Anyone here got the game and played it ? Reviews are mixed (or basically sponsored so you can’t trust them) what do you guys think ?
I’m curious as to what proof you’d have that a given review was paid for?
Well… a consistent high rating on every.single.release. by the same company. Even if the game is after a few days widely known as a crappy game. Unnecessary use amount of extremely positive adjectives for aspects of the game that most people would consider standard. Using 8 minutes of the video review to explain how awesome the game supposedly is, then take 1 minute to critize something dumb about it, only to then proceed to spend another 8 minutes to keep on saying how awesome it is. It gets pretty obvious.
I’m not a COD hater. I’ve played COD MW II a ridicously amount of hours, for years. But they released cod games that’s sucked so many times after that one that I’m wondering if they finally made a good one this time. Some reviews are mixed about it. Other ones like I said are obviously sponsored. It would be naive to think these big corporations are not going to spend some cash in protecting their investments.
From what I’ve seen of user reviews on steam and metacritic it’s pretty crappy. I’ve even read several of the user reviews so I think I can get an idea of the problems of the game while the positive reviews really don’t paint what is positive for the game.
Personally, it doesn’t surprise me. COD hasn’t really been all that good in years now and I’m at the point where I consider it a dead series if Activision doesn’t give the series a break for a few years.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic but I’m confused and a little concerned - what you’re suggesting is illegal, these days. Neglecting to mention the involvement of a sponsorship for a review would get people in the same trouble as neglecting to mention, say, you own a site for CS skin gambling. I’d be careful accusing a company of illegal activities in a public space where they could argue you were damaging their reputation without proof.
Beyond that, it feels like you’re saying it’s impossible for someone to enjoy a game as much as, say, a very positive reviewer, or that said reviewer should be beholden to the “widely known” opinion of a game, which is, again, confusing. I’d argue that it’s just possible that someone really enjoyed a game - god knows I’ve sung the praises of a few games other folks didn’t like (Dark Souls 2, for example.) So you’re saying they’re lying and they didn’t actually have any fun, because it’s “obvious” to you that nobody could have fun with the game if some other folks didn’t?
Honestly, while it might not be as straight-forward as money for review, I completely concur that several games (COD among them) get consistently-high reviews from a number of companies regardless of whether or not it was a good entry into the franchise. I wear a tin-foil hat and wait for Metacritic aggregates to come out since they by nature are less biased than any single review source.
If you look at all the CoD games on Steam, every one since Advanced Warfare (2014) have either mixed or mostly negative reviews.
Edit - Actually it is all since Ghosts (2013)
Truly; the PC community has been less-than-kind to CoD in general.
I don’t own WW2, but I have played a good chunk of CoD games and to me, they are all pretty much the same game with a couple more bells and whistles, a different, generally shortish SP campaign, and generally the same solid gameplay.
Metacritic user reviews are always brutal to videogames because anyone who doesn’t absolutely love it will give it a 0 because they want to have more of an impact in the average despite the fact that a zero should only be given to a game that is so utterly broken it doesn’t work on a fundamental level. And being a popular game, CoD is bound to have a lot of opinions that are either a 10 if the person absolutely loves it, or a 0 if they have a slight problem with it (an effect pretty much the same as Steam reviews, being a binary system and all). But regardless of the reviews it has gotten, I would highly doubt it won’t be anything different from any other CoD game: a short, solid, sometimes gimmicky singleplayer and a lone wolf round based multiplayer where you unlock stuff, and from what I’ve seen in gameplay videos that seems to be exactly the case. There are few things as predictable as a CoD game in my book.
WW2 seems to have gotten a substantial amount of hate for things like nazis wielding PPSh41s in Normandy or a medic applying pressure on an abdomen wound, which I find akin to critisizing a Michael Bay movie for not getting asteroid physics correctly. Not only has CoD been inaccurate in I’d dare say every god damn installment there’s ever been at one point or the other, nitpicking blockbuster entertainment that way only shows how far will people go to find reasons to hate on something popular. Which comes to, I feel, the core of the problem here: it’s not about what WW2 does, it’s whether you like its formula and what reaction you want to have to it.
On PC, there is also criticizing the game for being poorly optimized (a lot of these people have good computers that should be able to run it) or just being a buggy mess.
I think part of the reason why people are starting to hate COD is that they release a new game of it every single year when each game doesn’t really bring anything new to the franchise or stole something from another game and did it poorly compared to them (infinite warfare and titanfall for example.).
I own WW2 on Xbox 1…its COD, I wouldn’t buy it if you are expecting something different. Yea it’s cool they went back to ww2 and I have a good time playing with my college buddies .
Well, plenty of illegal stuff happen every single day and I have little doubt that might include this industry that we all love.
Of course people can enjoy a game enough to give it a ten ! Like I said COD Modern warfare 2 was so fun for me (even considering all the things you could critize of it, most of which in sure I would agree with) that I would gladly give it a good review.
That being said, when you have this channels giving ridicously good reviews for games widely known for being mediocre (at best) it becomes quite obvious why they do it.
I’m not all that impressed, but the single player campaign was at least fun. The MP is a typical twitch shooter with no real basis in reality. For shooters, I prefer something like Red Orchastra II, where a shot to the chest was death, a hit anywhere else would disable to the point where it was difficult to do anything. Here, you get hit with 2-3 bullets, run behind cover while slapping on a med pack, and you’re back at full. If you like that arcade type of shooter, then you’ll like this. I just prefer the more realistic approach. And of course there are the loot crates, which seems very silly for WWII.