I believe Activision no longer ships out review copies of their Call of Duty series, instead they invite the reviewers to come to Activision's HQ where they can play the game on-site during a 'Call of Duty is the greatest game ever Extravaganza!!'.
Either the review website agrees to this and reviews the game under these ridiculous circumstances, or they wait until the game launches and purchase a retail copy for review, which means they lose tons of views based on the fact they don't have a review up for the latest Call of Duty game.
If you've ever seen what these amatuer vlog'ers on YouTube pull in for subscribers/views by simply uploading their Call of Duty videos w/commentary, you can imagine how damaging it would be for a review site to not have that review ready to go on launch day.
So it would seem the two kiwi brothers are not agreeing?
Game reviewing has been a complete joke for at least 15 years now, and it's getting worse. Pay no attention to professional review scores - particularly for high-budget franchises.
Game reviewing has been a complete joke for at least 15 years now, and it's getting worse. Pay no attention to professional review scores - particularly for high-budget franchises.
I dunno about complete joke for 15 years, but its been pretty unreliable for 10 and after Doom 3 I dont trust them at all.
Then there was the bullshit at Gamespot when it became public knowledge that reviewers would get fired for giving bad ratings.
Crap, I just realized that Far Cry actually came out before Doom 3. And not only was it a better game, it was much prettier as well. So by whichever standards you use, Far Cry should have received better reviews than Doom 3. Since Ubi wasnt the powerhouse it is now, I guess they couldnt swing the votes.
But it does illustrate what happens when a writer for a high-profile outlet chooses to address a game critically - I mean when he or she functions as a critic instead of simply a reviewer. All too often the backlash is severe and ugly. It suggests that, for a sizable portion of the gaming audience, genuine criticism is perceived as inappropriate, unnecessary, or even unprofessional.
Probably because most gamers think they know it all. Or,,,, they can not think for themselves.It suggests that, for a sizable portion of the gaming audience, genuine criticism is perceived as inappropriate, unnecessary, or even unprofessional.
Game reviewing has been a complete joke for at least 15 years now, and it's getting worse. Pay no attention to professional review scores - particularly for high-budget franchises.
i sent mine back and i love the cod franchise..i thought the original cod4 was goty for 2007..logged 98 hours just playing sp missions again and again..(i play bf for mp)Why are critic reviews of CoD: Black Ops so good but customer reviews so bad?
i think if bf3 turns out to be shit, there's gonna be a lot of broken stuff worldwide lol!Correct.
Mediocre single player combined with uninspired multiplayer featuring tiny claustrophobic 1997-tech maps FTMFL.
BFBC2 is twenty times the game BLOPS is, and I don't even like BC2 that much (prefer to wait for the full meat and potatoes BF3).
i hated that game!I disagree - I enjoyed Far Cry 2 and think it was rated appropriately.
Far Cry 2 was proof of that. PC Gamer gave that boring shitfest a 94%. If anyone took that magazine seriously before that, that score ended that.
The most honest review of that game. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/510-Far-Cry-2
paid off?
i think if bf3 turns out to be shit, there's gonna be a lot of broken stuff worldwide lol!
i even paid top dollar for ther god-awful moh4 just to get beta key for bf3 testing, still waiting zzz
btw, 1605 hours in bf2
http://secure.xfire.com/profile/zpigs/
btw, liking the vietnam mod..great maps
(esp when my pc dont hang grr)
Consumers rate things differently than magazines and review web sites. If you want to see a stark difference in ratings, check the metacritic score for CoD MW2 for PC. Main reason for that (and it used to be an even lower user score than it is now, if I remember correctly) was the whole dedicated servers issue. People don't have to be objective in rating a game, and something like a feeling of betrayal from a change in core mechanics or just a lack of changes overall for the $60 price tag of the new game are enough to get people to throw out a 2 or a 3. I won't go into the tons of scenarios and differences between how a "professional" critic rates a game versus an end user, but suffice to say that they dont use the same metrics, and thats how you can end up with different scores.