Displaying 21–40 of 42
If Uncharted 3 and BF3 got a 4/5, CoD MW2.5 should have received a 4/5. Simple as that.
Its more of the same but clearly that formula is working.
What makes a good game? Is it the fresh content? Is it the innovative or remastered feature? Is it the replay value, with or without your friends? Or maybe it's just because it looks good? I could have researched this, but I decided I would give you all to think about something instead. What makes the CoD series, specifically Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, and Modern Warfare 3, so popular? Why do people enjoy these games so much? Is it because it is a good game, and if so, see my first series of questions. I played Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. I have also played Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I had fun playing all of those games, but I refuse to get Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3. I just don't simply see the point of replaying old mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, or playing a game with some new stuff slapped on being called a "new game." By that statement, I could be referring to CoD, or Battlefield, or any other shooter, but I'm not specifically naming what I was thinking of when I typed that statement. I play what I think is a good game. And I think a good game is what I have fun playing. Not what you have fun playing, not what the reviews say are fun, and not what the developers say are fun, (I specifically think of Bulletstorm with the last.) I have to a different computer right now, so hopefully I will be able to edit this post and finish my thought.
5/5 for MW2.5? This new edition brings nothing new, I see nothing new and exciting with this game. I am not a battle field fan or a Call of duty fan either. Just playing MW1 is just like playing MW3. Just another way for them to suck the economy dry of parents just scratching by in the first place. I would give this a 3/5 for not bringing anything new to the multiplayer. Gears of war 3 is a way better game than this, and the multiplayer is way more fun. Gotta love cookie cutter FPS
The point of Battlefield games are the "Battlefield moments" -- amazing, funny, or plain stupid moments that stick with you because the developers yield so many options.Like parachuting into a chopper after you shoot the pilot out.youtube.com/watch?v=s_JIKrjs 5IYOr driving a jeep off a cliff and having an exploding fuel tanker break your fall.youtube.com/watch?v=PKI1MVcL aMAThat is very hard to quantify in a review... so you often see it omitted. Ultimately that is what makes Battlefield... Battlefield though.
Anyone who says this is a bad game is an idiot and obviously doesn't know games however I'll agree with anyone that says that these games are getting old. At this point they've damn near perfected the series. I don't think you can really compare battlefield and Call of Duty just because their both military first person shooters. Battlefield has much bigger maps too where you have tanks, jets, helicopters, and hum vs. With the larger map size and the different selections of death dealing at your disposal things like tactics, and teamwork come into play a lot more. Call of Duty on the other hand is on a much smaller scale where team work isn't exactly essential. In fact I'm not a big fan of the team based game modes in Call of Duty at all. On the other hand I personally think that Free for All is where COD shines the most, or maybe it's just because I'm really good at it. The point is yes their both military shooters; is one better than the other? Well that really depends on what your looking for. If you want tactics and strategy I'd say go on over to battlefield, but if you want to get up in someones face and shove an assault rifle down their throat and pull the trigger MW3 is your game. Also I'm just going to throw this in there Battlefield will never have a strong story mode because they just don't put the effort in, they focus on multiplayer. The COD engine is pretty much down they don't really have to change the fundamental game play, they just add things and tweak the game every time a new title comes out. Although I don't agree with the business model they've got over at activision they've got a quality product.Oh and you trolls raging about G4's creditability go look at Game informer or IGN they just slap a 9.5, or 8 on every triple A title that comes out, at least G4 hall the balls to write a decently unbiased review every once in a while.
Look, if you fanboys wanna know why MW3 got a rating higher than BF3? Well this is why.Remember the first COD? That was one hell of a WW2 game, made me cry a bit..Remember COD4? Awesome plot, awesome campaign who the freaking hell could forget the Sniper mission?Remember CounterStrike? The Modern Warfare series is an improvement of CounterStrike, it puts you in a whole Gunslinger/Mercenary style setting.As for the plot? Yeah it's like a Michael Bay movie but hey remember Expendables? How about Transformers (had many mistakes btw) that was one hell of an action movie.So what I'm trying to say is that X play gave it a 5 out of 5 because they've been playing it for a really long time, since day one. So really Battlefield Fanboys please a lot of us COD fanboys play Battlefield too so stop being an elitist punk cause it's really disgusting.As for the graphics how about watching the video on HD? More particles and glossBut nothing compared to Frostbite 2
waiting to see if i can get it but if i don't ill just go to my friends house and play it or if my cusins get it.
BS dude they all talk about how much we need more Innovation where is the Innovation in this crap. I still perfer the campaign in BF3 way more. Adam is greatly mistaken when he said it was boring. This game is more like a 3.5 out of 5.
While I agree with Adam's reviews and scores, I have to say that I disagree with the whole review process of having so many different reviewers handle different games. I understand giving Uncharted 3 a four out of five. However, the same criticisms he made of Uncharted 3 should be valid for MW3 as well. More of the same. Nothing to push the series in new and exciting territory. So Uncharted looks like a sub-par effort, while MW3 looks like the best thing going. But I think the number score does have merit, along with listing the pros and cons of the game. I know Adam and Matt have stressed that we should read their reviews, but the only thing is, so many reviews have spoilers in them. I want to go into a game and have that feeling that you had. You don't know what's going to happen, but you can't wait to see. But I've read reviews where it's like, "And in the second act, the lead character's girlfriend gets murdered. And spoiler alert, she says something really interesting before she dies". You just took away some of my enjoyment of the game. The main thing I want to know is, is the story good or are there such issues with the game that I need to stay away from it. And those things are summed up nicely in the pros and cons and the number score. Then after I play the game, I like reading the reviews. But Adam has a more critical view of games, and I just think it's not fair to Naughty Dog for him to have a very critical, detailed look at the game (which all reviewers should), vs. another reviewer who may not have that same view just to look at this and say, "Awww, yeah. Awesome. 5 out of 5".
Morgan says at the end that if you're not a fan, maybe you should jump in now. My thing is, the developers don't want you to. It's absolutely crazy to have a game where upgrades and perks are so powerful, and you have absolutely no matchmaking system whatsoever. I like their multiplayer, but don't have the time (or interest) to invest like some do. So I come into a match with a simple gun, while others have infrared sensors to find me, upgraded weapons so they just have to shoot in my general area and I'm dead, and just about every other perk to make killing me a lot easier when I have zero. Then by the time I finally can play it enough to get those things, they've logged in hundreds of hours and know every trick or glitch in the game (that is, if they're not hacking, too). It's ridiculous. I swore off multiplayer after MW2. It's not fun to be someone else's target practice. If my k/d ratio is 2 or 3, why in the world should I ever be in a lobby with people's whose ratio is around 15? It's because the developers couldn't care less. They need people who like me who are just casual gamers and not that good to give target practice to those hardcore fans that play this game non-stop for months and years. If you put only those hardcore players into a room, they'd revolt because their stats would drop because the games would actually be fair. God forbid.
Oh great, MW3 is here. Let's face it, Modern Warfare 3 is an awesome game. Fanboys please just shut the hell up and enjoy your game. I'm enjoying both
There goes G4s credibility down the toilet... *flush*
uncharted 3 has a 4/5 because the mutli player felt tacked on even though it was a completely new experience that every1 enjoyed (apart from Sessler) this got 5/5 and the multiplayer was the same thing from mw2. wow g4
Has anyone else noticed that the World Trade Center was removed from the 1st mission with no explanation? How has this gone completely unnoticed?
Okay so is there a list of words for what G4 thinks is explicit? I am trying to post something but I never placed any profanity in it...
This is feed material if I dont say so
http://www.kctv5.com/story/159 89220/man-allegedly-attempts-t o-rob-someone-for-video-game
Game looks amazing.
lol at the 60 dollar mod......
Posted: September 12, 2012
6,087 Views | 04:48
2,235 Views | 05:17
2,542 Views | 04:12
1,601 Views | 05:17
Posted: August 30, 2012
9,646 Views | 02:18
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.