Yeah never mind, not going into a discusion with you. We all know your reputation on Gamespot. They can't even do things wrong in your eyes. You don't even know what a review needs. You think its all freedom and o boy if someone sets up some guidelines to what a review should look like. That is the problem of today.
I worked for a gamesite more then 10 years ago. The reviewers back then where still called Game journalists and they had to base their reviews on some points. They had to judge a game on their technical performance, they had to judge a game if it was worth the price it was sold for compared to what it offered, they had to look at the bugs and see how much they where affecting the game. This is no censorship, this is commen sense. You can't write a review purely on personal feelings. That is not your job, it is your job to test a game, and be critical no matter how much you like it. And as game magazine or website you need to have those points in place for all your reviews. To be able to give a fair judgement. Personal oppinion does have a play in it, but its not the only thing that matters in a review. I wish people like you would understand that, cause sadly its people like you who become reviewers for the game websites and think their job is nothing but playing their favorite games all day and forget that even your favorites can do wrong and should be fairly judged on that.
But i end this discusion as you have no idea what the job really requires. You think you know it, but you don't and you always do this in reviews. Always comming with arguments without knowing what you are talking about. Consistency is a must, you can't say that its okay for a game that had a budged of 500 million to have a sucky AI, perfomance issues and is short on the content for the price is charges, and then say its not okay for a game that doesn't even have a 50 million budget to have a bad AI and some bugs that aren't game breaking. That has nothing to do with censorship, if any it has to do with favoring certian titles and be unfair and thats not what a journalism is about, you can't be favoring one thing over another. And thats that. You can have another view on it, but its no censorship in any way to have lines set out that need to be looked uppon in a review. It's what keeps the review fair, not that you will understand that seeing all your other reactions on everyones posts and no matter how much they explain you keep defending GS to the max.
Dude have you even read what i wrote hm? And no i will not stop my accusations. Cause mine is damn true. Gamespot is a website, a site that may get judged on their overall not making sense what so ever. They need to have some criteria that needs to be on the same damn line. You judge a game on performance, on quallity, on the overall experience, etc. Sure some parts are personal, but other parts are not.
CoD Ghost was a horrible game from a performance point of view on the PC as they didn't care to optimize it until after release with patches. But not before the Ghost review was out. How can such a game not being punished for that where smaller games, with a less budget and less people working on it and not being part of some super profit making series get punished for far less. As a game site you need to be on the same line. If you punish one game for it, then you need to punish all games for it. This is exactly why gamespot, IGN and some other big sites are suspected of being part of gamersgate, why people don't trust them as its a bit to often that CoD and other big titles get away with far worse bugs and weak AI then smaller less budget having games. And as a gamesite that is not something you want to be suspected off. Even if you have different reviewers doing it, you still have someone else who reads them all before giving the green light. The end editor or what ever its called in english needs to protect the value of the articles. And sorry mister super fan, gamespot has dropped the ball with this review compared to the call of duty reviews and it shows a bit to often how hyped games like CoD and Halo get away with a lot of crap. The AI in CoD even today is still basic and bad, yet you never hear Gamespot about that. Something they should have mentioned by now if they would have enforced rules into their reviews that need to be looked uppon.
If you really love games, and if you reallly like Gamespot then you want quallity. You want honest reviews. Yeah this game isn't the best out there. But they should be equally as punishing too CoD. and the damn excuse "its not the same reviewer" is the biggest BS there is. That way you can always get away with everything. Set some lines that every reviewer needs to follow instead of having it all being personal experiences. Like game journalists had to do in the past instead of these reviewers of today who hardly do any research and often are the biggest hypers there are.....how is that even helping the industry hm?
Ah yes the nice hypocrisy that is gamespot. Always the first to give a minor studio with a smaller budget a lower score where forgiving the big studios with huge budgets and huge development teams for making the exact same mistakes.
Let's begin with what Gamespot finds good about this game:
"Feels like a Sniper: Ghost Warrior spin-off" I'm not sure how that is a good thing and adds to the score but okay. Yeah same studio who made both games. However they improved since Sniper Ghost Warrior. They actually made a better game and took a step in the better direction since that one. Where some big titles haven't changed a darn damn thing since many years ago.
The things this game gets punished for. Now take into account that this can be true and if that makes the game less good it simply makes the game less good. However i cannot accept that Gamespot uses these things as a thing to give the game a lower score where their favorite game of all times Call of Duty does the exact same thing and never ever gets punished for it.
"Disappointingly generic campaign" wauw, really? And why is this never costing CoD any points? If there is one game that shouts GENERIC its call of duty. My god those campaigns are as generic as you can get it. I'm pretty sure Activision can afford to pay better writers then the guys of this game could. Beside being generic doesn't have to be a bad thing. I watch generic action movies cause i don't always want a huge story going on and just want to eat popcorn and watch action. Same with games, if i want great stories i will play games that offer that. For a shooter i don't really need it. I mean the Modern Warfare 2 story was generic but i found it interesting enough to keep me playing. So why is being generic a problem with a lower budget game and not for a insane high budget game. Please explain gamespot, do enlighten us please.
Gamespot says that the AI in this game is bad. And it probably isn't the smartest out there. But is it worse then CoD's AI? I highly doubt that. CoD's AI is freaking linear. Redo parts of that game and watch the AI, it will always walk the same path when it attacks you. It doesn't actively seek cover, it just goes to cover cause they programmed the AI to go to a certain point and go into cover there. I again will point out that this game was made with a much lesser budget then CoD, yet the AI is at least the same as in CoD if not even smarter. Activision can afford hiring better AI programmers for their Developers, they just don't want too cause spending more money means that they get a slightly lesser profit on the insane profit they make each year. Yet this game gets punished for it and i never see Gamespot giving CoD minor points for bad AI or even mention it...so selective guys.
Apparently there are technical issues with this game. Could be and that should be mentioned and should cost a game points. If its broken its broken. But again CoD doesn't get punished for it. Remember Call of Duty ghost? Its was a piece of unoptimized garbage on the pc. Had Gamespot done a pc review then they would have know this and shouldn't have given CoD Ghost a 8 but a 4 at most. There was no excuse a 60 euro game was delivered in such a poor shape on the PC. Something that bothers me alot about GS to begin with, they do a Xbox review and and Playstation review, as if there is a huge difference between those two machines....THERE ISN'T...yet a seperate PC review is often no where to be found even when the difference between the console and the PC are huge. So PC gamers buy CoD ghost thinking it runs well cause on the console it was optimized enough but on the pc they where lazy and didn't want to spend extra money on it when they made a louzy port and your readers bought that. So in this game its a problem that should be addressed but in CoD its no problem and no warning given to your readers?
To end this i will say this. Enemy front is a cheap game to buy. Its 30 dollars or so. For the 30 dollars you get a okay shooter. Its not great, its not bad, its okay. Nothing wrong with being okay when the price isn't to high either. It does things right and it does things wrong. Call of Duty is a 60 euro costing game even on the pc (even though pc games normally would cost you 45 - 50 euro's at most). Its a generic okay game. There are many things wrong with it and some good things. However the game is overpriced for what it offers and expects you buy expensive mappacks as well for their limited multiplayer that they gave with the base game. A 5 might the right score for Enemy Front cause there are issues. Yet seeing that they are more harsh on this game then on CoD i would say CoD from now on should get a 4 cause you have to take in concideration how many people worked on the game and what the budgets are. Like it or no Gamespot but lesser budget means that there will be made sacrifices at times. Yeah there are enough low budget games that have no issues but even they score lower then the insane budget having CoD who should be punish harder then hard for asking so much money for a generic, low value offering game with bad AI and outdated graphics.....especially when you as so called "professional" game press punish lesser budget having titles for those things.
Not gonna say you are bribed Gamespot, but it is about time you become a hell lot more consistent in your scores and when a game gets a low score and when not. These things are just causing many people to believe you favor certain big budget games over others as they always get away with a lot that is wrong with them. It's just impossible to explain why all these bad things in Enemy Front justify a low score when Call of Duty does the exact same bad things but have a bigger budget. Just saying Gamespot, don't be so selective in your punishments. Take things as budgets and price tag in concideration. I want to know what i get for my 60 euro's, and no CoD never gets cheaper, even during the steam summer sale with a discount i still paid the price i would pay for 90% of the new release games on steam....for a older version of CoD even. So be hard on them as well if you are hard on this game, atleast for 30 euro's i get a okay game, that isn't so bad as it doesn't cost me much, i can expect that for that ammount of money. For 60 euro's i expect a well polished game with many gameplay hours.
Its sadly a thing that happens to many great games from the past. They have the need to please the mainstream gamer and simply don't care about the fans. But the mainstream gamer often doesn't go for these games so in the end they try to please people who are not waiting for such a game and screw over those who are waiting for it (not just Final Fantasy).
SE is also in a position where they try to please the western market to much. Trying to find out what works for the west. In the past when Japanese games where made for their market first and translated to the past they still had their own identity. That is why gamers liked them, for what they where back then.
Now no one really knows what they are anymore. SE isn't know for listening to comments from people though. During the FF14 beta (the first time not the remake) SE didn't listen at all to the people who where actively reporting bugs and broken mechanics. Many of the things i reported for months where not looked into. And i wasn't the only one who reported them, others did so too. SE just doesn't like comments when they think they do it the right way. Don't expect them to listen, they won't, they think they do a good job with Final Fantasy, and sadly its just another long time running series that has abandoned the olds fans in favor of trying to gain new ones.
@Gravity_Slave Funny how console fanboys always need to bitch about others just to make themselves feel more secure about their system. There is not one fanboy worse then the console fanboy. Is it not the other console then its the pc who you hate. Always the F'ing same with you guys. You call most pc gamers PC elititst yet its your kind that started the console war, bragging about who' s machine had the better graphics and when a pc gamer would say "if graphics are all that matters to you then why not buy a good pc and play it on there as that has the best graphics" then its suddenly the pc gamer who is the elitist.
Also CoD is a bribed game on all major game review sites. I don't call myself the master race but ever darn turd knows that CoD has been overated. They can release a CoD game full of bugs and still it will score a 8 minimum. Ontop of that Arma 3 reviews aren't reviewed as they should be done. You see Arma 3 is a millitairy simulator, and you don't get that experience from just the singleplayer. If you really wanna enjoy this game you should join a MilSim group and play with them. Play with them how to operate like real soldier. Hell most of the Arma players are ex or still serving military personnel from all kind of divisions.
About the controls, yeah they can be complicated but nothing you can't overcome. There are just many buttons and you need to put some time in learning them but eventually you will. Its not like CoD where all you need are a few buttons and keep the fire button pressed.
It's just sad that people like you have access to the internet and need to troll. You are what is wrong with gamers today. I'm a old school gamer. I grew up with games and back then we didn't say "my system is better then yours" but you imature and insecure little kids need to feel better then others these days so you bitch about either pc elitists or the other console gamer. People like you aren't even gamers, for you it only matters your own system gets the best scores. I got a pc and all the last gen consoles. I buy games cause i like them and some are specific for one system. I prefer the pc, cause i can do more then just playing the game on my pc. I don't concider myself a better person then a console gamer. I condider my a damn better person then any fanboy out there. Cause there is a difference between a fanboy and a console/pc gamer. You see i have no issues with people who prefer the console. Each their own. What i can't stand are people like you who open their mouths. Your oppinion is not one that is valid, you are the type of gamer that F'ed it up for so many others. Console gamers are looked at as creepy kids who fight some weird war over who has the greatest graphics. But it's not the console gamer who does that. Its the damn fanboy who does that. And fanboys no matter what system as overzealous turds that make any system look bad.
Maybe you want to grow up some day kiddo, measuring who has the biggest wiener in the shower is rather immature. So is bitching about others their preferred system. Each their own and its a shame the console can't pull Arma 3 off cause for the fans of a real millitairy sim this is a great game and console gamers who have the taste for that really should be able to enjoy that as well. And its often the fanboys who call every pc gamer a pc elitist purely when a pc gamer is responding on some weird comment a console fanboy made. Appearantly you have no issues saying your prefered console has the best graphics ever, but when a pc gamer says "But my 3 year old pc runs better graphics then the xbone/ps4" then suddenly the pc gamer is the elitist. Stat making sense or stop talking if you can't hand the fact that other machines might be better on that department. Not that i matters, games are about gameplay anyway. And this game could never win from CoD cause sadly the game scene changed from gamers who want a challenge to gamers who need their hands hold, need auto regen after 3 seconds of cover and fast past action none stop cause god forbid you might need to plan your attacks.
Hahahahahahaha o gamespot you always know how to make me laugh. Really guy's can't you just quit your sillyness?
Repetitive and monotonous, Plain visuals, and some mechanics not working properly. The score a 5 while this game had a 7.5 first. Really 2,5 points less suddenly? And when are you guys gonna be fair about Call of Duty...Be fecking honest GS.
Call of Duty ghost gets a fecking 8 on your website, the game is repetivite and monotonous to the max, and don't come with BS how that game inovates, its the same F'ign game its been since Modern Warfare 2, everyone knows it, just you so called profesional game press don't seem to see it.
CoD Ghost on the PC is a boring repetetive game with a swallow story that is generic as you get it, the visuals are lackluster as the engine is very outdated and on the pc thanks to poor optimization it didn't run feckign well on new pc's needed a F'ing patch that wasn't released when the review was made. But appearantly you guys are so horny about CoD that you forgive those mistakes even though on pc its a 60 euro costing game.......but a much cheaper game that has some visual issues and gets a bit repetitive is a major disaster. Really and you guys wonder why you get blamed of certain actions. Really, you don't get it do you? This is so sad and all the people who claim you are doing certain things seem rather right cause you guys never do shizzle to proof people wrong. Always b#tching about lesser budget games and their mistakens, where CoD is a multimillion dollar game and you forgive every mistake in that one...year after year. Good job, i got to laugh again about how sad reviews can be here and how inconsistent you are. This has nothing to do with the reviewers personal taste, CoD is your parade horse and this game not. This game didn't had the same bugdget but get punished way harder than those with a huge team and money. makes no freaking sense.
1. Is the game fun to play yes or no? Yes? Then who cares about the graphics. I know i know this is 2014. But it is gameplay over graphics. Don't distract points for that.
2. The poor graphics always been a part of the design choice. It has been on purpose as they refer to b movies and those crappy looks. It's not that they can't do better, it was a pure design choice. It is all part of the charms and joke of Earth Defense force. It has been designed to look bad, cause they want to give you the feel you have also when watching those old B movies. It looks so bad that its fun. Why is that getting point reductions?
@TiberiusAudley @dutchgamer83 "3) Nowhere in my review did I mention the cost of the game. I'm reviewing my enjoyment of the game, not the value of it in comparison to its price (which will likely drop soon anyway)."
But that is what you should do. Sure the price will drop sooner or later. But the fact remains that right now its a 40 dollar game. 40 dollars for a game that is about 2,5 - 3 hours long and is bugged and glitched (this could be different per platform so maybe its just the pc version that has random crashes all the time). You are to pay 40 dollars for a short game that isn't even giving much value in return. Doesn't give you great graphics and gives you very outdated gameplay. I don't care about the graphics, but the gameplay has to be solid.
Had this been a 10 dollar game then sure, give it a 6. But it is not, they aimed this to be a 40 dollar game. If they want to ask the full price, then they should also accepted being seen as that and being judged like that. Every game will lower in price eventually. Then we can just remove the whole price vs value part out of every game.
It doesn't mean you can't like it. Heck i love the Dynasty Warrior games, but that doesn't mean they are all good games. With Rambo, i really think you want to tone down the score. Its a full priced game and should be judged like that. GS has been hard on games before in the past for the graphics and gameplay.
Kuddos for replying though. And go watch the Rambo movies you sinner! They are far better then this game, and maybe you will see then why this game doesn't do any justice to the licence and why so many people are pissed off/disapointed about the game.
Tyler Hick i have a question for you. How much of a fanboy are you for Rambo? Cause its either you are the biggest fanboy in excistance of Rambo, you been bribbed to give it a positive score, you worked on this game or you aren't really a game reviewer at all. Does this all sound harsh? Well then let me ask me you " WTF DUDE!?".
You have one simple job, to see if games are worth it or not. A 6/10 is a okay game, its worth money. Rambo is a onrails shooter that has graphics from late 90's, costs 40 euro's/dollars, is full of clithces and what you call "Challenges drive you to keep mastering the game" are nothing more then "We trow every damn thing at you, and then some more". It has nothing to do with a challange, its the most cheapest thing in the books to do when you lack any sort of AI. Just trowing insane amount of enemies at the player so it seems hard.
Now i want you to look at your review. Then i want you to think really hard "Am i a good reviewer. Have i done my job right?". I know, i know, reviewing a game is all about your own personal taste. But this game is horrible. The graphics are sh#t, the gameplay is horribly outdated. Its 2014, we can make games these days where you can walk around yourself trough levels, no need for the computer to do that for us anymore. The game is full of bugs and glitches, and does in no way do justice to the license. Yet you, some how think this game deserves a 6. Now i see Thief and some others games here scoring a 6 as well. I haven't played those games and didn't had high value for thief, but I'm pretty sure thief is in each and everyway a much better game then Rambo so how does a broken shitty mess like Rambo score a 6?
See what you are doing here is telling gamers "oh you should buy this game, its a okay game, its pretty fun to play and worth the money". Here i shall quote you, cause this made me laugh "From moment to moment, the action is simple but frantic, inviting you to set aside your expectations of what a Rambo video game should be, and enjoy it for what it is." We going that road now? NO, JUST F'ING NO! I will not put aside my expectations of what a Rambo video game should be. The Rambo licence is freaking huge! HUGE! Not some cheap ass developer should make a shitty ass onrails shooter from it that doesn't even do a good job telling the story of Rambo. With a licence you are in your full right to demand them doing a proper job. Rambo is a legend. Rambo means something even to the kids of these days who haven't even seen the movie, they all know Rambo. And this lousy Developer who has done nothing but onrails games of poor quality messed it up. And you give it a 6? You really believe people should invest money in this game. Even 15 dollars would be over charging the consumer. This is one of those games your grandparents buy you for christmass cause they remember you like action games and Rambo. But for a true Rambo fan this game is pure pissing on a awesome legend. And for none Rambo fans this game has no nostalgic value so they don't even have that as a minor plus point.
I couldn't agree more. Hell IGN even gave it a 7 while they are normally even worse in over hyping big titles then GS. And everything he finds positive was a huge disappointment in most other reviews. He doesn't even say how poorly optimized this game is as a bad thing. Where lower budget games get shot down by GS for it when everyone can releate to the budget. CoD is a multi million budget game who runs poorly, doesn't innovate, been the same game for the last 1000 year, steals ideas from other games implants them poorly in its own, and yet GS gives it a 8 and writing down that it was reviewed on a Activision review session while the flight was payed. Feck that. Atleast Eurogamer had balls when the whole "game press gets bribed/influenced without them realizing it" article that shook the game press. They refused to go to any review events after and just said they would post reviews later instead of before the release so they could write down honest reviews without any influence from PR people giving them gifts and to make sure readers wouldn't say "oh so your flight and hotel are being paid by the publisher so you give the game a +". If only more game sites did that then Activision was forced to give games again to the press before release but no they gonna do what the publisher tell them to do. Even if GS isn't bribed they are still in the publishers pockets and accept to much from them.
dutchgamer83's comments