"It's brown, and everyone says f**k a lot."
About sums up every war shooter of the past ten years.
About sums up every war shooter of the past ten years.
What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?TheComedown said:It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?Mromson said:You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
How so? Why should their standards change for this one game? Yeah I found the SP to be a little "meh" and samey, but I am thoroughly enjoying the MP, much more then I have MW2. They followed the formula, put their twist on it, and some people liked it, whats the big deal? It's like your hurt or something because the game didn't get slammed in reviews, there was no real reason for it to get slammed. Objectively its a good game, its just nothing ground breaking.Mromson said:What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?TheComedown said:It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?Mromson said:You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
It's a review. The point isn't to display emotion but to clearly and claritably give you his opinion on the game.Chronamut said:Cool review but the narrator for the video didn't sound very emotional and it sounded like he didn't even play video games and just read off a script...Steve Butts said:Review: Medal of Honor
The f@#%ing Taliban just shot me. F@#%!
Read Full Article
Why should their standards change to one game? Who said about one game? They should start somewhere, MoH is a great point to start since they've failed with doing so thus far. You might subjectively think that the MP part is "fun", but it is still -as you said- nothing new or innovative. It's merely a stripped down part mode of what has come before it.TheComedown said:How so? Why should their standards change for this one game? Yeah I found the SP to be a little "meh" and samey, but I am thoroughly enjoying the MP, much more then I have MW2. They followed the formula, put their twist on it, and some people liked it, whats the big deal? It's like your hurt or something because the game didn't get slammed in reviews, there was no real reason for it to get slammed. Objectively its a good game, its just nothing ground breaking.Mromson said:What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?TheComedown said:It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?Mromson said:You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
I never said nor believe the the MP is stripped down. It's a different twist on the same formula, its still ahead of MW2. I only said it was nothing ground breaking, it is still something new compared to the current two big dogs, and to say its a stripped down version of previous shooters is wrong, it still does a lot right that MW2 got wrong.Mromson said:Why should their standards change to one game? Who said about one game? They should start somewhere, MoH is a great point to start since they've failed with doing so thus far. You might subjectively think that the MP part is "fun", but it is still -as you said- nothing new or innovative. It's merely a stripped down part mode of what has come before it.
At least BC2 had destructible walls and vehicles, what does MoH have? Nothing, it doesn't stand out in any way.
And why do I care you ask? Because I enjoy playing First Person Shooters, and it bothers me when utterly shit releases such as this one gets a pass when it does absolutely squat shit when compared to any of the other releases on the market.
Some people seem fine with shit, though.