Oh man Light is super fun. At one point I was evading a good four people out for my blood in some tight corners by bouncing off the walls at mach speed like some kind of deranged gunslinging superball.
I ran a very popular RPG gaming site from 99 - 04. I def know how the PR game works and I never wrote a review without playing a game nigh unto completion.
If gamertags were attached to people's hips at birth and admissible as evidence in court, and if they kept track of total time played, you might have a valid point.
What's more easy to believe? That his known gamertag has three hours and conflicts with his claim that he played it for 12?
Or that he played three hours on his known gamer tag and then played the other nine hours on his top secret gamer tag that only he knows about, so there...?
I don't know the guy, so right now each one's about 50/50. I like keeping an open mind about things. You know what happens when you assume, doncha?
I'm not the one that's assuming. His gamertag said he played it for three hours. Imma go with that instead of the alternative.
And just as a reminder to people who want to assume the IGN review is credible. The guy complained about forgetting what class he chose. Twice. And complained about having to swap classes. I can't think of many current FPS' that have a catch all class that you never need to change from.
Unless he's the kind of douche nozzle that picks Heavy in TF2 and refuses to change even though you totally need a demo to take out that sentry.
Mind you your gamertag for Xbox Live doesn't say the hours played, but it was a worthwhile guess simply by the low score of 200 or so he had for the achievements. But yes someone brought up a good point in all this, review websites cannot truthfully be trusted since nine times out of time, the very people advertising on their website and helping to provide them money are the people making the mediocre games that are copies of what is currently "In".
I'm not the one that's assuming. His gamertag said he played it for three hours. Imma go with that instead of the alternative.
And just as a reminder to people who want to assume the IGN review is credible. The guy complained about forgetting what class he chose. Twice. And complained about having to swap classes. I can't think of many current FPS' that have a catch all class that you never need to change from.
Unless he's the kind of douche nozzle that picks Heavy in TF2 and refuses to change even though you totally need a demo to take out that sentry.
Yeah his complaints seemed to be about having to play a multi player fps. The classes aren't unique, but you have to swap classes to complete objectives? Seems like that would be pretty unique to me? The map objectives don't change location? Do any current multiplayer fps games have maps that move objective locations around?
It was the death of a thousand vagaries and general complaints brink didn't play like some game that wasn't brink?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You know what, I haven't been following this game at all. Like, zero expectations, my one post in this thread thus far has been in regard to the (apparently?) bad review score IGN gave this game inviting people who trust IGN to go read their God Hand review.
So hey, I'll put my money on the line. I'm downloading the Steam version of this right now. I'll post my totally virgin experience later.
His gamertag doesn't say he played it for three hours. I don't believe gamertags display time played. Secondly, he might not have played his entire game on that gamertag. Or, maybe Xbox Live takes a while to update someone's gamertag. I have no idea how Live's system works, so unless it's instantaneous, which is certainly possible, that could be a possibility.
Right. It's not "his" fault. Maybe he has a super secret gamer tag. Or maybe it's Microsoft's fault.
Or maybe he's just lying. He's a game reviewer. For Joystiq. The site that once had a review that tried to mathematically prove that Zelda sucked.
Anyway, Live stat updates are pretty quick. You get an achievement and it updates to your account almost instantaneously.
If gamertags were attached to people's hips at birth and admissible as evidence in court, and if they kept track of total time played, you might have a valid point.
What's more easy to believe? That his known gamertag has three hours and conflicts with his claim that he played it for 12?
Or that he played three hours on his known gamer tag and then played the other nine hours on his top secret gamer tag that only he knows about, so there...?
I don't know the guy, so right now each one's about 50/50. I like keeping an open mind about things. You know what happens when you assume, doncha?
I'm not the one that's assuming. His gamertag said he played it for three hours. Imma go with that instead of the alternative.
And just as a reminder to people who want to assume the IGN review is credible. The guy complained about forgetting what class he chose. Twice. And complained about having to swap classes. I can't think of many current FPS' that have a catch all class that you never need to change from.
Unless he's the kind of douche nozzle that picks Heavy in TF2 and refuses to change even though you totally need a demo to take out that sentry.
I just don't understand how that even got into a review. That is 100% your fault you idiot. There are 4 (four) classes with pretty distinct functions and abilities. You may forget this or that ability, but not the class. And where was this shit in a CoD review? I've forgotten which grenade type, secondary or perk I've had equipped on a "class" in BLOPS way more than which class I was using in, say, BC2.
This shit is why I don't read (most) reviews anymore. You can see the guy had a general feeling of whether they liked or disliked the game but lacks the analytical skill to explain why that makes the game good/bad/not their cup of tea. And then they usually lack the guts to even say "YMMV" at the end.
Played for about an hour last night, pretty fun game. Runs heat on my 4890.
Why is it that I can't seem to revive people as a medic?
I think as a Medic it isn't a BAMPH they pop right back up, but that you throw them a 'revive syringe' or something and they have to stick themselves with it.
You guys know that reviews are entirely subjective, right? You can disagree with a review, but it's still a valid review, given that the stated opinion is supported.
Played for about an hour last night, pretty fun game. Runs heat on my 4890.
Why is it that I can't seem to revive people as a medic?
I think as a Medic it isn't a BAMPH they pop right back up, but that you throw them a 'revive syringe' or something and they have to stick themselves with it.
People could also just be respawning.
I was running around behind people spamming f whenever they dropped and it didn't seem to be doing anything.
You guys know that reviews are entirely subjective, right? You can disagree with a review, but it's still a valid review, given that the stated opinion is supported.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
you don't have to slog through something you know you're going to hate. 10 minutes in multiplayer or a few missions in the campaign can tell you all you need to know about the initial feel of the game.
Played for about an hour last night, pretty fun game. Runs heat on my 4890.
Why is it that I can't seem to revive people as a medic?
I think as a Medic it isn't a BAMPH they pop right back up, but that you throw them a 'revive syringe' or something and they have to stick themselves with it.
People could also just be respawning.
I was running around behind people spamming f whenever they dropped and it didn't seem to be doing anything.
The medic throws a little syringe with a blue streak behind it, very quickly, and then it's up to the downed player to use it and rez themselves.
It's easy to miss, and people probably aren't aware of that difference so far.
you don't have to slog through something you know you're going to hate. 10 minutes in multiplayer or a few missions in the campaign can tell you all you need to know about the initial feel of the game.
Yeah I'm just going to go ahead and flat out disagree.
My first 10 minutes of pretty much any online FPS is getting blow'd up. Repeatedly. It's not until I actually learn core mechanics behind it and some of the maps that I start being able to form a picture of whether or not it's actually a good game.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
If a game isn't fun in 3 hours, it has some issues.
Granted, that should be stated (the length of time), but 3 hours is not a short amount of time.
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
you don't have to slog through something you know you're going to hate. 10 minutes in multiplayer or a few missions in the campaign can tell you all you need to know about the initial feel of the game.
As a player who wants to tell his buddies what he thinks of a game, you're absolutely right. As a reviewer who is being paid to play a game and then tell the publication's audience, you're wrong.
Would you say the same to a movie reviewer who stopped watching a movie 20 minutes in and wrote a scathing review? Would you say the same to an auto reviewer who didn't like the dash of a car and didn't bother driving it?
You're being paid to try out the product. If you don't fully experience the product, you can't fully describe it. A review should be an unbiased yet subjective description of the full experience of the product.
The Joystiq review of Brink was not that.
In other news, any hints on doing the 2 star Get More Objective? I can't get past the hacking part since it's RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FUCKING SPAWN. Oh, and my AI teammates are garbage.
Try doing the challenges with others Co-Op guys, you don't get unlocks for it, but you get to see how the AI really performs. Why can't I have THOSE guys on my team?
Of course, one possibility is that it's possible to play the game for 12 hours and only rack up 225 pts. Not all games are Avatar the Last Airbender.
Honestly? I think we should just drop the topic of discussing the Joystiq review (or preferably, all the reviews, at least for the time being).
At this point it's just an batch of endlessly circling arguments, all eating each other and getting re-iterated. All based off of something that we may or may not know to begin with.
i just don't think that's enough time to grasp the game's concepts or form a valid opinion, but hey most movie reviewers watch the first 3rd of a movie and then stop there right? when people test drive a car they go one mile and make a decision?
it's not enough time. it's enough time to form a kneejerk response but not enough to become familiar with the game to say "i played this a lot, and it was bad". this is why reviews are awful. you never know if the person playing actually took the time to learn the game mechanics or even finish a match before writing a damn review.
You guys know that reviews are entirely subjective, right? You can disagree with a review, but it's still a valid review, given that the stated opinion is supported.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
Except the only "proof" of time played is a reviewer's gamertag and it's achievements. There's been plenty of times when I played a game for a while and had less achievements than people who have been playing it less.
That's not counting the reviewer maybe not even finishing the game on his gamertag. Who knows what happens but there's no proof either way.
You guys know that reviews are entirely subjective, right? You can disagree with a review, but it's still a valid review, given that the stated opinion is supported.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
Except the only "proof" of time played is a reviewer's gamertag and it's achievements. There's been plenty of times when I played a game for a while and had less achievements than people who have been playing it less.
That's not counting the reviewer maybe not even finishing the game on his gamertag. Who knows what happens but there's no proof either way.
"Your honour, I would like to present this in evidence for the prosecution as 'Exhibit A' please."
I find it funny that nobody's calling some of these review sites on their obvious ignorance of the game:
-"classes all play the same"
-"grenades are weak/ineffectual"
-"objectives are all the same/don't change"
-"you reach the level cap too fast/no prestige"
I haven't even played the game yet and I can already tell you what the real problems are:
-Terrible AI. Mingleplayer = fail.
-Certain map tweaks must be made (chokepoints, spawns, what have you)
-Only 8 maps (this is a personal thing, I'd prefer a few more.)
-PC's are asploding (see: BLOPS launch)
If those are our problems, I'm pretty pumped to play this in a few hours.
I find it funny that nobody's calling some of these review sites on their obvious ignorance of the game:
-"classes all play the same"
-"grenades are weak/ineffectual"
-"objectives are all the same/don't change"
-"you reach the level cap too fast/no prestige"
I haven't even played the game yet and I can already tell you what the real problems are:
-Terrible AI. Mingleplayer = fail. -Certain map tweaks must be made (chokepoints, spawns, what have you)
-Only 8 maps (this is a personal thing, I'd prefer a few more.)
-PC's are asploding (see: BLOPS launch)
If those are our problems, I'm pretty pumped to play this in a few hours.
That worries me ten times more than level progression or whether I can make random nade chucks for +100.
You guys know that reviews are entirely subjective, right? You can disagree with a review, but it's still a valid review, given that the stated opinion is supported.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
I wouldn't be too worried about it...the problem's probably a bit exacerbated by the fact that nobody has the additional skills or bodytypes that give us options. Without all the options, there's bound to be things that seem totally impossible right now. Likewise, once we get all the options, other things will likely break.
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
Did you listen to it for three hours before it hooked you?
Jokes aside, sure, and there are crappy reviews, period. I can't remember the guy, but there's one critic who pops up on Rotten Tomatoes who despises every movie that's hailed as great and epic, but backs crap movies like Speed Racer or Ishtar (random example of a bad movie) that others hate. It's like he's trolling.
That being said, though, if you go off the assumption that most reviews are meant for casual players (i.e., hardly anyone on this forum), they need to be hooked quickly.
Asking a casual to grind three hours to get to the good part is unacceptable.
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
Did you listen to it for three hours before it hooked you?
Jokes aside, sure, and there are crappy reviews, period. I can't remember the guy, but there's one critic who pops up on Rotten Tomatoes who despises every movie that's hailed as great and epic, but backs crap movies like Speed Racer or Ishtar (random example of a bad movie) that others hate. It's like he's trolling.
That being said, though, if you go off the assumption that most reviews are meant for casual players (i.e., hardly anyone on this forum), they need to be hooked quickly.
Asking a casual to grind three hours to get to the good part is unacceptable.
That makes a lot of sense. Those who would trust that kind of review would probably agree with its assessment; those who wouldn't believe it probably wouldn't anyway. Still, it's a bit sad. I guess I just wish reviews like that would say "It's not for everybody" instead of "it's bad, and here are stupid reasons why".
Armand White is that contrarian film reviewer everyone despises. Then again, an opinion is an opinion, unless he's doing it just for the page views ("Who's the ONE guy who said this 99% Fresh movie was bad?!")
This Griffin McElroy/Joystiq thing is pretty wild, though. Reviewers calling other reviewers out?
How do you see how many hours someone has logged on a game under their tag (360)? I think you can only do a side-by-side comparison of achievement points with friends on Live.
I agree about the hours played thing, but only having a small number of achievements doesn't prove anything. I've got 170 points unlocked on BLOPS, but I'm a 6th Prestige with multiple days logged on the MP. Maybe he played more MP than SP? Are there more MP than SP points?
Asking a casual to drop their ADD and spend time with a game is unacceptable.
Let's just boil games down Facebook games. Obviously if a game's premise isn't immediately apparent from the moment you hit start, the game sucks and you fail.
How do you see how many hours someone has logged on a game under their tag (360)? I think you can only do a side-by-side comparison of achievement points with friends on Live
Someone pointed out that he hasn't gotten an achievement outside of the ones he got a few weeks ago at a media presser, and that they're achievements you get for doing random early game stuff.
I tried again this morning and at least now the servers seem stable. That helped a lot. But my 5870 is still pulling into the low 30s in MP, on LOW settings.
If they can get that figured out, I see plenty of potential for fun times.
Someone posted that going into your Catalyst settings and resetting everything to "Default" cleared things up for them. I'm at work so can't try it yet, but that doesn't sound promising. I don't know that I've ever changed anything in there anyhow.
Anyone have any hints on the second be more objective challenge? Also, do you have to complete it solo for the rewards? i did it twice with a few other dudes just now and no rewards.
Canada_jezus on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
I find it funny that nobody's calling some of these review sites on their obvious ignorance of the game:
-"classes all play the same"
-"grenades are weak/ineffectual"
-"objectives are all the same/don't change"
-"you reach the level cap too fast/no prestige"
I haven't even played the game yet and I can already tell you what the real problems are: -Terrible AI. Mingleplayer = fail.
-Certain map tweaks must be made (chokepoints, spawns, what have you)
-Only 8 maps (this is a personal thing, I'd prefer a few more.)
-PC's are asploding (see: BLOPS launch)
If those are our problems, I'm pretty pumped to play this in a few hours.
This is just wrong, although since you've never played it I know you're just going on what moron reviewers are saying. Let me clarify.
The AI on your own team is absolutely terrible. It runs around, stands in one spot, does whatever the fuck it wants.
The AI on the opposing team when you play with others is absolutely bananas. It is hard. Go and take 3 others with you into the Get More Objective challenge and see what I mean. Even Campaign mode is a pretty big challenge on normal difficulty. It's definitely not easy.
Now, the part where the AI being bad on your own team matters is unlocks via challenges. You have to play those solo, so it's a pain in the ass when your teammates are complete garbage and you have to sit still for 15 seconds disarming something.
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
Did you listen to it for three hours before it hooked you?
Jokes aside, sure, and there are crappy reviews, period. I can't remember the guy, but there's one critic who pops up on Rotten Tomatoes who despises every movie that's hailed as great and epic, but backs crap movies like Speed Racer or Ishtar (random example of a bad movie) that others hate. It's like he's trolling.
That being said, though, if you go off the assumption that most reviews are meant for casual players (i.e., hardly anyone on this forum), they need to be hooked quickly.
Asking a casual to grind three hours to get to the good part is unacceptable.
That makes a lot of sense. Those who would trust that kind of review would probably agree with its assessment; those who wouldn't believe it probably wouldn't anyway. Still, it's a bit sad. I guess I just wish reviews like that would say "It's not for everybody" instead of "it's bad, and here are stupid reasons why".
But what you consider to be "stupid reasons" might actually be pretty good reasons for someone else. Reviews don't exist to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. They should be an honest, well-support examination of something. It's understood that a review is just an opinion, therefore a reviewer shouldn't pull any punches because he/she doesn't want to upset someone who disagrees with their opinion.
That's why Gamespot's 7-10 review scale is so awful.
Posts
It's not ethical otherwise.
Just don't post a score.
Mind you your gamertag for Xbox Live doesn't say the hours played, but it was a worthwhile guess simply by the low score of 200 or so he had for the achievements. But yes someone brought up a good point in all this, review websites cannot truthfully be trusted since nine times out of time, the very people advertising on their website and helping to provide them money are the people making the mediocre games that are copies of what is currently "In".
Yeah his complaints seemed to be about having to play a multi player fps. The classes aren't unique, but you have to swap classes to complete objectives? Seems like that would be pretty unique to me? The map objectives don't change location? Do any current multiplayer fps games have maps that move objective locations around?
It was the death of a thousand vagaries and general complaints brink didn't play like some game that wasn't brink?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why is it that I can't seem to revive people as a medic?
So hey, I'll put my money on the line. I'm downloading the Steam version of this right now. I'll post my totally virgin experience later.
And I won't post a score.
Right. It's not "his" fault. Maybe he has a super secret gamer tag. Or maybe it's Microsoft's fault.
Or maybe he's just lying. He's a game reviewer. For Joystiq. The site that once had a review that tried to mathematically prove that Zelda sucked.
Anyway, Live stat updates are pretty quick. You get an achievement and it updates to your account almost instantaneously.
I just don't understand how that even got into a review. That is 100% your fault you idiot. There are 4 (four) classes with pretty distinct functions and abilities. You may forget this or that ability, but not the class. And where was this shit in a CoD review? I've forgotten which grenade type, secondary or perk I've had equipped on a "class" in BLOPS way more than which class I was using in, say, BC2.
This shit is why I don't read (most) reviews anymore. You can see the guy had a general feeling of whether they liked or disliked the game but lacks the analytical skill to explain why that makes the game good/bad/not their cup of tea. And then they usually lack the guts to even say "YMMV" at the end.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
I like you ideas and would like to subscribe to your weekly newspaper.
I think as a Medic it isn't a BAMPH they pop right back up, but that you throw them a 'revive syringe' or something and they have to stick themselves with it.
People could also just be respawning.
I was running around behind people spamming f whenever they dropped and it didn't seem to be doing anything.
unless the person played for a total of 3 hours and doesn't complete the game, then it's less of a review and more of a lie
If a game isn't fun in 3 hours, it has some issues.
Granted, that should be stated (the length of time), but 3 hours is not a short amount of time.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
The medic throws a little syringe with a blue streak behind it, very quickly, and then it's up to the downed player to use it and rez themselves.
It's easy to miss, and people probably aren't aware of that difference so far.
Yeah I'm just going to go ahead and flat out disagree.
My first 10 minutes of pretty much any online FPS is getting blow'd up. Repeatedly. It's not until I actually learn core mechanics behind it and some of the maps that I start being able to form a picture of whether or not it's actually a good game.
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
As a player who wants to tell his buddies what he thinks of a game, you're absolutely right. As a reviewer who is being paid to play a game and then tell the publication's audience, you're wrong.
Would you say the same to a movie reviewer who stopped watching a movie 20 minutes in and wrote a scathing review? Would you say the same to an auto reviewer who didn't like the dash of a car and didn't bother driving it?
You're being paid to try out the product. If you don't fully experience the product, you can't fully describe it. A review should be an unbiased yet subjective description of the full experience of the product.
The Joystiq review of Brink was not that.
In other news, any hints on doing the 2 star Get More Objective? I can't get past the hacking part since it's RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FUCKING SPAWN. Oh, and my AI teammates are garbage.
Try doing the challenges with others Co-Op guys, you don't get unlocks for it, but you get to see how the AI really performs. Why can't I have THOSE guys on my team?
Honestly? I think we should just drop the topic of discussing the Joystiq review (or preferably, all the reviews, at least for the time being).
At this point it's just an batch of endlessly circling arguments, all eating each other and getting re-iterated. All based off of something that we may or may not know to begin with.
it's not enough time. it's enough time to form a kneejerk response but not enough to become familiar with the game to say "i played this a lot, and it was bad". this is why reviews are awful. you never know if the person playing actually took the time to learn the game mechanics or even finish a match before writing a damn review.
Except the only "proof" of time played is a reviewer's gamertag and it's achievements. There's been plenty of times when I played a game for a while and had less achievements than people who have been playing it less.
That's not counting the reviewer maybe not even finishing the game on his gamertag. Who knows what happens but there's no proof either way.
"Your honour, I would like to present this in evidence for the prosecution as 'Exhibit A' please."
-"classes all play the same"
-"grenades are weak/ineffectual"
-"objectives are all the same/don't change"
-"you reach the level cap too fast/no prestige"
I haven't even played the game yet and I can already tell you what the real problems are:
-Terrible AI. Mingleplayer = fail.
-Certain map tweaks must be made (chokepoints, spawns, what have you)
-Only 8 maps (this is a personal thing, I'd prefer a few more.)
-PC's are asploding (see: BLOPS launch)
If those are our problems, I'm pretty pumped to play this in a few hours.
That worries me ten times more than level progression or whether I can make random nade chucks for +100.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
You're right. WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!?!
This is entirely too reasonable of an opinion. GET OUT!
I wouldn't be too worried about it...the problem's probably a bit exacerbated by the fact that nobody has the additional skills or bodytypes that give us options. Without all the options, there's bound to be things that seem totally impossible right now. Likewise, once we get all the options, other things will likely break.
Did you listen to it for three hours before it hooked you?
Jokes aside, sure, and there are crappy reviews, period. I can't remember the guy, but there's one critic who pops up on Rotten Tomatoes who despises every movie that's hailed as great and epic, but backs crap movies like Speed Racer or Ishtar (random example of a bad movie) that others hate. It's like he's trolling.
That being said, though, if you go off the assumption that most reviews are meant for casual players (i.e., hardly anyone on this forum), they need to be hooked quickly.
Asking a casual to grind three hours to get to the good part is unacceptable.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
That makes a lot of sense. Those who would trust that kind of review would probably agree with its assessment; those who wouldn't believe it probably wouldn't anyway. Still, it's a bit sad. I guess I just wish reviews like that would say "It's not for everybody" instead of "it's bad, and here are stupid reasons why".
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
This Griffin McElroy/Joystiq thing is pretty wild, though. Reviewers calling other reviewers out?
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I agree about the hours played thing, but only having a small number of achievements doesn't prove anything. I've got 170 points unlocked on BLOPS, but I'm a 6th Prestige with multiple days logged on the MP. Maybe he played more MP than SP? Are there more MP than SP points?
Let's just boil games down Facebook games. Obviously if a game's premise isn't immediately apparent from the moment you hit start, the game sucks and you fail.
Someone pointed out that he hasn't gotten an achievement outside of the ones he got a few weeks ago at a media presser, and that they're achievements you get for doing random early game stuff.
I tried again this morning and at least now the servers seem stable. That helped a lot. But my 5870 is still pulling into the low 30s in MP, on LOW settings.
If they can get that figured out, I see plenty of potential for fun times.
Someone posted that going into your Catalyst settings and resetting everything to "Default" cleared things up for them. I'm at work so can't try it yet, but that doesn't sound promising. I don't know that I've ever changed anything in there anyhow.
This is just wrong, although since you've never played it I know you're just going on what moron reviewers are saying. Let me clarify.
The AI on your own team is absolutely terrible. It runs around, stands in one spot, does whatever the fuck it wants.
The AI on the opposing team when you play with others is absolutely bananas. It is hard. Go and take 3 others with you into the Get More Objective challenge and see what I mean. Even Campaign mode is a pretty big challenge on normal difficulty. It's definitely not easy.
Now, the part where the AI being bad on your own team matters is unlocks via challenges. You have to play those solo, so it's a pain in the ass when your teammates are complete garbage and you have to sit still for 15 seconds disarming something.
But what you consider to be "stupid reasons" might actually be pretty good reasons for someone else. Reviews don't exist to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. They should be an honest, well-support examination of something. It's understood that a review is just an opinion, therefore a reviewer shouldn't pull any punches because he/she doesn't want to upset someone who disagrees with their opinion.
That's why Gamespot's 7-10 review scale is so awful.