Topic: Critics aren't impressed with Call of Duty Ghosts

This Call of Duty is the one that the critics finally decided to 'take a stand' with. I actually like Modern Warfare 3 but if ever there was a time these fools should've been calling out the series it was that game. MW 3 was the epitome of same old, same old. Black Ops II, while not perfect, did try a few different things and Ghosts, as you and others have pointed out, actually makes more changes. But it is what it is. What's more idiotic than the mainstream critics is if you go to metacritic and check the PS4 userscore for the game. Last I knew it was hovering around 2.5. I'm sorry, I don't care what anybody thinks about CoD if they legitimately believe any of the games in the series are worse than a 6/10 and especially if they suggest as bad as 2/10, well those people are utterly clueless.

It's funny how they said they sold 1 billion dollars worth of ghosts but that's only how much they sent to the retailers, I don't think they made much from gamers.

Alien mode is more of a mission mode then a survival mode, zombies can go on forever while in aliens you got to destroy nests, to me zombies is more fun and got a awesome yet strange storyline.

Alot of those people that are voting down Ghosts are Battlefield fanboys. Plus people are complaing over stupid reasons. Namely, Headquarters, CTF, and Search and Destory were removed(Honestly, did anyone play Headquarters or CTF? Those were the least played modes in BOII! They complain that the maps are too big, and the fact(this one is funny) that you have all the weapons and items from the start, and can simply unlock them with tokens!

I don't get the reviews for this game. Its not the best game in the series(BO deserves that honor), but its a great game and people just don't make any sense. The maps are around the size of WaW and certain BO maps, so what's the issue? Those games were neve bashed for their levels? Heck, World at War's leves are pretty close in size and style to Ghosts when you consider many WaW levels on in ruins and destoryed buildings And as for the missing League Play and modes, nobody played those modes! Headquarters was a dead mode in BO II! League Play was no fun since most people used the mode to pad their K/D Ratio rather than play the objectives.

People miss this stuff?

Ghosts replacement modes are alot more fun than the old modes. Infected is a fun and tense mode, Cranked is a fastpaced mode that pushes you to stay on your toes, and Search and Rescue is bascially Search and Destory with Kill Confirmed rules added in.

Which makes every one's compalint over Search and Destory being gone even more silly.

I just don't get the reviews of Ghost. Offering your honest opinion is fine, but it seems like people are nitpicking ever single thing. And the Battlefield fanboys who are making troll reviews do not help.

Ghosts is a solid 7.5 or 8 in my book. It's a really good game.and its a shame people are just going out of their way to bash it.

I agree. I say this game deserves a 6 at the very least. I would give it around a 7.5, honestly. I thought Black Ops II was more of a 7.0.

Not at all bad scores, but the game has gotten better which is why I don't understand the scores from one game to the next were so much different.

Well the more these FPS games keep being churned out yearly the more they will get slammed... I could just imagine the meeting about the survival mode

Director: 'COD is getting very stale so we need something new to change it up a bit'
Producer: 'Is it lunch time yet, I want to go home'
Director: 'Come on now guy we have to think'
Producer: 'But I'm bored of this franchise'
Director: 'Yeah I know mate so am I but we need to milk this so we get paid for another year'
Producer: 'Alright I've got it, everyone is sick of zombies now'
Director: 'Yes I'm listening, sock it to me baby'
Producer: (Presses Powerpoint slide button)

You know what's funny, I can picture this happening with almost any sequel. Somehow, the one about the coin collecting thing in NSMB2 sticks out in my mind.

That's why I don't buy Mario or COD games anymore

There's been a fairly large segment of the internet gaming community that has gone out of its way to bash CoD since probably World at War came out, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by the moronic troll user reviews (frankly it happens for every big release these days regardless of the franchise in question). I'm just not getting the negative reception from critics at all though. Now I'll be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to those giving the game a 6/10 (which is actually an above average score from most sources) because I haven't played the game yet since I'm waiting to play the PS4 version, but just going on what I've heard from friends, playthroughs I've seen and stuff I read prior to release it seems like this game does enough that it shouldn't be judged any more harshly than past CoDs. The thing with Call of Duty is the core gameplay is always the same, but we all know this, you either love it or hate it, so I don't see the point in nitpicking stuff. To me, while I don't think CoD is the best FPS around, it is still very well made and considering the sales each entry racks up the developers must be doing something right because if the games were as 'awful' as the haters would like everyone to believe, the games wouldn't sell.

There is such thing as franchise fatigue, though, and that can effect reviewers almost moreso than the actual fans of the game.

Really, that's all it is, they're tired of the formula. And since it's their opinion that the franchise is not that fun for them anymore, they hold every right to criticize it for that. I'm tired of the Ratchet & Clank series. They're still great games, but I haven't been enjoying them much lately. If I were a critic, I'd make sure to make that known in my review, since people like me would probably want to know that. It's that simple.

You sound like someone who hasn't played since MW2 or BLOPS. "Nothing has changed"? TONS has changed, and that's only in the multiplayer. Game modes, different ways to accrue points, and killstreak paths are just one group of enormous changes. That's not even considering the complete revamp and customization of perks and loadouts, as well as Ghosts entirely new take on multiplayer maps and pathing. I, for one, am enjoying the more open-ended routing of these maps. They don't feel like constant corridors anymore, and that's pretty awesome.

I'm also someone who genuinely enjoys playing through each single-player campaign. Ghosts is pretty much new as far as the storyline goes, but I've enjoyed the characters and setups the series had through MW and BLOPS over the past 5 or so years. Respect and get respect, my friend. Nobody is silly or stupid for enjoying CoD and buying the new game every year: it's just a choice they make, like any number of choices you make.

If you have been absolutely blind of the games since Modern Warfare, there has been a load that's changed. There's timeline, guns, gamemodes,' the new killstreaks are, well, KILLER, and may I offer that Zombies has changed a lot. With maps, survivors, weapons, (You can't say that the Ray Gun Mark II isn't a new gun, IDC if it's in an expansion) absolute loads have changed. And don't even try to change people's routines of when they first get information on a new CoD either. Whether they decide "I'm buying it" or "Eh." isn't exactly under your control. I'm buying Ghosts and I have MW2, MW3, BO and BO2. I don't care at all what people think because they can't stop me.
And while you may be baffled at the amount of people following this, I'm baffled at how many grammatical and spelling errors there are in your argument.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what critics think. All the hardcore dudebro drones will still buy it anyway.

And yes, that was a fanboy comment.