How does that work? A review is someone opinion and if its different from your its wrong? People take reviews far too much to heart (and metacritic, people like using metacrtic even though they dont know how it works) and look at the score too much, I mean what if they played RO2 and never came across any bad bugs, should they mark it down because others did? All reviews are just opinions and cannot be wrong, they can have factually errors but its still an opinion...
"First, I have the utmost respect for mod teams that move on to make full games. I feel there’s no greater measure of talent and perseverance than to cross that finish line on your first game"
Well theres a factuality error right there, he may be talking about RO1 but he doesnt make it clear. And I'd hardly call $40 a "surprisingly high price." People these days do tend to put too much faith in reviews, especially considering they are effectively the reviewers own experiences and opinions, I mean they're
game reviews and everyone has different opinions on games.
That's not how reviewing works. An honest good reviewer takes his own opinion out of the equation and reviews a game objectivly instead of saying: "I don't like it so it sucks"
Well you can't really say that "I’ve rarely had less fun playing a game than with
Red Orchestra 2" isnt subjective.
"everyone snaps up all the sniper classes and camps out overlooking the main paths of travel down the map."
And here everyones sayine the game has too much run&gun. One sniper class per team is very limited especially when compared to most other modern games where half of the players are 'uber l33t snip0rz'
"There’s a laundry list of other problems: kills take three-to-four seconds to show up in the kill list (which causes you to second guess if you hit anyone or not)"
I think he missed the point. Personally I, and I'm guessing a lot of people here
like that
feature.
"The first of many problems is that there are simply too many states to toggle."
And that's pretty much were I stopped reading, anything more than standing or crouching is consider too complicated, piss off.
Not before I read this though:
"That’s four buttons in sequence you have to hit to aim optimally, and four MORE you have to hit just to return to a basic stance. Say you’re hunkered in cover and a grenade drops at your feet — you can’t just bolt out of there, which is just absurd"
Actually it's really a lot easier; click RMB to stop aiming and just move away form the wall, something I find to be very easy and fluid.
"Second, I personally have enjoyed many ultra realistic shooters. I spent hours with Day of Defeat"
And that
I don't even know what to say about that.
Edit:
Or..."Aiming over cover is a huge hassle as well, as the game attempts to dynamically shift your gun around uneven objects. That’s fine, except the gun will move drastically and create entire blind spots."
I'm really glad I stopped before I got to that point, I think it's one of the best features in the game.
Some reviewers really need to have their brains reviewed, or even better;
removed.
