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. RedDragonKnight
    Nov 5, 2013
    9
    The only thing that is remotely the same as previous versions is the multiplayer formula: fast paced twitch shooting with little downtime. Different game modes such as Search and Rescue and Blitz improve upon multiplayer to keep things interesting. Squad gameplay is a nice way to get some training in for new players and also provides its own game modes.
    For me, the true gem of Ghosts is    The only thing that is remotely the same as previous versions is the multiplayer formula: fast paced twitch shooting with little downtime. Different game modes such as Search and Rescue and Blitz improve upon multiplayer to keep things interesting. Squad gameplay is a nice way to get some training in for new players and also provides its own game modes.
    For me, the true gem of Ghosts is the Co-op gameplay brought on by safeguard and extinction. Safeguard is like MW3's survival while extinction replaces the zombie mode from previous games. As long as you turn mouse acceleration off via your mouse software, the game runs fantastically and the graphics are much improved. and it has space. Anyone complaining about graphics hasn't bothered to turn the settings off of low, which is a blurry mess.    … Expand
  2. 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!
  3. Krounus
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Don't waste your time with this horrible PC port. That's what it is. The game was clearly developed for consoles and ported over to PC. Not only that but there are issues all over the place with this game. I won't get into the many issues, just take a stroll through the forums and you'll see for yourself. Don't do what I did and waste your money on this game. Save your money for something else.
  4. MasterAlighieri
    Nov 5, 2013
    1
    I always liked the CoD games. I knew they never were fresh or creative but the multiplayer part just worked well. So really liked BOPsII and was looking forward to the multiplayer part in ghosts.

    But this game is just a shame. Performance vise its terrible. It looks like a bumped up MW2 but how the hell does this need triple the hardware to run smoothly (if only it would....)? It has    I always liked the CoD games. I knew they never were fresh or creative but the multiplayer part just worked well. So really liked BOPsII and was looking forward to the multiplayer part in ghosts.

    But this game is just a shame. Performance vise its terrible. It looks like a bumped up MW2 but how the hell does this need triple the hardware to run smoothly (if only it would....)? It has all kind of bugs, lag a pathetic single player campaign. This time I bought is and I feel sorry. Next time I won't... I am just glad that I didnt buy any map packs.    … Expand
  5. steelballrun99
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    a step backwards for pc fps, this version of COD from infinity ward makes battlefield 4 seems like the savior to pc fps games... cod ghost makes battlefield fans laugh and turns cod fans into bf4 fans, fov sucks, no support for eyefinity and surround... basically just a really bad game, don't buy this game at any cost...
  6. MacK2020
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    It's CoD. It's the same crap all over again. With some more guns....
    I lol at the 'professional critics' reviews who always love to suck off big developers with their positive scores.
    But the players (the most important critics) have spoken.
    CoD is well and truly dying and the slow sales of this latest installment may well be one of the final nails in it's overdue coffin.
  7. Fettastic
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Do you want to waste $60? Then this is the game for you. Terrible graphics, glitchy, servers constantly crashing, crazy high unjustified required specs. My computer can play Farcry 3 on the highest setting, but it hiccups with this game? What a joke. Don't make the same mistake I did thinking you'd play a fun CoD game and save your
  8. Lib
    Nov 5, 2013
    10
    Best Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare 2. Raging kids puts 0 marks only because this is CoD, I'm sure, that majority of them not even played the game.
  9. 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.
  10. dreamthuoz
    Nov 5, 2013
    3
    Okay, 5000 characters. I am not sure if this is enough to share my experience with you. To clarify I am not Battlefield fan-boy. I used to play Call of Duty on a professional level on a lot of eSports events. I loved Call of Duty 4 which I enjoyed for 2 or even 3 years. I recently had some more free time and thought "hey, let's try a new Call of Duty".

    But this? This is the most    Okay, 5000 characters. I am not sure if this is enough to share my experience with you. To clarify I am not Battlefield fan-boy. I used to play Call of Duty on a professional level on a lot of eSports events. I loved Call of Duty 4 which I enjoyed for 2 or even 3 years. I recently had some more free time and thought "hey, let's try a new Call of Duty".

    But this? This is the most unfinished product I have ever seen. I am not saying anything about graphics, which to me looks like at least one generation old. I am honest, it's not even frustration. This game looks worse than Call of Duty 4 and I have around 20 fps if that's what you guys call optimization, better work on a new engine. This awful optimization forced me to change graphic settings like 10 times. The frustrating part is that you require the game to load level over and over again, with every (even small) change in the settings. I don't even want to say anything about your 6GB of RAM requirement, because this is the biggest joke I have ever seen. I have a pretty decent setup, I played BF4 which has a lot better graphics on 40-50 FPS at 1440x900 with medium settings. I have 20 FPS in Call of Duty, running it on 1280x720 with low settings.

    Honestly... I am speechless. I will sum up everything with only one sentence you guys even copied some of the old files (sounds) to Call of Duty: Ghosts. It feels like you guys released a patch or DLC that is pretty much f***** up, because someone failed in your QA Department with game tests. When I see notes like "10" for this game on Metacritic I don't even know what to say.

    This game is horrible, period. And to clarify I really love what you guys are doing. I love video games, I love game-dev. I love your passion that you put in Call of Duty for several years. I can understand a lot of processes that may have went wrong. But here... I am just a customer. Customer, that haven't seen this kind of disappointment for the last several years. A change is needed, otherwise I feel like this is over for one of the best game series I enjoyed as a kid (with Medal of Honor).    … Expand
  11. Akichi
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    The state of the PC port is abysmal: I could care less if the game is goddamn astounding, if it runs like ass even on systems that well surpass the recommended requirements, then it is a crap PC port.

    The PC port is a waste of money, a kick in the teeth for PC Gamers and a shameful display by Infinity Ward: they should be ashamed at the way they ported this game. If this is the way    The state of the PC port is abysmal: I could care less if the game is goddamn astounding, if it runs like ass even on systems that well surpass the recommended requirements, then it is a crap PC port.

    The PC port is a waste of money, a kick in the teeth for PC Gamers and a shameful display by Infinity Ward: they should be ashamed at the way they ported this game.

    If this is the way they treat PC Gamers then they can go themselves.    … Expand
  12. ri888ff
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Terrible graphics, terrible gameplay, stupid gamestory and 6gb ram as minimum, are you crazy, Activision? Looks like stupid joke. My vote for a new Battlefield!
  13. F4t3r
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Is the same game Is the copy of call of duty black ops 2 and the graphics cant compete with battlefield bad company To the game I give a 3.5 points .

    PD Im from Argentina
  14. hyenasucker
    Nov 5, 2013
    6
    Love the addition of dogs.

    Game is so intuitive with dogs and fish. Only complain I have is they left out the possibilty to add armor and stuff on the dog. Would also like to customize the dog more, like different hair and fur on it, pick some neat colors and so on.

    If they add more animals i will give it an 8 or 9, good job IW
  15. nine7114
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Worst COD yet.

    Do they intend to keep PC players? The current version is a sad excuse of a port.

    -last decade graphics, guns sound like muffled firecrackers, character models and the general experience of the MP feels like a free-to-play FPS
  16. Danych
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Dear Activision!

    6 Gb RAM hard-lock on totally outdated eight-year-old engine is one of the most insanely idiotic things I ever seen. At no point in making of this retarded decision were you ever close to anything that can be considered a rational thought. Every COD:Ghosts owner is now dumber for having bought it. I award you zero meta-score and may God have mercy on your soul.
  17. Kymeimei
    Nov 5, 2013
    1
    BF4 had a beta, in the BETA it was obvious that the game ran poorly. The issues were fixed before release. CoD ghosts, it is obvious that the game runs poorly. This product was released to the public Nov 5th and that is what you will receive if you buy this game. In the future AMD and nvidia might fix the problem, but fact is the game was released with the devs knowing it doesn't run wellBF4 had a beta, in the BETA it was obvious that the game ran poorly. The issues were fixed before release. CoD ghosts, it is obvious that the game runs poorly. This product was released to the public Nov 5th and that is what you will receive if you buy this game. In the future AMD and nvidia might fix the problem, but fact is the game was released with the devs knowing it doesn't run well on PC.
    8gb ram EVGA GTX 670 SC Intel 3570k @4.2ghz win 7    … Expand
  18. Bierno
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    So I have a i7 2600k 4.5GHZ, 8GB RAM, GTX 760SC. Guess what, Call of Duty Ghosts lag so much and wondering why they are releasing games at this quality now. I also bought BF4 but I already know they are taking the time to make the game run smooth as they had an open beta. This makes me wonder if the developers of IW know what they are doing. I skipped the previous Call of Duty and wish ISo I have a i7 2600k 4.5GHZ, 8GB RAM, GTX 760SC. Guess what, Call of Duty Ghosts lag so much and wondering why they are releasing games at this quality now. I also bought BF4 but I already know they are taking the time to make the game run smooth as they had an open beta. This makes me wonder if the developers of IW know what they are doing. I skipped the previous Call of Duty and wish I did for this one. Regret buying the game.… Expand
  19. cappugino
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Don´t support this politic!
    Every year the same ...
    The neat developers changed to the Titanfall squad!
    Especially if you already owned a CoD titel of series.
  20. viashesla
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    The graphics are even worse than the transition from Cod 2 to 3. I am so glad I didn't buy any of the map packs or expansions. This will be the last CoD I ever buy. I mean honestly PayDay 2 has better graphics. I thought it would be cool that you could customize a character and become a woman. I think thats the only improvement this game has made.

    dronos Nov 5, 2013 0 Hell yeah i    The graphics are even worse than the transition from Cod 2 to 3. I am so glad I didn't buy any of the map packs or expansions. This will be the last CoD I ever buy. I mean honestly PayDay 2 has better graphics. I thought it would be cool that you could customize a character and become a woman. I think thats the only improvement this game has made.

    dronos
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Hell yeah i have 16GB Ram and had no problems with installation andor requirements. But... BUTT!
    Same game from greedy guys. Made game for consoles not for PC. I can't even name that "shooter" no aim, small maps, no skill.
    Wont buy any "CoD" games anymore.
    his is a step back from Black Ops 2 in almost every way. No FoV slider on PC version, or FPS cap setting, both of which were present in BO2. Bugs in MW3 that were addressed in BO2 are now somehow back in Ghosts, for example the random jumps in mouse sensitivity that happen if certain programs are running in the background (such as FRAPs). Theater mode, one of the best features of recent Call of Duty games, has been removed. Optimization wise, my computer runs Battlefield 4 on max settings at higher frame rates than Ghosts. Image quality defaults to 'high', which causes upscaling of resolution like a console game rather than rendering at your chosen resolution. Sound effects sound like they were taken straight from MW3. Sad.    … Expand
  21. efeenes74
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    The game needs your gaming rig to have 6 gigs of ram or more to start the game you purchased. That means 32-bit computers won't be able to start the damn game. What's ironic is, the game needs 2 gigs of ram to run smoothly. This is the reason why this game is an epic fail for PC. The graphics are terrible, gameplay is bad, bad scenario in a game and copy pasted multiplayer from ModernThe game needs your gaming rig to have 6 gigs of ram or more to start the game you purchased. That means 32-bit computers won't be able to start the damn game. What's ironic is, the game needs 2 gigs of ram to run smoothly. This is the reason why this game is an epic fail for PC. The graphics are terrible, gameplay is bad, bad scenario in a game and copy pasted multiplayer from Modern Warfare 3.
    I said enough, this game is a piece of 0/10, good job Activision.    … Expand
  22. 1999
    Nov 5, 2013
    10
    Absolutely fantastic new innovative Fish AI. The fish actually move out of your way when you swim towards them. Mind blowing. Another brilliant addition to the greatest video game series of all time. Also, dogs.
  23. John5417
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Worst game ever of the franchise. Always loved CoD but Ghosts is a piece of s+++. I'm so sorry developers who worked hard in the game. I hope that improves with patches.
  24. Tumpah
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    wrost cod ever, and maybe wrost payed fps on the market. its waste of money... really i read reviews like ign wtf!!?? and... money, money its the answer!!
  25. Cammy150
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Boring game. Same game used over again once more. Don't waste £40 on this and support it. Nothing new has been brought to the table and the graphics for this are disappointing
  26. cobaltje
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Big waste of money!! Black ops 2 played much smoother then this one.
    No FoV slider, and FPS cap, bugs back again..
    70 euros waste of money.. bye, gonna start battlefield back up..
  27. awkenney
    Nov 5, 2013
    2
    The single player component features the same outlandish fiction that has been prevalent since MW2. While the presentation was on-par, the game play was uninspired and unoriginal.
    The multiplayer component would be a rock-solid title if it were not for the incredibly aggressive anti-lag tech being applied to the game. In the COD4/World at War generation, this was easily resolved by    The single player component features the same outlandish fiction that has been prevalent since MW2. While the presentation was on-par, the game play was uninspired and unoriginal.
    The multiplayer component would be a rock-solid title if it were not for the incredibly aggressive anti-lag tech being applied to the game. In the COD4/World at War generation, this was easily resolved by dedicated servers which had min and max ping settings and the ability to turn anti-lag OFF.
    The anti-lag tech produces effects where your actions can be up to 2 seconds behind an opponent, giving you little hope to win in a face to face gun battle. It also impacts general hit registration. Hilariously, some guns are exempt from this. That being said, I can't in good conscience recommend a game that still has this problem after several iterations.    … Expand
  28. RageGreeny
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Genuinely, the game is AGAIN identical to it's predecessors and it's beyond a joke now.
    Maybe when the next CoD installment is released I'll copy and paste this review in a better font.
  29. chaosquall
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    Graphics are terrible, even worse then cod wow i would say. Players randomly teliport, the menu stutters cant even play single player because the cut scenes crash the game. Not optimized at all. They should be shot.

    If i can play bf4 maxed 60+ fps i should be able to play this pile of crap!
  30. V1R2L
    Nov 5, 2013
    0
    They say THIS IS NEW GENERATION! NEW ENGINE!1 And then they release THIS game... Guys, we live in 2013 year, and maximum fps
    locked at 91?lolwut?! It looks pathetic on my 144hz monitor Battlefield 4 has a much more beautiful
    graphics and much bigger world I have more than 300 FPS! (3960x gtx 690 32Gb ram) Aaaand FOV locked at 65... CoD looks soooo awful... Not to mention sound, which    They say THIS IS NEW GENERATION! NEW ENGINE!1 And then they release THIS game... Guys, we live in 2013 year, and maximum fps
    locked at 91?lolwut?! It looks pathetic on my 144hz monitor Battlefield 4 has a much more beautiful
    graphics and much bigger world I have more than 300 FPS! (3960x gtx 690 32Gb ram) Aaaand FOV locked at 65... CoD looks
    soooo awful... Not to mention sound, which feels like it was made on some prehistoric synth. My score 0    … Expand
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 »