In my mind, the place of a review is to judge a game based on its merits, not to make a mostly-unrelated soapbox rant about the genre and slap a score on it. I kinda liked the chase sequences, I know they're dumb as hell but they are fairly well done and aren't just 2 minutes sequences were you drive in a straight line like most vehicule sections tend to be in those games.
Honest question. Explain to me the logistics of a bribe because if a game can get one but still get bad reviews well that just blows my mind. Also I heard reviews for this title didn't come in until after the game released. So either there was no bribe, or there was a bribe but the reviewers forfeited the bribe i. Just bland and boring and on the pc ive had the game constantly minimizing every 15 mins making it really frustrating to play, and other menus not showing up properly.
BeachThunder said:. I do find it weird that lots of reviewers are giving it low scores just because it's mediocre and they're tired of the genre. I mean, feel free to slam the game for not trying anything new but if it's competently done and Danger Close clearly didn't rush it out to market or anything, it also deserves to get credit where it's due.
You have an extremely warped view of how reviews work. For sites, posting an early review IS the bribe because it means more hits. Cash-in-hand bribes don't occur on that kind of level. Ad money and the promise of early coverage for future games is why sites like IGN tend to give favourable reviews. Similarly, with publications like OXM or Playstation Official Magazine that are tied to platform-holders give favourable reviews to products in order to keep their license with Microsoft or Sony.
Bribes just don't happen in the way people seem to think they do. If a notable reviewer was receiving a bribe then someone, anyone would get hold of that information and use it their advantage in the most public way possible. This is the internet, you can't keep something like an actual bribe a secret. There are all sorts of ways publishers can optimise review scores, bribes aren't really one of them anymore.
Not when there are "exclusive reveals" and 10 minutes of unseen gameplay footage to be handed out for future titles. I havent bought it my self, and i will never do so.
But everything i have hard on podcasts, and read about it makes it out to be a very mediocre game. So its not a bad game, but it's not good either. My brother finished the single player in 4 hours, and what he said about it was no ringing endorsement either. But he told me that he thought the story was a bit better than the one found in BF3.
And we all know how stupid boring and lame that story was. A comparison he made about the game was, that if it was a movie it would be Act of Valor. Also a mediocre movie at best, if not pretty damn bad. So unless your wanting it for multiplayer, i would say skip it and save your money.
I really can't see people sticking with the multiplayer for long either. The game is a soulless cash-in into the military themed shooters, its a competent shooter, but it has allot of bugs and lacks overall polish, with a shitty story and emphasis on being authentic which it never does or even try's to be. This game should be compared to the battlefield franchise rather than the call of duty franchise.
This game should be compared to the Rogue Warrior franchise rather than the battlefield or call of duty franchise. I fear for people that can't enjoy average games. Yet, it is marketed as an alternative to Call of Duty, specifically as the 'authentic' alternative. This can be seen from the ex-Tier 1 operatives used as consultants and wheeled out at press events, to the line "inspired by actual events" that appears at the start of most missions, and even to the ridiculous and withdrawn pre-order bonus of a Tomahawk.
An actual Tomahawk. The game's developer, Danger Close, believes its game is a tribute to the military, specifically America's military. What is offensive about Medal of Honor's posturing in this direction, and it is posturing, is that despite the constant killing, this game is not about war and it is not even about the military.
Quite apart from its in-game trivialisation of death, like the red and white headshot icons that pop up after especially juicy shots, Medal of Honor now inhabits a fictional universe where you play a character called Preacher hunting down a terrorist called the Cleric. This is a comic book world. That's the problem. Medal of Honor, let us remember, has heritage.
This is a series created way back in the late 90s under the direction of no less than Steven Spielberg himself, with the explicit aim of humanising conflict. If that's what you want to make, fine and dandy. But dressing this up in the way that Warfighter's developer and publisher do, as a tribute to the armed forces and the sacrifices of war, seems a kind of huckster's valorisation. When I look at Medal of Honor now, and its commercial partners that produce things like the Tac McMillen Tactical Rifle , I see a game created under the belief that being authentic is the best way to siphon off Activision's sales.
And yet with that belief, the one thing its creators never thought to change was the game itself, how it works and what that communicates to players.
It can't even manage a tonal shift from COD. That's the repugnant thing about Warfighter. It's a rebranding exercise, veiled by the sanctity of America's brave forces.
War games can do dumb, and I'm OK with that. But dressing dumb up in the cloak of authenticity seems a dangerous line to cross. When you pretend to be saying something about ongoing real-world wars, but present a conflict of extremes with all the substance of air, the thought that anyone might take Warfighter seriously becomes a very queasy one.
Based on our expert review. Based on 8 reviews. Based on 7 reviews. Add your rating. Parents say 8 Kids say 7. Adult Written by Anonymous June 30, This review Helped me decide. Had useful details. Read my mind. Report this review. Adult Written by Sam M. November 19, For Breaching Fetishists. Thats all there is A million ways to break down doors to arbitrary places But why? Its still gonna be a scripted slow down.
No gore unlike the first game. Not as much blood either.
0コメント