"If you're not pushing 70 GB/s around the video card, you won't like playing on High at 1080p."
What modern card > $100 has less memory bandwidth than that? Even an HD6790 has 134. HD6870 can be found for
$140 and that will likely max this game out without problems.
Indeed. My 5770 only has a 128 bit memory bus, but it has 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth.
Russian, official review sites are pretty much worthless in review value. Those same sites gave MW3 glowing reviews, a terrible game. For the most part IGN, PC gamer and gamespy are paid shills and serve a purpose mostly as advertising not providing unbiased reviews.
The perception that reviewers are "bought" somehow is one I don't really buy into. For example, look at two games from EA: Mass Effect 2 and Dante's Inferno. Released very close together, and it was clear that EA was willing to spend money promoting both. Dante's Inferno got a Superbowl commercial, while Mass Effect 2 had its full 2 minute launch trailer aired during the NFC championship game (a game that leads up to the Superbowl). Metacritic scores? 95-96 for Mass Effect 2. 70s for Dante's Inferno. If EA was spending money buying good reviews, shouldn't Dante's Inferno at least have gotten up to the 80s?
So yeah, without real evidence, publishers buying reviews is just a myth as far as I'm concerned.
Just look at Metacritic for a game like MW3 that got amazing reviews from official sites and look at its user score
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3 1.3 out of 10.
The user scores should be more in question than the critic scores in that case. 1.3 would mean a game that's essentially broken on all levels, which Modern Warfare 3 certainly is not. It's got a polished, enjoyable singleplayer, and while they aren't changing up the multiplayer it's still some of the best multiplayer out there. IMO an honest average for Call of Duty would be around 6 or 7. 1.3 userscore is just a result of anti-Call of Duty backlash.