@nl_skipper @skullmancer So, basically you say, the game is crap if you cannot find anything valuable to include in the good/bad section.. right? Oh, its my words.

Great games have only tid-bits included in the summary of good/bad section. Yeah right, as if anyone would believe that!

Definately a huge improvement over its prequel. And the prequel was so good it deserved a strong 8/10. And this game has "open" world with nature and outside world. It gives so much more immersion. Definately a 10/10 not only because it surpases expectations, but also because it delivers the best things than you didnt needed or required for the game to be good.

For anyone wanting real diverse game - check endless legend game! Now that game has more strong game points than this civ5 game which in my opinion is just a moded game with bland characters.

@xolivierx @skullmancer True. Althought i was more of quake2, quake3 type of guy rather than UT. But it is so easy to recognize why old shooters are so better than these modern "shooters".

How disrespectful are those "good" things mentioned in the summary:

"Content-rich multiplayer offers a wealth of opportunities to learn the new move set"

What does that even mean? The game is exact same as all other cods.. just rate the game at 5 and move one!

"Effective introduction with an imaginative two-chapter tutorial"

What the f.. so now the tutorials boosts the games score that much? How long are we gonna agree with these kind of licking reviews? Its a shame to even read this kind of sentences in the reviews summary!

"Futuristic combat tech and gear are a treat to use"

Havent seen these kind of "good" things mentioned in loot driven games where loot matters, but we see that in a shooter? My god this is such paid review..