Reviewers aren't corrupt or anything, but i just get the feeling they are lazy and just slap whatever grade their 'gut instinct' tells them to. I mean you just pay someone to play games and write about it, and the manager expects him/her to take the job seriously?

Ok, you're right, maybe lazy is a better word I've seen a reviewer give the game a 5 with one of the reasons that it takes dozens of matches to unlock all characters, well.. then I think he didn't play the game enough lol

And reviewers who give the game an 8 thanks to disconnection problems and a few balance issues, well I can understand that. But reviewers complaining about later characters and builds being waaay better than the ones you start with, not so true. (Looking at you, IGN) Or at least I didn't notice 5 times (thanks to prestiging)

The bad thing is that we would probably have a bigger player base if some reviewers played the game longer (That's my guess at least)

I haven't really gone online as of yet(Doesn't have a xbox gold account ), so i can't really comment on it's popularity right now. It's a bit wierd though to see this game lose it's community so fast, seeing how this game got general praise from reviewers and it's good stuff. It certainly outlived Swords & Soldiers.

Comparing this game with another MOBA that i've played, Fat Princess(the only other MOBA i've played on the consoles), i've noticed that FP managed to get a much larger community, despite the fact it really got off with a bad start. There were serious glitches about and one character having a major advantage over the other, and i believe it took months for the first patch to come out. I'm aware that about the first thing someone complains about in a MOBA is the characters being imbalanced, but looking back on it the balancing was really bad.

I'm wondering right now what FP has that Awesomenauts didn't, they both had their own unique artstyles, complex gameplay and both have been reviewed by several sources, but Awesomenauts started out fine. The only thing that comes to mind right now are game modes or singleplayer challenges or something, but that's it.

Maybe they did some kind of marketing that drew a lot of attention? idk, never played that game, maybe you know? I just hope this game will get a larger community, so that the game is just in the same state as it was at the release for me, it worked flawless back then (Today I even had a game with lots of lag while I was host, after a while everyone just disconnected)

Wait, so IGN, the people who give Call of Duty games 10/10's, giving something a thrashing over a player superiority issue, which can be remedied by playing offline for a day?

Call of Duty is much worse when it comes to a problem of player superiority, what, with all of those Pro perks, AK-47s and China Lakes that no one but players who have played more get.

Am I the only one seeing this?

_________________


I am the resident grammarfish, FishmanDerp.
Member of "Vicious 'n' Delicious".

Check out the Awesomenauts Conquest project!

Go to meatcritic. Here's the link. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call- ... -warfare-3
Modern warfare 3 has a 78 for reviewer scores, but a 22 for player scores. There is no way that the scores can be THAT far apart unless Call of Duty is paying the reviewers or something. It's sad, really.

_________________
Xbox GT: XPassword9
Mains: Froggy G
CLICK FOR ASUMNUTS

Let's not fool ourselves here. The 22 player rating comes from trolls It is quite so obvious. A lot of people hate CoD because it's boring and bland, but even MORE people love it to death.

Imagine yourself playing CoD, and you're really enjoying it. Do you really think you have the need to go on metacritic, just so the game can get more sales? It doesn't really need the help. Seems like downgrading doesn't work either... MW3 was the best selling game ever, as far as I know.
It comes down to stuck-up haters who just wants to get at CoD every chance they get. Sadly, they're hyping the game more than if they would just shut up, and not play the game.

_________________
PSN Players List!
The Full Awesomenauts Theme Song!

I have said it before, gaming 'journalists' aren't really corrupt, just lazy. I'm fairly sure that if a thing like this gets leaked to your community, your reputation will go to hell. You probably have heard about Jeff Gerstman from GameSpot by now.

I think the astonishingly low player score comes from the idea that CoD is the biggest example of a bad game. With a bad game, i don't really mean that it is bad but people seem to think it is because it is associated with pre-puberecent kids, modernisation of games and Activision. Just look at any indie game community ever, and you will probably see someone whining about CoD despite that they never have played the damn game. No offense meant if you have never played the game, btw.

Looking at the reviews right now, i can safely say that it isn't the case and now my min-rant is kinda worthless.

Here is what makes people play cod and why it sucks

Not all of it sucks

Zombies is good brings them back

Online sucks whats with the perk pro and op guns and killstreak

Giveing advantage to player who already know how to play

You can see ever 7- 11 kid play cod

The only good thing in cod is the survivals

For a player who have the old ps3 what the 7 gb for zombies I don't even like online multiplayer

People like zombies more than multi the manager said that him self on his bo2 review

If zombies did not exsist people will stop playing it long time ago

_________________

Let's not fool ourselves here. The 22 player rating comes from trolls It is quite so obvious. A lot of people hate CoD because it's boring and bland, but even MORE people love it to death.

Imagine yourself playing CoD, and you're really enjoying it. Do you really think you have the need to go on metacritic, just so the game can get more sales? It doesn't really need the help. Seems like downgrading doesn't work either... MW3 was the best selling game ever, as far as I know.
It comes down to stuck-up haters who just wants to get at CoD every chance they get. Sadly, they're hyping the game more than if they would just shut up, and not play the game.[/quote]
Not really, I think. The negative reviews mainly focus on the fact that MW3 is too similar to MW4. It's less of a new game and more a very expensive dlc pack.
I've never played it, so I can't safely assume whether or not the game is good though.

_________________
Xbox GT: XPassword9
Mains: Froggy G
CLICK FOR ASUMNUTS