Something went wrong. Try again later
Click To Unmute

Want us to remember this setting for all your devices?

Sign up or Sign in now!

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to Giant Bomb's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Giant Bomb Review

292 Comments

Call of Duty: Ghosts Review

3
  • PS3
  • X360
  • XONE
  • PS4

The basic core of fast-action multiplayer shooting is largely intact on all platforms, but Call of Duty: Ghosts tries new things that don't make the game better while omitting features and modes that players have come to expect from the franchise.

An assortment of South Americans team up to attack American soil, with devastating results.
An assortment of South Americans team up to attack American soil, with devastating results.

There are no UAVs to shoot down. Strike packages are back, and the dolphin dive has been replaced with a knee slide. You can lean out from cover. All of the launchers are free-fire, and knife kills now come with an annoyingly forced kill animation that leaves would-be stabbers open to counterattack. Theater mode is history. Headquarters mode is nowhere to be found. Same with Hardpoint. Call of Duty: Ghosts continues the weird trend of reversing/removing changes made by the other development team(s) that ensure that Activision's dominating shooter franchise makes it to shelves every November, but it also represents some of the largest multiplayer changes the series has seen since Call of Duty 4 redefined console-based first-person shooters for the previous generation of consoles. Here's the catch, though: many of those changes just make me want to play Black Ops II, instead.

In some cases, Call of Duty: Ghosts provides similar items in an attempt to iterate on existing ideas. UAVs, for example, used to fly around overhead (which then provided a clear need for lock-on rocket launchers). Now, the baseline killstreak item is the SAT COM, a ground-based deployable that, by default, paints enemies on your minimap if they're in your team's direct field of vision. Placing multiple SAT COM units eventually gives it a UAV-like "sweep" effect. Since they're on the ground, enemies can shoot or stab them out of service pretty easily--if they can find where you put them. I hated the move away from UAVs at first, but eventually warmed up to it. There's an overall reduction in airpower going on across most of Ghosts' killstreaks, which shifts the focus back down to the ground where you once again need to aim carefully but quickly to take out your targets. Compared to Modern Warfare 3, the last game to come out of Infinity Ward, you'd think that Ghosts took place in one big no-fly zone.

You'll also have some new modes to play in multiplayer, like Cranked, which gives you a speed boost and a timer when you get your first kill on every life. Once you're in this "cranked" state, you have to keep getting kills to reset your timer or else you blow up, respawning as normal. Search and Rescue replaces Search and Destroy in playlists, though the old mode is still available in private matches. S&R mixes S&D with Kill Confirmed, causing dog tags to pop out of players when they're killed. If your team recovers your dog tags, you respawn. If the enemy grabs them, you're out until the next round. Hunted starts everyone with pistols and drops low-ammo weapon cases onto the maps over the course of the match. That means you must fight your way to a crate to get a temporary crack at some random, potentially useful equipment. Blitz is a team mode that gives each team a goal point. Players try to run into the opposing team's goal to score, resulting in a ton of monotonous pistol runs from one side of the map to the other. Infected is a pretty standard "regular guys spawn with shotguns, but if the fast-moving zombie kills them, they're infected and swap to the other team" mode that feels like it fell out of a Halo game. The inclusion of some new modes is a nice touch, but none of them are as much fun as Hardpoint or Headquarters, both of which are missing from the game.

For all the pre-release talk about dogs, Riley the combat mutt only factors into a couple of sequences throughout the campaign.
For all the pre-release talk about dogs, Riley the combat mutt only factors into a couple of sequences throughout the campaign.

As Call of Duty does every year, Ghosts changes up the way you unlock the same sorts of guns, perks, and create-a-class options. This year, you have a squad of ten different soldiers, each of which can be visually customized with a variety of different heads, hats, and clothing. These serve as different sets of custom classes, in a way, since you can't change soldiers mid-match, but you can choose from a collection of loadouts and unlocks specific to that soldier. The choice between Assault, Support, and Specialist strike packages returns from Modern Warfare 3, and the perk limits feel a bit like Black Ops II's points-based class system in that you can opt to remove items from your loadout in exchange for more perk points. Each perk--these are the character modifiers like "don't take fall damage" or "be invisible to SAT COMs," in case you forgot--has a number of points associated with them, and you're free to choose any perk you like, provided you don't go over your points total. There are no "pro" versions of perks this time out. Care packages are relegated to a new "field orders" system that asks you to complete specific tasks to earn a Care Package drop. Some of these are simple, so when you pick up a field order briefcase it might tell you to kill one enemy from behind or get a melee kill. It also might tell you to kill one enemy while jumping or, yes, "humiliate" the next enemy you kill. Yeah. The game actually rewards you for teabagging. This might be the lamest thing to ever appear in a Call of Duty game.

Perks unlock as you gain experience points, but everything else only unlocks when you spend squad points, which are a new type of currency in Ghosts. You'll earn squad points by playing the game, and you can use them to unlock new weapons, attachments, perks, additional loadout slots--just about anything except for the cosmetic stuff. This means that if you already know what type of player you are, you can just get on with the process of unlocking the exact items you know you'll want to use. For me, that meant immediately unlocking an LSAT light machine gun with a rapid fire attachment and the tracker sight, which highlights targets when you aim down your sights but covers the rest of the screen with a blur filter that looks a little ugly on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 but has a decent depth-of-field look to it on next-generation consoles.

The game takes you around the world, both in campaign and multiplayer.
The game takes you around the world, both in campaign and multiplayer.

Squad points can also come out of the new squads mode, which is essentially a place to play bot matches in a variety of configurations. The core idea is that your long list of unlockable soldiers form a squad that other players can challenge when you aren't online, giving you some incentive to outfit each soldier with some better gear than they start with. If you like, you can take your AI-controlled squad in and match against one other player who also rolls with an AI squad. Or you can opt for Safeguard, which is one of the wave-based survival modes in Ghosts. This one is set on multiplayer maps and has you teaming up with other players to take on dogs, soldiers, and other AI-controlled enemies. Aside from this mode, though, the squads section of the game feels like training wheels for people who are too squeamish for the real multiplayer modes. Unless taking on AI squads or sending your AI squad out for battle becomes a great way to farm squad points, it doesn't seem like something anyone who's played a previous Call of Duty game would ever use.

The other wave-based survival mode is called Extinction, and it has aliens in it. It's not a simple carbon-copy of the window-boarding weirdness found in Black Ops II's overwrought Zombies mode, though there are certainly plenty of similarities. Instead you and a team must carry a drill around from one alien hive to the next. As the drill works to destroy each alien hive, you have to protect it and yourselves from a handful of different alien types. You earn currency as you play, which can be used to buy additional weapons or dole out power-ups for your team, like explosive ammo or bouncing betty mines. You'll also earn skill points, which are used to upgrade your character's deployables, but this upgrades don't persist from one round to the next. The goal is to get to the end of the level and then race all the way back to the start for extraction. It's not terribly complicated, but a variety of optional challenges (like pistols only or maintaining a high accuracy level for the duration of one drill session) toughen things up. The glowing alien designs look like something out of a Lost Planet game, which is either good or bad, depending on which Lost Planet you think of when I say "Lost Planet."

Then there's the campaign. One of the nice things about the Black Ops games was that it felt like it was at least rooted in some sort of fiction. By playing the games, you got the impression that someone was thinking about keeping things semi-plausible, or playing off of real-world events in a just-beyond-believable way. Black Ops II took a huge-but-worthwhile risk by adding a branching storyline that made every moment matter just a bit more than it has in other Call of Duty games. For its part, the Modern Warfare series was ridiculous in a really enjoyable way, with Captain Price and his big, broomy mustache doing just the sort of over-the-top nonsense you'd want to see out of a big, ludicrous action movie. It was ridiculous, but it worked. Ghosts trades all this in for a new universe that fails to meaningfully distinguish itself.

Underwater and other low-gravity environments make finding cover a challenge.
Underwater and other low-gravity environments make finding cover a challenge.

You primarily play as Logan Walker, a silent protagonist who follows his brother, Hesh (Hesh?!?) around as the world goes completely sideways. An ill-defined enemy blows huge holes into the United States and it's up to the brothers--who, conveniently, report to their father--to... shoot a bunch of people and eventually join up with an elite force known as the Ghosts and fight back against a decidedly underwhelming foe that only feels barely connected to the main conflict. It's hokey, with corny dialogue that eschews actual moment-building in favor of cheap emotion by playing off of the fact that you're constantly interacting with your father, your brother, and a dog. Later missions divert you to other characters as the battles heat up, but they do so in a way that feels disjointed, like someone accidentally dropped in levels from a different game.

Story aside, the game still puts you in a few interesting situations with cool, cinematic moments, like a city near a dam that has just been blown up or a high-speed chase on the ice. It also attempts to change its pace in spots, but most of these--including the much-vaunted sequence where you play as a dog--boil down to you going prone and remaining still while enemies pass, just like that flashback sequence in Call of Duty 4. The best mission in the game has you stealing some enemy uniforms and infiltrating an installation. This mission creates the tension that the entire game feels like it's striving for, but rarely manages to reach.

As for the gameplay in campaign, it's straightforward. The campaign doesn't branch in huge ways, it just presents itself, you perform the same basic shooting tasks you've been doing for years, it surprises you a couple of times with sequences that look better than they play, and the credits roll. Taken as the follow-up to Black Ops II's ambitious (if occasionally flawed) campaign, this feels like a huge step back.

After playing a lot of Call of Duty: Ghosts with a lot of different gamepads, the PS4's new DualShock 4 came up as my favorite.
After playing a lot of Call of Duty: Ghosts with a lot of different gamepads, the PS4's new DualShock 4 came up as my favorite.

Call of Duty: Ghosts has the pleasure of being the first next-generation game I've played to completion as well as being the first game I've been able to play on both current and new consoles. The PlayStation 4 version of the game looks very sharp and feels very effects-laden, with a lot of good-looking lighting and reflections. It has a long draw distance, while the current consoles occasionally fog things up a bit to reduce the amount of geometry on-screen at a given time. The campaign has an early moment where you come up and see the state of the world by looking at a shot of the Hollywood Sign, which is way off in the distance. On the next-generation consoles, this sign is sharp and easily viewable. On current consoles, it's sort of a blocky mess.

That said, the 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Ghosts still look good on their own terms. The facial animations in the campaign are intact and the action is roughly identical across all platforms. If you don't mind some flat, occasionally ugly textures, some frame rate hitching, and a lower limit on bots (11 on current-gen versus 17 elsewhere) you could certainly get away with playing this on a current system. And if the current-generation runs it better than expected, it also holds that the next-generation versions aren't really doing anything that will blow you away. It looks nice, but it's a sharper, better-lit and textured version of the game, nothing more. Additionally, the PlayStation 4 version has a handful of noticeable dips in its frame rate. This usually seemed to happen when a lot of smoke or other effects were on-screen, but occasionally it occurred in multiplayer for reasons I couldn't even guess at. Judging graphics on a brand-new platform can be tough, since we don't have a lot to compare it with at this point, but I will say that I had hoped that it would look a little better across the board. Whether that says more about my expectations or the quality of the game will have to wait until we see more next-generation games in action.

Ghosts offers the same style of video game combat that Call of Duty has had since 2007. The core of it is still engaging and can be very thrilling, if you're receptive to this type of action. In fact, it's still my favorite online multiplayer shooter. But the bells and whistles surrounding the game are muted and missing, leaving behind that same core without giving you enough new and exciting reasons to come back. Even with the improved graphics to be had on next-generation consoles, I'd rather play Black Ops II.

Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

292 Comments

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

Its official: CoD is dead.

People say this literally every year and every year it's one of the top 3 best selling shooters, if not games overall.

Avatar image for bombedyermom
bombedyermom

439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Only @jeff could slide "Lost Planet" in three times in a sentence.

Avatar image for oontzoontzoontz
OONTZOONTZOONTZ

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The final sentence wasn't all that shocking. For a COD game, I thought Black Ops II did some cool stuff. Thanks for the review.

Avatar image for acerek
acerek

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The game looks like garbage on the PC version.

Avatar image for _zombie_
_Zombie_

1483

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

You mean the dog-soldier bromance isn't a big part of the story?

Well now I just can't play the game at all.

Avatar image for dizzyhippos
Dizzyhippos

5461

Forum Posts

383

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

You sit at the top with no real challengers for so long eventually you get soft. Hopefully Activison will stop just cranking this out every ye.....pffff I couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing

Avatar image for vuud
Vuud

2052

Forum Posts

74

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Vuud

@joeyravn said:

1. You NEED 6 GB of RAM in your system to be able to boot this game. Yes, it doesn't even use 2 GB, but it won't even boot up unless you have 6 GB.

If that's true than that sounds like some real dirty business. I can only think of COLLUSION (OH!) with hardware makers in some sort of planned obsolescence type scheme; that is, pushing people into buying way more RAM than they need when building gaming PCs. I can't think of ANY game out now or in the near future that actually needs anywhere near 4 GB or RAM.

Avatar image for bd_mr_bubbles
BD_Mr_Bubbles

1850

Forum Posts

7791

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Good Review Jeff. might pick it up for PS4 at launch.

Avatar image for amyggen
AMyggen

7738

Forum Posts

7669

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By AMyggen

@bacongames said:

I don't know if it's just me but the portion where Jeff keeps describing the MP modes and features felt like it fell out of game reviews from 10-15+ years ago. It's an odd thing that seems to be sitting there amidst an otherwise meaningful review but it reminded me that Jeff has been doing it for that long and the habit occasionally creeps up.

Put another way, I felt like Jeff conveyed exactly what he should have about the multiplayer in the first paragraph and then spent a larger portion than I expect nowadays just describing the game modes and multiplayer. I hate to say it but I think that kind of thing feels antiquated and means little to the reader. This isn't targeting Jeff necessarily because I still see it in a variety of reviews even today but the reason I bring this up is that Jeff has occasionally addressed this topic in Jar videos seeing in one of his reviews kinda stood out.

As I said, the rest is a good mix of editorial and information, although in general I think Jeff leans more toward information than Brad or Alex anyway but that part is neither here nor there.

A lose-lose situation for Jeff. If he doesn't go into a bit of detail about that, the "objective game reviews!!" crowd will call him out on it, and if he does, you will call him out. I think it's justified to go into a bit of detail on that part, seeing how important those features are to people playing COD, and the fact that not everyone who plays COD play a lot of other games, so it's probably okay to explain that bit a bit more than you otherwise would.

I think Jeff generally strikes a fine balance between pure information and his own feelings on the game, and this review is no exception.

Avatar image for minipato
MiniPato

3030

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The game actually rewards you for teabagging. This might be the lamest thing to ever appear in a Call of Duty game

COD catering to the lowest common denominator, as usual.

Joint Ops braaaaaah...

Speaking of which, IW and Treyarch should just collaborate. It might lead to Activision actually skipping a year for CoD, but goddamnit, you didn't get to CoD4 by sticking to old standards. Treyarch struck gold with BLOPS2. Great campaign that actually made choice and branching paths more interesting than most RPGs that just present them as text options. And fun ass multiplayer to boot. IW...well I don't about IW anymore. MW2 was what pulled me out of the CoD series and I never really enjoyed it again until Blops 2.

Also Logan Walker just topped Alex Mason for badass try-hard names.

Avatar image for y2ken
Y2Ken

3308

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 28

Edited By Y2Ken

From what I've seen so far, my three big takeaways are:

- Cranked seems super fun. A genuinely cool gametype.

- I like the new perk system, some really interesting decisions to be made.

- Huge maps, I guess an overreaction to people saying MW3 had too many small maps?

I'm still not sold honestly, but primarily because the people I would play with are all playing BF4 and if they aren't interested then I'm not gonna play by myself. I'll stick to Path of Exile, FF XIV, WWE 2K14, and Cook, Serve, Delicious for now.

Not to mention the other games I want to play/finish by the end of the year such as GTA 5, TLOU, new Batman. Okay that's a mad tangent, sorry. I wish I could say I'll wait till it's cheaper, but CoD never is. Also, someone said the rank up riffs are gone? If so that's a deal breaker right there.

Avatar image for basketsnake
BasketSnake

1821

Forum Posts

48

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By BasketSnake

So on the live show there will be teabagging.

Avatar image for teenmother
teenmother

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Cool, guess I'll wait for the next Black Ops. I always hated the Modern Warfare games.

Avatar image for smallville123
smallville123

535

Forum Posts

167

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By smallville123

@joeyravn said:

Meh. It's OK, I guess. CoD, for me, is just an annual blockbuster, explosion-ridden, Michael-Bay-esque past-time. I don't play multiplayer, I'm just in for the ride of the singleplayer. If they manage to keep me entertained for a few hours, mission accomplished.

Also, <8.8>, Gerstmann.

Edit: Oh, and two interesting factoids for the PC crowd.

1. You NEED 6 GB of RAM in your system to be able to boot this game. Yes, it doesn't even use 2 GB, but it won't even boot up unless you have 6 GB.

2. AFAIK, this is the first Infinity Ward CoD that supports gamepads on PC. If that's how you play these games, it's a nice addition.

It's probably 64-bit only like Battlefield 3 and 4 are. Most people have at least 8gb's now who play pc games seriously anyways.

Avatar image for vierastalo
VierasTalo

1443

Forum Posts

1030

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't know if it's just me but the portion where Jeff keeps describing the MP modes and features felt like it fell out of game reviews from 10-15+ years ago. It's an odd thing that seems to be sitting there amidst an otherwise meaningful review but it reminded me that Jeff has been doing it for that long and the habit occasionally creeps up.

Put another way, I felt like Jeff conveyed exactly what he should have about the multiplayer in the first paragraph and then spent a larger portion than I expect nowadays just describing the game modes and multiplayer. I hate to say it but I think that kind of thing feels antiquated and means little to the reader. This isn't targeting Jeff necessarily because I still see it in a variety of reviews even today but the reason I bring this up is that Jeff has occasionally addressed this topic in Jar videos seeing in one of his reviews kinda stood out.

As I said, the rest is a good mix of editorial and information, although in general I think Jeff leans more toward information than Brad or Alex anyway but that part is neither here nor there.

I honestly think the long lines of information about what is different are catered for the CoD-fans. They want to know what has changed and all the information is clearly visible here. It isn't entertaining to read for sure, but it is informative. The rest of the text is very adequate and well-written so I can't see this not being a conscious choice on Jeff's part.

Avatar image for korwin
korwin

3919

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By korwin

Pffft might as well be an 8.7

Avatar image for audiobusting
audioBusting

2581

Forum Posts

5644

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 26

Edited By audioBusting

Who the fuck names their kid Hesh?

Avatar image for pbronzan
pbronzan

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

can anyone explain me why i have 140 frames per second in campaign, i mean from 100 to 200, and in multiplayer fps drops from 60 to 80??

please somebody, please help me. does anyone have the same problem.

graphic options are same, i am f****g with this problem for 8 hours now.

please

Avatar image for b4d533d
b4d533d

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

for the dog to have worked(which it obviously doesn't because its only playing a bit part) the AI would have had to work. and we all know, AI has always been weak as fuck in CoD

Avatar image for hunter5024
Hunter5024

6708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Normally I would never condone being happy that something is mediocre, but I'm a little glad that this is a 3 star game. Maybe if we start getting diminishing returns on Call of Duty the industry can move on.

Avatar image for inversematrix
InverseMatrix

62

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Wait, Hesh?

This would have been much, much better as Call of Duty: Ghosts of Sealab.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for pbronzan
pbronzan

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

can anyone explain me why i have 140 frames per second in campaign, i mean from 100 to 200, and in multiplayer fps drops from 60 to 80??

please somebody, please help me. does anyone have the same problem.

graphic options are same, i am f****g with this problem for 8 hours now.

please

Avatar image for jayjonesjunior
jayjonesjunior

1148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Kinda low, even for a CoD game.

Avatar image for stimpack
Stimpack

1012

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

What an upset! Great write-up as always, Jeff. Always a pleasure to read your stuff.

Avatar image for haruko
Haruko

571

Forum Posts

136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Wait, Hesh?

This would have been much, much better as Call of Duty: Ghosts of Sealab.

No Caption Provided

Pod 6 are Jerks.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for deactivated-5b43dadb9061b
deactivated-5b43dadb9061b

1649

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

no decent fps for next gen.

Clearly this was the only one coming out. So good opinion right there!

Avatar image for bbqbram
BBQBram

2497

Forum Posts

88

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Watch it sell like gangbusters anyway. If mediocre shit keeps the industry afloat so I can play inspired stuff, so be it.

Avatar image for avantegardener
avantegardener

2491

Forum Posts

165

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

3 stars, can't say I didn't see that coming. I'm pretty sure this series has reached full stagnation. I wanted to wrap up the MW trilogy and the Black Ops story and then I swore I was out. Perhaps embarrassingly, I enjoyed those characters and narrative, as admittedly daft as they were.

Avatar image for legendarychopchop
LegendaryChopChop

1387

Forum Posts

150

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@cold_wolven said:

Is it possible that Treyarch could be the better of the two CoD studios now? This is unfortunately a new low for Infinity Ward ever since the split before MW3.

Treyarch has been the better studio since the IW debacle neutered the company into mediocrity. At least Black Ops has been the series to try the most new things, MW3 was just pure rehashing all of the way.

I think, as many others have pointed out, this game might signal the end for COD dominance in the gaming world. Usually, even if people were burnt out on COD, it still got very good review scores. With this game peddling in the middle ranges with nearly every review I've seen, the first time since COD4 revolutionized the franchise, it seems like the end is nigh for Call of Duty.

I'm certainly not discounting Treyarch for the possibility for coming out with a brand new idea to keep COD fresh and interesting, in the end its an FPS, and it seems like people are getting tired of those, myself included.

Avatar image for machofantastico
MachoFantastico

6762

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 4

Can't say I'm shocked, heard a few downers about Ghost these past couple of days. Plus the mutliplayer as gotten dated now compared to some others on the market.

Have to chuckle at the IGN review though, no wonder they get picked on for their Call of Duty love. Well written review Jeff.

Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@bacongames said:

I don't know if it's just me but the portion where Jeff keeps describing the MP modes and features felt like it fell out of game reviews from 10-15+ years ago. It's an odd thing that seems to be sitting there amidst an otherwise meaningful review but it reminded me that Jeff has been doing it for that long and the habit occasionally creeps up.

Put another way, I felt like Jeff conveyed exactly what he should have about the multiplayer in the first paragraph and then spent a larger portion than I expect nowadays just describing the game modes and multiplayer. I hate to say it but I think that kind of thing feels antiquated and means little to the reader. This isn't targeting Jeff necessarily because I still see it in a variety of reviews even today but the reason I bring this up is that Jeff has occasionally addressed this topic in Jar videos seeing in one of his reviews kinda stood out.

As I said, the rest is a good mix of editorial and information, although in general I think Jeff leans more toward information than Brad or Alex anyway but that part is neither here nor there.

I honestly think the long lines of information about what is different are catered for the CoD-fans. They want to know what has changed and all the information is clearly visible here. It isn't entertaining to read for sure, but it is informative. The rest of the text is very adequate and well-written so I can't see this not being a conscious choice on Jeff's part.

Well it's a COD game. It's not like there will be interesting gameplay or story or innovative design stuff to talk about. And it's basically a multiplayer game and reviewing multiplayer is about informing and describing, especially when the core of it is been the same and around for this long.

So yeah, the approach to a review of COD and to a review of Gone Home will be very different, cuz they are very different video games.

Avatar image for dookierope
DookieRope

303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I thought to myself, hey I haven't played a COD game in awhile, let's give this a shot... Does Steam have a refund feature?

Avatar image for bubba1287
bubba1287

28

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@zero_: from what i heard, yes. Because that's emotional and will get alot of posts on reddit with people talking about feels.

Avatar image for white
white

1697

Forum Posts

47

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By white

So wait. Jeff had to play the PS4 version in a building over at Activision and not have the luxury of playing and reviewing it at his home or in the office?

Avatar image for mtfikhan
mtfikhan

542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

But.....the....dog? Damn Dawg

Avatar image for juzie
Juzie

190

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

3/5 is too high for a copy paste job with less features than previous iterations.

Avatar image for archteckguru8
ArchTeckGuru8

247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ArchTeckGuru8
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for solh0und
Solh0und

2189

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

After seeing all of the tweets from people talking about how dumbed down it is versus Black Ops II or MW3, I'm not surprised at all.

Avatar image for mattmcintire31
mattmcintire31

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I love listening to Jeff and friends talk about video games, but I can't help but feel that they would prefer it if guys like me who grew up playing halo and call of duty would just go back to being complete tools or nailing the cheerleader or whatever it is that they think we do. =l

Avatar image for mnzy
mnzy

3047

Forum Posts

147

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mnzy

Is it true, that the FoV on PC is 65 and you can't change it?

Avatar image for bacongames
bacongames

4157

Forum Posts

5806

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 8

@vierastalo@amyggen: Fair points and ones that I suspected would get brought up. And certainly they should because it's all in the business of being fair.

I think to the your point @amyggen though I think Jeff doesn't benefit from not having people on the other side to keep him from feeling comfortable and falling back on this kind of stuff even if it makes more sense here than it might for any other game at this point.

Also I like that you've hit on the fact that this is in large part relative to how I evaluate reviews and how I see Jeff's reviews in general. For disclosure I always thought a lot of Jeff's reviews stand up less on their own than in the context of his experience and other editorial channels on the site. When it matters, Jeff can pull those punches but here and there I think he falls more toward information in the reviews themselves than I think is worthwhile. With that said, he generally skirts the line and I find little that stands out but this time it felt glaring in a way that might be me, or him, or both.

Still though, I think there's something to structuring the review in such a way as to not leave a giant chunk of information sitting there with editorial left at the start or implied but still include it throughout.

Avatar image for apoloimagod
apoloimagod

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Ouch...

Avatar image for archteckguru8
ArchTeckGuru8

247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ArchTeckGuru8
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for jarowdowsky
jarowdowsky

243

Forum Posts

862

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Man, I mainly play CoD for a fun single-player experience then get dragged in and lose hours with the multiplayer. Reading around and checking out the plot of the single-player I'm glad I won't be losing those hours this year... it sounds underwhelming at best after Black Ops II

Avatar image for y2ken
Y2Ken

3308

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 28

@mnzy: Yup, that's always been the case in the IW games. Treyarch fixed it for BlOps II but apparently (like with every other advancement in PC-focused options) IW weren't paying attention and just ignored it. There's already an FOV changer out there which is pretty much instant to install, and IW have generally been pretty lenient on players using it (because it saves them having to bother, I guess).

It's dumb, though. Real dumb.