COD:Ghosts mini review/discussion

[Spud1]

Hi All,

Thought i'd share a few thoughts about the latest instalment in the COD series and invite any more discussion..since I've not seen much about it on here yet. It think I know why

I've been a COD fan since the first "proper" WW2 based call of duty games. They are a lot of fun for the single player story/campaign, and multiplayer has always offered a fast pace console friendly 1st person shooter experience. Very different to "proper" multiplayer war-games like Battlefield, but fun in their own right.

I was excited for Ghosts - as I have been for every COD that gets released. The fact its the same game with a different story and a few tweaks is a huge plus for me - its like an expansion pack and i've no problem with that. I am today however going to trade in Ghosts, as it's run out of life after just a week.

Single Player:
This has always been my favourite part of COD - I love the set pieces, the mowing down of thousands of enemies without it feeling too on-the-rails and easy..the feel of the guns etc. This one is no different - a great variety of location, great guns, fun level designs and a not-too-serious fun storyline. I really enjoyed it....the space missions in particular are great (and don't feel as tacked on as they looked), can't complain about the quality.

it does have a major major flaw though - it's scarily short. Campaign lengths have shortened in recent years..going from 20-30 hour campaigns down to 10-12 hours, but Ghosts is even worse. Playing on Hardened, it took me about 6 hours to finish. 6 hours. Thats it. It's gutting as you get to the point where you think "oh here comes the twist"..and the credits roll. I mean really, 6 hours? It doesn't matter how good it is, there just isn't enough for your money. When I said each COD is like an expansion pack..well this one really is.

So in short, good campaign, its fun, but its far too short to be called a campaign. "Mission Pack" may be more appropriate.

Multiplayer:
OK so many people don't care about the campaign, multiplayer is where it's at (much like me with Battlefield) - but unfortunately the developers have completely failed here..even more so than with the campaign. On first glance it sounds great and like they have made a positive step forward. Some fun tweaks to the kill streak system (but just tweaks) and some strange but OK changes to the unlock system (you now have "double unlocks" where you need to level up to be able to buy something, but still need to earn currency to actually buy it). They even made the maps much bigger than ever seen in call of duty, which is great...but then, they cap ALL game modes to 12 players. No Ground War, no 18 or even 16 player matches to take advantage of the bigger levels. Just 12 players, if you are lucky.

And they still have problems with spawning in the right place.

If they had kept to smaller maps, it wouldn't be so bad..you probably wouldn't notice the tiny number of players on each map..but with the bigger ones? You can run around and never see anyone (or more often than not, run around then die from someone you can't see). It's a HUGE backwards step for the series. The developers claim they can't have more than 12 people due to the character customisation requirements...which is a bit of a daft decision. Adding character customision for a character that you as a player never actually see (since it's 1st person...) is absolutely pointless - give us a proper multiplayer mode instead!

Squads is probably the best thing they added to this - its a competitive style mode where you can challenge your friends 1 on 1, but with a squad of 4 AI controlled team mates behind you. It's actually a lot of fun if playing with your mates, but suffers from the map size issue too. Its the best bit of the multiplayer experience though.

Extinction is basically Zombie mode but slightly less fun - nothing much to report on that...

I would not waste your £40-£50 buying this game, its just not worth it. It is however a cracking game to rent - for £5 you could rent it for a few nights which is more than enough time to finish the campaign twice (if you want to) and unlock the best of the weapons in multiplayer. If you have already bought it - then the time to trade in is now, before the prices plummet. You can get £30-£33 for it at the moment..but I doubt they will last long!

I know this is a bit of a rant but if you have not bought COD yet keep the above in mind - tiny tiny campaign and tiny player count multiplayer may be fine for many people - just know what you are buying first There is a reason this game averages 7/10.

[Dareos]

Not played the campagn at all, never played it on last 2 or 3 incarnations either.

Multiplayer is good in many ways, fixed a lot of the issues from past games, however, as you said, spawning is terrible, completely terrible. I have spawned into death countless times, spawned behind opposition (right behind). Its an issue I would like to see addressed very soon

Secondly, the maps being too big, There are 3 that are massive and far too big for 12 players. Stonehaven being one. The problem is not just the sheer scale of the maps, but also the field of vision, no large clear areas like Wasteland from MW2, leading to a particularly nasty type of camper (never a fun way to play the game imo). Theres rumours going round that these maps have been designed for the new consoles which will allow 9 man squads. This would make some kind of sense, but a groundwar type is really needed.

Thirdly, and this is my pet hate, is quick scoping. It seems easier than ever and is used constantly by a great many players. This is an absolute killer for me, Sniping should be an exercise in targetting, positioning and carefully controlled breathing, preferrably from a prone position. It should not be possible to run around outdrawing smg's and pistols with unerring accuracy.

Overall, its better than Black Ops 2 (as Black Ops was my favourite of the series 2 was a real letdown) but it has a lot of issues that need addressed, whether they will be addressed or not is another matter.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Does it give you that haunting feeling??

[Rob_B]

I'm only into SP so £30+ for 6hrs is a no-buy for me, same goes for BF4 which is dissapointing for me. Then again I'm not even sure I played the last CoD, which one was it even?!

[csgohan4]

The best was Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 1, those were the best times. After that, the removal of dedicated servers and 64 man servers made me move away from the series. BF3 was a good replacement, but now I am an MMO player now, better community.

[Aftermath]

I'm yet to play the campaign but I actually think the online is much improved over MW3. The main problems I'm having with the game at the moment is that the spawn points are completely broken. Unless I hear great things about the campaign from others I probably won't sink any time into it as FPS campaigns the past few years just seem to be getting worse and worse.

[DeadPan]

Anyone tried out the game since the PC patch?

[Dog]

I'll be getting this for ps4, mainly for multiplayer. I will play the sp, but i'm really not expecting anything great. The black ops stories have been good, but the modern warfare (and now ghosts) just seems recycled.
However the multiplayer aspect of it is usually good fun

[O0mix0O]

I know that everyone knows the campaign is basically a shooting gallery but the plot was appalling in my opinion. Multiplayer is fun as always but doesn't really change anything. One thing I like is that if someone gets a *forgets name* nuke/moab equivalent, it doesn't end the game, it destroys the map and the game carries on!

[Dwevan]

got to admit, my one word review of ghosts is 'eh'...
very samey to all FPS now, and very boring! certainly not work the £30+ pricetag!

[OilSheikh]

How does the Multiplayer compare to MW2 ? That was just a superb multiplayer and I am proud to say I sent the best part of 2 years of my life playing it.