If CoD is allowed to do the same shit 5 times and still get high reviews every year, why can't other games?

If there is one I've learned over this gen is that gamers give don't give two shits about "evolution." The vast majority of gamers like to play the same shit over and over. A few examples of games we can't get enough of and sell very well. Zelda games, mario games, Uncharted, CoD, Gears of war, God of war, Halo, the list goes on. Now, I understand that that the difference between games the first Halo and Halo reach or God of war and God of war 3 are noticeable (graphics, mechanics, etc) but it is the same formula over and over and it sells really well! One dude against immense godly odds taking everything to town or rescuing a princess 10 times in a row. I admit it, I have played all the console God of war, uncharted and tons of mario games and I still find them entertaining, even if I've done this like 50 times already

I am also always excited to see games like LBP, heavy rain or even dead island try something new or at least relatively obscure and succeed. The fans enjoy and it sells beyond expectation, even if not pulling off CoD-like sales. I like a break from the usual every now and then. When I think about it, the more i play the same old, tried-and-true games, the more i enjoy these refreshing games that rear their heads every once in a while.

Ok, this little rant made sense in my head.

OT: I think jeffe needs a chill pill but at least he didn't bitch about the number score.

No it's very clear the reviewer is biased.
The entire review was garbage.

It's 'old-school'?
Hasn't changed much in its years?
He's faulting the arcade-like gameplay for being old?

What about how fucking fun the game is?
What about how I got a copy of TM:Black for free with it?

The only complaints I've seen from reviewers that resound with me is the lack of single-player, but Jaffe did warn us that the game was MP focused, and if we wanted the single-player, we should rent it.
I'm disappointed by the alck of characters. The cars are all there, but I genuinely liked the story mode and the art-style of the vignettes.
The multiplayer is phenomenal, but the single player is a bit depressing. Certainly warrants better than a 60% though. The multiplayer alone I would give a high 80, low 90 score, and the single player I'd probably give a 73.
I would average those things out to probably an 80 or 82.
A 60 for being fun is retarded.
And that's what this review boils down to. He can't handle the game being fun.

G4TV still has video game related material?? I thought they were just Campus Police and Cops...

"Finally, give it a rest with the "G4 is biased against Sony" or "paid off by Microsoft"

Oh God yes, was I happy to see someone acknowledge this. Any PS3 exclusive gets less then perfect.....and all the fans cry bias and MS moneyhatting. Oh but when a 360 games scores low.....it was well deserved right?

Cry me a river/gimme a break. Just one of the cultural differences between a 360 and PS3 fan

What did you expect someone from GI to do an actual intelligent debate?  The most I expect from GI is that I can wipe my ass with it if I ever find a copy of their magazine laying around.

Jaffe sounds angry.

This was not a less than perfect.

He blasted the game for being, basically, Twisted Metal.

He says there has been no evolution, yet points out that you can now change cars mid map, he also fails to point out how easy they've made the special ablities. Specials used to be left, right, up, or up,down,left,right, etc. Now, it's either up, down, left, or right, each activating a different special. They simplified the entire control mechanic, and even included a new sniping mechanic. The game is incredibly balanced to what it used to be where the best cars were almost always the biggest. Now, each vehicle size category has a unique way to play. No longer is it just, spawn camp the power missiles, or spawn camp the barrels. Each car has a unique way to play.

He blasts it for being pinball-like in the physics. That's the point. These are cars you're chasing, not people. If you can't bounce a car, or dislodge it, you're not going to catch it.

Yeah, no evolution indeed. The reviewer scored the game for being an old franchise. And he praises rage for it's modernity? Please, rage is not a good game. It's slow, and it's boring. There's no flavor or substance or style. It's sooo vanilla.

I said this in the youtube comments a while back for Uncharted 3 but: Why do people even bitch about the review? The reviewer gives their take on the game. If we already know what we want the game to be (keep in mind that, most of the time, we haven't played it and they have), why do we complain? You get mad when a game you thing is a 9/10 gets an 8.5/10. If you think it's a 9/10 then buy it and be happy. You wanted THEIR opinion so you checked out THEIR review. In the end, it seems that people don't want a review at all. They just want to be told what they want to hear.

Personally, when I think a game may suck, I'm glad when a reviewer comes in and gives me realistic expectations. Some times, I think to myself, "you know, this wasn't as big of a deal for me as it was for them" or, "You know, I didn't even notice any slowdown or screen tearing." but, even if I don't notice, the problem tends to be real. It's just something that I'm personally able to overlook and somebody else may take issue with.

Jaffe is free to speak his mind about whatever he wants but he should know more than anyone, considering how long he's been in this business: Not everyone is going to like what you like. I predict that TM is going to sell like crap. It may be a good game but it's not the right game. It's a throwback product of a bygone era. It's concept is not appealing anymore.

I'm surprised that Developers, much less Jaffe, actually care about G4.

It's like you didn't read what Jaffe wrote at all then randomly took a stab at TM. I lold.