spurgeonryan said:
It seems to be the trend right now to have at least one or two sites that give bad scores. When there are 100 videogame sites and news sites giving great reviews, the only way to stand out in the crowd is to give a bad review! I am sure they will get a lot of traffic now. |
It rather seems to be a trend to bloat the scores of highly anticipated titles to please fans and rake in incomes from clicks and ads. There are way too many games scoring in the 9's this gen, the scoring system has lost all meaning. I find myself all but ignoring reviews as of the past three-four years, there are almost no nuances to the reviews (which is fitting since there is rarely and nuance to the titles themselves...). The industry is growing into a Michael Bay Hollywood fest with blaze and noise complete with blazing, noisy reviews which sell the promise of epicness not delivered. Button spamming, aim-assist, quicktime events and relentless, rehashed drivel for stories is what we get.
Oh, by the way, don't read Gamer.no's review, it will ruin your day. But its by far the one I've agreed with the most so far, the reviewer manages to remain objective about a product he knows all the tweens love.
Having played every single CoD game ever published, at some length (as far as I could be arsed to lately) I have no problem believeing that this title deserves a score in the 7ish region. Virtually nothing has happened in the series since the original MW, the menu design, mission structure, pacing, most of the weapons and the engine are way too similar for a series that has gone on for four-five years and there is little to no creativity to most individual parts of the games. The production value is high but the gameplay is growing old and stale.
For the record; I find the BF3 campaign rather dull as well. Military shooters just aren't what they used to be any longer.
PS: Since when is a 76 a "bad" score anyway? Like I said, the review system is broken and the whole Metacritic chase has gone overboard a long time ago.
