[QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Sounds like the game is good aside from the fact it's too easy and too short. Glad to see Kevin not ignoring these two glaring flaws and giving it a high score because it's a beautiful game.Â
I really hope more reviewers start to do this and remind game devs that not all gamers are extreme casuals who don't like a challenge.
7.5 isn't a terrible score, but it is definintly a disappointment. I'll pick up the game eventually.Â
Wasdie
And still UC2 is 9.5, UC3 is 9 and GoW3 is 9. When practically all of those are just movies.
So? Those games are completely different. They aren't so easy you can blow thought it without breaking a sweat, they are well crafted, they are exciting, they have really robust multiplayer, and they are just overall great games. Neither of them also had a "get out of danger free" button like Crysis 2 and 3 have.
So their flaws can be over looked that they have very generic and a pretty much non-existent gameplay, but onrails segment after another scripted segment. And their multiplayer could easily be compared to that of C3, you can't say they have some really innovative or ground breaking multiplayer. How about GoW3 fixed camera or less than 60 fps gameplay with the same QTE heavy gameplay without any evolution? Or What about the mother of all easy games CoD?
Whatever only thing this proves is that Gamespot is very inconsistent in their reviewing mechanism, they don't judge the games based on the same standards.
Log in to comment