As a couple of people have said before, its a hoax.

Here's a link to a Kotaku article saying that activision have stated that they werent responsible behind the website.

Link

At 2/25/11 09:01 PM, Travis wrote: Seriously though... the latest gameplay trailer from BC 3 looked like something new for once.
BC 3

Bad Company 3?

No man, it's Battlefield 3.

Cool, can't wait till Tuesday. I'm also glad that MW3 will finish the fight between Soap and Makarov instead leaving the cliffhanger ending in MW2 and going into a different view (at least if any of this is true).

At 2/26/11 11:22 AM, SN0WC0NE17 wrote: I'm also glad that MW3 will finish the fight between Soap and Makarov instead leaving the cliffhanger ending in MW2

Yeah, because that was REALLY likely to happen.

You actually care about the story of MW. I pity you.

At 2/26/11 06:14 AM, Jackho wrote: Shut the fuck up. Asshole.

The fact that your ignorant ass has so obviously failed to read my post beyond the first few words makes me giggle.

HAHAHA, it was a hoax!
What do you buy a new Call of Duty for anyway? New multiplayer maps and more glitches?

At 2/27/11 02:44 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
PROVIDE SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS!

The fact that EVERY game that gets released gets the EXACT SAME " 10/10 this is the bestest game evar! " review. None of them ever go into detail. They take bribes. Get over it.

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.

Holy shit, this thread is stupid.

IGN and Gamespot's reviews are always very close to reviews from other sites. They are never too high. I also never see 10/10s.

At 2/27/11 03:49 PM, Makeshift wrote: Holy shit, this thread is stupid.

IGN and Gamespot's reviews are always very close to reviews from other sites. They are never too high. I also never see 10/10s.

Dutch magazine Power Unlimited actually gave Black Ops a 98/100, saying it was "absolutely the game of the year". When the game of the year list came, not a single writer had it in their top 10.
They also hyped that game way too much, actually releasing some kind of mini booklet with the magazine.

At 2/27/11 03:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 2/27/11 03:08 PM, TheSporkLord wrote:

At 2/27/11 02:44 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
PROVIDE SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS!

The fact that EVERY game that gets released gets the EXACT SAME " 10/10 this is the bestest game evar! "

Does this look like a "BGE" review?
How about this?
That's THREE major game review outlets, and though they all disagree with idiots like you, none of the reviews are at all like the reviews you mentioned.

ALL THREE OF THOSE SITES PROVED MY POINT.

None of them ever go into detail.

Huh, I could swear that IGN ALONE went into a whopping 3 pages of detail.

They just over-elongated everything. Half of that shit was just saying the same over in different ways.

They take bribes. Get over it.

"WAH WAH THEY LIKE THE GAME THAT I'M TRYING TO BASH" isn't proof.

" WAH WAH THEY HATE THE GAME THAT I LIKE " your " proof " has consisted of nothing but talking about straw man arguments and other bullshit.

Any game a big company releases is going to get bribed.

Company releases game
Reviewers get bribed
People buy said game because it got " amazing " reviews.

It's that simple.

RightWingGamer
Travis

Neither of you are going to convince the other to change their opinion so both of you should just shut up or this will go on forever.

Wow if I were a mod i'd give all me you a warning you're all pathetic.
I just thought i'd drop in and say that I saw no kotaku that this was a hoax. Not sure if its been posted about yet

At 2/27/11 07:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

You are a sad, strange little man, and I find you hilarious. You must have been dropped on your head as a child to think that you don't need to prove your points for them to hold validity in an argument.

Oh, and BTW, it is YOU who must admit that YOU are wrong. I have nothing to admit, because I don't make baseless accusations like a troll.

I think both you and Travis were dropped as children because apparently, this retarded argument is still going. No one is going to change another's opinion, so just shut up and let's move on.

Burden of proof lies with both parties you twit. Just as it is possible to prove something is true it is possible to prove something ISN'T true. Don't even try and pull that bullshit.

Thing is, you have tried saying it is fact that bribes don't happen. But are you a game producer? What's that? You're not? So you can't actually know that bribes don't happen. You can BELIEVE that it doesn't but that's it.

Anyone remember when it came to light that IGN was once paid to give good reviews and everyone left because of that? Ever seen a fan boy review a game made by a company he loves say it's amazing without reason? Ever seen an opinion distorted because if the person says harsh things about it then their fan base will turn on them? The last example is most game reviewers nowadays.They'll admit it has flaws and it's a tired concept, but dress it over with all the good. THAT IS THE WORST THING TO DO WHEN REVIEWING. People read reviews to find out whether the game is either;

- To their taste
- Flawed in areas
- Worth their money

That, and it's crap to read positive things about things constantly.

I'm kinda going on with myself, but my point is, maybe reviewers aren't being bribed. There could be hundreds of different reasons they give out positive scores on a popular franchise. Don't always assume it's money trading hands.

At 2/27/11 08:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 2/27/11 08:23 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: Burden of proof lies with both parties you twit. Just as it is possible to prove something is true it is possible to prove something ISN'T true. Don't even try and pull that bullshit.

Thing is, you have tried saying it is fact that bribes don't happen. But are you a game producer? What's that? You're not? So you can't actually know that bribes don't happen. You can BELIEVE that it doesn't but that's it.

The INITIAL burden of proof indeed lies with the accuser, it is then the other party's job to rebut said proof.

And you accused that it doesn't happen. Do you realize how completely pointless ANY attempt at discussion would become if you follow these rules? People like you distort this simple rule to give yourselves an advantage.

Also, I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. It's just that Travis here has convinced himself that it DID happen and won't provide any evidence to support his accusations.

You quite clearly said it doesn't happen earlier.

Funny thought. Imagine Travis as a district attorney. "No, the defendant is guilty. Crimes happen, therefore he did it. Admit that you're wrong, because I don't need evidence."

My point is that you have no more evidence than Travis does so don't try and act like you do.

At 2/27/11 09:04 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 2/27/11 08:44 PM, TheSporkLord wrote:

At 2/27/11 08:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: The INITIAL burden of proof indeed lies with the accuser, it is then the other party's job to rebut said proof.

And you accused that it doesn't happen. Do you realize how completely pointless ANY attempt at discussion would become if you follow these rules? People like you distort this simple rule to give yourselves an advantage.

Are you high? You can't accuse something of NOT happening. Why are you trying to stick up for Travis, anyway?

THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO. And I'm not defending Travis, I'm defending logic and common sense.

Also, I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. It's just that Travis here has convinced himself that it DID happen and won't provide any evidence to support his accusations.

You quite clearly said it doesn't happen earlier.

Doesn't, not can't. As in I CAN dislocate my elbow using only a hammer, but I DON'T. Same thing with the reviewers: they CAN accept bribes, but DON'T. And hey, as far as I'm concerned, if it hasn't been proven, or can't BE proven, then it didn't happen.

Saying that bribes don't happen is just that. I don't think you understand the difference between can't and don't. And how do you actually know they don't take bribes? Oh that's right, you don't.

Funny thought. Imagine Travis as a district attorney. "No, the defendant is guilty. Crimes happen, therefore he did it. Admit that you're wrong, because I don't need evidence."

My point is that you have no more evidence than Travis does so don't try and act like you do.

Okay, there's an analogy I like to use for situations like this. It's called Russell's Teapot, and it basically states that if I were to say that there was an invisible teapot orbiting earth, then it'd be a bitch for you to provide evidence that the teapot isn't there. That's why it would fall to ME to prove the teapot's existence before it can be disproven.

Understand?

EXACTLY, YOU made the accusation that reviewers don't take bribes therefore YOU must back yourself up with evidence, which you have failed to do.

Yo, guys, take this shit out the thread. No one wants to hear it.
And this announcement is probably a hoax.
http://3anime.com/call-of-duty-modern-wa rfare-3-hoax-revealed-by-activision/2430

Disgusting.

Get the fire extinguisher.

Cause you guys are FLAMING.