friends, no guests and no matchmaking

Guerilla Mode
- Like Horde mode on Gears of War
- 50 waves of increasing difficulty
- A variety of maps add different experiences
- Some waves experience slow down when there are a lot of enemies and explosions happening at the same time
- Very intense for two players, but more tactical with four players
- Up to four players
- Coop allows for a split screen guest, but still no matchmaking

Multiplayer
- Only four or five modes
- Each mode is built around working as team, no COD one gun savior
- Levels are built to favor both teams
- Each team has different weapons to choose from, so no single loadout
- Some modes in GRAW absent (Team Death Match, etc)
- Lag seems to be hit or miss
- Up to 16 players
- Matchmaking

This game excels in some areas which make it very fun at times. I would say it is worth buying new because of the free Uplay and the single player experience it offers. If you are looking for a coop game like Gears of War or Halo, than you will be very disappointed if you don't have any Xbox Live friends that have the game too. I hope this review helps.

To Be honest, I am the type of gamer that enjoys a good single player experience, but loves a great Xbox Live experience to get the most out of the game. So, I originally gave the game a 1 star for the coop mode options being very limiting and disappointing for Xbox Live. I feel the overall game though deserves better, so I changed my review.
11 comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 22, 2012
First off, I played through both GRAW 1&2 and loved them both. Although this title is technically not GRAW 3, I guess I sort of assumed it would follow the same lines as the first two games. Not so much. It's almost like it's own franchise. You no longer take on the squad leader role of Scott Mitchell. In fact, you are not even the squad leader. You no longer have command of your squad, with the exception of a synchronized sniper shot order (which is pretty cool). You still have the same toys (UAV, Stryker, etc.) and some new ones (enemy sensor, light-bending cammo, etc.). The controls are good, but they differ from previous Ghost Recon games, which I think is kind of stupid - if it works well, why change it up? The game boasts some pretty nice visuals and sound. All in all, it's a pretty good game, it's just not what GRAW fans are used to. I suppose Ubisoft didn't exactly market the game under false pretenses. After all, the game is named Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, not Advanced Warfighter. I wouldn't pay $60.00 for it, but at a price point of about $40.00 or less, it's worth picking up.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See all 2 answered questions


Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.