[QUOTE="theROOTS420"] Street Fighter gets a 9.0, but CODWAW, gets a 8.5? COD:WAW is one the best looking games, and has the most replay value of any game on the PS3. I mean its got Nazi zombies :). So how is a fighting game that has OK graphics get better reviews on here than Call of duty, Fallout 3, Resistance FOM, Rock Band 2 and many more. Im not saying Street fighter doesnt deserve a 9. But if you give SF a 9, cod deserves a 9.5 or above.
This is What gamespot said was bad about Call of Duty World at war:
Familiar Setting, Familiar game mechanics, Familiar Guns.
ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME? Isnt that what street fighter is? Street fighter is a good game, but its like the old ones just with better graphics and some other new stuff.
How is it possible to make a WW2 game without familiar settings and Guns? And the game mechanics are similar because they work, and they are the best possible for a FPS to date.
Pretty much i am complaining that cod:waw didnt get a better review, and no, i wont blog about it
RoganSarine
Apparently you fail to grasp one concept. The difference in both reviews is the genres. This plays a huge role in how they grade this. There are really no good recent high profile fighting game releases recently; therefore, since it is one of the best new generation fighting games it will receive a high score because it has no competition and doesn't suck. The gamespot's numerical value (like every other site should be doing... I don't know if they do) is comparing between genre's... not between games essentially. A high number means it is good (Like +8); however, when you get into specifics like 8.5, 9.0, 9.5 that's when it comes into relation of other games on the market. Call of Duty: WaW doesn't really stand out in the saturated FPS market, therefore... it scored 8.5 which is reasonable. The only thing it really has is Nazi Zombies. Meanwhile, Street Fighter stands hugely out of the fighting crowd because it has a huge following, is balanced almost perfectly, has a good fighting system, and looks great (it's a different style of graphics... they're good graphics whether you appreciate them or not). Ontop of that, they won't grade a fighting game the same under the pretenses of "been there, done that" because essentially it's IMPOSSIBLE to revamp a fighting universe or game mechanics to be original. Street Fighter 4 did do original things with it's ultra defensive attacks and focus attacks and such, but at the same time you can't exactly deduct it marks for it being the same. The character have to be the same, and generally the same moves because that's who they are in the universe. If they took out Ryu or any other memorable character and replaced him, people would roid rage at capcom. ALso, they can't make Ryu shoot pixie dust either because that's not the character they built in the street fighter universe. Basically, your being immature and not understanding the way gamespot grades their reviews (and as I said, I think all review sites do this to an extent). Surely, some reviews I will disagree with, but in this specific case I think that gamespot graded them perfectly for the reasons I just listed.
Log in to comment