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. I will not be buying any further Call of Duty games unless I try it out first at a friend's.
**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.
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!!!
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
on December 16, 2013
While Call of Duty is often regarded as the epitome of the annualized, cynically produced, lazily constructed videogame franchise, I've always maintained that both Infinity Ward and Treyarch expended much more effort than they were ever given credit for.
Whether it's the underestimated storytelling prowess of Modern Warfare or the noble efforts to revitalize the COD formula with Black Ops, the overwhelmingly popular series is far more cognizant of its own criticisms than many like to believe.
My defense of the consistent quality of Call of Duty has certainly caught criticism of its own. Indeed, I am lauded as a hypocrite for daring to suggest that Modern Warfare 3 was not objectively, factually, a mediocre game. I still believe that, and I still have respect for Call of Duty as a series. However, I've always been mindful that the gravy train cannot last forever, and as "military shooters" are in 2013 what World War II shooters were in 2008, it's high time Call of Duty underwent another dramatic transformation, the likes of which gave us the original Modern Warfare.
Black Ops II was a step forward in this regard, an earnest attempt to inject fresh life into a flagging idea. By comparison, Ghosts is not only a failure to capitalize on the goodwill Black Ops II earned, it's a disappointing step backward.
While most fans consider their Call of Duty campaigns to be little more than additional fluff, tacked onto the multiplayer, I've always found them a compelling draw. The stories aren't the most engrossing, nor are they particularly deep, but they are at least energetic, explosive, and highly effective at drawing a reaction from the player, even if a few cheap tricks are employed the get it. Ghosts, by contrast, offers a startlingly lethargic solo experience, with a story lacking in character -- or indeed, characters -- and going through the expected motions with little evidenced enthusiasm.
The campaign isn't exactly bad, but it is a banal shooting gallery without the remarkable setpieces or memorable moments to carry it. Very much a COD-by-numbers affair, players quickly blitz through the usual tasks with dutiful obligation. Indeed, "obligation" is a fitting word to use when talking about Ghosts' solo missions -- the obligatory bit where a temporary player character dies, the obligatory aircraft sequence, the obligatory escape while shooting things from the back of a vehicle, the obligatory sniping part, the obligatory chapter where you're walking quietly in grass. More than any other Call of Duty, there is an overwhelming sense of having been there many times, and having done that more than you can count.
The combat is solid, but its solidarity is matched only by its tepidness. You move from small wall to small wall, shooting the enemies ducking behind their own walls, and avoiding their endless grenades. After the mission variety and unique optional objectives found in Black Ops II, it's difficult to go back to "normal" Call of Duty, which feels comparatively dry and plodding. Without an interesting story (the American invasion plot feels like a rehash of Modern Warfare 2), and without the usual explosive pace I've come to expect, there's really very little worth experiencing here.
Ghosts' one big attempt to stand out is the inclusion of Riley, a dog. It's a dog. That's what it is. In missions where Riley accompanies you, you can press a button to make the dog attack an enemy. Every now and then, you might get to control the dog and let it sneak around in grass to attack people. That's about it. There's something about the game industry that compels it to market dogs as massive, game changing inclusions in games. They never have been, and if Ghosts is a continuation of a trend, they probably never will.
Without a campaign of note, Call of Duty hinges on multiplayer more than ever and ... it's okay. As always, various tweaks and refinements have been added, but Ghosts' online efforts suffer in the same way its campaign has -- the previous installment added too much, and did too many things better, for this to be considered a worthy successor. While there are some new toys to play with, and you can even customize the look of your character (as well as play as a woman, finally), the core experience feels like business as usual, moreso since we've lost the near-future gadgets found in 2012's installment.
A new mode, Squads, allows you to command your own team of characters in a multiplayer scenario, cooperating with friends and challenging others with AI-controlled teammates. I'll be honest, I don't really get the point. You're not commanding anybody, or doing much more than experiencing an official simulation of a multiplayer match with half a lobby full. Its presence isn't offensive, and it may be of use to total newcomers who aren't ready to jump into full competition, but it failed to really excite me.
If one is to be diplomatic, one can say Ghosts is still better than a lot of cornball military shooter knock-offs, but formula and familiarity have won the day, as Infinity Ward finds itself too afraid to shake anything up in too dramatic a fashion. As with the campaign, a checklist of obligatory elements appears to have been steadily worked through, as the usual format of ranking, unlocking, and customization trundles along with methodical reliability.
And don't get me wrong, it's as reliable as it's always been -- if all you've ever really wanted is the same Call of Duty every single year, then you're going to love this, because it's as Call of Duty as Call of Duty gets. A few cute modes help break up the usual stable of gametypes, such as Infected (one player slowly turns the others into zombie-like creatures) and Cranked (chaining kills makes you tougher, faster, and able to score more points). These modes can make things less monotonous, but they riff on ideas seen in many other shooters, and really aren't worth the buying the whole game for.
Except players can also have dogs now. Dogs make everything good.
While Treyarch has steadily gotten better and braver with each new game, Ghosts sees Infinity Ward step into the role of pretender, of flagging inferior, one that doesn't seem to care much about improving its status, not when it could churn out any old guff at this point and come out on top of the sales charts.
To that end, Infinity Ward takes a page directly of Treyarch's book with Extinction, a wave-based cooperative mode that performs functionally similar to the ever popular Zombies mode. However, while Zombies always had a unique sense of humor and an amusing arcade quality, Extermination is a fairly bland slice of chaos, in which fairly uninteresting aliens are mowed through across blasted cities littered with quivering pustules.
As aliens are killed, one earns cash, which can be spent on new weapons, while skill points unlock temporary items that support the team. As with everything else in Ghosts, it performs its job adequately, and is not a terrible experience. It's just not very exciting either, and yet again plays catch up to things done far better in previous installments.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record at this point, everything I've said can be said about the visuals as well -- they're not the worst, they're far from the best, and yet again they feel highly lacking off the back of Black Ops II, which at least had cool futuristic designs to play around with. Ghosts' vision of a not-quite-post-apocalyptic America is bourgeois at best, an unremarkable representation that could have been eerie and unsettling, if it were presented with anything more than sociopathic carelessness. Audio is the same way -- uninspired music, and the usual shooting noises, alongside bored voice actors.
A few buggy elements rear their heads too, such the audio frequently cutting out during campaign loading screens, and guns failing to switch properly when they run out of ammo. I also had to restart a checkpoint due to an event not triggering as it should. Nothing game breaking, but at this point, one doesn't expect to see such silly little glitches in a game that's not done a whole lot to reinvent itself.
Call of Duty may have picked up a reputation as one of the laziest, most callously developed cash cows in the business, but I've always believed that reputation was undeserved. Call of Duty: Ghosts, however, with its slapdash campaign and unambitious multiplayer, contains enough factory-standard cynicism to earn itself plenty of scorn. Nothing Ghosts does is especially bad, but nothing Ghosts does is worth paying any attention to. It exists to exist, a stopgap bit of filler spat out as the industry transitions from one generation of consoles to another.
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.
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.
on May 9, 2014
Call of Duty Ghosts is outstanding and a refreshment of creativity to the series! Now I have to admit at first I expected Ghosts to be redundant as its predecessors until I started playing the campaign. The campaign is really that good! I also want to note that I'm one of the few who plays Call of Duty for the campaign only and rarely play online. But here is my take on the pros and cons of the game:
-Refreshed and invigorating campaign
-Destructive and interactive environments
-Outer space, land, and ocean combat
-User control of vehicles (tanks and planes)
-In depth knowledge of war tactics (submarine sonar pulses that kill nearby divers)
-Squad Modes (instead of playing online you can generate a created team offline to battle another created team of your choice)
-Lack of war wisdom quotes ("Friendly fire - isn't... I don't know with what weapons WWIII will be fought with but I know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones... etc.)
-Small font and disabled subtitles
-Dorky/immature looking animations
-Some unrealistic physics (A helicopter swaying 2,000 feet side wards in less than a second to avoid missiles... a guard dog jumping 30 feet in the air, biting and killing the pilot, and then safely jumping out landing on all fours before the helicopter crashes... a marine falling through the roof of a building landing back first and walks away without any broken bones... space fighters slamming into debris and somehow surviving with open wounds and a cracked face shield in outer space)
-Lack of diversified explicit language (I'm sure "holy s word... holy s word... holy s word..." isn't the only strong language marines use in combat. Given the plethora of curse words in the ending song of Ghosts I'm surprised that they didn't add more realistic language in the game besides "s word, holy s word, and one scene of "you m.f.!" The language felt scripted and lacked emotional fluidity."
I feel at times that COD Ghosts caters a little too much to 8-13 year olds. It's hard to take the game serious at times when space fighters look like they're wearing diapers floating in space and over the top childish animations defy reality. With all of that being said the game is well balanced and a fun refreshment for the series! I personally would like to see the Ghosts franchise catered more to adults while other COD games cater to younger crowds.
I highly recommend you buy this game! This game is what it should be... fun.
on August 25, 2016
Imagining the destruction of American cities, landscapes and monuments is nothing new. It’s been the crux of three previous Call of Duty games. Ghosts is conceptually different in that it imagines waning American power not as the result of some great calamity, but as a natural decline. Yes, there is also a calamity with big explosions, crumbling buildings and the earth splitting and yawning beneath our feet—sure—but Ghosts makes a point out of mentioning that this was only kicking us when we were already down.
Ghosts begins with us already having been defeated. We don’t play a part in defending Las Vegas against invaders, we only see it after the fact, the once-glamorous casinos slowly reclaimed by the sand. We don’t have a chance to repel an attack on LA (at once our cultural goldmine and void); it’s already been reduced to a crater. More importantly, we get to see that, meanwhile, the enemy is celebrating Federation Day with colorful fireworks over Caracas. We get to see the lights exploding and reflecting in the glass high rises that sprouted from its newfound wealth.
The fantasy of Americans as freedom fighters isn’t new either. I’m very fond of Red Dawn’s Wolverines and less so of Homefront, which tried to make a Call of Duty game out of the same movie. But defending the homestead is one thing, taking the fight out of the country and into a foreign, peaceful city is a completely different matter.
Ghosts takes a Call of Duty player, creates a fiction around him where America is put in the position of many of the countries we fight today (weaker than us, defeated from the sky), and allows him to become what we fear. Given the right conditions, maybe he’ll suddenly find himself empathizing with the enemy whose point of view we rarely consider. What better way for a game to engage with and comment on war without coming off as jingoistic?
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.
on July 30, 2014
I really enjoy playing this game. I saw a lot of negative reviews, but I figured since I have liked all of the other COD games, I would like this one too. Plus for $20, it seemed like a great deal. I bought 2 copies of the game, one for me and one for my boyfriend since we both like to play online with each other. I really like that there are so many options for customizing your character and all of the different weapons and attachments you can use and so many perks. I also like how large the maps are. I haven't tried all of them yet, but the ones I have tried are great. I typically play the Free for all mode and I think the bots are more difficult to beat in this game than before so it is definitely more of a challenge.
One thing that I don't like is that I can't connect to a LAN party like I could in the other games to play online. My boyfriend and I found a fix though and if you play online and set the game to private and invite other people, you can still do the LAN type game there.
My game has froze a few times, but I don't think it's the game. I think it is my PS3. I've had the same issue with every game i've played, so I can't blame the game for that.
Overall I really enjoy this game and I'm excited to buy the expansion packs once I've played the game for awhile!