Crysis 2 is definitely an awesome game. The 3D in it is phenomenal!
Looks like 3 people couldn't handle a joke!
U mad?
I totally ROFLMAO-ed at this comment. XD
Amen!!! Funny you should say that, because I criticized a reviewer on another site for giving a B/A+ rating as he proceeded to point out all the major flaws within the game. A fellow reviewer from his site then proceeded to defend him in the N4G comments by beating around the bush and not addressing any of my points.
I then asked, "If this game were exactly the same, but WITHOUT the Call of Duty title, would it be so well-received?" The question, again, was avoided....
*Spits drink all over screen* A reviewer actually got some common sense! This is madness!
"It’s not just a disappointment, but a turning point for the worse: gaming is devolving from a focus on entertainment; it’s now pure business. It always has been about making money, but Activision has taken this to the extreme with Modern Warfare 3."
Nailed it right on the head.
"At the end of the day, if you like generic shooter trash wit...
At least play the WHOLE game before you decide to give it a rating! -____-
@nemesisND1derboy: Again, I never stated the game was "bad" in any way. And like I made clear, FOR ME, a "B" rating is a pretty damn good game. And "A" is excellent, and anything beyond that would have to be ground-breaking.
"its multiplayer may be getting a bit stale for some....It's lack of innovation and somewhat dated look, as well as a few other flaws, mean it was worthy of a B, not an A+..."
I'm not bashin...
I never stated the game was "bad," but if youre looking at MW3 as the Triple-A title it is supposed to be, by its own standards, it is.
The COD franchise produces the biggest-selling title every year. The way I see it, you should expect more from a multi-million dollar company than what has been given to us this year.
Play a few rounds of MW3's multiplayer and you'll begin to notice the glaring flaws. The T-95 and UMP-45 are severely overpow...
Honestly, posting MediaKick's review policy isn't doing much. What's your point?
Interesting. This reviewer points out all the glaring flaws with the game, and states that "it may be one of very few to boast such an impressive response time and frame-rate, sadly, that’s really the only aspect it can boast about these days," yet still awards the game a B.
In my book, a very good game gets awarded a B, which is something MW3 very clearly isn't. MW3 is average at best, takes no chances, and makes very little improvement. As the reviewer states,...
I totally agree that true depth is in the gameplay, but weapons/unlocks do contribute to some of the depth, as well as longevity to the game.
For example, I find myself strategically choosing my weapons/attachments for whatever situation I may be entering. I.E., switching from a 3.4x scope to a Holo when entering a CQC portion of the map, or attaching a suppressor when entering Operation Metro's subways.
I do agree with you, that gameplay is depth's s...
*Deleted on account of my error. Reply comment above.*
If a Moderator notices this, PLEASE DELETE.
Golden vehicles? Uhh, buddy, this isn't your typical Call of Duty child's game. That's the LAST thing I want to see in this series.
But lacking depth? C'mon, man, I've logged over 64 hours in the game's multiplayer alone, and haven't finished unlocking all the sniper rifles (I'm on the second-to-last), and have yet to unlock the last PDW. I haven't even gotten close to unlocking every attachment for every gun, or every upgrade for every veh...
Such a shame. There are way better titles that have released in the past year, or will be releasing later this year that deserve much more credit than this game has gotten. The game suffers from broken, unbalanced multiplayer (overpowered T-95, UMP-45) and a lackluster storyline that is so over-the-top and abrupt, that it's almost awkward to play.
Most disappointing COD title to date. Rinse, repeat. MW3 is basically a more violent G.I. Joe video game. It's even worse ...
Weapons category? WTF HAHAHA. MW3's weapons function so damn unrealistically you'd might as well give them Halo skins. BF's guns actually feel weighted, and require an actual skill in aiming (NO quickscoping), and sound amazing.
MW3's weapon SFX are total crap, but w/e. If you want to go by attachments, MW3 wins because of....customizable reticules and camos? Hybrid scopes? Ok, then. The reviewer also failed to mention that BF3's weapons also have separate...
They look similar, but it's a pretty bad comparison. Hardly any of the screenshots are of identical views.
I've played both MW3 and BF3, and all of their previous installments. As a once-upon-a-time fan of the COD series, I've gotta say, after a day of playing MW3, it's got to be the most disappointing title in the series. The graphics are horrendous, the MP is broken (EVERYONE totes a UMP-45), and the whole thing, all the way down to the menus, feels dated.
Seriously, go play Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, or even Halo: Reach, and then go play MW3. It's like going back ...
You know it's bad when I'm hearing friends of mine that are HUGE fans of the COD series calling it a $60 DLC...and then going to the store and buying it.
Even worse? Reviewers are saying it's the same old COD-ness; no new innovations, no real tweaks to the gameplay mechanics, the graphics are sub-par, yet the game is still getting 9's and 10's.
We ALL knew MW3 was gonna be a COD4/MW2 recycle, so there's no real surprises here. What'...
One among the fence! :-D
Just because Justin Bieber sells 9 million albums and has 3+ million fans doesn't mean he is the superior artist of modern music. Let's not mention all the little girls posting on the internet about how amazing he is.
MW3 has to have some of the most biased reviews to date, saying this is amazing, that is amazing, but then going on to state that the game has a general mediocrity and dated feel to it. After pointing out the game's major flaws, it is awarded a 9/10,...