Ghostbusters Reviews
Ghostbusters (2016) is a cynical bit of licensed drivel
If you're looking for an inoffensive movie cash-in to play with your couch co-op partner and you're tired of Lego games, well, here ya go. Ghostbusters will get you through a few levels of mildly pleasant action before you shrug and see what's new on Netflix. That's about all she's got in the ol' proton pack, but as far as movie tie-in games go, it could certainly be much worse.
Ghostbusters fulfills your worst expectations of licensed games.
Have no fear of this ruining your childhood; it barely tries hard enough to ruin your afternoon.
This is the sort of game that great uncles and grandmas are going to buy for the young people in their lives because they heard Ghostbusters was popular, or that littler kids will point out in the mall just after seeing the movie. But no informed gamer should fall for the siren song of that catchy main theme. It’s not actively painful to play if you happen to be at your eight-year-old cousin’s house and need a co-op game for six to eight hours that’s not going to require much skill. But you could do so much better. I can’t imagine ever wanting to drop a full 50 dollars on it, especially considering there are plenty of games out there that are equally fun to play for kids and adults.
Ghostbusters has a vaguely half-decent core, but stretches it too far over interminable levels wrecked by mindless repetition and a lack of strong ideas. It’s dull played solo, tedious in multi-player and generally no fun whatever you do. The new movie has its lovers and its haters, but the game will create no such divisions. Whoever you are, whatever you like, it’s just no good.
Even as someone who doesn’t have a deep affinity for Ghostbusters, I can’t help but feel that the license deserves a better game than this. It captures none of the camaraderie or the imagination that’s seen in the films. There’s no personality here, and gamers are left with a $50 twin stick shooter that doesn’t have a single interesting idea in it. Play Furi, Nuclear Throne, or Enter the Gungeon instead. There’s absolutely nothing here worth your time, especially if you “ain’t afraid of no ghosts.”
There's precious little sign of excitement, imagination or progression, the weapons are weedy and the storytelling poor. Given that there are plenty of other twin-stick shooters with better gameplay and graphics out there, you'd be mad to buy it were it a fiver. At [its launch price], however? That's the biggest joke of all.
A repetitive experience that somehow makes hunting down ghoulish spirits dull
Ghostbusters as a couch co-op game is a dream on paper. Unfortunately, the execution from FireForge Games is so lackluster and devoid of quality that publisher Activision should be ashamed in having released it. It’s a shameless tangential cash-in based entirely on the power of an already-maligned reboot that nobody asked for. I’ll go see the movie for the popcorn, but let’s leave this game in the Containment Unit. Light is green, trap is clean.
Roger Ebert once famously opined that video games are not art, and Ghostbusters is Exhibit A for his case. This is not art. It barely qualifies as a game. Sure, it's not broken like some games are. It's functional. It works. But there's no risk, no ambition, and not a trace of anything resembling the personality of the Ghostbusters movies or cartoons. This is a game that seems like it was made with the specific purpose of tricking parents who don't know any better into buying it for their kids.Who ya gonna call? The Samaritans, probably.
Much of this review has been spent pointing out Ghostbusters’ flaws and issues.
Again, it’s not horrendous like the NES effort, and it’s a little more capable than Sanctum of Slime. But this Ghostbusters lacks any sort of charm or, worse yet, any reason to see it through to the end.
If you can get it for far cheaper than it's going for, if you can play it with friends, and if you have totally exhausted every other twin-stick shooter on the market, then I can give Ghostbusters a very weary "maybe" recommendation. Yet everything this game does is done far better and far cheaper by so many other games.
The one saving grace is that Ghostbusters is dull rather than boring. Played in short bursts, a level or two at a time, it’s still rather fun, even more so when you have some friends in tow. Parents with young children who fancy a break from endless LEGO titles may also consider a look at Ghostsbusters, but for everyone else, I recommended you hunt down the far superior Ghostbusters: The Video Game from 2009.
Ghostbusters incorporates a local co-op mode where you can play with a friend which would be a nice addition if the game was any fun.
Simply put, this is a cash in the likes of which I’ve hardly seen. I usually find some redeeming qualities in a movie tie in, even if it’s lacking. Here I’m not seeing much of any redeeming qualities, at all. There was one check mark that Activision most likely needed to ensure when creating this game and that was keeping the franchise license from expiring.
Nothing redeems Ghostbusters from coming across as an overly priced tie-in to the movie’s release in theaters. If you thought bad licensed games were a thing of the past, you thought wrong. Though the game is only bad in the sense of how boring it is to play, if commits the worst gaming sin of being mediocre. It’s not good enough that you enjoy playing it, and it’s not bad enough that you can enjoy its awfulness. Instead its smack in the middle and totally passable because of it.
Ghostbusters was incredibly disappointing and this game is a bland experience I'd suggest staying away from until it reaches the price of other regular digital titles.