Game critics have an intimidating task with many games taking over 20 hours to complete. Is the traditional review model not really built for these long, interactive experiences?
the main problem for game reviews is to fail giving CODs bad scores for rehashing the same things for years
I kinda agree cause MW3 was no where near an 8 or 9. Sometimes i feel like companys pay reviewers to give their games good reviews.
@rob85 ...Everyone on this site says that. But from the sound of it, it seems like you still play them anyways.
cod4 was a perfect 10. MWF2 i gave a 7.5 WaW i gave a 8 blackops i gave a 8 and MWF3 i gave a 9 and in sales they all score a perfect 10. in the media they score high, but on n4g they score dirt low... i think the haters stopped buying cod and just hate every game regardless w/o fully playing it.
Black Ops > MW3 IMO.
you can say that. i really liked black ops aswell, it was more fun than mwf3 but not as addicting imo, and my score was an overall score, the graphics weren't that good in blackops, but id probably choose it over mwf3 because i thought the purchasing the attachments was genius bc i hate waiting for unlocks. it would be an extremely hard decision for me though.
It's like everybody's afraid to say a game is bad just because of popularity. They give out 8s and 9s to everything anymore and anything lower is viewed as complete crap. If that's the way they're going to rate games, maybe they should just use a 3 scale, since they only use 3 numbers anyway.
In a way, you are right. But, the Call of Duty games aren't "bad". Their polished games even if they don't introduce something "new". It's a really hard decision to score a game that's good, but not new. You could say the same thing for all the sports games out there too etc and they still get good scores. When writing my review for MW3, I went back and forth on how to treat the review.
I like COD but that game doesn't deserve the scores it gets when other games that have more effort and IMO are better get less scores so it's like scores don't even matter any more cause their will be games where alot of reviewers hate but the customers like. It's like they like the oppposite sometimes of what we hate like COD, lot of people hate it but lot of reviewers love it.
The reason the Modern Warfare games seem so similar is because what the developers have done with the franchise WORKS. The majority that play the games must be pleased with the campaign and multiplayer, otherwise they wouldn't sell gangbusters every time they're released. Personally, I have had a lot of fun with all three Modern Warfares. For a first-person shooter like Modern Warfare, the level of enjoyment and how engrossing it is - people play the games for months and years on end - should be treated as a testament to the game's quality. The bottom line is this: a lot of people seem to be having a lot of fun. That to me, would tell me FOR WHAT IT IS, the game is good, and it deserves a score that reflecting that. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
I hate reviewers when they give game sequels a great score even though the developers have ruined franchise and are far from the franchises roots. Take RE6 for example Game reviewers could play it, think it's a reasonable game and give it a good score now your probably thinking "Yeah whats wrong with that" the problem is they arn't judging it as a sequel. If a games sequel is nothing like the good games in the past we've played on then why give it a good score. If the game dosen't live up to the franchises name and has changed to much from what made it good in the first place then it should be given a low score. RE6, the new dmc and Dead Space 3 all look like they've moved far, far away from the franchises roots...will they be good games, probably but they still shouldn't be judged as a game but as a sequel to that once great franchise. If it fails to live up to them, mark them down and show developers they shouldn't f*ck around. If it's a brand new IP and is the first game in the franchise then fair enough give it a good score but if it has past installments to live up to and fails to devliver on what that games susaly offers you, basicaly what the franchise is about (RE6 being Horror for example) then it shouldn't be praised.
You can't give a game score solely on how similar or different it is from the franchises previous installations. Each game should be judged on its own merits. If it's a good game regardless of how it has departed from the original vision, why shouldn't it receive a good score?
because it then wouldn't be anything like what the franchise had established If thats the case then you may aswell of started a new franchise, not ruin one so you can get a new audience. Killing off elements of your franchise which people have came to love isn't right...thats why it should be marked down. Your just encouraging developers to do this even more, you've got to show them that it's not right to give your loyal audience the middle finger so a more mainstream/casual crowd.
"professional" reviewers play videogames as a job and less of a hobby, and they need to play a LOT of games, leaving the issue of time. That's why you can't trust them.
When reviewers start doing actual reviews instead of opinion peaces and people actually see them like such, is when they will be relevant, until then its just that an opinion.
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.