Hey everyone,

I don't know if anyone of you is a fan of modern warfare, but go check the reviews, it's the funniest thing I saw in the month. Here's why.

-: The average score of the reviews site gave the game a 9,3. Considering each game of the franchise to be the same thing each year, how can they give a 9,5 for the concept or originality? Also, how can they give a that nice score when the campaign is 5 hours long, staged and repetitive? This confirms that reviews sites are bribed as $%?&.

How, after this, reviews site can still be taken seriously when judging a story and originality of a game? Have they any moral values? God........

Cheers

A pissed off citizen of canada

IGN give the best reviews :shifty:
Its story might not be completely original but it is pushing boundaries that no one else has done, so thats kinda original?

I don't quite undrestand, the story is following the previous games, and I don't consider this franchise as original a bit, sorry

I am just thankful that I will never have to play this game, I mean have fun if you like it and have it but it really is not for me.

Plus I stopped listening to reviews a few years ago when it turned out my taste in games was 'terrible' on every major review site. I think I will reserve judgement on that

We have a http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1165273-call-of-duty-discussion/ that mostly revolves around MW3, obviously. You could use that.