Call of Duty 3 IGN Review

Hmm.. doesn't look like Wii controls make up for lack of online. Hope Red Steel turns out well. I'll get this on 360 sometime.
 
Sounds like they were nice to me. Basically, Call of Duty 3 with a different controller, NO multiplayer, and last-gen graphics.

Thankfully I wasn't interest in this one to begin with.
 
Wow, I didn't realize there wasn't even split-screen multiplayer. That's just cheap. Not that any of these games will be played multiplayer more than once anyway.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Since when is 7.7 an excellent score?[/quote]

This is exactly the problem with the current 10 point review system. 5 is an average game, which should be a game that is not bad. A 7.7 should be a good game, one that is worth playing or at least a rental. The way games are reviewed now, especially by IGN, you would think that only games that get 8s and 9s are worth a look at all.

I remember when Mario Kart Double Dash for the GC got a 7.9. Everyone was freaking out about its "low" score. If the score would have been an 8.0, no one would have complained.

I wish reviews would drop numerical scores completely. Games, like movies, books, and CDs, don't lend themselves to be scored on some arbitrary number scale. Hell, the IGN scale isn't even an average - so what is the use of any of the numbers?
 
[quote name='botticus']Wow, I didn't realize there wasn't even split-screen multiplayer. That's just cheap. Not that any of these games will be played multiplayer more than once anyway.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, same here. I was under the impression that CoD 3 would atleast have split screen multiplayer. This game just went from a buy to a rental for me. :/
 
[quote name='lebowsky']This is exactly the problem with the current 10 point review system. 5 is an average game, which should be a game that is not bad. A 7.7 should be a good game, one that is worth playing or at least a rental. The way games are reviewed now, especially by IGN, you would think that only games that get 8s and 9s are worth a look at all.

I remember when Mario Kart Double Dash for the GC got a 7.9. Everyone was freaking out about its "low" score. If the score would have been an 8.0, no one would have complained.

I wish reviews would drop numerical scores completely. Games, like movies, books, and CDs, don't lend themselves to be scored on some arbitrary number scale. Hell, the IGN scale isn't even an average - so what is the use of any of the numbers?[/quote]I think CGW (now Games for Windows) either temporarily or permanently dropped scores from their reviews. And there was a wicked backlash - not sure if they put them back. It's ridiculous.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']This is exactly the problem with the current 10 point review system. 5 is an average game, which should be a game that is not bad. A 7.7 should be a good game, one that is worth playing or at least a rental. The way games are reviewed now, especially by IGN, you would think that only games that get 8s and 9s are worth a look at all.

I remember when Mario Kart Double Dash for the GC got a 7.9. Everyone was freaking out about its "low" score. If the score would have been an 8.0, no one would have complained.

I wish reviews would drop numerical scores completely. Games, like movies, books, and CDs, don't lend themselves to be scored on some arbitrary number scale. Hell, the IGN scale isn't even an average - so what is the use of any of the numbers?[/QUOTE]

Why shouldn't we go by numbers? It's a more accurate way to rate a game. I could say a game is good but what the hell would that mean? But I could use a game is 7.9 and people would know it's very good.

And I personally don't consider today's scores to have as much value as those in the past. There are tons of games that come out that average around the 7's and 8's, so why should we consider them to be worth anything more than a play or rental over other 7's and 8's unless you specifically like one genre over another?

I also don't think this is an excellent score. It's good but that's about it... I'm really disappointed too because it looked like it should have been a great game!
 
Numbers are subjective, that's why. Unless the same person reviews every game, they mean nothing relative to other reviews. Sure, if every game gets the same score, it's a good bet it's about that score, but what does that mean anyway? If you go by numbers, how are you going to look at Excite Truck? eToychest gave it an 84, GameSpot gave it a 68. Unless you read the reviews, you won't know why they got those scores. You can say you trust GameSpot more, but they have a number of different reviewers, each of whom probably does not feel the same way about every game.

The only thing reviews are useful for is pointing out positives and negatives. While you might not agree with what is positive and negative in the reviewers eyes, you can make that judgement yourself.
 
This game seemed to be mainly knocked for its lack of multi. Given splitscreen and online, and some graphics that actually utilized Wii hardware, the game would have been scored much higher.

This low quality graphics and no online thing seems to knock a lot of the launch games down a point or two. Luckily these two are most likely to improve over time.
 
[quote name='Vinny']Why shouldn't we go by numbers? It's a more accurate way to rate a game. I could say a game is good but what the hell would that mean? But I could use a game is 7.9 and people would know it's very good.

And I personally don't consider today's scores to have as much value as those in the past. There are tons of games that come out that average around the 7's and 8's, so why should we consider them to be worth anything more than a play or rental over other 7's and 8's unless you specifically like one genre over another?

I also don't think this is an excellent score. It's good but that's about it... I'm really disappointed too because it looked like it should have been a great game![/quote]

I think you kind of proved my point when you said that you don't consider today's scores to have as much value as they did in the past. Doesn't that simply mean that the scores nowadays don't mean anything? If you are grading on a number scale, a 6 in 1996 should mean the same thing as a 6 in 2006. There shouldn't be game score inflation, but that certainly seems to be the case when viewing most gaming sites.

From all of the discussions I have heard about the scoring system by game reviewers themselves, they all hate giving a game a number score. They say that assigning some arbitrary number to a game is the hardest part of the process. That is why you see games like Resistance getting an 8.5 on 1Up.com when the review text doesn't seem to match that score at all. Garnett's review boils down to the fact that Resistance doesn't offer anything new, and that while it is a solid FPS, it is basically a rehash of Half-Life 2.

I'm not even going to get into a discussion about how publishers and PR people influence review scores - we all know that happens.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']

I remember when Mario Kart Double Dash for the GC got a 7.9. [/QUOTE]

This is why games rated in the 7s can still be a 9.5 in my book.
 
Numbers mean less than the nice "Pros and Cons" summaries at the ends of reviews. Especially for a game I don't want to know any more about, reading those can give me ataste of what it's like.
 
I'm tired of the no online comments in reviews. I almost wish there was a non-online review and an online review of games.
 
Pretty good score for what the game is. I can see why people are complaining about it having no multiplayer at all, but no online isn't that big of a deal, is it?
 
When are reviewers going to get it in there heads that the wii has outdated graphics? They dont need to mention it every single time.
 
looks like it'll be great, I don't really care about online multiplayer (or multiplayer in general really) in FPSs (besides something like counterstrike). I'm sure they'll have online in Call of Duty 4 or whatever.

I'll pick it up later, already gonna have red steel at launch.
 
I've been planning on renting this one as I'm not really interested in multiplayer right now on the system. I just want to see how well they can get FPS titles to work.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']This is exactly the problem with the current 10 point review system. 5 is an average game, which should be a game that is not bad. A 7.7 should be a good game, one that is worth playing or at least a rental. The way games are reviewed now, especially by IGN, you would think that only games that get 8s and 9s are worth a look at all.[/quote]

Not to mention that it's so completely objective... Perhaps they'd rather have the graphics and the online and the multiplayer for COD, but perhaps I'd be happier with the new controls... not everyone has the same priorities. Look just in this thread, we have people who want online, people whow ant multiplayer, people who want next gen graphics, and people who are sick of WWII shooters altogether... how can scoring be fair when there's such a variety of opinions.

The only time you can really pay any attention to the numbers (IMO) is when they're REALLY bad, and you know there are major glitches in the programming itself...

Couldn't resist throwing in my two cents... I personally can't wait to try this title out! It's the controls that matter to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top