Skip to main content

Ghost Recon: Future Soldier- Who Shoots the Shooter-men?

One of the things that really strikes me the most about Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Future Soldier isn’t that the gameplay is extremely slick and streamlined without ever feeling “dumbed down”, to use the term forumistas and Metacritic user reviewers often deploy to erroneously describe games that are slick and streamlined. It’s that its action is extraordinarily well-framed, well-executed and unusually well-filmed. The pitch is that you’ve got four sets of boots on the ground for some third-person shooter action with a light (and appealing) overlay of gadgetry and tactics. But it’s evident that there’s a fifth man among the Ghosts- a cameraman.

Sure, the fingerprints of Call of Duty are all over the game- the requisite Bayisms, tough guy talk about intel and stuff, and those magnificent men and their shooting machines. But whereas other military shooters aspire to be like action movies with setpieces, cutscenes, and rail sequences bookended by hallway shooting galleries, this edition of Ghost Recon uses some subtle and extremely cinematic techniques to create a visceral, seamless “you are there” sense of verite. While playing through the first three missions of the game, I kept thinking that the game really has a sense of geography, space, time, and distance. I came to realize that it was because once you’re in action, everything is very nearly shot (photographically) in a single, unedited take from start to mission end.

You’ll be over the shoulder of your soldier running cover-to-cover one minute under fire, the next the camera will pan around for a scene where you rescue a CIA operative. The perspective never changes or cuts away from this phantom fifth member, the cameraman. The camera pans back around, and you’re Oscar Mike again. It’s a brilliantly employed technique working in concert with simulated handheld “shakycam” and even overused gimmicks like the ol’ dirt-on-the-lens trick sell the illusion remarkably.

READ ALSO:  Nexuiz in Review

Yet it’s not strictly a filmic style. It’s near future, so there’s this cool augmented reality information overlay and virtual HUD that halos everything. Much like in last year’s Tom Clancy title, Splinter Cell: Conviction, giant words appear in the environment to tell you where you are or what you’re doing. It’s a neat, stylized effect. I get the idea that the game is showing the players what the Ghosts see in their super duper future googles, but since this is a third person game with such a strong sense of camera, these augmented reality effects could only be occurring in that phantom camera.

Another cinematic quality that keeps impressing me over and over again is how extremely well-scripted the missions in this game are. There’s a real sense of pacing, drama, crescendo, and aftermath. You’ll be creeping along in optical camo (octocamo?), tossing a pilotable UAV drone to mark targets and enabling a one-button command to your team to perform a simultaneous takedown.  It’s deliberate, methodical, and quiet. But then it all goes pear-shaped. Somebody saw one of those bodies you just made, and the next thing you know you’re ducking behind a crumbling concrete wall under fire from a machine gun mounted on a light truck. Shootouts are intense, over quickly, and feel appropriately dangerous. Civilians hit the deck. Watermelons in the fruit stand explode in vivid washes of red. Then it’s quiet again.

This game also uses on-rails sequences with heavy scripting, but in such a way that I actually like them. There’s been a couple of exfiltration goals where the character has to drag a VIP through heavy fire to a checkpoint. It’s you, the guy you’re dragging, and a pistol. Bad guys (who come in both brown and American varieties this time, in what must be a new trend) pop out. And you actually kind of feel like a bad ass popping them, not like you’re playing Hogan’s Alley. They’re integrated perfectly into the action of the narrative, creating tension. I haven’t seen a turret sequence yet. I hope that I don’t.

READ ALSO:  Cracked LCD- Aquasphere in Review

The quality of seamless cinematic visual technique along with this sense of rising and falling action are examples of the things that really distinguish the title from falling into the me-too military shooter trap. It hits all of the genre touchpoints- including some of the more clichéd or overused ones- but its style and the quality of the gameplay set this one apart. The gunplay is great, the cover system is as good as any I’ve ever seen, the stealth works, the gadgets are fun, and the team AI actually isn’t atrocious. There’s a lot going for this game, even in its single player offering which is supposedly a good 10-12 hour event. The multiplayer is good, but you lose some of the interesting film-like qualities of the single player game.

The single player story sucks, though- it’s not even trash action movie bad. It’s vague and empty. You do, like, special forces stuff. And there’s intel. Always intel. For some reason you have to go to Bolivia, shown on a science fiction map with cool fonts. And there’s hostiles!  As for the characters, who knows?  I can’t even remember the lead’s name and they say it every time you die. There’s a scene early on where they’re sitting in a bunk talking about car parts and listening to white trash nu-metal, but that hardly makes these soldiers real people. They may as well be commando raccoons, and the missions arcade game levels. I’m actually kind of OK with that, because the focus is on the gameplay rather than a Z-grade Hollywood script that I would likely care nothing about. It’s ironic that the game uses filmic techniques so well but pulls up well before it turns into another would-be interactive action movie. It stays a video game, and I appreciate its honesty.

READ ALSO:  Cracked LCD- Shadows of Malice in Review

Michael Barnes

Games writer Michael Barnes is a co-founder of as well as His trolling has been published on the Web and in print in at least two languages and in three countries. His special ability is to cheese off nerds using the power of the Internet and his deep, dark secret is that he's actually terrible at games. Before you ask, no, the avatar is not him. It's Mark E. Smith of The Fall.

8 thoughts to “Ghost Recon: Future Soldier- Who Shoots the Shooter-men?”

  1. There is a turret sequence, which I’m sure you’ve reached by now, but I didn’t find it particularly horrible. It is over quickly like the VIP sections and wouldn’t even be a turret if you were playing co-op and playing a different character. Those on-rails scenes really change dynamic in the co-op portion.

    Honestly, I’ve been a fan of the Clancy games and played most of them not long after the first trailer for Conviction. Something about the baddass-ness really got me going. Now I have all available TC games for the 360, sometimes two copies(thanks bargain bins!) for multiplaying.

    Part of what I love is the co-op. I find it far better to play together than against.

    I’m also proud of you for not harping on outdated controls. That seems like a cheap excuse to make a game sound bad because newer games make guns easier to control. Having fired a pistol once or twice myself (literally), I feel like I can say with confidence that guns should never feel “easy” to control.

    Also, I enjoy that there are little to no “meatbag hallways” that litter or comprise most modern shooters. The open level design (or at least the feeling of it) give the missions replayability and a sense of choice that few other single player campaigns compare to.

  2. Just to echo you: “dumbed down” is a phrase that immediately makes me check out of a debate, if it’s used by itself. Most of the time, it’s just a way of saying you’re better than people who can’t, or won’t, use a keyboard and mouse (or a hundred nested menu screens).

    1. Agreed on ‘dumbed down’ as a phrase that’s used far too often.

      Here’s hoping that the PC version is just as entertaining.

      Oh, and no-one commented on the Watchmen reference? Shame on you!;)

  3. I think people refer to this as “dumbed down” because it’s in stark contrast to all of the games in the series thus far. GR, GRAW, and GRAW2 for Windows were all tactical shooters for the most part (keep in mind GRAW and GRAW2 were entirely different games on consoles) GRFS is squarely an action game like CoD.

    You’ll hear the same complaints with the Rainbow Six series for every title after R6 3.

    1. I remember the good old days of Desert Siege & Island Thunder, when we had to actually plan out a route of attack (Frozen Synapse style).

      It’s a product of the time. Is scripted, polished & a fun weekend shooter ? Sure. But nothing else.

  4. I picked this up and played through the first 3 missions today and I generally agree with this mini review. My only complaint so far is the load times. They do recommend a full install in the opening screens. But I just don’t feel like doing that for a 10 hour campaign that will be finished by Tuesday night. Looking forward to the multiplayer once the campaign is done.

  5. Also I am OK with the story so far. A bomb killed another ghost team and your team is trying to find the source of weapons. That seems plausible for a 4 man insertion team to me. Nobody is invading the US or getting ready to unleash super secret mind control weaponry. (so far)

  6. OK I ran into an ugly bug in the campaign. There is a section about 15 minutes into mission 4 where you and your squad are supposed to group up and breach a door. I’ve played the mission 3 times and each time one of my squad mates gets stuck and refuses to get into his spot.

    Check please. I’m done.

    Not sure if I’ll try the multi or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *