45/100 review score

[Eighties]

Which gets more hits, writing a positive review or a negative one? xD stop giving the fool hits!

[gimpy117]

Crying noob reviewer is crying noob....

[luciferintears]

He had some good points, though 45/100 is a bit harsh.

i'd say about 65-70/100

[Mace]

Originally Posted by Krobar

Umm... the graphics look better than any game I've seen why are they bashed so much...?

Exactly. I can't understand this either as it looks fantastic.

[|ChaoS|]

I give it 5 out of 10, so review seems to be close.

[39th Guards]

People can have their opinions. I don't understand why people have to throw all this nasty stuff at this reviewer. He is entitled to say what he wants. Nothing in his article is horrifically incorrect or completely untrue. Just let it slide, and worry about bigger issues, like the lack of unicorns in the game.

[Josef Nader]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Which gets more hits, writing a positive review or a negative one? xD stop giving the fool hits!

QFT.

Stop upping his page hits!

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Verluste

I dont fancy the blind RO2 fanboys on this forum either.

It's not that i'm an RO2 fanboy, its that I disgust COD with a passion.

If you read his review you can tell he prefers COD games

[SolitarioSoldat]

Wow what an ****ty and crappy and unprofessional bull**** review.

I know RO2 got released with bugs and such,so does every MP game,but what he said is a pile of dog turd!!!!

If I had the permission I would staple him to the ceiling by his balls

[SiC-Disaster]

Got a mate who was unfamiliar with RO to buy RO2, he started playing today.
Bugs aside, he is really enjoying his time, and the same goes for a lot of Tangodown players as well.
I trust TWI to fix all the problems there might be at the moment in due time.
It's unfortunate it wasnt in time for release and it will hurt the reviews, but i for one am having a blast playing the game and a rocky release won't stop me.
And no, that is not a fanboy speaking. Some of you people find it all too easy to jump on that bandwagon, just as others like to call others COD-fanboys.

[GossamerSolid]

This review site is a troll site. He gave Brink a 70% and Duke Nukem an 86%, but he gave RO2 45%...

Obviously trolling.

[nebsif]

Summary of the review: "Game doesnt look like BF3 and play like COD, 4.5/10"

[TheDude101]

Originally Posted by CU||Y

Not sure if this was linked already such is the speed of new threads arriving but what a joke this is.

http://gamers-underground.com/conten...-2-review.html

Personally im a gamer for over 20 years,right now im having close to if not THE best time ive ever had gaming with RO2.
Its not perfect but no other fps can suck me in like this game has.
I havent seen anymore reviews yet.

They didn't deserve 45/100 but close to it. I honestly give the game a 7/10. And I'm someone who loves this type of gameplay, ect.

The game is buggy. The stats are broken to the point where when you hover your mouse over next honour level, it says "OMG!" clearly indicating that the honour system is broken and the dev team will get around to it. Sometime.

And thats the issue. Raeem can give his final thoughts all he wants but its like George W Bush announcing victory from that aircraft carrier, as long as the core mechanics of the game aren't working he looks like a self congratulating ***.

Still haven't seen "skirmish" mode promished in the facts sticky, still havent seen my stats update, still crash alot, still haven't played multiplayer campaign, and this game still only has one vehicle.

What did you think they were going to give this game? A 10/10 like GTA Liberty City? The game needs alot of work just to be a functioning stalingrad game with ten maps and one vehicle.

[Meusli]

This site I have never heard of, but first impressions stick and I will never go back there again. Yeah I am on the side of WTF.

[Mace]

Originally Posted by GossamerSolid

Duke Nukem an 86%

What? That turd does not deserve anything near that score, take 50 off and it's almost right.

Totally make their review for RO2 null and void.

[MorningstarPA]

The review is below average quality and I'm inclined to agree with many of you; it is, overall, a poor review.

But those of you who are saying "Why doesn't he wait for the final product or final release?" make me laugh out loud.

Guys, this IS the final product. We're not in Beta anymore. If Tripwire wasn't happy with it, and not prepared for the backlash, they shouldn't have released the game.

Saying "wait for the patches!" is a poor excuse for releasing a buggy game.

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Originally Posted by GossamerSolid

This review site is a troll site. He gave Brink a 70% and Duke Nukem an 86%, but he gave RO2 45%...

Obviously trolling.

Not everything on the internet that you disagree with is a "troll", you imbecile.

Disagree with his arguments, fine. Stop casting suspicion and insulting the character of the author.

Did you guys learn nothing of subjectivity in school?

[KoldHearted1]

Originally Posted by MorningstarPA

Saying "wait for the patches!" is a poor excuse for releasing a buggy game.

Sure it is! Look at Activision or DICE- they release games that have few maps (common complaint about RO), lots of bugs (another common complaint in this forum), and improperly functioning features (yet another frequent complaint of RO). Yet, their games get tens to hundreds of thousands more people playing them than RO1 ever did and people make those games top sellers and back their games up with a passion (fanboys).

Why can TWI and its imperfect baby not have the same treatment?

[wake_up]

Originally Posted by KoldHearted1

Why can TWI and its imperfect baby not have the same treatment?

You dont know what an XBOX360 or Playstation3 is, and who owns this
consoles and buys fast shooter games, where u even cant change your
weapon to semi automatic?

I think RO2 had to potential for 90%, but TWI decided to add so much
features from DICE games, that RO2 never got RO2.
Look at the weapon accuracy, that got heavy criticism from the beta
players and 9/10 people seems to dont like it (look threads here).

Why they got this low score?
- the single player "campain" gives you the "gotcha kicked in the ***"
feeling, cause it´t just a stupid fight from A to B at the MP maps.
- many bugs, glitches and control issues
- broken server browser (worked perfectly till last Beta update,
then it got broken and they tell us its a steam problem?)
- weapons are all to accurate (cheesy balance at all)
- too much and too weird game modes, including "lockdown".

And in my opinion:
- bad map design: maps are too BF like, all open design,
its too easy to camp at the side and anywhere at distance.
I like big maps, but this design sucks a little, cause its so
open to all sides, that you never can hold a position or play
any tactic then running around an beeing confused.

The Metascore 7.x rating for RO2 is low, but i think its OK, cause
they released the game before they fixed even the important things.
(no working server browser at release day???)

[Waffenator]

According to Alexa Gamers Underground is ranked about 430,000 of all websites worldwide.

Had to laugh on Audience Profile from Alexa

Based on internet averages, gamers-underground.com is visited more frequently by males who are in the age range 18-24, have no children, have no college education and browse this site from home.

Considering their demographic is an age group with little purchasing power and their internet ranking I would assume that they do not generate much income therefore it could be said their writers are either amateurs, hacks, or both.

Juxtaposed, Gamespy and its parent company are ranked in the top 4,000 and top 300 websites respectively.

Gamers Underground's voice is minimal, if I were in their shoes I would have written a negative article as well just to genterate controversy and get vierwership numbers rolling. A red herring website in the end.