why treyarch didn't give black ops 2 for pre-release review?

i doubt its just another hype and the same gameplay.

the company has the right to do that you know.

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

GamerZem

because people would find out is the same cod with different skin and nothing innovative before time, i've seen some people say it will be different because it's futuristic and so on... ah the innocence

[QUOTE="GamerZem"]

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

tjoeb123

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.GamerZem

Yes, because we're all a bunch of morons who can't put personal biases aside (assuming there are any) when evaluating a game for review. Uh huh. Sure.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

[QUOTE="GamerZem"]It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.c_rake

Yes, because we're all a bunch of morons who can't put personal biases aside (assuming there are any) when evaluating a game for review. Uh huh. Sure.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

well i don't know about you but i keep seeing this "refined formula" every single cod review and high score, but then 90% of other games get penalized for being "old gameplay" as its predecesors or "too similar" to x games.

it doesn't matter what score it gets maybe 9 or above i am gonna check for gamespot game emblems if it gets almost 9 emblems like halo 4 i will buy it if gets just 2 emblems like mw3 i won't. i always check for the emblems before buying any game.

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"][QUOTE="GamerZem"]

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

contracts420

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

I was able to pick up Black Ops II early and it's really good. I'm not bothering with the multiplayer, as that's the same in every Call of Duty. But the campaign is really cool.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"] Let's see.... -Everyone dies with like 3 bullets -No map creator -SAME ENGINE -Yearly release -No custom games -No random hilarity -Every game these days is basically the same game I played in 2009. (AKA MW2) -Everyone (including 343 Industries) copies the game's multiplayer formula -Campaign not as epic as Halo's ...Yep. It's a bad game alright.Kevlar101

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

Just because it's a staple of Halo multiplayer does not mean it should automatically be included in COD. That is why I'd consider it a nitpick. That is like me complaining that Max Payne 3 doesn't have puzzles because Uncharted has them.

well i don't know about you but i keep seeing this "refined formula" every single cod review and high score, but then 90% of other games get penalized for being "old gameplay" as its predecesors or "too similar" to x games.Krelian-co

So subjectivity = bias? Please.

Statements like that are one of the clearer cut cases of subjectivity in reviews. It's case-by-case thing because some series' can withstand the test of time and not grow tiresome, while others do. It's all on the writer to decide when that applies since there can't ever possibly be an objective way of measuring that. That this is the argument for bias in reviews is laughable.

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="contracts420"]

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

contracts420

Just because it's a staple of Halo multiplayer does not mean it should automatically be included in COD. That is why I'd consider it a nitpick. That is like me complaining that Max Payne 3 doesn't have puzzles because Uncharted has them.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"] Actually, I agree with the other guy on the random hilarity. Its not a nitpick - most Halo fans are aware of the random hilarity. Thats why I prefer it over COD. The random hilarity in Halo.Kevlar101

Just because it's a staple of Halo multiplayer does not mean it should automatically be included in COD. That is why I'd consider it a nitpick. That is like me complaining that Max Payne 3 doesn't have puzzles because Uncharted has them.

The person in which I initially replied to complained that COD did not have "random hilarity. I said that is a nitpick, you then came along and said it's not. That is why I explained to you why it is a nitpick. Now do you see where my reply to you came from?

:lol: Oh man. I so LOVE this time of year. Not only do I get great games to play, including Call of Duty, but I also get to see the CoD haters lose their minds. :PArchangel3371

[QUOTE="GamerZem"]

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

tjoeb123

I'd just like to comment on the Halo 4 parts. Basically, COD isn't a bad thing, but 343 found it a point to try and copy COD without caring that COD does it far better. The MP in Halo 4 was fun for about 2 hours and now on my 6th hour it's just boring. It's like they tried to do the whole progression thing, but there is little care in progressing since you don't get attachments for your guns or anything. That, and Halo 4 is by far the easiest online game I've played, and I suck at Reach online, so somehow they made it easier. As for campaigns, I don't think either have that great of a campagin, as I had a lot more fun playing Crysis 1/2 and Killzone 2/3 (KZ really got the whole crazy action thing the best, but Halo does have a lot more interesting characters).

As much as I'm not a huge COD fan, they do have really addictive MP and unlike Halo 4, they know how to handle loadouts and a progression system (though, I prefer the perk/ordinance drop system in Halo 4 more than the perks in COD).

can somebody from gamespot tell us when the review will be out?

soo....how they move from spiderman games to doing cod games 0:??

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Vari3ty

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"][QUOTE="GamerZem"]

It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.

contracts420

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

"Halo does not have ADS". Yes, it does, but for most weapons you can't stay in ADS while shooting.

"Halo still lacks Zombies".Halo has Flood multiplayer mode, and is equally fun in my opinion.

"Halo has slow matchmaking".For me and everyone I know, matchmaking is perfectly fine and fast.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Kevlar101

QFT.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Kevlar101

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Vari3ty

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

COD has been evoling and been given tweaks here and there, but that doesn't make it better. When Modern Warfare 3 came out, it sold like hot cakes, but reviewers weren't stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and called it the best thing ever, like how they've done for games like GTA IV or one of the previous Halo games. Quite frankly, people got sick and tired of the "Same old, same old" and a shake up has to happen. While I doubt that Black Ops 2 will be anything different, it could be the one game that makes all the other games in his history to look like crap at this point. In other words, it could be the best COD to date.

Treyarch doesn't have control over when the reviews are released. Activision does. So there's that.

Secondly, publications DO have early release copies and have reviewed the game, but there's an embargo on it just like there has been with every CoD before hand. IGN said their review will be up at midnight, so there ya go.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"] Hey, guess what? Why "Screw the Call of Duty haters"? I hate the multiplayer, and I like the campaigns, but they are like 5 hours long. So once it comes down to it, I end up paying $60 for a 5 hour campaign, and yet you say "Screw the COD haters"? Screw YOU.Metamania

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

COD has been evoling and been given tweaks here and there, but that doesn't make it better. When Modern Warfare 3 came out, it sold like hot cakes, but reviewers weren't stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and called it the best thing ever, like how they've done for games like GTA IV or one of the previous Halo games. Quite frankly, people got sick and tired of the "Same old, same old" and a shake up has to happen. While I doubt that Black Ops 2 will be anything different, it could be the one game that makes all the other games in his history to look like crap at this point. In other words, it could be the best COD to date.

The question, however, is how much can a franchise change without losing it's core identity? COD is successful because of the formula it follows: heavily multiplayer based, accessible but yet offering a challenge for players who want to play on a competitive level. A shake up might have to happen in the future, but the game is the most pre-ordered yet in the series, so I don't think that change is coming anytime soon.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

Vari3ty

COD has been evoling and been given tweaks here and there, but that doesn't make it better. When Modern Warfare 3 came out, it sold like hot cakes, but reviewers weren't stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and called it the best thing ever, like how they've done for games like GTA IV or one of the previous Halo games. Quite frankly, people got sick and tired of the "Same old, same old" and a shake up has to happen. While I doubt that Black Ops 2 will be anything different, it could be the one game that makes all the other games in his history to look like crap at this point. In other words, it could be the best COD to date.

The question, however, is how much can a franchise change without losing it's core identity? COD is successful because of the formula it follows: heavily multiplayer based, accessible but yet offering a challenge for players who want to play on a competitive level. A shake up might have to happen in the future, but the game is the most pre-ordered yet in the series, so I don't think that change is coming anytime soon.

I actually think Black Ops II has changed enough to reintroduce that spark that made me love CoD4 so much. It just looks refreshing.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

COD has been evoling and been given tweaks here and there, but that doesn't make it better. When Modern Warfare 3 came out, it sold like hot cakes, but reviewers weren't stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and called it the best thing ever, like how they've done for games like GTA IV or one of the previous Halo games. Quite frankly, people got sick and tired of the "Same old, same old" and a shake up has to happen. While I doubt that Black Ops 2 will be anything different, it could be the one game that makes all the other games in his history to look like crap at this point. In other words, it could be the best COD to date.

IndianaPwns39

The question, however, is how much can a franchise change without losing it's core identity? COD is successful because of the formula it follows: heavily multiplayer based, accessible but yet offering a challenge for players who want to play on a competitive level. A shake up might have to happen in the future, but the game is the most pre-ordered yet in the series, so I don't think that change is coming anytime soon.

I actually think Black Ops II has changed enough to reintroduce that spark that made me love CoD4 so much. It just looks refreshing.

I agree. It's changing up the loadout system with the Pick 10 system which gives the player more freedom in choice.

Codcasting
Livestreaming
Improved theater mode
Strike force missions
New era
New weapons and functionality due to it taking place in the future
New gadgets and all new Scorestreaks giving more incentive on teamwork while also rewarding lone wolfs as well
New game modes

It's bringing back things from Black Ops 1 like Wager matches now known as Party games and more. Nobody seems to be giving Black Ops 2 credit yet its attempting many new things. Still the same engine and core gameplay but plenty of new additions and tweaks have been made across the board. Pretty much every element has been touched up in some way.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"] Let's see.... -Everyone dies with like 3 bullets -No map creator -SAME ENGINE -Yearly release -No custom games -No random hilarity -Every game these days is basically the same game I played in 2009. (AKA MW2) -Everyone (including 343 Industries) copies the game's multiplayer formula -Campaign not as epic as Halo's ...Yep. It's a bad game alright.GamerZem

- Not really a problem with the game

- Not every game needs this as 99% of them don't

- The engine still looks good, no need to switch this late in the generation

- Yearly releases have absolutely no bearing on the games themselves as they get 2 year development cycles each

- No random hilarity? really... ? This is your nitpick huh

- Halo 4 still plays like Halo 3, same thing applies here with COD, when you have a winning formula there becomes no reason to make drastic changes

- Really, your point against COD is that everyone copies its multiplayer, how is that COD's problem? If anything that shows other developers don't know what to do to breathe new life into their own multiplayer

- I easily prefer a good COD campaign over Halo's, this is simply preference

Here let me make some dumb complaints of my own to show you your own logic...

- Halo doesn't have Ak47's

- Reach looked like crap compared to COD games running on an old *** engine LOL

- Halo still plays the same as it did years ago thus I am playing the same game over and over and it sucks even though I enjoyed the Halo games it still sucks because I don't like it anymore because I played it too many times before

- Halo has slow matchmaking

- Halo lacks a true map creator like Far Cry

- Halo is not a puzzle game

- Halo does not have hand to hand combat

- Halo lacks horsies

- Halo still lacks zombies

- Halo does not have ADS

So as you can clearly see from my undeniably inpenetrable logic here... Halo sucks.

"Halo does not have ADS". Yes, it does, but for most weapons you can't stay in ADS while shooting.

"Halo still lacks Zombies".Halo has Flood multiplayer mode, and is equally fun in my opinion.

"Halo has slow matchmaking".For me and everyone I know, matchmaking is perfectly fine and fast.

Clearly you missed the point of my post.

But for the sake of it, Halo does not feature ADS like COD. Which at this point is pretty much a staple of the genre.

Halo still lacks zombies.

Compared to COD, Halo does have slow matchmaking. Heck... everything has slow matchmaking compared to COD.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

The question, however, is how much can a franchise change without losing it's core identity? COD is successful because of the formula it follows: heavily multiplayer based, accessible but yet offering a challenge for players who want to play on a competitive level. A shake up might have to happen in the future, but the game is the most pre-ordered yet in the series, so I don't think that change is coming anytime soon.

contracts420

I actually think Black Ops II has changed enough to reintroduce that spark that made me love CoD4 so much. It just looks refreshing.

I agree. It's changing up the loadout system with the Pick 10 system which gives the player more freedom in choice.

Codcasting
Livestreaming
Improved theater mode
Strike force missions
New era
New weapons and functionality due to it taking place in the future
New gadgets and all new Scorestreaks giving more incentive on teamwork while also rewarding lone wolfs as well
New game modes

It's bringing back things from Black Ops 1 like Wager matches now known as Party games and more. Nobody seems to be giving Black Ops 2 credit yet its attempting many new things. Still the same engine and core gameplay but plenty of new additions and tweaks have been made across the board. Pretty much every element has been touched up in some way.

Don't forget the zombie changes, including a campaign and 4v4vZ game mode.

[QUOTE="GamerZem"]It doesn't really matter, we already know that it's going to get a high score because of biased reviewers who fail to see how terrible CoD really is.c_rake

Yes, because we're all a bunch of morons who can't put personal biases aside (assuming there are any) when evaluating a game for review. Uh huh. Sure.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

That comment is rather sarcastic for a mod, it seems rather inappropriate in that regard.

Otherwise, I have to say I am rather skeptical regarding the objectivity of the reviews myself. I don't really know what the criteria are but GS seems to be in a rather precarious position when it comes to reviewing games considering that advertising revenue from the game makers provides its income. I don't think it's unreasonable for any of us to wonder how much influence the game makers have over the reviews, especially after playing a highly rated game or an editor's choice game that failed to meet the high expectations that an enthusiastic review creates. I haven't trusted a GS review since L.A. Noire.

Hey, guess what? Why "Screw the Call of Duty haters"? I hate the multiplayer, and I like the campaigns, but they are like 5 hours long. So once it comes down to it, I end up paying $60 for a 5 hour campaign, and yet you say "Screw the COD haters"? Screw YOU.Kevlar101

I second that motion.

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Cue more COD bashing. Screw the haters, Black Ops 2 looks like it will be great.

Vari3ty

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

Otherwise, I have to say I am rather skeptical regarding the objectivity of the reviews myself. I don't really know what the criteria are but GS seems to be in a rather precarious position when it comes to reviewing games considering that advertising revenue from the game makers provides its income. I don't think it's unreasonable for any of us to wonder how much influence the game makers have over the reviews, especially after playing a highly rated game or and editor's choice game that failed to meet the high expectations that an enthusiastic review creates. I haven't trusted a GS review since L.A. Noire.capaho

I'm not much of a fan of objectivity, honestly. I think it's worthless at this point given the massive number of gameplay videos to watch. Easy to get a good feel for whether the game is for you or not on those alone. Would rather reviews just embrace their inherent subjective nature and be done with it, already.

That said, while everyone's right to be wary of reviews and the business around them (good to keep the business accountable), I think the shady parts of the business are blown out-of-proportion. From my experience, the business is clean 99% of the time. For every small scandal that occurs, thousands of clean, legitimate work is produced. The idea that we're beholden to the publishers because they advertise is. frankly, ridiculous.

Look at what happened during Gerstmann-gate. News about it got out instantly. GameSpot took a massive hit to its credibility that it's worked hard to regain. I find the idea of them still having to answer to publishers ludicrous, therefore, because if what happened last time is any indication, they would be f*cking ruined. There'd be no possible recovery. Because the news of that deal would get out there faster than anyone could even think about covering it up.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"] Hey, guess what? Why "Screw the Call of Duty haters"? I hate the multiplayer, and I like the campaigns, but they are like 5 hours long. So once it comes down to it, I end up paying $60 for a 5 hour campaign, and yet you say "Screw the COD haters"? Screw YOU.Kevlar101

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

That is a fair opinion. You aren't a COD multiplayer junkie and you don't even have the ability to use Xbox Live if I remember correctly. So the campaign would need to be more of a focus for you to spend your hard earned money. I see that as being perfectly valid.

But I don't think he was hating on you per say. At this point in time everybody and their grandmother seems to talk crap about COD for little reason. Simply because it's popular and gets a high score. They are great games, quality titles that receive so much hatred that it borders on not just the absurd but the disturbing as well.

Everytime I post all of the new additions and features and tweaks of Black Ops 1 or 2, people just seem to skip over it and continue saying "same game every year" garbage that they always spew. For some reason this great series actually seems to offend Battlefield and Halo fans and gamers in general simply for becoming quality popular titles.

Go to any COD video on Youtube and watch the hate pile up... it really is disturbing. Even check non COD videos and you will find this stuff. It really is uncalled for and ridiculous.

Doesn't matter. CoD fans are the video game world's version of Apple fanatics.

I'm not much of a fan of objectivity, honestly. I think it's worthless at this point given the massive number of gameplay videos to watch. Easy to get a good feel for whether the game is for you or not on those alone. Would rather reviews just embrace their inherent subjective nature and be done with it, already.

That said, while everyone's right to be wary of reviews and the business around them (good to keep the business accountable), I think the shady parts of the business are blown out-of-proportion. From my experience, the business is clean 99% of the time. For every small scandal that occurs, thousands of clean, legitimate work is produced. The idea that we're beholden to the publishers because they advertise is. frankly, ridiculous.

Look at what happened during Gerstmann-gate. News about it got out instantly. GameSpot took a massive hit to its credibility that it's worked hard to regain. I find the idea of them still having to answer to publishers ludicrous, therefore, because if what happened last time is any indication, they would be f*cking ruined. There'd be no possible recovery. Because the news of that deal would get out there faster than anyone could even think about covering it up.

c_rake

When it comes to user reviews, I think subjective is all their is, given the personal nature of the gaming experience. However, when it comes to professional reviews that have more impact on consumer purchase decisions, objectivity is more important in that games be fairly and consistently reviewed on factors like the depth of the story, the quality of the control mechanics, the degree of bugginess, length of the campaign, etc. If GS has objective criteria for reviewing games, it would be helpful if they were posted somewhere. Some of the high ratings leave me a bit bewildered after I've played the same game.

There have also been scandals in the past involving game companies paying people to post favorable user reviews in an effort to boost sales, and I suspect that practice is ongoing. I'm not suggesting that the GS review process is corrupt, I'm simply saying that it's not unreasonable for gamers to be suspicious of reviews coming from a source that depends on advertising revenue from the game makers, particularly when the professional ratings don't jibe with the gamer's own experience with the game. There comes a point where you simply can't bite the hand that feeds you and expect to survive.

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

contracts420

That is a fair opinion. You aren't a COD multiplayer junkie and you don't even have the ability to use Xbox Live if I remember correctly. So the campaign would need to be more of a focus for you to spend your hard earned money. I see that as being perfectly valid.

But I don't think he was hating on you per say. At this point in time everybody and their grandmother seems to talk crap about COD for little reason. Simply because it's popular and gets a high score. They are great games, quality titles that receive so much hatred that it borders on not just the absurd but the disturbing as well.

Everytime I post all of the new additions and features and tweaks of Black Ops 1 or 2, people just seem to skip over it and continue saying "same game every year" garbage that they always spew. For some reason this great series actually seems to offend Battlefield and Halo fans and gamers in general simply for becoming quality popular titles.

Go to any COD video on Youtube and watch the hate pile up... it really is disturbing. Even check non COD videos and you will find this stuff. It really is uncalled for and ridiculous.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Kevlar101"] Hey, guess what? Why "Screw the Call of Duty haters"? I hate the multiplayer, and I like the campaigns, but they are like 5 hours long. So once it comes down to it, I end up paying $60 for a 5 hour campaign, and yet you say "Screw the COD haters"? Screw YOU.Kevlar101

Calm down man. You prefer Assassin's Creed, I prefer COD, we have different tastes. It's just the people who mindlessly post COD hate that annoy me. If you have legitimate reasons, as you posted, I can respect that. But the people who say nothing in the series ever changes, who ignore all of the things the series does right, those people tick me off.

Doesn't matter. CoD fans are the video game world's version of Apple fanatics.

edgewalker16

Doesn't matter. CoD fans are the video game world's version of Apple fanatics.

edgewalker16

At least Apple offers a 14-day return policy if you don't like the product.

the company has the right to do that you know.

punkpunker

Great reviews wouldn't help sales any, and mediocre reviews might damage them. Why not let the commercials and hype sell the game?