Call of Duty: Ghosts

 PC
User Score
2.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 3604 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 474 out of 3604
  2. Mixed: 384 out of 3604
  3. Negative: 2,746 out of 3604
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. ws_volt
    Nov 9, 2013
    0
    i thought after MW3, ghosts could only be an improvement, i was wrong, so wrong, the spawns are worse, the maps are worse, the netcode is worse, the optimization is therees just oo much wrong with this game. it has a couple of decent feattures, but none enough to make it more then a 2. I dont know how you did it infinity ward, you manged to make a game worse then MW3.
  2. wyvern300
    Nov 12, 2013
    0
    Surelly its the worst game from the call of duty series, it is just crappy. Dont deserve even a pinny. I cant describe how frustrating it is, basically i have played all the call of duty series, some very good, others more or less, but this one has surelly ended the series. Very heavyy, bad graphics, single-player bad made, etc!! BATTLEFIELD 4 is much more fun
  3. Sens5555
    Nov 5, 2013
    1
    This game offered NOTHING. Terrible performance! Some People are getting 40 FPS on a GTX TITAN! This is a step back from Black Ops 2. Black Ops 2 even had better graphics. This game makes me feel literally SICK, there is no field of view slider at all. My head literally hurts when I play this pathetic excuse of a game. There is no reason to waste your time or money on this game. DO NOT BUY.
  4. bedfojc1
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Man Ghosts on the PC is so bad!!! Multiplayer graphics are junk. Gameplay is worse than BO2. Gun sounds are cartoonish. The game overall is worse than BO2. Id give it a negative score if i could. My biggest problem is with the graphics tho, just appalling. Im using my pre-order bonus Ghosts bandanna to wipe my arse with!
  5. BrumskiGriff
    Nov 5, 2013
    1
    Not only is this the worst Call of Duty game of the series it has to be one of the worst games period.

    It's quite clear that there's no ambition, drive or enthusiasm left in the Call of Duty series and it's clearly been milked dry as a cash making exercise before people simply give up and stop buying regurgitated rubbish. I can't speak for console players but as a PC player since the    Not only is this the worst Call of Duty game of the series it has to be one of the worst games period.

    It's quite clear that there's no ambition, drive or enthusiasm left in the Call of Duty series and it's clearly been milked dry as a cash making exercise before people simply give up and stop buying regurgitated rubbish.

    I can't speak for console players but as a PC player since the early DOS games this is a shameful example of the utter contempt some game developers have for the platform that launched the Call of Duty franchise many years ago.

    I could list all the faults but it's simply not fit for purpose. FPS artificially capped, FOV limited to a ridiculously tiny setting, poor performance on high end systems, sloppy map design, poor gameplay but they all pale into insignificance compared to the fact it's quite simply a really poor game. A game is something to be enjoyed, invoke excitement and something to leave you wanting more. This is anything but that.

    I implore any prospective PC purchaser to walk away.    … Expand
  6. FtPwny
    Nov 5, 2013
    1
    Do not buy this game on PC. IW and Activision lies once again: THERE ARE NO DEDICATED SERVERS. All multiplayer is done on a lobby system as with the previous iterations. The graphics are no better than the previous COD games, but the performance is 3x worse. It lags and stutters even the lobby. There is no FOV slider or anyway to uncap the FPS (capped at 90). If you have a 120/144hzDo not buy this game on PC. IW and Activision lies once again: THERE ARE NO DEDICATED SERVERS. All multiplayer is done on a lobby system as with the previous iterations. The graphics are no better than the previous COD games, but the performance is 3x worse. It lags and stutters even the lobby. There is no FOV slider or anyway to uncap the FPS (capped at 90). If you have a 120/144hz monitor, you will not be able to take full advantage of it due to this (so much for "next gen"). This game is a disgrace to what PC gaming is capable of. Buy Crysis 3, Metro Last Light, and Battlefield 4. Do not pay more than $10 for Call of Duty: Ghosts!… Expand
  7. esqueloide
    Nov 6, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. wooooooooo!!!! the best game ever (sarcasm) the game continues whit the same FAKE metagame, the ending of the game is the same what cod mw 2, realy this saga (in my opinion) is death since a log time :(
    bye bye cod.    … Expand
  8. Darkwalker88
    Nov 6, 2013
    1
    Gotta say graphics are lacking feels so toonsih and more unstable than bf4. There is nothing new or worth while in this game to make it stand out as a must have.
  9. Nostt
    Nov 6, 2013
    0
    Been playing COD since VCOD and I gotta say Ghosts is a slap in the face to the PC community. Is it 100% a terrible muliplayer experience for any PC gamer.

    The graphics are horrible they look old and dated. This game on PC has a console feel to it and outta all the CODS this one takes the cake of the feel. No FOV changer it feels like your monitor is taped to your head and your    Been playing COD since VCOD and I gotta say Ghosts is a slap in the face to the PC community. Is it 100% a terrible muliplayer experience for any PC gamer.

    The graphics are horrible they look old and dated.

    This game on PC has a console feel to it and outta all the CODS this one takes the cake of the feel.
    No FOV changer it feels like your monitor is taped to your head and your running around playing the game.

    The audio is a joke as the only option is a slider for min or max. Nothing else.

    Your FPS is locked! Why is it locked for the PC? 65?

    Overall game play has a cheap feel to it and I must say this has to be the worst COD on PC to date.
    When looking at the player models running around it looks so much of what you would see on a console.

    My computer specs
    No information givei7-4770K
    Asus Hero
    Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
    Evga Super Clocked 780 x2 in Sli
    G.SKILL Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3 2400
    Corsair 540 Case
    Evga Super Nova 1300w PSU
    Noctua NH-U14S Heatsink
    NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Fan Controller
    Asus 27 inch monitor 2560x1440

    My PC eats BF4 to death as for Ghost trust me save your cash and look else where it's totally not worth the multiplayer experience.    … Expand
  10. StealthHazrd
    Nov 8, 2013
    5
    A step backwards in my opinion. I loved Mw2, Mw3, BO, and BO2. Great multiplayer and it felt so much fun! However, the mechanics in this game feel really wierd. I'm still beasting people in lobbies, but its just not fun really. The streaks are not that great. Almost every just gets satcom and dogs cause their easy to pick up. Also dogs are a little overpowered in terms of health.
  11. kjb1035
    Nov 9, 2013
    4
    My review is for multi player only, I really didn't want to believe all of the negative reviews but god this game is bad. The biggest problem is the spawning into mayhem constantly. Also every map is a battle dome, i just remember MW2 where at least teams fought for positions on the map, where in this game there is just no way for that to happen. Another terrible decision was the guardMy review is for multi player only, I really didn't want to believe all of the negative reviews but god this game is bad. The biggest problem is the spawning into mayhem constantly. Also every map is a battle dome, i just remember MW2 where at least teams fought for positions on the map, where in this game there is just no way for that to happen. Another terrible decision was the guard dog, i think they should have made it so the dog immobilizes you for a short period of time instead of giving it 3x health and commando 2.0. I just really cant enjoy this game at all...such a waste of money… Expand
  12. Trigg3rHippie
    Nov 10, 2013
    0
    An absolutely shameless display of arrogance on Activision's and IW's part. Look for copied and pasted scene from MW2 on YouTube if you want to see something funny. The performance-wise this game is so unoptimised they had to put GTX760 with 4GB of VRAM as a recommended card and 6GB of RAM (despite the fact that during tests on ultra settings the game doesn't go over 2GB). And how does itAn absolutely shameless display of arrogance on Activision's and IW's part. Look for copied and pasted scene from MW2 on YouTube if you want to see something funny. The performance-wise this game is so unoptimised they had to put GTX760 with 4GB of VRAM as a recommended card and 6GB of RAM (despite the fact that during tests on ultra settings the game doesn't go over 2GB). And how does it look? Like every CoD game released past 5 years with better character textures. 50GB install? For what?? For those god awful textures? Small maps?

    2008 called.. they want their graphics back.

    Disaster of a game. Stay away.    … Expand
  13. DatGamingCritic
    Nov 17, 2013
    4
    Let's clear one thing up. After I played this game I was SICK. There is no FOV slider so I got motion sick and I have not gone near that game since it's release. They say it's next gen. No it's not the graphics look dated and should not need you should not need to have 2 graphics cards to run it. Also I had to get MORE RAM! I had 8GB and it said I only had 4 so it would not boot. That wasLet's clear one thing up. After I played this game I was SICK. There is no FOV slider so I got motion sick and I have not gone near that game since it's release. They say it's next gen. No it's not the graphics look dated and should not need you should not need to have 2 graphics cards to run it. Also I had to get MORE RAM! I had 8GB and it said I only had 4 so it would not boot. That was annoying and not a good sign. CODBO2 I could run on ULTRA at 60FPS but I can only run COD:Ghosts on Low at 25FPS! How does that work. And IGN. gave at game a 88/100. How? Anyway before I break my iPad I'm gonna go
    Don't get this game. PLEASE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!    … Expand
  14. kl3inhirn
    Apr 16, 2014
    0
    this game is such a disgrace ... burn the publisher. the only good thing about this game is that it gets your graphic card running and it warms up your **** apartment in the winter ... buying this game is the biggest waste of money
  15. darkokills
    Nov 22, 2013
    1
    2600k...GTX 680 4Gb FTW...8 gigs ram...Samsung 840 pro.. What am I missing here? Does it run like s*** on purpose? Go play MW2 and see BETTER graphics AND gameplay. What a joke...What a bad, bad, bad joke this was. Not next gen in the slightest, runs like a$$, and I still can't find a reason why????
  16. BunnyMan
    Nov 23, 2013
    0
    I've been playing CoD since W@W, and this is pretty much the same run-n-gun arcade shooter throughout their franchise. Now I mainly play for multiplayer, and can say it's the same old stuff, nothing wrong with that.
    There is point perk system, as used in Treyarch's BO2, so if you're not a fan of that, then that might be a negative for you. Though, the same old 1 host advantage lobbies are    I've been playing CoD since W@W, and this is pretty much the same run-n-gun arcade shooter throughout their franchise. Now I mainly play for multiplayer, and can say it's the same old stuff, nothing wrong with that.
    There is point perk system, as used in Treyarch's BO2, so if you're not a fan of that, then that might be a negative for you. Though, the same old 1 host advantage lobbies are being used once again, which can and will lead to laggy games, due to being forced to play against people probably not even close to your area.
    Graphics look nice, only if you max out all the settings. There's no in-game option to change field of view, there are mods available but there is uncertainty at the moment whether they are allowed without punishment/ban. All you get for audio options is a level bar to increase or decrease volume. Unlike BO1 & BO2 where you have different audio presets, and can even lower down the volume of annoying voice overs and music.
    As I said, this is the same gameplay as the previous games, whether they were IW or Treyarch, and I still have fun with that. So why such a low score? Well, I suppose this might not be IW fault completely, but there is weak PC community for this game. On average, there are 8K players online, sometimes 18K, and 30K on a rare sunny day. I honestly don't know if those are average numbers for a call of duty game on PC, being that it is my first one on PC. Without dedicated servers, and the previous 6GB RAM requirement (now patched to 4GB), people probably decided to pass on this or just decided to move on to consoles (which average +400K players online), sadly. Cannot recommend at the moment, if ever, I would suggest wait till steam itself has a free to play weekend, maybe by then there will be more players.    … Expand
  17. NavyAlphaGamer
    Nov 23, 2013
    2
    God awful PC port. Multi-player is nothing new. Single-player is the same OVER-THE-TOP story. If the this is Call of Duty's ''Next Gen'' game, then Battlefield has nothing to worry about. Don't waste your time with this game, especially the PC version.
  18. Manjul
    Nov 26, 2013
    1
    this game is just got failed
    graphics, gameplay ,requirements
    all are poor

    modern warfare series is the best from call of duty's
    if they make modern warfaree 4 it will be best
  19. Valik
    Nov 29, 2013
    1
    One of the WORST games I have EVER played. This has burned me on Activision for the last time. $60 for a game that has horrible graphics stutter, insane lag compensation, NO ANTI-CHEAT, and random crashes. On top of that, they are already marketing buying their expansion IN GAME, not even in the least bit concerned with the user outcry. Everything about this game was copy and paste, butOne of the WORST games I have EVER played. This has burned me on Activision for the last time. $60 for a game that has horrible graphics stutter, insane lag compensation, NO ANTI-CHEAT, and random crashes. On top of that, they are already marketing buying their expansion IN GAME, not even in the least bit concerned with the user outcry. Everything about this game was copy and paste, but only the bare minimum to get it in a box, our their door, and our money into their pocket. Avoid this game like the plague!… Expand
  20. moneyman168
    Nov 29, 2013
    0
    This Game has so many bad reviews, Steam doesn't even show the Metacritic score.... wow. I have been Call of Duty fan since it first came out in 2003, it was kind of sad to see the newest editions are just stupid. Not to mention this game has horrible graphics (compared to the last one) and the lack of video options. Now I'm an Arma/OFP Fan, I love playing/making USER MADE COOP MISSIONSThis Game has so many bad reviews, Steam doesn't even show the Metacritic score.... wow. I have been Call of Duty fan since it first came out in 2003, it was kind of sad to see the newest editions are just stupid. Not to mention this game has horrible graphics (compared to the last one) and the lack of video options. Now I'm an Arma/OFP Fan, I love playing/making USER MADE COOP MISSIONS with FRIENDS and The story is AMAZING!!! also Dayz is fun, I hated it at first, but it's fun with friends so if you want to have fun, I recommend pick Arma 2, Arma 3, OFP, or even BF compared This Mindless CrapFest!!!… Expand
  21. HostileKiwi
    Nov 30, 2013
    1
    Havent played CoD since CoD2 and Im not going be buying anoter. Single player is both boring and short (I completed the game in less than 7hrs),, and multiplayer.... where to start on that I wonder? How about the retarded amount of people that cheat and use hacks? To the point where there is no point in playing multiplayer unless you cheat as well. Servers are all in-house and IW seem toHavent played CoD since CoD2 and Im not going be buying anoter. Single player is both boring and short (I completed the game in less than 7hrs),, and multiplayer.... where to start on that I wonder? How about the retarded amount of people that cheat and use hacks? To the point where there is no point in playing multiplayer unless you cheat as well. Servers are all in-house and IW seem to not really care about the amount of people that cheat; (so no you cant have your own servers in an effort to keep a clean game. Maps are pretty small and cramped with limited room to run around. The customisation isnt too bad, but again not really anything CLOSE to the 20,000 odd combinations that IW claim, with a limited amount of weapons on offer for each class.. If I had the choice again, I would taken BF4 over Ghosts.… Expand
  22. Cisco99
    Dec 3, 2013
    4
    Storia valida ma corta,multiplayer bilanciato malissimo,difficolta e competitivita ai minimi livelli.
    Uguale a BO2 penso sia cambiato solo la grafica di cui non frega un c°°°o a nessuno.
  23. BigBossDeGroff
    Dec 4, 2013
    0
    The game on PC is utterly abysmal. It runs like garbage for having such incredibly poor texture quality, even with maxing out at the highest of settings. The outrageously high amount of data needed for install boggles me with how poor the game runs. I tried getting my money back but unfortunately, Activision doesn't see things my way... I'm not surprised.
  24. BlackSilverLip
    Dec 5, 2013
    0
    The most terrible game i've played the last 2 decades. Game is stuttering all over the place on both low and high video settings, buggy textures, the most ridiculous guns from which it doesn't even matter where or when or how you shoot. You kill things in 2 hits, if you shoot in the arm, leg, stomach or chest nothing will make any difference.
  25. Kurabi
    Dec 8, 2013
    0
    I was excited to get this game and play it as I am a huge fan of the COD series. This one was such a disappointment. You die much too fast, there are FPS drops everywhere, and there just seems to be a distinct lack of polish. It is blatantly obvious that this was a straight port, especially in the Extinction game mode. Absolutely horrible.
  26. xtrmsnpr
    Dec 27, 2013
    1
    Game is lack of a lot of things..Bugs are all over the place for 1st place.Then there is nothing change to the previous titles of the series..Devs and company lied to a lot of gamers.
    Moreover,sound is poor,even with a good 7.1 its poor,or with a 7.1 headset.Textures,cmon that is textures from 2008 and it needs 6gb or ram.
    This year i felt down from both major games, bf4 n ghosts..It's    Game is lack of a lot of things..Bugs are all over the place for 1st place.Then there is nothing change to the previous titles of the series..Devs and company lied to a lot of gamers.
    Moreover,sound is poor,even with a good 7.1 its poor,or with a 7.1 headset.Textures,cmon that is textures from 2008 and it needs 6gb or ram.

    This year i felt down from both major games, bf4 n ghosts..It's a pity that companies are starting to giving us half-finished games,and we are paying them so much money,to encounter so many issues    … Expand
  27. XentriX
    Dec 12, 2013
    1
    The textures of this game is least concern......the fire, smoke and explosion effects are so bad for a 2013 game(effects are same as COD 4).......the water quality of this game is extremely terrible(as compared to the water quality of crysis 3/Bf4).......The producers over-exaggerated their efforts in the COD Ghosts conference. Actually they have done nothing particularly innovative to theThe textures of this game is least concern......the fire, smoke and explosion effects are so bad for a 2013 game(effects are same as COD 4).......the water quality of this game is extremely terrible(as compared to the water quality of crysis 3/Bf4).......The producers over-exaggerated their efforts in the COD Ghosts conference. Actually they have done nothing particularly innovative to the game....Worst the developers are saying character customization was not possible in the "old engine" but now possible in so called "new next-gen" engine.....they did not implement character customization in the previous games which was every bit possible with the old engine....why are they blaming the engine? It doesn't make any sense.......they also said it was not possible to build the famous "Fish AI" with "old engine" which was also every bit possible with "old engine"...

    Bf 4 have "Levolution" feature which was quite innovative but Bf game have destructible environment from the beginning.....A whole 60 story skyscraper crumbles down in Bf 4 and in COD Ghosts a tiny gas station falls down........The producer of COD Ghosts are exaggerating that some destructible environment are innovation in gaming but on a contrary Bf 4 producers are saying true facts about their engine and they do not brag about anything....they just clearly provide the relevant facts..............COD Ghosts tech feature video was totally a joke as it did not reflected anything in the actual game.    … Expand
  28. Herding
    Dec 11, 2013
    0
    This is yet another monstrosity of a game. The same tired gameplay and graphics from 2007 are nothing to be impressed by. There are a multitude of issues that disrupt gameplay. Without the downloadable FOV slider you may experience headaches and nausea. Activision have provided little to no innovation in this poor, terrible boring game. Activision have hugged IGN to make them give a goodThis is yet another monstrosity of a game. The same tired gameplay and graphics from 2007 are nothing to be impressed by. There are a multitude of issues that disrupt gameplay. Without the downloadable FOV slider you may experience headaches and nausea. Activision have provided little to no innovation in this poor, terrible boring game. Activision have hugged IGN to make them give a good review and paid them out of their ass in order to make their disgusting game look good.

    Avoid at all costs.    … Expand
  29. Hollow100
    Dec 12, 2013
    4
    The story wasn't interesting, COD changes too little through the years, and the graphics weren't that good at all compared to other games. (I even have a feeling it's worse than the previous COD) and the game lagged a lot on certain missions which shouldn't be problem at all because I have a decent video card. They might have to start using a different engine if you ask me.

    I'm sorry    The story wasn't interesting, COD changes too little through the years, and the graphics weren't that good at all compared to other games. (I even have a feeling it's worse than the previous COD) and the game lagged a lot on certain missions which shouldn't be problem at all because I have a decent video card. They might have to start using a different engine if you ask me.

    I'm sorry but this game was very disappointing.    … Expand
  30. BiPoLar
    Mar 6, 2014
    0
    Please stop making games. What a 1.9 rated abortion this pile of turds is. 5000 characters isn't enough to explain how horrid this game is... so here's three to sum up this review - Don't play this.
Page:

Awards & Rankings

9
#9 Most Discussed PC Game of 2013
53
#53 Most Shared PC Game of 2013

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 14
  3. Negative: 2 out of 14
  1. PC PowerPlay
    Dec 30, 2013
    80
    It's exactly what fans of the franchise have grown to expect. No surprises here, folks. [Jan 2014, p.90]
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Nov 25, 2013
    60
    Nothing to see here in terms of innovation: the campaign is dull, the multiplayer fun. But this time, the air of sameness is a little bit too much. [Issue#236]
  3. IncGamers
    Nov 24, 2013
    40
    An utterly horrible PC port mars an otherwise very, very average Call of Duty game. Nothing to see here.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »