Why did Mercs 2 get a 5?

  • 123 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for smalls5
smalls5

109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#1 smalls5
Member since 2007 • 109 Posts

I think gamespot has something against EA made games seeing that Mercs got a 5 even though it shouldve got at least an 8, Army of two got like a 7 even though it was tons of fun, and Bad Company didnt get a 9 even though it was the best multiplayer ever? But mostly a FIVE?!?!?!?!?! are you seriously jokin me a 5? i gave it a 9 because its such a fun game but i want to know if anyone agrees wiht me or gamespot about their ridiculous decision to give Mercs 2 a five.

Avatar image for kozzy1234
kozzy1234

35966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 0

#2 kozzy1234
Member since 2005 • 35966 Posts

Its because it has alot of problems and its just one persons opinion.

I personalyl think the game deserves a 7/10, despite its many problems its alot of fun to play this game on coop.

Avatar image for LightColor
LightColor

2709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LightColor
Member since 2006 • 2709 Posts
lol 9 for mercs 2, mayb a 6.5, highest 7
Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#4 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

The game is glitchy and broken.

The videos for the game are glitchy and broken and then the demo they released is glitchy and broken.

Sure you get to blow stuff up but you're doing it in a glitchy and broken game.

Avatar image for creeping-deth87
creeping-deth87

787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#5 creeping-deth87
Member since 2008 • 787 Posts
You thought Bad Company deserved a NINE? Wow. Go play Battlefield 2 or Battlefield 2142, and then you can tell me if that game deserved the score it got. I thought 8.5 was PLENTY for what that game offered.
Avatar image for Gen007
Gen007

11006

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#6 Gen007
Member since 2006 • 11006 Posts
the is not fun after the first couple of minutes and its just straight broken i played it once and had so any glitches happen it didnt make since and it has a really high chance of courrupting your save file.
Avatar image for BorkaBonum
BorkaBonum

92

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#7 BorkaBonum
Member since 2007 • 92 Posts

You thought Bad Company deserved a NINE? Wow. Go play Battlefield 2 or Battlefield 2142, and then you can tell me if that game deserved the score it got. I thought 8.5 was PLENTY for what that game offered.creeping-deth87

Then look at Crysis, worst game in a decade for the PC - given 9.5? I gave it 6.5 in my review, which that itself felt too much. A boring, flat glitch-orgy with a unexistent campaign, characters and design and totally ignored and untested Multiplayer.

But I think Bad Company deserved 8.5 after all, it's far from perfect but it follows the Battlefield sense and builds upon, though it lacks some of the deph outside the game itself the PC version carries. But still, I think the marks were justified.

Avatar image for PotatoSandWitch
PotatoSandWitch

843

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 PotatoSandWitch
Member since 2007 • 843 Posts
Maybe the GameSpot reviewers are older gamers who have played many games
Avatar image for Blueresident87
Blueresident87

5903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 8

#9 Blueresident87
Member since 2007 • 5903 Posts

Mercs 2 got a five because it is has so many problems. I beat the game co-op with a friend, and wouldn't even know where to start.

Main problem is the glitching. I've never played a game on the 360 with as many glitches as this one. Ridiculous.

Another problem is the repetitie nature of the game. Only a few missions in the whole thing offer variety and they are few and far between.

I think the game deserves a five because it is a broken, inconsistent experience. The whole games feels like a demo, like the real game is still being made.

Avatar image for JustWiicredible
JustWiicredible

1908

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 JustWiicredible
Member since 2007 • 1908 Posts

The game is glitchy and broken.

The videos for the game are glitchy and broken and then the demo they released is glitchy and broken.

Sure you get to blow stuff up but you're doing it in a glitchy and broken game.

Jaysonguy

what he said

Avatar image for spyder_r0de0
spyder_r0de0

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 spyder_r0de0
Member since 2007 • 171 Posts
Why did Mercs 2 get a 5? because EA had something to do with it
Avatar image for mrgab
mrgab

23329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#12 mrgab
Member since 2005 • 23329 Posts

The game is glitchy and broken.

The videos for the game are glitchy and broken and then the demo they released is glitchy and broken.

Sure you get to blow stuff up but you're doing it in a glitchy and broken game.

Jaysonguy

Plus gameplay was average at best. Enemy AIs are more annoying than a challenge. Friendly AIs are stupid. Way too many rockets that perfectly aim at you even when they dont see you. People walking on the streets/sideways are morons as they jump infront of you driving costing you 5K. The list could go on.

Avatar image for Dabbagins
Dabbagins

1152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Dabbagins
Member since 2007 • 1152 Posts
I loved Merc 2! superb game indeed.
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
KC_Hokie

16099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 KC_Hokie
Member since 2006 • 16099 Posts
I might consider Mercs 2 when they come out with a real patch.
Avatar image for naruto7777
naruto7777

8059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 naruto7777
Member since 2007 • 8059 Posts
because of todays expectations
Avatar image for aceofspades187
aceofspades187

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 aceofspades187
Member since 2008 • 466 Posts
lolz omg do you really think mercs 2 should have gotten a better score? if it comes down to it you really shouldn't care about what score it got if you had fun with it. but that game sucks..." yeah its fun to blow stuff up" only thing the game had goin for it and it really wasn't that much fun....... this game was unfinished and really pointless missions...... u must like hearin "COME BACK TO HQ IF YOUR FEELING LOST" every second " BUMPER CARS " lolz........... one of the worst AI to date..... but over all thats how i feel about the game and if you feel that the judgement on this game was wrong..... then that is all on you.......
Avatar image for atreyu27
atreyu27

1443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#17 atreyu27
Member since 2006 • 1443 Posts
I was thinking that it was rated too low as well until I played it and thought the score was probably about right. It's not a good score but a 5/10 sounds right for Mercs 2.. dissapointing but true.
Avatar image for Zach68486
Zach68486

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#18 Zach68486
Member since 2008 • 884 Posts
It's got alot of technical issues and since it was delayed and stuff, they expected it to be better. But it's a good game, still. I say it should've gotten a 7.
Avatar image for cazzyno1
cazzyno1

336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 cazzyno1
Member since 2007 • 336 Posts

ll i think it deserves a 8.

Ive only seen one glitch in the game and i'm 64% through it =/

Avatar image for onuruca
onuruca

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#20 onuruca
Member since 2007 • 2881 Posts
yeah it's not a 5 but it can't be more than 7.5
Avatar image for 69ANT69
69ANT69

8472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 69ANT69
Member since 2007 • 8472 Posts
Because it has a pocket full of problems, I think it deserved about a 6.5.
Avatar image for karma1680
karma1680

351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 karma1680
Member since 2008 • 351 Posts
Yeah it could have gotten maybe a six at the most but what i found to be funny about it is i havn't seen any of the people who were dogging out gears of war2 saying it would suck and they were getting mercs 2 cause it would be a way better game. But those gamers are no where to be found. So to all the players who wanted mercs to get a higher score thanks for standing by a game that you like cause there are some really finicky players on these forum.
Avatar image for fordies
fordies

5829

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#24 fordies
Member since 2005 • 5829 Posts
I think 5 is about right maybe 6 if i was being generous because it does have a lot of problems and with todays standards having that many problems is not going to get a good score however i will say it is a lot of fun just not enough to take the score any higher than 6 at best.
Avatar image for capthavic
capthavic

6478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#25 capthavic
Member since 2003 • 6478 Posts

It got a five because it's inexcuseably buggy and repetitive. When a game glitches so bad that I have to reset my system, and only about an hour in, then that's an automatic of five point deduction right there in my book.

And I must respectfully disagree about AoT and BC. The crux of AoT (the two thing) is shallow and broken. And BC multiplayer is nowhere near as good as CoD 4.

Avatar image for chaoscougar1
chaoscougar1

37603

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#26 chaoscougar1
Member since 2005 • 37603 Posts

I think gamespot has something against EA made games seeing that Mercs got a 5 even though it shouldve got at least an 8, Army of two got like a 7 even though it was tons of fun, and Bad Company didnt get a 9 even though it was the best multiplayer ever? But mostly a FIVE?!?!?!?!?! are you seriously jokin me a 5? i gave it a 9 because its such a fun game but i want to know if anyone agrees wiht me or gamespot about their ridiculous decision to give Mercs 2 a five.

smalls5

lucky thats the only thing a game is judged on

Avatar image for djrobst
djrobst

2404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 djrobst
Member since 2007 • 2404 Posts
once you buy a game the reviews are irrelevant, shouldnt matter about the score if you like it then thats all that counts to you
Avatar image for smalls5
smalls5

109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#28 smalls5
Member since 2007 • 109 Posts
Yea this game had quite a few glitches but it take away the fun
Avatar image for smalls5
smalls5

109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#29 smalls5
Member since 2007 • 109 Posts

I thought Bad Company shouldve gotten a 9. maybe im just generous cause i hardly played the campiagn but the multiplayer was the best thing since microwavable hot pockets.

Avatar image for kissthedingo
kissthedingo

130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 kissthedingo
Member since 2006 • 130 Posts
Wow this is probably the 5th "It's not fair! Why did Mercs get a bad review?" forum. Along with the "It's not fair! Why did Too Human get a bad review?"
Avatar image for 190586385885857957282413308806
190586385885857957282413308806

13084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 116

User Lists: 0

#31 190586385885857957282413308806
Member since 2002 • 13084 Posts

If you guys actually read the review it states why the reviewer thought it deserved a 5...funny thing is a bunch of his complaints were made up.

Avatar image for Big_player
Big_player

6187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 Big_player
Member since 2004 • 6187 Posts
It's an extremely broken game, after one respawn I was a floating gun instead of a human.
Avatar image for The_360_Ghost
The_360_Ghost

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 The_360_Ghost
Member since 2008 • 97 Posts
Low ratings on gamespot does not always mean a bad game, Shadowrun prooved that. Game Informer gave it a 7.
Avatar image for dukebd699
dukebd699

12054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#36 dukebd699
Member since 2006 • 12054 Posts

The game is glitchy and broken.

The videos for the game are glitchy and broken and then the demo they released is glitchy and broken.

Sure you get to blow stuff up but you're doing it in a glitchy and broken game.

Jaysonguy

Exactly

Also, Army of Two was pretty bad. The A.I was horrific and the only joy you can get out of it at all is co-op which isn't that fun.

Battlefield Bad Company's MP is one of the worst in BF history. They finally added conquest mode but the problem is that the maps weren't meant for conquest mode as they are too small. Go play any other BF game on the computer and you will realize how bad Bad Company's MP really is. That game was a little overrated I thought.

It's not that GS hates EA, it's that EA doesn't know what they're doing.

Avatar image for dukebd699
dukebd699

12054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#37 dukebd699
Member since 2006 • 12054 Posts

If you guys actually read the review it states why the reviewer thought it deserved a 5...funny thing is a bunch of his complaints were made up.

smerlus

No they weren't. I played it and GS was right with the complaints.

Avatar image for mrgab
mrgab

23329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#38 mrgab
Member since 2005 • 23329 Posts
[QUOTE="smerlus"]

If you guys actually read the review it states why the reviewer thought it deserved a 5...funny thing is a bunch of his complaints were made up.

dukebd699

No they weren't. I played it and GS was right with the complaints.

Yup, the review was completely accurate.

Avatar image for Shmiity
Shmiity

6625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#39 Shmiity
Member since 2006 • 6625 Posts

7 is fair.

AI is bad, its somehwat glitchy, and a little repeatitive.

Avatar image for 190586385885857957282413308806
190586385885857957282413308806

13084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 116

User Lists: 0

#40 190586385885857957282413308806
Member since 2002 • 13084 Posts
[QUOTE="smerlus"]

If you guys actually read the review it states why the reviewer thought it deserved a 5...funny thing is a bunch of his complaints were made up.

dukebd699

No they weren't. I played it and GS was right with the complaints.

oh so one shot makes allies become hostile? no it doesn't

he complained that you can't hold much ammo when there's a character that you can pick that holds more ammo.

he complained that guns were weak... well if one shot can piss of an allied faction that only gets pissed off when one of their own gets killed, then doesn't that mean you can kill people pretty easily?

They also complained there's never enough ammo laying around and you have to always hit a button to pick it up. almost every character you kill drops not only a gun but also extra ammo

It takes a long time to get from place to place and you should use transport alot... this wasn't a negative in the GTA IV review.

getting killed after a checkpoint means starting back at your home base... no it doesn't.

Airstrikes are too hard to use... nope.

They even complained about the explosions when a ton of reviewers and gamers all say the explosions look great.

Avatar image for mrgab
mrgab

23329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#41 mrgab
Member since 2005 • 23329 Posts

oh so one shot makes allies become hostile? no it doesn't

he complained that you can't hold much ammo when there's a character that you can pick that holds more ammo.

he complained that guns were weak... well if one shot can piss of an allied faction that only gets pissed off when one of their own gets killed, then doesn't that mean you can kill people pretty easily?

They also complained there's never enough ammo laying around and you have to always hit a button to pick it up. almost every character you kill drops not only a gun but also extra ammo

It takes a long time to get from place to place and you should use transport alot... this wasn't a negative in the GTA IV review.

getting killed after a checkpoint means starting back at your home base... no it doesn't.

Airstrikes are too hard to use... nope.

They even complained about the explosions when a ton of reviewers and gamers all say the explosions look great.

smerlus

Shoot, steal or whatever, they start to shoot at you. Takes a few more kills for them to become hostile.

Thinking the ammo complaint, is that theres zero at your base. You have to kill enemies to pick up their guns/ammo using the Y button most of the time.

Try doing the final mission - such a pain in the butt getting from one point to the final point. Waste of time walking/driving/even trying to fly in.

When you die, you are placed at your last checkpoint, most of the time it was your home base with only a pistol in hand and one clip.

The airstrikes would be better used if was a simple button to toss while moving, instead of standing still looking at the target while getting shot as an easy target.

Avatar image for 190586385885857957282413308806
190586385885857957282413308806

13084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 116

User Lists: 0

#42 190586385885857957282413308806
Member since 2002 • 13084 Posts
[QUOTE="smerlus"]

oh so one shot makes allies become hostile? no it doesn't

he complained that you can't hold much ammo when there's a character that you can pick that holds more ammo.

he complained that guns were weak... well if one shot can piss of an allied faction that only gets pissed off when one of their own gets killed, then doesn't that mean you can kill people pretty easily?

They also complained there's never enough ammo laying around and you have to always hit a button to pick it up. almost every character you kill drops not only a gun but also extra ammo

It takes a long time to get from place to place and you should use transport alot... this wasn't a negative in the GTA IV review.

getting killed after a checkpoint means starting back at your home base... no it doesn't.

Airstrikes are too hard to use... nope.

They even complained about the explosions when a ton of reviewers and gamers all say the explosions look great.

mrgab

Shoot, steal or whatever, they start to shoot at you. Takes a few more kills for them to become hostile.

Thinking the ammo complaint, is that theres zero at your base. You have to kill enemies to pick up their guns/ammo using the Y button most of the time.

Try doing the final mission - such a pain in the butt getting from one point to the final point. Waste of time walking/driving/even trying to fly in.

When you die, you are placed at your last checkpoint, most of the time it was your home base with only a pistol in hand and one clip.

The airstrikes would be better used if was a simple button to toss while moving, instead of standing still looking at the target while getting shot as an easy target.

a tray bullet doesn't piss them off though, it's killing them. If you hit an ally with a stray bullet you can just run away and no hostility... problem solved and complaint useless.

to change guns you have to hit the y button. Ammo is found plenty by killing people and just running over it.

All final missions are a pain in the ass. I didn't see GTA IV teleporting me to every spot i had to go for the final missions.

When you die in a mission you don't lose your weapons and if you reach a checkpoint you don't start at your base. it asks you to retry and you start with everything you had before and at the last checkpoint.

The airstrikes were always like that in the game. If you don't like using the laser pointer or the imaging then use one that tosses out a beacon of flare. they take 1 second to select and throw.

Seriously the game isn't great but to nitpick or complain about things that don't exist or the reviewer didn't fully understand is a sign of a bad review.

Avatar image for IconicSaint
IconicSaint

122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#43 IconicSaint
Member since 2008 • 122 Posts

The games garbage. Should have been a lower score

Avatar image for mrgab
mrgab

23329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#44 mrgab
Member since 2005 • 23329 Posts
[QUOTE="mrgab"]

Shoot, steal or whatever, they start to shoot at you. Takes a few more kills for them to become hostile.

Thinking the ammo complaint, is that theres zero at your base. You have to kill enemies to pick up their guns/ammo using the Y button most of the time.

Try doing the final mission - such a pain in the butt getting from one point to the final point. Waste of time walking/driving/even trying to fly in.

When you die, you are placed at your last checkpoint, most of the time it was your home base with only a pistol in hand and one clip.

The airstrikes would be better used if was a simple button to toss while moving, instead of standing still looking at the target while getting shot as an easy target.

smerlus

a tray bullet doesn't piss them off though, it's killing them. If you hit an ally with a stray bullet you can just run away and no hostility... problem solved and complaint useless.

to change guns you have to hit the y button. Ammo is found plenty by killing people and just running over it.

All final missions are a pain in the ass. I didn't see GTA IV teleporting me to every spot i had to go for the final missions.

When you die in a mission you don't lose your weapons and if you reach a checkpoint you don't start at your base. it asks you to retry and you start with everything you had before and at the last checkpoint.

The airstrikes were always like that in the game. If you don't like using the laser pointer or the imaging then use one that tosses out a beacon of flare. they take 1 second to select and throw.

Seriously the game isn't great but to nitpick or complain about things that don't exist or the reviewer didn't fully understand is a sign of a bad review.

I've stolen gas from their bases and have had them shoot at me. Which is stupid if they are allies.

Ammo/guns should be always available at your base or at least a gunshop type. Many times you dont get the weapon/ammo you even want.

Have you even tried the final mission? 95% of it was traveling across the map - not fighting your way across it, just space filler for no reason.

Some missions had checkpoints. But many times through verifying/destroying or some other minor missions, you return to base with your weapons gone.

Yeah 1 second, stop, look at the target(as sometimes throws the wrong way or it goes into a wall which messes up it), flip to which you want, then toss it. By then half your health it gone, if not more from few dozen rockets. They should really have it similar to a grenade toss.

It wasnt nitpicking when most of the game was flawed and just plain garbage.

Avatar image for caddy
caddy

28709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#45 caddy
Member since 2005 • 28709 Posts
The game got a bad review because, quite simply, it's a bad game. There are so many bugs, the game looks awful, the gameplay is shallow, and while blowing stuff up is fun for a while, it doesn't make up for the rest of the game.
Avatar image for Gamerzone23
Gamerzone23

497

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#46 Gamerzone23
Member since 2006 • 497 Posts
I haven't played it, I don't really know why.
Avatar image for gameproman9000
gameproman9000

120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 gameproman9000
Member since 2005 • 120 Posts
beacause people ant to get games that work the way tey are supposed to when they are paying next gen prices
Avatar image for Carpe_Noctum
Carpe_Noctum

1369

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#49 Carpe_Noctum
Member since 2002 • 1369 Posts

Because 4 was taken.

A 5 sounds right to me. I feel that Co-Op saves it from a lower score, it's just not a great game and it's certainly not finished. Army of Two was fun for a short period of time once again saved because of Co-Op as it was full of glitches and poor quality. I have only played the demo for Bad Company but the single player felt a little bland and some people just don't care about MP. Battlefield 2 on the PC was a MUCH better game IMO.

Avatar image for Spaz-12
Spaz-12

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Spaz-12
Member since 2008 • 36 Posts
I agree, gamespot doesnt like EA, BECAUSE THEY SUCK!