Critics will have little impact on "review-proof" Call of Duty: Ghosts, says analyst - Polidicks

At least Madden is trying new shit. CoD is same thing every year for the past 3-4 years. :v:

This just proves that reviews don't mean shit, since everything is subjective barring the most broken dogshit. Reviewers are people with different tastes and sometimes biases, and sites don't have the same reviewer review every title. You might get an FPS fan to review an RPG and give it a low score cause he's not a fan of the genre, or you might get a casual FPS fan to review a tactical FPS and give it a low score because he's not a fan of the subgenre. You get people who don't care for story skipping cutscenes and then complain the game is boring, you might get people who suck at video games complaining the game is too hard, you might get people who are reviewing multiple titles and just can't find the time to play the game completely and judge it well, it's a crapshoot. I've learned that I can't really judge a game by reviews because I'm a separate person with separate tastes. It's like tasting food: I might not like a dish that someone says is excellent because my tastes are different. All we can really agree on is if it's incredibly horrible. Everything else is down to preference. You can try to find someone with similar tastes, but that's extremely rare to find, and most reviewers don't mention in an easy to find way what they're tastes are like other than "FPS" or "Racing" even though there's so much depth to those genres. Ask a metal head to describe metal and he'll give you so many sub genres that are nearly nothing alike. People can describe the objective facts like tempo, instruments and such but they can't explain the experience well because that's entirely subjective and different for them than for you. And I think a lot of people might feel the same way. People are buying up Ghosts because the ads interested them, they liked the previous ones and reviews said the game wasn't Big Rigs so they'll pay $60 just to buy something they might not like. Activision knows this: they'll focus on advertising and making sure the game isn't fundamentally broken, and maybe pass some dollars to reviewers to guarantee an at least average score, because people don't trust reviewers anymore and want to try it for themselves. It doesn't matter if the game is mediocre to most because Activision puts in barely any effort and gets a cash cow. I think that's one of the reasons piracy, reselling, renting and borrowing are so common, especially with these huge prices that make a purchase more of a risk then a thoughtless buy like a steam sale is. tl;dr Reviews don't mean shit to the average person since it's all subjective barring the absolute shit, advertisement is the more important thing game companies worry about because that's what sells games, priacy, renting, reselling and borrowing are on the rise because games are so expensive and people are risk-averse to buy shit, yet at the same time those who have the cash or are enamoured by the ads/hype will plop down the money regardless.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;42778832]Oh I didn't know I was an idiot because I thought a video game was fun[/QUOTE] I find CoD fun but still agree with this guy. I think he means the people that refuse to admit that it just repeats and repeats and expects perfect ratings and for people to pay £40 a year for it. My point is that I think CoD's 'fans' (as in people blind to the fact that it is below all standards for gaming and that charging £40 for what is effectively dlc is not supposed to happen) are the "legions of drooling idiots". People that enjoy CoD are just... People that enjoy CoD

Too big to fail, in other words.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42781587]This was about copy protection but it applies here too:[/QUOTE] This quote says a lot about people playing a game for a week then trading it in, but I thought the big draw of CoD was the multiplayer more than the singleplayer. That [b]would[/b] give the games more replay value, but I guess when they come out with a new game every year, people are going to get tired of having to pay $60+ for the newest version. At least, I hope something like that happens.

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42777729]Call of Duty is the [B]Family Guy[/B] of gaming at this point.[/QUOTE] ftfy

[QUOTE=pentium;42777169]It's not 90 or better so it's obviously horrible and enough reason to shutter the studio and fire all the employees.[/QUOTE] Metacritic scores don't usually mean shit even when they're true (CoD for example)

[QUOTE=Saxon;42777189]When you're putting down $60 its pretty bad[/QUOTE] If you think that's bad, wait until you hear how much it costs to develop! You have no idea how costly it is to have someone sit there and copy-paste all day!

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42778749]There is actually technology backing up audiophiles though, if you know anything about sampling you should know that consumer-grade technology isn't the best available. As much as there are differences in audio equipment, I agree it's mostly a waste of money.[/QUOTE] There's more technology being put to use to make a triple AAA title like "Ghosts", no matter how uninspired it is. Certainly better than "technology" such as over-sized transformers and capacitors that make "audiophile grade" amplifiers that are indiscernible in soundquality from a decent receiver from bestbuy.

Frankly it may be "review proof" only because reviewers refuse to be critical of the games, specifically I remember GT being critical of Uncharted 2 because it was "unoriginal" and then giving MW2 Game of the year. however this does not stop the gamers from doing so themselves [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZiauvdOUWo[/media] I think everyone is visibly dissatisfied with Ghosts on some level, the process of flipping the opinion of a franchise is a slow one that reviews from major publications are not going to effect much longer as everyone is beginning to treat them cynically as bought reviews. the change has to take place on a personal level between each player, Ghost has started it, it will likely slow once the next game made by treyarch comes out because they actually still put some form of effort into the game [sp]even though BLOPS2's campaign was the first CoD of the series I didn't care enough to finish and I disliked the map design and accelerated pace[/sp] I think what we have to look forward to is the zombie corpse of IW being shuttered because people will elect to buy and keep playing the games made by treyarch.

i like how people on this forum see themselves as oh so superior to people who buy call of duty games [quote]Pretty much. CoD's become so entrenched that there's legions of idiots drooling over this game who'll get it no matter what, blind to how bad it actually is.[/quote] hehe IDIOTS

[QUOTE=Reshy;42777066]This is why I mostly buy indie games, I've enjoyed many of them and seen a lot more potential than a dozen of the COD games.[/QUOTE] Because only Indies have any potential?

I don't need a review to tell me that the latest in the COD series is bad. It's obvious at this point. COD is big cash cow, nothing more.