There are mixed reports. Some devs went as far as saying its twice as powerful as the ps3 and 360. Others said its not on par. One thing for sure. Im confused. Im not a huge tech savy guy so I come on here to your all your replies
But games like Medal of Honor Warfighter deserves to get slammed by critics the way it did when it wasnt awful????? It wasnt great but it wasnt awful either. I have both and would rate both a 6.75 out of 10. They both do nothing new. If one had to edge out the other id say bo2 is a little better. Bo2 is a step up from BO and MW3 but no where near as good as MW, MW2 or WAW!!!!!! The engine they use cant do much more then it has for the past 7 years. This games textures are ugly. As far as m...
I prefer Battlefield 3 any day of the week but Im not going to hate on Black Ops 2. Ive had it since yesterday. Got it early. I can only comment on the multiplayer cause i havent played the campaign yet. The Multiplayer is a step up from MW3 and Black Ops for sure. I dont think its better then MW, MW2 but its a step back in the right direction compared to MW3 and Black Ops.
Most wont agree. 1) Halo 4. By far the only current generation halo game that looks as if it was made for this generation. Fact is after Halo 2 you can tell Bungie stopped caring. Halo 2, Odst and Reach look last generation. Dont know why Halo 4 is getting so critisized. My 2nd favorite Halo is a 3 way tie between Halo 1 Halo 2 and 3. My least favorite is Halo Reach. A complete let down.
And they both get owned by BF3 nuff said
Fully agree. Halo campaigns never did anything for me. The multiplayer is alot of fun on the other hand. I spend most my time on 360 due to being able to talk to friends in parties and xbox live but when a sony exclusive comes out like Uncharted or God of War i play the crap out of them.
Once upon a time IGN was a source that i trusted for game reviews. Those days are finished. Activision throws money at them and they give the same recycled game no less then a 9 every year. COD is as generic as you can get but it gets very high scores. They are indeed corrupt. You cant trust any video game reviewer any more.
All the reviewers are being spitful cause EA made them wait till release day for their copy. They usually get it a few days early so the review can be ready by release day. I played the game. Campaign deserves a 9.5 out of 10. Multiplayer deserves a 6.5 out of 10. Over all id say a 7.5 out if 10.
Thats not whats going on here. Reviewers are pist cause the dev team didnt send them the final copy of the game till we all got it. It put them in a inconvience. They usually get the game a few days early so they can have the review ready by lanch. They are all being spitful towards the review cause they had ti wait like everyone else.
Its really sad that reviewers have become like boxing judges. Plain ol Corrupt. Ive just finished the campaign. It an easy 9.75 out of 10. The multiplayer on the other hand to me is like a 6.5 out of 10. Overall the game deserves at least a 7.5 out of 10.
Campaign is a 9.7 out of 10 multiplayer is a 6.5 out of 10. Game deserves at least overall a 7 out of 10. To me all these 5 out of 10 scores are due to the reviewers getting the game at launch and not prior.
Gears of War games, BF3, Rage, Crysis 2, Mass Effect 2 and 3 , Resident Evil 5 and 6 all look better
I have seen gameplay from you tube. The game looks good but i can name games that look better. Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Killzone 2 and 3, God of War 3, Rage, Gears of War, Uncharted 2 and 3, Mass Effect 2 and 3, i can name many more but ill stop there. For Halo standards it looks fantastic cause Halo 3 and Reach looked borderline last gen. This game looks good but no where near any game I named.
I dont think there is anything wrong with the AC130. People need to stop crying and play the game. Its easy to take out.
NOt in the least. Jets can take it down with no problem.
I think COD is a fun series but over the years with each new one it just feels like the same stuff. WHen i play cod i play a few games then i get bored. Its the same rehashed game every year. This is the reason why most are unhappy with it . It also doesnt help the countless of hackers that use wall hacks, aimbots and other nonsense exploits. COd for the most part is pick up and play but its also a game that markets greedy type playing. NO teamwork . All anyone cares about in COD is themselve...
What does 60 fps matter when it looks like 60 fps of awful graphics?? Dont get me wrong i have both but lets go over facts and not opinions. Bf3 looks better. Bf3 sounds better. Matter fact cods gun sound effects are artificial and made by a computer. Bf3's sound effects are recorded sounds from the actual guns. Shoot a rocket at a wall in cod or bullets. They magically disappear. The soldier movement in bf3 are real animation's of real soldiers while cods soldiers look like robots...
I wish i could but to play BF3 on max setting wouldnt it cost like $1000 bucks or more if you just have a your standard HP?? Plus another thing i hear a lot is that there are more hackers and exploiters in 1st person shooters on PC's.
This reply is just dedicated to the console players since im very jealous of you PC players LOL. You guys are lucky.
On console whats so good about 60 FPS when everything looks a decade old in graphics and everything looks like crap? Sure it does feel smoother but the graphics are bad.
I feel that the fps on BF3 console is a smooth FPS and a smoother expierence then Bad Company 2. BC2 was one of my favorite games but the fps must of been even lower then 30 ca...
Lmao