Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms

 PC
  • Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Aug 15, 2012
User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 276 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 144 out of 276
  2. Mixed: 45 out of 276
  3. Negative: 87 out of 276

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. Marchelo1988
    Jan 3, 2021
    7
    Being a free to play (with microtransactions) game intended to be able to be run in many computers for friends to play it in different builts, the graphics are not the best but that can be absolutely forgiven. It developed into a pay-to-win, but surely delivered many hours of fun with friends (even If I suck at shooters) with its non-conventional gameplay tactics that allowed for differentBeing a free to play (with microtransactions) game intended to be able to be run in many computers for friends to play it in different builts, the graphics are not the best but that can be absolutely forgiven. It developed into a pay-to-win, but surely delivered many hours of fun with friends (even If I suck at shooters) with its non-conventional gameplay tactics that allowed for different playing styles and approeaches. And even if it's not a remarkable game, I believe that's a compliment for any shooter.… Expand
  2. Tomle1202
    Jul 12, 2016
    5
    It is quite understandable why Ghost Recon Phantoms relies so much on microtransactions, but a generic shooter requiring little thinking is still what it is.
  3. GENERALANXIETY
    Jun 28, 2015
    6
    Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep learning curve. I've never been a fan of the "free to play" model. I'd much rather just spend the money on a well designed, game with kick @rse maps, and a variety of game play modes.

    The maps are mediocre, game play is choppy, matchmaking has been a nightmare. The weapons and tactical gear are interesting but not enough to beat out the COD's or Battlefield    Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep learning curve. I've never been a fan of the "free to play" model. I'd much rather just spend the money on a well designed, game with kick @rse maps, and a variety of game play modes.

    The maps are mediocre, game play is choppy, matchmaking has been a nightmare. The weapons and tactical gear are interesting but not enough to beat out the COD's or Battlefield franchises. Meh...It's a time killer.

    Could be so much better with a bit more effort on level design and more variety with game modes. Larger maps would be great to accommodate the snipers. Smaller maps for those that like faster pace.    … Expand
  4. Xcell78
    Oct 27, 2014
    7
    For starters I have been playing this game for say 3 months or so now and I have really enjoyed it thus far. It is one of the best tactical shooters I have ever played, but it is not without its flaws. First and foremost, it is a Pay 2 Win game. That is right!, to get the best gear, devices and weapons right from the rip you would almost certainly need to buy them to be at a fair advantageFor starters I have been playing this game for say 3 months or so now and I have really enjoyed it thus far. It is one of the best tactical shooters I have ever played, but it is not without its flaws. First and foremost, it is a Pay 2 Win game. That is right!, to get the best gear, devices and weapons right from the rip you would almost certainly need to buy them to be at a fair advantage with veterans. I myself first started and grinded out my first Tier 4 weapons, if you can not afford to buy the weapons then you can expect to play 20 hours or more grinding to Tier 4 on one character. That part is fine if you are a hardcore type of person, but it will take the average gamer forever and a day to do it.

    Once you reach Tier 4 and you have at least a Tier 3 Tac suit with upgrades you can now begin to compete somewhat that is. I rolled many decked out players with a Tier 4 weapon...it wasn't easy..but it is possible if you are a good player. The best way if you are not geared to deal with a person that is geared is to tag team it with a friend or teammate, they are anything but invincible but trust me it can be done with some coordination.

    Now with all that being said I did like the game enough to purchase all the top Tier weapons and gear (T9) and am now ranked amongst the top 1000 players on the Athena Leaderboards. I have spent around $300 to get all the gear and weapons for all 3 of the classes, so it ain't cheap, but if you enjoy this the way that I do and you are in a good financial position, then its worth supporting the developers or at least in my opinion. It really is a unique game and it does run rather smooth with nice graphics.

    Now there are 2 distinct things that really piss me off in this game and these are first off: The matchmaking straight up sucks. Yes it as bad as BF4 with stacking Vets against the gearless noobs. It is indeed awful ...expect to get steam rolled allot against better geared teams.

    2nd of all this game plays really smooth even when you don't have the best ping...I would say it has the best net code I ever seen....except for the fact if someone has a bad ping you almost certainly will loose to them nothing worse than a geared lagger...for whatever reason they have a lag shield.

    But all and all the game is for sure worth a shot if you have the patience to learn its mechanics and the money to gear up or the time to grind it out. It truly is the only Multiplayer FPS I have ever played with this type of combat system.    … Expand
  5. sdoust2014
    Aug 31, 2014
    5
    I'm writing this because I am absolutely appalled at the level of money-grubbing and content-splicing in the current state of the game. Phantoms has by far the worst implementation of micro-transactions and "DLC" I have ever seen. Let me list a few brief reasons:

    1. GC costs per gun are completely out of control. For example, a Tier 7 assault rifle costs roughly 1800GC. 1800GC is 8$.    I'm writing this because I am absolutely appalled at the level of money-grubbing and content-splicing in the current state of the game. Phantoms has by far the worst implementation of micro-transactions and "DLC" I have ever seen. Let me list a few brief reasons:

    1. GC costs per gun are completely out of control. For example, a Tier 7 assault rifle costs roughly 1800GC. 1800GC is 8$. For ONE gun?! Please ask yourselves if this is reasonable because I can't see how it could be.

    2. Your "DLC" is nothing but more microtransaction packs which, in my opinion, are grossly overpriced at $19 and $25. Usually DLC includes actual content such as maps or new game modes. I'll remind you that the last letter of DLC stands for content. Start making some and we'll support it.

    3. AC sinks such as armor repair and grenade replacements. Completely absurd and pointless; you are making us pay for grenades and durability as if this is an MMORPG.

    4. The amount of cash shop elements on the front screen which includes a button that flat out says BUY AAA (a monthly subscription service that offers absolutely ZERO value unless you enjoy being able to pay for new guns first!). It’s almost subliminal in how shameless it is. Other pointless cash shop elements: item storage (this is a tactical shooter?), cash shop button on main screen, random treasure chests for 3-4$ (hope you don’t get special ammo!),cash shop links within inventory menus , first in-game screen says “GET YOUR AAA PASS” in large text, cash shop link in scrapyard menu, etc. Please grow some respectability and a sense of subtlety.

    5. There is actually a $99 “DLC” bundle. Worse yet, they claim it contains $180 worth of items. Are you out of your minds with this one? This game is not worth $180 I’m sorry to inform. Plus, this $99 bundle isn’t even the complete package; you know more guns are coming in future.

    Once again I have to say that I really like the game and play it often and also I did put a bit of money into it. However, I do not honestly feel satisfied with that purchase because $25 gets you basically nothing in this game.

    One last thing: this game IS PAY TO WIN: you can buy “special ammo” that does more damage, you can buy a tier 7 gun and attachments from the start, and you can buy better armor from the start. Finally, you can’t buy everything with the earned (not paid-for) currency and I hope you earn 5,000 points a game because if not, you’ll be waiting a while to unlock basic things.    … Expand
  6. HMG-MetaCritic
    Aug 4, 2014
    5
    Lots of potential, ends up to be a great 3rd person shooter only to be ruined by the pay 2 win system and the lags/glitches! You basically can't afford anything unless you play 24 hours a day or buy your guns online. I'm still waiting for the next rainbow six...
  7. 00000000001
    May 15, 2014
    6
    To start off with I have played over 30 hours of Phantoms, for an intelligent review. This game is rather puzzling to me as I can't tell what audience its for, Call of Duty fans? Battlefield fans? Ghost Recon fans? Maybe fans of Gears of War? It would be safe to say from my point of view, none of them. This game is a middle of the road experience on one hand it has some redeeming featuresTo start off with I have played over 30 hours of Phantoms, for an intelligent review. This game is rather puzzling to me as I can't tell what audience its for, Call of Duty fans? Battlefield fans? Ghost Recon fans? Maybe fans of Gears of War? It would be safe to say from my point of view, none of them. This game is a middle of the road experience on one hand it has some redeeming features (some, not many). The controls are fine, responsive and easy to grasp, the gun and character models are well detailed, audio seems perfect, ranking, connection and game balance all seems good. However, this may be where the good bits end and what is left is a game that provides a few good moments intertwined with a hell of a lot of frustrating, dodgy and rage inducing moments.

    Lets start with the maps. There are several maps for Ghost Recon Phantoms and yet all of them feel the same no matter what environment, this I believe may be because of the play-style the game requires; spending most of your time in cover means I rarely looked at anything else but my enemies and the next piece of cover I can hop to. Furthermore, Phantom's maps seem to have a lack of effort put into them, blocks of cover dotted everywhere, pillars making a frequent appearance and other interchangeable prop cover. Obviously there are some maps I liked, but not because they were different just because I was better on them than others.

    On the PvP aspect Phantom's is good, one on one fights are energetic and crazy in any one of the three classes; there does not seem to be any map exploits or spots that gave a heavy advantage to one person over others. Phantom's game modes are quite standard nothing that stands out from other titles in its genre, although all are objective so no death-match type games (a positive in this game as camping in rooms and cover would fast become an annoyance).

    Another negative of Ghost Recon Phantoms is the camera angles, constantly swapping sides at the slightest movement in cover and in circumstances enemies can see, and kill you before the camera angle adjusts enough for you to see them, (unfair to say the least).

    Even with the issues above none match this game's micro-transaction store, now i'm not a fan of paying real money in games, but it is a staple of most free-to-play games and so i live with it. However, Ubisoft have taken it way past the line set by other F2P games. There is the usual camo packs and outfits galore for you to spend your dosh on. From my point of view still not an issue, until you arrive at "weapons". Weapons costs anywhere from £3.99 to £7.99 each this is aggravating but this is not issue; its the cost of grinding for a gun in game, the good guns cost from 20000 credits to 100000 credits, for one gun. Well how much do you earn per game? You may ask, well in my best game I would earn over 400 (just over) and in most about 200. So from zero, with games lasting about 30 minutes upwards it would take you 200 games for a gun at 20,000(50 hours in game), For a gun at 100,000 it would take 500 games (250 hours) for a single gun. although this doesn't strike me as pay 2 win as everyone suggests; it is an obvious move by Ubisoft to make it more appealing to pay rather than grow into an old man/women grinding for that prize weapon you wanted.

    Final verdict:
    Ghost Recon Phantoms is in no way a bad game especially for a free to play game, but is lacks polish and it needs it desperately. Its maps are satisfactory, no real imbalance in matchmaking and the feel of being a future soldier with your riot shield(so futuristic) and microwave thingy (ready-meal some fools). Overall, Ghost Recon Phantoms seems half-cocked and unsure of what it wants to be and its micro store is a shrine of overpriced items literally forcing you to buy them with micro-transaction cash. Nonetheless, it had its fun moments and good games and isn't as bad as others in its category. Phantoms is worth a try if you are into the genre (or not), but hold back spending any real money on it as you might regret it.    … Expand
  8. larrystanke
    Apr 21, 2014
    5
    Well the idea is really great, and i played for couple of days and I really enjoyed it. But the first thing i noticed, autobalance is awfull. It might be true or not but it looks like a marketing idea in these f2p games. So here it goes - automatch is always unbalanced so you would think that gear is esential to wining (and it obviously is) so then you would spend money if youre hooked upWell the idea is really great, and i played for couple of days and I really enjoyed it. But the first thing i noticed, autobalance is awfull. It might be true or not but it looks like a marketing idea in these f2p games. So here it goes - automatch is always unbalanced so you would think that gear is esential to wining (and it obviously is) so then you would spend money if youre hooked up on the game. By unbalanced I mean ( i have played less than 100games) theres always one team who is winning/owning other team. And no comeback was seen in all of those games i've played, sometimes i was in the winning team sometimes it was opssosite.

    This is the only thing that completely and i mean completely let me make up my mind and stop playing this game which had a great potential amongst player who would like a bit more tactical shooter than games these days in the market. Because it is great run and gun does not work, i''ve tried many tiems and failed many times, slow tactical approach using covers is what you need to succeed. Customization is great, i really liked the idea that oyu can try any gun or attachement in the firing range prior to buying it, that was really great idea.

    Maps suit the game, but variety was awfull all i did was played in 3 or 4 maps all the time, and they are completely symetrical. Graphics are not good, and it was lagging on my laptop, but i guess its just getting old.

    My score is not great though i wont give it horrible score also, because I did enjoyed the game for a few days. 5    … Expand
  9. Worufu
    Jul 22, 2013
    5
    Okay, where to start.
    I find GRO a fun concept, its core mechanics executed pretty well. It's fun to run around and shoot things, levelling is fun, weapon customization is fun, different classes are fun, level design is (with exceptions) good enough and it should be a good F2P title, especially with amazing music taken from the first Ghost Recon, right? Right?
    Well hell no. The absolute    Okay, where to start.
    I find GRO a fun concept, its core mechanics executed pretty well. It's fun to run around and shoot things, levelling is fun, weapon customization is fun, different classes are fun, level design is (with exceptions) good enough and it should be a good F2P title, especially with amazing music taken from the first Ghost Recon, right? Right?
    Well hell no. The absolute gamebreaker is one: small playerbase and two: the existing playerbase is already levelled up so high it's nigh impossible to even scratch them, as they basically kill you instantly. The disproportion is incredibly awful, almost every match is a slaughterfest that will make you ragequit as you get killed over and over again because your level 5 character with his basic assault rifle can't hit a target from 50 meters and oneshot him instantly and the enemy has a pewpewgun that will rip you to shreds before you'll be able to even blink. The beginner matches for low levels I found really fun! Balanced, everyone had similar levels, no big differences in power. But when you hit level 5 (as far as I remember) you can't play the beginner matches anymore and you must play against everyone else. And basically everyone else has their characters maxed out and with some sweet 1337 equipment that makes your character look like a poor man's militia, not a soldier. It's because the balance between low tier and high tier equipment is, well, non-existant. High-tier dwarfs everything and when you jump into the non-beginner fray with your still brand-new shiny starter assault rifle you will get squashed, remains scooped up, put into a cannon and shot into the sea. The level design is not helping with it, camping spots are frequent and for well-equipped players on an underpopulated map (what happens always) it's a child's play to just take out the targets one by one as they are struggling to even leave their spawning spot. I played this game couple months ago and tried returning to it now. Nothing changed. And I have a feeling nothing will change in the future. Pity, because this game had a chance to become something really, really great. Try Firefall instead.    … Expand
  10. Caholbahey
    Jun 25, 2013
    6
    This game has an incredible intuitive interface and the best way to use cover I've seen yet in an FPS. The problem herein lies in how impossible it is to contain camping and produce a satisfying game continuously. The main problem here is that matches are nearly never full, meaning the maps that would be great for 20 people, just become a flanker's paradise with 12. Add in the fact thatThis game has an incredible intuitive interface and the best way to use cover I've seen yet in an FPS. The problem herein lies in how impossible it is to contain camping and produce a satisfying game continuously. The main problem here is that matches are nearly never full, meaning the maps that would be great for 20 people, just become a flanker's paradise with 12. Add in the fact that soldiers have far too many hit points, and this becomes annoying. It takes 3 sniper body shots to kill assault class guys and I've lit up people with 6 bullets only to die quickly. Given its free to play nature as well, some of the higher level guns will just eat you up once you arise out of the beginners ranks.

    Basically, it needs a more tiered system, but doesn't have enough players to even fill normal matches at this point. If you have a fireteam of 3 friends that you're voice chatting, it can be great, but just know that an enemy right over the wall that you shoot 5 times may be harder to kill than that guy crawling across the map.

    Final verdict: Worth it if you can play with a couple of friends, but needs tweaking to become a great game otherwise.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

46
#46 Most Discussed PC Game of 2012
43
#43 Most Shared PC Game of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 24
  3. Negative: 0 out of 24
  1. SpazioGames
    May 19, 2014
    65
    It's basically the same game as Ghost Recon Online but with not so many more maps: a third person shooter that aims to be tactical without being able to provide fun for more than a few hours. It deserves to be tried only because it's free and nothing else.
    Read full review
  2. Edge Magazine
    May 16, 2014
    70
    Classes and skills are well-balanced, and even though you’ll cycle through the small map selection quickly, they offer enough possibilities to stave off fatigue until Ubisoft adds more arenas. With more modes and maps, Phantoms would be a formidable offering, but it’s worth dipping into until then.
    Read full review
  3. Gamereactor Sweden
    Apr 30, 2014
    70
    Considering this is completely free to play, Phantoms has a lot to offer in terms of tight controls, nifty cooperation and a neat ranking system. Given the fact that it will keep evolving, it looks like fans will have good reason to stay.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »