[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184692]It's funny about that. I remember when BF3 came out an an IGN review got leaked that said 8.0 and the Battlefield thread flipped the fuck out. They couldn't believe that Battlefield 3 had gotten one point less than MW2. It was an outrage! How could anyone trust IGN after that?
Turns out the real review was 9.0. All the sudden, replies of "a better review" and "more fair" and "I agree with IGN" on this one. Critical reviews are only untrustworthy when they give ratings to games higher than you personally expected.
Do I consider IGN or Gamespot to be the word of the gaming gods, handed down to us from the mountain? Nope. But I don't then turn around and say that "critic reviews" are untrustworthy. When 10 different major publications give the game 8 to 10 out of 10 scores then that just means it's a pretty good game.[/QUOTE]
IGN sucks and anybody with any kind of intelligence knows this.
Large critics have been known to take payment from developers for better reviews, hence why I actually stopped trusting them a while ago. It's fun to read them sometimes, but you shouldn't let them sway your view on the game too much. It is possible to agree with their sentiments, but that doesn't mean the game is objectively good.
Well, I just saw the ending to the epic story from COD 4 I was begging to see concluded.
(ending spoilers obviously)
[sp]Every fucking person dies, its a joke. The ending was just outrageous, with Makarov surviving falling out of a helicopter and 2 shots from a desert eagle to the chest (whilst still standing) and then having the energy to fight back Price again. Then, Captain Price looks at his corpse and the game ends. What the fuck.[/sp]
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;33184724]Why are you going on about BF3 in this thread? What does that have to do with MW3?
When review sites are giving 9 or 10 out of 10 for a game that TONS of fans of the franchise are saying "it's the same as MW2," it's not much of a stretch to go "hmm, maybe these reviewers aren't being entirely honest with their opinions."[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about BF3, I'm talking about a review for BF3. It has nothing to do with MW3, but we aren't talking about MW3, we are talking about game reviews.
Also got a friend on steam telling me right now after playing it for a few hours it's pretty good, a lot like MW2, but still a pretty great game and he is having more fun playing it than Battlefield 3.
IDK if that is relevent to anyone, Fisk keeps creating weird requirements for who is and is not allowed to have a valid opinion about video games.
[QUOTE=gamerman345;33184809]Well, I just saw the ending to the epic story from COD 4 I was begging to see concluded.
[sp]Every fucking person dies, its a joke. The ending was just outrageous, with Makarov surviving falling out of a helicopter and 2 shots from a desert eagle to the chest (whilst still standing) and then having the energy to fight back Price again. Then, Captain Price looks at his corpse and the game ends. What the fuck.[/sp][/QUOTE]
You forgot the part where [sp]Makarov gets stabbed in the fucking throat and is not only still alive after a chopper crash but can talk perfectly fine. Also IW were too lazy to model his neck wound, you can see during the last quick time event (which the end part had WAY too many of).[/sp]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33184778]IGN sucks and anybody with any kind of intelligence knows this.
Large critics have been known to take payment from developers for better reviews, hence why I actually stopped trusting them a while ago. It's fun to read them sometimes, but you shouldn't let them sway your view on the game too much. It is possible to agree with their sentiments, but that doesn't mean the game is objectively good.[/QUOTE]
If it was just IGN, or IGN and Gamestop I'd agree.
But the 90/100 on Metacritic that aggregates plenty of small and medium-sized publishers is pretty telling.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184818]I'm not talking about BF3, I'm talking about a review for BF3. It has nothing to do with MW3, but we aren't talking about MW3, we are talking about game reviews.
Also got a friend on steam telling me right now after playing it for a few hours it's pretty good, a lot like MW2, but still a pretty great game and he is having more fun playing it than Battlefield 3.
IDK if that is relevent to anyone, Fisk keeps creating weird requirements for who is and is not allowed to have a valid opinion about video games.[/QUOTE]
I don't see what your point is about game reviews either. BF3 probably didn't deserve a 9 either, but like MW3 it's a large IP with tons of publisher money and advertising behind it. Surprise, high scores!
[QUOTE=Goz3rr;33184071]I have bought both BF3 and MW3, and started playing them with no preference in mind, but i'd really like some hardcore CoD players to explain this:
- It took me 5 minutes to get in the first match. Battlelog may be derp but this is even worse
- WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THIS BLUR (Highest settings, 4x AA, 1920x1080)
[thumb]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/594701250509791677/4F7ABD58C915AD0F33BE1C1BF474F8619B6A89CD/[/thumb]
Then, dat texture quality:
[thumb]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/594701250509808095/BBB39DEED47BF8FBF9174E883EF1839D5071B0EB/[/thumb]
And finally, how can this even happen when you have 4x AA on?? (Look at the barbed wire on the fence)
[thumb]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/594701250509795329/67AA2A227D1527BE0F3191CB40794D3B8033AED0/[/thumb]
[b]View full size to see what i mean[/b][/QUOTE]
That's PC porting for you. Activision doesn't give jackshit about PC gamers and just throw very poor PC ports that lack proper support and actual proper tweaking via options.
This and shitty Internet support. Black Ops was a bitch to play on PC because of all the random lag.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184844]If it was just IGN, or IGN and Gamestop I'd agree.
But the 90/100 on Metacritic that aggregates plenty of small and medium-sized publishers is pretty telling.[/QUOTE]All it proves is that small/medium sized reviewers need that review copy and ad money from Activision just as much as anyone else. They are giving MW3 PERFECT SCORES. Are you fucking kidding me? I don't care WHAT you think of Call of Duty, if you think MW3 is a perfect game you've either got an agenda or you're just dumb.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184844]If it was just IGN, or IGN and Gamestop I'd agree.
But the 90/100 on Metacritic that aggregates plenty of small and medium-sized publishers is pretty telling.[/QUOTE]
That was only with around 40 reviews last I checked. There are hundreds of websites out there, some of which haven't even received a copy (PC Gamer, RPS, many independent). Whether not sending the copies out to certain places was intentional or not, using the week 1 Metacritic score for a game is still not a good way for a partially objective view of it. You can't just aggregate the fastest reviewers and say the game is objectively good without a wider opinion.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;33184865]I don't see what your point is about game reviews either. BF3 probably didn't deserve a 9 either, but like MW3 it's a large IP with tons of publisher money and advertising behind it. Surprise, high scores![/QUOTE]
Yes, I am sure they bribed the fuck out of the more than a dozen small time, no name game reviews that Metacritic also chooses. Is 9 out of 10 high for games like MW3 and BF3? Probably, they are fairly derivative the both of them. But FPS games are the hot ticket right now just as RPG's were last decade.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184818]I'm not talking about BF3, I'm talking about a review for BF3. It has nothing to do with MW3, but we aren't talking about MW3, we are talking about game reviews.
Also got a friend on steam telling me right now after playing it for a few hours it's pretty good, a lot like MW2, but still a pretty great game and he is having more fun playing it than Battlefield 3.
IDK if that is relevent to anyone, Fisk keeps creating weird requirements for who is and is not allowed to have a valid opinion about video games.[/QUOTE]This is my personal opinion of who I trust.
[B]I[/B] do not generally trust the fanbase of a game saying it is good. Or reviewers saying it is good.
I would reconsider and be more interested if someone who disliked the fanbase/game series suddenly turning and saying it is good.
Do you not understand that these are my personal opinions?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33184895]That was only with around 40 reviews last I checked. There are hundreds of websites out there, some of which haven't even received a copy (PC Gamer, RPS, many independent). Whether not sending the copies out to certain places was intentional or not, using the week 1 Metacritic score for a game is still not a good way for a partially objective view of it. You can't just aggregate the fastest reviewers and say the game is objectively good without a wider opinion.[/QUOTE]
I never said it was objectively good, I was countering the opinion that it was objectively worse than previous entries in the series.
Also from what I hear the PC version is pretty good
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184905]Yes, I am sure they bribed the fuck out of the more than a dozen small time, no name game reviews that Metacritic also chooses. Is 9 out of 10 high for games like MW3 and BF3? Probably, they are fairly derivative the both of them. But FPS games are the hot ticket right now just as RPG's were last decade.[/QUOTE]See my post above. Publishers don't need to bribe anyone, they know that review sites HAVE to have a review copy for the latest AAA game so they can get a review up, and if they say nasty things Activision will give them the cold shoulder next year. That's a tremendous amount of pressure.
on a french video game dedicated website the "professional" reviewers noted the game 17/20 on all supports, and the gaming community gave 13/20 on PS3/XBOX... and 8/20 on PC. Quite representative.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;33184892]All it proves is that small/medium sized reviewers need that review copy and ad money from Activision just as much as anyone else. They are giving MW3 PERFECT SCORES. Are you fucking kidding me? I don't care WHAT you think of Call of Duty, if you think MW3 is a perfect game you've either got an agenda or you're just dumb.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a perfect game. We can get close, but no truly 100% perfect games exist. Even Half Life, for all its glory and recognition is pretty flawed in places. Uncharted, one of the best single player experiences in years, flawed. The day a perfect game actually exists just won't happen.
[QUOTE=Fisk;33184910]This is my personal opinion of who I trust.
[B]I[/B] do not generally trust the fanbase of a game saying it is good. Or reviewers saying it is good.
I would reconsider and be more interested if someone who disliked the fanbase/game series suddenly turning and saying it is good.
Do you not understand that these are my personal opinions?[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying it's really weird personal opinions to only trust Battlefield fans with how good the most popular modern combat FPS is.
If I get the game I'll let you know though, been playing Battlefield since 1942 and have clocked almost 70 hours in BF3. Think that's fair.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184946]I'm just saying it's really weird personal opinions to [b]only trust Battlefield fans with how good the most popular modern combat FPS is. [/b]
If I get the game I'll let you know though, been playing Battlefield since 1942 and have clocked almost 70 hours in BF3. Think that's fair.[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck do you keep harping about BF3? Not everyone who says bad things about MW3 is some defensive Battlefield fanboy. Stop it.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;33184966]Why the fuck do you keep harping about BF3? Not everyone who says bad things about MW3 is some defensive Battlefield fanboy. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
Because he said that, lol. You can't freak the fuck out about me targeting Battlefield when he says "I only trust people who play another series" and has a Battlefield avatar and most of his recent posts are in the BF3 thread.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;33184966]Why the fuck do you keep harping about BF3? Not everyone who says bad things about MW3 is some defensive Battlefield fanboy. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
I just don't get that BF3 vs MW3 war that's taking place anyway. It only concerns idiots who can't get the two games are different and who keep on bringing the stupid war in every single debate concerning one game or another (though so far I've seen it much more often in MW3 threads than in BF3 ones) at any single thing reproached to their favorite game.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184946]I'm just saying it's really weird personal opinions to only trust Battlefield fans with how good the most popular modern combat FPS is.
If I get the game I'll let you know though, been playing Battlefield since 1942 and have clocked almost 70 hours in BF3. Think that's fair.[/QUOTE]I never said I only trust the Battlefield fans.
I said I would be interested if someone who dislike the game series suddenly turns and referring to the BF fanbase since they are often related to someone of all who would bash and hate on CoD.
A lot of people from the CoD fanbase saying Battlefield is good is an example of something that would get me interested.
Whatever.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33184946]I'm just saying it's really weird personal opinions to only trust Battlefield fans with how good the most popular modern combat FPS is.
If I get the game I'll let you know though, been playing Battlefield since 1942 and have clocked almost 70 hours in BF3. Think that's fair.[/QUOTE]
He didn't say he was trusting Battlefield fans only you dunce. He did however say that it is hard to trust the fanbase of the game, or critics as they are far, far to easily swayed. Asking anybody who isn't a fan, "professional" reviewer or has any stake in the game if they like it, and getting a positive response is a good sign. Asking a fan, reviewer or anybody with a stake in the game if they like it and getting a positive response is to be expected on the other hand.
Holy shit, read what you are replying to, seriously.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33185023]He didn't say he was trusting Battlefield fans only you dunce. He did however say that it is hard to trust the fanbase of the game, or critics as they are far, far to easily swayed. Asking anybody who isn't a fan, "professional" reviewer or has any stake in the game if they like it, and getting a positive response is a good sign. Asking a fan, reviewer or anybody with a stake in the game if they like it and getting a positive response is to be expected on the other hand.
Holy shit, read what you are replying to, seriously.[/QUOTE]
Just don't mind Raidyr he doesn't actually read the posts he quotes, he just widely overviews them and everytime he sees specific keywords like better, worse, bf3 and mw3 he posts a random complaint about how people who complain suck and shit.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33185056]Just don't mind Raidyr he doesn't actually read the posts he quotes, he just widely overviews them and everytime he sees specific keywords like better, worse, bf3 and mw3 he posts a random complaint about how people who complain suck and shit.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I should know this by now. I've gone through this process of telling him to read countless times.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33185023]He didn't say he was trusting Battlefield fans only you dunce. He did however say that it is hard to trust the fanbase of the game, or critics as they are far, far to easily swayed. Asking anybody who isn't a fan, "professional" reviewer or has any stake in the game if they like it, and getting a positive response is a good sign. Asking a fan, reviewer or anybody with a stake in the game if they like it and getting a positive response is to be expected on the other hand.
Holy shit, read what you are replying to, seriously.[/QUOTE]
I'd edit that post or apologize considering he just posted right above you.
Also no need to insult people we are having a conversation here. Chill out.
I get 40 fps in modern warfare 3 on pc while I get 60 fps playing battlefield 3 on high settings (not ultra)
That's outrageous because modern warfare 2 gets to 120 fps on my pc and that game looks better than this...
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33185062]Honestly, I should know this by now. I've gone through this process of telling him to read countless times.[/QUOTE]
Ignore Ganerumo he has no idea what the fuck is going on in these forums and thought I was arguing with him in another thread after agreeing with one of his points.
He also compared me to thisispain which I am not sure is intended to be taken as a compliment but I'll take what I can get at this point.
That didn't even make sense. Jesus Christ, he did not admit to using BF3 fans as a review source there either.
Stop posting holy shit.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33185068]Also no need to insult people we are having a conversation here. Chill out.[/QUOTE]
Probably the last time I'm answering one of your posts but,
Jesus that's so fucking hypocritical
[QUOTE=ZakKa!;33185080]I get 40 fps in modern warfare 3 on pc while I get 60 fps playing battlefield 3 on high settings (not ultra)
That's outrageous because modern warfare 2 gets to 120 fps on my pc and that game looks better than this...[/QUOTE]
Friend playing right now never drops below 60 FPS on highest everything which is about as well as MW2 ran and better than BF3.
MW3 is a amazing game......
When you do not compare it to the earlier titles.
I have been playing it, and so little has changed from MW2. I do not see how they spent all this time working on it, and wound up with a game that is so similar (not in the good way of it playing the same).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
