"He played Ghosts at a review event in Southern California. Travel was paid for by Activision" hence the 8 people. This is discusting. Reviews should not be done at special press events where they can be influenced. Also this reviewer is full of crap and clearly not able to write a real review about this game:

- Clever and meaningful additions to multiplayer, wauw they removed the zombie mode and inserted a alien infestation mode that is mentioned as horrible boring in most other reviews. Wauw this is so meaningfull and clever. Oh you mean the squad thingy CoD hypes about? Yeah also gets burned down by most other reviewers. Yeah very meaningfull and clever additions to the multiplayer.

- A campaign driven by excellent pacing and varied encounters, move from one location where you under fire by soldiers to another, like you always did in CoD. Mixed with turret and driving gameplay....like you awlays did. They haven't changed shit forever now yet this guy who claims he played trough all campaign in CoD before (yeah that was really hard, you want a cookie or something?) still doesn't see it repeats itself all the freaking time? Hey Gamespot you had a movie about if reviewers are being bribed and yet you allow this in a CoD review knowing damn well that CoD hasn't changed one single bit.

This review was based on a review event. No surprise there that this game scored great here. But its just another "see gamespot does get bribed". Get some balls GS. Say no to activisions review events. They should give you the game before release so you can review it and not on some event. Just reveiw the game they won't give it before release. CoD fans buy it anyway no matter what you write in your review. But don't accept Publishers dictating this bullshit on you.

This review is weak and what i don't get. Simcity scored a 5 and got a redone review so now its a 4. Simcity isn't a great game but already had a low score so why a rereview when this is a total turd of a review done by a fanboy who forgives CoD for beign a over priced expansion pack for many years now with hardly any difference and even saying that its great and fresh. Its his opinion, sure, but he is a also a game journalist with the duty to write honest reviews and not fanfavoring a game while knowing the issues damn well.

This game is generic as hell and on the pc not even well optimized with many issues. All these issues and generic crap gives any other shooter not CoD name a 4 or 5 at best. But nope Activisions CoD always scores insane high even though GS thinks its okay to give other games bad score with the same mistake CoD make. Yeah...you are are not bribed at all.

@Vodoo @dutchgamer83 Ah thanks. Never played god of war but others in the genre. O well i don't have a xbox one anyway, nor any of the next gens. But good to know for possible future purchases.

@monchoago I problem i encounter with more and more reviews on many sites. Reading/hearing only positive things and a few minor ones that sound more like inconviniance then something horrible anoying. And then getting a lower score. Bit confusing indeed.

A question, if one likes the Dynasty warrior games. Would one like this game?

Another question related to the following points:

- Combat is shallow and repetitive

- Often laughable script

- Tightly controlled paths stop you from exploring the beautiful scenery (minus that it looks beautiful)

Why are these points never mentioned in Call of Duty as negative points? Lets face it, CoD's combat is shallow and reptitive to the max, group of soldiers appear, you kill them, move a few meters repeat, i look a mounted gun you control it and move. O there is a driving scene yawn been there done that. Story wise its nothing to write home about anymore either. Its as generic as you can get them. And their paths are very limited as well and these days far from beautiful. Just these inconsistents in scores really bother me. Ryse probably isn't the great game of all time, i read other reviews and they wheren't positive either. But come one, if you burn down a game on these mentioned points you as game site need to grow some sense and make it punishable for every damn game that has these minor points.

@AjenoMerveilles I got the same thing as you. I returned a few times too this game. I like the whole idea and setting. But everytime it slips again. The first time it was because of the horrible beginning. I was at a huge lose so i gave up. Then they introduced a better tutorial for people like me. I actually began to understand what i was doing and why and finished the tutorial. But shorty after i cought myself playing less and less again.

I returned another time, again things had changed in EVE and this time some friends of mine where playing so it was nice to know people there. But i never really liked the long travels and probably my lack of being efficient with them. Having to stare at my screen for 20 minutes as the auto pilot brough me from point a to b to deliver some goods for a mission. Still i love the whole idea with all the pvp and love reading the stories of player events that happened. I just don't think i have the patience for this game or the will to continue. Still a great game though.

@Lord_Python1049 @dutchgamer83 Like i said, not everything is a bribe, i mentioned its also case of being inconsistent. And you are right, personal opinions are in play. But that doesn't help in people getting more suspicious of bribes. And that is a major problem of today's press it seems. Most are just fanboys of certain games. And i know they are just gamers like you and me. But does that make for a fair review? No, cause a CoD or even a Tetris fanboy will never be able to write a unbaised review. CoD isn't a horrible terrible game by any means. But we have reached a point where its a good game, there for a 6 or 7 not a 8 or 9.

And the gamepress has changed a lot in the last 8 years. A magazine i read in the Netherlands used to be great in its reviews. But now they often write amazing reviews for big titles. Hell Rome 2 Total War scored a 9, not once was mentioned that it had terrible bugs and that it had graphical glitches or the insane long waiting time before your next turn was aviable once you discovered more armies. Heck that magazine even gave Stormrise a 8 (also from creative assembly) and was written by the same reviewer. Stormrise scored terrible anywhere else. But the reviewer is a great CA fan. A reviewers task is to give a as fair as possible review of a game. We don't get games for free as they do. We need to pay 50 - 70 euro's for games, when its full of bugs, broken, or just the same game it has been for the last 10 releases we should be warned for that (doesn't mean a game is bad but something that we should be made aware of). Its not bribing but its still something that contribute to how people see it. Especially when certain titles keep getting overly positive reviews while other games get punished for making the same mistakes as these titles.

@psuedospike Hehe i think Tom's problem is that he tries to hard to show he isn't bribed. I don't like his reviews. He often punishes games for things that make your eyebrows raise "There is to much metal on a robot planet in a Transformers game that plays on Cybertron" well gjee Sherlock what else to expect? Nice green fields of grass and forests with many trees?

He just seem to try to hard to be the opposite of the other reviewers. Cause it does appear like every game that gets a good score in general gets a low score by him, and when a game has a low score in general it gets a good one from him. Could be coincidence and sure there is a big part in having different opinions, but when you read the reviews it just comes over like that. So i doubt he gets bribed by anyone, but if he does it must be that secret organization indeed ;)

@Draconarius @suplax The same can be said for every Modern Warfare game after CoD 4, seeing it only gives 4 to 5 hours singleplayer campaign and didn't really improve anything or did anything new. CoD is the biggest example of no inovation. When Batman gets punished for it then so should CoD for the simple fact that its the biggest generic millitairy shooter there is out there. Nothing they done has been invented by them, they always took it from other games. Perks and unlockable gear was nothing new when CoD came with it.

Batman Arkam Origins is a bad game, on the pc very badly optimized (look at the angry joe review). But so is CoD Ghost, and Assassins Creed has been the same game for a long time as well, the only things that change for both CoD and AC are the settings every now and then and suddenly the fanboys see that as a great inovation even though the gameplay is exactly the same. Batman was right for getting a lower score, but so should the CoD and AC games.

@carolino Yet in this case its no conspiracy, the evidence is there and been presented a few times now. Gamespot is the subject of one of the greatest and most horrible examples of bribes. Where Eidos released a broken bugged game and put much money in advertising on GS. Got a bad score and Eidos (now under the SquareEnix flag) demanded a re-review and got the reviewer fired.

Knowing history is much better then posting a comment trying to sound cool even though you have no clue what happened. Google "Kain and Lynch gamespot riot" or "Eurogamer columnist under fire after exposing bribes". Those aren't made up stories, they really happened.

Bit ironic this appears on gamespot. Its not just a opinion people have, the evidence is there. The proof has been exposed. There are two major riots that the "profesional" game journalists rather forget. The first is here on Gamespot, where a reviewer gave a fair review about a bugged and broken game, Kayn and Lynch (or how ever you write it). The publisher complained, the reviewer got fired, the review was redone and tadaa it scored a good score even though every gamer who bought the game was plagued by bugs that where game breaking there for never should have gotten and a good score at all. It was proof, it really happened, its not conspiracy theory.

Second evidence, the eurogamer riot from this year. Where a columnist wrote what happens at press events. How the PR people have the press in their pocket. How they give press members all kind of expensive presents (consoles for example just for visiting a event). He wrote about a certain female reviewer who even worked for SquareEnix. She silenced him by some special British law. She was a huge SquareEnix fangirl, worked as a consultant for SquareEnix, was a huge Tombraider fan, etc etc. All her SquarEnix reviews where super positive. Once she was exposed she closed her twitter from public access, quickly removed any reference to her reviews and such to cover it up. The columnist quit. After such a treatment from both the publishers as from that woman he had enough of the industry. It was proof and many other game sites dived into it and backed him up. Its no conspiracy, its how it goes. Bribing also happens without the press really realizing its bribing. That was what his article about, he never said she took the bribes on purpose or other reviewers. But he did wrote how things go and how most reviewers don't reallize they are being played.

I worked for a dutch game site in the past as forum moderator. Every now and then i could join a press event if they had enough places left when the journalists didn't go. This was before the 360 and ps3 excisted. Even though it was less then today you could already feel they wanted to please the press as much as possible. Free booze and other alcoholic drinks where normal. The woman who served you where the hottest you ever seen. That was no coincidence, especially back then game journalists where mostly guys, and what do gamer guys like? Hot chicks, free booze and games. All to garantee positive articles.

Also sites like GS, IGN and such contribute a lot to the conspiracy cause they aren't consistent. Its no conspiracy to see that certain games get extra attention and better scores. Call of Duty and Halo are the biggest examples. We seen many games that get negative scores for the following things:

- Weak Ai

- Generic shooter

- Doesn't improve the genre, been there done that formula

- Not much variation in enemies to fight

- Looks outdated

Most shooters with a lesser budget get punished for those things. But by some miracle you never see a CoD game scoring a 4 or 5 even though if they would be fair in judgement it would. And here is why:

- CoD has a linear weak AI that is dumber then dumb and dumber. If you redo a certain part you will always see the AI doing the exact same thing. They go for you as suicidal idiots. And always move to the same positions. FEAR a old game by now still has the best AI seen in a shooter, yet CoD refuses to ever adjust to that AI.

- If one shooter is generic is the CoD series. Sure it can have a fun story, i rather liked CoD 4 and Modern Warfare 2, but that doesn't take away that they are very generic. It always plays it on save, yet they often get points for a exciting singleplayer. Where other games get shot down for being generic. Where CoD comes out every year and you can even predict many parts of the game "oh here he gonna slip and almost fall down from a great height, he will look down, then looks up and his buddy grabs him in time".

- CoD doesn't improve the genre at all. Yet it gets credits for it. Nothing they ever done hasn't been done before. The unlocks of weapons and gear? Yeah that was already in Battlefield 2 on the PC long before consoles became a preferred game system.

- Looks outdated, if CoD is one thing its a outdated game on all fronts not just in graphics. The gameplay is outdated. The engine is old yet with CoD Ghost they failed to optimize it for the PC cause they where super lazy. The animations are not of this time anymore nor are the characters. But gameplay wise its often "enemies keep spawning till you reached a certain point" and like i said the AI is super dumb, very outdated AI.

Halo also gets to many credits. Especially on variations. They got like 5 or 6 enemy types ever since halo came out. Yet it never gets punished for that where many other games do.

And you wonder why gamers think the gamepress gets bribed? The evidence is there, its not a opinion, its a fact. And game sites often don't help with getting rid of accusation by being insane fanboys of certain series without those games deserving a 8 or 9 but more a solid 6 or at best a 7 (not bad scores by any means, but good enough for entertaining games that don't really do anything super great).