4.0 Presentation The menu design was clearly copied from GRAW, which is to say that it's very unintuitive. Nothing here will connect you to any of the characters or the army.
5.0 Graphics Environments are poorly textured and designed. Character models don’t fare much better. Slight framerate issues and poor lighting round things out. Explosions actually aren’t half-bad.
4.5 Sound The voice acting is laughable and the weapon effects leave plenty to be desired. The main theme does sound somewhat patriotic.
3.0 Gameplay The customization is decent. Once you start firing your weapon and moving around is when you’ll want your money back.
4.5 Lasting Appeal The online offering has plenty of modes, even if the solo play is lacking. Building up your character will take some time, supposing you can stomach it.
The OXM reviewer spent around the same time as the IGN guy did I think. I remember a few years ago when these two sources put out balanced reviews, but I no longer take them at face value anymore.
and thsi is why on my review I said that player reviews are all that matter. This guy obviously doesnt care about the game one way or the other and had no intintion to before the fact. It is like me saying HALO SUCKS! I hate the halo thought, teh game play and everything attached to HALO so therefore it gets a 1.0 out of 100 and thats cuz i agree they sold a bunch of copies. So with this in mind no one should buy halo! That is all!
These guys are making me mad. Especially in OXM when he complained it wasn't like GRAW or R6, Really well some of us like our games to have some basis in reality. Some of the reviews were this far away from: "OMG! THIZ GAME HAVE NO REGEN HEALTH OR CROSSHAIRZ ANDZ I CANT EVEN JUMPZ UP 6 FEET IN THE AIR."
I just can't see how they would score AA TS so low when they just have the same engine and developers as GRAW, The sames ones who scored GRAW at least a 9 LOL. The graphics look similar to me and the movements as well. They don't understand that its not just a video game. Its an official U.S. Army one. And the heart of the gameplay stresses the obvious who knows.
The more I play the more I am enjoying the graphics to be honest.
Finding a good team to operate as slow as the game is meant to be in an effective way is too few far in between.
i think it was the OXM review where the guy kept talking about how the movement and control was "sluggish".
relative to what?!Halo or COD?
the game is supposed to be realistic.i'd like to make them run arround with all of that gear for a day...ask um if it made them feel "sluggish" or "cumbersome".
This is proof some of these media outlets just don't care enough to offer objective, educated and non-biased reviews about certain games. What, all their staff with college level writing/reviewing skills were so busy covering the plethora of other games, they just passed this off to a random intern? Seems that way to me. It's like the janitor wrote this BS. To me these reviews only prove how blatantly stupid the reviewers/organizations are. It would be like me getting Halo and rating it a 4 because it's too fast, not realistic, doesn't have squad tactics and m16's, etc. Are they so blind they can't realize their comparison to COD4 doesn't hold water? How about they get people interested in the tactical genre to do the review next time, huh?
I still don't feel I've played it enough yet to give a full-review, that's over 20 hours in, but definitely hovering around a 8 to 9. Anyone giving less than a 6 on this game - I question their credibility. Sorry. This 3 and 4 **** is totally ridiculous. I mean, Come On! How could I ever trust a review from them on a similar genre again? Answer: I can't.
This review really makes me lose respect for IGN. I had considered them semi-fair and balanced. Not Anymore.
I'm really starting to become disillusioned with some of these reviewers, it seems like they give AAA titles all the attention and undeserved scores. The only time I ever saw a reviewer was one who I belive was in game informer giving the second opinion on R6:vegas when he said how saddened he was to see how far the series has come from its' roots. They should get people like that to review these kind of games.
Originally posted by HMD5x56x45x: This is proof some of these media outlets just don't care enough to offer objective, educated and non-biased reviews about certain games. What, all their staff with college level writing/reviewing skills were so busy covering the plethora of other games, they just passed this off to a random intern? Seems that way to me. It's like the janitor wrote this BS. To me these reviews only prove how blatantly stupid the reviewers/organizations are. It would be like me getting Halo and rating it a 4 because it's too fast, not realistic, doesn't have squad tactics and m16's, etc. Are they so blind they can't realize their comparison to COD4 doesn't hold water? How about they get people interested in the tactical genre to do the review next time, huh?
I still don't feel I've played it enough yet to give a full-review, that's over 20 hours in, but definitely hovering around a 8 to 9. Anyone giving less than a 6 on this game - I question their credibility. Sorry. This 3 and 4 **** is totally ridiculous. I mean, Come On! How could I ever trust a review from them on a similar genre again? Answer: I can't.
This review really makes me lose respect for IGN. I had considered them semi-fair and balanced. Not Anymore.
I lost respect for IGN a couple years ago. Anymore I rely on the reviews of several sites and then the fan reviews. 3-5 years ago they were more trustworthy but once the advertising boom hit them all, you couldn't really trust them anymore. I've started renting them first just to make sure I don't blow $60 on a game.
I lost respect for OXM when they gave Gears of War a 10. The game was good but it definitely wasn't a ten. 8.5-9.0 tops. The single player was good but the multiplayer sucked big time, and the campaign was only fun once, after that it played the exact same way every time.
They Also gave Bioshock a 10. Some people really liked it but I thought that game was horrible. 7.0-7.5 tops. Guess what they gave Halo 3? You guessed it, a 10, and COD4? a 10.
I remember when they never gave out tens, and they said they never would, because no game was perfect. The highest score they had ever given out was a 9.7 to Halo 2, which it deserved for great gameplay and revolutionary multiplayer.
When the first 10 was given out to Fight night round 3 for good graphics I just stopped reading the magazine and started only playing their demo discs. But when GoW got the 10 I came to the conclusion that OXM officially sucked, and I stand by that conclusion to this day.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogue__Spear: Shoving mustard up your *ss... Only the English.
The game reviewing industry is a major joke. They are just a bunch of game players happy to have a job that pays them for playing games, gives them access to game studios and gives them access to free goodies (and if you are an avid gamer, can you really blame them?). They are not going to do anything to rock that boat.
They are really nothing more than puppets for the PR departments of the publishing firms.
I mean how many previews have you read where the first two paragraphs are devoted to how geeked the writer is to be visiting the glorious studios of such and such company?
They are still useful in that they pass along information about what is in a game, what type of game it is, pictures and preview videos, and when a game will be available. You just have to take that factual information and pretty much ignore the opinion stuff.
------------------------------- "I just blew your mind, didn't I? The ol' universe isn't the warm, comfy place it was seven seconds ago, is it...?" - Bucky Kat
I feel about the same as the rest of you on this. Disappointed but not really suprised. Reviewers these days strike me as having very short attention spans. If a game doesn't have ultra-graphic wiz-bang pop, or if it requires you to think beyond the level of a third grader, it just doesn't stand much chance with the reviewers.
They love platform games, but give realistic games a poor rating. They just don't understand them. These people don't rate games based on their own genre, they rate them just to try to forecast sales so their opinions will be "vindicated". A game like this will never sell like the bigger titles. It can't, it's not even sold outside the U.S. Most people, even shooter fans, will not go for this game since it's NOT mainstream. It requires thought and patience, not mere reflexes.
The problem is that people trust these reviews. People who would like a realistic shooter may not try it for themselves (at the risk of $60) after reading the review of some Mario fanboy writers who don't put in the time, effort (dare I say intelligence?) to appreciate this game for what it's supposed to be. They don't "get it", so it's no surprise they rate it so low.
What's funny is that they rate this low, but IGN gave Soldier of Fortune a 6.1! I got that in from Gamefly. SOF would be a great game 5 years ago, when funneled shooters with pop up bad guys were the thing. To rate it higher like that and AA so low, their reviews simply mean NOTHING to me in the future.
It's funny how on Metacritic.com the usual review mags rate the game so low, but the user votes average it at 8.1, which sounds about right to me. It'll be interesting to see if there are any reviewers that "get" what the game is and review it properly.
Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox: I lost respect for OXM when they gave Gears of War a 10. The game was good but it definitely wasn't a ten. 8.5-9.0 tops. The single player was good but the multiplayer sucked big time, and the campaign was only fun once, after that it played the exact same way every time.
They Also gave Bioshock a 10. Some people really liked it but I thought that game was horrible. 7.0-7.5 tops. Guess what they gave Halo 3? You guessed it, a 10, and COD4? a 10.
I remember when they never gave out tens, and they said they never would, because no game was perfect. The highest score they had ever given out was a 9.7 to Halo 2, which it deserved for great gameplay and revolutionary multiplayer.
When the first 10 was given out to Fight night round 3 for good graphics I just stopped reading the magazine and started only playing their demo discs. But when GoW got the 10 I came to the conclusion that OXM officially sucked, and I stand by that conclusion to this day.
Really if Those games weren't titled Halo or COD would they have gotten a 10? No way. The big games always get high scores when it really isn't that good. Reviwers now only care about graphics and constant thoughtless action. I mean look at the reviews they seem to care more about things like "presentation", ghraphics, and sound.
Raw K made a good point. The reviewers do tend to give scores based on how they think the game will sell. Consciously or not, they seem to want to validate their review and the readers decision to purchase the most anticipated games.
Not that CoD4, Halo 3 and the like aren't good games in their own right, but to keep giving out perfect or near perfect scores...
How do you justify giving GRAW and GRAW 2 9+ scores, then give AATS a five or less? Granted the game is not as polished as GRAWs, but by their logic GRAW2 should have scored about a 6 because it was a rehash of GRAW.
------------------------------- "I just blew your mind, didn't I? The ol' universe isn't the warm, comfy place it was seven seconds ago, is it...?" - Bucky Kat
Yep. They gave GRAW1 and GRAW2 9.2's or so. This game adding realism and dropping the Hollywood SP should at least have been in 7's or 8's. I know a realistic game won't score higher than that, just seems to be how it is. If it had "Tom Clancy's" in the title it probably would have score much higher.
------------------------------- "I just blew your mind, didn't I? The ol' universe isn't the warm, comfy place it was seven seconds ago, is it...?" - Bucky Kat
