• Publisher:
  • Release Date:

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

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 215 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
    Quotation forthcoming.
  3. Aug 29, 2012
    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
    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
    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. 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: 51 out of 105
  2. Negative: 48 out of 105
  1. Apr 24, 2014
    Great game! If you play any 3rd person shooters, you will like this. With some time and effort you will get it down in no time! this game IS all about COVER! really it is...Maps are ok, they seem to be a bit unbalenced. some at least. customization is awesome, and controls are great. even if you play with a controller! always you can make it to the way you play. the game is very slow pace at first, and when the snipers come out, oh boy, are you in some heat. take your time and master a class you want to really use. it is then then perks of that class come out. some time to get ahead...you still need to pay to play tho!! You dont need to be greedy! show some support and give them your money.. $14 bucks can go a long way. which really should be the price of the game.... but w.e. Expand
  2. Oct 20, 2013
    Loving it. At first I got a little frustrated because you know, its a Pay to Win game, but then I found out that you can buy all the same stuff just with the points you get from playing (they do cost a bit more but not all that bad). Best of all, they appear to be infinite (not like combat arms where you would buy a gun to use for say, a month...). The game is really well made, has decent graphics and is fun to play (oh ya, and its FREE). Yes it still does help if the other guy has tons of money to spend on guns but because of the point system you can still get better guns w/o paying) truly, I'd give it a 9.7 but that's not on the scale. Expand
  3. Sep 7, 2012
    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.
  4. May 15, 2014
    To start off with I have played over 30 hours of Phantoms, for an intelligent review. This game is rather puzzling to me as I can't tell what audience its for, Call of Duty fans? Battlefield fans? Ghost Recon fans? Maybe fans of Gears of War? It would be safe to say from my point of view, none of them. This game is a middle of the road experience on one hand it has some redeeming features (some, not many). The controls are fine, responsive and easy to grasp, the gun and character models are well detailed, audio seems perfect, ranking, connection and game balance all seems good. However, this may be where the good bits end and what is left is a game that provides a few good moments intertwined with a hell of a lot of frustrating, dodgy and rage inducing moments.

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

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

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

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

    Final verdict:
    Ghost Recon Phantoms is in no way a bad game especially for a free to play game, but is lacks polish and it needs it desperately. Its maps are satisfactory, no real imbalance in matchmaking and the feel of being a future soldier with your riot shield(so futuristic) and microwave thingy (ready-meal some fools). Overall, Ghost Recon Phantoms seems half-cocked and unsure of what it wants to be and its micro store is a shrine of overpriced items literally forcing you to buy them with micro-transaction cash. Nonetheless, it had its fun moments and good games and isn't as bad as others in its category. Phantoms is worth a try if you are into the genre (or not), but hold back spending any real money on it as you might regret it.
  5. Feb 2, 2014
    First I'll discuss the problems, then discuss what makes the game unique.

    The problems with GRO include things like the pricing. I looked
    at the rate of earnings and cost of these items and determined it would take years to build up to the most advanced weapons and devices. 2, 3 maybe more, based on playing about 2 hours per day. They've several times increased the grind that must be done. The earliest players played before a new "tier" restriction kicked in that made it much easier to get the best weapons for less, so if you start this game now, which is VERY VERY much pay to win, you will face not only those who've mastered the mechanics, but who already have high end gear. And the best weapon gives a big boost over it's immediate 2nd best. Yes, the gear you have makes a big difference, sometimes ridiculously so. Many complaints about people "sniping" with the SPAS shotgun. The guys who have the best gear have nothing more to worry about than buying grenades, 20% damage boosting magnum rounds, and armor-boosting inserts for the most part.

    As far as nades go, they basically turned the game from a strategic game into a grenade simulator. Especially on the chertanovo level, when people get on the capture point, they can expect multiple players from the other team to throw a grenade storm upon them. Grenades often can not be run away from, and it can be hard to know where they are. They often result in immediate death. They should be limited in how often they can be used (like twice per round), but instead you can use 2 per respawn as long as you have some in your collection. Perhaps this is due to hoping to entice players to put real money in the game for more kills. It may not seem an excessive quantity if you are used to action games, but in a game where you frequently must stay in a specific area, it becomes ridiculous.

    One problem I've seen is that people can often come around corners, and before you can even think "there's an enemy" it is like you die and then they show up, or you died as soon as they came around the edge. I don't know if its something to do with programming for lag compensation or hacking. If you wonder, my internet speed is 20 Mbps and I'm no stranger to pings of 20ms. There was a hacker that had many many players reporting him, even on the official forums, but for many months or a year or more nothing was done about him, but he did get banned after forever. If only the programmers built in a demo recording feature, we could really learn a lot about what really goes on as far as hacking in this game.

    If you want to spend a few hundred dollars on this game, boost my rating to a 7. If they deal with grenades and you have a few hundred dollars, give it a 10. Otherwise, with the grenade spam and excessive factor $$$ plays into good gear, it's not really a game a serious competitive gamer would take seriously. If you play it you play it for fun, you don't come here expecting fairness and the best gamer to win. Grenade luck and good gear just affect victory far too much.


    This game features a level of significantly gameplay-affecting weapon mechanics I have not seen elsewhere that create a more strategic and uniquely fun experience. There are around 8 different weapons per category of sniper rifle, shotgun, and machine guns. Here's the significance of it all (and it is very important):

    Ready time: How long it takes before your gun is ready to shoot after certain actions like stopping from a sprint (you can not shoot while sprinting), proning...

    Control: the range your crosshair will jitter around when you shoot

    Accuracy: How accurate the bullet will hit where your crosshair is

    Might be some more stuff, but there's also attachments that affect clip size, muzzle flash, silencers, and whatever I might've forgotten.

    You can take cover in this game by pressing a button near a wall. Cover will boost your weapon's control and accuracy.

    The team tactics usually involve little more than people using their microphones to announce enemy locations to others.

    The game has 2 unique devices per class, but only one can be equipped at a time (can be changed upon each death). Recons can scan a large area for enemies that show up through walls even on their teammate's screens, or become invisible. Assaults can run extra fash with a shield to knock down enemies for a couple of seconds or they can use microwaves to nearly immobilize enemies in a large area. Specialists can make a forcefield big enough to protect several teammates (you will often die quickly from nade spam at this point), or they can use blackout to nearly stun enemies and reset their device meter.
  6. Feb 21, 2014
    A lot has changed with this game in the past few months. And not for the better.

    First, Ubisoft begrudgingly acknowledged the existence of
    a speed exploit, the "FSB" exploit as it is called. Many of us knew this existed already, despite many months of Ubisoft denying or downplaying the idea - while happily taking people's money of course. The ensuing FSB discussion led to everybody knowing how to do it, and do it they do. It has been suggested that it can never be fixed, being coded into the heart of the game engine. Ubi makes vague noises about banning these people, but their numbers only grow.

    Around that same time (coincidence?) the game became blatantly Pay To Win. Cover based game? LOL, it used to be. But who needs cover now when you can just go to the store, kit up for 100.00 and walk around the map with near impunity? Ridiculous P2W armor and weapons have destroyed what was once the best tactical teamplay shooter around. Players who support the game should get some advantage, but the advantage afforded here is laughable.

    It used to be that your play and your skills could swing matches. That you could, as a Recon, sneak up behind that heavy and headshot him from behind for a kill. No more. Now you will magdump his head, his paid armor will absorb most of the damage and he will turn around and kill you with a 50 dollar gun. It used to be that teamwork could swing games, not so any more. The matchmaker puts Big Boys (based on equipment and rank) on each side of the match, everybody else is just filler for the team, if your best equipped guys suck, you lose, no matter what you do. You are no longer rewarded for getting into perfect position and making the perfect shot, you are rewarded for buying a SPAS from Ubisoft.

    I've put money into the game, more than I care to admit to, but it has simply gone too far - I don't want to win games in the store.

    This is the company that destroyed the original Ghost Recon series, so no real surprise here.
  7. May 23, 2014
    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 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 105 User Reviews

Related Articles

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

    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.