I haven't even played the game yet and to me the multiplayer looks way better than blackops 2.
They give it like a 0 out of 10 and to me that's not fair at all, compared to other games this game is a fairly good first person shooter, also they are probably giving it bad reviews because all the others are.

Mine should come tomorrow and even if I don't like I'm still going to play it because it's fun and entertaining.

No Call of Duty game in the last 4 years (except for BO2, which is by far the most innovative that the franchise has seen since MW1) should be considered a worthy sequel. Having said that, the reason that this game is getting so much flak and bad reviews is because it is following in the footsteps of BO2. In many ways, this game is a step backwards but this is an unfair criticism.

I feel that CoD, ever since the developer split and the IW/Treyarch staggered release schedule, has two completely separate franchises and should be treated as such. Call of Duty Ghosts is a VAST improvement over MW3...THAT is the comparison that should be made. BO2 is part of the other branch of CoD and it's next iteration should be compared with the predecessor from that same branch.

This game still isn't really a worthy sequel, and the reviews scores are what CoD games SHOULD have been getting since MW2. I'm glad that everyone is getting tired of the reused formula and derivative gameplay; if Activision doesn't want their juggernaut to die, they NEED to innovate and not just add customization I mean like total, one hundred percent revival. The only things they should keep intact is the fact that the game is called Call of Duty, there are guns, and it includes multiplayer. Everything else from gameplay mechanics to controls should be new and fresh.

Just my opinion though

BeastModeGuy wrote No Call of Duty game in the last 4 years (except for BO2, which is by far the most innovative that the franchise has seen since MW1) should be considered a worthy sequel. Having said that, the reason that this game is getting so much flak and bad reviews is because it is following in the footsteps of BO2. In many ways, this game is a step backwards but this is an unfair criticism.

I feel that CoD, ever since the developer split and the IW/Treyarch staggered release schedule, has two completely separate franchises and should be treated as such. Call of Duty Ghosts is a VAST improvement over MW3...THAT is the comparison that should be made. BO2 is part of the other branch of CoD and it's next iteration should be compared with the predecessor from that same branch.

This game still isn't really a worthy sequel, and the reviews scores are what CoD games SHOULD have been getting since MW2. I'm glad that everyone is getting tired of the reused formula and derivative gameplay; if Activision doesn't want their juggernaut to die, they NEED to innovate and not just add customization I mean like total, one hundred percent revival. The only things they should keep intact is the fact that the game is called Call of Duty, there are guns, and it includes multiplayer. Everything else from gameplay mechanics to controls should be new and fresh.

Just my opinion though

I honestly think that BO2 was the best Call Of Duty out there because it was innovative and the developers for this game were all like change and stuff and I was excited because I thought it was going to better than BO2 but I think this is the worst one yet.

greengalama wrote

BeastModeGuy wrote No Call of Duty game in the last 4 years (except for BO2, which is by far the most innovative that the franchise has seen since MW1) should be considered a worthy sequel. Having said that, the reason that this game is getting so much flak and bad reviews is because it is following in the footsteps of BO2. In many ways, this game is a step backwards but this is an unfair criticism.

I feel that CoD, ever since the developer split and the IW/Treyarch staggered release schedule, has two completely separate franchises and should be treated as such. Call of Duty Ghosts is a VAST improvement over MW3...THAT is the comparison that should be made. BO2 is part of the other branch of CoD and it's next iteration should be compared with the predecessor from that same branch.

This game still isn't really a worthy sequel, and the reviews scores are what CoD games SHOULD have been getting since MW2. I'm glad that everyone is getting tired of the reused formula and derivative gameplay; if Activision doesn't want their juggernaut to die, they NEED to innovate and not just add customization I mean like total, one hundred percent revival. The only things they should keep intact is the fact that the game is called Call of Duty, there are guns, and it includes multiplayer. Everything else from gameplay mechanics to controls should be new and fresh.

Just my opinion though

I honestly think that BO2 was the best Call Of Duty out there because it was innovative and the developers for this game were all like change and stuff and I was excited because I thought it was going to better than BO2 but I think this is the worst one yet.

I totally agree. Hell, I'm gonna go play BO2 right now!

Black Ops 2 blows, Ghost is fine as it is right now other than the fact that there are a couple of fixes they need to do like the spawns (they are like Black Ops 2) but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it...

Its fine..

NotreDame wrote Black Ops 2 blows, Ghost is fine as it is right now other than the fact that there are a couple of fixes they need to do like the spawns (they are like Black Ops 2) but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it...

Its fine..

You see, this is the mistake most CoD players make, they focus on the little things like hit markers and spawns but never quite get the bigger picture. In that regard, BO2 is highly superior to Ghosts in terms of its innovation, story, and variety of ways to play.

Veszperr wrote

NotreDame wrote Black Ops 2 blows, Ghost is fine as it is right now other than the fact that there are a couple of fixes they need to do like the spawns (they are like Black Ops 2) but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it...

Its fine..

You see, this is the mistake most CoD players make, they focus on the little things like hit markers and spawns but never quite get the bigger picture. In that regard, BO2 is highly superior to Ghosts in terms of its innovation, story, and variety of ways to play.

So you're saying I am making a mistake of playing the game and viewing it on how I want to?
Many people have their own point of view on this game and I just happen to think that BO2 did not have very good graphics and very good spawns in multiplayer. That is all..