but this game seriously looks fugly and i seems that i'm the only one that can see that. jaggies galore, pop-ups, low res texture, characters aren't even detail enough. the only thing this game has is a steady framerate and solid sounds, which is not really impressive since MAG can do the same with 256 players.
yeah, gameplay is fun at first but it gets old fast. and what's the difference again between this and the one that came out just 1 and half years ago?
check out the bad company 2 demo. low res textures everywhere and it's pop-up galore. mag looks great for a 256 player game.
i played the demo and the graphics are so fugly. mag looks a lot better than it. gameplay-wise, been there done that. seriously, graphics mattered when they were reviewing mag. innovation and originality mattered when it's a ps3 exclusive.
because the ps3 version looks like crap. even mag looks better than this POS.
finally, another first person shooter! /s
ugly graphics. mag looks better than this POS, though it only supports 24 player. this game was really gimped by the 3fixme.
that was arguably the best game last year. but we all know what the best game of 2010 is, god of war 3.
'it's hard to tell who the good guys are" no, it's not. there's an arrow on top of the heads.
"poorly textured objects that changed as we moved closer to them" same thing with mw2 but never heard that flaw in your review.
"MAG doesn't have any kind of single-player component" let's give a 7 to world of warcraft as well. mag is a mmo-shooter.
"they're also very chaotic" how about in mw2, where that enemy that you just k...
every man and his dog can have a blog. but what i'm looking for is credibility. i think some sites give games high scores because of pressure from publishers. IGN's review of prince of persia is bogus. 91 for a 5-hour game?
other sites are giving controversial score for hits. and also, sites give hyped up games high score automatically to please the fanboys. see failo odst. no way that game is above 7.
finally, there is no objectivity and consistency in these reviews...
5.) Graphics Are Sub-Par- umm, the actual gameplay graphics is top-notch. it's the cinematic are can be done better. proof that the dude was basing the list on videos.
4.) It’s Been Done- everything has been done before. but the combat system is unique. did not see this popping up in mass defect 2, which is a fcuking sequel.
3.) Little To No Story- what, what? before and after every dungeon there's a cutscene.
2.) Character Creation Amounts To Nothing- u...
playing mass defect right. how many more boring minigames do i endure just to bypass a room's door. ass defect 2 is 5 hour game just like the first one but is prolonged by boring monologues and minigames. instead of riding elevator you are hacking doors with mini-games based on a 5 year-old kid's memory game.
the rest can be played on the pc or will be coming to the ps3 in a few month. gta4 dlc and star ocean 4 are the latest examples. but you don't see game of the year winners like mgs4, lbp and uncharted to going to the 3fixme.
playing mass defect right. how many more boring minigames do i endure just to bypass a room's door. ass defect 2 is 5 hour game just like the first one but is prolonged by boring monologues and minigames. instead of riding elevator you are hacking doors with...
graphically, this game is not impressive. weird lighting, low textures and jaggies everywhere. i bet it's on the outdated unreal engine.
these tweeners are now ready to dropped to wii and become xbots.
there will always be a market for the crapbox as well as teen flicks like twilight and backstreet boys. nothing wrong with having bad taste, blame it on the hormones.
no way dragon's age is a 9. graphically wkc looks better. now, mass effect 2 looks fine but as a third person shooter it falls short and as an rpg, no stats =/= rpg. it's a bland shooter with long boring dialogues. overrated. good voice acting, though.
now, wkc is a solid game. not way it's a 5.1.
it's an mmo-style combat that has depth and can be fun. creating combos is very fun ad rewarding. a lot of things to do and i haven't tried georama yet. in-game graphics is actually good but it's the cutscenes graphics that is not on par.
@ shadow gal nope, I can not tell a lie. i actually got wkc when i traded in overrated games like dragon's age and shift and 2 other games. i got a $200 store credit. i'm really happy i got a good deal for those two craps. palyed dragon's age fo...
but playing it on a gimped pc will still look better than on the 3fixme.
btw, i'm played ME2 on my rig and was not impressed at all by the graphics (and everything else except voice acting).
i've played ME2 for around 8 hours and dropped it because it was so boring. go the pc version, should have pirated it first. the combat was clunky.
taking cover feels unnatural and enemy AI take 2 clips to go down after taking off their shield with a special ability that i need to wait 30 seconds to refill because my dumb AI teammate spent it 3 seconds ago on something useless.
playing uncharted 2 since day one. best MP ever.
i don't care about the reviews, anymore. if i like a game based on what i see, then i'll buy it. got duped with mass defect 2. that game got 10's but i only played it for 5 hours and got so bored (same thing with dragon's age, which will be traded in tomorrow).
now the media are striking back, though, by handing out low scores to ps3 exclusives and overrating crapeffect 2.
fcuck that game. it is so boring and the controls are clunky. i stopped playing after trying to like it for 5 hours. can't believe that game got a 10, same story with prince of persia's 5 hours SP campaign.
and pc beta