@Gelugon_baat: A little too fresh in the memory of the public? Which public? What warzone do you live in? White phosphorous is as fresh in the memory of the first world public as any other thing we've only ever seen in movies. This argument is absurd
@MondasM: So your argument is that the problem with white phosphorous is that somebody decided to make it illegal not that it kills people and causes extreme pain? Kinda feels like you missed the point here.
Infamously, nuclear weapons are the Ultimate weapon of mass destruction and extreme pain. There is nothing that has ever been done with White Phosphorous that rivals what was inflicted upon Japan by nuclear weapons or the limitless potential they have for pain, destruction and the proliferation of cancer.
And yet, nobody ever cared about their inclusion in call of duty (or the inclusion of flamethrowers and poison gas for that matter)? Come on dude, there is no argument here.
@MondasM: That's the point though, this is an OPINION piece and it really shouldn't be.
Because of their high price point video games more so than maybe any other media live or die on review scores. When people see a 6/10 they don't buy the game(cough Spec Ops: The Line cough). When gamespot gave RE6 a 4.5 Capcom rebooted the ENTIRE series. Bad reviews will hurt sales which has the potential to literally alter the trajectory of the franchise. Sorry but video game reviews DO tangibly matter to their respective games and the audience that enjoy them, they very much aren't "just opinions" they are the loudest voices in the room.
And yeah people happen to be especially protective of MW. That's because it represents a bold and transgressive new direction for a mainstream franchise and that kind of innovation which moves the medium forward and lets face it in the direction most consumers clearly want should be celebrated.
So yeah her opinion is cool and all but she should make an effort to be fair minded and objective because her opinion has a big impact. It becomes a kind of power trip where these people don't acknowledge their responsibility to represent their audience and think they have the right to dictate what all of us will find offensive when in reality their views represent a small minority viewpoint.
I don't mind her mentioning what bothered her but giving the game a 7(lower than her own score for Black Ops 4) is really lame imo
Constructively...all of the negatives here are things that she subjectively found offensive or difficult...which I guess is fair in regards to her opinion but imo people really don't WANT editorializing in reviews. Nobody actually cares about the specific reviewers opinion we just want to know if WE will like it.
Imo she should avoid focusing so heavily on things that are subjective like how she felt the story should have handled whatever issue and focus on things like graphics, gameplay, acting and writing which have more commonly acknowledged parameters. Was the ending really a cop out? Or did it just not say specifically what she wanted it to? If they had interrogated these issues further would she not just have been more offended and gave the game an even lower score?
As for difficulty, some people LIKE hard games. Reviewers usually specify when deaths felt cheap or unearned as opposed to when games are just plain hard to account for this but the reviewer hasn't done that here.
A game review is not a film review, to put so much weight on the games handling of the ethical questions behind chemical weapons when the game is primarily about shooting people is weird.
I'm not even saying she can't talk about the story but for gods sake COD for once makes the game that the entire fanbase has been asking for (dark and grounded modern story, new engine, updated graphics etc. etc.) and you give it a lower score than the previous entry in the series?
She literally wrote both reviews and her primary negative for Black ops 4 was again that some of the dialogue offended her. No mention of loot boxes or a lack of single player campaign as a negative. Meaning she literally thinks somebody should buy an older entry in the series with worse graphics and game play, no single player mode and loot boxes because instead of even ATTEMPTING to talk about serious issues they just made a game where you shoot zombies with laser guns. Thus dis-incentivising the discussion of the very issues she criticized MW for not delving deeply enough into.(while also criticizing them for delving too deeply into white phosphorous/trauma I might add)
Like this is why people criticize game journalists. You guys write as if your opinion is what matters rather than your coverage. This isn't a blog post on your private website, this is the OFFICIAL review on a mainstream gaming website. Should we not expect objectivity? I'm not trying to be overly critical or anything but this was exactly the review I expected from GS and it's honestly holding back the medium.
jezz555's comments