@groowagon @SlimeSwayze It's fine that you don't like the game, not everyone has to. I didn't like the last generation of consoles, and I'm sure many people would disagree with me. But if he likes it, then what's it to you?

@jacquelineferre @syseong Hardware's got little to do with if a game is good or not. Had that been the case, all PS1 and N64 games would suck. But instead, those consoles has some of the best games ever made.

@jacquelineferre @Furwings Not really. He made a good and well constructed argument for why he doesn't agree with the review.

@SpiderLuke From what I've seen, this game seems alright. Not a masterpiece, but decent enough. I guess this game doesn't have enough bland environments and guns to score high, eh?

@binderdundat Especially considering that both the PS1 and PS2 had some of the best 3D platformers I've played, with games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, Ratchet & Clank and Jak & Daxter.

I really don't like that all new games that aren't from Nintendo are either Need for Speed, FIFA or a first-person shooter. Where older consoles had a diverse library with great platformers, racing games, action games and RPGs being frequently released.

@Dirk_McHardpeck @sgt_hunter Yeah, well, I'm tired of all Quake 3 Arena clones, but what are you gonna do?

@Morrydwen I agree. There's definitely something missing in many games today. I think they focus too much on realistic graphics, at the cost of sheer gameplay.

I guess I'll try out the campaign, since I kinda enjoy them. But I'll proably not play the MP, though. I'm sure it'll still play the same as all these shooters since the days of Quake have always played.

@gpm23 @IanNottinghamX His taste in games may differ from yours or mine, sure. But many modern games gets abnormally high review scores, for no other reason than simply being a new "AAA" game. Don't believe me? Look at the review for any Call of Duty game, at least the ones released after the first Modern Warfare. They're not terrible games, but very little is being changed, from a technical standpoint, between each game. The only thing I missed out on from never playing Modern Warfare 3 are some other maps and different weapons, maybe. I may play it through sometime just for the campaign, but that's it. You may disagree, but I feel the same about Battlefield 4. Look at the difference between BF1942 and 2, Battlefield 2 and 3... They've all been very different from another. One may argue that BF Vietnam and BF2142 wasn't huge upgrades, but they weren't meant to be, they were more like stand alone expansions that took the fight into a different time period. But BF4 doesn't even do that, it still takes place in a modern environment. That being said, I'm glad to see the return of commanders, even if I feel that they shouldn't have taken them out in the first place. I'll still buy BF4 at some point, but I'm a bit disappointed.

So, uh... Was I the only one disappointed by this game? I mean, they've been pushing the multiplayer modes too much. Was the original Ghost Recon even an online shooter? I know it had online, but I don't think it was as big of a deal back then. Besides, I though Ghost Recon were tactical first-person shooters, not this weird mix between Spec Ops: The Line and Splinter Cell.