Worst review I have seen in a long time (borderlands 2)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Wall Street Journal, comparing games to COD and Halo... I think they're up to something.

image

Here is my succinct response to his review.

I see a positive in this situation, and a real one to boot. Now... WSJ knows that you have to have GAME CRITICS review VIDEO GAMES.

Try harder next time WSJ. *pats them on head*

This reviewer missed the fucking point worse than a blind hooker on her first day at the cock sucking factory. The guy complained about the amount of travel and compared it to Skyrim... in a bad way, and said the travel in Skyrim was bad, and then he complained about the amount of guns, and he kept on comparing it to COD and MOH...THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?! That's like complaining about an ocean being wet, and then comparing it to the fucking Sahara desert. What the hell did I just read? I feel like this kind of half baked, rambling stupidity should be reserved only for bathroom stalls or complete cunts. Not the printed word. My head hurts.

Lear'sFool:

Oh, also: who is going to read the Wall Street Journal for reviews of entertainment products anyways!?!?

My guess is people who never play games who want reviews written by the same.

CannibalCorpses:

CityofTreez:
"Borderlands 2's single-player campaign mode isn't as good as what you'll find in games like COD: Black Ops"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Ohhhhhh, man. That's good stuff! *ahem*

OT: The amount of shit that's going to be flowing his way is going to be crazy.

Well it's certainly true of the first game so why not the second? Remove the co-op and it is tedious. CoD single player is short enough to remain fun, even if it is a little too easy to be challenging. You managed to mock one of his more accurate points :p

I get that the game might not be for you but saying that CoD has a better single player is one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've heard in a while. Better in your opinion but that hardly makes it fact. Yes I know, this is just my opinion too but the majority of other hardcore gamers/reviewers will agree with me.

Borderlands 2 falls short because it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode. There's an extremely limited four-player cooperative mode, and if you have an Xbox Live Gold account, you can team up that way, but this isn't the type of deeply engrossing FPS game the headset-wearing COD crowds gather to play months and months after release. In comparison, I read on several sites that COD: Black Ops 2 will feature up to six teams, for a total of 18 simultaneous players, in multiplayer mode.

I-ii-uh-I...

Borderlands 2 falls short because it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode.

You just, you can't...

you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode.

DDDDDDDDDDDTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Wow, I could scarcely traverse the first paragraph without breaking down. This truly is the greatest piece of literature of our time. This review. Right here.

I don't get that first part. Is he condemning the CoD crowd or recommending them? It looks like he generalizing the whole demographic and yet, supporting them as a result.
Eh, it's all a bunch of crud anyway. You can find holes in anything.
"Oh, Skyrim takes too long to get from one point to another"
"LittleBigPlanet suffers from a tiny campaign and the multiplayer is subject to trawling through crap levels to find one good level."

Keep in mind those are gross exaggerations and I actually liked LittleBigPlanet and Skyrim. =P

I find it amusing that several times he speaks of referring to other sources, even wikipedia, in an attempt to figure out what he is talking about. That he still fails is an achievement in itself.

I played with my 14-year-old son

Aww that's sweet, a dad spending time with his son.

The game's opening sequence reminds you that Borderlands' developers chose to go the animation route, and I don't like it very much. The game isn't manga-like enough to be super-hip, so instead, it just feels cartoonish.

The game isn't manga-like enough to be super-hip, so instead, it just feels cartoonish.

The game isn't manga-like enough to be super-hip

manga-like enough to be super-hip

super-hip

Though I suggest next time you don't get grandpa to help write the review.

Wakikifudge:

CannibalCorpses:

CityofTreez:
"Borderlands 2's single-player campaign mode isn't as good as what you'll find in games like COD: Black Ops"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Ohhhhhh, man. That's good stuff! *ahem*

OT: The amount of shit that's going to be flowing his way is going to be crazy.

Well it's certainly true of the first game so why not the second? Remove the co-op and it is tedious. CoD single player is short enough to remain fun, even if it is a little too easy to be challenging. You managed to mock one of his more accurate points :p

I get that the game might not be for you but saying that CoD has a better single player is one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've heard in a while. Better in your opinion but that hardly makes it fact. Yes I know, this is just my opinion too but the majority of other hardcore gamers/reviewers will agree with me.

Depends on which Call of Duty we're talking about. Until about a week ago, I had only ever played World at War, but this week I went and played Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3. The reason I went and played those two games is because Call of Duty gets a lot of shit, and so I wanted to see if it was at all deserved.

Modern Warfare 3...I didn't really 'get' most of what was going on, but I imagine that was because I'd joined the trilogy at the very end. But Black Ops...well...I would say that Black Ops has a better single player experience than Borderlands does. Single player Borderlands is like playing on a long-dead MMO. The personal gratification you get from loot scavenging will only take you so far without people to share the experience (and show off to) while Black Ops had an interesting and engaging story. So while the story is cliche, it's still different enough that it's worth an honorable mention in the video game world.

tl;dr, I would say that Call of Duty: Black Ops beats Borderlands 1/2 as far as single player goes, and which one wins after that is...dunno! Haven't played Black Ops' multiplayer, but I imagine that the 'better' one depends on the person and their specific tastes.

"Manga-like enough to be super hip"

"You need to have... multiplayer online mode"

and

"Borderlands 2 doesn't just bill itself as an FPS. It's a space Western FPS"

I think are my favorites.

I'm annoyed by his description of it as a "role-playing shooter".

If Borderlands 2 is anything like the first, it shouldn't go anywhere near the term "role-playing".

Yes, I'm still bitter Borderlands wasn't Fallout 3 with better shooting and cell-shading.

I haven't had such mirth at the flailing of another human being in a long time.

Well done sir.

Kopikatsu:

Wakikifudge:

CannibalCorpses:

Well it's certainly true of the first game so why not the second? Remove the co-op and it is tedious. CoD single player is short enough to remain fun, even if it is a little too easy to be challenging. You managed to mock one of his more accurate points :p

I get that the game might not be for you but saying that CoD has a better single player is one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've heard in a while. Better in your opinion but that hardly makes it fact. Yes I know, this is just my opinion too but the majority of other hardcore gamers/reviewers will agree with me.

Depends on which Call of Duty we're talking about. Until about a week ago, I had only ever played World at War, but this week I went and played Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3. The reason I went and played those two games is because Call of Duty gets a lot of shit, and so I wanted to see if it was at all deserved.

Modern Warfare 3...I didn't really 'get' most of what was going on, but I imagine that was because I'd joined the trilogy at the very end. But Black Ops...well...I would say that Black Ops has a better single player experience than Borderlands does. Single player Borderlands is like playing on a long-dead MMO. The personal gratification you get from loot scavenging will only take you so far without people to share the experience (and show off to) while Black Ops had an interesting and engaging story. So while the story is cliche, it's still different enough that it's worth an honorable mention in the video game world.

tl;dr, I would say that Call of Duty: Black Ops beats Borderlands 1/2 as far as single player goes, and which one wins after that is...dunno! Haven't played Black Ops' multiplayer, but I imagine that the 'better' one depends on the person and their specific tastes.

You haven't even played Borderlands 2 so I don't really see how you can judge it...

Anyway, I'll agree that the beginning of Borderlands isn't all that great and neither is the story in general (although neither is Black Ops, it's just there to facilitate one Michael Bay set piece after another) but as far as the actual gameplay goes, Borderlands brings way more variety, challenge and hilarity. I guess I just prefer shooting lots of different enemies with lots of different guns to shooting the exact same soldier with maybe 10 different guns over and over.

Edit: I just noticed that you're a different person than the person I originally responded to. I could tell by his wording that he hadn't played Borderlands 2. If you have and it's just not for you then I retract my first statement.

GAunderrated:
snip

So, this is the worst review ever and you laughed at it because...?

Because of the way it was written? Maybe.

Because of the comparisons he made to Call of Duty? Probably.

Because you have a huge positive bias toward Borderlands and he didn't enjoy it? Definitely.

---

Yes, he made mention of games like Halo and Call of Duty, but in all fairness those are the top FPS's for a reason. Now, don't get me wrong, I've never personally bought any installment of either franchise and I don't play them at all. But if we're talking FPS mechanics, they're both superior to Borderlands.

I have a feeling if it was written the same way, but he was saying positive things about Borderlands 2, none of the people in this thread would be saying "Aw fail review what a fail review," they'd be saying nothing at all.

---

There are people out there who don't like Borderlands. In fact, with the terrible impression the first game made on me, the review you posted made me slightly MORE interested in Borderlands 2.

Do you know why that is?

...because it seems like it has a freaking plot.

I know Borderlands had a plot, but it was trash. Nothing about the game motivated me to do anything at all. The depressing realization that the game world in Borderlands is so dull, tedious, uninteresting, and pretentious made me less motivated to do anything in the game itself than I do in real life... and that's saying something.

Personally, I'd be generous to say that Borderlands is only in the Top 5 worst games I've ever bought, as opposed to just outright declaring it the worst.

I know people like different things. I know some people like hip-hop and I'm okay with that. Some people like romantic comedies, and that's fine. I don't like either of those at all but people have different tastes.

There is one single thing I really can not fathom that any single soul would enjoy, though, and that is Borderlands. I ache just thinking about playing that game.

Anyway, the point is, it's not a fail review just because you're excited about the game, you're a fan who read a bad review. There are bad reviews for my favorite games, too. Shit happens.

Wakikifudge:

Edit: I just noticed that you're a different person than the person I originally responded to. I could tell by his wording that he hadn't played Borderlands 2. If you have and it's just not for you then I retract my first statement.

Yeah, I've played it. Currently have a level 17 Axton and level 7 Salvador(e?).

Faladorian:

GAunderrated:
snip

So, this is the worst review ever and you laughed at it because...?

Because of the way it was written? Maybe.

Because of the comparisons he made to Call of Duty? Probably.

Because you have a huge positive bias toward Borderlands and he didn't enjoy it? Definitely.

Personally I have never played either of the Borderlands-games, and have zero interest in them. I still think this review was hilariously poor.

Faladorian:

GAunderrated:
snip

I know Borderlands had a plot, but it was trash. Nothing about the game motivated me to do anything at all. The depressing realization that the game world in Borderlands is so dull, tedious, uninteresting, and pretentious made me less motivated to do anything in the game itself than I do in real life... and that's saying something.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExcusePlot

Much like Torchlight and the original Diablo the plot of Borderlands is mealy something to string together a world where there are revolvers that shoot shotgun shells.

The main points people are bringing up are that comparing Borderlands 2 to COD is like comparing apples to oranges or Romeo and Juliet to A Midsummers Night Dream.

Sure both plays were written by Shakespeare and involve romance but there the similarities end. One is a tragedy which could have happened in the real world (baring the 'deathstate' poison) the other involves wacky hijinks between fairy's.

Both games are First person perspective and involve guns but that's where things end, one goes for the gritty realistic route with a focus on realism. The other has squeaky voiced midgets as opponents and one of its draws is the ability to find sniper rifle minigun.

You can't really compare the two.

Naeras:

Personally I have never played either of the Borderlands-games, and have zero interest in them. I still think this review was hilariously poor.

It was naive and the grammar was lacking.

But what I meant was the sheer passive-aggressive/aggressive aspect of the OP in regards to the review. That reaction could have only been warranted by his inner Borderlands fanboy. That's what I meant.

Ed130:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExcusePlot

Much like Torchlight and the original Diablo the plot of Borderlands is mealy something to string together a world where there are revolvers that shoot shotgun shells.

The main points people are bringing up are that comparing Borderlands 2 to COD is like comparing apples to oranges or Romeo and Juliet to A Midsummers Night Dream.

Sure both plays were written by Shakespeare and involve romance but there the similarities end. One is a tragedy which could have happened in the real world (baring the 'deathstate' poison) the other involves wacky hijinks between fairy's.

Both games are First person perspective and involve guns but that's where things end, one goes for the gritty realistic route with a focus on realism. The other has squeaky voiced midgets as opponents and one of its draws is the ability to find sniper rifle minigun.

You can't really compare the two.

I won't click that tvtropes link... it's already quarter to 2am :(

---

I see what you're saying, but I was talking about the shooting aspect alone. As for the excuse plot, I realized that before I even played the game. But it wasn't even a compelling excuse plot in any way.

Another game with the same type of excuse plot was Fallout 3. I didn't care about the Lone Wanderer's dad at all. But in the process of ignoring the main plot, I had an unprecedented amount of fun. The fun with Borderlands stopped a few hours in. In fact, I played it for 5 hours total (across 3 days, I had to take frequent breaks but I REALLY tried to give the game a chance) and after those 5 hours, I didn't simply quit the session and forget to play it...

I yelled, "THIS IS SO FUCKING BORING!!!" and uninstalled the game. I was mad I even bought it for $6-7 on the summer sale. I found it to be that bad. I'm not sure why I had a more visceral reaction to that game than any other. I can picture myself going back and playing ET or Superman 64 just to show someone how bad it is, but I doubt I could stomach doing that for Borderlands.

Faladorian:
-snip-

I see, so the looting aspect didn't engage with you. Fair enough.

As for the TV Tropes link I apologise, It's only 6pm here.

Oh wow. This feels like it was written by a college frat-boy who has no knowledge of gaming outside of Halo and COD. Nothing wrong with him having his opinions, but this would be like if I tried to write an article on (American) football. It will only end in disaster.

Ed130:

Faladorian:
-snip-

I see, so the looting aspect didn't engage with you. Fair enough.

As for the TV Tropes link I apologise, It's only 6pm here.

But again, I don't know why. I used to play World of Warcraft. I've played Diablo II. I've played Mass Effect 1. I've been exposed to plenty of games with loot systems almost identical to Borderlands, but it just didn't help.

Y'know what it might be? It could be that the starting guns look "too cool" to be starting guns. If you started with a grey revolver that shot regular rounds, then slowly upgraded to a more powerful gun as you leveled up, etc., it'd be much more engaging.

But when the first gun I get in that game looks like a spiked forklift on fire that shoots electricity, I don't feel like there's any progress to be made. I just eventually get a gun from a chest and have to decide if I like the better stats enough to swap it out for the ugly puke-green color that it happens to be.

Y'know what I'm getting at with this? There's a reason at level 5 your guy in WoW looks like a hobo, and the level 80-somethings you see in your nearest hub city look like walking gods. It's called incentivizing your game.

It's amusing how much of a blatant CoD fanboy this guy is that he can't review a game that is in no way similar to CoD, save for having guns in it. Is there even a single paragraph where he's not bitching about how he'd rather be playing Black Ops? If it weren't for the fact that it seems so sincere I'd guess this was a satirical article. But, sadly, I know it isn't.

"The game's opening sequence reminds you that Borderlands' developers chose to go the animation route, and I don't like it very much. The game isn't manga-like enough to be super-hip, so instead, it just feels cartoonish."

In no way does this comment have anything to do with the proper review of a game. And it's supposed to be cartoonish. The cartoonish look is supposed to make it more fun and unique, because it has its own look. Y'know, to seperate it from every other shooter out there. Like CoD.

Also, what was that he said?

"The games controls are like COD."

That little comment for some reason made me very angry.

No, mothafuckah, the game's controls are like virtually every other FPS ever created beforehand. COD didn't create analogues and triggers. Hell, even Halo came out before COD. The reason FPS games have virtually the same control scheme-wise is because that's what the controller was created with in mind. Optimized functionality. Nobody is suddenly going to change that because it'd be idiotic.

Faladorian:

GAunderrated:
snip

I don't know who missed the point more: you or the reviewer. It's blatantly obvious that the man has no business reviewing games at all. The review is garbage. The "not manga-like enough to be super-hip" line ALONE makes that abundantly and hilariously clear. Instead of quoting me and getting into a needlessly long conversation, just read through the thread or the 1500+ comments in the article to find someone who's already said what I'm inevitably going to tell you.

axlryder:

Faladorian:

GAunderrated:
snip

I don't know who missed the point more: you or the reviewer. It's blatantly obvious that the man has no business reviewing games at all. The review is garbage. the "not manga-like enough to be super-hip" line ALONE makes that abundantly clear.

Well yeah, his vocabulary is a clusterfuck. What I assume he's trying to say is that if you're going to make graphics like that it should be like No More Heroes or something.

I'm not saying it's well-written. It's not. I'm saying the reason it's the world review ever probably has a lot to do with how much he agrees with it.

Wow, that guy is a fuckin' retard.

Faladorian:

axlryder:

Faladorian:

I don't know who missed the point more: you or the reviewer. It's blatantly obvious that the man has no business reviewing games at all. The review is garbage. the "not manga-like enough to be super-hip" line ALONE makes that abundantly clear.

Well yeah, his vocabulary is a clusterfuck. What I assume he's trying to say is that if you're going to make graphics like that it should be like No More Heroes or something.

I'm not saying it's well-written. It's not. I'm saying the reason it's the world review ever probably has a lot to do with how much he agrees with it.

That's "worst" review ever, and this is legitimately one of the worst professional reviews I, and I'm sure many others, have seen. While the man isn't busy humping the legs of other franchises, he's spouting ignorant statements about aesthetics and DLC. He's faulting the game for not being something it's NOT EVEN TRYING TO BE. "this game lacks puzzle elements, I really like puzzle games, 2/5". Sorry bro, the review is genuinely just godawful.

axlryder:

That's "worst" review ever, and this is legitimately one of the worst professional reviews I, and I'm sure many others, have seen. While the man isn't busy humping the legs of other franchises, he's spouting ignorant statements about aesthetics and DLC. He's faulting the game for not being something it's NOT EVEN TRYING TO BE. "this game lacks puzzle elements, I really like puzzle games, 2/5". Sorry bro, the review is genuinely just godawful.

It's almost 3am, cut me some slack on the typing.

Coincidentally, this isn't the hour where I'm willing to argue about Borderlands for very long. So, I'm done. Declare victory if you wish.

I agree, this was a travesty of a review and the writer should be taken behind the shed in silence. However, it still doesn't beat Quarter to Three's / Tom Chick's asinine review of The Secret World back in july, that shit was off the rails stoopid. Then I went back and read old archive reviews from this guy, and had a full month of entertainment out of it. Lobotomised people shouldn't be allowed to review games, and they sure as hell shouldn't end up on Metacritic. His 2/5 for TSW was pure sabotage, and I even bet that was his whole motivation.

Who gets their game reviews from the Wall Street Journal anyway?

But on a lot of points I do agree with that terrible review. No, BL is not trying to be CoD... but it is fair to compare a fps to another fps. And BL's shallow "rpg elements" isn't really much different than CoD's online rewards system. In both you get better guns the longer you play, and can unlock special abilities as well. BL (and its sequel) don't really allow for character customization that marks anything with "actual" rpg elements (otherwise I could make the soldier a sniper specialist... or the girl the tank.) It's just 4 pre-made characters and selectable skin changes. So at its core, its style is very similar to CoD just a little more customization.

What's different is the game focus, and that's what this guy missed. BL is arranged more like a traditional MMORPG (say WoW or EQ) in its fetch quests and "go here and kill x or x number of x" quests. Oh and the loot, very Diablo-esque finding slightly better equipment along the way (or at least in the first game until 1/2 way thru when you acquire guns that will serve you all the way until 1/2 way into the second playthru.) So basically, he just made the wrong game comparisons... Actually he missed those by a mile.

So far playing Borderlands 2... it's better than BL. Visually (so far anyway) it has separated itself from its predecessor by avoiding the "dirt brown, gun metal grey" visual color scheme which marred BL (which was not a "brownshooter" but WAS a cell-shaded "gritty brownshooter.") BL 2 varies the visual design nicely. It has more types of common mob, so we're not just shooting the same 4 guys over and over and over and over. And the GUI is like... a thousand times better. Visually I couldn't care less if the GUI looks better (I would not argue the comparison one way or another) but it is TONS better in terms of functionality. My sight-impaired friends don't have to press their glasses TO the screen to see if their new gun has 10 more or less "***" than their current one.

What's worse... so far the detail level seems worse than it was in BL 1. Maybe we will get a free "high rez texture pack" like Skyrim did, but right now it seems less sharp than the original. It seems to be lacking (by comparison) in rendering depth as well... but those things don't really bother me much. So I think BL 2 is (so far anyway) an improvement.

But its best feature, like so many of the things that BL 2 did not change since BL 1... split-screen multiplayer. Most devs avoid it like it has the plague, or only provide it for cut-down "arena" modes. But it remains in BL, And it continues to separate it from its FPS peers. And remains the only reason I even care about the series at all.

I can't speak for everyone else but the the reason I thought the guy had no grounds to pass judgement on BLT is rather simple.

His main pillar upon which his whole attitude is based around is that for $60 we all should expect to get at least as much X as you get in Y. Y being Halo or COD because they are the Acme of the industry of course.

Does he take this same stance with regards to movies? I guess because the ticket price is the same, the only movies worth seeing are Titanic and Transformers or whatever hugely successful film you think works for the point that he thinks should be made. To him, ANYTHING that isn't AAA++ with 99% focus on team deathmatch with cool airstrikes and pseudo intellectual plot should only charge half price because its not what he likes or is popular with his 14yo kid.

I may have a bias for BLT, and hugely against Halo and COD etc., because I prefer shooting interesting npcs (humanoid or otherwise) with outlandish weaponry as opposed to pwning the same douchebags in every successive iteration of "couch soldier of fortune" that comes along.

The thing is, I'm not the only one that has this preference. People that like Borderlands aren't some fringe minority. It isn't developed on an indie budget. Its just as deserving of a SERIOUS critique as any other game in its or any other genre. Copping out and stating that it was fun, but not enough to warrant its price point is just fail reviewing.

Did your readers need to know that you consulted Wikipedia to learn the backstory? I think that you felt the desire to do so AT ALL says that you had an interest in the plot.

That he lampooned the multiplayer is pretty funny. What do you typically do in a COD multiplayer? Squad up and shoot people in a confined map, where only a handful of variables present themselves via each person's loadout and gear etc. Even then its not much of a change player to player and you have maybe at most 2 dozen maps, most of which you need to pay for as they choose to nickle and dime you for them. Typically they will just reuse old maps from earlier games in the series and call them legacy maps or whatever and still charge you.

Now, what do you do in Borderlands MP? You squad up and shoot things. Only you are shooting more than just nazis and zombie nazis and other players. You have access to more than 10 guns, and you have 5 different classes, possibly more. You have access to the entire world map, you have vehicles, you have practically unlimited numbers of guns/shields/grenades and class mods/relics/unlockable custom heads/skins/paint jobs etc.

You also get a game with a fucking personality, that on occasion is actually funny and has a plot that can't be summed up with "shoot those guys, then those guys, these guys betrayed you shoot them, everyone dies, no they didn't so shoot them. the end"

I'm not saying its a masterpiece, but its not a fucking Nascar game, "a fun diversion" like said asshat would prefer it to be judged as.

All games are by definition fun diversions.

Also, who in the fuck takes anything that someone writes for a NEWSPAPER seriously these days? Especially one with a track record of making up whatever the hell they feel like and calling it fact? Its about as silly as relying on a professional review of any media. As soon as money changes hands, its no longer an impartial review. There is always a narrative and an agenda, and if they divert too far from it they will no longer have said job.

Its why you typically see 7-8/10 for 99% of all reviews, or 3/5 in the case of G4.

space Western FPS

hmm, I suppose it kinda is....also does sound like a very cool tagline to call it too.

Other then that, yeah, he has no business reviewing the game. Even ignoring the raging hard-on for COD, the perpetual complaints about aspects of the game people enjoy about the game (the loot system, the variety, the co-op instead of online deathmatches) shows he missed the point of the game. Badly. If I criticized a car for its inability to meet my underwater needs, I think I would be deserving of a bit of verbal nose-rubbed-in-the-piss time.

It seems his experience with games is very very narrow and selective. While some would argue that shouldn't limit him, it is like watching someone who has only seen horror movies suddenly trying to review a family comedy. It is not just useless to people who might be buying the game (so, as a review of critique, it is useless) but devoid an understanding of even the intent of the game and what it sought to do, instead spending much of the time say "it isn't COD".
He is entitled to his opinion, but he is really out of his depth here. Still, it is quite hilarious a read. Loved the "super-hip" bit too. Must be trying to talk about what the kids are into these days...

Another example of people who dont know games reviewing games!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked