Did you read it, or just look at the number? Because the reason he gives is pretty spot on. The game shipped as a near unplayable mess and it still pretty much is. I can't play more than 3 or 4 matches without the game crashing one me, and until a week ago I couldn't play the single player without a corrupted save file. It's an entirely justified review if you look beyond the number.
You have a lot of valid info, but the whole thing about the fake leaks and this parroting them seems a bit off. Those fake leaks mentioned Boston because people had spotted Bethesda employees around Boston. We thought that Boston would be the setting way before that guy put that on Reddit.
Which is different to what they normally have said on this kind of stuff which is just a flat out "no". Kind of weird that they won't confirm or deny when they usually flat out deny.
Thankful for food and family.
I've heard other people complain about it too. Apparently it's shoehorned into Second Son and feels like there's no reason for it. The things they have you do could be button presses, but it seems like since they couldn't figure out a use for the touch pad they just mapped it to that.
Dammit, I only have 460!
Theres actually been reports of it happening with CoD and Killzone as well. Looks like its just more common on BF4.
Review scales =/= high scool gradding scales. They're two completely different things.
So a 7/10 is mediocrity now? Lovely.
So what is the 800MB file for? Is it just a backup of the OS? Do I need it?
We just better hope there isn't a rash of framerate drops as well. Then we'll really be in for it.
So then what's this? Same name and logo, different background pic. AND it showed up in and official AC game. Why would Ubisoft put hide this in 4 if they knew it was just a dumb fake?
http://www.qj.net/ps3/news/...
Oh also, obligatory variation of "this sucks".
Oh, my bad. I completely missed that you were asking about Lucas Parker. Don't think he's been announced yet.
The thing is, this happens on Metacritic for EVERY CoD, and even sometimes games that aren't CoD (DMC for example). People don't like something about the game, so they go in and spam unfair 0/10 reviews. That doesn't mean anything. 211 negative reviews, many most likely from troll accounts, does not represent a general consensus.
Yeah. And it's hard to tell what exactly it means, considering that this takes place 30 years after 3. The image really doesn't tell you a whole lot really.
Exactly. This entire article is a mad grab for hits by appealing to the rabbid hate CoD gets every November. And you know what? It worked. 60% of the time, it works every time.
Metacritic user scores are never reliable and always bogus. Vocal and angry people who hate certain games and have no time on their hands create multiple accounts and spam 1/10 ratings. It's hilarious that people are even using them to prove their points.
"Ghosts is trash. I haven't played it yet though. But the metacritic user reviews say it's bad, so it must be!" There's so much wrong with the logic in this article. You really should play a game before you make such a bold claim. And since when have metacritic user scores EVER been anywhere near reliable?
Do you have any proof? If you're concerned about keeping your NDA then why would you reveal that the game is in development? Surely that is part of the NDA as well. And why would you be under a NDA if your friend is the one QA testing it?