This game deserves more than a 7.5 rating

#1 Posted by Baroni88 (340 posts) -

At least an 8 easy! 

#2 Posted by res123123 (231 posts) -

Enjoying the MP but the single player has been awful. Apart from some good stealth kills the game is 5.5 so the MP brings to 7.5 in my view which is about right.

Shocking AI, awful boring shootouts, Auto aim cannot be turned off, game telling you where to move to every 30yards, cannot control your team to tell them to stay back so you can get kills. stealth kill from 10 yards away from your the guy. Awful shooting animations, death and hit animations just beyond boring. No online co op with any randoms, friends only, no split screen even though it says 2 player on the back.

Graphics in places are just awful and in most others just average, the lack of polish in the single player is just a joke in my view.

#3 Posted by lpsyco666 (7 posts) -

you have to do all the things they want?!you don.t have freedom in the game?!ok is bad...

#4 Posted by FiSTfromHell (774 posts) -

Other than some ugly textures here and there, and some occasionally ugly animation, the game is fun and I find myself having more fun with this than I did with both GRAW titles.

#5 Posted by AmnesiaHaze (5683 posts) -

got this and max payne 3 recently , and this (future solder) is the better of those two imo , sometimes i dont see the logic behind these reviews

#6 Posted by pgharavi (393 posts) -

It's a 3 star game.

#7 Posted by Vozlov (1508 posts) -

I also got this and MP3 and IMO this wins in the multiplayer. Max Payne 3 is an extremely well made game but doesn't do anything particularly new. Ghost Recon is awesome fun.

#8 Posted by wilsonbdarnit (229 posts) -

At least an 8 easy! 

That's it? I say at least 8.5.
#9 Posted by grove12345 (773 posts) -

when i see modern day shooters get mediocre reviews or bad scores b/c its easy.... i trust that its a bad game.

In a world where BF and COD and MOH games dominate and no developer wants to make a thinker or an innovative or nonlineant military shooter, when players say its boring it must be boring.

Honestly some of the multiplayer videos look AWESOME!!! and i want to try it. But if its another boring yawwnnn FPS  i guess ill pas.

I dont believe in the rating system anymore.

Just 3 categories.

Dont get it

Get it when its cheaper

Get it now.

#10 Posted by jernas (1513 posts) -

I'm not interested in this game simply because it's not first person. You can't name a game "tactical shooter" and put it in third person.. So I'll pass on that one.

#11 Posted by Kickable (1097 posts) -

I'm not interested in this game simply because it's not first person. You can't name a game "tactical shooter" and put it in third person.. So I'll pass on that one.

really, explain please.
#12 Posted by Frag_Maniac (2059 posts) -

I'll give it my rating if and when I can ever get past the black screen at menu bug. I've tried every workaround I could find, no luck so far. From what I've experienced and read, if I were to rate it on QC so far though, it would get a 5/10 at best, because  al lot of people can't even play it or get in a match, and even many of those that can are saying it's not all that great.

This has to be the worst example of QC on release day of any game so far this year, bar none.

#13 Posted by JJMikhail (533 posts) -

Ratings can be harshed but that's one review, the user score will determine how we the players feel and not enough these days use it.

I think 7.5 is not bad, when going up to 8, 8.5 and 9 is basically saying, "I'm going to play this game everyday and for years to come".

As much as I hate to say it I'm looking forward to a sequel than playing this game 6 months from now.

#14 Posted by MarcRecon (6145 posts) -


At least an 8 easy!


That's it? I say at least 8.5.

Agreed, the general rating should be around 8.5 but I personally give it a 9.

#15 Posted by Kickable (1097 posts) -
i'm with Frag. only my problem is my character can't move at all. but I can also tell from the 20 seconds I played so far that i have serious performance issues on a PC that shouldn't.
#16 Posted by vGoWxTheron (6 posts) -
I love it, I think it deserves at least a 9. I'm having a lot of fun with this game, I'm hooked
#17 Posted by muller39 (14944 posts) -

I'm not interested in this game simply because it's not first person. You can't name a game "tactical shooter" and put it in third person.. So I'll pass on that one.

Um not sure if serious.
#18 Posted by brimmul777 (1411 posts) -


I think it deserves a 9.I think a 7.5 is a little harsh.

#19 Posted by Black_Hand_313 (787 posts) -

I hear people complaining about the same things I did, so it sounds like it hasn't been tweaked much. Based on when I last played I'd give it an 8. Sounds good, graphics are a mixed bag. The campaign is solid though the story is pathetic - disappointing since previous Ghost Recon games have had a decent to good story attached. Multiplayer is addictive despite the lag and CoD moments (no Tom Clancy game should ever have someone charge you from the front and melee you after pouring bullets into them. Ever.) It's a solid game with much too like but given the delay, should've been way more polished.

I did like it better than Max Payne 3. MP3 had a better story and more polish, but GR has better gameplay imo

#20 Posted by Arashenstein (1 posts) -
Poor game really poor , just because of its connection issues on PC!
#21 Posted by undyingRuin (74 posts) -

Maybe it would deserve a better rating if they patched all the bugs and glitches in MP.  As of now, it's pretty frustrating spawning with invisible weapons that don't shoot, getting disconnected every other match and not gaining XP when it happens are just a few of the things.

#22 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

I bought this from Stream yesterday.

The game is ok. I think it got a fair score. It a console port with no effort gone into its PC incarnation. The graphics are awful. I have a new PC with some serous hardware in it (GTX 680). All the games I play are maxed. With this one I thought I had not saved the graphic options correctly. I have played 10 year old games with better graphics.

The story and narrative are quite good. You do feel like you are in a firefight, so they did that part right. Having played other GH games, they have embraced the path of least resistance and have been awarded accordingly.

#23 Posted by tomjay31 (233 posts) -

i actually think 7.5 is a pretty accurate score. there's a lot to like and i do personally like the game but it does have more than a few noticeable flaws. and for a game that push back as many times and as long as this one was, some of those flaws should not be. the game also limits you. lack of matchmaking for guerrilla just wastes that game mode when it looks like it could be a lot of fun.