Call of Duty: Ghosts leaves critics cool.By Chris Morris
2 hours ago
Plugged In Call of DutyActivision...
...Content preferences ....Done ..
... .View gallery
Call of Duty: Ghosts.Is Call of Duty going to the dogs?
Activision has high hopes for Call of Duty: Ghosts, but critics aren't particularly impressed with the latest installment of the industry's largest franchise.
The game, which is still expected to be one of the year's best sellers, offers several new features this year, including Riley, the German Shepherd who has been a breakout star from the moment he was first introduced, squad play, and the ability to play as a female soldier.
Reviewers, though, say those changes, which seemed so dramatic in the months leading up to Ghosts' release, are ultimately just window dressing in a shooter that raises questions as to how much further the series can go creatively.
"Call of Duty: Ghosts demonstrates an unwillingness to change much and presents a real shortage of new ideas," writes Polygon’s Russ Frushtick in a tough 6.5/10 review. "Ghosts is a step backwards from 2012's Black Ops 2 — and the weakest game in the series since 2009's Modern Warfare 2."
Collectively, Call of Duty: Ghosts has a Metacritic score ranging from 75-78, depending on the platform, a step down for a franchise typically accustomed to scoring in the mid-80s and higher. Most reviews of the game were done on the PlayStation 4 version of the game (which won't be out until that system launches on Nov. 15), and while those who have played it admit the game does look nice on the new console, they note it struggles to distinguish itself.
"Infinity Ward had a chance here to throw down the gauntlet for the next hardware generation, to set the new standard, to show that this hugely popular, much derided behemoth can dance to a different tune," says Eurogamer writer Dan Whitehead. "It's chosen to play a Greatest Hits package instead." He gives it a 7/10.
It's the lack of newness that really gets critics riled up. Take Joystiq, who call the shooter a “by-the-numbers installment.”
“It layers a fresh coat of paint over a tired design document; a document that brings players down a rote campaign path before landing them in a multiplayer mode that abandons many of the creative advancements seen in Black Ops 2,” says reviewer Xav de Matos, who awards it 3.5/5 stars.
That's about par for the course, as notable review sites like Giant Bomb, Destructoid, and Edge Online also ring in with mediocre scores.
Not everyone is so down on the game, though.
IGN's Scott Lowe is one of the rare fans of the game's campaign, though like most gamers, he's most excited about playing online, calling out the "robust" multiplayer in an 8.8/10 review.
"Ghosts preserves much of the look and feel of the traditional Call of Duty multiplayer experience, but introduces sweeping changes that make it more personalized, more diverse, and better balanced," he says, resulting in "one of the best Call of Duty games to date."
While Game Informer takes the game to task for its lack of creativity, it also acknowledges there's a lot of fun to be had with the tried and true gameplay.
"As the first series entry on new consoles and the first of what will assuredly be a new brand, I was disappointed to see it resemble its predecessors even more than the franchise typically does," writes reviewer Dan Ryckert. "Even without its own significant hook or sense of identity, however, Ghosts is still fun thanks to Call of Duty’s polished and reliable backbone that’s been established for years." That’s enough to earn it an 8/10.
And GameSpot’s Shaun McInnis was positively buoyant on Ghosts in a fellow 8/10 review, calling it "a game that's keenly aware of the series' strengths, but doesn't find itself beholden to them. No matter what standard you apply, Call of Duty: Ghosts is a terrific first-person shooter."
Despite such praise, the overall critical malaise is likely to frustrate Activision — and put a smile on the face of EA's rival Battlefield 4, which itself underperformed with critics. Still, it's unlikely to have a dramatic impact on sales. Call of Duty has always been a franchise that's relatively immune to critical barbs.
Activision acknowledges that pre-orders for this year's installment are lower than Black Ops II — and it doesn't expect the game to hit the same sales numbers — but it's a sure bet the latest Call of Duty will see crammed multiplayer servers for the foreseeable future.
I'm surprised. Ghosts looked so EPIC, and the reason I prefer it over Battlefield is because of the fast paced, responsive gameplay. Battlefield is a load of people advancing through enemy lines behind cover and firing at their enemies. Battlefield is a generic soldier game. Call of Duty is a game about kills, guns, and style. Battlefield is going in and doing missions, Call of Duty is going in and doing missions in style.
I'm still gonna buy this, I'm still gonna play this, and I'm still gonna enjoy this. Why? Because nobody can stop me.
if they were impressed and gave a higher score it would mean the same old yet again so I'm kinda interested, it probably is different from the previous ones
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
if they were impressed and gave a higher score it would mean the same old yet again so I'm kinda interested, it probably is different from the previous ones
The critics are being slight idiots. Call of Duty Ghosts is staying with the classic "Get in there and make us proud while killing people in the process" with classic gameplay and everything that we've been playing for a long time. And it even throws in Riley, the ability to play a female soldier, gameplay in SPACE(Which is the trippiest thing I've ever seen in a game like this!) and Battlefield could never do any of that, they just add new maps, expansions, a new story, which technically all of those don't count because that's what you ALWAYS see in a first-person shooter, and they just add everything they had in Battlefield 3 and improve it as of gameplay. Go figure. They should be happy with where they are, the legend in the corner. I guess they want to be the ones who faced Call of Duty and lived.
There are critics that like COD: Ghosts. But the same thing that happened to Batman: Origins is happening to COD: Ghosts, in my opinion. Some people didn't like Batman: Origins because they felt like it was too much of the same (even though it has a great story). Some people don't like COD: Ghosts because they felt like it was too much of the same (even though the multiplayer is the only bragging right about it).
IW did have a chance to use a new engine especially for the start of next-gen, the engine thay are using is 10 years old with a few updates which is not going to cut it towards other next-gen games. Also IW have said thay are not going to change the gameplay, so the gameplay is not going to evolve thay are sticking with classic COD. I think Titanfall on Xbox has a good chance to topple COD on Xbox that is, thay are the guys that made COD and you can also see COD gameplay in Titanfall. I also think Destiny has a very good chance also, i think over time Destiny will be more popular on the PS4 while Titanfall is popular on the Xbox.
I like it better than Black Ops II, just for the record. The stages in this game make stages from past games look like a joke, IMO. I've played Black Ops for 70 hours, and Ghosts for 5 hours so far.
There's alot more to customize. Cosmetically and functionally, this game is far more advanced.
I honestly don't think that Ghosts is bad, I want it actually. Top list this year... Wait actually... Super Mario 3D World then Ghosts Either way those critics were probably empty minded. Who here heard of extinction that should give the game at least 9/10 just from that mode?
Pootypie
Switch Friend Code: SW-4862-0398-5013 | My Nintendo: Pootypie
IW did have a chance to use a new engine especially for the start of next-gen, the engine thay are using is 10 years old with a few updates which is not going to cut it towards other next-gen games. Also IW have said thay are not going to change the gameplay, so the gameplay is not going to evolve thay are sticking with classic COD. I think Titanfall on Xbox has a good chance to topple COD on Xbox that is, thay are the guys that made COD and you can also see COD gameplay in Titanfall. I also think Destiny has a very good chance also, i think over time Destiny will be more popular on the PS4 while Titanfall is popular on the Xbox.
Titanfall is running on the Source engine, which is 10 years old next year. Id Tech 3 is only 3-4 years older and the version Infinity Ward/Treyarch use is so heavily modified at this point that it barely resembles the original.
The engine really isn't the issue.
CoD is still fun for me. I know it's going to be pretty much the same every year, but I like the formula so ... I still like it. And that's totally cool. And the people who feel otherwise are entitled to their opinions, as well. It's all good.
No big surprise but I'm with @rallydefault if it's your thing then thumbs up. I'm just feeling burnt out on CoD. The annual releases are just becoming too much.
Where my friends and I usually get stupid:
https://www.twitch.tv/MUDWALLHOLLER - Come by hang and visit our Discord. The link for Discord is on the Twitch page.
"Critics aren't impressed with Call of Duty Ghosts"
And why should they be? The past 6 installments could arguably be all called expansions. Nothing has changed since Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. i am still baffeled on the amount of people that shell out for each game. Seriously people! You only need one, two games tops per console and you have the entire enjoyment of the franchise for that system.
I picked up the PS3 Hardened Edition, and I'm loving this game so far. I have only played multiplayer so far, but there are several things that make this stand above Black Ops II. The new gameplay modes are fun, I love the customization options, and the stages some some of the best in the series. The are closer in size to World at War and Black Ops I stages, and might even be larger than those. They don't seem to as compact as stages in some of the previous games.
Does it reinvent the wheel when it comes to FPS games? No, but Battlefield 4 is the same way when you consider that game feels like a refined version of BF3.
I have not even gotten in Squads and Extermanition yet. But to me, this game was worth the money. Does the core game play like the other COD games? Yes, but this game brings enough to the table to not feel like a total rehash. MW3 felt like an expansion pack to MW1, and even Battlefield 4 felt kinda like another expansion pack to Battlefield 3.
I liked Battlefield 4, and I'm not going to compare the two games. But Ghost has brought some cool new features to the series. Does it change the face of FPS games? No, but Battlefield 4 did not either.
I think those two games along with Batman: Arkham Orgins were judged too harsly. Not ever game has to be a revolution that changes the face of gaming. If a game is fun to play, than its job in my opinion.
All I got to say is that the stages and customization are alot better. Ghosts and Black Ops II for Wii U are the only CoD games I've ever owned and I think Ghosts is MUCH better.
It's also nice to see that people are using the Wii remote and nunchuck pretty much 50% of the time. That's what really makes the Wii U version superior, IMO. The graphics aren't even that different from 7th and 8th gen versions of the game, so the Wii remote(mainly) and the GamePad make it the best version.
I don't get why people said BO II was an 8, but now it's down to a 6, review wise. Oh well.
Aliens mode alone makes my want the game. Its a better Zombies mode without the zombies! You have no idea how long I've been wanting that! Too bad I suck at FPSes. Maybe if my bro gets it, but he'd get it for the 360...
Forums
Topic: Critics aren't impressed with Call of Duty Ghosts
Posts 1 to 20 of 32
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.