GameZone's Lance Liebl reviews Bodycount, the fps from Codemasters. The game's cover system, environmental destruction, and arcade-style shooting is fun, but the AI, weak story, and graphics keep this from being a great title.
Didn't like the demo gameplay just sucked
was the demo pre alpha gameplay? That game is a 4/10 at best.
This is what i cant understand if a FPS isn't a call of duty or a halo or battlefield it cant be good i think some reviewers or fans of these games cause every FPS other than those are getting average review scores. mw2 is a 6 out of 10, black ops is a 6 out 10, halo 2,3 is a 7 out 10, battlefield 1,2 is a 6.5 out 10 but yet they all got 8's and 9's out 10.
Labeling games with numbers will obviously lead to these "fanboy" arguments. There is not "correct" score for any game. You cannot prove one game is a 9.5/10 while another is a 7. It's just stupid.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
The game does some things nicely. It's just not a great game. If you are looking for a mindless, arcade shooter then it's exactly what you're looking for. It's good to be objective and have some perspective when you're reviewing games. And meday, mw2 a 6 out of 10? Really? That may be your opinion, but other people are also allowed to think it's a 9. Aren't review scores just someone's opinion anyways?
" Aren't review scores just someone's opinion anyways?" Exactly and how can someones opinion be wrong? You can disagree with it but you cant say its wrong. Whether a game is good or not is not absolute, because its simply a matter of "opinion". Regarding Brink, it looks like the type of game that would be fun at first but quickly turn into boredom.
You mean Bodycount?
Sorry yeah, i mean Bodycount.
Gaming review scores are skewed. In all honesty, a 5/10 should be an average score. It's halfway between 1 and 10. Yet if any site gives a game a 5, it's considered a BAD score and most likely people wouldn't buy it. In the gaming review world, a 6-7.5 is average. Anything above can be considered a "good" score and anything less is a "bad" score.
You're right about the scores being skewed. But as far as i know only EDGE use the whole 1-10 scale, other sites don't, so that's why a 5 from most sites really means a poor game and its usually the reviewers intention. In my opinion scores are useless and misleading and have too much importance associated with them. The whole point of a review is so someone can get the impression of someone who played the game they are looking to buy. Reading a well written review(s) should be enough to give you a fair idea on whether you will like the game or not. With a score things get messy, we start to get averages, petty fanboy arguments and it can even go to the extent that this small and insignificant percentage of gamers; the reviewers, can greatly affect how successful a game will be. Sorry, i went on there and off topic. Probably should make a blog post about this.
I'd rather read a well thought out, in-depth review of a game than see a score. A score is just a number that people will use to determine if they should take a look at the game (and often ignore the review) Throw in advertising dollars that these publishers pay for on these "review" websites and many will bump up the score of the game. That's why I stay away from things like IGN and Gamespot. Big corporations being paid for by other big corporations.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.