Except for teh lulz of course

IGN not being entirely objective? Shocking!

I think this point has been pounded to death, but it bears repeating. Game Reviews are opinion pieces. They offer the thoughts and impressions of a somewhat above-average critic of video games, and that's it. They are meant to be tools for gamers to use in deciding whether or not to make a purchase.

To be fair, I often don't think that game reviews are critical enough. Too many 10/10s are handed out for that rating to make any sense any more. But the point is that a review that doesn't quite line up with your own perspective is to be expected in almost every case.

And try as you might, there is no scientific way to measure the "sound quality" in a video game. Sure there are some objective points such as the number of channels and the sampling rates and w/e for all the different effects. But there are also plenty of subjective ones, such as just plain choosing a lousy sound for a certain event in the game, or bad timing. So trying to argue that there's any scientific verifiability to a particular rating for the sound quality on a particular game... well there's just not.

Dice and IW don't deserve money especially with [censored] map design on BF3 and MW3.
I would give IW some credit for "kill confirmed" which renderes snipers useless. Also for Survival mode.
Dice SP is short ( don't know about MW3).
Real credit goes to Respawn who did brilliant map design with MW2. Also id map design is great but not the pathetic car combat.

Wait, IGN gives a game a 9.5 instead of a 10 on a purely subjective aspect?

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Like you said before, the casual gamer doesn't usually pay attention to the kind of stuff. I highly doubt that a 9.5 in sound would be a reason for a person to not get a game.

I think his point is that the lower sound score will lower the average final score they give the game, or something. I don't pay much attention to ratings that much, most of the games I like score under 8.0 and most of the games I dislike score over 9.0. :shrug:

I don't think the OP was angry about Battlefield not getting a perfect 10 per se, just how Call of Duty got a higher score simply on the basis that it's Call of Duty when in fact it's sound is really quite bad. I understand that, it's obvious those reviews are not totally honest.

But it's a 9.5 how much could a 9.5 possibly do to a game? If anything, that would higher most scores.

I'm surprised anyone reads IGN anymore. Hell I don't see why people constantly bring up their scores, you're pretty much advertising IGN. Oh and this is why I don't support any review that hands out numbers.

I am still surprised how people treat a game reviewers OPINION like they stated it as fact.

Personally I think their site design is cheap, and the review format is abysmal. Two web pages just because they double spaced and used a large font?

If you want a decent review to actually read use http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/battlefield-3.

Edit: They even mentioned the sound.

How dare people have opinions!!! :swear:

It's not like IGN is some kind of giant game-reviewing supercomputer. The reviews are the opinions of individuals. You can't expect them to be that consistent, reliable, etc. People take this stuff too seriously.

Thanks so much

Kill Confirmed was 100% ripped off of Crysis.

I won't even bother responding to any of the other stuff you said.

People here are saying that audio is subjective/opinion. To an extent yes.

But if you took 100 people, let them play Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2/Battlefield 3 with headphones on, I can almost guarantee that all 100 would vote Battlefield for sound.

I think we'd all like to believe that video-game audio is something more abstract, but honestly, it's all in the technology.

Use this as parallel:
I'm essentially saying that Crysis looks better than Call of Duty, and some of you are saying that graphics are subjective/opinion. Which is again, true to an extent. But in the end, the game with higher resolution textures, better shading, texture sampling, etc wins.
The same goes for audio. Battlefield has better filtering, sampling rates, etc.

It's exactly the same thing, it's just most people don't see audio as technical than they do graphics.

If you asked anyone with experience in audio engineering, they would tell you Battlefield sounds better than Call of Duty.





I'm not mad that BF3 got a 9.5
I'm not mad that Bad Company 2 got a 9.0

I'm mad that MW2 got a 10. I'm mad that IGN knows for a fact that Battlefield sounds better, and yet they give MW2 a higher score because they think no one cares about audio.

Cool story. I played BC2 with AKG K 701 headphones and thought the sound was mediocre. Good immersion but terrible for a shooter.

And MW2 was released in 2009...

If they rate games in comparison to other games, then every game released today would be a 10/10. One reviewer felt MW2 deserved a perfect 10, and another felt BF3 deserved a more reasonable 9.5.

You can't look back and say "Oh MW2 got a 10, so BF3 should too", that's just ridiculous.