Call of Duty: Ghosts Review

Call of Duty is the James Bond of video games. It’s fast-paced action-packed blockbuster entertainment at its best. Yes, it’s formulaic, but if that formula works so well, why ruin it? Like Bond, CoD isn’t trying to take itself too seriously, it is what it is, and it’s bloody great at it. What Infinity Ward have done with CoD: Ghosts is actually quite brave. Starting with that very familiar formula, they’ve taken a step back to re-think what works and what doesn’t. The game has been re-balanced on a level we haven’t seen before from a Call of Duty game.

After a brief introduction, the game opens with a jaw-dropping vista. The ODIN level, or “CoD in Space” as some like to call it, fades-in as you and a fellow astronaut overlook Earth in all its wonder. The lighting in this scene, as the sun reflects off the space station and your colleague’s helmet, is quite distractingly beautiful. If there was any one scene to show off the true HD resolution of the next generation of games consoles, this is it. It’s hard not to be blown away, as the game hints at the scale of the experience you’re about to be a part of.

Fifteen minutes in and we’re introduced to man’s best friend, Riley. This German Shepherd isn’t your typical video game companion; he’s not some hapless pup that you need to worry about getting hurt. Riley is a lean, mean killing machine. Interacting with Riley is entertaining, for example sending him in to attack an enemy while your focus is elsewhere, but the real fun comes from the missions in which you’re given full control of the dog, using the mechanic of a head-mounted camera and headset. Riley possesses stealth skills that human soldiers can’t match; stalking through long grass and leaping out at the enemy is more fun than it should be, but it’s a shame there aren’t more of these moments. Riley only features in part of the campaign, but when he is on-screen he definitely steals the show.

The one exception is a moment when Riley gets injured, and it’s your job to carry him across the battlefield, which would be all well and good if you had an extra hand. Placing the dog on the ground to take a few shots at enemies before picking him up and continuing your journey is the least enjoyable experience in the game, especially when the grenades start dropping at your feet while you’re busy in the pick-up/put-down animations.

There’s always something happening to grab your attention, and the developers are always throwing curve-balls to keep you guessing. After mowing down a squad of enemies with your rifle, you might need to grab a MAAWS guided rocket launcher and take down a couple of enemy helicopters, or you might be asked to operate remote-controller sniper rifles while flying on the back of a helicopter yourself. Then there’s the mission where you rappel down the side of a sky scraper and assassinate a few enemies through the windows.

One of the most exciting yet probably unrealistic moments of the game is towards the latter half, when you get to drive a tank. This thing glides around at 50 mph, rotating at speeds probably currently impossible, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s so undeniably exhilarating. Forget those slow-moving tanks from other FPS titles, you can’t beat the feeling of rushing around, taking out turrets with your cannons and just causing general mayhem.

The story is cheesy, but we wouldn’t have it any other way, and it’s made even more dramatic by the amazing musical accompaniment throughout. The soundtrack offers some intense moments, as a rising crescendo informs you that some epic shit’s about to go down. Eminem’s Survival is such a great number to close the show with, too – you won’t be able to avoid singing along as the credits roll.

The graphics are sharp as hell on the PlayStation 4, which is by far the best way to play Call of Duty: Ghosts. There are a few times when the frame-rate drops, making this perhaps the first Call of Duty game without a solid 60 fps framerate, but those moments are few and far between. The drop in framerate usually occurs when shooting, as a grenade or explosive of some kind goes off, damaging some of the destructible environments, while the snow particles or smoke is blowing into the camera.

As great as the single player campaign is, Multiplayer is when Call of Duty truly comes into its own. This is what we buy CoD for every year, and what we’ll still be playing next November, and Ghosts’ Multiplayer doesn’t disappoint. In fact, it seems the re-structuring at Infinity Ward has given them a chance to really take a look at multiplayer with a fresh pair of eyes. Treyarch’s Black Ops was very much a “me too” game, borrowing a lot of ideas from Modern Warfare 2, and MW3 and Black Ops 2 have been pretty much the same thing, all idea-pinching and iterating, ultimately leading to an undeniable feature-creep of doom. Ghosts takes a refreshing approach by really looking at what works and what doesn’t, and attempting to fix most of the problems that have naturally occurred during the series’ evolution. It’s worth noting, however, that there’s no 4-player split-screen multiplayer in CoD: Ghosts, and it only supports 2-player split-screen for local play – although system-linking is still an option.

Infinity Ward have actually done something quite bold in dropping the ranked levelling system for a flat progression system. What this means is that instead of unlocking weapons, gear and perks as you level up, you can buy them at any time as long as you have enough points. You will still earn new perks from ranking up, but now you no longer have to wait to use the perks vital to your set-up. It essentially levels the playing field, because people who have been playing long enough to prestige several times won’t have access to equipment that is unavailable to a newbie.

Perks have been separated into seven sets of 5 perks (Speed, Handling, Stealth, Awareness, Resistance, Equipment, Elite), for easier sorting, and can now be purchased individually at any stage – again, providing you have enough points. Each perk has its own cost, ranging from 1 to 5 points, and you can carry up to 12 points worth of perks at any given time. So you could be using 10 perks at once if you go for the cheapest options, or only 4 if you pick the most expensive of the bunch. Knives don’t appear to latch-on to the target from such a great distance anymore, making their use a more “up close and personal” method.

There’s still a lot of familiarity for the seasoned CoD-player, with many maps following the traditional CoD-style 3 route formula (such as Freight and Octane), but then there are a few new maps that are genuinely quite astonishing. Not only do Whiterun and Stonehaven do away with the circle route for a more organic approach to the environment, but they’re two of the most beautiful maps ever featured in a CoD game. Stonehaven in particular is absolutely gorgeous, with a British-influenced castle surrounding greenery that appears to stretch for miles. They maps are also a lot bigger than we’re used to seeing from a Call of Duty map, so it could take a while to get used to such large playing fields.

The majority of the guns are brand new entries to CoD. Out with the M4A1, M16, SCAR and TAR; in with the Remington R5 and the Honey Badger – two weapons that could be extremely popular. The Remington is fully automatic, with increased damage and range, offering a great alternative to an M16. The Honey Badger however, with its fixed suppressor, is great for close-to-medium range assault, making it more of an SMG/assualt rifle hybrid.

Marksman rifles offer something between an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, perfect for a quick pew-pew at mid-to-long range. The IA-2, being the flagship marksman rifle, offers a sniper’s scope with dual render sight, meaning you can target your enemy while still being aware of your peripheral vision – a handy feature indeed.

There’s a lot of new gear, too. I.E.Ds (Improvised Explosive Devices) are the new proximity explosive in Ghosts: throw an I.E.D onto any surface and it’ll stick. The proximity sensor is going to be especially useful in Blitz, Grind and Domination where enemies have to approach a stationary flag position to earn points. Pop a few I.E.Ds around the flag and watch the fireworks.

Either weapons are more powerful this time around, or player Health Points are lower, because killing enemy players feels a lot quicker in Ghosts than in previous incarnations. Hit detection works great though, so there’s still plenty of skill involved in the aiming – having lower HP just means reaction times are very slim.

Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All, Domination and Search and Destroy game types are all make a come-back from MW3. New modes on the playlists are Search and Rescue, which is basically S&D but with the added benefit of being able to bring a team-mate back to life if you grab their dog-tags before the enemy does. Grind is another new dog-tag based game mode, similar to Kill Confirmed, only you have to “bank” the enemy dog-tags you collect to earn points for your team. Infected was a custom game mode in MW3 that’s making an official comeback in Ghosts – where one player is chosen at random to be “the infected” and it’s his job to stab other players, in turn infecting them and bringing them onto his team against the opposing soldiers with shotguns.

Hunted is a little like some of the community game types from previous CoDs, only this time you start off with limited resources and have to battle over random weapon drops throughout the map. Each new weapon only holds one clip, so you’ll have to be careful with your rounds when taking out enemies on your way to pick up the next drop.

Challenges are no longer hidden away in Barracks; objectives are displayed on the left of the screen for easy viewing when in Multiplayer lobbies – a small touch that makes it easier for players to see what they’re working towards between matches, for a more effective levelling experience.

“Squads” is an interesting new addition to the game, this time aimed at the CoD player who’s not necessarily interested in playing online competitively. Squads has a focus on smart AI, programmed to appear more human than ever before, with moves like strafing, jump-shotting and the funky new tactical slide.

Wargame and Squad Assault in particular are for gamers who like CoD, but have no interest in playing online multiplayer with strangers. Wargame is one for those fed up of abusive teens with headsets, as you join up with 5 AI squad members to take on enemy bots in an experience that is supposed to mirror online multiplayer in every way besides actually playing with others. Squad Assault is a little different to Wargame, enabling you to team up with five real friends to face enemy AI together. This mode could be good for clans to train their team tactics. If there’s a downside here, it’s the lack of communication options; Squad vs Squad, for example, could benefit from the ability to issue orders to your AI team mates, either via Kinect voice commands or at the very least Mass Effect style D-pad controls. The AI does communicate with the player by shouting out enemy locations and such, but it would be nice to have that communication work both ways, somehow.

Safeguard is a re-imagining of Survival mode from Modern Warfare 3. This time with a full time of 4 players, as opposed to 2 in the previous instalment. There are a few other changes: weapons and gear are no longer purchased from stationary stores and will be dropped at random throughout the level. Two player split-screen makes a comeback too, with Safeguard offering offline capabilities. Squad Assault and Squad vs Squad are online game modes.

Another new entry to this year’s Call of Duty title is Extinction Mode, Infinity Ward’s answer to zombies, if you will. Available to play with 2 players locally, or a team of 4 players online, Extinction provides a really tight cooperative experience. Teams will need to assign roles to individual players, and combine classes in order to complete the wave-based objectives. Tasked with taking down alien hives, teams will face waves of enemies as they drill away at numerous hives in four major craters. Taking down a cater is a tough job, as you’re protecting air-support from toxic-goo-firing scorpion aliens, while defending yourselves on the ground from all types of deadly aggressors. Getting past the second crater is an achievement in itself, as this is the half-way point where you’re introduced to the armoured “rhino” alien, which is one hell of a beast to take down. After successfully eliminating all four craters, your team must race back to the start of the map for evac while being chased by every alien type imaginable – and you mustn’t leave a man behind.

Similar to the Zombies mode in Black Ops, money is earned by killing foes, and guns can be purchased from semi-hidden locations around the map. As you progress through the game you’ll also earn skill points, which can be spent on several perks to help you and your team through the round. Weapon Specialist is the first class available, with Tank unlocking at Rank 3, Engineer at Rank 5 and Medic at Rank 10. Each class has their own natural abilities: Weapon Specialists have an advantage in ammo damage and reload speed, Tanks have more health and do a lot of melee damage, Engineers can repair the drill faster and place traps that last longer, while the Medic moves faster, sprints longer and provides team health regeneration. As well as their natural class abilities, players have different loadout options available, with choices ranging from dropping ammo boxes or health packs, to portable mini-guns and personal protection drones.

Extinction is a really intense experience. You come away from a play-through feeling exhausted, with a sense of either exultation or frustration, depending on how far you managed to get. The team-play in this mode is second to none, though. If you can get through an entire game of Extinction together, you’ll be friends for life.

VERDICT: There’s so much content on offer in Call of Duty: Ghosts that everyone will get their money’s worth, and then some. Infinity Ward could quite easily have rested on their laurels, stayed in their comfort zone to release Modern Warfare 4 this year with little negative critical reception. Instead, they’ve done something bold with the franchise they gave life to, and as a result have created the best Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare 2. Big, brash and absolutely stunning.

10

INCREDIBLE. This is the pinnacle of our scoring spectrum, reserved for games that truly affect us, that capture our imagination so completely that they affect the standard by which we measure future games. 10/10 is not a declaration of perfection, but an assurance that the game in question is of amazingly high quality and has exceeded our expectations.

Our Scoring Policy


  • Mike

    This “gaming journalist” represents everything that is wrong with the industry today. And how the hell did this crappy WordPress blog get on GameRankings?

  • Kimmo Frisk

    If the game offers little to nothing new for 60 dollars, of course it’s going to get points deducted. It is not an automatic deduction, it’s something that should be done when most of what you’ve seen has been done before in the series. Especially in call of dutys case, because they’ve been doing it a long time. Why call it a new game when it offers very little new? Games can’t be reviewed in total isolation. That would lead to a single game series getting 9+ all the time, even though all they’ve been doing is adding a few more levels here and there. Those should be patches or expansions, not 60 dollar new games. There’s a thing called repetition, and it will get old sooner or later. You can’t ride on the fame of your older games forever. That is why you must review the game and the improvements together and get the final score from that. I could understand one sequel being very similar, but this is like the 8th or so.

    Did you know even the ending of this game was ripped out of MW2? Go check the video from youtube, it’s pretty funny. That, coupled with a lot of other problems, is a 10? If so, I can’t wait to see the other 10s in here. Fifa must be a 10 every year, if it’s reviewed in isolation. And of course other CoDs.

    10 is the highest score that can be given. It is reserved for only the best games, that’ll be remembered for many years to come. Anyone who claims this game is 10 (or a 1 for that matter), has some serious problems and can’t really be taken seriously. Read what this site says about a score 10, and then read a lot more about this game. This site really loses quality and respect by saying this game is a 10. It’s just that simple.

    By the way, paying reviewers is a real problem in the industry. You should check it out, it has happened before. If people who yell “paid” is the only problem of the video game industry (it’s not and it’s not even close to the biggest), then we’d be pretty well off.

    That being said, I take back what I said about this being paid. This is just a review by some unknown amateur, who doesn’t know how to professionally review games. That is all.

  • Rotmm

    Here’s what it says about at 10:

    “10/10 is not a declaration of perfection, but an assurance that the game in question is of amazingly high quality and has exceeded our expectations”

    Here is the reviewers conclusion:

    “VERDICT: There’s so much content on offer in Call of Duty: Ghosts that everyone will get their money’s worth, and then some. Infinity Ward could quite easily have rested on their laurels, stayed in their comfort zone to release Modern Warfare 4 this year with little negative critical reception. Instead, they’ve done something bold with the franchise they gave life to, and as a result have created the best Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare 2. Big, brash and absolutely stunning.”

    How are they incompatible?

  • Dr. realistic

    Worst game ever (10/10). How much did they pay? It’s true that MW2 was a good game. This even features a BLAZING 65 field of view, and banned the tool that could change the field of view.

    You call this inovative, and yet I’ve played every cod since COD 4 / MW 1. mw2, cod 5, black ops you name it. The multiplayer is the same, there is no difference. It’s still people holding down shift and sprinting around looking for something to aim and shoot at. Except the older games had a FOV slider. Better games.

  • Rotmm

    As for your other point about a series, I can see where you are coming from but I can’t agree with you.
    A new console is coming out from Sony in a few days. In many ways it Sony are just releasing the same console again. Indeed, they have made a virtue of the fact that the PlayStation 4 is just a more powerful PlayStation 3. Sure, it will be more powerful and sure it will spit out better graphics, but when reviewers get their hands on the hardware should they automatically deduct a couple of points because it is unashamedly just an iteration on what they currently produce?
    There are writers out there who effectively write the same books over and over. Same characters with similar plots. But in any book series there will be some that are better than others and there will be different favourites for different readers and reviewers. Or with TV series, there will be some episodes that will be labelled as classics and it may be the 5th or 25th one in the series.
    Why does gaming have to be any different? Why are we so small-minded and mentally immature that we just cannot accept what purveyors of other forms of entertainment accept without judgement?

  • Dr. realistic

    The ending in Ghost is the same ending as MW2. It’s a copy paste with a car instead of a helicopter. Look at the video here. Every animation is the same, just put for another model. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E82ZkHTiVU

    I even thought they said that black ops was the last game to have parts of the quake 3 engine in it. Well, they can still copy paste from mw2 to the newest game, so it probably is a similar, old engine still.

    Most liniar singleplayer of the year, even worse than battlefield 4 which also has a FOV lock on their SP part.

  • Dave Weinstock

    This review is horribly written.

  • johnny b

    cool your nerves fanboy!

  • Jimmy

    And just like that, this website has lost all credibility. “Infinity Ward could quite easily have rested on their laurels, stayed in their comfort zone to release Modern Warfare 4 this year with little negative critical reception. Instead, they’ve done something bold with the franchise they gave life to, and as a result have created the best Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare 2. Big, brash and absolutely stunning.”

  • Ken Kusanagi

    “The bribe they gave us was big, brash and absolutely stunning”

  • Kimmo Frisk

    Consoles vs games, apples vs oranges. But yes, if it’s just a more powerful ps3, that console won’t be a 10. That’s pretty obvious and it’s right. If you release the same things twice, of course the latter one should get less points for being a replica.

    So you’re saying that it’s ok to put the same shit out every year with a different name, and then expecting high reviews year after year? If something, you are the scourge of the video game industry. There’s a limit in every format where repetition will get you minus points, even in books and tv series and movies. I remember a lot of reviews saying “It’s just more of the same” and that’s rarely a good thing. Even if it is, there always comes a point where that repetition is just too much. That point is now on CoD, judging from multiple reviews.

    More about 10:
    INCREDIBLE. This is the pinnacle of our scoring spectrum, reserved for games that truly affect us, that capture our imagination so completely that they affect the standard by which we measure future games.

    Why is it that this review is the only one that says it’s the best cod yet, or even suggest anything like this game being a landmark for future games? One guy from a random site says that, others aren’t really even near that point (9 is still far away from 10 imo).. Nobody else has called this absolutely stunning, nobody else has called it the best cod yet. All this makes me think that this guy is very alone with his opinion and that this opinion is very much over the top.. He doesn’t even acknowledge the huge ripoffs in this game, like the exact same ending or the overly complex parts or the shitty single player.

  • Pesceman3

    How much were you paid to write this joke?

  • Rotmm

    Fanboy of what?

  • Rotmm

    Again, I’m not disagreeing with you that this guy is alone in his opinion (though it’s not actually the only 10 score out there in the wild) necessarily, just that it his critical opinion based on his time playing the game for this review. That is all.
    That doesn’t make his opinion “right”, any more than it makes a reviewer scoring the game 4/10 “wrong”. It also, no matter how much you want it to be the case, doesn’t mean he is a poor reviewer based on this single review that (even having not played the game yourself) vehemently disagree with.
    His review, and the score he gave the game, is his critical opinion and his alone.
    As to your broader point about iteration, I just can’t agree with you at all. If the PS4 is just a turbo powered PS3, it can still be the best console ever released because it is a better version of something that went before. Should it be reviewed poorly because of that? Imho, Uncharted 2 is much better than Uncharted 1, even though it introduces few new gameplay elements. I personally would feel it unfair for a reviewer to score the game down purely because it has only iterated on gameplay, graphical and storytelling elements introduced a couple of years before. Of course, that mentality takes you down the road of marking down games purely because they iterate on elements of games that have gone before them. How many “classics” have borrowed liberally from games that have gone before them, in reality just refining certain gameplay elements and repackaging them in a new world or story? Would they be reviewed as classics through eyes such as yours, whose judgement is far more concerned about the heritage than the product in front of them?
    I suspect not. And that, I think, is a shame.

  • Baybay Shruges

    Holy shit, thanks for the laugh.

  • https://www.facebook.com/olivermichael.chadwick?ref=tn_tnmn Oliver Michael Chadwick OMC

    How much did they bribe you?

    Recycled ending, bad textures, bad physics, laggy menus, pointless campaign mode, 10/10. Sure.

  • Oliver Holst

    WTF IDIOTS

  • Ryumoau

    Great review, despite all the trolls that will inevitably attack you for it.

  • Ryumoau

    are you referring to yourself?

  • Ridiculous

    This is absurd.

  • Kimmo Frisk

    I finally understand what you mean and yes, these things don’t AUTOMATICALLY mean a score deduction, but in some cases that is justified.

    Giving a different score is not automatically a bad thing, but in this case there are multiple arguments that show that this game is not a 10. That is why I called this a bad review. What’s the difference of me playing it and me watching gameplay footage of this games problems? There’s a reason why some reviewers are seen as bad and untrustworthy. I’d argue, based on this review, that this guy is one of them. There is also evidence for this game to be closer to 4 than 10. Remember, 10 is for the pinnacle of gaming, the landmarks for future gaming. Giving 10s this easily is very amateurish.

    Consoles are hard to argue about, since being the best console is mostly about its games. It’s also different when you make one sequel to the game, and when you make 20 like in call of dutys case. Yes, it is possible to just make a better game and thus only get a more positive score. Most of the time that’s not the case, the games just don’t feel new enough to be a new game. This is the case of COD. It even made some ideas worse. Think about uncharted 2 and 3 too, why was 3 not as well received (it was well received but not as well)? Because it mostly did what 2 did. It was a good game, but not a totally great one. Now let’s see uncharted 4 do the very same thing and watch as it doesn’t get as high scores, because of repetition.

    Do you know why they are called classics? Because they innovated, they were the best of their time and even today they’re very good, most of them even set the standards we see today. Even if some of them were sequels, they outshined the earlier ones. They did not just copy, they made almost everything better. That is not the case of ghosts, it copied and it failed to make things feel new.

    By the way, if you look at games in complete isolation, every game is 10. If there’s nothing to compare them to, saying they’re amazing would be an understatement. This adds to my argument that games cannot be reviewed in isolation, they must be compared to each other.

    Continuing from that, would you give chrono trigger 10 today even if it’s a classic? No. Would you give a clone from chrono trigger 10? No. Because the things that amazed us back then, are commonplace nowadays. It’s much harder to become a classic today, because it’s much harder to stand out and really innovate and make a good game.

  • Nacho Perez

    Really… a 10?? Now I know where to never go for game reviews.

  • Sh4o

    Soooo, how much did they pay the “reviewer” for this surreal review?

  • Sneezepee

    A 100 really?

  • Alen Kadic

    “Infinity Ward could quite easily have rested on their laurels, stayed in their comfort zone to release Modern Warfare 4 this year” Isn’t this what they did?

  • Anon G

    hey gjeff wot dorito flavr do u rekkumnd??? :(( i cant decide :DDDD

  • Kamille

    anybody that gives this game with a gazillion of recycled assets a 10/10 shouldn’t call himself a geek let a alone review games. WTF is wrong with you seriously….

  • Rotmm

    Sorry, I somehow missed this reply. Just a couple of points as I see that this isn’t going to go anywhere. You have your (wrong) opinion and I have my (right) opinion :p

    “What’s the difference of me playing it and me watching gameplay footage of this games problems?”
    It’s the same as the difference between having sex and watching a video of your friend having sex with a prostitute.
    My problem here is that you seem to contradict yourself. You say that the reviewer has no credibility because he gave the game a 10 and the average is only a 7.8. Yet you say in the above post that the game should be a 4 (despite not playing it and only getting your ‘evidence’ from watching videos) which, forgive me if my maths is a little out, but is even further away from the ‘average’ you have continually based your argument off.
    So does that mean I have to doubt your credibility even more than you doubt the credibility of the review here? Should I completely and utterly discount your opinion because it is so far removed from the norm, from the average?
    Going by your own argument, nothing you say here has any value whatsoever.
    I don’t necessarily think that is true and I wouldn’t have spent time engaging with you if I felt that.
    Just a small point again about the scores for a series.
    Classics don’t always innovate. Many people consider GTA San Andreas as a classic, but it didn’t innovate over GTA3. It “refined”, sure. It introduced some new features, yes. But it didn’t innovate.
    There are dozens of Final Fantasy games, but there are only a few out of the series that people would consider classics, and mostly because they refined what had gone before.
    AssCreed IV seems to be a return to form (haven’t played it) and many are saying it’s the best AssCreed game since 2. But should reviewers knock off points because it really is just an extension, a refinement, of what has gone before?
    I say no, you say yes.
    Bringing it back to this review. As I pointed out before, the reviewer felt is was the best CoD game since MW2, a game he clearly sees as the high watermark of not only the series but also the genre. If it’s matched that (in his eyes) and he views that game as a 10/10, then why on earth should he feel the need to knock off a couple of marks because it’s only a refinement of earlier games?
    Answer = he shouldn’t.
    Anyway, been good talking with you. If you reply then I will read it but I probably won’t reply. Not because I believe you have no credibility, but because I think the argument is pretty much played out.
    Peace.

  • Kimmo Frisk

    It’s ok, this thing bugs out a bit.

    Are you saying that I can’t find most of the goods and bads in a game by watching it? I have to play it? Why? I see the story, I see the ripoffs, I see how everything works. At the very least, I can reasonably tell from those it’s not a 10. Seeing the game is about 80-90% of the game.

    As I said (or atleast meant, can’t be bothered to scroll up), the average only gives you a hint of what the games like. The 4 COULD be right and this 10 COULD be right. But as is easily seen from reading other reviews, watching gameplay, and even playing it myself (yes, I did play it myself now for a few hours) this is not a perfect game by any stretch and not a landmark of anything. This review undermines the bad and the repetitive, even skips some of the clear ripoffs like the story ending. As an review it fails, as an opinion it’s just a bad one. Somebody might like Justin Bieber, that’s a bad opinion too. The 4 is closer to the truth than 10, but that only works if you can think of how different a score of 9 and a 10 are and how close 4 and 6 are. The numbers aren’t equal, it’s kinda confusing but that’s how it works these days. The difference of 1 and 2 is barely nothing, but the difference of 9 and 10 is pretty huge.

    San Andreas can be seen as the third 3D GTA, so it really isn’t the same thing as COD, because there are 10 cod on the PC alone (ten more weird looking ones on the consoles), most of which are just extensions of each other. I don’t personally see GTA:SA as a classic, since it only did what GTA 3 did a little better. If that’s the reason to make it a classic, make GTA 5 a classic then too, it did everything better again. About Final fantasies, you’re just plain wrong. FF6 is the most classic, and it INNOVATED a lot over the old ones, in almost every way. Then there’s 7, which innovated a shitload again. Some people find 8 and 10 classics, but I can’t really talk about those since I haven’t played or seen them past 10 minutes. I think it’s because of the story or something, i don’t know.

    AC changes a lot more than COD does and it’s still relatively young. Can’t talk much about it since I haven’t played or seen almost anything from AC, but if it continues like this, the repetition deductions and hating will come soon.

    He can have his opinion, but I know for a fact that it glorifies some things and just ignores others. It is an opinion that cannot be reasonably turned in to a professional review. As I said, the name COD doesn’t automatically have to mean a point deduction, but you damn well gotta make sure it’s a new game and not an extension for the 10th time. This time it blatantly rips off the other ones. Calling it a 10 is a disgrace and a professional suicide.

    In case you don’t answer anymore, here’s something to think about. Going by your logic, I can make a game and just add one little thing, no matter how small, to a game and call it game 2, and expect higher or similar reviews. Is that how this should go?

    It’s been a good talk though, one rarely even tries to argument these days on the internet. I might not be that good at it, but hey it’s better than just do a ramble and tell everyone else to fuck off like most do :D All the good to you.

  • BuckRogers87

    I especially love how he says that “they” gave life to CoD. Is this guy Jon Snow? because obviously he knows nothing. The people who gave life to this game are gone and working on better shit like Titanfall.

  • Lu D

    This, ladies and gentlemen is why nobody takes critic game reviews seriously anymore. Because you have places like this joke of a website giving ridiculous scores to a game which is running on a 12 year old engine and has changed little from its previous 10 iterations in the last few years. according to this website, cod ghosts is the pinnacle of fps games for the next generation as of now. Even though the game is far from next gen. They must really think of thier readers as fools. This place has no business doing reviews. This review stands out among the rest as being exceptionally bad. Breezing through glaring faults that everyone is complaining about and praising the developers of cod ghosts as being innovative, when infact they are clearly taking a complacent approach to game making, where the motto is ” if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” . There is little from for innovation with that kind of mindset. That’s how BlackBerry operated and look what happened. Infinity ward is going down the same path. Everyone knows it. So for you to give it such a high review, in light off this. Well it just wreaks of collusion, a dishonest review, or an out of touch reviewer, or all of the above. I will never take this website seriously and I encourage everyone else to consder what I’m saying. Don’t use this site as a resource, its integrity is compromised.

  • ateam043

    Wow. A 10? What is this guy smoking? I want some of that. This game is the same stuff you been playing for the last few years with minor upgrades…and this coming from a COD fan. This game is terrible.

  • Nikjames

    Maybe they gave it 10/10 to generate a ridiculous amount of web traffic and thus more revenue through ad clicks? You fan boys can’t see the wood for the trees. Dumb fucks.

  • Zjarcal

    Not that I don’t think the review is… questionable, they do very clearly state in the guideline at the end, that in their view a 10 “is not a declaration of perfection”.

  • PubstarHero

    Because if someone publishes it, they can put it on TV. That is why I hunted for the site that gave this game a 10/10. I was thinking that nobody could possibly give it that score. Now that I see its a small indie site, it makes sense that someone could have paid them off so they could legitimately put that LOOK AT THE 100% SCORE WE GOT on the TV commercial.

    Even PC Gamer, the company that is the worst place to review PC games, finally gave it a 67%. This is after years of high 80′s and low 90′s. They finally said “This is it, why are we paying for map packs and a short added story every year?” Its not like the graphics have really improved. They do have that ‘Levolution” bullshit that is trying to copy BF4, but its nowhere near as dynamic. This game is a complete peice of shit.

    Nobody in their right mind would give it a 100. Unless money was changing hands.

  • gobSIDES

    Wow, I mean talk about one of the most obviously corrupted reviews on the web.

    I mean how on earth can anyone justify giving a tired wreck of a game like this a 10?

    It’s not a 10 in any area. Congrats you pretty much just buried any shred of dignity or respect your site may have had.

  • gobSIDES

    Exactly but morons and fanbos don’t see that. No matter the compny rating it, if a legit reviewer gives something 10 they can slap it on the box or adverts and very few are gona go check the source.

    Atop that paying or influencing high reviews also allows for it average % score to raise on game rating sites like Metacritic. But morons can’t put 2 + 2 together and figure this out.

    I mean seriously bare bones of this game.

    Old washed up engine with minor updates introducing elements we have seen in other games pre 07

    Dated gameplay and the most camp heavy cod since MW2, with levels far to large for the super low player numbers.

    Poor story with less than half a day of gameplay and cherry picked scenes from other cod titles.

    Graphics that wouldn’t have impressed me 5 years ago and now compared to BF4/3, Killzone SF, Crysis 3, etc just look so outdated.

    Positives. The reliable cod experience most pay for.

    Good changes made to the loadouts and characters skins.

    solid build, few bugs, decent balance to weapons and an addictive multiplayer unfortunately lacking a little depth.

    I would give it 5/10. Buy if it’s cheap of you’re bored.

  • Santiago Lorenzana

    This review os solo payed. Much than the mother of the author a saturday night. Gamer journal is shit.

Related Articles