Reviews for Bethesda's Ghostwire Tokyo are starting to roll in. It's looking like there's a lot to like in Shinji Mikami's new open world, despite some notable drawbacks from critics. Remember, this one is a PS5 exclusive at launch — much like Deathloop — with Ghostwire Tokyo expected to hit Xbox consoles, and Game Pass, about a year later.
Here's what the critics are saying so far about Ghostwire Tokyo:
Siliconera (10/10)
Odds are Ikumi Nakamura’s infectious introduction of Ghostwire: Tokyo is what got you first interested in the title. From there, it was the promise of an action-filled adventure through the streets of Tokyo. Toss in a healthy dose of Japanese folklore, letting players pet every animal in the game, and climbing to the tippy top of 109. All of this sure sounds like a winner for Tango Gameworks. And if my addiction to hunting down every darn hidden item in this game means anything, get the trophies ready.
Stevivor (9/10)
On the topic of visuals, Ghostwire Tokyo does a tremendous job of showcasing its third real protagonist: Tokyo itself. From rain-slicked streets, colourful neon signs and well-kept alleyways all perpetually drenched in the unnatural red light of a blood moon, Ghostwire feels like being in the real locale… though admittedly not at the best time. The discomfort of wandering through a silent city you know should be bustling 24/7 — broken up only by the tinny sounds of convenience store music and the crackling radio sounds indicative of nearby Visitors — puts the mind on edge, without being relentless.
Game Informer (8/10)
I fully expect some people won't be smitten with the game the way I am, and I think it's completely understandable if you don't want to forgive the game for that. But if GhostWire connects with you, I think it'll really connect with you. It's weird and unique, and I think it's great to see this kind of game get this kind of budget, put it all on the table, and use that money to do some baffling and great art. And for that alone, I can't help but love GhostWire.
Gamespot (8/10)
Ghostwire: Tokyo doesn't reinvent the wheel when it comes to open-world games, but its unique setting, tremendous attention to detail, and singular combat make it stand out amongst its contemporaries. The story stumbles and not all of the side missions are particularly engaging, yet these aspects are easy to push to the back of your mind when you're using finger guns to tear through corrupted spirits with dazzling aplomb. Shinji Mikami is a legendary director, but taking a backseat and letting new voices come to the fore has paid off.
VG24/7 (4/5)
Ghostwire: Tokyo is wildly different from anything Tango Gameworks has produced. Gone are the third-person shooter trappings of studio head Shinji Mikami’s Resident Evil 4 that translated so well to The Evil Within, and absent is the dreary, murky art style and creature design that naturally lent itself to the aforementioned survival horror game. This Tokyo-set caper feels like Tango kicking off the training wheels and hitting its stride, putting on a dazzling showcase with brilliant lights and colours, contrasting strongly to the hideous creatures that permeate Shibuya.
GamesRadar (3.5/5)
Ghostwire: Tokyo is ostensibly a first-person shooter, albeit one where your fingers shoot wind, water, and fire bullets. The combat is uncomplicated and desperately in need of depth, but there's a magic to its presentation and execution that will so easily enrapture your attention. The flashes of light as Akito's fingers contort, the fizz of energy as his wrists shift between shapes beneath hammers of the DualSense triggers – it'll draw you in and let you lean back; saving the world has never felt so undemanding.
PCGamesN (7/10)
Indeed, Ghostwire often feels like an indie wearily adopting the trappings of a blockbuster out of obligation. The result is bloat and bombast that just ends up obscuring the beautiful oddness it does so well. I guess checklists and towers are the price you pay to look this good, and make no mistake, this is a gorgeous game. Not just technically, either. Ghostwire boasts Tango’s most arresting and creative environmental manipulation to date.
IGN (7/10)
Ghostwire’s world is also a thoroughly modern snapshot of Shibuya. This is not an idealised version of the area, but one which reflects its growing pains as prolonged gentrification changes its very nature. In this game there's still plenty of the old, edgy Shibuya to explore, as well as numerous other aspects of the ward that exist outside the touristy core, but alongside those we have the shiny new developments that have fundamentally altered its skyline, not to mention a number of construction sites that herald yet more change. Ghostwire: Tokyo captures a specific moment in this district's life, and it makes for an impressively multifaceted setting.
Push Square (6/10)
General quality aside, the game isn’t entirely unlike past Tango Gameworks efforts. While it's not straight-up horror, it's still pretty spooky. Effective sequences turn reality and closed spaces on their head while haunting imagery is plastered along walls. This happens randomly out in the open world just as much as during scripted story scenarios, so it's a well-implemented feature. Nothing here will give you a genuine jump scare or really get under your skin, but what it does do is unnerving enough to unseat any sense of comfort.
VGC (3/5)
For a game that’s so unique in its visual language, the mission structure of Ghostwire: Tokyo is surprisingly safe. At multiple points throughout the game, you’ll be tasked with clearing Tori gates, those iconic structures that are throughout Japan. In order to do this, you’ll need to clear the area of enemies, then stand in front of it for a few seconds. It essentially functions like an Assassin’s Creed tower, however instead of revealing some of the map, it allows you to travel to new areas of the city that were previously covered in a deadly fog.
So, there you have it! Ghostwire Tokyo is looking like a bit of a mixed bag, sitting at 75 on Metacritic at the time of writing. Still, this one really intrigues us, and its open world depiction of Tokyo looks a joy to explore.
Will you be playing this when it comes to Xbox Game Pass next year? Let us know in the comments.
Comments 20
Having read several reviews that Game Informer quote is probably the most apt. Look forward to giving this a go on Game Pass.
This game always looked like it's going to appeal to a niche audience for me. It looked really odd and way out there for me, no even sure I'll be playing it once in gamepass. But that doesn't mean it won't be highly regarded by a lot of folks. It does seem that the industry seems to link appealing to the massive casuals as good game vs being amazing at something niche.
Even if the reception has been mixed, the gameplay, the visuals and the setting look so unique and intriguing from what I've seen. I'd rather play a unique game like this than the many kinds of games we've already seen so much of time and time again.
I’m still thinking of grabbing this. There are some good reviews (as highlighted) and it does intrigue me as something different. Should wait for GamePass but we’ll see.
The combat just looks like it will get old fast and be a bore fest after a few hours, hopefully they are working on the evil within 3 after this
Eh, I’ll try it on gamepass. I like rough gems with their own unique identity if they speak to me.
kind of sad for the devs that they made a game only good enough to play if it's at no extra cost on gamepass.
It always 'looked' like a typically 'niche' Japanese style game to me. I'm sure that fans of these type of games will be much more discerning over the differences but to me, it looked very similar to numerous other games.
It was 'never' on my radar for that reason. Regardless of whether it scored 100% on metacritic, a positive 75%+ or lower, it was never a game on my radar.
At least on Game Pass there is 'no' high cost entry to try games that are more 'niche' than mainstream, discover new genres, new ideas etc and not feel annoyed/disappointed that you didn't get your 'money's worth'. At least with 'Deathloop' and Ghostwire: Tokyo, they should 'both' be 'perfect' having had an extra 'year' to port, polish and patch the game before it releases on Xbox.
seems like a perfect Game Pass game. interesting, but i'm not sure i would ever outright buy it; not with my current backlog lol
@RevGaming I disagree that this (or any other game) is 'only good enough to play on Game Pass'. If Game Pass wasn't a thing, this game would still of existed and, assuming it was as well received, the comments would be about 'waiting' for a sale, waiting for the 'inevitable' price drop, waiting for it to come to PS+/GwG.
Now with Game Pass, and safe in the knowledge its going to end up on Game Pass, probably Day 1, I can totally understand why a 'Niche' game that's not raising the critical bar and 'exclusive' to PS5 is perhaps better to wait for it to come to Xbox on 'Game Pass'. I'm sure that 'some' Xbox gamers may actually 'buy' the game too.
To me, MSFS is a 'Game Pass' only game - its not something I would EVER buy so its only 'good enough' to try 'free' on Game Pass regardless of the 'critical' acclaim. The 'critical' success is the 'only' thing that makes me think it might be worth looking at for free, but NOT spending money on because its NOT my type of game.
As far as I am concerned, EVERY game is competing for my valuable 'Game' time and the only difference that Game Pass makes is that these games don't require an 'upfront' financial investment as well before I can invest my time into them. It doesn't change the games, make them 'worse' etc - its the same game choices as non-subscribers competing for 'their' time and money.
If I don't have to spend £50+up-front to occupy my valuable game time, its a Win in my book. All those 3rd Party games that 'release' in the more 'traditional' way, demanding a financial investment upfront have to be something that I really 'must' play on Day 1, and to be 'better' than ALL those 'free' games (old and new) I can play on Game Pass, better than any game in my backlog to make me not only want to spend my time in them instead, but also spend the money. If not, I have 'plenty' of options to fill my time until that 'game' either becomes available on a service I have or drops to a 'price' I am willing to pay to play.
@BAMozzy I disagree. All I see is people are ok with the games they receive as long as they're "free".
People might be lowering the standards year per year basis.
It's better for the game not be bought then. That pushes them to not make an "it's just ok" game game.
Gamepass is an scapegoat/excuse card imo. Looking at the third party "AAA" offerings is telling.
Better to pick the topic again when Redfall, Forza Motorsport and Starfield releases this year.
@RevGaming If Game Pass wasn't being used, then you'd still get people saying this game is 'only good enough' to buy in a sale, when the price 'drops', if/when it comes to PS+/GwG. Some people won't buy a '8' rated game at 'launch' because the critical review wasn't 'good' enough for them to justify buying at launch.
In some ways, Game Pass is better because most wouldn't even consider buying this - maybe a bit 'niche' so the fact that its 'interesting' enough to wait to 'try' it when it does come to GP could be seen as a 'win' too. Its at least attracted someone to try a game they would never of bought.
3rd Party publishers may well just use Game Pass for 'numbers'. Sea of Thieves 'could' of struggled without Game Pass as it benefits 'more' from player numbers. It may of struggled to sell a few million and then 'died' because the community left. Therefore I can understand why 3rd Party 'online' games maybe more likely to release on Game Pass as they want 'numbers' more to sell more MTX etc.
However, I still think that ALL games are still competing for your time. A bad game is still a 'bad' game, whether you buy it or get it free. If its 'good' enough to make someone 'want' to play it, want to try it, want to spend their time 'checking it out', when there are '100's' of 'great' games (new and OLD) available to play for Free.
This game isn't 'just' competing for my time, but also my money. However, I have games like ME Legendary edition, Forza Horizon 5, Psychonauts 2, GotG and ALL the other 'great' games in my backlog and on Game Pass ALL competing 'just' for my time. It doesn't matter where 'new' games release, whether they require an upfront financial investment first or not, its still competing for my time with EVERY other game I have access to. It has to be 'better' (as in I want to play it more) than 'everything' else currently available.
If I didn't have Game Pass, its still competing for my time and would still not think its 'worth' buying day 1 because I have games in my backlog I'd rather spend my valuable game-time in. I'm not going to spend my time in a 'bad' new game when I have a LOT of great games I'd rather be playing.
This game was 'built' to sell, built for the traditional market. IF MS hadn't acquired Bethesda, then this would only be Sold and perhaps wouldn't be on Game Pass at all. It doesn't 'change' the game, the comments would be a 'hard pass' (so no sale) or at best, wait for sales. Game Pass doesn't affect the quality - look at the vast majority of 3rd Party games built to 'sell' at £60+ - was Cyberpunk, BF2042, CoD: Vanguard, Marvels Avengers etc etc 'worth' £60 compared to playing Halo, MSFS, FH5, Gears 5 etc - all built knowing they would release Day 1 on Game Pass free or were you 'better off' buying those instead??
@RevGaming I do get what you mean though about being more 'lenient' on standards because they haven't got that financial cost invested into the game beforehand.
That being said, I still don't think that's fair because when they play, they are still expecting the 'game' to live up to the same 'standard' as those that are not subscribed. Forza Horizon is still the 'same' game regardless of whether you are a Game Pass Subscriber - these aren't 'free to play' games in that sense and Subscribers expected it to be 'bigger/better' than its 'predecessor'.
Lowering/removing the upfront financial investment with Game Pass doesn't mean the Quality or expectation of gamers will drop. Xbox games will still be 'compared' to Sony Studio games and lets not forget, that ALL Game Pass games are 'sold' too to non-subscribers and/or other platforms.
What Game Pass does is enable gamers to play games they wouldn't of bought, wouldn't try etc so saying hat they'll try it when it comes to Game Pass is a 'positive', not a 'negative'. Its an extra person checking the game out, making up their 'own' mind that wouldn't of tried it - introducing them to games they wouldn't experience etc.
It still has to be 'good enough' to make people want to try it instead of spending their time in other games. It still has to be 'good enough' to keep them 'engaged' in it instead of playing something else. The ONLY difference is that Game Pass Subscribers don't have the upfront financial cost invested in it 'before' they even start...
If Hogwarts releases the same day as Starfield for example, I also don't have to decide which is best to buy Day 1 - I could Buy Starfield and wait for Hogwarts to drop in price or vice versa, or play Starfield on GP, and buy Hogwarts day 1 so get to play both Day 1 for 'less' money because I subscribed to Game Pass.
These games are still Sold to 'non-subscribers' and the 'same' game. The quality isn't 'worse' on GP because its 'free'. Its still competing for my 'time', just not my 'upfront' financial investment!
@BAMozzy
I don't think you get why waiting for a sale and waiting a game to be on a service that you will pay regardless of how good that game is are different scenarios. One pushes the dev and the publisher, the other one barely does.
About the numbers. More incentive to nickel and dime players with MTX? Competing for my time doesn't push the quality. Look at GT7 and making the payouts less rewarding.
Competing for my time and money should be the norm.
I don't think is competing for your money. You're already subbed. It doesn't have to be better. You can download it, play a few minutes and decide to skip it. A lot of subs don't finish most of those "free" games and they're just as happy.
No offense, but you write a lot. My bad if I sound like an arse. In a bad mood.
@BAMozzy I'm answering because I want to respect the time you spent.
Um. Yeah, those $60 games were trash and now they need to make better ones next time. They can't just rely on Gamepass for their shortcomings.
I don't think people have the same standards for Gamepass games vs $60-70 games. That's not what I'm seeing from both push and pure sites and other discussion sites.
"What Game Pass does is enable gamers to play games they wouldn't of bought". I think this should never be the case. Make an enticing enough game for them to buy. It's better for the consumer at the end of the day.
"It still has to be 'good enough' to make people want to try it instead of spending their time in other games."
Not as much. Not even half (if you could measure it).
"If Hogwarts releases the same day as Starfield for example, I also don't have to decide which is best to buy Day 1"
But that's how it should be. It pushes quality. You may spend more, but you get a better product at the end of the day.
@RevGaming I still think you are missing the point. Without Game Pass, Starfield and Hogwarts are still competing for your time and money. The fact I have Game Pass doesn't change what I 'expect' from Bethesda, from a AAA game etc. It doesn't change what the industry, the 'review' score etc.
If you 'don't' Subscribe, as millions of gamers don't, then you'll still have that 'traditional' choice between which game you'd 'rather' invest in first. Starfield is still being 'Sold' at full price and non-subscribers will still expect to get their 'money's worth'.
As I said, I can understand if these were 'free' games vs paid for, but these are also 'sold' to non-subscribers and those 'non-subscribers' would probably say an '8' or less rated game isn't worth buying Day1 at its most 'expensive' price, but to wait for the price to drop, sales or maybe even wait to see if it does come to PS+/GwG. If you don't subscribe, these games still cost money, still have to be 'good' enough to 'sell' too.
If I have to spend money to play a game, its still got to be more appealing than anything I have access to - regardless of Subscriptions. Why spend £60 to play something, just because its new, when I have great games I want to play in my collection. The only difference Game Pass makes is that my collection is now much larger but I'm not going to play a 'bad' game just because its free when I have 'great' games to play -either 'new' I've bought, 'new' to a 'subscription' (Game Pass, EA Play, PS+ or GwG) or games in my backlog. It makes NO sense to me to play something 'mediocre' or not enjoyable, when I could be playing countless other games.
Regardless of whether Starfield, Redfall etc are on Game Pass or not, they'll still be reviewed as a paid for game as they are still available to buy - whether you Subscribe to Game Pass or not.
@BAMozzy Starfield is not, since it's on Gamepass. Maybe for you it doesn't change, but I see others that don't care as much since it's "free". Hogwarts has more pressure to be better
In the end I disagree. I don't think Xbox games have to be as good as Sony's or third party publisher since they're basically "free". Look, I have friends on xbox and most think this way. Gamepass is probably the most used "gaming" word by xbox users at this point.
The review score will be the same, I just think people won't care if it's a 90, 80 or 70. They're getting it for "free".
Look, I see that you're not like that, but if the majority decide games should be lower in standard so they can get them on the service, then that's what they will decide. We have no control over the market. If this gen is the last good one, so be it I guess (including spartacus).
I'm sure stevivors review score would've been alot lower if Microsoft didn't own Bethesda now
i hope the future bethesda lineup will be stronger with starfield as standard of future bethesda games because every games released to date look kind of average at best, starfield will show them the way. 😎
I will definitely give this a go once it comes to xbox.
Doesn't look like a game for everyone, but good for what it is. Hell, I am excited about a new IP that tries something new.
Didn't care for Deathloop, but having to wait a year on this one kinda sucks.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...