CoD: Ghosts is overly complex and the maps are too big.

According to IGN: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-review

11/10 game

#gamesjournalism

All IGN staff are agoraphobic cretins confirmed.

lol. Doubt it.

I'll check that out.

large and complex

big maps? not a problem at all.

IGN must be full of those same kinds of asswipes that ALWAYS voted for Nuketown/ that one microscopic map present in every call of duty released since 4. I really do hate how much everyone fawns over those.

Aw are you upset you can't just run around with a shotgun hip firing at everything. The only thing wrong with the bigger maps are its still just 6 on 6, that number needs to be upped for TDM and KC

Jebus bashing a new FPS game that isn't Arma again

I thought this was a joke. I can't believe the words "overly complex" can be found anywhere in a CoD review.

Never heard that said about COD before. I'm actually interested in the game now.

Those of you who don't appreciate the "maps too large" negative need to go play Unreal Tournament 3 and do without vehicles. lol

Basically, when a map is too large for the player count, it feels empty. Action is too sporadic. More time is spent trying to get somewhere than actually doing something or seeing things happening.

As for it being "overly complex"...seems like a bad knock, but if things aren't explained adequately, I can see how it could be a problem.

Only for people who's IQ is under 80 which is anyone at IGN.

I admit i laughed when i saw that in the cons list from IGN. IGN is Truly the bottom of the barrel when it comes to game journalism.

Sounds like BF3/BF4 on PS3/360

It was even funnier reading their review on MAG. The guy didnt even know how to play it. All his cons were based on how not to play the game.

complex lol wonder how the reviewer explained it

I'd believe it. It's something I don't like about BF all that much. It's hard to marry vehicle combat with on-foot combat. The inability to do so is what killed the Unreal Tournament series.

I distinctly remember running for a full minute or two in BF3, then getting killed and having to do it all again. lol. That said, there were also maps that were on-foot only which were good.

I guess tying your shoes is complex and my back yard is too large

Now I actually want to try game because those are both plus to me. I hate online game with small map or to simple.

Wanna see big maps? Play ARMA.

non gamers

For CoD's community anything is overly complex when it isn't *Press A to play* and the rest is on auto pilot.

I getting tired of all these useless collective stuff for achievements in every game, ghost have these "Rourke memory", Bf4 had those "Dog tags"...

Those complaints sound more along the lines of a Battlefield game.

How the hell is this game scoring so high?

Big maps? Wonder what they mean by big. Curious if Activision is attempting to curb the Battlefield market.

Every new CoD seems to bring nothing that warrants a full fledged sequel as opposed to simple DLC or expansion pack.

Complexity by itself isn't a good thing.

If the new CoD bogs down in some of the unnecessary new mechanics, that means it's too complex for its own good. After all, it's a series known as accessible and straightforward, so if that is being changed in some superficial way to please "teh hardcorz", their complaint is valid. Also, CoD isn't BF, it's a fast shooter keeping you on edge the whole time, so if the maps are big for the sake of being big, while not suited for the game's style of play, that's a valid complaint as well.

Calm yourself, Jebus, no one is comparing this to Arma, or whatever you like these days... if there even is a game on the market you actually like.

See Dreams-VIsions' post above... what they mean is, they believe the maps are too big for CoD's style of play, which makes them feel empty at times, too much walking, too little action.

I don't see the problem with this review, it's not meant to compare CoD to other games, it's reviewing it on its own terms... increasing complexity and reducing accessibility just to suit the Internet whiners, and increasing the map size while keeping the gameplay formula intact would hurt the series... don't like CoD's approach to the FPS genre, don't play it, a very simple solution.

Well, IGN has called COD the thinking man's shooter, so that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

If a game is too complex for the thinking man, than it should be downrated for it.

Can you give me a valid reason not to bash the PC version CoD Ghosts?

The funny thing is is that they didn't do any of that.

Thanks for sharing that little piece of garbage info. You're doing bad job at hiding the fact that you don't want people to say bad things about something you like.

Haven't picked up a CoD game since the original Black Ops... regretted that purchase a lot. Not a fan, only, I don't bitch about its success.

Here, you aren't criticizing CoD, you're whining because it's popular, while you don't like it. You are incapable of understanding the appeal of CoD, and as such, you can't provide any meaningful and rational criticism.

Always the same with you:

Sure, but if people are stupid enough to pay 15 dollars for 3 to 5 maps, than there is no reason for them to include anything new in DLC form.

I'm not a fan of all the BF DLC but at least that offers a lot more content for 10-15 dollars compared to COD DLC.

That's why I stick to Arma 3, alot easier to get into.

I've said this countless times- No dedicated servers, no dedi server files, no mod tools, no more 64 player madness, and complete shit PC support in general.

Do I still sound like somebody who's whining because it's popular? If they still supported the PC this thread wouldn't exist and my only reason to complain and not to buy CoD would be because it's very copy&paste.

Then again, the game really isn't trying to appeal to hardcore gamers in anyway. It's no more complex then the last game. The maps aren't too big. They're just generic and horribly designed.

I understand the appeal of CoD. I can complain about whatever I want whenever I want. If you don't like deal with it and for some reason you can't deal with that.

That seems funny for a COD review indeed.

Probably too big for the amount of people on the Map.

Seems it supports dedicated servers after all... as for the lack of mod tools, that sadly goes for just about any high-profile MP game these days, so if that's a selling point for you, your choices are rather limited.

64 player madness... if that's your preference when it comes to MP games, nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean an arena style MP is bad. It's a valid design choice, with its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

As for the lack of good PC support, I'll give you that one... the way they handled Ghosts on the PC is truly embarrassing.

Lastly, about complexity, it doesn't have to refer to the stuff you see during gameplay, maybe they complaint is addressing some unnecessary features in the menu about character creation or something, which adds nothing to the game, but only makes it more confusing. And again, maps may not be big compared to Arma or BF maps, but they just felt they were bigger than necessary for the CoD style of play, making the game feel emptier than it should. Still, I can't comment much on these two complaints since I haven't played the game (and don't intend to), but still, they can be valid.

That's a selling point for CoD.

You lost me at "Arena style".

Maps are not too big. Even for CoD.

Game isn't complex in anyway.

look what consoles have done to gaming..

seems like IGN didn't get their free doritoes, mountain dew , and taco bell

Mod tools are a selling point for CoD?

Feel free not to be a fan of "Arena style" MP, doesn't change the fact it's still a valid design choice, while some of the most recognized MP experiences in the FPS genre are built around it (Quake 3, Counterstrike).

As for the rest, since I haven't played the game, can't provide any overly insightful reply. I'm just saying they can be valid complaints, if CoD is reviewed on its own terms, without comparing it to competitors like BF4. If they said anywhere CoD is more complex than something like Arma, Planetside 2, BF4, etc, my only response would've been a simple "LOL!"

The maps are too complex as in theirs so much clutter. You can't run any where without taking a few steps and dying instantly. You die really quick in this game (more than any COD) and the map layouts are just bad. No focal points at all.

CoD requires all kinds of skill to be good.

Better to have small fun maps then to run for 30-40 seconds to find someone

I've seen this complaint for COD Ghosts from users. Essentially 8-12 players is too few for the size of the maps. So people run around for minutes (probably 10-15 seconds) and don't engage in combat. This is a valid complaint for a series that relies on ADD action.

As for overly complex, I had no idea what they mean by that. Maybe squad points aren't very easy to understand?

I can confirm it's far from complex but the majority of the maps are indeed far too big, if the max player count was double it'd be about right. Other than that, nothing majorly new and if you've played more then 2 COD games you may be bored / disappointed.

How big? like are they trying to compete with Battlefield map sizes now?