Ok so an 89 on metacritic is ok, but the fanboy in me is a bit frustrated that it is not 90+
I know dumb, but it is a great game. My problem with the bad reviews is that they knock it for three things: single player, no main game co op and some graphical issues.
1. Single player is great to me, i preferred the narrator but whatever. The single player for this is way better than COD4 so how can that get consistantly high reviews when it is almost solely multiplayer? Why does resistance get knocked down, because its multiplayer is unreal, for its single player when it is better than COD4 single player?
2. No main game co op is fine, because they actually try to do something innovative (people always gripe that there is nothing innovative in FPSs) by giving an entirely different storyline for you to play with your friends!!! To me that is better, i would not mind main game co op, but resistance's (the first one) co op was racist (just joking but was i the only one to notice that the black guy does all the work but the white guy gets all the credit?!). They just stuck the other guy in there and he had no part in the story or purpose. Oh and back to COD4...it doesn't even have main game coop...isnt that like a bonus?
3. Graphics: in some areas not as good as I would like, but still pretty amazing. This is one area you could knock the game. Funny though, gameplay is supposed to be more important that graphics right?
Just some of my thoughts on the game and the reviews, rip me if you feel like it.
