User Score
4.8

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 333 Ratings

User score distribution:

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
  1. May 26, 2014
    0
    My eyes hurted with this game...Really my pc specs were like double up from the recommended but yet the game ran at very low fps..Even on low settings..And the colours were so foggy...I dontk now but i couldnt play this game more than 2 minutes...And i had to return everytime to main menu to change the settings and reenter campaign then wait for the campaign story to end to recheck my settings...Just the worst optimizing...I wont comment on gameplay since i couldnt play the game...This game's settings make it unplayable... Expand
  2. VRH
    Mar 4, 2014
    0
    Horrible P2W...awesome game but P2W kills all the fun. Fanboys can talk about learning curve as much as they want but the fact is you don't need much skill when 2-3 headshots with sniper don't kill you...too bad
  3. Feb 2, 2014
    10
    A fantastic game which is being **** about because of the multiplayer servers. It is a great game, introduces to really awesome tech which is close to being materialised in real war conflict. The cover mechanics is the best in gaming history(ok same as GoW series) and the tactics used to out flank and out position is spot on. The missions are linear, COD type but the way you do it has variation and requires strategy so that kinda overcomes its "on-rail" gameplay courtesy of Battlefield and CoD games.
    The Graphics is pretty good,not Battlefield 4 great though. The atmosphere is done right and it really feels like you are in a battlefield and not placed in studio with textures of destroyed landscape pasted in the background (like CoD). It was a great move to go 3rd person, and any rabid hater criticizing the game for its 3rd person view should go cry in a corner cuz THIS MAKES THE GAME MECHANICS WORK WELL!!
    The only good military game since Battlefield Bad Company 2...which is a shame for the gaming industry..
    Its 8.5 out of 10 but im giving it a 10 to offset the retard user reviews
    Expand
  4. Jan 4, 2014
    0
    I have always loved the Ghost Recon Series. but... My first dissapointment was that it was a third person gameplay. Had I known this before I had the chance to buy it I would have refrained from doing so. I simply hate third person gameplay (it makes it all so much more arcade-ish) When I then tried to play it, my mouse was simply not accepted by the game. Simply put, I could not move my aim... (this was a real bug in the game)
    Then there was the problem with graphics (screen went black. resolution was all strange)
    And if that was not enough.... The whole gui (being ported from the consoles) is just terrible.
    A PC-Game should be a PC-Game, specially one that belongs to the Ghost recon series.
    Ghost Recon is not suited for arcade style gameplay!

    My advice is stay as far away as you can from this game, buying it will maje you regret it.
    Configuration possibilities are less than poor and the game is ful of bugs, many of which you will experience even before actually getting to the first gameplay.

    The game feels stale and monotome.

    Anyway. I contacted the support about it all and they could not help me or anyone else with the same problem I was shuffled between the steam support and the game developers support)

    After a few rounds and several hours of troubleshooting I decided that I had not recieved a working product and that there was no solution available so I wanted my funds returned and the game deleted from my list.

    4 times I asked but I was refused.

    So...
    After being so dissapointed with this malware of a game I asked steam to delete it from my games list without returning my money...
    I simply do not wish to see this game in my list to remind me of my wasted money.

    I hope the developers of this game take this review to their hearts and understands that games should have warranty with refunds or quality assurances made along with the games.
    Expand
  5. Dec 28, 2013
    7
    I'm debating to give it a 6 or a 7. The multiplayer is hella choppy and the story is sort of mediocere. But the strongsuit of the game itself is the gameplay though. Mainly PVE, not multiplayer. It gives you the feeling as if you were in an actual firefight from it's cinematic aspect. My immediate turn off from the game though was the choppy frame rates. I'm running on a 660ti in SLI with a AMDfx 8350 and my framerate drops from 50-25 throughout the entire game. Turning off frame blend helps with this though. Expand
  6. Sep 23, 2013
    0
    Most boring game I've ever played. Its fun until about the first mission then its just repeating whatever you did in the first 5 minutes for the rest of the 5 hours. Story is terrible. Didn't follow it at all. Gameplay is basically just hiding in a corner until your overpowered allies do all the work. Most of the time you get raped by enemies who automatically target you the second you get out of cover. It also uses uPlay, which makes it even worse. You can feel them stealing money from you every time you start it from the godawful uPlay client that comes up. Id recommend this like I'd recommend you to pet a wild starving lion while wearing a zebra costume. Expand
  7. Aug 22, 2013
    6
    This is a not-so-much over the average game, it's not bad, but definitely not good. All in the game seems unfinished, including the menu and cut-scenes. The story is totally forgettable, even for this type of game. You do not care about any character, mostly because they and the dialogs are shallow. The graphics are okay and the gameplay is better using a controller. This game would be a 5 if not for some good ideas. The teamwork works well, specially playing stealth. The gadgets differs this game from the others, and that's why I gave it a 6, a little bite over the average. Just buy it if on sale Expand
  8. Jun 9, 2013
    5
    Great Idea indeed; Tom Clancy's is a writer and I have some of his books, but the development of this game was terrible. That's why the games of GRAW became cheap that fast. If you are curious let me tell you that you ain't loosing to much.
  9. E71
    Jun 7, 2013
    4
    The single player campaign is full of action and great gun fights but the quality of the port is a huge let down. Under medium-quality graphics settings and res turned down from 1920x1200 to 1280x800, it runs somewhat sluggishly on my i7-3770k/32GB DDR3/HD5850 OC 2GB... This game's not a bar-setter when it comes to graphics and yet it's disproportionately resource-demanding. Some people say the multiplayer feature is where the game shines but I wouldn't know since I'm not a fan of repetitive online play. Expand
  10. May 21, 2013
    7
    I did not have high expectations of this game. Quite the opposite in fact. But i found it for a cheap price and decided to give it a try and boy was i surprised. The game is not without its fair share of problems. The game did not run as well as it should considering how it looks. It didn't have any major impact on me but i would be cautious picking up this game if you have a low-end computer. While on the subject of graphic, there are some really low res textures in the game that just looks awful. And there is a lot of things in this game that doesn't look good at closer inspection.

    The game do also have some of the most annoying and out of place rail-shooting segments i have ever encountered in a video game. The story can also be a bit silly from time to time and it never really shines. There are also some minor annoyances like badly placed checkpoints and covers you cant hide behind in the game.

    But as i might have already given away i was quite taken by this game. This game has an amazing level-variety. And there isn't just a whole lot of them, most of them are pretty though as well. The gameplay is also quite reasonable varied over the surprisingly long singleplayer campaign. But the thing that truly sold me about this game is the way its handles all this future half sci fi technology.

    They are fun and useful to use and they never feel like some stupid gimmick. The cloaking ability is a blast to use, drones are extremely useful for stealth and scouting and the magnetic vision is fun to use and lets you take advantage of weak covers and etc. Overall i feel that they really succeeded with the future tech.

    All this technology also serves to make the stealth in the game quite enjoyable and i personally had loads of fun sneaking around cloaked synchronizing shots with my AI partners.

    As you might expect i do recommend this game to anyone interested in the genre. I have heard that this game had some major problems at launch on the pc but besides the terrible optimization i had no real problems playing the singleplayer campaign of this game. But it might be something worth taking into consideration.
    Expand
  11. Apr 25, 2013
    7
    I realize that this game is now almost a year old but I decided to finally post my thoughts given the extremely large number of arguments I have actually had over this game with friends that have never even played it but act like they know what they are talking about. Basically I figure there are people out there who never played this game because of such information and thoughts from someone who actually played both the single player campaign and multiplayer aren't exactly a bad thing.

    For what it was, I actually enjoyed this game quite a bit. Though it was a major transition from the previous games in the ghost recon franchise it still retained many of the old elements but in an updated way. Even with the switch from third person to first person it still emphasized the tactics of your squad, in both the campaign and single player. In the single player campaign you still had a sort of control of your squad in terms of what targets they eliminated and where they moved/how they moved/etc. While the missions were much more linear than those of previous iterations in the series you could still make your way through most of this game tactically. Unfortunately there were a few moments of "Defend location X while we throw everything at you including the kitchen sink" however those moments weren't very frequent. The majority of the game was not a CoD clone as many people seem to think, though the final part of the final mission was very much a run and gun moment.

    Unfortunately the PC version had some issues with multiplayer at launch and that caused a bit of hatred to occur which made matchmaking take some time once those issues were solved since players either stopped trying or were not on in huge amounts. This however is not something that should have caused lower scores, that is like a critic lowering their score for a movie because it didn't show at their theater. It has no bearing on the game itself, it is a product of the people playing it not of those that made it. Once you finally got into a multiplayer game it was really fun in a way that I never found CoD or Battlefield to be. Tactics mattered, aim mattered, your squad mattered, your own personal twitch based skills mattered. It was not a spray and pray festival of who can get enough arbitrary kills to call in an airstrike but one where the objective mattered. The assertion that the guns sucked because they didn't do enough damage was rather laughable, it made you aim for the head or empty a magazine into the chest and rightly so as flak jackets are a thing that exist but not generally for the face.

    Sadly the PC version was very much a port from consoles, it could have really shined on a PC if Ubisoft had given it the proper attention. I never noticed any negative effects or slowness with a keyboard and mouse, just that the visuals could have been better on last year's hardware and that the movement felt as if I could have gotten away with a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse. That coupled with the unlikable campaign moments of guns blazing in a linear waypoint based progression system made me lower my score from the possible 10. The moments where you got to deploy a drone or circle around a camp and survey the enemy locations and movements to plan the stealthiest attack possible are where the single player campaign truly shined and almost teased what might be possible for the franchise if things move in the proper direction and I really hope it does.
    Expand
  12. Mar 29, 2013
    7
    Ghost Recon FS PC game, I think it was great, as graphically and as gamepl.. Wait a minute! The gameplay is not really so bad, but from the author (Ubisoft) would have expected more. But there is also a change: there is a mini game where you step on it, and there are wars to be shooting at each other, but it is not as easy as you think. Many have to walk only in part, and nothing else, which is not the best. I still do not like the game is that the missions are often kénszerítve stalking us. If we do not do it, then you can begin to rewrite the control point. Why? The errors due to only 7 points for the game. Expand
  13. Mar 17, 2013
    1
    The game itself isn't too bad, and worth it if you can get it on sale. But for the PC, it is the poorest port I've ever seen. I pre-purchased the game and I was NEVER able to finish the campaign (it crashes) or even GO ONLINE. it's been about two years and I am STILL trying to get help from Ubisoft but they just start repeating answers at some point. The graphics are low and very demanding and the game often crashes when in a party. Don't even think about it. With no doubt the worst purchase i've ever made. It is a shame people still buy it. I gave it 1 because it could have been nice if it wasn't for all the trouble I've been going through just trying to play it. Expand
  14. Mar 6, 2013
    4
    TL;DR The future of warfare is apparently a very generic TPS.

    This game has a lot of promise, well it did anyways. I have to wonder if the first lines out of the dev team were "we want the CoD audience", because thats what this game reeks of. I bought it on the premise that it would be a good, third-person, cover based shooter. What I got however, was an incredibly generic version of
    CoD with cover, a very lackluster story (seriously, what a terrible ending), and broken multiplayer. There are some glaring problems; so many that i'll just list them.
    1) Gunsmith is a great idea but poorly executed, the guns aren't different at all (You could run through the game with the first 2 weapons). 2) Stealth elements are bad, enemies apparently can't see distorted looking humans walking 2 feet around them.
    3) Campaign is very much "on rails" to the point where they actually put your character into forced walking segments where you do nothing but aim. Also, the very last mission does this and it is BAD.
    4) Regarding campaign, there are no more than 2 ways you can ever approach something, you always only get one or two routes and that's it. Invisible walls are everywhere.
    5) Continuing with the terrible campaign are the "map hacks" you get the entire time, AKA sensor grenades and Magnetic vision. These wouldn't be so bad if planning for stealth wasn't so simple, because it doesn't take either to show you that you need to wipe out the 4 guys standing on the road.
    6) The game tries to hold your hand so many times its almost rage worthy. No matter what point you're at, you'll be told to "shoot those enemies, use the drone, get a sensor in there" to the point where you have to wonder if the play testers were 5 year olds.
    7) Bad graphics that stink like a bad port, along with bad menu navigation. Some buttons can't be clicked, only moved to with the arrow keys. Also, one item in the game, the "Match Trigger", is entirely useless if you play on PC. These seem like more signs of "meh, screw it, toss it in there".

    There are more problems I could list, but i'm tired of talking about wasted development. Overall, the game HAD potential, but otherwise, it all went right down the drain. Wasn't even worth the $20 I spent on it while it was discounted, i'd have been better off buying Republic Commando for $5 off an OfficeMax shelf.
    Expand
  15. Mar 3, 2013
    1
    i loved the old ghost recon games but this arcade shooter is really just crap. i would never have thought it could get so bad. it's a great example for what happens if games like this are designed for the console and then get a quick and dirty port to the pc.
  16. Mar 2, 2013
    7
    I enjoyed this game quite a bit. I played it many months after release and it seems that some of the bugs that pissed folks off have been worked out. It plays well and I didn't run into a single technical issue. If you feel the need to give it a pounding because its not exactly the same as previous T.C. titles be my guest but i'm going to let it stand on its own. There isn't anything remarkable about this game but that doesn't mean it isn't entertaining. Great buy at 20 dollars thru Steam (sale, all dlc included) and I wouldn't have been disappointed if I bought it at retail. Expand
  17. Feb 22, 2013
    7
    Ghost recon future soldier is not Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 3, (I need to mention that every reference towards ghost recon advanced warfighter 2 is from the CONSOLE VERSION, pc is a totally different story altogether) this is what a lot of people were expecting, it feels like a mesh of (incoming hate for cliche comparison) call of duty and ghost recon, which is not bad on its own, but it lacks the high adrenaline that was given in some of the call of duty campaigns and the deep tactics in ghost recon advanced warfighter 2, you do get that innovation that is required from the sequels, there's some cool new stuff that works better then what did in ghost recon advanced warfighter 2, such as getting your squad to take out 4 targets at once (counting you) when you mark up 4 and as soon as you take the shot they fire. The ai on your team is quite good, much like the ones from before. You can still command things like drones, you can have them suspended in the air, or have them transform to roll on the ground, and you can call them back to you. NOW FOR THE ISSUES. On launch day, if you had a high end graphics card, you were gonna get problems. I'm using a radeon 5700 and it ran without problems but it still might cause issues with your system if you have a high end card. The other big beef I have and this is what shattered my experience and made me right this review, is that you don't command your squad. You can have them do a few things, like the takedown 4 targets thing I mentioned earlier, but it just really blows, unless there's a part in the game where you get full command of your squad through,, I don't know, the death of your captain? Then I am completely wrong but honest, I haven't heard that yet, just "it's call of duty, lol". Remember that difficulty in GRAW2 with a 5th level difficulty, a single bullet kills you, if you had some skill and memorized the maps, all you really could do was command your squad using the map or their cameras, which was badass by the way, it was so well done, it had so much depth. Now where this game actually shines that makes it a disappointing good game rather then a disappointing bad game, is the multiplayer and co op, (no local co op, I think they even got sued for false advertising) multiplayer is a lot of fun, there is so much customization, you can customize your gun down to handle and barrel, not just attachments and paintjobs. There's some really fun maps, I haven't tried co op yet though but you can play it in single player or do co op missions that are not part of the campaign. Now I think there is one small aspect that does save the game in the story, when you get to the point where you get cloak, you can get close to that flanking feeling that was in GRAW2, in GRAW2 you could command your squad behind cover without them firing to get into position to fight the enemy which are also in cover, you could then move around to the side just a bit so they can't see you, you get your troops to open fire and then you sneak in more while the enemies are distracted to flank and take them out, cloaking in future soldier simulates that a bit to make it feel like the deep tactics within GRAW2 and that's really where FR disappoints, that wall of tactics found in GRAW2 are barren, the innovation added to FR combined with GRAW2 gameplay could have been an amazing game, we waited 6 years for a console game release of a Ghost Recon game, and this is sadly what we got. I also wrote this based on the price drop, (Can't believe i payed 80 USD for this), for 35 dollars it's pretty good considering how fun you might have with the multiplayer and co op but only get it for that, Campaign by yourself, even with the reasonable AI, is disappointing. SO TO RECAP: Disappointing campaign, things added in but also taken out, doesn't feel like GRAW2, Co op and Multiplayer good, lot's of fun to be had 7/10 for variety and content. Expand
  18. Feb 18, 2013
    8
    I actually enjoyed playing this game. Stealth missions were lots of fun. For entire single player campaign i encountered few bugs( nothing game breaking), but i played in 1.7 version. I understand where all those negative reviews are coming from, game had to be a mess shortly after release. Still game is worth buying now after all those fixes its solid shooter.
  19. Feb 3, 2013
    0
    Console port. Cutscene. Poor graphics. Cutscene. Horrible controls. Cutscene. Lame story. Cutscene. Weak storytelling. Cutscene. Tiny levels. Cutscene. Dumb AI. Cutscene. Low FoV. Cutscene. This game cost me 7$ and I still feel I wasted my money. Damn.
  20. Jan 7, 2013
    1
    This is not Ghost Recon. It is nothing a Ghost Recon game is supposed to be - a generic TPS with all the idiotic mechanics that the mainstream video game industry keeps pushing - automatic health regeneration, enemy highlighting, seeing through walls, stealth that relies solely upon the Predator cloak. That said, it is fairly obvious the gameplay is repetitive, linear garbage that requires no skill or tactics whatsoever. Everything else - the graphics, story, characters is, in one word, mediocre. Your typical brainless American propaganda about saving the world from terrorism. Evil Hispanics and Russians. Nothing saves this game from being absolute trash. Expand
  21. Jan 4, 2013
    0
    This is the stupidest game I've seen since the 1980's! I had more fun typing DOS commands. On PC the program is extremely ungainly and the controls are ineffective. I couldn't get past the first level even with help from tech support. Simplicity is elegance whereas this "game" is about as elegant as a crack whore. I trust all the poor reviews here, don't be fooled into buying this game!
  22. Dec 25, 2012
    8
    Forget these people... This game is awesome... If you love the Tom Clancy Style of games. I played it for 5 hours straight when I started. Runs fine on my system... Maybe your computer sucks?
  23. Dec 3, 2012
    10
    from my experience of Ghost recon Future Soldier the graphics where done really well although there are some bugs here and there but there isn't that many. So i think this game should be closer to the top of the list rather then being close to the bottom. GIVE THIS GAME A 10.
  24. Nov 28, 2012
    0
    Broken game. This is one of the worst PC to console ports I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. The original unpatched version had the mouse aiming broken only to be patched up later. This fixed the mouse aim but the game's performance dropped to less than half! Even to the latest patch, this has not been fixed.
    Multiplayer connection issues are just impossible. Don't even
    bother.

    I don't know what professional reviewers were smoking when they were rating this game. Trust me, listen to the people who bought it. You'll regret it.

    As a game, I guess it's okay. Some fun bits but nothing you haven't done before in a cover based shooter. This could have been something if Ubisoft had actually put some effort into this lazy, lazy port.
    Expand
  25. Nov 5, 2012
    7
    I am of two minds on this game. First let me say that the single player campaign was excellent. I enjoyed every mission and spent more than 8 hours just enjoying the missions and not rushing through the game. The multiplayer was also fun, if not a bit sparse on the game match servers. In that regard, Ghost Recon Online is a much better alternative with better keyboard/mouse controls. Where the game falls a bit short are in the controls which feel a bit clunky at times. The active cover is nice but getting into cover often glitches leaving you open to fire. Overall, the game was fun, but previous versions felt much more responsive. Expand
  26. Nov 4, 2012
    0
    Bought the game on steam for 5.49 eur. Tried it for 10 minutes but "mouse aim" failed to work. The game is a lazy-port from console and is nothing even close to former ghost recon editions. My advice is stay as far away as you can from this game, buying it will maje you regret it. Configuration possibilities are less than poor and the game is ful of bugs, many of which you will exp
  27. Oct 31, 2012
    5
    bought this game on release date and had to wait 3 months before it was even playable, too many bugs to mention and i think were on the 5th update now to try to fix. when the game does play it looks incredible, the game is worth playing and the multiplayer is great expect for the connection issues. love to give it a 9/10 for the game itself but how they can release an unplayable game i will never no Expand
  28. Oct 31, 2012
    6
    I say that this game feels a little bit disappointing for me,even through the core gameplay fits the game well,but the Originality of the game feels like its fading a lot the fans of Ghost Recon Realized that this game has lost its Originality.....And also with the Good graphics but EXTREMELY poor Optimization that i can`t even make it to Medium (Even Worst Than Highly-Demanded game like BF3) are the worst one and in result,a complete disappointing to all PC Gamers.Where`s the Ghost Recon that all we know???? Expand
  29. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    I give this game a 3 out of 10, fair review. Tom clancy games have always been about tactical game play, this is far from it. Its an arcade style shooter on par with battlefield 3 and call of duty franchise. The multiplayer matchmaking is still broken, its been broken since launch and its still just as bad months later.

    The single player story is lackluster, the weapons do not do enough
    damage in multi player. I was an avid tom clancy fan, books and games, but this is just... I cant begin to describe how they screwed up tom clancy to appeal to the average gamer. No longer a highly tactical gameplay style its just... I cant say anything more than "broken."

    The support for the game is minimal, they do not listen, they do not know how to fix the code that has existed for a while. My advise, skip this game, save your money, by something better, its not even worth 10 dollars imo.
    Collapse
  30. Oct 16, 2012
    7
    PC version? Poor performance with i5 2500K and GTX570? Come on??? Graphics? Nice, but quite average these days, expected more. Singleplayer campaign is average in terms of length and story is just so damn poor, but all other aspects of the game are good. Its fun to play it, its fun to shoot. Game could have been really good. Unfortunately it
    s just ok.
  31. Oct 6, 2012
    8
    The hopes for this game were really great. Are they true? In a sense, yes. The game is played really 1; great working with the team, cool missions using a variety of gadgets, whow is really great. Until the compilation of the tactical shooter gets a classic, it is not worse, although in many of these games are the elements of the fatal shooting, and here ... here as well as the creeps and makes firing squad. The plus there is a modification of weapons. We enormity and other additives that sh unblock through missions or challenges. It's really fun because everyone can make your dream weapon. Well, but what game is not perfect. Maybe shooting elements are not bad ... but it's mostly tactical quiet game, and how the game shooting elements is too much. On the game's enormous moments in which the mission can not even do it quietly though it seems like that was supposed to give. It happened to me even that bug me the whole game by doing some missions quietly, although the authors came up with doing the shooting on the boor. Not too good is also optimized. Even on a good computer game will be poorly attended, and attention even to the poor graphics. Weak look a some videos which reduces even more my assessment of the game. The story does not attract special, but it can be ... a little caught up in it. Even the graphics look nice, although the liquidity of the game on the graphics is worse. Overall, the game is really fun because my rating is not so low. But I suspect that Ghost Recon fans will like it. My Rating - 7.5 / 10 Expand
  32. Sep 24, 2012
    1
    I was so disappointed by this, I have played all the previous Ghost Recons and loved them all. This should not even have the Ghost Recon title, this is a pile of **** that has been rushed and aimed at simple minded children who love CoD. One of the worst games I've played in years I totally gave up after a few levels. Even if you exclude all the bugs I wouldn't rate this game higher than 4.
  33. Sep 17, 2012
    8
    Ghost Recon: Future Soldier inove pas mal au niveau game play que sa soit Solo ou Multijoueur.

    L
  34. Sep 12, 2012
    10
    If your looking for the best 4-player Co-Op game availble........
    THIS IS IT!!
    Unlike all other games that limits you to 2 players n Co-Op,
    Ghost Recon Future Soldier allows 4 . ps...
    If you set-up the ports, it will be easier to get your friends online with you.

    Enjoy
  35. Sep 5, 2012
    9
    Great Game... for the lovers of the GR and TC games... but there are a few things.. the bug that I cannot have all the unlockable guns... the fact that the multiplayer game is a total and different game... but a good game overall..
  36. Sep 3, 2012
    0
    GRFS deserves a 0 if you are a fan of the Ghost Recon series. **** butchers yet another game. Health regeneration, snap cover, and other casual features to appeal to the Call of Duty audience abound in this game. GRFS plays more like Gears of War than Ghost Recon. It even has a **** horde mode. The multiplayer doesn't even work yet and **** proves yet again that they don't care about a stable release. Paid reviews won't save you this time, you French ****

    They should have just called the game Future Soldier. This game has nothing in common with the Ghost Recon series. Where are the tactical maps and squad orders? Where is the magazine reload system? Why are you given unrealistic amounts of ammunition? Why do you sprint so damn fast with all that equipment on your character? Where did inventory management and weight disappear to? Why are there so many scripted events? Why is there hit confirmation? Don't even try to justify the built-in wallhacks with the "futuristic" technology. This is the perfect example of a "tactical" game. The HUD has random **** everywhere, the trailer makes the player look ultra hardcore and realistic, and all the 14 year old COD players run to their mothers and ask for $60 to buy another ****ty ecksbawcks game.

    I give Gears of Duty Future Soldier a 10/10. Ghost Recon Future Soldier does not exist yet. This must be some sick joke from ****.
    Expand
  37. Aug 29, 2012
    4
    The Recon series is getting worse on each iteratio, this is one of the clunkiest console ports I've seen in a long time, so-so graphics, tiny levels with poor mechanics, unlikely any patches can save this turkey....
  38. Aug 27, 2012
    7
    It's as one reviewer aptly put it: "What does work works very well, and what doesn't work gives the impression that the game is unfinished." On the plus side, the stealth mechanics and the special synchronized shooting work pretty well. The squad AI was almost never an issue at all. And finally the gun customization was every gun nut's wet dream. On the other hand however, there are heaps of things that let the game down as well. The controls on an Xbox console might seem okay at distances, but they're far too clunky at the short ranges the game puts you in. The story itself is bland and uninteresting: while I liked the dialogue between the Ghosts a little, I can't say I gave a damn about what was going on around me. The sound needs a LOT more work, with certain effects or lack thereof really taking you out of certain moments. And the facial animation at certain points was just plain terrible. Most of these flaws felt like they all needed more time and manpower to sort out. Couple this with major connection issues for its multiplayer (despite having a goddamn beta beforehand) and you have a game that while far from **** certainly does not compare with the Advanced Warfighter games. Expand
  39. Aug 25, 2012
    6
    I bought it for $36 and I don't entirely think it was worth it... Gameplay isn't entirely fluid and the running is kinda silly. It would have been 100x better if it was in first person. 3rd person turned it into an arcade type game. Disappointment compared to the other Ghost Recon games. Play them instead.
  40. Aug 25, 2012
    1
    So I had heard that the game had some performance issues prior to buying it for PC but this is unacceptable, I'm willing to accept that some games are going to run better than others but the state that this game was released in is atrocious. My PC is a relatively high end PC and can tear through the most taxing of games but when I play this piece of garbage I'm lucky to keep forty frames per second. I don't typically write reviews but I felt it was necessary to write this one to warn other potential buyers, when you see this game and you think "Hmm, it can't really be as bad as everyone says it is." Trust me in saying that it REALLY is THAT bad, that being said I will still recommend the console versions of the game because it's not a bad game just a terrible port to PC. Expand
  41. Aug 25, 2012
    8
    Hi,
    I've Downloaded this game, it had the Requirements for the Games Recommended Settings.
    I had everything on the Lowest Settings, 800x600 Resolution ( Im using PC ) i have Nvidia GeForce 405.
    IT still doesn't work, i can play BattleField Really Fine. Also the EXPLOSION EFFECTS are AWFULL,
    10 - 5, The Graphics seems to be good, saw some reviews on the website. The PC Requirements MUST
    change... it Doesn't make sence. Expand
  42. Aug 25, 2012
    8
    I played full game and expect some bugs I can NOT find reason for so low 4.1 points from users and i would agree with Meta-critic 8.1 for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon ..If you like Stealth and especially Tactical Shooter this is a game for you..I enjoed it from the strart til the end .Graphic is good, sound is much better and the reason why i like this game i cause it if addictive to play, cause of story ..sooo much things which you can do with your equipment. At the end i would give it solid 8. Thanks Expand
  43. Aug 23, 2012
    1
    Hi everyone, I will try not to be the hater of the game - I'll just try to objectively say what can you expect. I gave it score 1 because it does not deserve more - that one point goes for gameplay...and nothing more here is worth the trouble. Please let me explain. The game itself was released TOTALLY broken, and was patched four times and it is still not working correctly. Even if they do fix major issues - the game WILL NEVER BE what they promoted to us or what you can read in official release. So - the Good. Gameplay is actually great, kinda innovative...nice gimmicks...great cover system...game story and stuff ok...nice camera...overall - this is what you would probably look in a good game and you'd call nice gaming experience. And there the good ends. The bad and the ugly. While gameplay is great, the implementation of it is not that good - from day one the keyboard and mouse were not working!?!? The HUD is all flashy...and there is no options to customize it. There are too many stuff veteran players do not need but you are condemned to play with it. The game will surprise you with many crashes it holds up the sleeve - video driver, yeti, audio, CTD, BSOD...you name it, you'll get it. Few of the issues have been addressed however in my case, if I don't underclock the video card - I get crash within 2 minutes. Multiplayer is not working at all or you may sometimes play but with many difficulties - so in one hour online you'll probably get only 15 minutes of gameplay. That might end up laggy or something. Audio - no way to customize options for speaker setup, headphones or anything!? No support for 16:10 screens. Menus are totally console oriented and there is a bug that resolution always resets so you have to manually set it before EVERY run of the game. I think I could go here for much, much more...but I will sum it up now and tell the MOST IMPORTANT THING!!!! There is NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER - if you try to go to forums you'll only get almost automated response from forum managers "please contact support, the link is in my signature" - and support will delay your ticket until you get "please wait until we find a way to fix your issue" only to get "this ticked is closed since you did not respond within 48 hours" after you try to wait...hilarious!! No refunds are allowed. I don't know - I have never seen such a bad release and have never came up to worse support in my life. In my eyes - Ubisoft is dead. They don't even bother to admit their mistakes, they only say they are "aware" of them and are working hard to correct them. They also said they are working hard to improve PC experience after the release got delayed compared to consoles - did they lie? If you see the result, it's obvious. Someone here pushed this out only to grab few bucks - sad move. Expand
  44. Aug 21, 2012
    1
    I hate ports but this game wasn't even a bad port. It was a boxer game that plays on a computer monitor. Not one good thing to say about it. Graphics-Controls nothing notta. Yuk......Pfffffft. I suspect this is the last we'll see of Ghost Recon on PC. Too bad but if this is the best they can give us Yay. Having said all this I should note that I uninstalled the game and have not played since the new patch they were suppose to release. But this game is so bad no patch is going to fix it................only a rewrite of all code for PC would help! Expand
  45. Aug 19, 2012
    1
    There is no PC version of this. it is an Xbox game you play on a PC. You get Xbox controls, Xbox logos etc. The Singleplayer is filled with lag, the co-op doesn't work because of Ubisoft's connectivity, and the Multiplayer has the worst Peer to Peer system in history, couldn't find a single game, save for one which I got disconected from before it finished.

    I fought with steam and
    got a refund. Expand
  46. Aug 18, 2012
    1
    First of all, CBS can bite me. This is about the ninety-third time I have had to create a new logon because, somehow, my account is cancelled, password "magically" doesn't work no more, or somesuch. They'll eventually ban this one, too, but not before I get to say this: Bite me. I say that to both Ubisoft and CBS. Ubisoft ought to be hung, drawn and quartered for releasing this BLIGHT on the Ghost Recon landscape and upon the Tom Clancy name. If Clancy weren't such a whore these days, I'm sure he'd order a drone strike on Ubisoft HQ. Perhaps the most pressing reason this game is an insult is that it's NOT what the trailers said it would be. Furthermore, it is insulting for a game that BEGAN on the damn PC: this PORT is rubbish -- welcome to the land of a thousand crashes!! Thirdly, and perhaps most indictably, it's just more of the same, teh same, the same, the same, the same, the same... Hasn't CoD raked this fecal field dry, yet? No, honestly, I can't say the last one with much experience -- my second point keeps me from really knowing what the game is much like. I bought GR in 2001 and all its successors. Now THAT was an awesome game, and despite its really old-fashioned gfx, I still play it. Stable, too. Just really tired of Ubisoft ruining game series. And really tired of Ubisoft's wiiiiiiiiiiiiide range of game quality: some really good titles with massive stability and if they were ports you'd hardly know, to games like this that are simply unplayable if you can run them for more than sixteen seconds. Anyone wanna buy a slightly used copy of GR:FS? Expand
  47. Aug 17, 2012
    6
    I've found this game entertaining, It's a tactical shooter where you can synchronize shots with your teammates, flank your enemies to get a better spot while your teammates awaits for your order to shoot... It also has many different environments and a tipical but acceptable storyline with some funny character chatter.
    The missions mostly at the middle of the campaign become repetitive
    but the latest missions vary and give you some fresh air. So it's not a simulator, but it isn't CoD, if you enjoy shooters and want to play some tactical this could be some fun. Expand
  48. Aug 15, 2012
    1
    I have no idea how people even made it into the game, i played for a max of 5 minutes and couldn't stand it anymore. Graphics are horrible, and the FOV is pretty much the same as looking through a toiletpaper roll.
    A max of 20 fps, there is terrible input lag, takes a second before the game realises you have pressed a button or moved your mouse. Do for the love of god not buy this garbage
    console port. Expand
  49. Aug 13, 2012
    5
    Basically, Ghost Recon Future Soldier is a good game. I am not so much into the whole Tom Clancy thing (my opinion) but the campaign is nice and playing trough it with a bunch of friends can be fun, even more if considered the fact that PC players do not get so much coop focused games like consoles do. The multiplayer on a whole is quite good, very tactical and it favors teamwork more than other games. Coordination is of the essence much more than in CoD and even more than in BF3. But this is also where the flaws are located... What is the interesting Multiplayer good for if you can barely manage to get a round played ? Every second attempt ends with a "Connection to server lost" and every now and then the game happens to crash completely. This is a very very big issue, essentially, Ubisoft completely ruined a promising multiplayer and it seems as if they do not attempt to fix the problems and the patches did not change a thing so far. Clearly, we have a failed console port here and I have problems recommending this game since the multiplayer will be dead soon Expand
  50. Aug 8, 2012
    0
    OK, there's a good reason that users have rated this game poorly. Cause it's awful! I used to love the entire Tom Clancy series but this is ridiculous it is a terrible console port. There is no mention of PC key commands in any of the tips while loading or in game; all reference XBOX buttons. I can get over that. But most shooters are relatively intuitive. This one's not! Very few mouse or keyboard buttons will match any of the other shooters currently on the market. So I'm not even two minutes into the game and it asks me to throw a sensor by pushing the "B" button on the controller, that's right, the XBOX controller. I mash every freakin' key on my keyboard with no luck. I finally figure hit something that gets it deployed only to be asked to do it again moments later. This time, no joy. Dead in the water. Can't go any further. I'm done! What a waste of money. Wish I would have read the reviews here first!!! So, I can't play the game so it get's a ZERO! Expand
  51. Aug 5, 2012
    8
    I give it a positive 8 :)! I am playing trough the singleplayer, havent tried multiplayer. But i agree alittlebit, console port annoying :(!
    It is a good game, but it's very avarage game. It doesnt bring anything super new to the table. It is good game, it is good game, it is good game, it is good game..... That it is. But its nothing crazy. 7.5 worthy maybe. Not a great
    game, but buy worthy if ur not poor-like with games. Expand
  52. Aug 2, 2012
    2
    The game is great, but it's very hard to find a lobby in multiplayer. The matchmaking does not work well, customization menu always crashes, lobby timer always stops to 10, host migration doesn't work at all and cheaters everywhere that cannot be reported. Campaign is poor. Graphics and audio are good.

    If this game won't be fixed, I'll never purchase an Ubisoft product again.
  53. Jul 30, 2012
    8
    This game completely startled me as I was fully prepared to hate it. I am a veteran of this and similar series, having spent far too many hours/days/weeks in cooperative play on such titles as the first Ghost Recon, Raven Shield and SWAT 4, and I have been utterly appalled by the direction this series has taken since the first iteration. The second game was a console only farce and GRAW 1 & 2 were simply appalling on every single level, designed and executed by a talentless team that never should have gotten the job to start with.

    This, a 3rd person, action based shooter that is all about the gadgets and implemented by Ubisoft, a company I have less an less respect for with each passing day, should have been a train wreck.
    But damn if I didn't enjoy the hell out of it!

    First up: tech issues. I had none. Nada. Nothing. The only complaint I could possibly find was that, at an average of 40 fps, the frame rate was a little low throughout (I run a quad core @ 4.3 gig, OC'd 570 , 8 GIG of ram and a crazy fast SSD). This really is one of those times were I suspect that the complainers just do not know how to look after their PC and keep it mean and lean for running new games.

    Second up - the overall change in style. A long standing gripe I have had with these "sim style" FPS/TPS games is that, flatly, I am not a super fit military expert. I cannot sprint for miles, shoot guns with amazing accuracy and speed or snap a man's neck with my bare hands. As I am playing someone who can, however, I expect the game to provide systems that let me feel like the bad-ass I am supposed to be. Splinter Cell Conviction was the first game to do this, finally (after so many sequels) making me feel like I was the nano-augmented master assassin that Sam Fisher was supposed to be and GR:FS does the same thing for the GR series.
    Kitted out with a plethora of futuristic yet believable hardware, GR:FS lets me loose in a whole swathe of hostile environments and allows me, with a good dollop of skill and finesse, to move through my enemies like a ghost in the night, silently and efficiently disposing of all threats. Even better are the full-on action scenes that see you battling through packed city streets, desperately trying to make head-shots through crowds of civvies while sprinting and leaping between cover and issuing orders to your team. The game's ability to immerse you in both frenetic action and silent waiting games is definitely its strongest point and the gadgets such as the remote vehicles and Predator like stealth cloaks add genuine depth of game-play.

    One final note to the "console port" whiners: While I am amongst the most vocal of complainers regarding this normally, this game fairs pretty well. Sure it keeps saying "press LB" to throw a grenade, but that is the sole, isolated proof that this came from a console. The graphics are well above par, the controls work flawlessly and the shooting is fully competent. Get off your high horses guys.
    Expand
  54. Jul 30, 2012
    10
    Dere r a lot of people **** here...dey hv reviewd dis game evn b4 playng it atleast a while...
    Dis game is totally amazing...n quite tactical...graphics r damn good too... Soooon dese idiots who hv given a negative reviewd wil realise dis fact...coz dey hvent evn bargaind troly evn after first stage/mission...wait n look how good dis game gets...dis has totally divesifyd d gameplay of
    3rd shooter persn as it evr used to b...really d title as it proclaims future soldier..dey r..n dis game too is a deal worth d price...
    I wil totally b waiting 4 its nx part....
    U LOSERS... IF U HV PURCHASED IT...PLAY ATLEAST A FEW MISSIONS...u'll know d worth..
    Dis game atleast dezerve a 9/10......
    Expand
  55. Jul 25, 2012
    0
    This is quite possibly the worst PC release of any game in recent memory.

    I thought Rocksteady's situation with Arkham City was the worst - for me anyway - when they delayed the PC version by a few weeks to add "great DirectX 11 features", just to have none of the DirectX 11 features work properly, and killing all performance when enabled, on release day. Granted, it did work fine in
    DX9, but still - if I wanted a DX9 game I'd have just bought it for the 360, right?

    Anyway. I'm a huge Tom Clancy fan. And even though the multiple series bearing his name have drifted from the tactical delights they once were, I still enjoy them all. (Except HAWX. No one likes HAWX.)

    Now, this is indeed a straight up console port. I don't mind a console port, as long as you make some little considerations for the PC. You know? Throw me a bone and I'm happy. I had a very good experience with Ubi's release of Assassin's Creed Revelations, so foolishly figured the Future Soldier release would be on par. To coin a line from another horrible release: We were so wrong. Let me say that my machine runs every game with aplomb. I have games installed, NVIDIA drivers, Chrome, and 360 controller drivers. That is all. Period. Nothing else. Number of hardware or software problems I've run into with my system: zero, ever.

    Future Soldier behaves, runs, and looks like *smashed ****

    Let me just rattle off some of the major grievances:

    - None of the Graphics menu options save. Change something, back out of the menu, go back in, and it's reverted to default. You can actually get around this by setting every option, one by one, with a keyboard (not mouse, not 360 controller). Set an option, back out of the menu, go back in, change another option, back out, repeat ad nauseum. - If you manage to change the Graphics options to your liking, when you play the game, it'll be displayed at scaled 720p instead of whatever resolution you actually set.

    - Also, on the 2nd launch of the game (after first install, or resetting all user data), the game will try to output video at 24Hz. That's right. My TV can take it of course, but it's still 24Hz. I feel sorry for folks with
    Expand
  56. Jul 24, 2012
    8
    Well, I'm giving this game a positive, because so far I was able to complete SP campaign and it was fun and interesting. Long enough even, that's rare in modern games that tends to end when you still want more to play. Gameplay is cool, shooting is satisfying, stealth is satisfying, controls are satisfying (I'm playing on PC), maps are a bit bleak and empty sometimes, but satisfying. Giving game a bad score because it has some technical issues (even though issues are devastating: I wasn't able to play MP as of yet, and it's been a month since release) is really childish. So, I've been having fun with SP, it's a solid game. But Ubisoft should be blamed for not only delaying PC release, but also for releasing untested buggy game in the end. Expand
  57. Jul 21, 2012
    0
    Game still doesn't work with a keyboard and mouse, inputs shown are for XBox 360 controllers. Game fails to launch (except twice). Ticket in to customer support has yielded a whopping 3 responses in 3 WEEKS! Their forums (for the PC) are filled with people still unable to play the game and unable to play in multiplayer matches. Their last patch broke the graphics system that was working, and they are now (from 3 different posts) only having about 700 people online to play a multiplayer match WORLDWIDE.

    Diablo 3 may not have been playable at launch, but this is almost a month of the game has been released and it's still not playable. STAY AWAY!
    Expand
  58. Jul 19, 2012
    7
    Critics here are awful. Game is pretty good in overall. If you compare it with the best shooters out there you will be disappointed, but it don't deserve a 3, it deserve a 7 score. It's not a console port at all, if you see xbox button that's because you have a gamepad plugged in. Graphics are ok for a game this year (it's not bf3/crysis, but still good). Ambiant occlusion kills performance, disable it and everything is ultra smooth. Campaign is awesome and diversified, better than most shooters. It's not tactical as the old Ghost Recon if that's what you are looking for, but the action is good. Expand
  59. Jul 17, 2012
    3
    After the patch 1.1 and 1.2 : Technically its a broken PC game, very very low fps, even with a super computer from the future you will get low frames per second, the graphics are made of washed up low res textures ( even if all settings are at maximum ), random framedrops all over the place, performance is a complete disaster. The PC game has been pushed a month later than the console version, but the only thing the developers did was port it from the consoles and didn't optimised the game at all until they don't fix it its not a worthy game to buy. Expand
  60. Jul 16, 2012
    0
    Really looked forward for this game however its a bugged beta on PC. I have sound issues that aren't fixed after 4 or 5 patches they have released. Poor quality control have left console buttons in the game for PC users.
    It would get some points because on the console it is a good game however no points for PC as its buggy beta early release and my ongoing sound problems (echo from
    voices) are holding it back from scoring.
    Worst part is you can't take it back because it registered to my account now. PC gaming is getting killed by poor game ports and registering products so we can't return buggy poor games like this one.
    Shame on you for releasing this.
    Expand
  61. Jul 16, 2012
    4
    First things first: I would not recommend buying this game for it's full price! Although the gameplay is really great and it make a lot of fun running around with all the different kind of weapons, customizable to everybodys needs. Even in multiplayer the class you choose matters. It make a quite a difference if you play as assault, engineer or scout. BUT: And there's the big BUT: Right now it hardly playable without losing your will to play due to critical technical problems. The game crashes a lot (in SP and MP) and has many connection losses and/or host migrations in MP. Actually, a peer-to-peer MP is not that bad, but in this case the huge amount of connection losses leads to quite a lot of host migration, interrupting the current game and resetting the current object while the time doesn't stop. Host migration can directly effect a close win or loss. On top of that there's no location filter that places only ppl from the same location in a lobby. So right now there are Russians playings with Europeans and Americans in a single lobby, which leads to pings from 50 - 500 (At least feeling like it, because pings are not shown). This, too, can lead to a huge disadvantage if your host actually has a 500-ping to you. Meaning you'll have a 500-ping to him and if you're playing against him he will always be faster than you and there's nothing you can do against it (except leaving the game).

    Hopefully, Ubi will fix these major problem with upcoming patches. If so, you might even buy the game right now. But so far you should not. The cool and different-than-usual gameplay is overshadowed by this "unlucky" PC-conversion.
    Expand
  62. Jul 12, 2012
    9
    it's the first time i play this series and i am surprised. nice graphics, the story is understood, the best in this game is the customisation of the weapons. Also, it has a big variety of weapons and equipment. Furthermore the multiplayer is awesome, well made maps, is necessary to work with your teammates for a good result (win). There are some ambiguities as a reference the characters and the AI but it still like me.
    Is a good effort from ubisoft and will be disappointed if ubisoft not pull on the market games for pc (because of piracy)
    Expand
  63. Jul 9, 2012
    0
    Console port game. Full of bugs and issues. And they asked full price for it. Stay well clear of this garbage. Was really hoping for something more like the original Ghost recon and rainbow 6 games. RIP Ubisoft.
  64. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    With enjoyable gameplay, decent graphics, and strong co-operative potential to draw from, Ghost Recon Future Soldier should have been a fantastic game. And the console version are. Unfortunately, Ubisoft has proven once more to care very little for their PC fan base by releasing a game so riddled with bugs, that a huge portion of the player base cannot even play the game. At it's current state, GRFS should be in the late Alpha testing phases. Even now, several weeks after the games PC release, many players are unable to play the games multiplayer without being disconnected partway through their first match. The game still suffers from an issue that causes many people's games to crash on startup. And so many other issues beyond just those. Expand
  65. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    Terrible console port makes for an absolutely terrible. No matter that it is based on an extremely successful franchise and is otherwise brilliant game, using the controls is unbearable, let alone all of the leftover icons from the x-box version and lack of real menus. This makes it so difficult to even get though the first level of the campaign without rage quitting that it makes no difference how good the story or multi-player could possibly be. Not only is the game completely broken in near every sense of the word, but Uplay, Ubisoft's game activation and big brother protocol, is unable to connect on a perfectly good connection so often that it is hard to play the game at all. I really hope they patch the pc version with an entirely new control engine and do something about the Uplay issues, because apart from that I really would like to PLAY the game, it LOOKS fun, too bad... Expand
  66. Jul 6, 2012
    3
    Mediocre game crippled with the laziest console port of the year.

    ATTN: STEAM version of the game cannot be currently played with other versions due to differing patch cycles, game does not recognize different versions and kicks you out of the multiplayer games after 10 seconds. I assume this will never be fixed and pops up after every patch.

    The game was supposed to be "back to the
    roots" -type of game reminding of old Rainbow6 games and first Ghost Recon. guess what, level 2 is a rail-shooter

    here is couple of crippling problems that need to be fixed before you should even consider this game.

    Drone is controlled with wasd+mouse+ARROW KEYS, i guess they want me to use both hands while smacking my head on keyboard to change altitude

    80% of menus cannot be interacted with mouse
    Random menus need to be used with arrow keys, which are not used for anything else* in the game. nice logic guys.

    No game hosting, only matchmaking and non-stop waiting for host migration from players leaving

    Console legacy still present, help texts for "Press A or B" etc.

    *except drone

    other than the **** execution, i guess it could be fun... if i could play it with friends and not get kicked all the time due to version mismatch
    Expand
  67. Jul 5, 2012
    0
    A very disappointing game - endlessly frustrating, even on its easiest settings - mainly due to a preponderance of timed events (no better way to build-in FAIL). This game should have been about stealth, tactics and planning. Instead it's a tiresome, linear, guided affair - a ghost-train ride. It's not even as if the graphics can compensate for the paucity and frustrations of the gameplay experience. GR:FS struggles on my i7 quad with 12GB RAM and a 1GB GTX460. It shouldn't - Crysis 2 with the hi-res texture packs runs faultlessly on max settings on the same rig.

    Needlessly frustrating. Timed events suck. Graphics unoptimised for the best PC experience. Get Spec Ops: The Line instead and save yourself some disappointment.
    Expand
  68. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    Fun game, a few issues with the port such as not being able to access the options menu in game. Runs great on my rig, gorgeous visuals and fun to boot. I'm enjoying myself anyway, I haven't encountered most of the issues others are reporting. 8/10
  69. Jul 3, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am learning to hate this game. It is a console port to PC. The blatant laziness on the part of the coders to not include the ability to skip cut scenes, for which there are MANY is unacceptable. I have to wonder if the console version suffers the same madness. You are unable to choose different missions unless you are in a certain operational theater. In other words you can't choose the very beginning of the game to try new ways to play that you've learned along the way. This goes for weapons as well. You want to try new weapons you've unlocked along the way? Too bad.
    Character control is smooth sometimes laggy at others and always when it's most important. The devs tried their hardest to make it seem like this game is not on rails but it is. You have operational freedom when you're in a designated combat area but always have to follow their lead.
    When using your "camouflage" you may never run for extended periods without losing the use of the 'camo'. However you're teammates may run, gun, dance, etc while their camo is active and stays active. Furthermore your team mates are either super heroes or idiots. Either spotting and killing adversaries before you can ever do so or standing around like idiots while you're bleeding out at their feet.
    I like the ability to choose and customize weapons. That is very cool but won't carry the game.
    It looks pretty, sounds good but that doesn't make a game. Playability and usability do. I am glad I got this game free. If you must have it wait for more patching and for it to reach the bargain bin.
    Expand
  70. Jul 3, 2012
    3
    While awaiting for Ghost Recon Online, I picked this game up to pass the time. After all I have played GRAW 2 and previous Tom Clancy titles all the way back to Rainbow 6 (way before Vegas) and loved them all. Five minutes in, I cannot use mouse to play because I have a game pad plugged in. 10 minutes after figuring that out I still cannot play because I have racing wheel plugged in. 30 minutes later I still cannot play because I figure out that I have Logitech software on. About 45 minutes later I give up and began playing with my game pad, even though I prefer my mouse for this particular genres. I thought this game would pass the time until Ghost Recon Online, now after finishing first mission, I am wondering if I should uninstall, I dont even need extra space. Everything about this game is sub par. From story to game play. I didnt even try to get the multiplayer going. Even the Ubisoft game launcher is below average. I have to say I dont think I will ever even attempt to play an Xbox port game again. Way to kill a game, I mean if they made a Graw 3 with same engine but different maps and story, it would have been better. This game simply does not deliver what us gamers expected from Ghost Recon franchise. I expected ubisoft to kill the game though, lets hope they dont destroy Sam Fisher too. Expand
  71. Jul 3, 2012
    1
    Worst console port I have ever bought, they must have spent 5 minutes porting it to PC. When I play the game on PC my computer thinks its an xbox, with all those xbox icons everywhere. Graphics for a PC game are very poor, the lighting is awful, the shadows are a joke and the textures are the same as a console. Controls are unresponsive and awkward and if you use a game pad you wont be able to invert the Y axis. For an action game the controls are too slow. I was so looking forward to this game and now find it a waste of £30. Do yourself a favour and dont buy this game. Expand
  72. Jul 3, 2012
    3
    Cons: Terrible console port - things like 'press LB' and other xbox related icons can be found all over. The graphics look awful - offensive pop-in objects, low res textures and poor anti-aliasing. Connection problems - be prepared to be disconnected and kicked out of almost every game. Price - £30 for a crappy console port? Rip off. Optimisation - I run a high end rig, complete with overclocked i5-2500k and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW, and I cant even run this game on max settings properly. BF3 on ultra @ 60fps, no problem! but this.. no way. Unbelievable. Pros: If you can muster 3 other friends to play with you, it can be quite fun - providing you actually get in a a game for longer than 10 seconds and can overlook the awful visuals and poor performance. Expand
  73. Jul 2, 2012
    1
    Ghost Recon Future Soldier is not Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, period. If you expect 50% of the GRAW 2 I have bad news. If you expect 50% of Modern Warfare 2 i have bad news.
    Tactics are minimum, even in elite difficulty(hard means more damage taken) flanking is unnecessary and maps are small and/or don
  74. Jul 2, 2012
    0
    It's fair to say, I'm very disappointed - I've spent money to purchase and play the game, and I'm not able to play at all, which for me is a bit of a major.

    I think it's very unreasonable to be expected to pay money now and then wait weeks/months to get a patch to fix the game so that I can play... I'd much rather spend my money on something else now, enjoy that game, and then spend my
    money on Future Soldier in a few months time (assuming its been fixed).

    Attempts to contact Ubisoft support have gone unanswered, which is even more disappointing since I expect more from a reputable game dev house.
    Expand
  75. Jul 1, 2012
    8
    This game is fine, don't know why there is so much hate out there, either you have a crap PC or you don't know how to play. I got to say that the graphics and the cut scene videos are not that great for a 2012 game, but the game play and strategy is A+.
    Also where is that mission that was played at E3 2010? :)
  76. Jul 1, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Игра достаточно необычна, и я получил удовольствие как от прохождения сюжета, так и от игры в мультиплеер! Мне, к счастью, не пришлось столкнуться с большинством описанных игроками проблем, единственное, что иногда раздражает, это организация сетевых матчей. Конечно, это консольный порт, и все соответствующие проблемы портов здесь присутствуют в некоторой степени, но, повторюсь, мне игра доставляет удовольствие, и я не жалею потраченных на нее денег!!! Expand
  77. Jul 1, 2012
    5
    I played this game the last few days and i was very disappointed... I expected a great multiplayer experience with a huge variety of game modes. The reality is that the multiplayer is not really playable... the loss of multiplayer connection makes it impossible to finish a game. The gourilla mode seems pretty nice at first but some maps just stop working and spawn not a single unit after a few waves.The coop campaign is not as great as expected but the multiplayer function works great without connection losses. Expand
  78. Jul 1, 2012
    0
    Can't even play more than a few minutes without constant issues, crashes, mouse skipping, and a whole host of other problems. Ubisoft you really have let down your PC fans, producing such a complete piece of trash. Mouse never moves consistently, camera has issues at every corner, controls are unresponsive (in particular the mouse which simply hates being moved in motions). This game literally is one of the worst games I've ever had the misfortune of playing. Which is a real shame because it looked great in the trailers and I was really looking forward to it. Really getting tired of all the shooters moving to consoles and corrupting the best platform for the genre due to terrible ports. Wasted money, wasted time, I want to play on a PC because of the superior controls and graphical features. Instead Ubisoft throw us another locked down, buggy, unresponsive game. 0/10. Expand
  79. Jul 1, 2012
    7
    I think this game has a unfair low user score, I have played through the campain in singleplayer with two of my friends an got a solid action experiance. However the game does not stay true to it's the forerunners, that much is true. The story isn't the greatest ever writen, but not that bad. The graphics are pretty solid atleast it pleases me. The gunrange part of the game is awesome with loads of potential to modify your loadout and weapons. I think you should embrace games that makes coop a part if the general experiance, Expand
  80. Jun 30, 2012
    8
    I was worried whether to play this or send it back without opening it after reading all the negative comments. In the end, I decided to at least give it a chance and I'm glad I did. Things I like: Gunsmith, I love the gun customisation. I haven't unlocked much, but theres lots to choose from and plenty of camos to give your weapon a unique look. I was most concerned about the graphics, but I'm pleased to say in DX11 maxed out I really quite like them. The environments are detailed, debris, graffiti on walls. The textures look crisp. I've only played the campaign so far and I'm having a lot of fun with it. Ok, so the negative. I've listened to the advice and am playing version 1.0. I've read about the disaster that is patch 1.2 and avoided it. This means I can't yet play multiplayer (so this game clearly was rushed out). The controls are ok. Clearly from a console, but I've tweaked the mouse sensitivity to my liking and remapped the scope to RMB. I struggled at first with performance. I have everything maxed in DX11 on a 4ghz 2500k and 560ti. I struggled to get a steady 60fps. However, I found that adding launcher and GR.exe to nvidia control panel and selecting AFR2 allowed me to use SLI quite successfully and now its really fluid. The single player is a bit linear and I'm not a fan of story telling anyway, so a bit more shooty and less talky would have been better for me. In conclusion, I believe if you liked R6 Vegas like you'll really like this. I love the cover system (holding shift moves you to the next context sensitive cover). I haven't experience any bugs (yet!) and haven't had any problems at all with the game so far. Expand
  81. Jun 29, 2012
    9
    Ok, first off my playing style. I play co op campaigns with my friends. I loved vegas 2 and this is like a new vegas 2 for me. At first, i wasn't impressed with the gameplay, i played the first level and was bored. This was because i wasn't used to the controls/ai etc. After playing coop campaign with my friend, i have found this game to be extremely fun. From the customization of weapons down to the main parts, to the camo suit which is that of the Crysis series without the energy drain. The magnetic view is badass in its own. I personally think that this game is worth the money, after many letdowns came out ... RAGE!... i was skeptical about pre-purchasing a new game especially this one, but after playing it, it has hooked me. Although you and i may not have the same playing style, i think this one was worth the money. The graphic's could've been a little better considering its 2012 but hey for what they did in the game with all the options of firepower and defense, its worth it. If you want a good co op campaign game, this is it, there are multiple co op modes such as the campaign and guerrilla (waves of enemies) mode. I gave this game a 9 because i actually enjoy it and it keeps me coming back to play, although the story sucks a little it keeps me entertained and i dont feel like i got raped out of my money either. Hope this helps. Expand
  82. Jun 29, 2012
    1
    This has to be the worst game i have bought in recent years. This is clearly an Xbox port and after we where told that it wouldn't be i feel insulted that they done it anyway. The controls are clunky. The Graphics are not at all close to a standard PC game. Multiplayer at the moment of writing this was practically unplayable due to constantly having host migration. If this was supposed to be a Full PC game why no dedicated servers? why have the multiplayer exactly like the Xbox? if you are on the fence about buying this game i recommend you do yourself a favour and buy it for the Xbox/PS3 as that was what this game was intended for, that way when you find out how bad it is you can at least trade it back in and get something else! Expand
  83. Jun 29, 2012
    3
    I got this through the post this morning and I was hyped. 'Yes, my weekends complete' I can chill out from the weeks workload and shoot up some baddies I've seen so much video footage and game play on. I know there where a couple of Day-1 patches to grab and sorted them out in no time.

    That's when I guess things started sliding a little. Firstly the rolling title credits at 1FPS.
    But sound was fine. Maybe I had something open in the background causing this so shut everything down and did a reboot. Not a one off; Okay so I managed to get into the Menu system. Now I know I having a pretty good rig, i7 680's plenty of RAM. But every loading screen splutters and stutters before getting into the game.

    Video storytelling is slight grainy guess that's the pre-recording. Not had the issue of controllers although at the time I didn't have the controller plugged in thankfully.

    The gunsmith, even though I can use AWSD to move around, required me to use the Arrow keys to navigate through. Slightly off putting.

    If it wasn't from the extended loading times between missions I'd stick it out a little more on this port but I've had enough. I'm willing to wait a few more patches and hopefully come back to it later but in its present state it would just leave a 'badder' impression than there already is.

    I'd say if you can wait before purchasing do so. Its just a little hit and miss on being ready in its present form and that's with the delays UBIosft gave it; must of been a company holiday.
    Expand
  84. Jun 29, 2012
    3
    DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. I'm having a buyer's remorse. I'd feel a lot
    better spending my 50$ on Skyrim or some several indie titles. Worst console port I've ever played. And I'm experiencing major lag issues on certain levels. I don't even have DX 11 turned on. Diamond formation is straight up from Virtua Cop. And it's hard to find a coop match. (you need an Ubi-friend) :/
  85. Jun 28, 2012
    3
    The biggest dissappointment of the year. This was the game I was waiting for, the game I was so excited about and it turns out to be such a horrible console port. It's really just next to unbelievable how bad this is. It's riddled by bugs and coding problems, so you get errors all the time. Hilariously horrible controls and gameplay overall just sucks. There are some real major flaws in this, I wasn't expecting such a fail. Waste of money. Expand
  86. Jun 28, 2012
    7
    Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier is an interesting mash of being both the covert-tactics simulator that the series has long enjoyed, along with four player over-the-shoulder shoot'em-up action, similar to games like Lost Planet 2 and Gears of War. A moderate playthrough of the game can be achieved in 8-13 hours in its singleplayer/co-op campaign, which is an acceptable amount not to mention the various multiplayer modes which offer lengthier additional gameplay. The 'Gunsmith' is a neat little feature which offers players the ability to alter their gear towards their play-style, showcasing a variety of potential flavours in the game. Unfortunately, these are the only good things that come to mind as far as what Future Soldier for the PC offers players; as with not only being a very unoptimised port of the Xbox version with severe issues that takes away a lot from the experience, the game itself experiences a number of shortcomings.

    While the gameplay features a good blend of stealth vs action segments, Future Soldier's story comes up looking rather bland, uninspired and unbalanaced in comparison. It's really hard to choose which parts are worse between where either the game throws a bunch of new faces at you as it throws you half way across the world to a new setting, or the unnatural pacing and random moments where the story writers decide to try and get you to like the characters better for only a few short moments of the game. There was also a problem with the immersion, as instead of including you deeply into the story, it instead treats you like a stranger and any backstory or point of interest is generally not present or explained. This in comparison to a game like Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which featured great likeable characters and a story which heavily emphasises on involving you in everything that happens.

    Another issue with Future Soldier is polish, the one feature that stuck out like a sore thumb in relation to this was the behaviour of the AI of your companions and the enemy. You'll find that your character will be incapable of doing most things but this will not render true for your AI companions; who can not only run with cloaking on but will never be detected. There isn't a problem either with charging through the middle of a supply depot while you carefully sneak around. Not to mention the AI is unpredictable and may often go ahead of you. In combat you'll find the friendly AI doing well at keeping behind objects and firing any target you specify, the enemy however will tend to creep up on you and will stare you down for a while instead of punishing you for getting too ahead of yourself.

    The poor performing, buggy, unoptimised release of Future Soldier is disappointing for Ubisoft, especially after the success of their last PC game; Anno 2070. Future Soldier should have been launched in a much better condition and the results of which can only mean more bad publicity for Ubisoft for the next few weeks regarding their support of the PC platform. We can only hope in the next Ubisoft multi-platform release, Ubisoft has the PC as the lead release so the problems that Future Soldier faced that were shared by iD's Rage aren't faced again. Overall, if you are looking for a third person coop/multiplayer military title that offers a lot of action and you aren't too hot on stories, this game could be the thing you're looking for. Do allow Ubisoft a few weeks to sort the kinks out though.
    Expand
  87. Jun 27, 2012
    8
    Figured i should write this to counter balance all the haters. Its a good game. Yes it was delayed who cares. Yes its a console port, i really don't care i play with a controller anyway. Its got a great story and good graphics not every game is a huge budget AAA release. If you want a good idea of the game look at the console reviews, nothing here but a bunch of complainers.
  88. Jun 27, 2012
    0
    When I first bought this game, I was rather excited to jump into it. This was, however a month ago. The first issue I ran into was before the game even came out, the two week delay. I could be wrong, but I, myself, never saw a reasoning behind why Ubisoft did such. Was it to make the game a better port from console? Obviously not, this brings me to my first point.

    When I fired up the
    game, I was rather amused by the graphics at first, but then it hit me..."Wow they really just did port this from the console with no regard at all." LB for a grenatde? I'm pretty sure I have a keyboard, not a controller...This just down right pissed me off.

    Another rather annoying fact I ran into is how outdated my video card is. I'm still rocking the **** M15X with a Nvidia Geforce 260M card. After turning the graphics on full low, and my res down to 1600x900 on my larger screen, I got really good FPS....until I hit particles. I feel like the GPU resources are waaaaay out of balance in this game. Some maps I get 60+FPS, others, 20. This really made it unenjoyable, and yes I know it dosen't relate to the game its self, but I feel that this is still a valid point.

    Lastly the Multiplayer. While it has it's fun at times, I feel like this is just simply a Call of Duty ripoff. The only spin is the Squad Based engagements, and the third person. The XP system isn't up to tabs either, and again, feels like a CoD game. I myself, tend to stay away from CoD just based on the fact that I suck-eggs. If they awarded XP for other tasks like supresson, things like that (*cough* BF3 things *Cough*) then maybe it would appel to me more. What they did do right is how friends can join off of you, and play around. VOIP is also "nice" but annoying at times. Well there's my two cents on this game, hope I was helpful.
    Expand
  89. Jun 27, 2012
    5
    Another good game that was screwed up and almost unplayable for my computer.The optimization is worst even BF3 runs better with good graphics while this works at 15fps when changing to lowest settings
    Game 8/10
    Port 2/10
  90. Jun 27, 2012
    7
    Of course, this is no opponent for battlefield 3. no game is! the graphics are average - good, but sometimes, for example the water, looks really terrible. the whole atmosphere, story and cut scenes are okay and it gives one a few hours of fun, going though the single player campaign. for multiplayer i can´t recommend this, cause i don´t play 3rd person shooters online... > nobody should! there re a few things not so nice, like that you can´t go to options while in the game and loading takes it´s time. overall i recommed this to people with enough money to kill some time and buy a few hours of entertainment or to people who can get this discounted for like half the price. it´s not really worth more. but it´s not that bad either. i rate this a good 7 Expand
  91. Jun 26, 2012
    4
    3rd person sure does make it hard to not camp as well as all of the snipers
    I sure wish I could text in game
    Nade spammers on objectives
    its like call of duty only without the fun
  92. Jun 26, 2012
    5
    Wow. Really disappointed. I'm only 4 missions in but I gotta say...terrible port to the PC. I usually don
  93. Jun 26, 2012
    7
    Single player is pretty good and Guerrilla is really fun (As I really enjoy these kinds of Horde modes). But what keeps it from getting anything higher than a 7 is the crap port they did. Lets see month late release from the consoles AND than another week delay and they didn't even fix the key bindings. Really LB for grenades (Its F by the way)? Mouse control are so so and what really sucks is what others have said also. Can't access the menu to change your settings within the game. Come on we need to do this to adjust the game to work with our hardware on the fly. I think UBI just doesn't want to do PC games anymore. Maybe they shouldn't... I do hope they patch things up quickly because it will be a killer game once these issues are corrected. ** Oh and if you have WinXP your S.O.L till they get that patch out which wont be for a few weeks UBI says, Expand
  94. Jun 26, 2012
    7
    Generally speaking, this game is above the average. Its story is a little boring and AI is stupid. But I love idea of invisible suit and X-Ray vision, make the combat much different from previous games. And you can customize many components of guns, that's a cool thing.
  95. Jun 26, 2012
    3
    One of the worst PC ports ever. You can see clear outlines of how this game came from Xbox. Such as the insta Queue that auto matches you with players. (This is PC come on we have servers) The controls are not so bad but the graphics however on a whole new realm of disappointing I was running the game at Max settings with my AMD Radeon 6870 Graphics card and the shadows were buggy various things were pixelated and if gave you few almost no graphics options. The game by default is set for 720P which is was meant to be played at on the under powered Xbox. Aside from the various graphical issues and port problems the Single player is not that bad. Its your routine game and it looks like some time was actually spent working on it. (talking game in general not pc only)One of the big down sides though is that you can't access the options menu once you start playing you have to leave you game wither its single player or muliplayer to change controls graphical options you name it. That aside the muliplayer is incredibly buggy and unstable. While this may not be permanent as it just came out I found my self joining for about 3 sec then getting a little pop up saying I have disconnected. Overall if your planing on buying this game; buy it for a console as this is not a game you want for the PC.

    This game on the pc = Very poor port. Thus my rating is extremely low due to the lack of work into the PC port because as it stands now the game is just worthless.
    Expand
  96. Jun 26, 2012
    4
    This is probably the worst console port i have ever played. There are still noticeable xbox icons (lb on top of gernades/equipment). and the controls feel very clunky and hard to get used to. another major problem for me is no in game options. you have to go all the way back to the main menu to change your settings. And very recently i have encountered a game breaking bug on only the second mission of the game that freezes everything and i cant do anything but look around with my mouse. theres more. ubisoft has recently stated that the new patch for pc will stabilize the servers but from what ive experienced, its still **** i cant play a full game with out it disconnecting. i give this game a 4 because when it works its alright but with all the problems it has as of right now (release date) i cant give it any higher. oh and is it just me or is there a 60 fps lock??? Expand
  97. Jun 26, 2012
    10
    Ghost Recon's return after a long time, this time with delivery and proposal totally solid, totally Graphics improved compared to the console version, fully customizable keyboard mappings, a campaign of high quality, fully solid port, a multiplayer with varied and totally addictive modes
  98. Jun 26, 2012
    8
    I just unlocked this game via steam. The port is absolutely solid, the controls, the enhanced graphics, the audio etc. But the big hitter is the addicting gameplay. Yes, there isn't that GREAT of a story in this title, but the tactical situations you get yourself in have completely different consequences no matter how many times you try. This was just what i needed after puking my brains out over Spec Ops. Expand
  99. Oct 24, 2012
    0
    I give this game a 3 out of 10, fair review. Tom clancy games have always been about tactical game play, this is far from it. Its an arcade style shooter on par with battlefield 3 and call of duty franchise. The multiplayer matchmaking is still broken, its been broken since launch and its still just as bad months later.

    The single player story is lackluster, the weapons do not do enough
    damage in multi player. I was an avid tom clancy fan, books and games, but this is just... I cant begin to describe how they screwed up tom clancy to appeal to the average gamer. No longer a highly tactical gameplay style its just... I cant say anything more than "broken."

    The support for the game is minimal, they do not listen, they do not know how to fix the code that has existed for a while. My advise, skip this game, save your money, by something better, its not even worth 10 dollars imo.
    Collapse
Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 13
  2. Negative: 1 out of 13
  1. Oct 14, 2012
    82
    Slightly irritating 3rd person view, cover shooter parts are very average, but ultimately fun as a stealth game seasoned with some tactics. [Sept 2012]
  2. Sep 16, 2012
    50
    This shoddy console port has cast a shimmering invisible cloak over what would have been a serviceable third-person shooter. [Sept 2012, p.55]
  3. Sep 5, 2012
    70
    At its worst, Future Soldier is an uneven experience with some unchecked boxes as they pertain to PC ports (e.g. no option to invert the controls on a gamepad) and an unrecognizable story, but at its best it's a good shooter with a little more thought required than many other 3rd person shooters available right now.