What is wrong with Gamespot?
Of course the visuals are not truly stunning, and of course the AI is not the most intelligent, but did gamers even consider looking at the date it was released? It is a 2001 game and it is pretty damn good for its time, people, and the AI is smart enough without being overly dumb or reflex-masters. It's gameplay is definitely not revolutionary, but even after 8 years from its release, I still enjoy it (and I am quite used to modern FPS's).
It is a tactical shooter, but is unorthodox in a way. It does not meet the standards of a proper FPS because you do not see you characters gun or hands. All you have is a cross-hair. However, it still succeeds well as an intense shooter. It is pretty hard, but that's what makes it a realistic experience and can really get your skills boosted for far easier FPS's. However, the combat does manage to be fun and exciting and really makes you think fast. What I am going to review here is based on its time, but I will not talk about story or plot as I didn't like it (typical Tom Clancy Cold War-fantasy) but fortunately was easy to ignore.
Gameplay 10/10 - Nowadays it would meet a 7 or a 6, but for the time, it is truly impressive. You get a typical briefing before each mission - which I often skipped - then you get to select which characters to add in your squad and customize their equipment for the mission. Every level take place in one map with a variety of objectives within. Even though the maps are not unbelievably huge, they are completely non-linear and allow plenty of exploration. The mission objectives themselves are also not too sticky and since you can decide between putting squad members and challenging yourself by running solo, it features very good replayability which I did not find in many modern first-person-shooters. Although far from easy, I've played harder games that recieved no criticism at all for their difficulty. The combat is realistic in feeling and effects. Corpses don't disappear and the area in your body that you get hit affects you (if shot in the leg, you cannot sprint for example). You would not find many games to be that realistic at the time.
Graphics 9/10 - The visuals are not revolutionary, but I found them to be in some ways even better than Battlefield 1942 graphics, or at least match the quality, and B1942 was a 2002 game. You won't expect many physic features at all, but there is detail put in to experiencing an almost immersive life-like world, with wind blowing trees and natural ambience. Seeing how old the game is, I sometimes just stayed under cover and watched/listened to the environment. You may think I'm crazy, but I have a very open mind for visuals and atmosphere.
Sound 10/10 - Wonderful gun effects. The volume of the gun shots depend on the distance and turns to reliability for survival when you hear a "PING" on the rocks behind you, potentially the work of a sniper. The game also has a very powerful military soundtrack in the menus which help you get excited for the upcoming missions.
Ghost Recon may not be a game for everybody, but due to its immersiveness and replay value for its time, I put it among my top 15 video games. It even beats the classic Delta Force game in my opinion. If aged graphics do not affect you and enjoy non-linear missions and immersive gameplay then you know what game is for you.