Review by Vesperas
"The closest game to the fallen MGO has it's flaws, but it's still solid."
Please let me start off that I haven't played a single Tom Clancy game besides the original (and blocky) Rainbow 6, so I can offer not opinions towards how this holds up as a TC game.
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier is a well designed 3rd person shooter using many new and prototype equipment being developed. From the second main menu (yes, you need to hit start twice), you have 3 modes of play.
Single player is where everyone should start. Half of the games first missions offer you new toys and gadgets, and it does a very good job at pacing. Nothing is too hard to grasp as the game tells you how to do everything via prompts. No quick time events, mind you. Missions vary from place and objective. Snowstorms, sandstorms, using planes as a noise guard, etc, the game offers many interesting things.
The game is very punishing, even on easier difficulties, as bullets aren't rubber like other games I've played this generation. Single player, for roughly 80-85% can be completely done within stealth. In fact, one of the main ploys is that you can have your 3 teammates take out enemies in sync to remain unseen. However, this can make some missions too easy and boring, as you can mark targets with a flying drone, taking away actual game part of the game.
There are a few forced stealth sections, but nothing is too or drawn out to where a failure will seriously piss you off. Each mission also has 4 usually crazy tactical challenges to preform which adds a little bit of replayability.
The important part about single player, is that I generally had fun the first time I played though it, even though I didn't buy this game for single player.
The next option is Guerilla Mode, which is a 50 wave kill em arena mode that every game feels they need to throw in these days. It's pretty boring unless you have 3 other power kill the enemies. Though there are some fun waves, like with guys with shields/rpg's/sniper rifles and armored cars, they are too far and few between the average wave of just people who hide WAY too much. It wouldn't be bad, except for the fact you can search them out as you need to protect a base for no real reason. If you like trophies, you'll beat this once for them, sadly the mode is boring.
And finally multiplayer. I compare it to Metal Gear Online in the tag title... sadly it's because this game is probably the closest things to that. Having large team based combat, a "scanning" system that lets you see enemies through walls, and even having a mock stealth items for some classes...
It is ok to say the least. There are glaring problems. One major gripe is that it is a win or lose by lots of points type of game. Out of the 700 matches I played, I won about 600 of them by a margin of 500+ points. Stacking 750+ points to a teams 20 is actually very common because of the flawed system. First off, you don't get points for kills, only assists, which is kind of lame. For capping an object every two and a half minutes, you are rewarded a whooping 100 points. Every object needs to be "talked" to for about 20 seconds before it is captured. The problem is not every object is neutral. Some spawn way too close to certain players spawns, to where they can all get "magic ammo" from a supply drop before you can literally have a chance to see them, let alone prevent the objective being taken.
Then there is the HVT (High Value Target), you get a random guy on your team to plan a bomb, he dies once? Other teams gets 100 points, and it can give you HVT up to 4 times IN A ROW!!!!!! So random.
Sure there are other game modes, but no one plays them, and all involve talking to objectives.
Luckily they patched multiplayer a few times, so they won't but your squad mates on other teams, but the scoring system caters to cowards and scrubs so bad it's not even funny...
A kill is worth 50, an assist (usually means you can finish what you started) is worth 75... ok ok... a cowardly kill from cover? 150!? Broken. Not extra points of headshots. Pretty lame. There is where the big differences pretty a good solid online game like MGO differs from this mainstream "cater to scrubs" crap in this game.
Every class is beyond broken with few tweaks. A rifle man that can x-ray scope through any wall? Claymores that can't be bypassed without a grenade and have disgusting range? A sentry turret that can headshot before you can even aim your gun at it via corners camping?
Actually the game is pretty fun for me, to be honest. I'm not going to lie, I don't use cover, usually get kill death ratios of 30+ and under 9, but I sometimes feel bad because I abuse cheap things, like claymores. However, I couldn't see me liking this game without being in a good squad and just playing random matches hoping my team isn't just going to camp in the spawn.
The game lets you rank up considerably, so multiplayer will last you. Again, it's fun if you don't mind getting destroyed or at least play with friends, it wouldn't be so bad if the scoring system gave a person a chance if everyone else on his team was camping.
I'm knocking off 2 points for the broken point system, and lack of game diversity
Visuals suck. I'm not even going to sugar coat it. How bad? Everyone that isn't you, looks like he's from the PS2 era. Not saying that graphics make the game, but sometimes IN ALL GAME modes the resolution will get so blurry you can actually mis spot enemies. Even grass looks like cheap PS1 pixils.
The effects however I do enjoy, such as holding you face during a flash grenade, a blinding sandstorm, and stabbing people in the neck looks fluid, just not great.
I can't knock down my score due to graphics though, I've always said I would rather play more crap looking games that played better, then pretty messes.
Sounds is actually very well done. Planes, explosions, turret fire from armored personal carriers all sounds really ****ing dramatic. Very pleased. In single player, your team mates will spot out enemies well enough, and even crack jokes to where you really feel like someone is there with you, and never feel alone.
Music is also fantastic, even the music that plays if you just let the PS3 play without selecting Ghost Recon is good. Many tunes make good use of a violin towards the end, and when things get crazy, you feel it.
Controls are a very big hit and miss with me. First off, it is beyond me why a game this day and age can't let you remap everything. Not that I have a problem with it, but many people I play with hate holding X to run, and having square to everything from objectives/melee/reloading/whiping other players asses.
You can shot by hitting R1, steady up more by hold L1, or zoom in by clicking an analog stick, something I have no problem with, but other do. I don't even mind when I accidently switch shoulders in the middle of a fight because it actually does it so fluidly.
However ONE GIANT GLARING PROBLEM: If you do split screen, the controls are set for both players as 1. What does that mean? If you are like me and use invert aim, either your friend will have to use it, or you will have to learn regular style... something that just doesn't work.
For this control problem, I'm knocking the score down 2 points, this isn't acceptable... even in the PS1/N64 era.
Story is ok, nothing special. If you bought this game for story, you may as well just of bought one of Tom Clancy's books.
Replayablity depends on how long you can tolerate the multiplayer, and how well you can bend the brokeness to your will. Which of course depends on how much you'll stand the broken servers for a game that requires an online pass
Online pass = -1 Point, I can tolerate it if the online code was good, or even if it had more to do, but you get nothing special that a more popular call of Duty game give you for free.
Closest thing to MGO
Bullets kills fast, just like in real life
Enough guns and attachments to keep you busy
AI is actually VERY useful in this game
Soldiers actually run/climb/hustle like actual soldiers
Gun recoil is usually low, but the first shot can miss over 50 yards dead on in the head while crouching with an entire clip
Boring game types
Invert aim problem above
Broken point system
No dedicated host
Aborting has ZERO penalities
Very inbalanced objective selections
If you need something to hold you over till the next Metal Gear Online comes out, I'd try the 1 hour free trail before buying this. I got a lot of people to buy this game from my legendary charisma alone, but I can't hide that it's crap, really crap at some times. I do have fun when I do play, but most of my members will usually drop out of the 2nd or 3rd round and pop in Black Ops... However if you do like a challenge, this game would and could be good if it existed. Up until now, either the good players are never there or they all abort within the first few minutes.
They game could of been much better. I knocked 3 points of the game for the online pass, and control issues, two problems that shouldn't exist. As someone who bought this game at full price at launch, I feel that is just BS, and developers need to cut that crap out. This isn't an MMO, hell it doesn't even list your assist kills, headshots, or anything much.
Give it a shot if you really miss the 3rd person action of MGO, complete with detecting enemies through walls with a more realistic damage system. But I warned you, don't expect to have super amounts of full if you don't have a team.
Reviewer's Score: 5/10 | Originally Posted: 10/10/12
Game Release: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (US, 05/22/12)
Got Your Own Opinion?
You can submit your own review for this game using our Review Submission Form.