Play
Please use a flash video capable browser to watch videos.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Review

Call of Duty: Ghosts Review

  • Game release: November 5, 2013
  • Reviewed:
  • PS4
  • X360
  • PS3
  • XONE

Let slip the dogs of war.

by

Like many recent multiplatform titles, the Xbox One version of Call of Duty: Ghosts looks slightly inferior on Microsoft's new console when compared to the PlayStation 4 version. This is due primarily to a difference of resolution: Ghosts on Xbox One tops out at 720p, while the PS4 version looks sharper and clearer at 1080p. But the next-gen lighting effects found in the PS4 version are very much present, as is the series' trademark 60 frames-per-second action. Ghosts remains an enjoyable shooter no matter which new console you choose. - SM, 11/26/2013, 10:00 PST

The first few minutes of Call of Duty: Ghosts don't paint a terribly accurate portrait of what lies ahead. You barely have time to take stock of the idyllic Southern California setting before fire begins raining down from the heavens, destroying every car and home in sight as a shouty man commands you to follow him to safety. But whereas Infinity Ward's recent work on the Modern Warfare series was weighed down by bewildering plot twists and an affinity for restricting its most exciting moments to noninteractive set dressing, Ghosts tells a lean, straightforward story that throws you into plenty of spectacular situations, but with more breathing room to appreciate the action. Along with the outstanding new Extinction co-op mode and an abundance of clever refinements to competitive multiplayer, Call of Duty: Ghosts is a refreshing and thoroughly satisfying entry in the blockbuster shooter franchise.

Much of Ghosts' success stems from its own sense of humility. Infinity Ward has done a great job reining in the excesses of previous Call of Duty campaigns, replacing the crumbling Eiffel Tower and runaway Tube trains of Modern Warfare 3 with a less heavy-handed approach that employs spectacle--and there's no shortage of that here--as more of a complement to its core combat. It's a game that avoids falling in love with its own cinematic ambitions, allowing the ruthless combat and well-paced encounters to take center stage over the plot.

Ghosts is full of atmospheric touches, like bubbles discharging from your gun when fired underwater.

It's a good thing, too, because the story is every bit a predictable tribute to American military might. After the collapse of the Middle Eastern oil economy, South America's oil-producing states join together to form an economic and military superpower known as the Federation. Naturally, the Federation decides to hijack a satellite weapon system and turn it against the United States. The conflict that follows is one centered on the Ghosts, an enigmatic tier one task force with a penchant for lethal efficiency and sweet skeleton masks.

The whole thing feels like a geopolitical Mad Lib, but a functional and rather harmless one. Ghosts delivers just enough narrative to serve as a catalyst for its whirlwind tour through global warzones, while resisting the urge to club you over the head with plot twists and gratuitous shock-and-awe moments. In many ways, Infinity Ward has crafted a story that reflects the stoic nature of the Ghosts themselves: focused, efficient, and committed to the task at hand.

The approach pays off: Ghosts features a terrific collection of shootouts and set pieces, largely unburdened by the sensation that you're merely an extra in someone else's adventure. At various points you go after a missile launch center by tank and an offshore industrial facility by helicopter, each serving as excellent examples of how well Call of Duty's zippy and responsive controls can be applied toward massive, fully navigable battlefields. It's also a game with a knack for crafting tense shootouts in unexpected locales, highlighted by a brief jaunt into outer space that has you floating from one piece of debris to the next, aiming the shots that will make a Federation soldier's helmet decompress in a gruesome hiss.

Tank controls are unapologetically agile in Ghosts.

These bombastic set pieces are complemented by more subdued moments, like a deep-sea scuba mission that has you swimming through gorgeous reef formations while avoiding enemies both shark and human. Then there are the more tightly scripted scenes, like prowling through a dense jungle while using a motion tracker to spot enemies, or rappelling down the side of a Caracas skyscraper as you quietly snipe soldiers patrolling its interior. Moments like these further the game's excellent pacing, serving as welcome palette cleansers after some of the more spacious and chaotic battles.

It all adds up to a campaign that follows the familiar rhythms of the series, but in a more varied and generous way. There's a real willingness to let you stretch your legs and soak up the spectacle, driven by the feeling that--for the most part--you're the one at the center of the action.

There are some missteps. Using your pet dog to take out enemies serves as an entertaining staple of the game's early missions, but this gameplay mechanic completely disappears for the latter half of the campaign. Your AI squad mates still have a habit of occasionally running in front of your gunfire as thought you don't exist, and a few levels follow the bland corridor template a little too closely. But those issues aside, this is an impressive campaign that uses the series' winning formula as more of a roadmap than a shackle.

This is an impressive campaign that uses the series' winning formula as more of a roadmap than a shackle.

Ghosts is even more impressive on the next-gen hardware of the PlayStation 4. While the current-gen versions are just as competent as ever, rendering the chaotic shootouts at a smooth 60 frames per second, the PS4's next-gen artistry creates a much more immersive battleground. Those effects are most noticeable in the levels that emphasize lighting: the soft bokeh effects of floating embers on a burning oil refinery, or the way moonlight refracts and ripples while underwater. It's essentially the difference between a PC game running on high versus low settings. Each version is functionally the same, but all those extra effects add up to a more engrossing experience.

If Ghosts' story campaign is an example of its developers leaving Modern Warfare behind, its approach to co-op takes that trend one step further. Gone are the Spec Ops missions from Infinity Ward's previous work, replaced by a new co-op campaign dubbed Extinction. Much like Zombies in the Black Ops games, Extinction presents a playful alternate reality where you and up to three friends are dropped into a battle against fantastical enemies. But instead of shambling zombies, you're fighting a swarm of buglike aliens. The way these enemies scurry up the sides of buildings and burst forth from underground hives changes the dynamic in a monumental way: you're still employing Call of Duty's signature shooting mechanics, but you're doing so against an enemy whose animalistic movement makes it much more imposing and unpredictable than your average foot soldier.

Extinction's various progression systems make for a steep learning curve, but boy is it fun.

Extinction is an ambitious hybrid of tower defense, Left 4 Dead, and Borderlands. You're drilling into alien hives as you move through the backwoods and small-town streets of rural America, each drill site its own standoff against swarms of incoming enemies who grow larger and nastier as the campaign progresses. There's a class system that allows you to play complementary roles, an in-game skill tree that lets you beef up your character on the fly, and a scavenging system where taking the time to rummage through a dumpster might reward you with a new weapon sight. There's also an economy that encourages fun twists on teamwork, like the ability to pool your money together to unlock a helicopter strike when things get really tough.

None of these ideas are remarkable on their own, but the way Extinction blends them with Call of Duty's fast-paced action is tremendous fun. Throwing a hypno knife at an acid-flinging scorpion to turn it into a friendly, debating whether to buy a turret gun for yourself or a crate of incendiary ammo for your team--Extinction is full of all these little moments and decisions that add up to a stellar co-op experience. This is Call of Duty venturing as far outside its comfort zone as it ever has, but the payoff is immense.

A more familiar experience can be found in Ghosts' competitive multiplayer. The frantic pacing and close-quarters encounters are every bit as enjoyable as they've ever been, augmented by contextual lean and running slide abilities that make for more fluid transitions in and out of cover. Infinity Ward has taken a delicate approach to the existing multiplayer progression, though a new perk weighting system promotes better player balance while still giving you plenty of ways to micromanage your loadouts.

One of the features that Ghosts introduces to multiplayer is a character customization system that takes those abstract player levels and wraps a greater sense of ownership around them. You can now create a roster of personalized soldiers, each decked out in a wardrobe full of custom armor and equipment. Facial designs, skin color, and gender are all options you can use to craft your own characters, and then you take those creations one step further by leveling them all up independently of one another. For a series that has long given you such granular control over your weapons and abilities, it's nice to finally be able to apply that same level of personalization to the characters themselves.

Multiplayer maps have you fighting everywhere from Scottish castles to Alaskan fishing villages.

That customization system is what drives the new Squads mode, a feature that pushes Call of Duty eerily close to the realm of management sim. Squads is where you take your custom characters and turn them into a full-blown team of AI soldiers, leading your creations in competitive matches against teams designed by your friends--even if those friends happen to be offline. It essentially spreads the rewards of repeated prestiging out across different soldiers, giving dedicated players a new kind of progression for the countless hours they will spend leveling up. Squads is clearly a feature designed for the most hardcore Call of Duty players, but it's also a testament to just how deep the well of competitive experiences has become.

Yet Squads is hardly the only addition to Call of Duty's competitive landscape. Ghosts introduces a number of clever multiplayer modes that keep a keen eye on the series' strengths while taking a playful approach to how you can interact with one another. Blitz is like a twist on American football: players dash toward scoring zones on the other team's side of the map, warping right back to safety if they're successful and becoming sitting ducks if they fail to properly judge the scoring cooldown timer. Hunted takes a Hunger Games approach to multiplayer design, giving players one handgun and 10 bullets to start and forcing them to fight over randomized weapon drops that fall from the sky. And then there's Grind, an evolution of Kill Confirmed that makes players take the dog tags dropped by fallen enemies and run them back to a handful of specific locations in order to bank points. Each of these game modes adds a devilish new wrinkle to the multiplayer experience, taking an already exceptional collection of competitive options and expanding them further.

From an exuberant campaign full of spectacle and variety to the way Extinction's unpredictable aliens force you to use those targeting skills in entirely new ways, Ghosts strikes an excellent balance between the familiar and the novel. This is a game that's keenly aware of the series' strengths, but doesn't find itself beholden to them. No matter what standard you apply, Call of Duty: Ghosts is a terrific first-person shooter.

The Good
A campaign driven by excellent pacing and varied encounters
Outstanding new co-op mode
Clever and meaningful additions to multiplayer
The Bad
Story is functional at best
8
Great
About GameSpot's Reviews

About the Author

/ Staff

Shaun McInnis has played every Call of Duty campaign to date, but his fondest memory of the series is the chaotic joy of 18-player Domination matches on Modern Warfare's tiny Shipment map. He played Ghosts at a review event in Southern California. Travel was paid for by Activision.

Discussion

4485 comments
gamer_hudson
gamer_hudson

Looks more fun than Battlefield 4 to me. There is co op, a longer campaign and better gun play. 

RO-nIn187
RO-nIn187

man what a fanboy review... wow how can they be so creative? Shooting in Space! (Killzone), Alien attacks (looks like Resistance), ... Activision, please surprise us and dont release a COD game for 2 years!

watchdogsrules
watchdogsrules

COD graphics are starting to resemble Battlefield graphics

watchdogsrules
watchdogsrules

graphics look like enhanced MW3 but other than that the game looks awesome. i don't know why everyone hates it so much

eze_sl89
eze_sl89

1) Its no news that gamespot is paid by Activision.


2) Its hilarious how this shitty game got an 8 , and GTA5 and Dark Souls a 9. Only one point of difference? Hilarious.


3) just compare how REAL gamers scored the game: 5.6 ! fucking 5.6 !, and now see GS score: 8. Wow.


4) its been a long time since i dont trust GS reviews no more. I just use this site to write my own reviews and to check out the latest game releases. Reviews are shit.

Chikatilo007
Chikatilo007

I like how they sorted the last 13 call of duty's with names, not numbers. "Call of duty 14" would be an awful title. They milk their playerbase of soccermoms buying for their six year olds, but at least they thought about not making it too obvious. GG Activision

spawnholio
spawnholio

Top 2 reasons I don't visit Gamespot anymore:


1. Obviously biased (whether they're paid for or not I won't speculate) reviews of shit games such as COD: Ghosts.


2. Incredibly confusing/muddled website design.


I'm only here because I wondered why the GS review of Ghosts was missing from metacritic. I guess they don't include such obviously biased reviews. 


Sort your shit out Gamespot, you used to be good.

super_rider
super_rider

don't know why most of the people having negative reviews about the game, it has a really enjoyable campaign, and is far better than battlefield 4.. cod always rocks.. the only bad thing is the graphics which is console ported i think..

arazmanaz
arazmanaz

Anybody in need of a Cod Ghosts Clan member on Xbox 360?

zorz64
zorz64

Why is Shaun hiding behind Feedbackula? Doesn't he have any integrity or guts? Why doesn't he or Gamespot deny that there was a free trip involved for this review if it never happened? His review is completely wrong if you play the game. The multiplayer is terrible, the story is boring and unoriginal. I wonder if he even played the retail version if he played this game at all. There is no way he could have missed all of these issues if he truly reviewed this game. Gamespot should stop mocking people for having legitimate gripes and actually answer the questions asked. And Gamespot wonders why they have a bad reputation for being bias and corrupt? Come on Shaun, stop hiding and speak up. Show some professionalism.

Rushaoz
Rushaoz

I assume Activision payed Gamespot off to give this game a good review. I bought it off a friend for the PS4. The game is by the WORST entry in the CoD series. The multiplayer is horrendous filled with horrible graphics (MY GOD the textures are worse than last gen consoles) , the MP mechanics have been screwed around with for the worst (auto aim is so pronounced that you barely even have to aim half of the time) Maps are bigger which is good, but the actual design and tactics to them are horrible. 


This game is just horrible. I can't even play it for 10 minites without wanting to eject the disc and taking a dump on it. 




http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff393/rushaoz/1898819_795131970501274_1822687227_o.jpg


http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff393/rushaoz/1559310_795132573834547_1435132086_o.jpg


http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff393/rushaoz/1537852_795132277167910_578743132_o-1.jpg


LOOK AT THOSE TEXTURES!!! Sledgehammer should just call it quits. This game's MP is an atrocity.


On the other hand, extiction is actually fun and much better looking although I got bored quickly. (Just one map...)


The single player is ok.. Story was very cliche-ish and the characters we're so dull and uninspired that by the end of the game I didn't give a shit what side won. I was just chugging through it just to get it over with.


4/10 for me. 

castillo-ric02
castillo-ric02

Does anyone how long does it take for call of duty ghost to download on ps3 if u buy it on the playstation store?

volc-123
volc-123

I'll never trust Gamespot reviews ... EVER.

Andyf1ghter
Andyf1ghter

Any idea when the next-gen games will start arriving?

juiceair
juiceair

"Travel was paid for by Activision."


That's not the only thing paid for on this site.  Game$pot loves to bash games for being repetitive but when it comes to Madden or COD, repetitive=tried and true winning formula.  It's nice to see Game$pot actually admitting they have paid reviews.

NTM23
NTM23

I really like the campaign. The things I feel it needs, or a sequel needs, is for it to be longer (possibly twice as long); somewhat better dialogue and voice acting here and there; a better story: perhaps more personal if they're not going to expand and make the Federation story more interesting, since that is pretty throwaway and simply acts as a way to have the player fight a bunch of dudes, when the story is more about Rorke (which could be better too), and have it also be far less predictable since I, and I'm assuming others were steps ahead of it; the game acted as if we were stupid and couldn't tell what was coming. 


While I do actually think the visuals are pretty nice, they do feel like a mere update from Black Ops 2, so bringing the visuals into a more next-gen look would be welcome. I also really like the Veteran difficulty in it, it's the 'just right' difficulty to me: not too hard, and not too easy. I like the new leaning ability; I don't do much sliding, and vaulting over cover doesn't happen too much, but they're nice additions. The characters could be a bit better, but I don't dislike any of the main squad characters that tag along, I think the Ghosts are cool characters as well.


The environments are nice as well to me and I've always liked (since Modern Warfare 2) the interesting set piece moments, like dangling on the side of a building; being in water, etc. or moments where you're not shooting, and infiltrating an enemy base. It had a certain feel to it due to it not having music, where all that really accompanied were alarms; footsteps and enemy or friendly chatter, so I felt like I was somewhere where I shouldn't be. It was kind of scary in a sense. That's also something I wanted to mention, although there are parts that I felt were suitable to not have music, I think it would have been nice to hear more soundtrack since it seemed kind of absent in places it could have used it, like carrying your dog to safety.


Anyways, yeah, I like the campaign, but I felt it could have had more attention put towards it. Hopefully when or if a sequel is made, as the end makes it seem, it'll be better in those areas.

Ahiru-San
Ahiru-San

I'm having lots of fun in multiplayer, really… best CoD since MW2… I didn't like Black Ops' style, MW3 multiplayer maps were a total letdown to me… 

of course it's not a "next" gen game, graphics-wise, but still fun with friends nevertheless..

ZOD777
ZOD777

All I know is, the PC version has some serious issues.  The game crashes during cutscenes, and the loading screens stutter and pause.  This isn't really a hardware issue either, because I am reading forums in which every user that suffers from this issue has hardware ranging from optimal, to poor, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, 6gb-32gb of ram.  Something is seriously wrong with this game, still to this day.  Very poorly optimized.

bmart970
bmart970

This is the first CoD in a very long time that I haven't bought. It seems that I made the right decision.

cohums
cohums

Great game, just wondering why they did not include weapon customization in the single player like Treyarch did in Black Ops 2, because I really liked going into the meatgrinder with your own customized boomstick.

xgamer8
xgamer8

How can you rate this game a 8? It must have been because of the free trip that Activision gave you. This is probably the worst COD I have ever played. There are so many bad things about the multiplayer:


1) The maps are way too big and there are way too many places where players can camp. I'm not sure if it was Infinity Wards intentions, but they basically made the game catered for campers. The days of running and gunning seem to be over. This game should be renamed to COD Hide and Seek instead.


2) The kill streaks are crap. The dog kill streak reward is ridiculous. You need to shoot the dog with more than 6 bullets before it dies. Also, the maniac is the stupidest kill streak I have ever seen. You are basically a heavy armored dude with a knife that can run at a super fast speeds. It literally takes 4 guys to take a maniac down. When you see a maniac you don't even want to engage him because you know he can just turn around and run & stab you with ease.


3) It seems that guns are way overpowered. It only takes around 3 bullets to kill someone. When you find out that someone is shooting you, it's too late to react. Hence, it's an advantage for campers to just wait and take out people who are searching for them. Shotguns also are not fun because the maps are way to be big for it to be useful. Most people just use assault rifles.


4) The spawns in this game is the worst that I have ever seen. You would think that with the huge maps in this game would you spawn to a place with no enemies, but no. They spawn you right in front of enemy so that you can get shot down before you can take 3 steps. So frustrating!!!


5) No one really plays the objective and there is good reason for this. Before when you did something towards the objective, such as capturing a flag with other people, you would get a point towards your kill streak. In Ghosts, only the first person who lands on the flag gets the point towards their kill streak, There is no incentive for others to jump on the flag and risk their life and to reset their kill streaks.


This is probably the last COD game that I ever buy. I think the COD dynasty has finally fallen. We can look forward to games such as Titanfall to replace this dying, never ever changing, franchise. That day will be a great day for all gamers as it will be a breath of fresh air.

g0ldenpr0pet
g0ldenpr0pet

I personally enjoy Ghosts much more than Black Ops 2. Quickscopers are gone. That alone makes it better. Plus, the maps are bigger and I am a fan of the squad point system for multiplayer. I give it 8/10 as well. Best game to chill with after a long day!

Shahnil
Shahnil

You know what irritates me about Game spot. 


This game is practically a copy and pace or as they call it  the "series' winning formula". They gave batman a 6 and Ryse of Rome a 4 because of repetition in gameplay and lack of innovation in gameplay mechanics. I am confused here…..


I feel that their is no standardized thinking process or it is not well kept or leaves so much to be interpreted by the reviewer that he/she goes way off. Also, it could just be that these publishing companies have to much lobbying power where a bad review denies reviewers early access to other games in the works. They just lack sooo much consistency and they just come like movie critics where people ignore them and go straight to what the community is saying making them just clutter in the background.

jackrobhp
jackrobhp

Let me start by saying that I've bought every calk of duty game for ps3 except for world at war, and I loved the franchise. That being said: this game is one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. I got this gsme as a gift and I deleted it off my ps3 after a little over a week of playing it. The campaign mode is pretty much the same, the multi-player mode is mind-numbingly frustrating. The maps are huge and promote camping and sniping. After constantly being killed from behind I decided to just delete the game. Half the time you have no idea where you're being killed from because the majority of people just camp. I hate the game and won't even keep it even though it was given to me. I don't even know if I'll get the next one.

RoachRush
RoachRush

While it plays well and returns that familiarity to its fast paced combat, COD: Ghosts is just not impressive enough to warrant anything more than a mid-range score. Ghosts has new improvements such as corner peeking, destructible environments and a much better scope for snipers. However, the fact that all of these features are already common staples in other FPS games just makes it feel very underwhelming.

Add on top of the fact that the real reason why COD was so competitive in the last generation was due to hardware limitations. It balanced out the lack of features with its slick gameplay at 60 frames-per-second. Unfortunately, at the dawn of a new console generation, its competitors will now enjoy the same smooth gameplay as well as its abundance of features, while COD is seemingly just playing catch up this time around.

COD Ghosts is enjoyable at what it does; it's just not the best at doing it anymore. I'm pretty sure the lack of innovation had a lot to do with Activision firing Infinity Ward's top developers, which in turn caused a mass exodus of its employees. (they all went on to develop Titanfall, which is looking to be a game changer)

setihman
setihman

big step back from blops2.An 8 really gs for this turd?playing as the dog was the best part of this game,strap a remote gun on the dog,let you play from the dogs point of view,add maybe a jetpack lol!!! call of duty dog warfare now we're talking lol.

dutchgamer83
dutchgamer83

"He played Ghosts at a review event in Southern California. Travel was paid for by Activision" hence the 8 people. This is discusting. Reviews should not be done at special press events where they can be influenced. Also this reviewer is full of crap and clearly not able to write a real review about this game:


- Clever and meaningful additions to multiplayer, wauw they removed the zombie mode and inserted a alien infestation mode that is mentioned as horrible boring in most other reviews. Wauw this is so meaningfull and clever. Oh you mean the squad thingy CoD hypes about? Yeah also gets burned down by most other reviewers. Yeah very meaningfull and clever additions to the multiplayer.


- A campaign driven by excellent pacing and varied encounters, move from one location where you under fire by soldiers to another, like you always did in CoD. Mixed with turret and driving gameplay....like you awlays did. They haven't changed shit forever now yet this guy who claims he played trough all campaign in CoD before (yeah that was really hard, you want a cookie or something?) still doesn't see it repeats itself all the freaking time? Hey Gamespot you had a movie about if reviewers are being bribed and yet you allow this in a CoD review knowing damn well that CoD hasn't changed one single bit. 


This review was based on a review event. No surprise there that this game scored great here. But its just another "see gamespot does get bribed". Get some balls GS. Say no to activisions review events. They should give you the game before release so you can review it and not on some event. Just reveiw the game  they won't give it before release. CoD fans buy it anyway no matter what you write in your review. But don't accept Publishers dictating this bullshit on you.

This review is weak and what i don't get. Simcity scored a 5 and got a redone review so now its a 4. Simcity isn't a great game but already had a low score so why a rereview when this is a total turd of a review done by a fanboy who forgives CoD for beign a over priced expansion pack  for many years now with hardly any difference and even saying that its great and fresh. Its his opinion, sure, but he is a also a game journalist with the duty to write honest reviews and not fanfavoring a game while knowing the issues damn well.


This game is generic as hell and on the pc not even well optimized with many issues. All these issues and generic crap gives any other shooter not CoD name a 4 or 5 at best. But nope Activisions CoD always scores insane high even though GS thinks its okay to give other games bad score with the same mistake CoD make. Yeah...you are are not bribed at all.

edussz
edussz

What a mediocre campaing!!! Dear God! This did not deserve a 8...

meem40
meem40

It seems like Gamespot reviewers are getting paid to say good things on expensive games.


If this game gets 8, then 8 is the lowest score on this website. Surely they post whatever Activision said because paid to do so.

diskotheque
diskotheque

Good review Shaun. This will be my first Call of Duty game in a few years and one of the first games I purchase for my PS4 along with FIFA 14 and Black Flag.

djpetitte
djpetitte

user review is definitely seems more realistic. the users whom actually play the game and didn't have their travel paid for by activision  to a reviewer event.  Travel includes hotel, car and food.  probably was a lovely vacation to go review a cookie cutter game like cod.

"He played Ghosts at a review event in Southern California. Travel was paid for by Activision. "

Iemander
Iemander

But are the real problems of the series resolved. How's the AI for instance, that's been a problem in COD since forever and it's not even noted as a negative, not a serious review Gamespot. Also, have they finally dropped their scripted roots, set pieces are great, when you first play the game.

How is the replayability? Playing Halo each level plays out differently each time you play.

Etc etc.

How does this game really hold up against current standards. The previous games had so many issues and they didn't get listed, why not???

sammoth
sammoth

Same ole Rise and Repeat and this game gets an 8. Gamespot your reviews are getting worse.

tomservo51
tomservo51

Entertaining but short SP. Same old MP. 6

slayerSS-3
slayerSS-3

Wanna see a real review for this game?check out The Escapist

thorn3000
thorn3000

lol average player score 5.1

kritvichu
kritvichu

Is this reviewer guy trustable? I wonder.

chaos-commander
chaos-commander

They need to minus 1 point for every year it comes out the same. So it should be about a 4 this year and a 3 next year and so on, I gave it a 4. And I was a COD fan at one point and time plus I'm very unbiased and fair when it comes to scoring games.

Lykanthropie
Lykanthropie

5.1 user score ? ... sure thing its not worse any money just like all other CoD Games in the last ... 7 years or so. mayb finally the mainstream and casual gamers wont buy so much CoD Games year over year.


KillzoneSnake
KillzoneSnake

There is no way this game is a 8. User scores are more accurate.

ganondorf77
ganondorf77

@eze_sl89  5) Metacritic, a score of 6 average critics.

sam-jay
sam-jay

@spawnholio  yeah i agree, but only the second reason. COD: Ghosts is not that bad try out the multi player mode, you might change your opinion.

Dredcrumb9
Dredcrumb9

@NTM23 If this campaign was just 8 hours longer, with a deeper story, and it had had the bullet wound and gore effects of W@W or even BLack Ops 1, it would be the best COD of all time.

dutchgamer83
dutchgamer83

I couldn't agree more. Hell IGN even gave it a 7 while they are normally even worse in over hyping big titles then GS. And everything he finds positive was a huge disappointment in most other reviews. He doesn't even say how poorly optimized this game is as a bad thing. Where lower budget games get shot down by GS for it when everyone can releate to the budget. CoD is a multi million budget game who runs poorly, doesn't innovate, been the same game for the last 1000 year, steals ideas from other games implants them poorly in its own, and yet GS gives it a 8 and writing down that it was reviewed on a Activision review session while the flight was payed. Feck that. Atleast Eurogamer had balls when the whole "game press gets bribed/influenced without them realizing it" article that shook the game press. They refused to go to any review events after and just said they would post reviews later instead of before the release so they could write down honest reviews without any influence from PR people giving them gifts and to make sure readers wouldn't say "oh so your flight and hotel are being paid by the publisher so you give the game a +". If only more game sites did that then Activision was forced to give games again to the press before release but no they gonna do what the publisher tell them to do. Even if GS isn't bribed they are still in the publishers pockets and accept to much from them.

INF1DEL
INF1DEL

@djpetitte Honestly, how many user do you think rated the game a 1 without ever playing it? I think the franchise is crap but user reviews mean next to nothing because half are always a 1 or a 10.

Horndawgie
Horndawgie

@KillzoneSnake ROFLMAO There is no way in hell user scores are accurate, as many of the bad reviews are people who have not even played it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not fun. I have played COD since the beginning but have not bought or played it in 3 years. I prefer WW2 settings.

The fact is you would be complaining no matter what content it had because you just want a game to hate, and it's hip for self proclaimed hardcore gamers to hate on this because it's so mainstream. 

I always get a kick out of ignorant comments like yours. User reviews are the most biased, inaccurate and misleading out there. That's an absolute fact. You people are not gamers, you're haters more than anything else.

Dredcrumb9
Dredcrumb9

@sam-jay @spawnholio  COD W@W is still better than Ghosts. Idk why Ghosts can't be more like W@W, it would of been perfect. If people still played CODW@W online, Id' play W@W over Ghost  in a heart beat.

spawnholio
spawnholio

@sam-jay @spawnholio  The problem is that Gamespots review scores are increasingly way off the average from not only other gaming websites/publications, but also the average players opinions. 


I totally respect that opinions are just that, opinions. But when a website that used to score games relative to the reviews they write starts scoring one game lower for a certain reason, but scores another game high despite the same reasons, you have to start thinking about the legitimacy of their reviews.


Just randomly select half a dozen reviews of AAA titles by gamespot over the last 6 months and read them in full. Then go and compare those reviews with IGN, Giant Bomb (who are affiliated with GS), Game Trailers etc.and tell me that there's nothing going on. 


I'm not one of those people who say "The Last of Us deserved a 10/10 and you're a bunch of morons because you didn't give it a 10". I'm talking more about games such as the COD series which, since Modern Warfare, have struggled to look/play much different or introduce anything new to the series getting consistently high scores despite the gaming community disagreeing so vehemently. 


I respect the fact that you really enjoy the multiplayer side of Ghosts, but most people who have voiced their opinion on it disagree. I love some games that have received really bad review scores and that's fine, but I can generally see why most people disagree with me and respect the score given. i don't respect when GS gives high scores to games that are obviously not that good or fairly low scores for crap reasons. It's become the norm and I think there's a really defiant attitude that exudes from the GS reviewers like they're saying "Just watch, I'm going to score this game higher/lower than everyone else and there's nothing you can do about it and it's because I'm entitled to give whatever score I like cos I'm the reviewer" and they just kinda feed off the comments and anger.


I don't get angry about it, I just shrug it off and move on. Finally, a few months ago, I moved on pretty much for good. I came back on GS for curiosity's sake only to discover nothing has changed. 

quakke
quakke

@Horndawgie  

You can't tell the difference that this is not a high quality game. No, not even close. This is shovelware straight back from the dead.

djpetitte
djpetitte

@Horndawgie its not hip to hate, its simple because "hardcore" or as I like to call us, savvy-gamers can smell bullshit a mile a way. also known as cod, anyone who knows anything about gaming knows cod is a dumbed down video game aimed at the masses for nothing more than revenue.   From a tech standpoint the software is complete shit.

dono14
dono14

@Horndawgie Couldn't have said it better myself. The thing about CoD games is that, despite the core mechanics changing very little from year to year, the games always manage to be enjoyable from one year to the next.

dono14
dono14

@thorn3000  I haven't bought a CoD game since MW3...I just never got around to buying BO2, and I'm not sure yet if I will get Ghost. Yes there are some individuals who only buy the blockbuster, mainstream games like CoD, (+ GTA, HALO, BF, and so on), but don't agree with your idea that CoD games are, (mostly), only enjoyable for people who don't play a large array of games. If you look on my profile you will see I have played, (and play), a wide variety of games, from the very indie to the very mainstream...These also include a wide variety of FPS besides CoD, like BF, Planetside 2, Borderlands, Halo, and so on, yet I still find Call of Duty enjoyable. This applies to many of my buddies who I play online with as well. I do wish they would stop releasing CoD games annually, (for a number of, (probably obvious) reasons), and release them every two years or so instead.

thorn3000
thorn3000

@dono14 @Horndawgie not necessarily, I mean, they are still enjoyable for people who don't want to think about alternatives, but...for ex. I played Modern Warfare 1 and 2, Black ops 1....but by the time MW3 came out I was like ok, this looks to be the same, let's look into alternative games...and since I've done that, never returned to COD, since even though it's the third installment or so since I stopped playing, looked to be about the same...not saying it's bad, but if you are  a gamer in meaning that you play more than 1 game, more than 1 franchise, more than 1 genre, thwn getting stuck with the  same over and over sucks balls...I truly believe people who buy COD every year are simply people who do not have enough overview and have not tried enough varied alternatives, not just alternative shooters, but simply other games or genres, e.g. they don't know what to play so they just buy something they know and can box in a category...not saying all COD players are like that, but am pretty sure majority are like that...same goes for WOW and Diablo players, a lot of times those are people who never played any other games and so it is understandable when they say it is "the best game they ever played", but it is not understandable when they say "it is the best game ever" since they do not have the overview to justify such a statement

Call of Duty: Ghosts More Info

First Release on Nov 05, 2013
  • PC
  • PlayStation 3
  • + 4 more
  • PlayStation 4
  • Wii U
  • Xbox 360
  • Xbox One
Call of Duty: Ghosts delivers an all-new story, all-new multiplayer action, and is powered by the next-generation Call of Duty engine.
5.7
Average User RatingOut of 1439 User Ratings
Please Sign In to rate Call of Duty: Ghosts
Developed by:
Infinity Ward, Treyarch
Published by:
Square Enix, Activision
Genres:
Shooter, 3D, First-Person, Action, Team-Based
Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
Mature
All Platforms