Jump to content

Ign: Rated 6 out of 10!!!


Graywolffe

Recommended Posts

Major penny pinching is catching up with EA. Stock plummeted even further on new of horrible reviews for MoH. EA will now need to pinch even more money to stay afloat. Use caution on future games...Played Dead Space 2 Beta and it was HORRIBLE; and the first one was one of my favorite games!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major penny pinching is catching up with EA. Stock plummeted even further on new of horrible reviews for MoH. EA will now need to pinch even more money to stay afloat. Use caution on future games...Played Dead Space 2 Beta and it was HORRIBLE; and the first one was one of my favorite games!

 

Sadly, the major publishers will not be going anywhere any time soon. BC2 and all their sports franchises will keep them running. MoH is also not as bad as all the reviews make it seem. It actually makes me feel kind of weird that I like the game so much and reviewers seemed to dislike it.

 

My only gripe it that it seems like EA withheld content because they assumed everyone would buy DLC later on. Mayeb they shot themselves in the foot by keeping too much content out to sell later? Feels like the arsenal of weapons is a bit slim and the map rotation is also low.

 

They need to release some more content as "Online Pass" content for "free" in order to make up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really as bad as IGN review? I believe gaming sites will give non-bias opinion as for those individuals fanboys.

 

The game was kinda big of a hype but is there a lot of issues like frame-rates, instabilities like described by IGN?

 

I know its all personal opinions but i just wanna know does those issues any big of an issue or just minor and does it affect the gameplay as much.

 

I was planning to get the game but not quite too sure yet. I see a lot comments on review just simply saying its good or just flame the other person saying its bad. A lot of comments was biased and giving no explaination. The IGN review described those problem so there has to be those issues in the game but I just want to know is the overall gameplay good and does those issues affect the gameplay as much. If its not such of a big issue then i dont think it'll bothers me that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had frame rate problems in the story mode. Usually when the action picks up it'll skip or the picture will get choppy. It hasn't froze as of yet, but I have had a few friends tell me theirs froze during campaign and multiplayer.

 

As far as multiplayer, I like it. I would say its probably exactly middle ground between MW2 and BC2. I have less than 2 hours total time, but it has been an enjoyable time, not just me running around waiting to level up to better equipment.

 

They need 2 big fixes IMHO. The lag needs to be gone first and foremost. I haven't had it as bad as I did in MW2, but it has cost me some kills. Second would be the pre-game and between match chat. It needs to be added.

 

Thankfully for us, they can put out a patch and fix bugs now a days. If that wasn't the case, this game would be a 6. But with updates being easily applied, I'll say an 8. But only barely an 8, and only if they attempt to patch before they send out new maps/guns/crap. This game needed A LOT MORE POLISHING before it hit the shelves. Guess we can thank EA for that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, IGN really messed up with this review. They make out like its a REALLY BAD game. This dude is obviosuly a MW2 fanboy and just hates every other shooter.

 

Metacritic is showing a 75 at the moment for over 30 reviews and I think its fair.

 

Me personally, I'm giving it 8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The campaign is short and surprisingly boring, filled with largely hands-off scripted sequences and shooting that relies more on auto aim than skill. Multiplayer is fun, but the maps grow old quickly."

 

I just finished the singleplayer and it was the best suspenseful military story I've played in a military video game.

 

Seriously, Arthur Gies is a real moron. Those IGN guys have never read stories like Michael Murphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Murphy) or the report about that deathly remote forward operation base in Afghanistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghanistan.us.deadly.fight/index.html). Look at their analysis of the latest singleplayer trailer of CoD Black Ops at 1:10

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q9R912Zk94]YouTube - Call of Duty: Black Ops - Rewind Theater[/ame]

 

They couldn't identify it's Robert McNamara, John F. Kennedy's and Lyndon B. Johnson's Secretary of Defense. I'm Canadian and I know more about American History than they do.

Edited by OceanH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8/10 in my opinion. The IGN review is overly harsh, but there are some fundamental flaws concerning it's originality. The multiplayer's almost like a stripped down version of CoD and Bad Company 2, with score-chains being the only worthy addition. The spawn system is also fucked at times, on many occasions I basically spawn into the crosshair of a sniper. It's still addictive and mostly fun though once you get to the higher levels. The single player was rather epic the first time I played through it but it's horribly short and some framerate stuttering is just damn well unacceptable for EA in 2010. So while I would rate it higher I can sort of understand the IGN review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think I'll be playing many more EA games to be honest. The trouble I had with MoH and the experiences I've had with Fifa Online has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Yeah, the campaign was good, but it was very short. And using tier 1 to elongate the game was a cheap tactic. They should have done something similar to MW2's Spec Ops. Not just lowered your health, given you a time limit and made the enemies more accurate. That is what the COD games do for Veteran (minus the time limit). And including a remastered version of Frontline doesn't count for much either. It looks awful and the controls are terrible.

 

The amount of bugs/glitches within the game make it seem like EA didn't care about the finishing touches. And expecting us to swallow that just because "we have to get it out before Black Ops" is stupid. I had to do a whole other playthrough just because the game froze and my data got corrupted. And I had to restart some Tier1 missions due to glitches too (AI not being where they should, laser target equipment not working, random enemies spawning behind me < these are just a few of the issues I had with Tier 1). The PC version has had 3 patches already i think. And I'm sure they will be making some for the consoles, but when?

 

Some good points I feel I should mention. The game looks incredible. The detail on the enviroments shows some nice research. I'll admit the mulitplayer is quite well done. But a game should never rely on the online features to carry it through. Anyway, I think a 6/10 is fair to be honest. MoH is certainly the platinum i've least enjoyed getting so far. Though most of that feeling comes from the irritation the Tier 1 bugs gave me.

Edited by Cookieflux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really struggle to believe some of you guys thinking this game is good, are you really working for EA and sent here to boost sales ?

 

This game is one of the worst FPS games i have ever played.

 

Mp is horrible in most ways, Netcode is really bad, The frames per second i think must be around the 30 mark which makes the game feel really laggy. The random disconnects and freezing.

 

singleplayer is boring and very very easy, playing on hard was a walk in the park why did they even bother having 3 different difficulties ? i didn't try easy but i bet u could play the game blind folded.

 

The only best bit of the game is the tier1.

 

I feel this game was rushed to get it out before blackops because they was worried about sales, which i think is really poor.

 

anyway this game is no way near worth £40, technically we are playing a BETA which should be free cause this game isn't finished.

 

rant over :p i will never buy another MOH ever again, also i refuse to install frontline cause i can see that being just as bad.

Edited by KinGLee_uk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the best first person shooter on the Playstation, but it's still good. So many gamers see to be spoilt and throws their toys out the pram, bitching when a game they bought isn't amazing and excellently polished like a Call of Duty or Battlefield game.

 

Think how it must of been before gaming magazines and online gaming sites reviewing/previewing games. The game was judged on how attractive the boxart was.

 

I for one quite enjoyed the game *shock horror* "ZOMG! HE LIKES A GAME THAT ISN'T ALMOST PERFECT! BURN HIM!".

The campaign was short, unoriginal and borrowed a lot of ideas from other games, but it was fun. The multiplayer, again, borrows a lot, but it does close quarters a lot better than Modern Warfare 2, and it doesn't have as many glitches. Apart from the sniper rifles, it is incredibly well balanced. And if you keep your head down and don't be stupid, it's pretty easy to avoid the snipers.

 

 

Gamers these days are so damn picky and hard to please. For once just try to ignore the overpaid reviewers when they don't get handed cash under the table. Ignore the legal battles and the publisher's history and effects. Ignore the faults and glitches. and just ENJOY the bloody game.

 

[/anti-rant]

Edited by Catscan93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should i enjoy a game when i didn't get what i paid for?

 

Everyone has an opinion so im happy you enjoyed the game, but it wont stop me saying what i think, and the fact is they rushed a game to get it out before the opposition being balckops and they have fucked up.

 

I actually think the ign view is pretty accurate.

 

all i can say is thank fuck i got the plat and i can go take it back to the shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really struggle to believe some of you guys thinking this game is good, are you really working for EA and sent here to boost sales ?

 

This game is one of the worst FPS games i have ever played.

 

Mp is horrible in most ways, Netcode is really bad, The frames per second i think must be around the 30 mark which makes the game feel really laggy. The random disconnects and freezing.

 

singleplayer is boring and very very easy, playing on hard was a walk in the park why did they even bother having 3 different difficulties ? i didn't try easy but i bet u could play the game blind folded.

 

The only best bit of the game is the tier1.

 

I feel this game was rushed to get it out before blackops because they was worried about sales, which i think is really poor.

 

anyway this game is no way near worth £40, technically we are playing a BETA which should be free cause this game isn't finished.

 

rant over :p i will never buy another MOH ever again, also i refuse to install frontline cause i can see that being just as bad.

 

Why should i enjoy a game when i didn't get what i paid for?

 

Everyone has an opinion so im happy you enjoyed the game, but it wont stop me saying what i think, and the fact is they rushed a game to get it out before the opposition being balckops and they have fucked up.

 

I actually think the ign view is pretty accurate.

 

all i can say is thank fuck i got the plat and i can go take it back to the shop.

 

Know what other game that is truly rushed out and technically we're playing which should be free because the game isn't finished?

 

Fallout: New Vegas

 

Look at all the reviews: that game has worst bugs than MoH and it crashes constantly. It's basically Fallout 3 with very few new features and the story is less epic than the previous one. Yet, the game gets on average 8/10. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what other game that is truly rushed out and technically we're playing which should be free because the game isn't finished?

 

Fallout: New Vegas

 

Look at all the reviews: that game has worst bugs than MoH and it crashes constantly. It's basically Fallout 3 with very few new features and the story is less epic than the previous one. Yet, the game gets on average 8/10. :confused:

 

Yup, I had a feeling this would happen. I'm not getting it till after Black Ops for this reason. I'm gunna let all the patches come out and then it's hopefully smooth sailing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what other game that is truly rushed out and technically we're playing which should be free because the game isn't finished?

 

Fallout: New Vegas

 

Look at all the reviews: that game has worst bugs than MoH and it crashes constantly. It's basically Fallout 3 with very few new features and the story is less epic than the previous one. Yet, the game gets on average 8/10. :confused:

 

It's the name. Exactly the same happened with Modern Warfare 2. They didn't test the multiplayer enough, hence the massively unbalanced killstreaks and weapons, yet because Call of Duty 4 was so amazing, all the braindead reviewers were brainwashed that it was better than Call of Duty 4, leading them to ignore the bugs and unbalancing issues.

Yet a new IP like Medal of Honour gets slated because the idiots, reviewers and fanboys don't see a name they are used to worshipping. If the new Medal of Honour had been lisenced under the Call of Duty brand, it would have recieved 9/10's across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the name. Exactly the same happened with Modern Warfare 2. They didn't test the multiplayer enough, hence the massively unbalanced killstreaks and weapons, yet because Call of Duty 4 was so amazing, all the braindead reviewers were brainwashed that it was better than Call of Duty 4, leading them to ignore the bugs and unbalancing issues.

Yet a new IP like Medal of Honour gets slated because the idiots, reviewers and fanboys don't see a name they are used to worshipping. If the new Medal of Honour had been lisenced under the Call of Duty brand, it would have recieved 9/10's across the board.

 

The game has a load of stupid glitches that should have been ironed out before it was released. The campaign IS short. If the game had been licensed under the Call Of Duty name, these problems wouldn't have existed, cause the people responsible would have done a better job.

 

It's not being a fanboy to point out flaws that are sticking out like a sore thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the name of the game.

 

mw2 did not have low fps issues or bad netcode settings from the start, also the campaign was alot lot better.

 

I dont really care what game is better etc i just want to play a good FPS if moh was amazing then i would say so, im not a fanboy to cod at all.

 

I just hope blackops has tested there game alot better than this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviews = opinions.

I could write a review. ANY OF YOU could write a review. Its all just opinions. I personally think that many reviewers of games half the time haven't the slightest idea of how to write a review, nor to even review a game properly.

 

I think anyone could write or review as good as any of these 'professional' game reviewers. Its like somehow because they work for IGN or Gamespot etc etc that their opinion matters more.

 

Plus, IGN especially, their fields for reviewing games is ridiculous. If they're gonna set up criteria fields, at least make them relative to the individual genres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...