They had this huge article about Brink and how awesome the sound was... then they rate the sound a 6. Are you fucking kidding me?
They also said the game was to repetitive. Okay you fucking idiot reviewer, isn't Call of Duty the most repetitive game in history? I mean, even their sequels hardly bring ANYTHING new to the genre, but they get all 9s and 9.5 ratings. Are you serious??!
This upsets me because they also claim the game doesn't look good. Just because it's not photo realistic doesn't mean the art sucks. I really swear that IGN is Call of Duty bias and was paid to give this game a low rating. Or they picked someone who clearly wasn't interested in the game. I mean, it looks bad ass and there's tons of ways to change your look, and they didn't even think that was neat.
They also claim that 20 levels is to low and you can max it out in a few days. The game is about action and playing, not about leveling to a 10 prestige game.
Obviously this guy is a moron.
If you want to read the full review, click here.
However, it's easy to forget which size your character is in first-person perspective, as movement abilities don't change dramatically. While the Large size allows miniguns and shotguns, they still move only slightly slower than the Medium size. Only Small characters can really burst through levels, leaping off of walls and finding clever passageways.
He's an idiot if you forget what size you are. Also you can clearly tell the difference when you run. This guy just sounds like an idiot.
Brink's lack of stat tracking is glaring, though. The official website holds some info, but otherwise level, kills, deaths, and successes are hidden -- those of other players too.
Excuse me?! This is good. This makes it so people don't just sit there and camp like bitches. I'm happy they don't keep every single little thing tracked. Just enjoy the game, but I guess when you play Call of Duty like a lemming, you expect everything to be like that.
You're obviously speaking out of pure anger because he rated low a game that you liked. A review is an opinion and he justifies it well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe to you stat tracking isn't important but when a reviewer writes a review he needs to take into consideration everybody not only people that"don't care about stats".. Also you state that he didn't like the art. This is wrong, he actually did like the, but the problems of the graphics are in the screen tearing and other graphical issues.
One last thing, if you listen to the IGN podcasts, notable GameScoop, you would be clearly able to tell that most of the IGN editors dislike or even hate call of duty.. So next time you're angry about a review, remember it's his OPINION. For all I care you can love the game but the review is just pointing out its faults.Maybe you're able to ignore them but this doesn't apply to everyone.
You have good writing, you just need to justifie what you're saying and stop acting like a troll and I might consider recommending the site to some friends
He does not justify anything. He's obviously an idiot because he says he was trying to lay a turret down but couldn't be he was a soldier.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you have to be a reject if you couldn't remember. Also it shows your skills on the bottom left.
You can tell he didn't like the game and it shows with his poor review. Every single person I've talked to and people all at Gamestop LOVE it. Game Informer gave it an 80. It's really sad that this game got a low score by a few reviewers because they suck at it.
The game is about action, not about camping and claymores. It's about getting out there and fighting.
Also the guy at IGN moaned and bitched about no stats. Are you serious?! He's a Call of Duty bitch.
Thank you about saying my writing is decent. I do have a lot of times where I'll speak and not back it up. Having a blog is still new to me. :D
ReplyDeleteHow did you find this by the way?