User blog comment:AndImBatman/Why Call of Duty: Ghosts does not deserve it's unwarranted hatred/@comment-6343006-20131109192858

I hate Ghosts' campaign because I very much enoyed Black Ops II's. The key word there is "II"; for all intents and purposes, Black Ops II was a continuation of Black Ops and World at War, yet it did enough to differentiate itself from its predeccesors and stand on its own two feet; particularly in regards to the campaign, which does not rely so much on the last two as Modern Warfare 3 relied on Modern Warfare 2.

So why then, if Black Ops II can feel different enough from its predessors and still have a II in its name; why then does Ghosts, the brand new IP with a whole new setting feel so much like a continuation of Modern Warfare?

The campaign is terrible; it relys on its big, isolated setpieces to tell the story enough rather then bother with a cohesive narrative and character interaction. I mean, they're pretty cool and all, but it would be nice if they were connected by a good story with interesting characters. Seriously, the characters: generic as can be, they rarely interact with one another beyond simply talking about boring mission objectives. The dog, heavily advertised, ending up in very minor role, a few missions and he dissapears, then reappears for no reason and then dissapears again. If that's supposed to be a major gameplay aspect then no wonder the reviews are consistently lower.

The Ghosts: the fuck do they do to earn such a reputation? I mean seriously, nothing the Ghosts do throughout the entire campagin gives the impression that they're anymore special than your average post-apocolyptic military. In fact, the first we actually see of a Ghost: he's captured by the enemy, and you and his comrades try to bust him out, and you fail. Like seriously, I'm supposed to get the impression that these guys are shadowy figures who are menaces to the occupation and that's how they make their first appearence in the story.

The villains, there aren't any. What's this Federation's motive huh? They get one little explanation for the things there doing and that's about it; no further characterization beyond the fact that they don't like America. This Rorke, laughable, he'd wouldn't stand out in a Steven Seagal direct-to-video movie, the motives behind his grudge towards the heroes is based on an circumstantial event that was beyond anyone's control. Raul Menedez is ten times the villain anyone in Ghosts is, and ten times the character too.

The ending; a cop out. A generic twist that only serves to set up a sequel than provide anything more to the crap story. Black Ops II did not have to do such a thing; it relied on its own self contained story to leave you satisfied. You can do these little twist cliffhanger endings, but the story on its own has to come to its own conclusion, and if its a good cliffhanger you'll be seeing it throughout the story. No need for Black Ops II this time, how about Modern Warfare 2, the ending naturally builds up to the conclusion that Shepherd must be killed, but there is still the threat of the war that has been going on in the background since the middle act. Thus it fufills both angles; it naturally concludes its own self-contained story that ends with the death of the villain, but you also know that the story as a whole is not yet over as the war is still on. So when you see the ending, you're emotionally satisfied because you've finally killed the villain, but when the cliffhanger happens, you realize that the story is no yet over, so it works. By not killing the sloppily developed villain, Ghosts forfeits any sort of closure to its own story just so it can set up a sequel. You may say the Federation is dealt with, but they're too so poorly developed that they're more of an obstacle than an actual villainous threat.

The setting, I don't buy it, not in the slightest. I have no reason to believe this is an actual post-apocalyptic world than it is a something-bad-happened-but-everyone's-okay world. The military operates just as well as it would in the real world; even moreso, considering they've got no problem sending space commandos into space, there's a little bit of a desperate scene in the first level but it quickly leaves all that behind.

And finally, the thing that really ties it all together as to why I find the campaign such a train wreck, is because it's all tell and not show. Everything meaningful about the characters and event is explained to us, rather than shown. The Ghosts' legendary reputation; narrated while a pretty picture plays, Rorke's deep, subjugation to the Federation; told in voiceover while an elaborate slideshow plays out; what do Ghosts do when a comrade falls; Hesh will happily tell you that in a voiceover while another pretty picture plays. If Black Ops II followed this formula, the 1980s missions would not be playable, they would be reduced to voiceover. There would not be any cutscenes, with characters interacting and going through development, no that would all be just be voiceover.

Thankfully, Treyarch realized that that's not the right way of telling an engaging story. Take a look at that opening cinematic, the one that plays right before the main menu. It presents the start of Menendez' decent into villainy, and it does not need to rely on narration to get the point across, rather using dark imagery and a somber song to create a tragic scene. Compare that to the opening of Ghosts,; we just have to listen to Player-Character's-Father talk about how cool the Ghosts are while an elaborate animation plays out.

So I guess the reason I find Ghosts to be so absymal is because I expected more from its campaign because my expectations were rasied so high by Black Ops II, the superior game that did not have to completely reinvent itself to be a satifysing game. If you enjoy Ghosts because its IW giving the fans what they want; then what exactly is the point of it being called Ghosts. Why not just Modern Warfare 4, it'd be the same result.

I could talk at great lengths about everything else that Ghosts offers, but jesus, I've gone on too long, so I'd better end it here.