• Publisher:
  • Release Date:
Metascore
70

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 249 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Online, a new multi-player, third-person, cover-based tactical shooter.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Negative: 0 out of 24
  1. 80
    Give it a chance and enough time – and Ghost Recon Online will award you with catchy playability. Camera movements and UI polish are heavily needed. [Oct 2012]
  2. Jun 27, 2013
    76
    Quotation forthcoming.
  3. Aug 29, 2012
    75
    It's quite good, and we enjoyed its gameplay and its team-based offer. We have to wait and see how it evolves, but the base concept leads us to think Ghost Recon Online may have a very bright future. We deeply encourage you to give it a try, especially if you like tactic action and you don't feel like spending any money.
  4. Aug 20, 2012
    70
    It's a fun, competitive multiplayer shooter that stands alongside its paid sibling. Now if only more people would learn to play the damn thing.
  5. Sep 18, 2012
    65
    This free-to-play shooter from Ubisoft looks quite good, when compared to its competitors - Ghost Recon Online has great quality and a fresh, engrossing gameplay that is full of emotions. Unfortunately - good impression is damaged by a lack of polish. The game is imbalanced and clearly favors those choosing to pay, and these things can throw some players off. A few more months of testing would do this game good. In time it will probably be better, but right now it's a bit mediocre.
  6. 60
    I’m torn. I really like the core gameplay of Ghost Recon: Phantoms and see it being even more fun with friends. But, there’s just not enough here and the frustrating micro-transactions only make it all the more disappointing.
  7. Sep 3, 2012
    55
    Ghost Recon Online has moments of exciting and tense action, but they're fleeting events in an otherwise drab game that's plagued by minor annoyances and a cash shop that adds a pay-to-win element to proceedings.

See all 24 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 119
  2. Negative: 59 out of 119
  1. Nov 6, 2012
    10
    Good game, But lags some times because of its peer to peer connections.
    Very nice TPS, very tactical and smart, you really should try, it's
    Good game, But lags some times because of its peer to peer connections.
    Very nice TPS, very tactical and smart, you really should try, it's free ! ;) The content it limited but it will be more in a few time (they are only 4 maps and no armor customisation yet)
    Expand
  2. Dec 19, 2014
    10
    Alright this reviews are out dated. game is completely changed from A to Z. specialy graphics. because it looks perfect right now. alsoAlright this reviews are out dated. game is completely changed from A to Z. specialy graphics. because it looks perfect right now. also gameplay is still unique itself. i really enjoying with this. its not pay to win but if you pay like around 50-60 dolar you can start with better weapons and gears etc. BUT the fact is at some point a free to play player can reach that level too (10 level = 3 or 4 days depend your activity) and this is not a mmorpg game so gear doesnt mean everything. SKILL > MONEY this is another fact. so give a chance and play. trust me this game is fun. Expand
  3. Sep 7, 2012
    10
    This is a game with a STEEP learning curve. GR:O is almost completely reliant on tactical game-play, teamwork, and unit-cohesion to win games.This is a game with a STEEP learning curve. GR:O is almost completely reliant on tactical game-play, teamwork, and unit-cohesion to win games. Currently in open beta at the time of this review, Ubisoft is doing a fantastic job moving Ghost Recon: Online in the correct direction.

    This game is DEFINITELY worth a try, especially given it's a free to play game. Most players will attempt it, not understand it, and get frustrated. It's not your typical CoD knock-off shooter, and takes some adaptation and patience to really be competitive in-game.
    Expand
  4. Aug 4, 2014
    5
    Lots of potential, ends up to be a great 3rd person shooter only to be ruined by the pay 2 win system and the lags/glitches! You basicallyLots of potential, ends up to be a great 3rd person shooter only to be ruined by the pay 2 win system and the lags/glitches! You basically can't afford anything unless you play 24 hours a day or buy your guns online. I'm still waiting for the next rainbow six... Expand
  5. Apr 14, 2014
    3
    Pros:
    Free to Play
    Small download Nice mechanic set-up for a shooter with a few interesting slide and cover choices Cons: Many Hackers
    Pros:
    Free to Play
    Small download
    Nice mechanic set-up for a shooter with a few interesting slide and cover choices
    Cons:
    Many Hackers encounter 4 so far out of 8 matches
    Gun balancing is terrible
    Straight up players who have payed to advance to full kits will dominate you even if you play better
    Maps are checkpoint corridors of chokepoints

    Personal problems ARs were pointless in comparison to most guns, SMG and Shotguns dropped you or your enemy in insanely little effort, Hitboxing I felt was clunky, small bushes in ceramic pots block your shots, graphics are average at best for 2012 and No match making what so ever to speak of.

    Also with matches you capture one point hold it for the rest of the game and win, no need at all to push any further forward easier to hold and just farm enemy team or it will happen to you.
    Expand
  6. Dec 5, 2014
    2
    ______Despite it's (quite enjoyable) playability Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Phantoms fails horrendously to actually define itself as a game.______Despite it's (quite enjoyable) playability Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Phantoms fails horrendously to actually define itself as a game. It would be more accurate to describe it as a free "Demo" with an enormous amount of DLC which you have to pay for.... $$$$$$$$$
    ______And let me tell you, it ain't cheap either, if you want the next weapon upgrade from the one you start with you're looking at paying at least £5 for the "Ghost Coins" which you will have to purchase (with real money) because nearly all of your earnings from playing called "Athena Credits" will go towards repairing your Body Armour and purchasing smoke grenades; frag grenades; HE grenades. Which you will have to buy if you want to compete effectively....
    ______Don't get me wrong here, the Ghost Recon Player vs Player experience is A LOT of fun, however when you consider how much you end up having to pay for it to be on the same level as most of the other people playing it's value runs very low in a very short amount of time. If you want to spend over £100 to £200 just to get to same point as most of the players who just killed you, then this game is definitely for you! Oh and don't forget your £7 a month subscription to "Athena Armoury" (Entirely Optional but generally required, if you don't want to constantly repair your armour). Remember however that the weapons WILL NOT WORK the same way in a game against people as they do in the firing range. Firing range weapons work perfectly (and your targets don't move either...) in game weapons miss MUCH more of the time, I've found them harder to aim, Significantly lower on damage and in general not at all what you expect from when you've tried them in the firing range.
    ______The discrepancies between firing range and in-game could be argued to be due to player body Armour upgrades and/or lag interference, but even if this is the case i don't know how the gap can be so huge.
    ______Unless of course the game is programmed to fire almost perfectly in the firing range...... now who would want that unless you're giving them real money for the next weapon up?............ Surely not the developers of the game?...
    ______When you try a weapon from the shop and it works absolutely perfectly, compared to the weapon you're used to using... and not achieving the results you're expecting. Would you be more inclined to upgrade now, rather than waiting until you've played another 1000 games? (Which btw, will take you 20-40 minutes each on average)
    ______ Apologies to all for the extensive use of dots in my review ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . (Also i would like to add ______ is the start of a new paragraph.)
    Expand
  7. May 23, 2014
    0
    This game has very good concept but when it comes to execution,it has one of the poorest.Match making system is so flawed,there are two levelsThis game has very good concept but when it comes to execution,it has one of the poorest.Match making system is so flawed,there are two levels one is beginners (till lvl 8 ) then rest of the pack.so if start matchmaking after lvl 8 you may end very high level players with far far strong weapons and armor and they will just kill you like an insect.then there is another thing as this is F2P, devs will sell weapons forged in asgard,which are impossible to beat.we all will be taking cover and those people will walk like a beast and kill you,then server crashes,freezes frequently but no one bothers to fix it.players keep reporting issues but developers just don't do anything.In-fact I had a hard time believing that there is a F2P game from ubisoft and thought UBIsoft has changed but once you get inside the game then only you will know its the same money sucking Ubisoft. Expand

See all 119 User Reviews

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: "Splinter Cell Conviction" and Other Tom Clancy Games

    Ranked:
    Published: April 13, 2010
    How does the newest Splinter Cell game compare to previous titles in the series, and to other Tom Clancy games? Check out our rankings.