This topic is locked from further discussion.
For me this is the best crysis warhead review it shows good and bad points nice areas some story the ai the fixes the problems the mp but it says too often that is short and doesnt say about the wider levels that allow you to scre around for more time than the original games, and not overating!
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/40651.html
Not a very good review imo. COD 4 is shorter, has no A.I in the whole campaign and the freedom in his all-scripted corridors of infinite respawn enemies is closer to none.
Anyway, Gametrailers is a console fanboy niche, which is his last Crysis review was whinning about "the 5.000 $ PC" you must need to play the game. They fragile minds simply can't accept that a PC shooter can be technicaly 10 times better than Gears; oh and see the vid again: seems that the reviewer is playing Warhead with a pad, oh my God!
Seriously: Warhead has some faults; is not longer, and the story could be better, but the action es more focused, there's a lot of new weapons, explosives and devices, and de mp Crysis Wars is much better than in Crysis. I can accept the criticisms from PC players and sites which usually spent thousand hours in shooters like Quake, UT, HL, Battlefield, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R.... but I'll cut my veins and take away my bleeding eyes the day that GT opinion will deserve my respect.
I really like the way they review games... but Gametrailers.com is definitely THE MOST BIASED gaming site you can find on the internet. Everyday i visit that site only to search for HD media which is available for free there. It's forum has the most pathetic & extremely annoying console users i've ever seen. they practically amaze by their stupidity... almost 90% of their registered users hate PC gameing..!
btw, IGN's warhead review is the best. Jason rocks! :)
Jason FTW, IGN has really good reviews now because of him
Not a very good review imo. COD 4 is shorter, has no A.I in the whole campaign and the freedom in his all-scripted corridors of infinite respawn enemies is closer to none.
Anyway, Gametrailers is a console fanboy niche, which is his last Crysis review was whinning about "the 5.000 $ PC" you must need to play the game. They fragile minds simply can't accept that a PC shooter can be technicaly 10 times better than Gears; oh and see the vid again: seems that the reviewer is playing Warhead with a pad, oh my God!
Seriously: Warhead has some faults; is not longer, and the story could be better, but the action es more focused, there's a lot of new weapons, explosives and devices, and de mp Crysis Wars is much better than in Crysis. I can accept the criticisms from PC players and sites which usually spent thousand hours in shooters like Quake, UT, HL, Battlefield, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R.... but I'll cut my veins and take away my bleeding eyes the day that GT opinion will deserve my respect.
Ondoval
i dont get cod4 thing? but cod4 has good points too eg the reallistic ballistics which crysis sucks in eg if you shoot someone to the leg will fall down and bullets penatrate surfaces and more damage in crysis firearms combat is not reallistic eg the shield falls with one shot and enemies take 6 with a pistol!
as for ai crysis has an ei but in terms of eg rainbow six or realism well look at their reactions not bery belivalbe human, id say the good script in cod4 does it thing right, egthe enemies miss dont strafe a lot they are not bots and take cover, this is how they fight in urban combat, but in jungles its more crazy crysis uses everything cod 4 uses real firearms ballistics reallistic combat and ai that reacts like soldiers in war, and take cover, or like a delta forcer movie it has been designed for a short movie and realism experiance not to play around like crysis, and real mp crysis is more liek play around!
jason is the best!
HELLL NO jason is alwasys posting his opinion like serious sam 2 eg the game sucks cuz i say so ans shotgubn is good in long ranges or in crysis the game rocks cuz i say so gs stop working with this guy a review doesnt have to be a personal opinion but simply show things and RE- viewing them on how really are, eg in his warhead review game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and the 5 hours combat gets 9.4 the way he speaks is offending eg and the best fps of this year, duh how is it possible to know? we havent seen the new games, all am saying his rview didnt show me the new stuff and lovely areas in warhead but just said what ea said the game will be 5 hours you play with psycho and it will be awesome. well IGNORE THE RATINGS those chagne on what you think but gt review always showed more about the game, eg in the first crysis they said the ai is smart , WHY? because they can flank you not cuz i say so , and i think thats the point to re view the game and not repeat what we already know or what you think!
I thought Ocampo was a great reviewer.bangell99
did you check game trailers? its more epic shows good stuff too and the one jinwcycliffe provided is good crysis warhead check it!
jason is the best!
HELLL NO jason is alwasys posting his opinion like serious sam 2 eg the game sucks cuz i say so ans shotgubn is good in long ranges or in crysis the game rocks cuz i say so gs stop working with this guy a review doesnt have to be a personal opinion but simply show things and RE- viewing them on how really are
thenewau25
Yes, a review does have to be a personal opinion. There is no such thing as "how things really are." Every single thing is an opinion. A professional reviewer's task is not to tell things how they are, because that's impossible; the reviewer's task is to give his or her opinion on the game in as well-written a manner as possible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with how Ocampo reviews games at all.
eg in his warhead review game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and the 5 hours combat gets 9.4 the way he speaks is offending
thenewau25
Offending? Because he gives his opinion, which is contrary to yours, is that it?
eg and the best fps of this year, duh how is it possible to know? we havent seen the new games
thenewau25
Reading comprehension, dude.
"For $30, Crysis Warhead is an incredible value, and you'd be hard pressed to find a better shooter on the PC this year."
He's saying this year so far, it'd be difficult to find a better shooter on the PC (in his opinion, of course).
all am saying his rview didnt show me the new stuff and lovely areas in warhead but just said what ea said the game will be 5 hours you play with psycho and it will be awesome.
thenewau25
His review showed plenty of new things and "lovely areas" in Warhead. It didn't just repeat what had already been said at all.
well IGNORE THE RATINGS those chagne on what you think but gt review always showed more about the game, eg in the first crysis they said the ai is smart , WHY? because they can flank you not cuz i say so , and i think thats the point to re view the game and not repeat what we already know or what you think!
thenewau25
You're saying Jason Ocampo doesn't explain why he has the opinions he gives, and you're wrong, he does. I really don't know where you're getting that from. And the point of a review is in fact to say what you think, and why, which Ocampo does.
jason is the best!
HELLL NO jason is always posting his opinion like serious sam 2 eg the game sucks cuz i say so ans shotgun is good in long ranges or in crysis the game rocks cuz i say so gs stop working with this guy a review doesnt have to be a personal opinion but simply show things and RE- viewing them on how really are
thenewau25
Yes, a review does have to be a personal opinion. There is no such thing as "how things really are." Every single thing is an opinion. A professional reviewer's task is not to tell things how they are, because that's impossible; the reviewer's task is to give his or her opinion on the game in as well-written a manner as possible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with how Ocampo reviews games at all.
JP_Russell
hmm in silent hill homecoming the reviwer said that the light hardly iluminates anything, thats FACT but that it doesnt make sense how an arm ranger can dodge attacks make combos and be well accurate with a gun? well he is an army ranger not every day person, that was an opinion so no opinions are not good for reviews, check bia hells highway he is doing it right in gs!
eg in his warhead review game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and the 5 hours combat gets 9.4 the way he speaks is offending
thenewau25
Offending? Because he gives his opinion, which is contrary to yours, is that it? not contrary
JP_Russell
but if i say crysis combat is proper because shield is disabled with one shot? that is true the shield does disabled with one shot and its the same opinion as yours but the fact is that tahts stupid and no matter what you say its a flaw in the game no matter if you like it or no, eg despite ai being good or bad it does bug up thats a fact not opinion!
eg and the best fps of this year, duh how is it possible to know? we havent seen the new games
thenewau25
Reading comprehension, dude.
JP_Russell
not at all dude! i say its the worse without seeing any outher am i right? the same answer applies for his case!
"For $30, Crysis Warhead is an incredible value, and you'd be hard pressed to find a better shooter on the PC this year."
He's saying this year so far, it'd be difficult to find a better shooter on the PC (in his opinion, of course).
JP_Russell
His opinion thats wrong ,try in the future that the prices will go down in al outher games, sp his review was for september not for all time 9.4 but since its all about graphics, or is it that crysis fans say i dont wanna ply another crysis standalone i wanna play crysis 2 , id ont mind another one if you ask!
all am saying his rview didnt show me the new stuff and lovely areas in warhead but just said what ea said the game will be 5 hours you play with psycho and it will be awesome.
thenewau25
His review showed plenty of new things and "lovely areas" in Warhead. It didn't just repeat what had already been said at all.
JP_Russell
do you compare that short review with the feauture they show in gametrailers?
well IGNORE THE RATINGS those chagne on what you think but gt review always showed more about the game, eg in the first crysis they said the ai is smart , WHY? because they can flank you not cuz i say so , and i think thats the point to re view the game and not repeat what we already know or what you think!
thenewau25
You're saying Jason Ocampo doesn't explain why he has the opinions he gives, and you're wrong, he does. I really don't know where you're getting that from. And the point of a review is in fact to say what you think, and why, which Ocampo does.
JP_Russell
yeah the game is not a tech demo since its smart and it rewards you (showing a cutscene during night, that has nothing to do with the previous statement) ohh you are so wrong my firiend even that guy in youtube shows more, you propanly havent check any outher review!
What's the point of this thread?people that don't like a game will like the reviews that say bad things for this game and likewise,people that like a game will like the reviews that say good things for this game.Anyway the point is that we should check more than one review to tell what is truth and what is not.No offence to anyone.And because i don't like to be off-topic,no i don't think Gametrailers is a site that should be taken seriously about its reviews.I have checked most of its reviews even the oldest ones and i don't think it's worth to argue about that.
TC besides your usual I iz saying what thiz and I iz smarter you suck usual attitude, I really advise you to see a dictionary. Do you know what a review is?
It seems you like facts, so let me tell you some facts:
GT- they love consoles, and their PC reviews are not that good (I liked what they filmed in that review and the parts that I like stop there -not general fact, just personal fact-)
If a person does a review and it's first, it's first because they finished it before the others it's not first because of your misconceptions.
Jason is not an idiot.
A review states the opinions of the one that made it. You can't have total objectivity when making a review.
Let me make it shorter:Review made by Jason=how the game is from his perspective, not yours, not the guy from the corner, not Arnold Schwarzenegger and definitely not BL's and Psycho's son ;).
A review will not contain all the aspects that you consider important or all the flaws that you consider from a certain game, it will be made from the perspective of the one that plays it and if you don respect him or if you don't agree with him, move on find another review and keep it for yourself, don't start things like Jason's an idiot I like this review it's epic :|.
Say what you want but the thread you made started going wrong from your 2nd post and you derailed terribly after your 3rd post.
The problem I had with that review is the fact that he keeps saying the same thing again and again. He talks about the games short length 4 or 5 times in the review, yet only makes a slight mention of the multiplayer aspect. I would have liked more info on the MP especially since that was one of the major weak points of Crysis that was tackled well in Warhead (according to other reviews).
It just seemed to me that the only thing legitimate complaint he could make about the game was its short length and so he keeps repeating it again and again and again... That is not a good review in my book.
Also how in the world does games like Crysis and Warhead get low 9's for presentation and games like COD4 and MGS4 get 9.8s for presentation?
All in all not that great a review in my opinion, but then again a lot of people do not visit gametrailers for their reviews, hell their review system is haphazard (in terms of what they review).
TC besides your usual I iz saying what thiz and I iz smarter you suck usual attitude, I really advise you to see a dictionary. Do you know what a review is?
It seems you like facts, so let me tell you some facts:
GT- they love consoles, and their PC reviews are not that good (I liked what they filmed in that review and the parts that I like stop there -not general fact, just personal fact-)
If a person does a review and it's first, it's first because they finished it before the others it's not first because of you misconceptions.
Jason is not an idiot.
A review states the opinions of the one that made it. You can't have total objectivity when making a review.
Let me make it shorter:Review made by Jason=how the game is from his perspective, not yours, not the guy from the corner, not Arnold Schwarzenegger and definitely not BL's and Psycho's son ;).
A review will not contain all the aspects that you consider important or all the flaws that you consider from a certain game, it will be made from the perspective of the one that plays it and if you don respect him or if you don't agree with him, move on find another review and keep it for yourself, don't start things like Jason's an idiot I like this review it's epic :|.
Say what you want but the thread you made started going wrong from your 2nd post and you derailed terribly after your 3rd post.
DanielDust
Seriously aren't you used to it?
The problem I had with that review is the fact that he keeps saying the same thing again and again. He talks about the games short length 4 or 5 times in the review, yet only makes a slight mention of the multiplayer aspect. I would have liked more info on the MP especially since that was one of the major weak points of Crysis that was tackled well in Warhead (according to other reviews).
It just seemed to me that the only thing legitimate complaint he could make about the game was its short length and so he keeps repeating it again and again and again... That is not a good review in my book.
Also how in the world does games like Crysis and Warhead get low 9's for presentation and games like COD4 and MGS4 get 9.8s for presentation?
All in all not that great a review in my opinion, but then again a lot of people do not visit gametrailers for their reviews, hell their review system is haphazard (in terms of what they review).
Philmon
prpably because they are more story based or becasue crysis didnt throw a huge enviroment at the first time in the palyers eyes that would make a great presantation!
does his review say its bad? unlikely unlike look at the review at decide for my self when he mentions good and bad points while he shows me the game unlikely jason is the idiot of cuz i say so he didnt show me what he was saying and didnt even make the review epic he said it like serious sam 2 the gameplay is bad because of the shotgun is good for long ranges, HIS OPINION you are just a too foolish to see how well reviews are done this way eg check brother in arms review and comments and you see what i mean, unlikely in ign they rate graphics lasting appeal sound story and stuff like that which are based by their opinion but in gs bia review... just check it!
thenewau25
1)The GT "review" is more like a preview, it's by far one of the most simplified recent "reviews" I saw. I for one don't consider it a review, if you do so be it.
2)Jason is an idiot, i agree with you, he actually does a review for the game and has good points.
3)I didn't like SS 2, so what, does that make me an idiot because the game just felt weird and not because of the shotgun? Okay, I guess I am.
4)Why should I check a BiA HH review? imo the game sucks badly, I don't care for a trailer or screenshot why should I suffer and watch a review for a mediocre game?
5)IGN is about the only place I actually look at "professional" reviews so I like most of their reviews of games I was interested in and they do not rate graphics only.
6)For the last time, a review is based on their opinion, the ones that make it, I don't know why you are so frustrated because you don't know what a review actually means.
7)Never, never look at one review and think you figured out that you are the next Einstein or something.
0)I didn't even care for a Crysis review and I mostly don't read/watch reviews, I only watch trailers and gameplay vids and I bought Warhead as soon as it was available, so basically I don't care for reviews in general, only after I finished the games I actually read/watch some reviews, but if reviews would make me buy a game it would have to be an ign review, gt preview (your so called review) and over 15 gamer reviews.
[QUOTE="Philmon"]The problem I had with that review is the fact that he keeps saying the same thing again and again. He talks about the games short length 4 or 5 times in the review, yet only makes a slight mention of the multiplayer aspect. I would have liked more info on the MP especially since that was one of the major weak points of Crysis that was tackled well in Warhead (according to other reviews).
It just seemed to me that the only thing legitimate complaint he could make about the game was its short length and so he keeps repeating it again and again and again... That is not a good review in my book.
Also how in the world does games like Crysis and Warhead get low 9's for presentation and games like COD4 and MGS4 get 9.8s for presentation?
All in all not that great a review in my opinion, but then again a lot of people do not visit gametrailers for their reviews, hell their review system is haphazard (in terms of what they review).
thenewau25
prpably because they are more story based or becasue crysis didnt throw a huge enviroment at the first time in the palyers eyes that would make a great presantation!
They have a score for story and both Crysis and COD4 got low 8's for it, so no that has no effect on presentation. In fact Crysis got a slightly higher score for story than COD4, yet ended up with a 9.1 for Presentation. Presentation is about how something looks overall, and lets face it there is no way in hell that Crysis/Warhead should get a low 9 score for it when a game like COD4 gets a 9.8 (especially when they were reviewing the console version).
As for environment that would come under design, which they gave Crysis similar scores to COD4 (low 9s) and gave Warhead low 8s, yet Warhead gets better presentation scores than Crysis (makes no sense) . I am sorry but there is no sane reason why games like Crysis/Warhead should score so low in presentation compared to games like COD4 and MGS4 unless you put personal preference into consideration.
[QUOTE="thenewau25"]does his review say its bad? unlikely unlike look at the review at decide for my self when he mentions good and bad points while he shows me the game unlikely jason is the idiot of cuz i say so he didnt show me what he was saying and didnt even make the review epic he said it like serious sam 2 the gameplay is bad because of the shotgun is good for long ranges, HIS OPINION you are just a too foolish to see how well reviews are done this way eg check brother in arms review and comments and you see what i mean, unlikely in ign they rate graphics lasting appeal sound story and stuff like that which are based by their opinion but in gs bia review... just check it!
DanielDust
1)The GT "review" is more like a preview, it's by far one of the most simplified recent "reviews" I saw. I for one don't consider it a review, if you do so be it.
2)Jason is an idiot, i agree with you, he actually does a review for the game and has good points.
3)I didn't like SS 2, so what, does that make me an idiot because the game just felt weird and not because of the shotgun? Okay, I guess I am.
4)Why should I check a BiA HH review? imo the game sucks badly, I don't care for a trailer or screenshot why should I suffer and watch a review for a mediocre game?
5)IGN is about the only place I actually look at "professional" reviews so I like most of their reviews of games I was interested in and they do not rate graphics only.
6)For the last time, a review is based on their opinion, the ones that make it, I don't know why you are so frustrated because you don't know what a review actually means.
7)Never, never look at one review and think you figured out that you are the next Einstein or something.
0)I didn't even care for a Crysis review and I mostly don't read/watch reviews, I only watch trailers and gameplay vids and I bought Warhead as soon as it was available, so basically I don't care for reviews in general, only after I finished the games I actually read/watch some reviews, but if reviews would make me buy a game it would have to be an ign review, gt preview (your so called review) and over 15 gamer reviews.
hahhahha lol ok
1 yeah thats why in brother in arms they all said wow he is good nice review, cuz its like the gt reviews
2 i dont get it you said he isnt, whatever he didnt mention bad points only said the game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and not show why he showed a cutscene that has nothing to do totaly unprofeffional while gt showed more about the game and not post a review so there is one before the outhers!
3 you didnt like, and you aslo didnt like crysis so whats the point here? that you cant agree and not you annoy me without meaning cuz I LIKED CRYSIS WARHEAD?
4 TO SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE GOOD REVIEW AND HOW USERS REACTED!
5 yeah REAL proffesionl especially in crysis warhead and silent hill homecoming, check stalker cs thats a good review, in homecoming they defy the game , and say that the army ranger character should not have military training but ran way like an everyday person! As for crysis warhead they overate it without even try to hype it unlike gt that made the review epic and show what they were talking about!
6 What makes a review good? when they all agree thats what so check bia to see what IS a RE- "view" of the game but oh it sucks, guess what the reviwer didnt said it doesnt he shows the game as another view a RE-view
7 hmm ok should i listen to what someone is trying to get into my head or enjoy a presetation like gt?
and 0 i dont see why you bother if dont care?
[QUOTE="thenewau25"][QUOTE="Philmon"]The problem I had with that review is the fact that he keeps saying the same thing again and again. He talks about the games short length 4 or 5 times in the review, yet only makes a slight mention of the multiplayer aspect. I would have liked more info on the MP especially since that was one of the major weak points of Crysis that was tackled well in Warhead (according to other reviews).
It just seemed to me that the only thing legitimate complaint he could make about the game was its short length and so he keeps repeating it again and again and again... That is not a good review in my book.
Also how in the world does games like Crysis and Warhead get low 9's for presentation and games like COD4 and MGS4 get 9.8s for presentation?
All in all not that great a review in my opinion, but then again a lot of people do not visit gametrailers for their reviews, hell their review system is haphazard (in terms of what they review).
Philmon
prpably because they are more story based or becasue crysis didnt throw a huge enviroment at the first time in the palyers eyes that would make a great presantation!
They have a score for story and both Crysis and COD4 got low 8's for it, so no that has no effect on presentation. In fact Crysis got a slightly higher score for story than COD4, yet ended up with a 9.1 for Presentation. Presentation is about how something looks overall, and lets face it there is no way in hell that Crysis/Warhead should get a low 9 score for it when a game like COD4 gets a 9.8 (especially when they were reviewing the console version).
As for environment that would come under design, which they gave Crysis similar scores to COD4 (low 9s) and gave Warhead low 8s, yet Warhead gets better presentation scores than Crysis (makes no sense) . I am sorry but there is no sane reason why games like Crysis/Warhead should score so low in presentation compared to games like COD4 and MGS4 unless you put personal preference into consideration.
well you understand that mgs and cod 4 story is considered better than crysis, warhead is equal to cod 4 for me) due to sound and action moments ,even the fans say crysis should get a better story i dont think its bad but all those action moments and scripted events amaze most the first time then its nothing special but to explain it to you the throw of the gun or the musis the movie like story and all that happends in cod 4 can amaze at the first time you play it, relax crysis beat them in graphics and in warhead they increase the cutscenes many times reviews are wrong i am not base in stats but how cool the video review is and not try to convince us eg in crysis and silent hiill ign is punching us with the game is bad, or alone in the dark 3.5? lol so id say 8 is not a lo its great, eg bia got 5.5 in graphics and stalker 7 so relax am just saying looking at reviews and say duh thats it? where is the rest? but gt and as he show me game features and story they remind me the good and bad points, ign said the gameplay is smart and show half cutscene gt said you ll have to use you powers and jumps a bridge, gt showed more and convince me, ign said the game is great buy it, who you would believe?
hahhahha lol ok
1 yeah thats why in brother in arms they all said wow he is good nice review, cuz its like the gt reviews
2 i dont get it you said he isnt, whatever he didnt mention bad points only said the game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and not show why he showed a cutscene that has nothing to do totaly unprofeffional while gt showed more about the game and not post a review so there is one before the outhers!
3 you didnt like, and you aslo didnt like crysis so whats the point here? that you cant agree and not you annoy me without meaning cuz I LIKED CRYSIS WARHEAD?
4 TO SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE GOOD REVIEW AND HOW USERS REACTED!
5 yeah REAL proffesionl especially in crysis warhead and silent hill homecoming, check stalker cs thats a good review, in homecoming they defy the game , and say that the army ranger character should not have military training but ran way like an everyday person! As for crysis warhead they overate it without even try to hype it unlike gt that made the review epic and show what they were talking about!
6 What makes a review good? when they all agree thats what so check bia to see what IS a RE- "view" of the game but oh it sucks, guess what the reviwer didnt said it doesnt he shows the game as another view a RE-view
7 hmm ok should i listen to what someone is trying to get into my head or enjoy a presetation like gt?
and 0 i dont see why you bother if dont care?
thenewau25
Ok, I'll humor you with my last post in this "awesome" thread.
1) -imo- Bad Game and good review, does that count ? not for me (if it really was good)
2) What he said, I considered good, the rest was just sarcasm since I have this feeling that I have to clarify that, for some reason.
3) Umm, the cake is a lie? check my sig. i actually like Crysis now (even tho It still has flaws), if you didn't bother to search any thread on the first 5 or 6 in the PC forums like a good hater or English abuser;). And I actually love Warhead, wasn't i clear enough in my LaSt PoSt (sorry caps does tricks on me ;))
4) -imo- Bad Game and good review, does that count ? not for me (if it really was good)
5) Ahh yes Silent Hill and STALKER two games that I really don't care about. Silent Hill series is mediocre at best and I didn't like absolutely anything from the first STALKER and CS won't be different, so this brings me to point Nr. 1 or 4, you choose (bad games IMO, so don't get any ideas, that applies for me, they are bad)
6) No matter how good the review is, if the game sucks there is no point in taking that review seriously. A good review is too vague, there is no suck thing, there is a better or worse review, that's why I said that in my case if i would really "use" the reviews I would need 2 professional ones and at least 15 gamer reviews.
7) What? somebody is trying to get in your head? o_0 dude, seriously internet is bad for you. Enjoy the presentation, but that's it, it's a presentation, it's not a description.
0) Because I wanted to let you in on a secret ;) read more reviews and then make an opinion. No reviewer is wrong, but one can do a better job than the other.
[QUOTE="thenewau25"]hahhahha lol ok
1 yeah thats why in brother in arms they all said wow he is good nice review, cuz its like the gt reviews
2 i dont get it you said he isnt, whatever he didnt mention bad points only said the game is not a tech demo cuz i say so and not show why he showed a cutscene that has nothing to do totaly unprofeffional while gt showed more about the game and not post a review so there is one before the outhers!
3 you didnt like, and you aslo didnt like crysis so whats the point here? that you cant agree and not you annoy me without meaning cuz I LIKED CRYSIS WARHEAD?
4 TO SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE GOOD REVIEW AND HOW USERS REACTED!
5 yeah REAL proffesionl especially in crysis warhead and silent hill homecoming, check stalker cs thats a good review, in homecoming they defy the game , and say that the army ranger character should not have military training but ran way like an everyday person! As for crysis warhead they overate it without even try to hype it unlike gt that made the review epic and show what they were talking about!
6 What makes a review good? when they all agree thats what so check bia to see what IS a RE- "view" of the game but oh it sucks, guess what the reviwer didnt said it doesnt he shows the game as another view a RE-view
7 hmm ok should i listen to what someone is trying to get into my head or enjoy a presetation like gt?
and 0 i dont see why you bother if dont care?
DanielDust
Ok, I'll humor you with my last post in this "awesome" thread.
1) -imo- Bad Game and good review, does that count ? not for me (if it really was good)
2) What he said, I considered good, the rest was just sarcasm since I have this feeling that I have to clarify that, for some reason.
3) Umm, the cake is a lie? check my sig. i actually like Crysis now (even tho It still has flaws), if you didn't bother to search any thread on the first 5 or 6 in the PC forums like a good hater or English abuser;). And I actually love Warhead, wasn't i clear enough in my LaSt PoSt (sorry caps does tricks on me ;))
4) -imo- Bad Game and good review, does that count ? not for me (if it really was good)
5) Ahh yes Silent Hill and STALKER two games that I really don't care about. Silent Hill series is mediocre at best and I didn't like absolutely anything from the first STALKER and CS won't be different, so this brings me to point Nr. 1 or 4, you choose (bad games IMO, so don't get any ideas, that applies for me, they are bad)
6) No matter how good the review is, if the game sucks there is no point in taking that review seriously. A good review is too vague, there is no suck thing, there is a better or worse review, that's why I said that in my case if i would really "use" the reviews I would need 2 professional ones and at least 15 gamer reviews.
7) What? somebody is trying to get in your head? o_0 dude, seriously internet is bad for you. Enjoy the presentation, but that's it, it's a presentation, it's not a description.
0) Because I wanted to let you in on a secret ;) read more reviews and then make an opinion. No reviewer is wrong, but one can do a better job than the other.
hahhhhahahhahhahhahaha lol a complete failure of crapiness ok so what you say i just didnt have something to do that post stupid crap and call evey game i like mont not really like that much good and every series mediocre and dont care about reviews just post my stupid opinions i dont care about the reviews i dont care about the scores i only see things my way and hear what i want to hear and i decide to pick a fight with someone and post he is not an idiot or he is an idiot and dont make up my mind but continue to argue for no reason, ill put it this wat crysis revie ign, jsut because he says so? ok so me stuff where is the rest? but stalker cs and gt crysis warhead so stuff to convince me not post an opinion, but still you think its about opion yes or no and not seeing fact, the usual " i like i "hate" nothing else and in your case not even" i love" so since we have a complete failure to understand each outher or psot a fact an not your "i dont care it sucked anyway" opinion why dont you do something else ?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment