Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Your proof for this is?

The screenshots speak for his self, how fair can be a review if it dont review the graphics possibilities that the game offers.

He even complain about low quality textures ... that he put there.

here is the Crysis review in the same site :

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...%3Bread-review

And the screenshots section :

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/cry...most.&cvr=3Y50

You will not find graphics tuned down there, and the reviewer even quit importance to the lack of DX11 support.

I call that Biased BS.

[RocketDog]

It's a fair review. There's just so much broken in the game that a 4.0 is what it deserves. In a way, 1C are lucky because a more experienced flight simmer would have picked up the dodgy CEM that blows up engines at BoB combat height, the lack of FFB etc and might have rated it even lower.

What's so frustrating is that many of the problems were easily avoidable. Could they not find one single English speaker to proof read the text? Hadn't they looked at Google Earth pictures of England before deciding to paint it lime green? Why ditch IL2's fine QMB that allowed skin selection etc?

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Buchon

The screenshots speak for his self, how fair can be a review if it dont review the graphics possibilities that the game offers.

He even complain about low quality textures ... that he put there.

here is the Crysis review in the same site :

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...%3Bread-review

And the screenshots section :

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/cry...most.&cvr=3Y50

You will not find graphics tuned down there, and the reviewer even quit importance to the lack of DX11 support.

I call that Biased BS.

Maybe because the game is unplayable on high settings if you actually want to shoot a target or fly over a city? Also crysis 2 looks great and runs smooth as butter even on a low end comp rig. COD does not.