Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "Requisix" started this thread

Posts: 1,218

Date of registration
: Apr 27th 2012

Platform: PS3

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

1

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:24pm

IGN gives a 4/10

So I usually like IGN and I look at their game reviews more often than not.

I find that, most of the time, they're right and justified with what they say. But this time, they've really messed up. They've given a 4/10 for MoH: Warfighter. A bloody 4!

This thread will house my rant over this ridiculous rating and perhaps we can 'rate' the game ourselves, but with more sense and logic than IGN.

The first flaw of IGN's review - 70% of their review is talking solely about the campaign, and how it sucks, in their opinion. Now, of course they should talk about the single-player - it's part of the game, right? But they totally ignore the fact that the game is mainly about the multiplayer - sure, Danger Close created hype about how realistic and authentic the single-player would be, but so? Did anyone give a shit? Not really... Almost all that matters is the multiplayer - not the campaign.

And if 70% of the review is about the campaign, a measly 30% is about the multiplayer. That means they talked very little about how MoH:W's online works. They did not mention the fireteam/buddy system which is at the core of MoH's multiplayer and not once did they justify their 'opinion' with any of the points they made. According to IGN:

Quoted from "IGN"

Medal of Honor Warfighter’s core design is deeply problematic

HOW?? In what way???

To give you a better idea of how IGN totally didn't make sense with their review and their opinion, here's how short their review of the multiplayer and solely the multiplayer was (it's also better if your read the review yourself):

Quoted from "IGN"

A few variables on existing formulas make those multiplayer game types different from its contemporaries, but not in a substantial enough way to stand out above them. Hotspot constantly changes bomb-planting locations and Home Run forbids respawns during Capture the Flag – interesting twists, but other shooters, including Medal of Honor’s sister series, Battlefield, have explored similar conventions better.

Even Warfighter’s class system is outdone by better multiplayer games. Each specialty has its own unique skills, such as the heavy’s armor boost or the scout’s ability to see through walls, but the customization of those characters is limited to their weapons. Streak bonuses unlock as you score points, giving you the choice between aggressive/defensive tactical devices, such as chopper support or smokescreens. The constant calling of support items adds an unpredictable flair to each match, but the moment-to-moment gunplay simply isn’t on the same level of the campaign. That brief moment of tremendous satisfaction when you score a headshot flat-out does not exist online. The lower lethality of weapons on the adversarial side contradicts the “authenticity” EA and Danger Close have been so vocal about – lethal shots to your foes’ heads and hearts often don’t drop them dead, utterly ruining the pace of an already wounded multiplayer experience.

Medal of Honor Warfighter’s core design is deeply problematic, and technical issues only cut into it deeper. In both the campaign and online modes, character models vanish from existence, sound drops in and out, the frame rate tanks, and textures sometimes look washed-out and low-res on consoles, even after applying a 2GB HD update in the Xbox 360 version. This is the first time we’ve seen a Frostbite Engine game failing to function at a basic level, and it’s a real shame.

Apparently, it's good that MoH has new, unique modes with 'interesting twists', but despite this, other games such as Battlefield 3 have 'explored similar conventions better'. REALLY?? Because in my book, no mode in BF3 is similar to Home Run and no mode in BF3 is similar to Hotspot (Rush, a tiny bit, but that's irrelevant).

So MoH's class system is outdone by other games as well. Funny that, because I genuinely believe that MoH offers the most differentiation and is the most interesting in terms of classes, their specialities, and variety. 'Variety' is the key word here and MoH does have a lot of it - 6 bloody classes with a 'special ability' each, for god's sake. But IGN is keen on failing to mention anything positive in this respect, showing off how biased their review is.

And who cares if customization is limited only to the weapons? Each class is still very different to each other! If the review is being this eager on pointing out negativites, so bloody many things could be said about other games.

The next bit is talking about the low headshot multiplier, no doubt. This, apparently, doesn't add any authenticity or realism, but as far as I can see from watching videos and youtubers' opinions, MoH is still very skill-based and in fact, the longer time to kill is better if not indifferent from games like CoD or BF3.

Who gives a shit if a headshot isn't 'tremendously satisfying'? Is a headshot satisfying in CoD, or BF3? Not at all! Unless you're sniping, of course ;)

Medal of Honor's core design is in fact not 'deeply problematic' and is unique, and unique in a good way.

The bugs and glitches mentioned will no doubt be fixed and they aren't anything too significant, anyway. Shut up, lame IGN reviewer.

As you can see, this review is so wrongly intent on making out that MoH is a bad game that they've ignored almost everything that's positive about it and have tried every nit-picking technique to prove their otherwise totally invalid point.

You only have to look at the community rating of 8.1 to see that this review is ridiculous.
Symthic?

hunturk

Owner Of The World's Most Powerful Neck

(1,652)

Posts: 5,756

Date of registration
: Aug 4th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: City of Steel

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

2

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:31pm

What would you give it? Did you pay the £30 quid for it? D you regret it?
Personally, i don't take a stance on whether or not there is a creating entity because i'm humble enough to realize, in my fucking insignificance, the concept escapes my comprehension with a lead of 9001 light years.
RIP SRAW

Wadayoutalkenabeet


Oscar and Moe <3

Oscar

Sona tank jungle

(1,948)

Posts: 7,896

Date of registration
: May 30th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: SURROUNDED BY FUCKING MOUNTAINS

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

3

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:36pm

Haven't played but heard from quite a lot of people that NO ONE should buy it :3

I didn't plan on buying it anyway, but I'll look into here to see your opinions on it.
Bro of Legion, the lurker ninja mod | Tesla FTW | RNG is evil.

Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

I find majority of the complaints I hear about this game somehow never appear in my games.

Suiizide

Resident Pro

(744)

Posts: 2,784

Date of registration
: Dec 30th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

4

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:40pm

Hahahaha, based on what you posted, they said that the campaign sucked. They later back that up by saying:

Quoted from "IGN"

the moment-to-moment gunplay simply isn’t on the same level of the campaign
Good job guys. Way to make a point.

Sig

The T-90 is a challenge, the BTR-90 is going to kill everyone in a 100 meter radius and go flying off a hill into a helicopter only to drive off while the corpse of the Cobra it just went through is being dragged through the beach on Oman.
The game will include a fully automatic An-94 launcher, literally firing Abakans at 600 RPM.
clicky
I expect rep.
If J3ST3R is dead, I think I just heard the entity that is grammar let out a sigh of relief...
To say nothing of the inordinate expense incurred by adding functionality to the gun that I may not ever use.
IKEA is the problem! Its all Desksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesks but oh, oh the second you say you want a table they chuckle and say "A table? You mean a kitchen table? How about a bedside table? Oh! Oh you must mean a dining room table!" and I'm like "NO! NO I JUST WANT A STANDARD, BLACK, BORING TABLE!" and they look at me then smile and go "You mean this? £170..." :(
Also, why does the RANDOM thread have a topic?

Why do fish have legs?
Fucking dutch.


Pheozero

I turn down for no one

(1,174)

Posts: 6,877

Date of registration
: May 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Boston

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

5

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:46pm

I've learned to never trust a majority of game reviewers because of the sheer stupidity they display at most times. IGN was the biggest offender for this. I haven't read one of their reviews in a couple of years but it seems they're still the same.

Posts: 566

Date of registration
: Apr 30th 2012

Platform: PS3

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 1:53pm

Requisix, IGN aren't good. Try somebody like Eurogamer.net


Serial Service Star Collector
Getting close to 62 mastered weapons.
Weapons with at least 1 SS: 74

Also play PC.

Immortal Tombat

Ellipsis guys...

(285)

Posts: 935

Date of registration
: Jun 1st 2012

Platform: PS3

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

7

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 2:05pm

Yeah I'd agree on the most part.
Frankie had a similar opinion in one of his videos, for IGN to focus so strongly on Campaign is just stupid, if they did that with BF3, it would receive a 1/10 for being so unrealistically melodramatic and infuriatingly glitched.
And even their points about Multiplayer are worthless. You've picked it apart for better than I could ever be arsed to, so in short, the game modes seem more innovative than BF3, could IGN remind me; what was BF3s awesome brand new game mode brought to us in BF3? Oh yeah, Team Deathmatch.....
Regardless of their opinion on the MoH class system, if they copied BF3s class system, the game would be slated even more for having no ambition or imagination. At least they tried to produce something new, it seems the poor game can't win either way.
Their comment about headshots not being "tremendously satisfying" is horse shite too, because the only game series I'm familiar with that does have satisfying headshots is Gears of War. There's nothing particularly interesting in headshots in CoD or BF either, yet I bet there was no mention of this in any of those reviews.
Bugs and glitches exist in all games, and will be due an ironing out. But the bugs can't be that bad. BF3 STILL has sound cuts, an entire fucking year after release. A game should never be released with such a fundamental flaw, and it certainly shouldn't run on for over 12 months, I bet there's not a single bug in MoH that is on that scale of atrociousness.
The reviewer is clearly bias for some reason. Perhaps he's a BF fanboy, or even CoD. He might even be one of those sour schmucks who only discovered that he could have had 50% off the game after it was released.

Anyway, I'm not big into reading game reviews, but I have a few friends who are, and neither of them read IGN reviews because they're shit. Never asked why they are, never cared. But now it has become apparent.

Awwww, my 400th post milestone is a rant.

EDIT: Got my information wrong, TDM wasn't new to BF3. But I still stand by MoH having more inventive game modes.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Immortal Tombat" (Oct 28th 2012, 2:10pm)


Pheozero

I turn down for no one

(1,174)

Posts: 6,877

Date of registration
: May 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Boston

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

8

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 2:13pm

Yeah I'd agree on the most part.
Frankie had a similar opinion in one of his videos, for IGN to focus so strongly on Campaign is just stupid, if they did that with BF3, it would receive a 1/10 for being so unrealistically melodramatic and infuriatingly glitched.
And even their points about Multiplayer are worthless. You've picked it apart for better than I could ever be arsed to, so in short, the game modes seem more innovative than BF3, could IGN remind me; what was BF3s awesome brand new game mode brought to us in BF3? Oh yeah, Team Deathmatch.....
Regardless of their opinion on the MoH class system, if they copied BF3s class system, the game would be slated even more for having no ambition or imagination. At least they tried to produce something new, it seems the poor game can't win either way.
Their comment about headshots not being "tremendously satisfying" is horse shite too, because the only game series I'm familiar with that does have satisfying headshots is Gears of War. There's nothing particularly interesting in headshots in CoD or BF either, yet I bet there was no mention of this in any of those reviews.
Bugs and glitches exist in all games, and will be due an ironing out. But the bugs can't be that bad. BF3 STILL has sound cuts, an entire fucking year after release. A game should never be released with such a fundamental flaw, and it certainly shouldn't run on for over 12 months, I bet there's not a single bug in MoH that is on that scale of atrociousness.
The reviewer is clearly bias for some reason. Perhaps he's a BF fanboy, or even CoD. He might even be one of those sour schmucks who only discovered that he could have had 50% off the game after it was released.

Anyway, I'm not big into reading game reviews, but I have a few friends who are, and neither of them read IGN reviews because they're shit. Never asked why they are, never cared. But now it has become apparent.

Awwww, my 400th post milestone is a rant.

Most games that have some form of gunplay are unnecessarily compared to CoD because that is the review method they use. If it's not as good as CoD it's not worth playing.

Aenonar

Data Analyzer

(2,796)

Posts: 7,863

Date of registration
: Dec 16th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 20

  • Send private message

9

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 2:13pm

It's a pretty poor review, but most of the points are valid, and a score of 4/10 is also pretty valid if you consider 5/10 to be mediocre. A lot of the rating systems just dish out very high numbers making things look better than they really are, not sure how IGN does it. But if I would give it a rating of the current game I'd also give it a 4/10, multiplayer is pretty unrewarding and the bugs, glitches and bad design makes it nearly unplayable atm.

Sure they'll probably fix it eventually, but can you judge a game based on what it MIGHT become? Just look at BF3, it has loads of potential to be a perfect game if they just fixed all the bugs glitches and bad designs, but can you judge the game based on that? No, because it's not even going to happen and even if it does, there might just be even more bugs as we know happens with every patch... :|


If I would score it:

Single player: 7/10
Multiplayer: 3/10
Graphics: 6/10
Sound: 8/10
Classes: 4/10
Weapons: 3/10
Game modes: 7/10
Maps: 4/10
Mode/Map suitability: 2/10
Structure: 3/10
Glitches at game launch: 1/10

Worth 100% atm: 2/10
Worth 50% off atm: 4/10


Don't feel like writing a big explanation to it right now, maybe later.. But yeah... I sure hope they're fixing all the game breaking bugs asap, like tons of spawns mid air/ under the map / wrong location / out of combat and weapon loadouts constantly changing.. They're completely ruining any chance the game has even though the maps are pretty shitty as well as the weapon/class system...

One guy claimed to have talked with one of the devs who said the next patch would come with the new map pack, which apparently would be in december... The game wont survive that long in the current state. I mean, you can't even spawn in sometimes without just auto-dieing. That's just pure shit.

Quoted

(14:06:57) Riesig: I should stop now. People might get sig material again

Posts: 566

Date of registration
: Apr 30th 2012

Platform: PS3

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

10

Sunday, October 28th 2012, 2:24pm

Yeah I'd agree on the most part.
Frankie had a similar opinion in one of his videos, for IGN to focus so strongly on Campaign is just stupid, if they did that with BF3, it would receive a 1/10 for being so unrealistically melodramatic and infuriatingly glitched.
And even their points about Multiplayer are worthless. You've picked it apart for better than I could ever be arsed to, so in short, the game modes seem more innovative than BF3, could IGN remind me; what was BF3s awesome brand new game mode brought to us in BF3? Oh yeah, Team Deathmatch.....
Regardless of their opinion on the MoH class system, if they copied BF3s class system, the game would be slated even more for having no ambition or imagination. At least they tried to produce something new, it seems the poor game can't win either way.
Their comment about headshots not being "tremendously satisfying" is horse shite too, because the only game series I'm familiar with that does have satisfying headshots is Gears of War. There's nothing particularly interesting in headshots in CoD or BF either, yet I bet there was no mention of this in any of those reviews.
Bugs and glitches exist in all games, and will be due an ironing out. But the bugs can't be that bad. BF3 STILL has sound cuts, an entire fucking year after release. A game should never be released with such a fundamental flaw, and it certainly shouldn't run on for over 12 months, I bet there's not a single bug in MoH that is on that scale of atrociousness.
The reviewer is clearly bias for some reason. Perhaps he's a BF fanboy, or even CoD. He might even be one of those sour schmucks who only discovered that he could have had 50% off the game after it was released.

Anyway, I'm not big into reading game reviews, but I have a few friends who are, and neither of them read IGN reviews because they're shit. Never asked why they are, never cared. But now it has become apparent.

Awwww, my 400th post milestone is a rant.

Most games that have some form of gunplay are unnecessarily compared to CoD because that is the review method they use. If it's not as good as CoD it's not worth playing.


That's not true at all. Only reviewers backed by publishers are like this.

But COD is used as the industry standard in FPS, and why shouldn't it be? It's the best selling franchise ever and has the most active players per day. It must be doing something right.

Using COD is always as a benchmark though, it's good for context which is very important when reviewing.


Serial Service Star Collector
Getting close to 62 mastered weapons.
Weapons with at least 1 SS: 74

Also play PC.