'bout what everybody expected, more of the same drudgery with a few spit-shined moments in it.
I need to get this game purely because of the first image.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;42829621]'bout what everybody expected, more of the same drudgery with a few spit-shined moments in it.[/QUOTE]
He actually writes it has no shining moments at all. A few amusing ones; the silly dog and the only-used-once strobelights, but no good ones.
meanwhile at ign 11/10: not bad
I'm surprised it turned out 4/10 and not 3 or 2/10 after reading it. The opinions in the text are not the voice of a 4/10 review.
[QUOTE=Riller;42829703]He actually writes it has no shining moments at all. A few amusing ones; the silly dog and the only-used-once strobelights, but no good ones.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't using spit-shined as a good thing as people don't typically like their things being spit on :P
After taking Cod into the future, I think Treyarch could of done a "america loses the war" thing much better than IW did here.
I would totally play a game about soldiers and their dog trekking across the remains of a destroyed United States, like I thought this would be.
I don't even care that I spoiled the extremely simple story of this game by reading the Wikipedia article.
[QUOTE=Riller;42829712]I'm surprised it turned out 4/10 and not 3 or 2/10 after reading it. The opinions in the text are not the voice of a 4/10 review.[/QUOTE]
it still seems pretty OK by today's gaming standards, though if we were to judge on a scale of what we expected out of something for the budget it's a different story
You know how often games have short quotes from different reviews to make them look better? I just imagines how IW is going to quote to hide the bad reviews. Like:
[B][I]"... it’s undoubtedly going to sell phenomenally well."[/I][/B]
-PCGamesN
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42830022]it still seems pretty OK by today's gaming standards, though if we were to judge on a scale of what we expected out of something for the budget it's a different story[/QUOTE]
Impression I'm getting is kinda Warfighter/Homefront tier SP with regular sub-BO2 CoD level MP.
[QUOTE=Riller;42829712]I'm surprised it turned out 4/10 and not 3 or 2/10 after reading it. The opinions in the text are not the voice of a 4/10 review.[/QUOTE]
I would guess it's because the reviewer found the multiplayer as functional and the maps as well-designed and pretty as ever. That's just about all I could pull for that.
I hope we can get over this series some day. Just to not have developers and publishers aspire to mimic it.
[QUOTE]Ghosts - a squad of elite soldiers - rugged, exhausted survivalists who use guerilla tactics to deal with a larger, more advanced force[/QUOTE]
Loving that ironic tone, people are finally getting fed up of this 'gritty and realistic' bollocks
[QUOTE=Riller;42830202]Impression I'm getting is kinda Warfighter/Homefront tier SP with regular sub-BO2 CoD level MP.[/QUOTE]
Yeah nah, nothing is as bad a Homefront's SP, especially not this. I'd say Homefront is what we measure 0 by on the scale of 1 to 10.
[QUOTE=Marden;42830093]You know how often games have short quotes from different reviews to make them look better? I just imagines how IW is going to quote to hide the bad reviews. Like:
[B][I]"... it’s undoubtedly going to sell phenomenally well."[/I][/B]
-PCGamesN[/QUOTE]
you're acting as if IW and activision are scrambling to protect themselves. they don't need to. they could literally just shut up until they start advertising the next game in the series and they'd still break even and make a fuckton of money.
[QUOTE=Dejarie;42830295]Yeah nah, nothing is as bad a Homefront's SP, especially not this. I'd say Homefront is what we measure 0 by on the scale of 1 to 10.[/QUOTE]
I'm inclined to disagree, Homefront's SP was in terms of gameplay pretty much standard for military shooters, just with a considerable (and almost merciful) lack of content and a far more interesting environment than your typical military shooter. It also had far more reasonable system requirements.
wouldn't it have been so much better if they just set the whole game in space, with you as an astronaut repelling a single large attack on a big satellite or multiple ships? i mean you go up there twice in the game, they clearly thought the setting was fit to use.
now that both studios have done this futuristic shit i just want to see them make a fucking science fiction FPS and do something cool with their settings
4/10 is too fair.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;42836745]4/10 is too fair.[/QUOTE]
to be fair I thought game reviews never went below 6/10, maybe I haven't been following PCGamesN enough.
[QUOTE=Badballer;42837734]to be fair I thought game reviews never went below 6/10, maybe I haven't been following PCGamesN enough.[/QUOTE]
That's mostly because for one point, scores are extremely stupid anyway, but also because they have inflated more than a hot air balloon made of US Dollars.
I sort of got a little excited when they mentioned a pseudo post-apocalyptic setting, but then realised that IW would never be able to calm down long enough to craft a good atmosphere for one without something blowing up every five seconds.
well, at least the dog doesn't die.
[QUOTE=CorporalCupCake;42837835]I sort of got a little excited when they mentioned a pseudo post-apocalyptic setting, but then realised that IW would never be able to calm down long enough to craft a good atmosphere for one without something blowing up every five seconds.[/QUOTE]
It's not even post-apocalypse. Half of America's wrecked to desolate shit, half of it is perfectly fine aside from Federation troops running amok. And despite America getting its teeth kicked in by the opposition, its military is pretty much as active and capable as it was in the Modern Warfare games. And somehow the Federation control California, Arizona, and New Mexico, despite the forces coming from South America.
It's inconsistent at best, purely illogical at worst.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;42838229]It's not even post-apocalypse. Half of America's wrecked to desolate shit, half of it is perfectly fine aside from Federation troops running amok. And despite America getting its teeth kicked in by the opposition, its military is pretty much as active and capable as it was in the Modern Warfare games. And somehow the Federation control California, Arizona, and New Mexico, despite the forces coming from South America.
It's inconsistent at best, purely illogical at worst.[/QUOTE] jesus that plot makes no sence.
I can't believe I purchased the Hardened Edition of this on PC.
I am so happy that this got abmysimal ratings, hopefully modern shooters get abondoned now.
[QUOTE=Black;42838675]I am so happy that this got abmysimal ratings, hopefully modern shooters get abondoned now.[/QUOTE]
probably not, But one can't really tell with the tendencies of the inbred reactionary idiots that run major publishers.
[QUOTE=dark_console2;42838487]I can't believe I purchased the Hardened Edition of this on PC.[/QUOTE] why.? what do you get in HE that you don't get with the Normal one.?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;42843123]why.? what do you get in HE that you don't get with the Normal one.?[/QUOTE]
A bag of Doritos and a two liter of Mountain Dew.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.