Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

 Xbox One
User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 990 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 445 out of 990
  2. Mixed: 196 out of 990
  3. Negative: 349 out of 990
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. SchroederRock
    Nov 8, 2014
    6
    The newest installment of Call of Duty has the game looking more like a current-generation AAA title with improved visuals and behaving like one with new movement mechanics provided through the introduction of an "exosuit" that players wear in both campaign and multiplayer portions of the game. For the campaign, you can expect the usual scripted sequences of combat that attempt to actThe newest installment of Call of Duty has the game looking more like a current-generation AAA title with improved visuals and behaving like one with new movement mechanics provided through the introduction of an "exosuit" that players wear in both campaign and multiplayer portions of the game. For the campaign, you can expect the usual scripted sequences of combat that attempt to act like a Michael Bay movie with a bit more heart. At times, Advanced Warfare pulls it off and the progression of the story comes off more thought out than CoD has been in the past. Other times it's nothing overly exciting or new, but at least it's not the disappointment that Ghosts was in 2013. Kevin Spacey is excellent but unfortunately the story and dialogue don't always allow him to shine as bright as he could and should have. In the end, I put up about 10 hours or so into the campaign on the Hardened difficulty and didn't feel like I wasted my time. As for the multiplayer, that's another story. The bread and butter of re-playability for this game is at times completely broken. First time developer Sledgehammer Games, who had only done some DLC content for Modern Warfare 3 in the past, attempt to play with the CoD formula and make the game feel a bit more modern and fresh. Very seldom does it feel like they succeeded. Maps are uninspiring and the lack of dedicated server AGAIN ruin the connectivity portion of this game. Using the exosuit for avoidance is borderline useless because your reactions might be fast enough, but the network latency isn't and as a result your attempts to survive end in tears. It's a major pitfall for CoD, the only major shooter launched regularly that has avoided the superior networking path to this day. Dedicated servers are supposedly in the works but are not available in the first weeks of the game and not every platform will get them (major bummer for some). Gametypes are largely carry-over from previous CoD games and it makes everything feel dated and overly familiar even with the changes made. Scorestreaks are impressive in some ways, especially in customization and add-on capabilities, but again too much carry-over leaves the once-bright-spot of CoD as nothing more than a flicker. As for the cooperative Exo Survival, it's Modern Warfare 3's survival mode rehashed. It's neither good nor bad and is probably the best challenge you'll get without being competitive against other players. The problem is that we've seen this done time and time again through other franchises (Halo, Gears of War, earlier CoD games) that the inclusion of this portion of AW feels like a last-minute add-on. It uses all of the same maps as the traditional matchmaking playlists and limits you to a four-player squad.

    Overall, Advanced Warfare is a fairly decent game, but Call of Duty veterans will absolutely find the "been there, done that" catchphrase to be exceedingly true yet again. Advanced Warfare was supposed to be the mold-breaker that put CoD back into favorable territory for gamers, not just critics, but instead feels like a good idea that wasn't fully executed. If you haven't played CoD much in the past, this will be a good game all around for you. As for me, I've played every CoD title since Call of Duty 2. Modern Warfare 2 and the first Black Ops seem to be the last days of glory for this franchise that has since fumbled a bit more with each game launch. At least Sledgehammer tried to do something to make it fun again, that counts for something. Perhaps it's time for Activision to realize they've beat a dead cow and let CoD have a long time out before coming back in the future.    … Expand
  2. sprinkill
    Dec 13, 2015
    5
    I'm only giving this game a 5 because I just gave Fallout 4 a "4," and I didn't think it fair to rate this game as poorly as FO4, the worst AAA game of the year.

    I bought this game over a year ago, and am just now getting around to rating it. This game would've been pretty great if it were released in 2003. I just don't understand why COD is still a "thing" when there's games like    I'm only giving this game a 5 because I just gave Fallout 4 a "4," and I didn't think it fair to rate this game as poorly as FO4, the worst AAA game of the year.

    I bought this game over a year ago, and am just now getting around to rating it. This game would've been pretty great if it were released in 2003. I just don't understand why COD is still a "thing" when there's games like Battlefield. I don't get a kick out of running around close quarters hoping to get the jump on someone. I'm not even bad at it - I just find it boring at this point. It was cool with COD: MW, but now it's stale. Adding some gadgets, abilities, etc., doesn't cut it - it's still the same basic game.

    The graphics aren't that great, however, I'm pretty sure noone expects them to be at this point. The single player campaign was forgettable. You'll obvsly not be playing through that gem again. Honestly, COD: Ghosts was at least a point and a half better than this game.    … Expand
  3. McGillotine
    Aug 13, 2015
    5
    What did Kevin Spacey say when he entered the room?
    I wanna declare war on the world.........wait what
    The thing is with call of duty is that it is no longer haha bad and is kinda like a homeless beggar asking for a hand of change every time you cross a bend offering to jump up and down like a money, which is entertaining maybe up to the 5th time, but eventually gets tiring and    What did Kevin Spacey say when he entered the room?
    I wanna declare war on the world.........wait what

    The thing is with call of duty is that it is no longer haha bad and is kinda like a homeless beggar asking for a hand of change every time you cross a bend offering to jump up and down like a money, which is entertaining maybe up to the 5th time, but eventually gets tiring and redundant soon after, with the hobo wearing a hat or maybe some sunglasses to reinvent the act but its essentially the same thing over an over again with another look to it. Now if your too retarded to understand what i mean by that, it is a metaphor, you know comparing one thing to another, Ahh forget it your probably playing the game right now aren't you. Advanced warfare opens up once again in the future (who would have thought) as you play poorly developed guy no.12 as he fights cliche movie villain no.7 as they fight using monologues in the most cinematic experience in the most fast paced shooter of all time. As you apparently play as someone your supposed to care about who cares about other people. Now my question is, if i already hate the protagonist why the hell should i like the even more unlikable secondary characters "because plot dammit". Now since i cant in my own words describe the stupidity that is the campaign ill let you invent it for yourself. See that COD i'm giving a person choice wink **** wink you dense bastards. I honestly wish that combat was solid i wish i could, but its as variable as a person with dementia remembering where the toilet is. The game throws random equipment at you, telling you use that, when honestly the game isn't all that hard and bang, bang shooty shooty always works so why change tactics, thruster jump is only limited by COD's love of invisible walls and development shortcuts that makes me think did i buy hold my hand simulator 2014. Now onto the important part the multiplayer, it's **** and honestly if you buy a game just for multiplayer i feel sad for you. That concludes the piss-tacular review and i hope you find this travesty as appalling as i did    … Expand
  4. PittLord
    Nov 6, 2014
    6
    Can anyone honestly say they don't know what they're buying when they pick up a Call of Duty title? Sure there might be a handful here and there, perhaps parents picking the game up for their kids or individuals getting it for their significant others, but the vast majority of players who go out and get a Call of Duty game know exactly what they're getting.

    Call of Duty is nothing if    Can anyone honestly say they don't know what they're buying when they pick up a Call of Duty title? Sure there might be a handful here and there, perhaps parents picking the game up for their kids or individuals getting it for their significant others, but the vast majority of players who go out and get a Call of Duty game know exactly what they're getting.

    Call of Duty is nothing if not predictably stagnant when it comes to over the top cinematic single player experiences and a multiplayer suite that hasn't substantially changed for the better part of a decade. All you have to know when deciding whether or not to buy a CoD game is to determine whether or not the core mechanics of the franchise are worth dropping $60 on every year. It is entirely up to you.

    If you're a fan of the series and said mechanics then this game is probably an 8. If you were once a fan of the series but found that you lost your appetite for it once it became stale then it's probably more akin to a 4. If you find the lack of gameplay advancement repugnant, as many do, then you will absolutely hate it and no doubt join the masses of haters who rate the game with a 0. This naturally begs the question of why you would buy a game you know you're going to hate, but I guess some people get off on that kind of thing.

    Tossing the irrational "zero" scores out, lets split the difference on the assumption that you know what you're getting when you buy this game and call it a 6. Buy the ticket take the ride, or don't. It's entirely up to you.    … Expand
  5. Euknowia
    Nov 4, 2014
    5
    On Multiplayer
    *Da Bad*
    - Spawn system often works against consistent playability, and does not seem to coincide well with quick, dynamic gameplay. - Most, if not all maps encourage a kind of frantic, overwhelming randomness to combat flow. Variety in map design (such as limiting flanking routes, fortifying objective points, or forcing face to face confrontation) would help decrease    On Multiplayer
    *Da Bad*
    - Spawn system often works against consistent playability, and does not seem to coincide well with quick, dynamic gameplay.
    - Most, if not all maps encourage a kind of frantic, overwhelming randomness to combat flow. Variety in map design (such as limiting flanking routes, fortifying objective points, or forcing face to face confrontation) would help decrease paranoia and player vulnerability. On the other hand, a map or two that capitalizes a bit more on “verticality” might make jump boosting feel less gimmicky and more essential overall.
    - Gun balancing issues (some guns are blatantly too circumstantial to be practical).
    - The loot reward system is ultimately an uninspired attempt at gamer crack.
    - Melee feels notably awkward a bit too frequently.
    - Audio is nothing special (headsets do seem a bit less advantageous than they were in previous COD’s).
    - Graphics are nothing special
    - Game mechanics are nothing special
    - Various connectivity issues as well as a few glitches/bugs.

    *Da Good(ish)*
    - The jump boosting mechanic and a few other design choices (in part) attempt to dissolve what is otherwise a widely reinforced idea (to some degree), that the COD series (after 4) is generally camper friendly, and requires little to no “skill” to play relatively well. Though I think the attempt is a step in the right direction (a wee little baby step), Sledge still has much further to go if they wish to reinstate the competitive nature of MW while maintaining innovation- and by now, many people are losing hope, if they haven’t lost it all already.

    On campaign
    - Too short, cinematic, generally decent.    … Expand
  6. thegadfly44
    Nov 4, 2014
    5
    The Multiplayer is the reason I'm giving this a low score, in fact were it not for the Campaign (which so far is stellar, COD usually gets this right) and Exo-Survival (which I personally find more enjoyable than Treyarchs Zombies) the score would probably be like a 3 or 4.

    My reasons are simple. 1). The TTK is WAAAAAY to fast, it makes the Exo almost useless if you die before you    The Multiplayer is the reason I'm giving this a low score, in fact were it not for the Campaign (which so far is stellar, COD usually gets this right) and Exo-Survival (which I personally find more enjoyable than Treyarchs Zombies) the score would probably be like a 3 or 4.

    My reasons are simple.

    1). The TTK is WAAAAAY to fast, it makes the Exo almost useless if you die before you even know you're getting shot at.

    2). This is supposed to be "Next Gen" and we still don't have dedicated servers.

    3). After playing Battlefield 4 for the first time last month 6 v 6 is a joke. A JOKE.

    4). See above for destructible environments. I throw a grenade and it DOESN'T leave a hole in the ground? Sounds like small potatoes until you see a game do exactly that.

    5). See above for levolution. In fact, their scripted events like the tidal wave and volcano eruption are a joke. A JOKE. Almost insulting in fact.

    Because of those last three things COD will get no more of my dollars until they update their ridiculously old engine to incorporate ACTUAL next gen quality games. I give kudos to sledgehammer for trying something new at least. The game is slick, the graphics are nice, it's definitely a step up from the horror show that was Ghosts, but at this point I have to agree with the so many I used to argue with. COD has become so outdated by other games it's gotten ridiculous.    … Expand
  7. JohnnyBeGood
    Jan 31, 2015
    6
    When the best thing you can say about a game is "Well, at least it's better than Ghosts," you know you've got a frustratingly average game that becomes unplayable after a few hours. This is mostly about multiplayer, but here's what I have to say about the campaign: I like the overall premise; PMCs are really cool, Kevin Spacey is good, and for the first 75% of the game, the plot isWhen the best thing you can say about a game is "Well, at least it's better than Ghosts," you know you've got a frustratingly average game that becomes unplayable after a few hours. This is mostly about multiplayer, but here's what I have to say about the campaign: I like the overall premise; PMCs are really cool, Kevin Spacey is good, and for the first 75% of the game, the plot is actually darn good. Then Kevin Spacey DECLARES WAR ON THE ENTIRE WORLD IN FRONT OF THE UN. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. He was a smart, meticulous, cold, calculating guy, then he just gets up in front of the whole world and says, "Come at me, bro." The ending is doodoo and the levels are fairly par for the course.
    Enough of that. The Multiplayer sucks. It's just not fun. They got the scorestreaks right (BO2 style rather than Ghosts style), but that's about it. The map design is meeeeehhhh, mostly bad, some good. With the exos, it feels like they're trying too hard to be different. Half the time, it's impossible to hit a person as they're flying around the map. You will constantly get stuck on random objects that a real human being would simply be able to walk over. Oh, I can fly through the air on a jetpack, but I can't step over a 8 inch tall ledge? The weapons are the worst part. ARs aren't usable without the stock attachments (which you unlock by getting hipfire kills; if you can't tell why this is retarded, the stock helps when you ADS, not hipfire. Makes ZERO sense). Only like 3 guns are actually good, but none are memorable (there are no MW2 Famases or ACRs, no MW3 MP11s or PP90s, no BO1 Famases, Galils, AK47s, or Commandos, no BO2 Peacekeepers, AN90s or R870s. The guns just aren't fun to use. Hell, even Ghosts had the Honey Badger. The game isn't fun to play at all. The movement feels smooth and it's fun to move around so quickly, but it makes the who game a freaking chore to play. It gets less and less good every time you play it. It's not the worst game of all time, it's not a 0 like all the over-reacting mouth-breathing clods on here say it is, but it's not good. It's average, slightly below average. If I could give it 5.5/10 I would. But hey, at least it's better than Destiny.    … Expand
  8. TripleBullet
    Jan 16, 2015
    7
    The multiplayer got what it needed. A little variety. The Exo suits do spice it up a bit and make it feel fresh. The Campaign is interesting enough for a CoD campaign. Spacey does a pretty good job. I like what I have seen here with this CoD but it is still just another CoD. Fun off and on but none the less still has the same repetitive feel to it after a week.
  9. Mr-J-McNasty
    Nov 10, 2014
    7
    This review is for multiplayer only. Not much new to see here folks. This game is essentially a spruced version of Black Ops 2, in my opinion. While I wouldn't call it bad, there have been no changes significant enough to make it stand out from the last half dozen CODs. There are a couple of nice editions - the jetpack for one. I didn't think I would like it at first but they managed toThis review is for multiplayer only. Not much new to see here folks. This game is essentially a spruced version of Black Ops 2, in my opinion. While I wouldn't call it bad, there have been no changes significant enough to make it stand out from the last half dozen CODs. There are a couple of nice editions - the jetpack for one. I didn't think I would like it at first but they managed to incorporate it seamlessly into the game and it hasn't bothered me at all. Also there are a few "powers" such as cloaking, shielding, and faster health regeneration. These additions are fine and may add a little to the game, and the graphics are improved, however, not enough has changed/improved to make me spend another year playing this game. It's just the same old thing. Some same negatives still exist as well - poor spawning, phantom hit markers, nonsense quick scoping, annoying children (and adults for that matter...). These thing being said, I could probably still allow myself to get sucked into playing this non-stop for the next year - I have (much to the disgust of many gaming "elitists") played COD rather religiously since the first Modern Warfare and have had my share of fun - and probably could still have some with this. So I still give this game a 7-7.5 as the potential is still there for some addictive multiplayer action. But I for one have burned out on COD. It is time for something new. So just be forewarned - nothing revolutionary here.

    J McNasty    … Expand
  10. LongSlayer
    Jan 19, 2015
    5
    This doesn't really feel like a Call of Duty game. To start off, the campaign is mediocre. The story has a great concept with an evil CEO essentially trying to take over the world but the developers don't execute it. The characters are kind of boring, except Kevin Spacey who does a wonderful job. The setting of each mission is alright, some missions have a lively environment while othersThis doesn't really feel like a Call of Duty game. To start off, the campaign is mediocre. The story has a great concept with an evil CEO essentially trying to take over the world but the developers don't execute it. The characters are kind of boring, except Kevin Spacey who does a wonderful job. The setting of each mission is alright, some missions have a lively environment while others are a little dull. The missions themselves are okay, with the exception of a fun stealthy mission that every Call of Duty game includes. The overall gameplay of the campaign is okay with some fun parts here and there. The multiplayer, which is the biggest reason everyone buys a Call of Duty game, is not that good. The biggest reason I don't care for it is because the new addition of jet packs ruins it. Jet packs can be plain cheap and lets the enemy just shoot straight into the air when you're shooting at him, and you're not quick enough, then he kills you. They let people escape from danger too easily. Yes, there is a playlist that disables jet packs, but all the maps were made for jet packs, so they seem hard to maneuver around. It also feels like enemies take WAY too many bullets to kill. It can be frustrating when they jet pack around and your clip runs out and they get away. Kill streaks, especially airships with guns, even take a lot to kill someone, so they're almost pointless. The new supply drop system gives you different loot through out your online experience. It's stupid because loot is basically random and you need to be completely lucky to get some of the best guns. The other mode called "Exo Survival" has you fight off waves of enemies. It's not that great, and I got bored after playing it for a little while. There are a few upsides to the game though. The graphics are pretty great and the cut scenes are phenomenal. You can customize your character with different helmets and gear to make him look totally unique. And lastly, with all honesty, if the campaign didn't have Kevin Spacey, it would've been even worse. Advanced Warfare doesn't even feel like a Call of Duty, and I could simply do without this one.… Expand
  11. Otakudude277
    Nov 5, 2014
    7
    Pros:Good concept and systematics, funnest COD since my first time playing the franchise. graphics and sound are decent as well. Cons: Multiplayer. It's the same old terrible, hit detection is terrible it takes literally half a clip to secure a single kill when on the other hand you seem to get killed almost instantly. Gunfights are almost always determined by who has the betterPros:Good concept and systematics, funnest COD since my first time playing the franchise. graphics and sound are decent as well. Cons: Multiplayer. It's the same old terrible, hit detection is terrible it takes literally half a clip to secure a single kill when on the other hand you seem to get killed almost instantly. Gunfights are almost always determined by who has the better connection.Soundtrack is also pretty forgetful.… Expand
  12. AsheZx
    Feb 22, 2015
    5
    Thoroughly average.

    The campaign does the usual excellent job of punishing you for playing the game instead of sitting on the rolocoaster of predictable storylines. Lots of invisible walls, lack of constancy with the exo-suit abilities and what should have been a fairly enjoyable CoD campaign has turned into the usual shoot dumb enemies, complete the objective SPECIFICALLY to how the    Thoroughly average.

    The campaign does the usual excellent job of punishing you for playing the game instead of sitting on the rolocoaster of predictable storylines. Lots of invisible walls, lack of constancy with the exo-suit abilities and what should have been a fairly enjoyable CoD campaign has turned into the usual shoot dumb enemies, complete the objective SPECIFICALLY to how the computer wants you to fulfill them... wait for AI team mates and listen to Spacey give the most cheesiest "I hate you all and I'm going to start WW3 speech" - I don't blame Spacey, he's making the best of a, quite frankly, awful plot and, at some points, cheesy writing. Oh and the campaigns only 6-8 hours, which for a £45 game, seems short - sure there's a multiplayer and an exo-yawn, sorry, survival mode but 6-8 seems a little short (but let's be thankful it's not another 4 hour campaign). After the chore of the first half, the campaign does pick up in terms of fun - especially when you get the grappling hook.

    Multiplayer - I admire Sledgehammer for not doing the same old Cod again but most of their tricks haven't payed off. The exo-suit is clunky and too easy to use when you don't want it, the dash ruins any hope of precision, the spawn system is just down right awful (especially on Free for all modes), the guns are hopelessly unbalanced, the loot system is broken, most of the maps are awful and any maps that could have a glimmer of being good are held down by Sledgehammer games' ability to come with ruddy awful ideas and implement them, without actually thinking. It's the sort of multiplayer you'll spend hours raging at, due to the hundreds of flaws and you'll quickly realize they've done nothing to fix the core problems that CoD had.

    Exo-Survival - Yawn, it's average at best. Now they've added an Exo-Zombie mode, which you have to pay for (£11.59), so - yeah, Co-Op has been turned into a cash grab by Activision.

    A thoroughly average shooter, that does nothing spectacular.    … Expand
  13. TheStig3136
    Dec 28, 2014
    7
    Excellent story! Great story, though a bit short. It's amazing how they compressed such a story in such a small amount of time. It is like the opposite of Halo where they take a story and stretch it out. :/ No bugs or errors! First COD I've played though.
  14. Ozs
    Jan 4, 2015
    7
    COD back to form, great game. This has been the most change in COD since M1 and it's brilliant. It feels like Black Ops 2 (my personal favourite) but much faster (Makes CTF a lot more fun.
    The weapons customisation system has much more depth than any other COD, the choices you make greatly effect what you are about to do.
  15. Rymac44
    Jan 20, 2015
    6
    It's not a bad game, and it's fun to play for a while, but despite the exo suit and other new features, the game still feels the same as all the others. The story isn't bad, but again nothing special, and same with the multiplayer.
    Pros- they clearly tried to make it fresh, but it isn't for the most part
    - descent campaign and multiplayer - a lot of game modes, weapon customizations    It's not a bad game, and it's fun to play for a while, but despite the exo suit and other new features, the game still feels the same as all the others. The story isn't bad, but again nothing special, and same with the multiplayer.
    Pros- they clearly tried to make it fresh, but it isn't for the most part
    - descent campaign and multiplayer
    - a lot of game modes, weapon customizations
    Cons- bad spawns, no battle lines, pretty much everyone just running around the map, no teamwork
    - not many interesting characters
    Overall average game. If you played the other games you know what you're getting, but it's fun for a little while.    … Expand
  16. TheDXDan
    Feb 25, 2015
    6
    Lets be Honest, This was a cool Idea but I found the Game quite boring and repetitive, It is not a masterpiece or the worst game ever but I did not enjoy this Game.
  17. MattBrady99
    Apr 24, 2015
    7
    Warfare to the next level.

    The Call of Duty games are pretty much the same and you can already predict what's in the next game just by playing the other ones. Awesome action scenes, realistic sound effect's and the story is kind of there, those are the things you would predict from the next games in the future. Advanced Warfare isn't anything different but I would lie that it was a lot    Warfare to the next level.

    The Call of Duty games are pretty much the same and you can already predict what's in the next game just by playing the other ones. Awesome action scenes, realistic sound effect's and the story is kind of there, those are the things you would predict from the next games in the future. Advanced Warfare isn't anything different but I would lie that it was a lot of fun and there was a lot of visuals to enjoy looking at.

    The action scenes in this game are pretty amazing if I have to be honest. The sound as well is another thing that makes these games more playable because when a action scene is happening the sound really dose catch the impact it would have if it happened in real life.

    The villain of the game Jonathan Irons played by the Oscar winning actor Kevin Spacey. Spacey did a fine job playing the villain, nothing really special I mean through out the game I kept seeing Frank Underwood from the TV show House of Cards which is nothing wrong with that I'm just saying.

    The characters you don't really care about I mean they just stick in the mood point A to B characters that you don't get attached to and when something happens to them I'm there not caring at all.

    Advanced Warfare is better than most Call of Duty games but as every year these games come out it's getting to a point where we know what to expect next and we will always be right.    … Expand
  18. captainkane
    Nov 16, 2014
    5
    Advanced Warfare is an average shooter. It sorta feels like COD, but it’s NOT the revolution Sledgehammer promised. AW believes it’s the lovechild of Black Ops 2 and Titanfall. The problem is both these games outclass AW in the very areas it tries to copy: map design and gameplay.

    AW’s mechanics are clunky. Dodging requires precise timing, something casual players may not master. Other    Advanced Warfare is an average shooter. It sorta feels like COD, but it’s NOT the revolution Sledgehammer promised. AW believes it’s the lovechild of Black Ops 2 and Titanfall. The problem is both these games outclass AW in the very areas it tries to copy: map design and gameplay.

    AW’s mechanics are clunky. Dodging requires precise timing, something casual players may not master. Other than double jumping, the exosuits are underwhelming. Exosuit dodging and boosting don’t work on inclines. Players simply bump into the floors and stop. Maps are full of ramps and stairs, so this is an inexplicable oversight. Melee is weak, awkward, and imprecise. Ledge grabbing doesn’t work well at all.

    Map design is appalling. Despite the HUGE hype on verticality, players can only go so high. Trying to scale some buildings prompts an “Out of Bounds” message. WTF?! These are rather low buildings too. I’ve seen confused players jumping like crazy to access rooftops. If players can only access 50% of the roofs, why include them? It’s ludicrous to see “Out of Bounds” on the screen while exploring within the boundaries of the map.

    The terrible map design doesn’t end there. Spawn camping is just too easy. A few hours after launch, I played several games where teams completely pinned their opponents in spawn. Players who managed to fight their way out of spawn were immediately sniped. Seeing that so soon shows how glaringly broken the maps are. Also, the small maps exacerbate the crappy spawns. Spawn deaths are more common than they ever were in Ghosts. Being caught in crossfire or being shot in the back is frustratingly common after spawning. Players often spawn directly in front of the opponent who just killed them (dying again immediately) or by objectives being capped.

    The perk 13 system has been shamelessly ripped from Blops 2. Sledgehammer doesn’t hide this fact. I’m not upset it’s there, but the lack of innovation is surprising. With such low effort put into class creation, why wasn’t more effort been put into map design? Except for the exosuit abilities, we’ve seen all the perks before. Many powerful perks and weapons are unlocked early, reducing the incentive to rank up. Exosuit abilities are OK, but they’re weak. The health boost perk has little impact because players die insanely quick. The stim perk hardly enhances player movement. The shield is weak and doesn’t activate 50% of the time. Perks can only be used briefly. So no spamming. Unfortunately, their implementation is vastly inferior to other games.

    Ghosts rightly nerfed scorestreaks shifting COD back to a gun-vs-gun emphasis. In AW, campers can earn overpowered scorestreaks once again. So embrace UAV and system hack spamming. Giant lasers anyone? Sheesh.

    Advanced Warfare has markedly reduced weapon variety compared to previous COD entries. For example, there are 12 total AR’s and SMG’s in AW. Ghosts had 14, and Blops 2 had 15. See the trend? AW offsets this with supply drops. These are random unlocks that give players access to altered weapons, perks, and customization items. But these are based on time played and completing achievements. Casual players need not apply since most will not have the skill nor time requirements to benefit fully from this system. Overall, weapon balance is awful with only a 4 or 5 guns being practical choices. More weapons could be viable if AW didn’t have such horrific hit detection, which is undeniably the worst of any COD game.

    Dedicated servers? Sledgehammer said AW will “support” them, but never confirmed if any of the platforms would actually have them. When asked about this on reddit after launch, developers didn't respond. Hype? Intentionally misleading? AW's terrible matchmaking service holds nextgen back and takes advantage of fans.

    Graphically the game is jarring on next gen. Although colors are crisp and vibrant, textures are flat and there is a complete lack of depth. The environments are sterile and boring. Special effects are also glaringly absent. AW truly looks like Blops 2. That was OK on 360, but it’s not good enough for Xbox One. Ironically, loading times are really long. Furthermore, AW is buggy which is frustrating since AW was in development 3 years by 2 separate companies—Sledgehammer outsourced current gen to a different developer.

    Fortunately, fan favorite game modes are back. And there is a classic mode that removes exosuit movement. So what about the campaign? It’s the same scripted, corridor affair gamers expect from COD.

    AW will succeed because the majority of COD fans hate Ghosts. But AW will alienate hardcore fans while being inaccessible to casuals. Sledgehammer played it too safe and lazy. Legacy problems still exist, such as broken spawns, poor hit detection, overpowered scorestreaks, and bargain bin matchmaking. Since such problems linger, the exosuit is really a gimmick to mask the glaring imperfections of the series. Sledgehammer did nothing more than put lipstick on a pig.    … Expand
  19. MerlinJnr
    Nov 4, 2014
    5
    Okay. I so wanted this to be a step forward, especially after the farcical 'ghosts', and indeed it is, well if borrowing a few ideas from other games is allowed. After all, with all the fast paced games that have been the fair so far for the Xbone (Titanfall, Sunset OD, Forza etc), I found playing ghost was impossibly slow and dull. So, COD AW adds a jet pack of sorts and this helps withOkay. I so wanted this to be a step forward, especially after the farcical 'ghosts', and indeed it is, well if borrowing a few ideas from other games is allowed. After all, with all the fast paced games that have been the fair so far for the Xbone (Titanfall, Sunset OD, Forza etc), I found playing ghost was impossibly slow and dull. So, COD AW adds a jet pack of sorts and this helps with the movement and speed. The exo suit thing is just a tool to hold/enable perks and grenades and visually looks daft. The gunplay is fine, better than the past two COD's anyway, and happy to see hard-core modes remaining. My biggest complaint, is although the map design (for movement) is good, the same old bland colours remain (with the exception of a couple of maps). So for me, just a par game. Not enough advances. (Oh, and its the same old channelled story, 'press a now', do this, fail and repeat etc...) 5/10… Expand
  20. trey_pound
    Nov 5, 2014
    6
    I was digging the game at first, but when the honeymoon period came to an end. Sadly its still same cod with a jump mechanic thats pretty lame. All they did was copy others. Its cod nothing more nothing less.
  21. FatalReview
    Nov 4, 2014
    6
    Once again I dance the dance of death.

    Campaign: The story is so cliché that it uses the words "this seemed like the end but is actually the beginning"(or some bollocks like that) tipping his hat to the sequel. COD just can't capture emotion and felt quite repetitive, doing similar objectives on similar maps. Most importantly though is that there are no new shiny cool toys to play    Once again I dance the dance of death.

    Campaign:
    The story is so cliché that it uses the words "this seemed like the end but is actually the beginning"(or some bollocks like that) tipping his hat to the sequel. COD just can't capture emotion and felt quite repetitive, doing similar objectives on similar maps. Most importantly though is that there are no new shiny cool toys to play with. One big thing I don't understand in the campaign is that why dose one of the bad guys join the UN then immediately starts a war with the UN and I assume gets kicked out.

    Multiplayer:
    It’s just more of the same in my eyes yeah you can jump a bit higher but there's map restrictions so you can only jump to certain locations so no change there. The biggest and probably most annoying is the loot boxes. Like destiny there’s chances to get gear like elite weapons which can do more damage than the normal ones. YAY RDM just what cod needs when that higher level guy has all the equipment he now has better guns with it.

    Why can you jion a ranked gae half way though and why is it only search and destroy im not playing cs im playing cod.

    Some of the bigger maps can be quite fun but being knifed off spawn is never fun just frustrating or looking at your own dead body and giving someone a double kill. Following the trend of video games. If halo is bad I’m selling my console and going back to the succulent teat of steam.

    choooooooo chooooooooo

    oh yeah theres also lag bt it has just been released i may upgrade my opionion of cod once fixed.    … Expand
  22. Thunderman0011
    Nov 12, 2014
    5
    Advanced Warfare's graphics were really good, and the campaign was decent and had it's moments. Multiplayer was OK, as it felt like Ghosts where 2 bullets can kill you.

    The game itself kinda feels like Titanfall at times because of the similarities. You know, exo suits, jetpacks, etc. I would give it a better rating if the multiplayer and originality were a bit better. Overall    Advanced Warfare's graphics were really good, and the campaign was decent and had it's moments. Multiplayer was OK, as it felt like Ghosts where 2 bullets can kill you.

    The game itself kinda feels like Titanfall at times because of the similarities. You know, exo suits, jetpacks, etc.

    I would give it a better rating if the multiplayer and originality were a bit better. Overall though, this game was OK.    … Expand
  23. Mak54291
    Nov 3, 2014
    7
    This is for mp only.

    The main point of this game must be the exo and it work very well. Maps are well done and work well with this new exo. I've played for 8 hours now and I did not notice any problem with it. The come the gameplay that is always good with COD. The new guns and all the stuff appear to be interesting but don't think there is enough perk. Not sure if this is a port    This is for mp only.

    The main point of this game must be the exo and it work very well. Maps are well done and work well with this new exo. I've played for 8 hours now and I did not notice any problem with it.

    The come the gameplay that is always good with COD. The new guns and all the stuff appear to be interesting but don't think there is enough perk.

    Not sure if this is a port for some ppl but I found that this pc version work very well. Np on this aspect of the game.

    Now the graphics are nice but not as good as BF4. But the maps are nice, most of them are. The sound is good but I think it could be better.    … Expand
  24. Carlinhoscwbr3
    Nov 3, 2014
    7
    Amazing! The game is very good , excellent , fun maps , deserves note 8 , note 10 do not give some problems in multiplayer and the campaign is not 10 hours as promised .
  25. Nertak
    Nov 3, 2014
    7
    Standard COD game except All the exco suit stuff makes the game worse imo. The levels are still designed like they used to be. Stairs and ladders leading places. Now you just ignore them. The levels aren't designed with all the abilities in mind. I feel like playing multiplayer now is like playing a game where everyone is using cheat codes.

    Using an exco suit jump makes you appear on    Standard COD game except All the exco suit stuff makes the game worse imo. The levels are still designed like they used to be. Stairs and ladders leading places. Now you just ignore them. The levels aren't designed with all the abilities in mind. I feel like playing multiplayer now is like playing a game where everyone is using cheat codes.

    Using an exco suit jump makes you appear on radar. There is a perk that stops that. I feel like its a mandatory perk because if you don't use the abilities you traverse the maps so slowly. So its a game where everyone uses the same perk.

    Graphics seem no better then last gen. Then again I feel that about every single game this generation.    … Expand
  26. hitman5639852
    Nov 4, 2014
    6
    What has Changed? same old COD all you get is a new suit & jump (aka Titanfall), cheez even the levels are the same as old COD just filled in with new layouts I mean ffs cant design new maps $$$60, talking of maps multiplayer seems to be same four maps repeatedly, same old lag games as servers cant handle, there is a lot better multiplayers out there, also Zombies? another $$$$60 season pass joke
  27. SydTheDog
    Nov 3, 2014
    6
    Got this for the xboxone saturday and managed to do vet diff within about 6-7 hours.which im used to with the rest of the cods,but tbh should this game be rated 18? No i dont think so as the uk version could of got away with being a 15 rating.the story is quite medicore and alot of the acting seems wooden in a few places.now the online mutiplayer just feels like a futurist dlc pack andGot this for the xboxone saturday and managed to do vet diff within about 6-7 hours.which im used to with the rest of the cods,but tbh should this game be rated 18? No i dont think so as the uk version could of got away with being a 15 rating.the story is quite medicore and alot of the acting seems wooden in a few places.now the online mutiplayer just feels like a futurist dlc pack and even though theirs a few new things in multiplayer it seems old..so for me titanfall does it better so thats what ill be sticking to… Expand
  28. hjsimp5
    Nov 3, 2014
    6
    The single player campaign is great. The multiplayer is ruined a bit by the boost jumping all around the place. I realise some people like that space age stuff, but to me it ruins it. It's not terrible, but it's probably my least favorite multiplayer out of all the COD series.
    The one thing that really lets it down is the 'Exo survival'. It's just plain horrible. I guess for the    The single player campaign is great. The multiplayer is ruined a bit by the boost jumping all around the place. I realise some people like that space age stuff, but to me it ruins it. It's not terrible, but it's probably my least favorite multiplayer out of all the COD series.
    The one thing that really lets it down is the 'Exo survival'. It's just plain horrible. I guess for the co-op, it was always going to be hard to match last years 'Extinction' mode (which was absolutely brilliant).    … Expand
  29. Infrnlmajsty
    Nov 4, 2014
    7
    I can't believe I am going to type this but this CoD, while being better than Ghosts, feels very generic. The maps are insanely small, the fact they are trying so hard to be Titanfall without Mechs, it just all falls flat. I am not saying this game is terrible, but it sure isn't great either anyone giving this a 10 is a fanboy, as is anyone giving a 0 is just a hater. This game is worthI can't believe I am going to type this but this CoD, while being better than Ghosts, feels very generic. The maps are insanely small, the fact they are trying so hard to be Titanfall without Mechs, it just all falls flat. I am not saying this game is terrible, but it sure isn't great either anyone giving this a 10 is a fanboy, as is anyone giving a 0 is just a hater. This game is worth owning but not at $60.00… Expand
  30. charlie15
    Nov 9, 2014
    6
    This game is fun (online)....when it's working. Lag, sudden quick deaths and other inconsistencies scale this down from being an all round fun FPS. The addition of the exo abilities work in the games favour. It adds a touch of magic that was never evident in previous releases. Overall, a much better experience than Ghosts, but they really need to fix quick scoping and the lag/quick deathThis game is fun (online)....when it's working. Lag, sudden quick deaths and other inconsistencies scale this down from being an all round fun FPS. The addition of the exo abilities work in the games favour. It adds a touch of magic that was never evident in previous releases. Overall, a much better experience than Ghosts, but they really need to fix quick scoping and the lag/quick death issues asap to win gamers back over. i still think BF4 is a better game despite its online issues as well.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

20
#20 Best Xbox One Game of 2014
5
#5 Most Discussed Xbox One Game of 2014
20
#20 Most Shared Xbox One Game of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 53 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 45 out of 53
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 53
  3. Negative: 0 out of 53
  1. games(TM)
    Dec 9, 2014
    70
    If you play Call Of Duty online all year round then Christmas has officially come early. But if you’re a sucker for the ludicrous, globe-trotting, re-skinned James Bond adventures that constitute these games in single player, you’ve picked the perfect year in which to take a twelve-month break.
    Read full review
  2. Edge Magazine
    Dec 6, 2014
    80
    Advanced Warfare is still Call of Duty, but it's more playful, knowing and refreshing than COD's been in years. [Christmas 2014, p.112]
  3. X-ONE Magazine UK
    Dec 1, 2014
    80
    In many ways, the game is the perfect distillation of the franchise's core appeal. But it's still just Call of Duty, don't expect it to revolutionize the industry. [Issue#118, p.61]
See all critic reviews »