From the quick skim through I did seems like it suffers from the exact same thing GoW:A suffered from: "More of the same." So I say we go to that thread and just copy and pastes everyones comments that said "reviewers are stupid. They complain about games going to far from formula one game and complain about games staying too close to formula others"

If it means It's more of the same the game will probably be great just like god of war ascension is. I trust game journalists less and less when it comes to awesome games because they take off points for the stupidest reasons like how Adam Sessler took of points from GOW ascension because of a trophy name. They just try and find any reason even if the game is great, It's really pathetic.

Damn IGN gave it a 9.2

I just read the excerpts metacritic has up:

"Judgment is literally as much fun as Gears of War 2" - 96/100 (so this reviewer liked it being similar it seems)

"Although it’s in no way game changing, Gears of War: Judgment is a fast paced, satisfyingly violent, action shooter" 88/100

"It’s solid, it’s capable, it fits with the identity of the series. In short, it’s Gears." 81/100 (now we are getting to people who don't like more of the same)

" The fact that the game doesn't offer anything significantly new is definitely a point against it, but it remains undeniably fun to play"

Theres more but I'm sure you get the picture

Yeah but i don't get it, why change something that made the game awesome in the first place? I could see it if it was the same story, places , gameplay and such but they improve on everything. If reviewers want the gameplay to change drasticly they would be complaining on that and deducting points, the only game that seems to not be affected by it is mario. It is the same formula for gameplay everytime with even the same horrible story every time but doesn't get a deducted score i wonder why.

eurog8mer

And yet another game falls victim to the New Age of Gaming Journalism.

It's called:

They Changed It, Now It Sucks

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks

and

It's the Same, Now It Sucks

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheSameNowItSucks

The second one really pisses me off because there are some thing that I don't want changed. Halo 4's core gameplay mechanics is one of them. There were reviewers that complained that it plays too much like previous Halo games. That's what I love about Halo. There were also people that complained that the enhancments and additions to Halo 4 changed it too much. But there really did enhance the game. The stuff that was good stayed and the new stuff was good, yet people complained. I swear there are people that will complain about anything.

As for Gears of War Judgement. I'll hold off my, um... judgement untill my preorder copy gets delivered, but I liked the IGN review. IGN had a lot of praise for the game and only some minor negatives. The gave it a 9.2 which is damn good considering it's on three tenths of a point lower than Halo 4.

I think an 80 is good, and in general I think critics are using the scale a bit better.

The issue with criticizing games because they changed, or criticizing because they did change it, is that both are valid viewpoints to have.

In order to break from the past with inflated scores you have to have a point of non correlation.

I love Bulletstorm and I am putting absolutely 0 care into the meta score this game gets. To me its like Call of Duty. Treyarch (imho) put out 3 incredible games that blew away what IW did and because they were the "other guys" their games were consistently rated lower. Same situation here.

However, when I read that the game only has 4 MP maps and a very very short SP.. meh. A short SP is fine, but it needs a strong MP to suffice and 4 maps is terrible. And then they apparently bombard you with ads for the season pass.. I think I am going to wait for a sale on this one.