By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Killiana1a on 25 November 2010
Edit Thread
PullusPardus said:
ishiki said:
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that this is relevant.

i didn't have that game breaking bug as well, but to me FC2 wasn't very good, it had a great idea and great potential but was very repetitive and had lots of emptiness.

I loved Far Cry 2 and still have not seen a game visually create fire as it has. That being said, it is far below Far Cry in the awesome department.