Metascore
44

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 8 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 8
  2. Negative: 5 out of 8
  1. Unfortunately, all that's beneath the complex briefings and tactical-sounding objectives is some rather standard shooting. [June 2006, p.50]
  2. There comes a time when you should just move on. I think Tom Clancy games and the Playstation 2 should go ahead and part ways. The system just isn't powerful enough to do what I think UbiSoft really wants to do with their games.
  3. A game that just can't keep up with Clancy's ever-evolving war zone. [July 2006, p.80]
  4. This version of the game takes what should have been a wide-open, tactical experience in a massive metropolis and turns it into just another run-and-gun shooter that ramrods you through narrow corridors.
  5. Laziness of the worst kind, this is a charmless shadow of the next-gen version. There are plenty of better shooters available on PS2. [May 2006, p.82]
  6. The PS2 game was never going to compete with the Xbox 360's graphics, and neither did anyone expect it to. What we didn't anticipate was a completely dumbed down version that doesn't seem to know whether it's a straightforward first-person shooter or a tactical war game.
  7. 37
    Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is a very bad game on the PlayStation 2. It's terrible from a technical standpoint, and nothing else about its design really brings it out of the gutter.
  8. It's a sloppy, rushed port of a game that deserved better. [July 2006, p.77]
User Score
4.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 34 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 9
  3. Negative: 6 out of 9
  1. AmirulH
    Jul 21, 2009
    0
    The most disappointing game i ever seen.... When i played this game, it makes me not sense why the xbox 360 is better that playstation 2. Why? The playstation 2 cannot do more better than original PC games,but i`m gonna say, this game is worthless,stupid graphics, stupid gameplay , and you may throw this game into the rubbish.This game say the most advance graphics and gameplay but what i seen, it totally suck! But if you fan of tom clancy's game, i suggest you do not play this game.It`s bad for you. Full Review »
  2. GeorgeF.
    Apr 2, 2007
    2
    Considering this is supposed to be an elite unit, the gameplay isn't even close to being realistic. I thought GR2 was bad, but this is the worst GR yet. Even if it is, like awesome duuuuuuuuude, on the X-box 360 the Ghost teams don't act like any SF unit out there, maybe a glorified Ranger unit at best. I love how product placement by Crye and Hatch as well as the HK XM-8 (which is now a failed project and scrapped) are littered throughout the game. At least they got the Mutlicam right - everyone knows they will be replacing the useless ACUs soon anyway. Overall, it's just boring urban shooting and nothing more. Full Review »
  3. JacobiwanS.
    Oct 26, 2006
    2
    This game has it's place: 10 years ago. It's terrible, acting like a poor Wolfenstein or Goldeneye in graphics, with even worse mechanics and animation. Right off the bat, I noticed that enemies all seemed to be missing about 1/3 of their animation frames, making them appear as if they are "lagging" across screen. It's this choppy enemy movement, coupled with the poor aiming controls and lack of (intuitive) shot physics that make even the possibly entertaining shooting (as nothing else in this game is too well done or entertaining) not fun. So, with it's downfall in action, the game also boasts an incredibly linear level structure, with a bland, boring, and very Win95 "Maze" screensaver feel to the surroundings. I do not recommend this game to anyone. Full Review »