LoneCastaway

I'd go for Far Cry aswell, but it gets way too high scores in my opinion. The Single Player is great but too easy, even on the hardest difficulty. AND that's not all.
So many reviews that all ignore the multiplayer, which is really messed up.
Although it's a bit similar to CoD it's still unique in my opinion and gameplay wise plays decent. Plus of course there's the editor, which opens up many possibilities - and it's great, even better than in fc2.

you can aswell free the player instead, encouraging you to play fair. of course everybody will choose the punishment each and every single time ;)

i don't care or even criticise that this is a "rip-off" of super smash bros because i think it's great that playstation owners get to play a game with such a great concept and fun factor. however it's sad to see that they have failed, at least from the previews (an average of 77/100 on metacritic so far). i haven't played it, so i can't really judge it of course. comparing it so super smash bros brawl which got a 93/100 on the same page though it's hard to ke...

seriously who'd compare those two games? they have nothing in common and one isn't even out yet. what the hell?

i totally agree on the mp part. it's kind off disappointing to see that the gameplay seems to be generic, but the map editor totally makes up for it if it's at least solid.
the problem is the focus is even more on the gun-on-gun gameplay because you can't put in vehicles in the editor anymore...

why do some people never get it? it makes sense in battlefield to be able to destroy the environment, but it makes absolutely no sense in a call of duty game.
he's talking about layout, lines of sight, flanking routes, centre of actions points etc here. essentially what makes a good map.
it's great that you can do that in bf, but for cod it's better like that. and it's not just cod, basically in most online shooters.

Actually I think the maps in Halo 4 are pretty good.
Just because people vote for a certain map often doesn'nt mean it's the best / the only good one.
What it's missing is one or two medium sized maps with a warthog as the "high-end vehicle" in my opinion.

that is some misleading title right there.

i agree that halo takes more skill, but you can't say anyone can be good at cod. people with poor reaction time, bad aiming etc will never be good at cod either. though you can make up more easy for your lack of skill in cod by playing defensive (/camping) or use specific perks/weapons...

why would you want to go prone or roll in a halo game? this would'nt improve the game at all, it would make no sense to implement that in a halo game. it's a design choice.
apart from that they did change some things. ordenance drops, armor abilities and something similar to perks. these are slight adjustments in a dose that it makes sense but doesn't change the game too much, yet people are shouting COD all over the place already.
concerning multiplayer i think 34...

the only problem i have with that site is that if simply doesn't work for me. pretty frustrating when it's the only source that has the info online :P

Honestly me and everyone I play with agree: Nuketown is the / one of the worst maps in BO, so... who the hell likes this map then?
Horrible spawns which flip every 30 seconds in some games and let's not talk about domination. At least it takes the term very serious :P
Same with Terminal in MW2. I can't stand it and of course they brought it back in MW3 (after i sold it luckily). Well I see why people like Terminal but Nuketown not so much.

https://twitter.com/DavidVo...
Local (region-based) preference is gone, instead it's latency-/ping-based now.
Hope that helped :)

the problem is that the perks got very unbalanced with the existance of ghost. one perk that automatically keeps you off the radar, protects you from killstreaks is too much. sure there would be campers without it but you can't deny that it supports camping. i think it should be more of a tough decision which perk (->advantage) you want. it's only positive the way they did it. you still have that advantage but have to stay on the move while the other team has a uav. speeds up the g...

wow this information is so new, i didn't know this!
[be advised: SARCASM!]
rather well summarized though...

snipers are not the problem, you missed the point there. it's for the kind of player that didn't give a shit about the dogtags because they would get the points anyway. the ACR+surpressor tryhard going for the moab or other killstreaks... they are changing the settings so players are motivated collect the dogtags from the players they killed and to stay on the move because it's most profitable.

it's half-broken and they half-fixed it in my opinion.
they didn't bring that many new things in the previous titles, still didn't manage to fix the things that were in need of. i read pretty much all of the news and info on BO2 (yes i'm pretty bored) and it seems like they improved on small details (no knife-lunge, camos for secondaries, improved scorestreak system) but also larger aspects of the game (new gamemodes (multiplayer, zombie), new create a class system, sh...

then again by the time it takes the mantis to take down the banshee it is distracted and likely to be taken down by someone else...

Nothing new here, I've already seen this. Why is that called 'news' anyway? :P

I don't agree on that. Everyone here who says the weapons were balanced talks about assault rifles only - and not even those are balanced (Enfield)... Did noone of you ever use an SMG apart from AK74u and MP5? Snipers, LMG's and shotguns (except from the spas12) all put you in a huge disadvantage. And i'm talking about attachements aswell. The red-dot was unnecessary for most of the guns (and somehow worse than in mw2/mw3). I loved BO, but it was definately not balanced at all.