Naturn wrote:
I just watched the IGN review of MW3. Somebody got paid off... It couldn't have been more clear.
Quite a few sources seemed to give BF3 and MW3 the
exact same score.
They acknowledge MW3's faults but still somehow give it a good score...then say glowing things about BF3 (the one negative usually being the "brief singleplayer" and maybe "bugginess", as if MW3 doesn't also have that...), but rate it the same as a game they admitted has obvious issues/is recycled/etc, etc....
It's almost as if they were told, "You don't have to give MW3 a perfect score, just don't rate it lower than BF3!"
It's blatantly obvious something is fishy. When there is such a MASSIVE difference in critical and user response, across every single platform, something has to be up. No amount of trolling on metacritic would create such a disparity.
The only reason I even care about this is that I think this serves as the perfect paradigm for corporate influence on game reviews, and it's been that way for a few years now. I don't buy a whole lot of games brand new, as I hate the feeling of being ripped off. So I take reviews - both critical and user - seriously for titles that I think look interesting. If you can't trust a single source to give unbiased reviews, it sort of fucks all of that up. BF2S should not have to serve as my source of game reviews, but it has for a while now...