Totally ignoring the rating, the review is verbose, poorly structured and disrespectful to the work of the developers, by not even trying to describe the game fully?
I don't even know if this has a campaign. Is it good? How do the races play? Are the maps fun?
Tom Chick cant be arsed, because it is not what he expects, or vice versa. He changes opinion if innovation is a good or bad thing, depending on what he had for dinner or the bingo with the old ladies last night depressed him.
Last of Us is shit because the gameplay sucks, you die too much and it means nothing. State of Decay is the shit, because dying means everything. Although you'd have to be a retarded leper to see even one character go down to anything else but the broken TOTALLY IMMERSIVE spawning or the fps going to 3 as soon as you try to move a vehicle or turn around.
Hes almost 50 with the responsible attitude of a teenage girl and the professional demeanor of high school blockbuster "dude".
Unfortunately, Metacritic hasn't gotten the memo yet that he is the laughing stock of games journalism for ages now. He, sure as hell wont take himself of there, because what would be left then?
Most of the content here is Diamonds work, although you can be sure as hell he aint taking a cut in either site ads or donations...
You guys don't like the review? Stop playing it and remove it from your memory. What's it to you, anyway? Nevermind, I know there is no reasoning. I mean, how could one ignore the fact, who even dares to express dissatisfaction, that the gaming industry has unwittingly ridden their carthorse to death, dishing it buttons to suck on for decades. . They are still trying though, now yelling on it: HEY, STOP BEING BAD! TROLL HORSE! I WANT TO RIDE! YOU'LL GET A LITTLE FUN TOO, I PROMISE!
20% Is this a joke??? The game is fantastic, especially for fans of COH1. You give State of Decay 100% and you give this 20%? I mean I love State Of Decay but it has TONS of technical issues and yet it gets perfect score while this gets a super low score? Usually a fan of the reviews here but this one ir terrible.
Well, either way. A single person hated the game. At some point, my friend kekelala is going to have to come to terms with this.
...Or I suppose kekelala will just find differing viewpoints a disruptive part of his life every once in a while until he dies. That's valid too, I suppose. Either way, it's not a joke, it's a statement of disgust. That will happen.
I really think this deserves more than 1 star, especally since the multiplayer is excellent and more than makes up for anything wrong in the singleplayer. Seems like a troll review.
I disagree with almost everything contained in this review, and as an ardent CoH player, and after playing more than 100 multiplayer games in the CoH2 beta, there are a few points in particular that I want to scrutinize.
The snow and ice feature is awesome and innovative. You fail to mention any of the awesome tactical possibilities this presents. Lure a slow-moving enemy tank across a frozen river that you previously wired with demolition charges, and watch as enemy armor sinks through the ice. Blizzard conditions also provide sometimes much-needed breathing room in the heat of combat, giving you a chance to reinforce. And is it a bad thing that not every map isn't a winter setting? I love the variety, and I would certainly get sick of my troops freezing to death in every single game. The issues presented in this review are so petty. It seems silly to say that "This isn't a very good RTS" when you also acknowledge that CoH and CoH2 are, in most cases, the same game. Same graphics, same mechanics, all that jazz.
Most blaring of all, you fail to mention any of the thrills of playing cooperative campaigns or "expected" multiplayer games. Campaigns and the theater of war is all well and good, but the longevity of this game is going to exist in the cooperative scenarios and multiplayer game mode. You could make Starcraft 3 sound boring by saying it would contain the "expected multiplayer".
I'm flabergasted by the complaints that you have to "grind" to stay competitive and to new earn commanders. This isn't Warcraft, you're not going to be killing neutral creeps on the battlefield. You play the game, you get credit for stuff you did over the course of your battles. That's bad? Christ, I wish CoH had that feature. When it comes down to it multiplayer games, your 10% range bonus on your AT gun doesn't matter for shit if it's out of position. Sound tactics can always overcome these small variables. This also allows for further flexibility and customization, as the defensive player might choose to buff his AT guns and artillery, while the conscript zerger would turn his expendable soldiers into supermen. Using terms like "Cramped and limited" to describe this scenario seems inappropriate.
This doesn't add up to a 1. And of course this is all coming from a perspective that is assessing the game before the multiplayer has had a chance to fully blossom. This review is overly critical and scolding, demanding features distinct from CoH, but bashing and disregarding new features that have been introduced.
LOL at the idea that Nick produces "most of the content." That right there makes it clear you cannot tell the difference between quantity and quality, so everything else you wrote is basically meaningless, too.
Read the review, and maybe you can find out, too! It's not like it's a secret. BL2 improved the BL1 formula and atmosphere. COH2 did not improve on its predecessor.
Apologies, obviously there is an audience for this kind of writing. Please continue to do your idol a great service by being such an immaculately ignorant and opionated moron. Actually genius, only people like you would stand up for this kind of writing. And since you are considerably less talented in the fine art of trolling, we can actually demonstrate for whom he is writing for. *frolicks
people would be okay with a review that is not sloppy, opionated and clealy unproffesionaly personal. Or if you would have the decency to take yourself out of the reviewer metascore.
But why should you, right Tom? Its fine to piss on your "passion" and make fun of people taking offense in that. People actually giving a shit about what you do, thats something youll only get with this kind of work.
And you never had the chops to deal with other peoples opinions if they disagreed with yours or were dismissive of your work.
Should have become a priest dude. Your perfect for that job.
