With checkpoints I prefer health regen, because I really hate it when I run out of health and have to restart a checkpoint or get a checkpoint right when I have no health and a mob spawns right in front of me. If it's save any time, I prefer health packs, so that if I use up too much health (or ammo) in an encounter I reload and do it right. Of course I hate checkpoints to start with. Then there's the original Brothers In Arms, which had no health recovery or checkpoints until you finish the level segment, which worked great but the game was specifically designed for that.

Bobby Kotick:

 

 

Fans:

 

 

Haters:

 

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Purkake

At the end of the day, players either liked full health regen, didn't care or were not bothered enough to quit the franchise (me), because if anything CoD sales have improved with each game. I keep hoping a MoH game will come out that will challenge CoD's dominance, for no other reason than some good old competition but EA seems to think sniper levels and ridiculous levels full of panzershreck troopers = fun. Picked up Airborne recently and while the first 3 levels are quite good, the game rapidly goes downhill. Better health system than CoD, but where it really counts the game fails (gameplay).

Apparently the game is getting hammered by the players and getting good reviews by the big sites.. One massive complain seems to be that without dedicated servers, cheating is running rampant and destroying the multiplayer experience. Since the singleplayer experience is only around 4-6 hours, people don't feel they are getting their money's worth..

 

Gamespot <- by the time of me posting this the user reviews are around 5.4/10 on average, while the "professional" ones are 9.1/10.

Maybe the "pro" reviewers are the cheaters?

Apparently the game is getting hammered by the players and getting good reviews by the big sites.. One massive complain seems to be that without dedicated servers, cheating is running rampant and destroying the multiplayer experience. Since the singleplayer experience is only around 4-6 hours, people don't feel they are getting their money's worth..

 

Gamespot <- by the time of me posting this the user reviews are around 5.4/10 on average, while the "professional" ones are 9.1/10.

 

 

I'm suspect that the poor reviews are not just people making stuff up to try to prove a point.

 

 

IGN had professional reviews at 9.5, and reader reviews at 1.7.

 

Some people in their reader reviews said stuff like "I will never buy a game that does not have dedicated servers." and "suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck suck."

 

 

Many people have it in their heads that the lack of dedicated servers will also mean pings > 100. Which actually is unrelated to dedicated servers, and it more just network bandwidth (unless your computer sucks so bad that you need to steal cycles from networking to run the game). I host listen servers all the time in a lot of games, and not surprisingly, my friends that connect to it all get pings of 30 which is about what we get with the local dedicated servers.

 

 

I think the lack of dedicated servers is a bad idea, but I also think that there's a lot of misinformation going on out there in an attempt to smear the game.

This is pretty funny, from RockPaperShotgun, why boycotts don't work: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg

Oh the sweet merciful irony.

Yeah, saw that image, amusing. Boycott wouldn't work due to the average consumer being exactly that, heh. As for the reviews, most of them that aren't extreme just hit the game for being more of the same after a quick scan.

The boycott wouldn't work because 99% of people don't give a damn about dedicated servers and other weird tech stuff. They want to have fun playing a game.

I'm going to miss games with 30+ people. I like my cannon fodder to be abundant.

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Fighter

HAHAHAHA That picture is hilarious!

@Fighter: Well, MAG is coming out soon.

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Purkake

I wonder how it's selling on PC.

Gamespot <- by the time of me posting this the user reviews are around 5.4/10 on average, while the "professional" ones are 9.1/10.

 

This shows that I wasn't wrong in ignoring all "professional" game reviews (since they're pretty much nothing more than a PR stint nowadays) in favor of user based ones instead.

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Syraxis

Gamespot <- by the time of me posting this the user reviews are around 5.4/10 on average, while the "professional" ones are 9.1/10.

 

This shows that I wasn't wrong in ignoring all "professional" game reviews (since they're pretty much nothing more than a PR sting nowadays) in favor of user based ones instead.

 

So you went from one bunch of idiots to another? Congratulations!

 

On one side you have a bunch of idiots who praise every game that has a sprinkle of hype on the ever-popular 7-9 scale and on the other you have a bunch of internet nerds filled with unholy rage over dedicated servers. I'm sure at least one of them is objective...

On one side you have a bunch of idiots who praise every game that has a sprinkle of hype on the ever-popular 7-9 scale and on the other you have a bunch of internet nerds filled with unholy rage over dedicated servers. I'm sure at least one of them is objective...

 

True, but you can easily sort out ones that give an honest (and less retarded) opinion versus "OMG THSI GAEM SCUKZ ****S LOLOLOLOL ****NG RIP OFF PLAY THIS INSTED IT HARDKORE!!1!!1.

I find filtering out the nonsense pretty hard at the moment haha

 

Though I only looked at IGNs, which had most people giving the game a score of 0.0

@Syraxis: Not on Gamespot or IGN.

 

If 4chan is the septic tank of the internet, they are the drain.

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Purkake

If 4chan is the septic tank of the internet, they are the drain.

 

Too true.

This is pretty funny, from RockPaperShotgun, why boycotts don't work: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg

 

hahaha, that says a lot about human nature :D

Well I've just spent about six and a half hours finishing off the solo campaign... Eh, it's got some nice level designs, and some of the most goddamned frustrating ones I've ever encountered in a game. I think I only kept playing because of the couple of nice ones I'd encountered and enjoyed, and curiousity on just how the "story" would go...

 

But when you get down to it, it's a fairly standard shooter on rails. But nothing worthy of major hype.

 

And yeah, that airport mission does have a certain creepy "i need a shower" sensation to it.

Professional reviewers and game review sites are nearly all whores who share a symbiotic relationship with the game developers with obvious incentive to avoid a clear thumbs down rating.

 

Average Joe gamers have preconceptions about games but they aren't nearly as predictable, it also helps if you know a little about their persons and what type of games they like. Take for instance Mkreu describing the Gothic series in terms comparable to the second coming of Christ.

 

You learn to take these things with a grain of salt. Both vararities of reviewer are subjective but the gamer is better at stating up front in no uncertain terms what his preferences are.

Professional reviewers and game review sites are nearly all whores who share a symbiotic relationship with the game developers with obvious incentive to avoid a clear thumbs down rating.

 

Actually the relationship is with the publisher, not the developer.

Edited November 14, 200916 yr by Purkake

True enough, the publisher promotes, decides which deserving game site gets the ad dollars, etc.