Just when I thought enough time had passed to forget this game.
But that is one awesome article.
Running MW3 on max settings looks ok. I had it running with no framerate drop on a dated E8400 dual-core processor, albeit with the GTX560Ti 2GB model video card.
Still, I've upgraded to an AMD Phenom X4, threw in some DDR3, and now I can run Battlefield 3 with max settings.
Playing one after the other isn't even fair. MW3 looks decent, but under no circumstances would I ever say that it has "Amazing Graphics" by today's standards.
The word "hip" is certainly not something that usually fits with "majority." In fact, if you're "too cool" or "too hip" for something, you're going out of your way to state that you're against the grain, fighting the power, purposely not following the crowd.
So yeah, it's hip to hate on MW3 right now.
And yeah, the name sells the game, certainly. My point is that while casual gamers might think that the ...
Actually, the consensus from most is that this iteration cleaned off a lot of the crap that had accumulated over the past two games.
Consensus is also that if you liked COD before, you'll like this one, and if you didn't like COD before, you still won't like this one.
I guess I fail to see what's wrong with that.
Maybe "low" expectations was the wrong word. How about that I knew what to expect, and that's what I wanted, so I bought it? And it actually turned out to be a little bit better than I'd expected? Do I have to only buy games that I think are going to be GOTY candidates?
Get out of here with your "simple minded kids" crap. I'm allowed to like games like Frozen Synapse and Civilization and Demon's Souls and still enjoy a flashy shooting galle...
My story is similar. I thought MW3 would be fun but wasn't expecting much, and so far it's definitely surpassed my expectations.
In a nutshell, though, you're right. If you're a "real gamer," you're supposed to hate MW3 right now. Whatever. Don't try to decide for me if I'm a "gamer" or not.
I'm a die hard MMA fan and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at all, even if you can be Jerome LeBanner.
I pick 5 every month. I can't hit them all every time.
You know, it's not all that unusual to buy a game expecting to play it, and then not end up being able to. Most of us know what that feels like.
Scariest game I've ever played, and as a result, hell of a thrilling experience.
It's a must-play IMO
I'm with you on this. I like the letter grade system and the 5-point scales. The 10-point scale is used as a 5-point scale as it is anyway, if that.
I don't agree at all that a review should be the same from everywhere. Two people are not necessarily going to get the same thing out of a game. I saw people pan Nuclear Dawn for having a tough learning curve, but I loved the result of the game after getting through said curve. Does that mean one of us was wrong?
No, it means one reviewer thought that the learning curve made the game not worth playing, and the other thought that the experience on the other side of the lea...
I don't think it's valid to say that giving a game a particular score is wrong provided that the text of the review matches the score provided, and that points are defended.
A reviewer is "not great at his/her job" when they make points that they don't explain or provide a score that doesn't match the review. If they have a different view on a game than the majority but effectively explain it and back it up, mission accomplished.
If ...
I bought a new video card just before Rage came out and it came with a free Steam code for the PC version of Arkham City. Waiting with bated breath for it to go active.
Well, he'll probably get hits for it.
Amnesia is hands-down the scariest game I have ever played, and something I think everyone should experience. Loved it.
Maybe the WAR fps. So if that's all you play, then sure.
Exactly. The game scares you much more effectively with what you don't see than what you do.
It was already huge. That's crazy.
This game is so good.
It's not Criterion. That's all I needed to know back at E3.