At 2/27/11 03:20 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
I ASKED YOU TO PROVE THAT GAME REVIEWERS TOOK BRIBES
I really, REALLY don't want to interrupt this love fest, but I will say that while bribery might be out of the question, developers do (or at least attempt to) influence what reviewers think of a game. Watch this and it'll show that developers give reviewers a "review guide" that walks them through a game. Also, if the score varies differently from everyone else's, developers can react like they did in the video. I'm not for nor against Travis's or your view, but I'm just throwing out that developers can and probably will try to get people to re-review games if such a scenario were to occur.
But does this necessarily apply to Call of Duty? Heck if I care. CoD's popular and successful. It also isn't the first franchise to be milked to death and re-skinned each year. Whether or not it is good or not is entirely opinion. Call of Duty's success shows that there's people who like the game while you have others who like Battlefield and Counter-Strike say otherwise. It's a mixed bag. The views of the masses might be different from the views of the gamers as well.
Travis -- just stop feeding RWG. I understand your views of Call of Duty, but describing the possibilities that reviewers get bribed is useless when it still remains popular among people. If its fate turns out to being milked to death like Guitar Hero, so be it. Activision knows what people want, and right now they want CoD. Doesn't mean that there aren't other shooters that are better IYO.
RWG -- CoD's successful, but there's no need to justify yourself when others don't like it. What's the phrase, "haters gonna hate"? If YOU like Call of Duty, that's fine and dandy. But trying to defend your opinion on a forum is silly. There's no facts to back up an opinion. That's why it's called an opinion. Again, haters gonna hate, so play while others could really care or hate for it.
Just throwin' it out there.