Is “Call Of Duty: Ghosts” as good as the “Modern Warfare” Trilogy?
After enduring a year of Treyarch, Call of Duty fans are finally back to the brilliance of Activision, and brilliant it is. “Call of Duty: Ghosts” is finally here and I, like many other C.O.D fans, find myself asking if it compares to its Activision predecessors. The “Modern Warfare” trilogy started off with a bang in 2007 with an amazing storyline and great multiplayer. Then in 2009, its sequel returned with an even better storyline with similar multiplayer. Then the completely forgettable “Modern Warfare 3” happened and It seems that Activision have decided that they have milked that cow dry and started this new franchise.
“Ghosts” is possibly the best way that Activision could have started another franchise. It has great characters and an immersive storyline set in a realistic world. It is set in the future, but it’s not a tacky, 80’s Sci Fi type future presented in Black Ops 2. It’s gritty, grounded in reality and focuses a bit more on stealth than any other C.O.D game so far. But does it hold a candle to the “Modern Warfare” Trilogy? I think it’s too early to tell.
It’s difficult to compare the characters between these two games, because Modern Warfare had 3 games to set up characters and the world it’s based in, where as Ghosts only has 1. But I’ll make my observations nevertheless. “Ghosts” follows the story of 2 brothers, Hesh and Logan, who are soldiers in the fight against an army that seeks to destroy America. This might sound a bit generic, but a certain amount genericness is expected in any “Call of Duty” game. By the end of this game, you do care for Hesh and the other characters (including your bad ass dog, Riley), but you never really connect with the character you play as, Logan. This is because you never see his face and he never speaks throughout the game. The same thing happens in MW1 with Captain “Soap” MacTavish, who later becomes one of the most beloved characters in the trilogy. The reason they don’t speak in their originating games, is because it makes you get more immersed into the situation if your character doesn’t have a personality. It makes the player feel like part of the game, instead of just the person controlling someone who’s part of the game.
The gameplay of Ghosts is, in my opinion, better that the Modern Warfare trilogy. But this is because C.O.D games improve on gameplay every game, due to what the fans respond to. But this still counts as points towards Ghosts. There are both missions where you have to be stealthy and use covert tactics to complete your objectives. But there are also missions where your squad kicks in the door, guns blazing, murdering everything in sight. So Ghosts does cater to all types of first-person shooter fans, much like the Modern Warfare trilogy.
The multiplayer has very much improved since Modern Warfare 3. The system of unlocking things is much better and a lot more enticing in Ghosts. You earn Unlock Tokens by playing games, and it takes multiple tokens to unlock things. It seems like they took the concept from Black Ops 2 (Where it takes one token to unlock something, but you still have to reach a certain level to buy it) and improved it 10 fold. Everything you want is right at your fingertips from the get go, you just need enough tokens. So in order to get the classes you want, you have to play enough games. This is a very clever way to get us hooked into the multiplayer and has definitely worked on me. The only thing I have against this is that you never really experiment with new equipment until you have everything you want, which could take a while if you are as particular as I am. With MW2, you can use anything you want, as long as you are above the rank required to unlock it. This facilitates experimenting, testing out new equipment, seeing what suits you and what doesn’t. But with the Ghosts unlock system, you only ever spend Tokens when you want something that you know you will use. You’re not going to waste tokens on a rifle and only use it once. For veterans of C.O.D games, this will not be a problem, because we all know what works with us and what doesn’t. But for newcomers, this system might seem intimidating and pointless. The best thing they could do for Ghosts 2, is to bring back the retro unlock system we all love from Modern Warfare 2.
One thing that made the Modern Warfare games so good is that, unlike Battlefield and Halo and Medal of Honour, your squad is the underdog and your objective isn’t always completed at the end of a mission. Many times throughout all Modern Warfare games does your plan fall through and chaos ensues and you find yourself surrounded, out-gunned and out-manned. It’s incredibly exciting for players. Ghosts carries on this tradition, but by now it feels predictable. In most missions in the game, this does happen, and it is entertaining, but it feels like a lazy way to stir up excitement. I think that Activision need to step up their game if they don’t want Ghosts to fizzle out the way Modern Warfare 3 did.
To conclude, “Call of Duty: Ghosts” matches the Modern Warfare games with it’s gameplay and probably with its characters too, but it is too early to tell with that. It’s multiplayer is better if you are comfortable with Call of Duty, but isn’t too great if you’re a newcomer and it’s plot is pretty good, but it feels used at times. The only thing we can do now is wait anxiously for Ghosts 2 and continue comparing the franchises as a whole.