Eh... This could be anything. I hope it isn't rehashed garbage with bad maps (like BF4), but we'll see. Wouldn't mind a new Bad Company title - it's way over due, imo.

If that's true, then why were games like Heavy Rain very successful? If your game is glorified movie with no point of playing after watching it on YouTube, then that's more a problem with your game than YouTube content creators. These comments come across as greedy whining.

Also, if not for Let's Players, how many people would know this game existed?

Oh look, another thing nobody should actually care about.

The issue isn't companies like Game Spot being paid to post favorable reviews. The issue is the pressure to post favorable reviews. This comes from two mediums - the fan boys of the game, and the publishers/developers themselves. Staying objective is hard, and some places make it impossible lest a reviewer wants to be pink-slipped.

Some publishers simply expect positive reviews for less effort than other publishers (*cough Activision). Could you imagine Call of Duty getting a 6.0 review score? Activision is the perfect example of an entitled company. They get by on name alone despite making a game that is, sad to say, not exceptional when compared to other AAA games.

At the end of the day, advertising money is what speaks. Publishers feel that, since they pay sites like Game Spot money to advertise their product, poor (a.k.a. fair) reviews would be ripping them off. It's bull crap, and is one of the major reasons why sites like Game Spot, IGN, etc. are no longer trustworthy. Despite what reviewers may claim, the corporate pressure to allow "one hand to wash the other" is too strong.

A better indicator of a game's worth is the collective reviews of users. They aren't always spot on (as users tend to vote in 10's and 0's), but they're still a better judge of a game's worth.

Just finished my second playthrough, which took me about 2 days (~2 hours / day). I have to say that I mostly agree with Kevin's review. This DLC is fairly mediocre.

Sure, it's entertaining, but the DLC itself seems pointless. It adds nothing to the original Infinite. The storyline itself is pretty bland compared to Infinite's heavy storyline. I wasn't expecting a storyline anywhere near Infinite's since this is DLC, but the story was threadbare even for a DLC.

What sucks about Burial at Sea is it's a series of anti-climaxes culminating into a final anti-climax of a battle. You're just running around shooting and stabbing splicers in what feels like one mission. The most interesting part was the beginning, and after you leave Cohen, nothing interesting but combat happens. It all feels like one big "last level."

The scripted splicer spawns were predictable and samey. I got surprised a few times, but nothing interesting to talk about here. Infinite wasn't perfect either, but at least the methods by which the enemies attacked you were more varied.

The level design was mostly good minus the pointless / 'wrong' skyrails and skyhook. It was fun to once again ride skyrails and perform sky attacks, but it made absolutely no sense.

None-the-less, this is a decent DLC and worth the cost. It wasn't boring or unplayable - it just needs a little help. Hopefully Burial at Sea part II has a more engaging plot and more diversified gameplay.

6.5/10

I love how fan boys think kiss ass reviews from sites like IGN are better just because the score is higher. I'm planning on getting GTA V if it comes to PC and I bet it'll be a great game, but you guys are a bunch of cry babies. Wahhh! XD

@Rattlesnake_8 Depends how long it takes you to turn it off

I can't help but to find this a little pretentious. First off, many games lack an in-depth story because that leaves some things to the users' imagination. Secondly, I feel like this article is promoting games to become more like movies, which they should not.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a game is to present a challenge. It's not to present some forgettable story that can be finished in 2 hours, where everything is sanitary and everything ends alright. Violence in GTA is one of many things that can be done on the game. I would hate to see this white-washed, sanitized version of GTA where it is demanded that you're a force a good, just like a bland and cliche Hollywood flick.

Characters in video games are often generic or seem to be committing senseless violence to those that view it that way. A little imagination is all that is needed.

@JustArtificial With Russians as the bad guys, and a modern warfare setting, of course. Never been done before.

AA3 was too annoying to play, imo. Terrible net code (you would open up on someone at close range, and they would just turn around and one shot you), and half the features of AA2.

The maps also weren't so good. Overall, totally inferior to AA2 in every aspect and not fun.