Normally I do not pre-order games, as you're just paying for something that isn't finished yet, plus the fact that you have to wait a good few months for the game to come out, and when it does, you may regret your decision. The reason Indie Games are an exception to this rule is because of Early-Access, so you pre-order the game that isn't finished, but you still get to play it as it's being developed, and that is what makes them successful. Call of Duty: Ghosts on the other hand, made me regret my decision to pre-order it. I waited four months for it to come out, and I was mostly disappointed.
Developed by Infinity Ward, who has critical acclaim with the Modern Warfare series, has started their new franchise, Ghosts. It looked exciting in the trailers leading up to its release, and it had a fresh look and a newer story, but once it came out many people were very disappointed with it. The reason it doesn't live up to Modern Warfare is because it is primarily aimed at the next-gen consoles, which have begun to decline in popularity. More people play Ghosts on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 rather than the Xbox ONE or PS4, which the game is solely built around. And this is the main falling point of Ghosts, they didn't think about all the consoles this would be released on, and it seems that to fully experience the game you need to pay a good £350-400 just to play a £40 game. Smart idea? Definitely not.
Let's start with the Campaign. I won't spoil much if anyone has not played it yet. The story is set 10 years from now, America's military is crippled and has been invaded by all of South America. Within the wasteland of America, a small but advanced stealth group known as the Ghostshave formed to combat the Federation and stop the warfare once and for all. This campaign was a very iffy one for me, as it wasn't boring yet it wasn't thrilling either. This is the point when you can compare the campaign to that of its predecessor, Black Ops II. I loved the campaign in Black Ops II because it was a huge change to that of the standard campaign formula in Call of Duty, with the ability to pick your own loadouts at the start and how your choices affected the whole game. Ghosts's campaign failed majorly at this; I had high hopes for it to achieve the same standard as Black Ops II, but Infinity Ward chose to go back to the standard formula. A ballsy move I must admit, with the standard set by its predecessor, but it didn't work, simply because it took away the fun. The guns were pre-determined, the missions were linear and worst of all the whole campaign is once again based around catching a rather slippery villain. Sound familiar to any other Call of Duty games? It worked in Black Ops II as your decisions also determined the villain's fate. In Ghosts the villain's fate is determined, making the storyline very predictable. However I will say that there was a nice twist at the end, but I won't spoil anything for anyone who hasn't played it yet.
I expected that for a game called Ghosts there would be a lot of stealth involved. That is not always the case with this game, it seems that the campaign progresses from stealth right at the start as you creep through destroyed buildings taking out enemy personnel as quietly as possible to all-out warfare on an aircraft carrier which is being bombed. That's some good stealth there lads! But I think the main reason that everyone wanted to play the campaign is the fact that you play as the dog, Riley, for some of the time. You do, for about 5 bloody minutes, then the game sticks its middle finger up at you and says 'Hope you got your money's worth!'. False advertising is what made me really angry about this game. Sure, the dog was a nice feature and it was fun for the 5 minutes you play as it, but other than that it was also pointless. Infinity Ward made such a hype about the dog in the adverts and in the game it was all but perfect. The campaign in the Call of Duty franchise has always had a knack for its storytelling, and I think that the stories told in these games are very good. Ghosts tries to be new, which I give it credit for, but it does fail at it. The story is interesting, but the gameplay is not.
The multiplayer in the Call of Duty franchise has always been more about fun than realism, which separates the Battlefield fans from the Call of Duty fans. Once more, Black Ops II defined what the standards for multiplayer are in Call of Duty, giving the player more freedom to do what they like and how they structure their loadouts for battle, adding a unique feel to the game. Ghosts actually did do something right and followed the class formula from Black Ops II's Pick-10 system, but made it unique to them. A new arsenal of guns which are all available for unlock right at the start before you start ranking up was a nice touch as it removes the stress of ranking up to get better guns. This also applies for perks too, you can wait until you unlock them for free as you rank up or you can unlock them early in exchange for you Squad Points. Squad Points are a nice touch as well because instead of Black Ops II where you get one Unlock Token every time you level up, you can earn lots of Squad Points in one game making unlocking guns easier than before. I have to give credit to Infinity Ward for their multiplayer ideas as I never really liked the Modern Warfare multiplayers, excluding Call of Duty 4, and bringing something new to the table is always good, especially for a next-gen game. But is it perfect? Not exactly. Sure, it's a new idea with some great features, but I can't help but feel that it is quite complicated, especially for newbie Call of Duty players. The class system itself looks complex too; while it's easy to understand after a while, when you first look at it you feel like you're staring at hieroglyphics. You can have more perks now, okay, but then the game says 'Get rid of this, this and this and receive an extra perk slot'. That's right, perks aren't standalone now, they take up 'slots' in your perk inventory, furthering the complexity of the game. In all, the multiplayer was fresh, had some innovative ideas and was fun for a while, but the complexity of the class system just made it a bit of a hassle sometimes. Plus the fact that the maps are way too big for current-gen consoles as this game was primarily aimed at the Xbox ONE and PS4, meaning that TDM matches on current-gen consoles are too long and not as tense or fun as before in other Call of Duty games.
Once more, since World at War, Call of Duty has always had some sort of co-op mode, and everyone has their favourites, whether you're marching through the battlefields of World War II in the co-op campaign, slaughtering zombies inside an abandoned moon base or fending off swarms of enemy soldiers in a British Underground station, there's something for everyone. Ghosts tries to further the freedom by adding two unique co-op modes. I am being very generous when I say 'unique' especially to one of the two modes. They are called 'Squads' and 'Extinction'. 'Squads' is solely based around co-op; You build a squad in the multiplayer mode and put them into battle against other player's squads from all around the world. Cross-platforming comes into play it, another nice feature, but this is the only time it shows up. You can choose to play with your squad against a team solely of bots, do a 1v1 with your squad against another player and his squad, or you can team up with other people to play against a team of randomly selected bots. Alongside these modes, they have brought an alternative mode, 'Safeguard' which is a remake of Modern Warfare 3's hugely successful Survival Mode. Squads is a nice co-op experience as a whole, it has something for everyone to do and is a nice causal experience compared to the mutliplayer. Plus, whatever XP you earn in Squads or multiplayer will transfer to your overall CoD Account as a whole, so you can rank up whether you're a competitive person or a co-op person, adding to the freedom.
'Extinction' is a spin-off of Treyarch's successful Zombies gamemode, with a twist. There is a story behind it, which is revealed through the four DLC packs Ghosts has to offer. I pre-ordered Ghosts primarily for this gamemode, as I am a huge fan of Zombies and I wanted to see if this was as good, and if not, what makes it unique. Extinction is fun to play, but only if you have a lot of time free, it's not as casual as Zombies. You can play either in Solo or Co-Op as you go around a destroyed area in Colorado trying to destroy 'hives' created by the alien inhabitants of the area. Extinction, unlike Zombies, has a lot of strategy to go into it in order to complete it successfully, which takes away the casual feel of Zombies that everyone knows. Even Modern Warfare 3's Survival Mode had strategy to it, but it didn't stop it from being a fun round-based co-op mode. A new ranking and loadout system makes it more interesting, with different perks that you can use before starting each game, which was a good idea, meaning that when you play co-op with friends you can experiment with a variety of starting pistols, perks and equipment. I think that Extinction was more of a lead-on from Zombies, trying to cash in on its success, but failed to do so as many features are implemented into Extinction that were in Zombies, like a money system, purchasable guns that are found around the map. Although Modern Warfare 3's Survival Mode had purchasable guns and a wave-based spawn system it didn't matter as the gamemode itself was actually good. So was it a good addition? In my opinion I'd say no, as Squads was the better of the two modes, but that's all down to your personal opinion.
Did Ghosts live up to the hype? I honestly have to say no, the advertising was quite misleading for many people, including me. The campaign had a fresh look, the multiplayer looked interesting and Extinction looked exciting, but instead we were just given a plain old game. None of the innovative ideas implemented into Ghosts can change my mind in thinking that it's all just a huge yawn. If you want to try out Ghosts for yourself, I highly advise you to rent it first before you buy it. Don't make the mistake I did in paying £40 for a game which I had hopes for, and was very disappointed with in the end. Not a great effort Infinity Ward, you tried but it still failed. I hope that in your next game you will stop focusing on what has been already done and move on to original ideas while keeping the innovation that showed in this game.
Final Score: 6/10 - Some good ideas let down by a mediocre game in general.