Do you think shooters are held to the sa ...

On the Dante's Inferno thread TomMcShea said this:God of War III will be held to the same standard. God of War II is one of the finest games I have ever played, but it's a three-year-old PS2 game. If GoWIII doesn't make a sizable leap, you can be sure our review will point that out.I think that's ok but when games like Modern Warfare 2 and Halo ODST get so high scores I have to wonder if shooters are held to the same standards when compared to past iterations. I definitely wouldn't consider MW2 or ODST to be sizable leaps from their predecesors. What do you think?Do you think shooters are held to the sa ...
I thimk FPS are getting too muche ''free passes'' from the gaiming industry (including reviewers)Do you think shooters are held to the sa ...
[QUOTE=''Giancar'']I thimk FPS are getting too muche ''free passes'' from the gaiming industry (including reviewers)[/QUOTE]I agree. Companies know these games are there cash cows this gen so they lobby websites and reviewers the most.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Nope, I don't really think so, but not just shooters.Give them a big name and I think they are gonna overrate it regardless of how the game fails to be ''original''.ODST and MW2 are not just the only example. See GTAIV and MGS4 too and you'll understand what I mean.
I'd put God of War II up against any action adventure game today .... even up there with the likes of MGS4 and Uncharted 2. It's just that good of a game.
eh i dont know i just beat mgs3 and i think its waay better then god of war 2.
Who plays scores? Regardless, maybe, maybe not, I'm not physcic in sensing how much more leverage shooters get over other genres from reviewers. I certainly rate and review games fairly, even shooters, all of which I compare to Halo: CE, because it's the best shooter ever made.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''incred_davis'']eh i dont know i just beat mgs3 and i think its waay better then god of war 2.[/QUOTE]What a coinicide: I prefer pears to apples.
I don't know that sizable leap necessarily means gameplay innovations. When the mechanics are in place and they work, giving you more of the same should be honored with strong review scores. Moreover, MW2 has the new Spec Ops mode, which vastly adds to its replayability. That's my rationale for giving it and MW the same score in my book, a 9.0.



In contrast, I think I considered Gears of War 2 only an 8.5 or so after giving Gears of War a 9.5. GeoW2 was just too much of the same, it didn't really blow my mind at any point. Those kind of sequels should not get AAA status. If GOW3 does not improve on GOW2 in any significant way, it will probably be reflected in the score -- but it will likely be at most a 0.5 deduction here on GS.
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500''][QUOTE=''Giancar'']I thimk FPS are getting too muche ''free passes'' from the gaiming industry (including reviewers)[/QUOTE]I agree. Companies know these games are there cash cows this gen so they lobby websites and reviewers the most.[/QUOTE]I agree with you both.
No, no genre is held to the same standard as other genres.



Sport games are not held to the same standards as RPG, and so on.
Depends; it seems to me like the more popular ones have their flaws overlooked somewhat... Generally fair though. :)
Honestly I am one of the first people to hate on shooters but you look at all the generic shooters out there like Section 8 and Wolfenstein and they are getting 6 and 7's which i think is what a game like that should get so no i don't think they are reviewed to generously.