• 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 236 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: 53 out of 114
  2. Negative: 55 out of 114
  1. Apr 15, 2014
    10
    this game is great for a free game. If you somewhat grind you can upgrade weopans. each game gives you 1000 credits, and it'll takethis game is great for a free game. If you somewhat grind you can upgrade weopans. each game gives you 1000 credits, and it'll take 12000-24000 credits to buy guns, and around 10000 to fully upgrade. so if you play a days worth, you can actually buy and upgrade a pretty sick gun. Great potential for team work, i say this cuz u need to play with people you know to have teamwork, nobody talks. It's a 10/10 because i can find nothing wrong with it, it's not pay to win, and its not a huge grind to get things either, its the perfecrt middleground for microtransactions. if you like tactical gameplay and not just running and gunning, this is the game for you. cover system and camera are very good. Expand
  2. Oct 20, 2013
    10
    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 sameLoving 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
    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. Jul 22, 2013
    5
    Okay, where to start.
    I find GRO a fun concept, its core mechanics executed pretty well. It's fun to run around and shoot things, levelling
    Okay, where to start.
    I find GRO a fun concept, its core mechanics executed pretty well. It's fun to run around and shoot things, levelling is fun, weapon customization is fun, different classes are fun, level design is (with exceptions) good enough and it should be a good F2P title, especially with amazing music taken from the first Ghost Recon, right? Right?
    Well hell no. The absolute gamebreaker is one: small playerbase and two: the existing playerbase is already levelled up so high it's nigh impossible to even scratch them, as they basically kill you instantly. The disproportion is incredibly awful, almost every match is a slaughterfest that will make you ragequit as you get killed over and over again because your level 5 character with his basic assault rifle can't hit a target from 50 meters and oneshot him instantly and the enemy has a pewpewgun that will rip you to shreds before you'll be able to even blink. The beginner matches for low levels I found really fun! Balanced, everyone had similar levels, no big differences in power. But when you hit level 5 (as far as I remember) you can't play the beginner matches anymore and you must play against everyone else. And basically everyone else has their characters maxed out and with some sweet 1337 equipment that makes your character look like a poor man's militia, not a soldier. It's because the balance between low tier and high tier equipment is, well, non-existant. High-tier dwarfs everything and when you jump into the non-beginner fray with your still brand-new shiny starter assault rifle you will get squashed, remains scooped up, put into a cannon and shot into the sea. The level design is not helping with it, camping spots are frequent and for well-equipped players on an underpopulated map (what happens always) it's a child's play to just take out the targets one by one as they are struggling to even leave their spawning spot. I played this game couple months ago and tried returning to it now. Nothing changed. And I have a feeling nothing will change in the future. Pity, because this game had a chance to become something really, really great. Try Firefall instead.
    Expand
  5. Nov 23, 2013
    3
    If you start out playing it...Good luck, there are so few beginner players that you are forced into playing with experienced players that haveIf you start out playing it...Good luck, there are so few beginner players that you are forced into playing with experienced players that have a of guns and equipment, that you will get killed in a matter of seconds.
    Sure the game-play is good, but the amount of you have to take while playing the matches is unbelievable.
    Not to talk about it still takes forever to find a match while you are playing against experienced players
    You will mostly end up with 3 kills and 16 deaths or so, because nearly everyone is just running around cloaked with sm-g's and shooting you from behind.
    Or they will sit at the same spot for the entire match and snipe people.

    And your team mates aren't good for They all just run around in their on little way, while the enemy team is killing us 1 by 1.

    Now the Free2Play part is not wonderful either, most of the gear is really expensive both with in-game and micro-transactions. Making it a pay2play game really quick, as alot of the items also are micro-transaction only.

    Also at the fact that you earn in-game credits at such a slow pace, you will mostly never experience anything else than the start weapons.

    Play something else is my suggestion
    Expand
  6. Apr 19, 2014
    2
    Cool animations, decent gunplay, and decent graphics. Decent, right?

    Nowp, because its 100% pay to win. More than WarZ, more than Dota.
    Cool animations, decent gunplay, and decent graphics. Decent, right?

    Nowp, because its 100% pay to win. More than WarZ, more than Dota. More than Real life.
    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 114 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.