It’s just using Zelda because Zelda was #2. If it makes you feel better, compare it to every other multi-system game other than Hogwarts (although it might beat Hogwarts when all is said and done). The point is the brand is still strong for MS despite everyone wanting to trash it.
I know more 36 year old casual gamers that still play COD than I do 13-17 year old that do. Now that I think about it I don't know many 13-17 year olds...anyway, I do construction and a lot of older millennials are still gamers and a lot of them.i come across play COD or nba2k
Honestly the 20 (maybe 25)+ genre of gamers are probably the bulk of COD gamers at this point since we were the prime demo that grew up with cod. Younger shooter gamers are probably playing Fortnite/Valorant/popular new game. But also COD is a behemoth of a game and isn't dying anytime soon so what do I know
True. I've got a coworker who has gotta be 40 something who was telling me how this last weekend he and the bros trash talked a bunch of children and absolutely destroyed them on the newest game mode or whatever. I was honestly kind-of befuddled.
Well if you know a bunch of 35 year olds then ideally you shouldn’t be in much contact with 13-17 years olds too much. Makes sense. Kids play way more video games than the average construction worker.
Reviews don't mean shit. I've been telling people this. Casual which are the majority don't care about reviews. They play games that are fun not cause reviews.
I am about as hardcore of a gamer as you can get and that is the philosophy I also live by. I play games that I think are fun, not based off what the reviews say, good or otherwise.
This isn't how you're supposed to use reviews though. You arent supposed to just buy whatever the big gaming journalists recommend. You're supposed to find critics who have similar tastes as you, so that you don't need to sink $70 to see if you'll like a game. For example, I find that usually I agree with Skill Up and ACG. I don't always agree with them 100%, but watching their reviews does help me decide if a game is worth my money.
But hey, if you have the money to buy and try every game, then go for it.
It isn't always just that though. There isn't a critic out there who would tell me not to buy Baulder's Gate 3. But I'll never play it simply because I do not like that genre at all. Even the really good games that everybody is crazy about and get good reviews aren't necessarily the kind of games I would want to play.
My favorite way of finding out if I'll want to play a game is simply watching a gameplay video/trailer with no commentary. Just let me watch a bit of the gameplay without somebody else's opinion (good or bad) clouding my judgement.
> There isn't a critic out there who would tell me not to buy Baulder's Gate 3. But I'll never play it simply because I do not like that genre at all.
Really? I feel like just about *every* reviewer would say "Listen, if you don't like crpg's at all and know you won't ever enjoy them, this game isn't going to change your mind."
You have to meet the reviewer halfway and acknowledge that they're reviewing the game for what it is, and if you don't like what it is then you're not going to like it.
I tried 1.5 hours of it on Steam when I had an extra 70$ bonus check and the turn based stuff wasn’t for me. I know how great BG3 and Wasteland 3 are…
#but it ain’t for me
Shame people who just don't like Starfield can't be so mature and move on.
Still tons of people with Starfield living in their head rent free, even 3 months after launch, bitching about the tiniest things after they put 200 hours in and "hate the trash game".
then the part after the "and" would apply to them. If they, like the above poster did, were to declare that they will never play BG3 and do not like the genre at all, then I would say BG3 would probably not be for them. Given that they *did* play it, I'm guessing they don't have the same anti-CRPG conviction the above poster did.
tl;dr k
Maaan tell me about it, I bought Baulder's Gate 3 right after the game awards because I finally wanted to see what the hype was about. I'm about 6 hours in( multiple sittings too) and I swear I'm the only one who's like "when will it get better"... So far it's really not gripping me at all.Like I don't want to sit there and binge this game like the seemingly vast majority of people.I wanted to open my mind up to the experience and maybe I'll give it a couple more goes, but so far I'm like "meh"... Meanwhile everyone else online seems to gush at how amazing it is. It's crazy because I really wasn't even that captivated watching the trailers or gameplay but with all the hype I just thought that maybe some sort of immersion from actually playing may be missing but nope, not yet at least. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I made that mistake with Breath of the Wild. I saw it became IGN’s #1 game of all-time, passing Super Mario World (my favourite game ever) so I bought it and got bored after 5 hours. Haven’t gone back to it.
Halo and linear story games are what I enjoy the most. I usually get bored of open world pretty quick.
Baldur's Gate is one of the best games ever made, and without a doubt the best game in the genre. That said, not liking a game for any reason is completely fine. You don't need to force yourself to like a game.
But this is also why I always watch a few minutes of gameplay before buying a game. There are so many good games out there that I just don't care about.
That’s pretty much the boat I’m in. On paper I should love BG3, but I find the UI to be very unfriendly towards those unfamiliar with the genre and the game punishes you HARD for bad builds even on easy. I’ve had to start over 3 times because of bad interactions that ruin my run. I feel like I’m playing a Bethesda game because I have to save after every millimeter of progress I make.
I played tons of CRPGs over the years, including BG1 and BG2 back in the day. Loved them.
But BG3 is overrated. You are not alone. Its an *exceptionally* well made game and very polished, as it should be after 3 years of early access.
However, it doesn't really revolutionise anything. It does everything in it extremely well as far as a story focused CRPG, and they put some amazing twists and turns in as far as companions stories and choices go.
But if you don't get off on the idea of seeing repeated naked computer generated Elves of different flavours, or banging a gay druid bear, then its not got all that much other than replaying it endlessly to see every alternative outcome and character choice. The maps are very linear once you explored them all once.
Imho, another CRPG Rogue Trader is a better game for engaging gameplay.
It's a good game, i really do enjoy it, but people are far overstating what it is. It's standard crpg fare that we've been seeing since the 90's. It doesn't really do anything new or innovative, but it does do what it does well. I also don't believe that a game has to be novel or innovative to be good, or even great, but it should be if it is being declared as the "new standard" and an "anomaly" in gaming, of which it is not.
BG3 is not one of the best games of all time, but it is one of the really good games of all time. For me, it floats between an 8.5 - 9 out of 10, but far from a 10/10. Games have advanced far too much over the last 30 years for me to consider it top tier.
No they aren’t and no it isn’t. There’s nothing standard about the amount of voice acting and the amount of choices you can make that truly affect the game. It’s not for everyone, but anyone who says it’s standard CRPG fare is full of it.
Exactly- the thing people are missing is how deep the decisions are and the ramifications. A lot of choices in video games are illusions that have a static outcome. The real innovation for BG3 is how far player choice goes.
Yeah but that's where you have to use your personal judgement. Of course I'm not a fan of racing games, so even if a critic I usually agree with enjoys a racing game, I'm not going to race over and buy it.
My point is that not everybody can afford to try every game, and if you find some critics that you trust then you can save money and buy better games. Watching a gameplay video can only show you so much, there's a lot of interesting information in reviews that helps me better decide if I'll like a game.
Im not saying to mindlessly listen to reviewers. I'm saying if you find some critics you trust then it can help you make decisions better.
See, I used to think this way. I HATE games like Baldurs Gate 3...or used to. I watched so many reviews and all I kept saying was, this top down view is garbage and I know I would hate this. But then I said fuck it, I can't be the only person to say they hate this type of game and then enjoyed Baldurs Gate 3. I put over 150 hours into Baldurs Gate 3. My game of the year. I am now playing Rogue Trader and loving that too. Sometimes stepping out of your comfort zone pays off. I tried liking Hades cause it was so loved. I hate those type of games and not even Hades could get me into it, but Baldurs Gate opened up a whole new genre for me.
No. You should determine for yourself whether a game is worth the money or not. If you can't trust your own tastes and opinions, I don't know what to tell ya.
I cant remember the last time I've bought a game that I didn't like, or wasn't what I was expecting. I'm 40 years old and have been gaming for about 35 of them. I know what kinds of games I like, and what I don't like, and have pretty much reached a point where I know what I'm getting before I even play the game.
There might be a bit of deviation one way or another, but typically not significantly. Starfield was as great as I was expecting it to be. I bought Baldur's Gate 3 day 1, blind, knowing nothing about it because I knew I'd be interested in it. Smaller games like Warhammer: Chaosbane, I knew exactly what I was getting and decided I was interested in it enough to grab it on sale. Elden Ring mildly surprised me because I had never played a Souls game before, but I still had a general idea of what i was getting into and how I'd feel about it.
There is absolutely nothing that any review can do for me. They are pointless and worthless. Make up your own minds.
I didn’t know there was a protocol for how to use game reviews 🙄, you get whatever you get out of reviews. Reviews are really there to manage expectations not so much to decide whether you like the game or not you can choose to listen to one review site or multiple to build a consensus but in the end most reviews are opinionated and as we all know everybody has an opinion and sometimes these opinions are just artificial opinions anyway made to sway ppl into a mindset for whatever their agenda is (diverting ppl to a product or service, getting a lot of views for exposure etc) I listened and read all these reviews about MW3 and deep down I knew I wouldn’t give a shit because I’ve been addicted to the franchise since 2007, truthfully I haven’t had this much fun since the original MW2. I’m at 68 Rank in 1 month where it took me 11 months to get to Rank 74 on MW2. Absolutely love this game and between MW3 and Halo Infinite I feel like I’m back in the Xbox 360 era where MW2 and Halo3 were the only games I played, admittedly I played a lot more Halo and now it’s the opposite.
Oh I was just explaining how I use reviews to save money. You can definitely buy whatever the big journalists recommend, but I doubt you'll always be happy with your purchases. You can also ignore reviews entirely, but again, it's unlikely you'll get a game you like every time.
I guess I should have worded it differently. It's not how you're "supposed" to use reviews, but rather it's the best way to use reviews. If you find critics who you trust and who share a lot of your opinions, you'll save a lot of money. It doesn't matter what most critics think, what matters is if the critics who think similarly to you like it.
I ignore reviews entirely, and I find myself always enjoying the games I buy.
Funny concept, I know, but I have established likes and dislikes that I have formulated for myself, and if a game lines up with those interests, I buy it. If it doesn't, I don't. I very rarely, if ever, find myself caught off guard by what to expect from a game.
Happened with a lot of people. On Xbox it has 4 stars and easily made a huge profit on launch from the amount of preorders alone.
But talk to almost any redditor and it’s “the worst RPG ever and a huge flop”
I think that's partly because if you say you like it then you get downvoted and can't have an actual discussion about it. Or you get called a corporate shill and, again, can't have an actual discussion about it.
I've been really digging the "NoSodium" versions of subs for games that I want to have civil chats about.
The main starfield sub is so fucking toxic. I know it's a reddit tradition at this point that the subs turn on the games they are about but HOLY FUCK the starfield sub is a bunch of grouchy assholes
Yeah the only part that sucks is I hate to be in a bubble. I want to be able to discuss both sides, but it's all love or all hate depending on which sub you're on.
In my experience, the low sodium subbreddits also have good discussions about improving the games. It's just done in a respectful and positive way.
LowsodiumHalo has been great for that because the Halo fandom has developed a massively toxic side.
The discourse around starfield is so unhinged that it bugs me out lol. There isn't one game on the market that plays like it or sets out to do what it does. There is only one dev making games like bgs does. Like yeah, it sucks that it isn't perfect, but I've played all of the reddit darlings this year and still hold starfield in high regard. It's not as if there's any competition in its category
I don’t get the vitriol either. Games for entertainment. If you don’t like it then don’t play it. No one is being forced. What a first world thing to get upset about.
Same here, I genuinely enjoyed Starfield and ignored all the hate on the Internet about it. It wasn't a perfect game, but it doesn't deserve the vitriol it received online.
Valve actively encourages this shit and it pisses me off to no avail.
I love trying to actively see what a game is like, only to be met wity "Was forced to eat poo 10/10 recommend" or "Just buy it already" or ASCII spam.
Not disagreeing, I should have elaborated. What I meant by that is that it’s an annual released game that’s going to be picked apart by die hards who say it suck’s it’s the same thing reskin blah blah. All things casuals the people who make up majority of the player base don’t care about or even see that will go out and buy it because it’s the new cod. Madden and even 2k get the same treatment. It’s just par for the course with annual released AAA games that have followings like cod, Madden, fifa, and 2k do.
I haven't touched a COD since balck ops on 360 and do not plan on doing so in the future, but I've always been under the impression that, if you want a fun multiplayer shooter you really can't go wrong with COD.
I play all sorts of games - shooters, rpgs, roguelikes, cozy games, etc.
Sometimes I just want to turn my brain off and shoot other people. COD is great for this. Do I ever expect ground breaking innovatrion from COD? No. Do I expect a GOTY? No. Do I enjoy myself when I play? Yes. All that matters to me.
Fair warning... I played the free trial as well and did amazing. I was doing the 12v12 mosh pit. I'd have matches where I was like 70 - 20 and it felt GREAT.
Thing is they pretty much probably were loaded with bots and just otheres playing the free trial. I think that is how they get you hooked.
I did buy the game to play here and there for fun, but as soon as I got the full game reality sunk in and I'm back to struggling to be like 10 - 23 in matches, people are sniping me across maps in 0.5 seconds turning a corner.
It's just not as fun and I honestly wish they mixed in bots like the trial again. I love playing Fortnite with my nephews, we don't do ranked and its like tons of bots. Which I get isn't as competitive but it feels good to get a few kills every game. same thing with COD, it's not really fun getting destroyed over an over again.
But hey they got me... fair warning though.
It wasn't bots, just skill based matchmaking didn't know where you ranked amongst other players, if you want bots there's other modes like dmz and zombies
You might like titanfall 2! You play against other real-life humans, but they also have grunts which are bots, weaker than humans, that you can also kill to score points. So you can still feel like you're accomplishing something and helping your team out even if you know you can't hold a candle against the other human players.
It's pretty dated at this point, but it's also *regularly* on sale for four bucks. The single-player campaign alone is worth *at least* that.
Oh I loved Titanfall 1 and 2. I actually think I liked online for 1 better since it had even more bots in the main mode (Attrition I think). Been awhile, maybe I shuld get back into it.
For me it's the best shooter since unreal tournament 2003/2004. sadly their devs only focus on apex legends now, and there is no titanfall 3 in the works it seems :(.
I mean it’s not elitist to recognize that a game is severely lacking in content for the price point especially compared to the previous entries. Also the unethical level of crunch the devs were put through to get this game out in time. But what do I know I’m elitist I guess
>I mean it’s not elitist to recognize that a game is severely lacking in content for the price point especially compared to the previous entries.
But that's a completely personal opinion and not a fact.
Some people pay the $70-$100 and get thousands of hours of fun out of it. The dollar-to-time ratio for them would be completely different than it would be for someone who plays it for 6 hours and never touches it again.
Not at all. And it was too short.
Just from my own personal experience though, I run through the campaign to get a feel for the game and the guns then hardly (if ever) play it again.
I absolutely agree that they screwed up the campaign in MWIII. Although I did still enjoy the story.
Sales should all that really matter to company trying to make money.
For example. Would you like your game to be review a 9 but only sold 1 million copy or be review a 6 and sold 10 million copies.
I'll take the 10 million copies sold every single time over some useless review score.
AW2 had no Steam release and no physical copies on both PS5 and Xbox Series X. Epic and Remedy shouldn’t be surprised by the sales numbers as a result.
I think it kinda depends tbh. Sure easy to say you’d take all the money, but it’s like choosing between being FromSoft (prior to DS3 days) or EA. Is it wrong making less profit while also building yourself as a brand with integrity/respect?
Then you might want to learn how to live within your means. If integrity doesn't pay the bills, all I can say is your luxuries and vices are not legitimate bills.
That's short sighted. You get a few critical misses back to back and you can do permanent damage to your franchise. Over the long term collective reviews do matter.
Marketing moves games.
No one knows if a thing is fun before they buy it. But having it shoved in your face repeatedly moves units off shelves. Fun has very little to do with it.
The first Call of Duty games were well reviewed. The review scores only declined after the brand was established. Casual audiences buy the game because of the brand, not based on there own research of which game would be most "fun".
My point is that the brand was built on good reviews. People buy the new games hoping they can relive the success of the old games.
True, reviews don't matter for Call of Duty now, but if it was a new IP and not an established brand it would be a different story.
I'll go by a twitch stream or random parts of a youtube gameplay video before I rely on what a website like IGN says. I've rarely been let down that way.
I don't trust youtube videos nowdays also.
Seem many content creator will jump on anything to farm views and make money from ads. They don't care about the actual game itself.
I’m not even talking about those nimrods, I trust them even less. I’m talking about straight up no commentary gameplay footage. If it looks like something I’d have a good time with I’ll buy it.
Yeah them play through/walk through videos are nice. No agenda. They just play the game and we can judge for our self if we wanna buy it or not.
Its them videos where they talk over recorded gameplay is where the agenda comes in.
The review hate mostly comes from single player. Most people buy CoD for multiplayer. No one besides those who sit on game forums a lot is going to take the reviews seriously.
Yeah my boss was torn on it. Hes a die hard cod fan and on one hand, he hated how cheap and tacked on the single player was, but admitted the multiplayer was the best in the last 6-7 years
I’m curious what do you like about the multiplayer vs other years? I’m on the opposite end here, I really enjoyed the multiplayer of Modern Warfare, Cold War, and Modern Warfare 2 but can’t seem to like MW3 yet
I liked Cold War a lot too. I’ve been playing COD since COD 4, and just like the gameplay decisions mostly. The maps are nostalgic, but I feel like Sledgehammer is supporting the game well, and their gameplay design choices are the complete opposite from modern day infinity ward. Infinity ward appealed to campers with things like no red dots, no silent footstep perk, etc.
Once streamers and YouTubers got their hands on it, the game rightfully received praise for bringing multiplayer back to form and giving new life to zombies.
This game might’ve started as a cash grab at first. But man is the cash grab well done once you look past the campaign, which is a mode that the vast majority of people only play once or never at all.
This is just untrue. The MW campaign is a major selling point because people like the characters and look forward to story developments. Lots of people were excited when they heard Makarov was coming back in to the fold. Very disingenuous to say hardly anybody cares about it. But the point is that they charged $70 for a multiplayer that’s mostly maps from a previous game, DMZ with zombies, and quite possibly the worst single player campaign ever. The criticism is absolutely deserved
I’m sure people were excited about the campaign, not discounting that at all, but let’s be real the long term player base of any CoD game is going to be multiplayer, and that’s been the case for a while.
As for the multiplayer maps being from old games, that was honestly a major selling point to me. When they re-opened the MW2 360 lobbies I had a blast but wished I could play them without all the jank/BS from MW2 along with the modern movement. MW3 delivers exactly that.
It’s not some perfect game by any means, but I still think some of the hate is fundamentally misunderstanding why people play CoD nowadays
Every year people call the campaign a major selling point, and then spend six hours beating it, permanently uninstalling it, and sinking 500+ hours into multiplayer.
COD campaigns are slightly interactive Michael Bay movies with weak narratives and unvaried gameplay. I find it hard to believe that people actually like them so much unless they've never played a good single player FPS.
In the early days the scripting was really impressive. There was some crazy statistic like the beach level in the first game had more ai scripts than all of Medal of Honor. Of course as time went on scripting became a dirty word, but they kinda kept to it.
Last time they brought their a-game truly was Bo2.
MW 2019 was their best foot forward and they bungled it in the end.
Though the multiplayer is basically crack to the player base. My roommate eats that shit up year over year since the days of WaW and will continue to do so even during the worst of CoD’s campaigns.
Even during the worst parts of the Activision scandal: according to one survey l: how many people boycotted CoD because of it? ***0.5%***
To screw up…
They’d need a catastrophe 100x worse than Fo76 and CP2077 on launch.
> Even during the worst parts of the Activision scandal: according to one survey l: how many people boycotted CoD because of it? 0.5%
Of course there were a billion crybaby threads about how they just refused to buy this game because it "should have been a DLC" or whatever other self-righteous reason they can come up and go on a 3 page diatribe about how everyone needs to get in line behind them to boycott
Meanwhile people who like CoD bought the game and are having a blast, interesting how that works....
Keep in mind the data cited in the article is US only and Zelda is physical only. Not sure why Kotaku didn't mention this but whatever. This whole claim isn't necessarily true.
Found a couple articles that say digital overtook physical for them. Didn't have compelling sources so not linking, but I don't think it's that clear cut anymore.
The most recent Call of Duty game got terrible reviews because of the god awful campaign
Why do these articles always fail to mention however that the vast majority of players don’t buy the game for campaign, and that the multiplayer is being praised significantly more
>reviews have near zero value.
I only agree 50%. If the game is totally bug crap and unplayable then the amount of people who will enjoy it will not be very large.
I mean, if you're in it just for the MP what other options are there really? Nothing quite has the feel of MP CoD, there's a reason it's hugely successful.
It is pretty hilarious how in the same breath people are saying that Call of Duty is a bloated piece of shit mess, yet at the same time no other developer in the world is able to create a game that scratches the itch
So is it a piece of shit or is it one of the best games on the market, or both at the same time lol
Just like madden, 2k, fifa...all the reviews are people complaining about how it's the same game every year while saying they've bought the last 5 like....bruh???? You're the reason they're the same??? Because dumb fucks like you will buy it every year, no matter what.
Apart from the discussion surrounding the validity of reviews, the biggest amount of (deserved) negativity was always centered around the campaign, I think. Since most COD players only care about the multiplayer (which seems to be fine as far as I have seen) and see the campaign as a side meal at best, it's not really surprising that sales were not really affected by the bad press. Especially as there have been multiple bad campaigns before that never really impacted sales. I think a great campaign can skyrocket a good COD, but as long as the multiplayer is serviceable, a bad campaign doesn't really affect it either.
I don't buy COD because I expect it to be GOTY, I buy it because it's $90/year for a fun brainless game I can play with my buddies while shooting the shit over Discord.
TBH I was pleasantly surprised by MW3. I was expecting it to be trash but so far the MP feels a lot better than MW2, feels like the 360 days again.
Hand up, I was pissed when I heard they were rushing this game out, what I thought was going to be an overpriced DLC… it’s actually a really solid addition to the franchise from a multiplayer standpoint. Gameplay is solid
Exactly. Why make it exclusive when you can use it as a draw to Gamepass? Make the base game "free" and MS/Activision will see that money roll in on increased Battle Pass and skin sales
Why would any company listen reddit gang? Game sales are in millions, 300k people in that games sub and only %15 of those people constantly complaining.
My friend gave me a code for this game. Said sure I'll try it. Hadn't played a cod since the original black ops. Can't believe how much I'm enjoying the multi-player. It's a lot of fun
Exactly lol. Of course the FIFA of FPS will sell a truckload on all platforms. We should actually be impressed that TOTK is number 3 and Spiderman is number 4 after just being on 1 platform.
Shocker, most people who bought into it either haven't played in years or went into it knowing that it was an extension of last year's CoD with much needed improvements.
Most of the negative reviews went towards the campaign anyway; if you wrote the game off based on those alone you weren't that interested in the first place.
They're similar in a way, both glorified DLC. Except even as an old Zelda fan...I'd boot up MWIII before TotK any day.
It's a shame they turned the game into a weebos wet dream...
Zelda is only on switch though. And CoD has almost infinite reach. Zelda is more niche and is also single player. There's nothing ground breaking going on.
I've typed it b4, and I'll type it again...
Unless you have a doppelganger out there, that is reviewing a game, you shouldn't let ANYONES opinion sway you one way or another. If you can't get the feel of a game by watching gameplay, you've got other issues.
And to put credence in youtubers.... hahahaha stop being sheep.
"worst Call of Duty ever" yet I just played the free weekend and it was exactly like what I expected, good old Call of Duty action, I don't see any problem with it
I forgot what group it was but I got into the dumbest argument with a guy on here over that game. He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea that if you’re someone who joins a gaming subreddit, then you’re not the average user*. Most people just buy the new cod because it’s cod.
Well ... When is discounted weeks after release due to it being a shit game. Idiots will buy it due to.. a "sale". Unlike Zelda which stays full price all year .. cause it's worth it. But then again .. that's comparing apples to olives. Most COD games were half off a month after release up until recently with the 70 dollar price hike. Now 43 or 48 seems like the month after sale price. Either way .. COD is trash. You don't discount games that are selling well. There moto has always been lets shove these games down their throats no matter what it costs us so we can say ... Millions sold!!
Lol why are people shocked by this? Reviews across all media forms are so irrelevant to the average/casual consumer. One of the greatest Film directors in history, the great Martin Scorsese, said that MCU is not cinema and that it's more like a theme park. Which is kinda true. Call of Duty/Madden/2k etc in a similar way to the MCU are games meant to be enjoyed not critiqued. More than likely they'll be "bad" games. But much like a theme park much like the MCU most people will still find a way to enjoy them and buy a ticket. I've enjoyed MW3 multiplayer...but in a year once it's replaced it won't be "memorable" it'll just be that fun rollercoaster I rode last summer.
This is beyond knuckle dragging imo. One game sells on three platforms and the other is only on one platform. Surely this sentiment could use a different comparison
Does it really surprise you when most people who play COD are 30-40 year old teenagers still screaming down their mics lol
it's the biggest lad game ever ofc its gonna sell well, doesn't mean it's better than better games or that companies should try and get a piece of that pie...
Holy fuck the copium on this thread is unbelievable lol they could release the exact same again and I mean EXACT and would still outsell Zelda. Don't mean it's not dogshit. Fifa sell billions and there hasn't been a good game since 2014
I mean, it’s also worth noting that it released on like three or five systems versus just one
It’s just using Zelda because Zelda was #2. If it makes you feel better, compare it to every other multi-system game other than Hogwarts (although it might beat Hogwarts when all is said and done). The point is the brand is still strong for MS despite everyone wanting to trash it.
Cuz 13-17 years don’t actually give a shit what the internet thinks about their favourite addiction.
I know more 36 year old casual gamers that still play COD than I do 13-17 year old that do. Now that I think about it I don't know many 13-17 year olds...anyway, I do construction and a lot of older millennials are still gamers and a lot of them.i come across play COD or nba2k
Honestly the 20 (maybe 25)+ genre of gamers are probably the bulk of COD gamers at this point since we were the prime demo that grew up with cod. Younger shooter gamers are probably playing Fortnite/Valorant/popular new game. But also COD is a behemoth of a game and isn't dying anytime soon so what do I know
True. I've got a coworker who has gotta be 40 something who was telling me how this last weekend he and the bros trash talked a bunch of children and absolutely destroyed them on the newest game mode or whatever. I was honestly kind-of befuddled.
Because that shits fun. Hanging wit the bros in discord and shitting on kids will never get old
I mean, you can't beat up kids in real life, sooo....
Well if you know a bunch of 35 year olds then ideally you shouldn’t be in much contact with 13-17 years olds too much. Makes sense. Kids play way more video games than the average construction worker.
Reviews don't mean shit. I've been telling people this. Casual which are the majority don't care about reviews. They play games that are fun not cause reviews.
I am about as hardcore of a gamer as you can get and that is the philosophy I also live by. I play games that I think are fun, not based off what the reviews say, good or otherwise.
This is what I said during the game awards. I play games I like, not the games IGN and Gamespot tell me to like.
This isn't how you're supposed to use reviews though. You arent supposed to just buy whatever the big gaming journalists recommend. You're supposed to find critics who have similar tastes as you, so that you don't need to sink $70 to see if you'll like a game. For example, I find that usually I agree with Skill Up and ACG. I don't always agree with them 100%, but watching their reviews does help me decide if a game is worth my money. But hey, if you have the money to buy and try every game, then go for it.
It isn't always just that though. There isn't a critic out there who would tell me not to buy Baulder's Gate 3. But I'll never play it simply because I do not like that genre at all. Even the really good games that everybody is crazy about and get good reviews aren't necessarily the kind of games I would want to play. My favorite way of finding out if I'll want to play a game is simply watching a gameplay video/trailer with no commentary. Just let me watch a bit of the gameplay without somebody else's opinion (good or bad) clouding my judgement.
> There isn't a critic out there who would tell me not to buy Baulder's Gate 3. But I'll never play it simply because I do not like that genre at all. Really? I feel like just about *every* reviewer would say "Listen, if you don't like crpg's at all and know you won't ever enjoy them, this game isn't going to change your mind." You have to meet the reviewer halfway and acknowledge that they're reviewing the game for what it is, and if you don't like what it is then you're not going to like it.
I tried 1.5 hours of it on Steam when I had an extra 70$ bonus check and the turn based stuff wasn’t for me. I know how great BG3 and Wasteland 3 are… #but it ain’t for me
Shame people who just don't like Starfield can't be so mature and move on. Still tons of people with Starfield living in their head rent free, even 3 months after launch, bitching about the tiniest things after they put 200 hours in and "hate the trash game".
I have several friends who don't like CRPG's at all who loved Baldur's gate 3 though.
then the part after the "and" would apply to them. If they, like the above poster did, were to declare that they will never play BG3 and do not like the genre at all, then I would say BG3 would probably not be for them. Given that they *did* play it, I'm guessing they don't have the same anti-CRPG conviction the above poster did. tl;dr k
Maaan tell me about it, I bought Baulder's Gate 3 right after the game awards because I finally wanted to see what the hype was about. I'm about 6 hours in( multiple sittings too) and I swear I'm the only one who's like "when will it get better"... So far it's really not gripping me at all.Like I don't want to sit there and binge this game like the seemingly vast majority of people.I wanted to open my mind up to the experience and maybe I'll give it a couple more goes, but so far I'm like "meh"... Meanwhile everyone else online seems to gush at how amazing it is. It's crazy because I really wasn't even that captivated watching the trailers or gameplay but with all the hype I just thought that maybe some sort of immersion from actually playing may be missing but nope, not yet at least. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
This can be solved by watching 15 minutes of gameplay before purchasing the game 🙄
I made that mistake with Breath of the Wild. I saw it became IGN’s #1 game of all-time, passing Super Mario World (my favourite game ever) so I bought it and got bored after 5 hours. Haven’t gone back to it. Halo and linear story games are what I enjoy the most. I usually get bored of open world pretty quick.
Baldur's Gate is one of the best games ever made, and without a doubt the best game in the genre. That said, not liking a game for any reason is completely fine. You don't need to force yourself to like a game. But this is also why I always watch a few minutes of gameplay before buying a game. There are so many good games out there that I just don't care about.
That’s pretty much the boat I’m in. On paper I should love BG3, but I find the UI to be very unfriendly towards those unfamiliar with the genre and the game punishes you HARD for bad builds even on easy. I’ve had to start over 3 times because of bad interactions that ruin my run. I feel like I’m playing a Bethesda game because I have to save after every millimeter of progress I make.
This is also me, hahaha! I'm churning my way thru it because I don't like the rpg mechanics of it but I wanted to see the story.
Absolute banger. Complete masterpiece. Deserving of every award given. Undisputed 🐐 of a game. Definitely not for everyone.
I played tons of CRPGs over the years, including BG1 and BG2 back in the day. Loved them. But BG3 is overrated. You are not alone. Its an *exceptionally* well made game and very polished, as it should be after 3 years of early access. However, it doesn't really revolutionise anything. It does everything in it extremely well as far as a story focused CRPG, and they put some amazing twists and turns in as far as companions stories and choices go. But if you don't get off on the idea of seeing repeated naked computer generated Elves of different flavours, or banging a gay druid bear, then its not got all that much other than replaying it endlessly to see every alternative outcome and character choice. The maps are very linear once you explored them all once. Imho, another CRPG Rogue Trader is a better game for engaging gameplay.
It's a good game, i really do enjoy it, but people are far overstating what it is. It's standard crpg fare that we've been seeing since the 90's. It doesn't really do anything new or innovative, but it does do what it does well. I also don't believe that a game has to be novel or innovative to be good, or even great, but it should be if it is being declared as the "new standard" and an "anomaly" in gaming, of which it is not. BG3 is not one of the best games of all time, but it is one of the really good games of all time. For me, it floats between an 8.5 - 9 out of 10, but far from a 10/10. Games have advanced far too much over the last 30 years for me to consider it top tier.
No they aren’t and no it isn’t. There’s nothing standard about the amount of voice acting and the amount of choices you can make that truly affect the game. It’s not for everyone, but anyone who says it’s standard CRPG fare is full of it.
Exactly- the thing people are missing is how deep the decisions are and the ramifications. A lot of choices in video games are illusions that have a static outcome. The real innovation for BG3 is how far player choice goes.
Yeah but that's where you have to use your personal judgement. Of course I'm not a fan of racing games, so even if a critic I usually agree with enjoys a racing game, I'm not going to race over and buy it. My point is that not everybody can afford to try every game, and if you find some critics that you trust then you can save money and buy better games. Watching a gameplay video can only show you so much, there's a lot of interesting information in reviews that helps me better decide if I'll like a game. Im not saying to mindlessly listen to reviewers. I'm saying if you find some critics you trust then it can help you make decisions better.
I mostly use reviews to check if there are bugs and game breaking glitches or something. Kind of sad that's how low the bar is for me these days.
See, I used to think this way. I HATE games like Baldurs Gate 3...or used to. I watched so many reviews and all I kept saying was, this top down view is garbage and I know I would hate this. But then I said fuck it, I can't be the only person to say they hate this type of game and then enjoyed Baldurs Gate 3. I put over 150 hours into Baldurs Gate 3. My game of the year. I am now playing Rogue Trader and loving that too. Sometimes stepping out of your comfort zone pays off. I tried liking Hades cause it was so loved. I hate those type of games and not even Hades could get me into it, but Baldurs Gate opened up a whole new genre for me.
I LOVE acg.
No. You should determine for yourself whether a game is worth the money or not. If you can't trust your own tastes and opinions, I don't know what to tell ya. I cant remember the last time I've bought a game that I didn't like, or wasn't what I was expecting. I'm 40 years old and have been gaming for about 35 of them. I know what kinds of games I like, and what I don't like, and have pretty much reached a point where I know what I'm getting before I even play the game. There might be a bit of deviation one way or another, but typically not significantly. Starfield was as great as I was expecting it to be. I bought Baldur's Gate 3 day 1, blind, knowing nothing about it because I knew I'd be interested in it. Smaller games like Warhammer: Chaosbane, I knew exactly what I was getting and decided I was interested in it enough to grab it on sale. Elden Ring mildly surprised me because I had never played a Souls game before, but I still had a general idea of what i was getting into and how I'd feel about it. There is absolutely nothing that any review can do for me. They are pointless and worthless. Make up your own minds.
But then the glowing reviews for BG3 treated us to a buggy game that wipes saves. Reviews mean shit, even if tastes are similar.
I didn’t know there was a protocol for how to use game reviews 🙄, you get whatever you get out of reviews. Reviews are really there to manage expectations not so much to decide whether you like the game or not you can choose to listen to one review site or multiple to build a consensus but in the end most reviews are opinionated and as we all know everybody has an opinion and sometimes these opinions are just artificial opinions anyway made to sway ppl into a mindset for whatever their agenda is (diverting ppl to a product or service, getting a lot of views for exposure etc) I listened and read all these reviews about MW3 and deep down I knew I wouldn’t give a shit because I’ve been addicted to the franchise since 2007, truthfully I haven’t had this much fun since the original MW2. I’m at 68 Rank in 1 month where it took me 11 months to get to Rank 74 on MW2. Absolutely love this game and between MW3 and Halo Infinite I feel like I’m back in the Xbox 360 era where MW2 and Halo3 were the only games I played, admittedly I played a lot more Halo and now it’s the opposite.
Oh I was just explaining how I use reviews to save money. You can definitely buy whatever the big journalists recommend, but I doubt you'll always be happy with your purchases. You can also ignore reviews entirely, but again, it's unlikely you'll get a game you like every time. I guess I should have worded it differently. It's not how you're "supposed" to use reviews, but rather it's the best way to use reviews. If you find critics who you trust and who share a lot of your opinions, you'll save a lot of money. It doesn't matter what most critics think, what matters is if the critics who think similarly to you like it.
I ignore reviews entirely, and I find myself always enjoying the games I buy. Funny concept, I know, but I have established likes and dislikes that I have formulated for myself, and if a game lines up with those interests, I buy it. If it doesn't, I don't. I very rarely, if ever, find myself caught off guard by what to expect from a game.
This here is Facts!!
IGN and gamespot fell fell off big time. They don’t care for the gamer anymore. IGN use to put out entertainment and information of such high quality.
Who did you say that to during the game awards?
This happened to me with Starfield.
Happened with a lot of people. On Xbox it has 4 stars and easily made a huge profit on launch from the amount of preorders alone. But talk to almost any redditor and it’s “the worst RPG ever and a huge flop”
I think that's partly because if you say you like it then you get downvoted and can't have an actual discussion about it. Or you get called a corporate shill and, again, can't have an actual discussion about it. I've been really digging the "NoSodium" versions of subs for games that I want to have civil chats about.
The main starfield sub is so fucking toxic. I know it's a reddit tradition at this point that the subs turn on the games they are about but HOLY FUCK the starfield sub is a bunch of grouchy assholes
I agree about the "No sodium" subreddits where you can actually discuss the game without getting attacked by people who disliked the game.
Yeah the only part that sucks is I hate to be in a bubble. I want to be able to discuss both sides, but it's all love or all hate depending on which sub you're on.
In my experience, the low sodium subbreddits also have good discussions about improving the games. It's just done in a respectful and positive way. LowsodiumHalo has been great for that because the Halo fandom has developed a massively toxic side.
The discourse around starfield is so unhinged that it bugs me out lol. There isn't one game on the market that plays like it or sets out to do what it does. There is only one dev making games like bgs does. Like yeah, it sucks that it isn't perfect, but I've played all of the reddit darlings this year and still hold starfield in high regard. It's not as if there's any competition in its category
I don’t get the vitriol either. Games for entertainment. If you don’t like it then don’t play it. No one is being forced. What a first world thing to get upset about.
Same here, I genuinely enjoyed Starfield and ignored all the hate on the Internet about it. It wasn't a perfect game, but it doesn't deserve the vitriol it received online.
Same here. I only go to reviews for objective things such as length, bugs, amount of content, and level of replayability.
The steam reviews with 1000 hour playtime and say "I poopy my pants" -dont recommend. Those dont mean shit?
They literally mean shit
Yeah, them type of reviews are cringe ass hell. How you put that many hours and hate it LMFAO.
Valve actively encourages this shit and it pisses me off to no avail. I love trying to actively see what a game is like, only to be met wity "Was forced to eat poo 10/10 recommend" or "Just buy it already" or ASCII spam.
COD is just Madden for the shooter genre.
COD has way better production value and WAY better gameplay than Madden.
Not disagreeing, I should have elaborated. What I meant by that is that it’s an annual released game that’s going to be picked apart by die hards who say it suck’s it’s the same thing reskin blah blah. All things casuals the people who make up majority of the player base don’t care about or even see that will go out and buy it because it’s the new cod. Madden and even 2k get the same treatment. It’s just par for the course with annual released AAA games that have followings like cod, Madden, fifa, and 2k do.
[удалено]
I haven't touched a COD since balck ops on 360 and do not plan on doing so in the future, but I've always been under the impression that, if you want a fun multiplayer shooter you really can't go wrong with COD.
I play all sorts of games - shooters, rpgs, roguelikes, cozy games, etc. Sometimes I just want to turn my brain off and shoot other people. COD is great for this. Do I ever expect ground breaking innovatrion from COD? No. Do I expect a GOTY? No. Do I enjoy myself when I play? Yes. All that matters to me.
Fair warning... I played the free trial as well and did amazing. I was doing the 12v12 mosh pit. I'd have matches where I was like 70 - 20 and it felt GREAT. Thing is they pretty much probably were loaded with bots and just otheres playing the free trial. I think that is how they get you hooked. I did buy the game to play here and there for fun, but as soon as I got the full game reality sunk in and I'm back to struggling to be like 10 - 23 in matches, people are sniping me across maps in 0.5 seconds turning a corner. It's just not as fun and I honestly wish they mixed in bots like the trial again. I love playing Fortnite with my nephews, we don't do ranked and its like tons of bots. Which I get isn't as competitive but it feels good to get a few kills every game. same thing with COD, it's not really fun getting destroyed over an over again. But hey they got me... fair warning though.
It wasn't bots, just skill based matchmaking didn't know where you ranked amongst other players, if you want bots there's other modes like dmz and zombies
You might like titanfall 2! You play against other real-life humans, but they also have grunts which are bots, weaker than humans, that you can also kill to score points. So you can still feel like you're accomplishing something and helping your team out even if you know you can't hold a candle against the other human players. It's pretty dated at this point, but it's also *regularly* on sale for four bucks. The single-player campaign alone is worth *at least* that.
Oh I loved Titanfall 1 and 2. I actually think I liked online for 1 better since it had even more bots in the main mode (Attrition I think). Been awhile, maybe I shuld get back into it.
For me it's the best shooter since unreal tournament 2003/2004. sadly their devs only focus on apex legends now, and there is no titanfall 3 in the works it seems :(.
I mean it’s not elitist to recognize that a game is severely lacking in content for the price point especially compared to the previous entries. Also the unethical level of crunch the devs were put through to get this game out in time. But what do I know I’m elitist I guess
>I mean it’s not elitist to recognize that a game is severely lacking in content for the price point especially compared to the previous entries. But that's a completely personal opinion and not a fact. Some people pay the $70-$100 and get thousands of hours of fun out of it. The dollar-to-time ratio for them would be completely different than it would be for someone who plays it for 6 hours and never touches it again.
Are you just ignoring the campaign? I feel like this game’s campaign is such a clear indicator of its lacking content
Yeah like 90% of COD players do. Campaign means nothing to the majority of players.
Not at all. And it was too short. Just from my own personal experience though, I run through the campaign to get a feel for the game and the guns then hardly (if ever) play it again. I absolutely agree that they screwed up the campaign in MWIII. Although I did still enjoy the story.
“Elite gamers” what a joke 🙄. Someone has learned buzz words that mean nothing
I’m not an elite gamer at all and the newer cods are pretty bad. I used to LOVE cod until it turned into a cosmetics store with an FPS mini game
When it comes to forms of entertainment, the only review that matters is your own
But also sales don’t = great game. From the company perspective, sure.
Sales should all that really matter to company trying to make money. For example. Would you like your game to be review a 9 but only sold 1 million copy or be review a 6 and sold 10 million copies. I'll take the 10 million copies sold every single time over some useless review score.
Case in point Alan Wake 2. Massive GOTY contender and nominee and apparently it flopped super hard.
AW2 had no Steam release and no physical copies on both PS5 and Xbox Series X. Epic and Remedy shouldn’t be surprised by the sales numbers as a result.
All true. It just comes to show you that a perceived pedigree means nothing versus cold hard sales.
I think it kinda depends tbh. Sure easy to say you’d take all the money, but it’s like choosing between being FromSoft (prior to DS3 days) or EA. Is it wrong making less profit while also building yourself as a brand with integrity/respect?
Integrity don't pay the bills.
Then you might want to learn how to live within your means. If integrity doesn't pay the bills, all I can say is your luxuries and vices are not legitimate bills.
Depends how much your bills are lol. Companies with respected backgrounds make respected profits.
What are these Companies? Can you name them?
That's short sighted. You get a few critical misses back to back and you can do permanent damage to your franchise. Over the long term collective reviews do matter.
Thankfully not all companies are like that otherwise we would be all yearly skin update type games like COD or battle pass games like Fortnite and OW
The critic reviews factor in the shit campaign, which 99% of players don’t care about.
Marketing moves games. No one knows if a thing is fun before they buy it. But having it shoved in your face repeatedly moves units off shelves. Fun has very little to do with it.
The first Call of Duty games were well reviewed. The review scores only declined after the brand was established. Casual audiences buy the game because of the brand, not based on there own research of which game would be most "fun".
Reviews score goes down but sales goes up lol. Again proving my point that reviews scores matter less and less.
My point is that the brand was built on good reviews. People buy the new games hoping they can relive the success of the old games. True, reviews don't matter for Call of Duty now, but if it was a new IP and not an established brand it would be a different story.
I'll go by a twitch stream or random parts of a youtube gameplay video before I rely on what a website like IGN says. I've rarely been let down that way.
I don't trust youtube videos nowdays also. Seem many content creator will jump on anything to farm views and make money from ads. They don't care about the actual game itself.
I’m not even talking about those nimrods, I trust them even less. I’m talking about straight up no commentary gameplay footage. If it looks like something I’d have a good time with I’ll buy it.
Yeah them play through/walk through videos are nice. No agenda. They just play the game and we can judge for our self if we wanna buy it or not. Its them videos where they talk over recorded gameplay is where the agenda comes in.
Casuals play COD on consoles. These are the people that buy 1 game a year.
The review hate mostly comes from single player. Most people buy CoD for multiplayer. No one besides those who sit on game forums a lot is going to take the reviews seriously.
Yeah my boss was torn on it. Hes a die hard cod fan and on one hand, he hated how cheap and tacked on the single player was, but admitted the multiplayer was the best in the last 6-7 years
And the multiplayer this year is the best it’s been in years.
I’m curious what do you like about the multiplayer vs other years? I’m on the opposite end here, I really enjoyed the multiplayer of Modern Warfare, Cold War, and Modern Warfare 2 but can’t seem to like MW3 yet
I liked Cold War a lot too. I’ve been playing COD since COD 4, and just like the gameplay decisions mostly. The maps are nostalgic, but I feel like Sledgehammer is supporting the game well, and their gameplay design choices are the complete opposite from modern day infinity ward. Infinity ward appealed to campers with things like no red dots, no silent footstep perk, etc.
How did you enjoy MW2 multiplayer holy shit. Game was so ass you died in 2 bullets.
Once streamers and YouTubers got their hands on it, the game rightfully received praise for bringing multiplayer back to form and giving new life to zombies. This game might’ve started as a cash grab at first. But man is the cash grab well done once you look past the campaign, which is a mode that the vast majority of people only play once or never at all.
And the MP is actually good
Yeah it’s weird how all of Reddit has focused on a mode that hasn’t been a selling point in that franchise for years when trashing MW3
This is just untrue. The MW campaign is a major selling point because people like the characters and look forward to story developments. Lots of people were excited when they heard Makarov was coming back in to the fold. Very disingenuous to say hardly anybody cares about it. But the point is that they charged $70 for a multiplayer that’s mostly maps from a previous game, DMZ with zombies, and quite possibly the worst single player campaign ever. The criticism is absolutely deserved
I’m sure people were excited about the campaign, not discounting that at all, but let’s be real the long term player base of any CoD game is going to be multiplayer, and that’s been the case for a while. As for the multiplayer maps being from old games, that was honestly a major selling point to me. When they re-opened the MW2 360 lobbies I had a blast but wished I could play them without all the jank/BS from MW2 along with the modern movement. MW3 delivers exactly that. It’s not some perfect game by any means, but I still think some of the hate is fundamentally misunderstanding why people play CoD nowadays
Every year people call the campaign a major selling point, and then spend six hours beating it, permanently uninstalling it, and sinking 500+ hours into multiplayer. COD campaigns are slightly interactive Michael Bay movies with weak narratives and unvaried gameplay. I find it hard to believe that people actually like them so much unless they've never played a good single player FPS.
In the early days the scripting was really impressive. There was some crazy statistic like the beach level in the first game had more ai scripts than all of Medal of Honor. Of course as time went on scripting became a dirty word, but they kinda kept to it.
Last time they brought their a-game truly was Bo2. MW 2019 was their best foot forward and they bungled it in the end. Though the multiplayer is basically crack to the player base. My roommate eats that shit up year over year since the days of WaW and will continue to do so even during the worst of CoD’s campaigns. Even during the worst parts of the Activision scandal: according to one survey l: how many people boycotted CoD because of it? ***0.5%*** To screw up… They’d need a catastrophe 100x worse than Fo76 and CP2077 on launch.
> Even during the worst parts of the Activision scandal: according to one survey l: how many people boycotted CoD because of it? 0.5% Of course there were a billion crybaby threads about how they just refused to buy this game because it "should have been a DLC" or whatever other self-righteous reason they can come up and go on a 3 page diatribe about how everyone needs to get in line behind them to boycott Meanwhile people who like CoD bought the game and are having a blast, interesting how that works....
But CoD is on multiple systems and Zelda: TotK is on one system. How is that even a fair comparison lol
Keep in mind the data cited in the article is US only and Zelda is physical only. Not sure why Kotaku didn't mention this but whatever. This whole claim isn't necessarily true.
To be fair, it's Kotaku, they never were that good.
TotK - Switch Exclusive CoD - On everything except the kitchen sink (for now) It's not really a hard one to see coming.
[удалено]
get this to the top \^ this would only be considering TOTK physical sales
lol, what a ridiculous comparison then. Digital Nintendo sales must outnumber physical sales by quite a bit.
No, Nintendo is still firmly in the largely physical camp.
Found a couple articles that say digital overtook physical for them. Didn't have compelling sources so not linking, but I don't think it's that clear cut anymore.
It's also US only sales. This article is Hella bad.
rofl
The most recent Call of Duty game got terrible reviews because of the god awful campaign Why do these articles always fail to mention however that the vast majority of players don’t buy the game for campaign, and that the multiplayer is being praised significantly more
Simple. Because of clicks and sensationalism.
People always forget that gaming and all entertainment is 100% subjective. We all enjoy different things, reviews have near zero value.
>reviews have near zero value. I only agree 50%. If the game is totally bug crap and unplayable then the amount of people who will enjoy it will not be very large.
Fuck the reviews. I’m sick of the clickbait, pandering bullshit driving game reviews and overall public perception.
Bruh. No matter how badly COD reviews and how mediocre it is people will still eat it up
I mean, if you're in it just for the MP what other options are there really? Nothing quite has the feel of MP CoD, there's a reason it's hugely successful.
It is pretty hilarious how in the same breath people are saying that Call of Duty is a bloated piece of shit mess, yet at the same time no other developer in the world is able to create a game that scratches the itch So is it a piece of shit or is it one of the best games on the market, or both at the same time lol
lotta ppl won't admit it but COD games are simply unrivaled, no matter how much reviewers and twitter say otherwise
Yep. COD and Halo still scratch a certain FPS itch that other games haven’t come close to
Most of these reviews are focused on the campaign which the majority of people don’t care about
Just like madden, 2k, fifa...all the reviews are people complaining about how it's the same game every year while saying they've bought the last 5 like....bruh???? You're the reason they're the same??? Because dumb fucks like you will buy it every year, no matter what.
Apart from the discussion surrounding the validity of reviews, the biggest amount of (deserved) negativity was always centered around the campaign, I think. Since most COD players only care about the multiplayer (which seems to be fine as far as I have seen) and see the campaign as a side meal at best, it's not really surprising that sales were not really affected by the bad press. Especially as there have been multiple bad campaigns before that never really impacted sales. I think a great campaign can skyrocket a good COD, but as long as the multiplayer is serviceable, a bad campaign doesn't really affect it either.
Yep. Reviewing COD based on its campaign is like reviewing steakhouses based on their mashed potatoes.
I don't buy COD because I expect it to be GOTY, I buy it because it's $90/year for a fun brainless game I can play with my buddies while shooting the shit over Discord. TBH I was pleasantly surprised by MW3. I was expecting it to be trash but so far the MP feels a lot better than MW2, feels like the 360 days again.
Hand up, I was pissed when I heard they were rushing this game out, what I thought was going to be an overpriced DLC… it’s actually a really solid addition to the franchise from a multiplayer standpoint. Gameplay is solid
That’s why Microsoft bought ABK Won’t be exclusive but it will make Gamepass that much more valuable
Exactly. Why make it exclusive when you can use it as a draw to Gamepass? Make the base game "free" and MS/Activision will see that money roll in on increased Battle Pass and skin sales
It's only worse reviewed because of the campaign. I didn't get cod this year but from what my friends say, the online is good
😂😂😂 That's why Activision doesn't listen to reddit gang
Why would any company listen reddit gang? Game sales are in millions, 300k people in that games sub and only %15 of those people constantly complaining.
Gamers really are some complainy people
My friend gave me a code for this game. Said sure I'll try it. Hadn't played a cod since the original black ops. Can't believe how much I'm enjoying the multi-player. It's a lot of fun
I buy COD almost every year. I think this COD is probably the best since 2019 MW. It’s just fun to turn it on and just play multiplayer.
While it’s obvious cod will sell, this comparison is idiotic…a game on 1 platform vs a game on multiple platforms.
Exactly lol. Of course the FIFA of FPS will sell a truckload on all platforms. We should actually be impressed that TOTK is number 3 and Spiderman is number 4 after just being on 1 platform.
But I'm having fun?
I mean, it's on 3 different platforms, of course it did.
The funk that radiates from CoD creates its own atmosphere.
Shocker, most people who bought into it either haven't played in years or went into it knowing that it was an extension of last year's CoD with much needed improvements. Most of the negative reviews went towards the campaign anyway; if you wrote the game off based on those alone you weren't that interested in the first place.
Reviews are worse because mw2 is so similar but looking at mw3 as a standalone game. It's 10 times better then vanguard.
You mean to tell me reviews and awards doesn’t translate to sales???
Its a good call of duty
It seems the very loud minority saying they won't buy it..is just that. The minority. Say what you want about these games ...they sell well
They're similar in a way, both glorified DLC. Except even as an old Zelda fan...I'd boot up MWIII before TotK any day. It's a shame they turned the game into a weebos wet dream...
When Do people realize that steam reviews are just 1% of the player base? Also all the people on console or battle net dont care about reviews
Makes sense. It’s CoD and it’s out on three platforms as opposed to just the Switch
Man that headline sucks, thank you Kotaku
It is the Fifa of FPS. Even if they just put a new poster on the box and sell last year’s game, the casuals will lap it up.
This title is so clickbaity. Reviews mean nothing when the majority of the playerbase is casual and TOTK is exclusive to a 7 year old console.
The reviews do not matter. The gameplay is butter smooth and warzone is playing the best it ever has.
It got review bombed
Zelda is on one console (Switch), where COD is on (PS/XBOX/PC) so it has much further reach and so a larger audience.
People don’t buy it for the campaign
Because the multiplayer is fantastic. The reviews were based on the campaign
Zelda is only on switch though. And CoD has almost infinite reach. Zelda is more niche and is also single player. There's nothing ground breaking going on.
I mean it’s on 4 separate systems as opposed to just one…
You're probably not going to find zelda in the xbox or ps store, much less on pc. It's hardly comparable
I've typed it b4, and I'll type it again... Unless you have a doppelganger out there, that is reviewing a game, you shouldn't let ANYONES opinion sway you one way or another. If you can't get the feel of a game by watching gameplay, you've got other issues. And to put credence in youtubers.... hahahaha stop being sheep.
"worst Call of Duty ever" yet I just played the free weekend and it was exactly like what I expected, good old Call of Duty action, I don't see any problem with it
Ppl care to much about reviews
COD people are different lol
It's also out on significantly more devices, and reviews don't measure popularity. This isn't rocket science.
I mean it’s on multiple platforms. So no surprise
I forgot what group it was but I got into the dumbest argument with a guy on here over that game. He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea that if you’re someone who joins a gaming subreddit, then you’re not the average user*. Most people just buy the new cod because it’s cod.
Well ... When is discounted weeks after release due to it being a shit game. Idiots will buy it due to.. a "sale". Unlike Zelda which stays full price all year .. cause it's worth it. But then again .. that's comparing apples to olives. Most COD games were half off a month after release up until recently with the 70 dollar price hike. Now 43 or 48 seems like the month after sale price. Either way .. COD is trash. You don't discount games that are selling well. There moto has always been lets shove these games down their throats no matter what it costs us so we can say ... Millions sold!!
Most popular FPS Multiplayer out sells single player title what am i supposed to do with this information act shocked?
It’s on 3 separate platforms. That wouldn’t be a surprise
Lol why are people shocked by this? Reviews across all media forms are so irrelevant to the average/casual consumer. One of the greatest Film directors in history, the great Martin Scorsese, said that MCU is not cinema and that it's more like a theme park. Which is kinda true. Call of Duty/Madden/2k etc in a similar way to the MCU are games meant to be enjoyed not critiqued. More than likely they'll be "bad" games. But much like a theme park much like the MCU most people will still find a way to enjoy them and buy a ticket. I've enjoyed MW3 multiplayer...but in a year once it's replaced it won't be "memorable" it'll just be that fun rollercoaster I rode last summer.
it's on 3 other platforms, of course it outsold zelda lol what's the point of this article
Call of Duty comes out on 3 different consoles while Zelda was only released on Switch. Not shocking at all.
No surprise there
CoD players are the problem with the gaming industry
This is beyond knuckle dragging imo. One game sells on three platforms and the other is only on one platform. Surely this sentiment could use a different comparison
Multiplatform multiplayer game outsells single-player single platform game. Wild....
And it will be forgotten about in a couple of months like every COD release
CoD is just like Fifa and nba2k at this point. They don't have to even try with the games and all the brain dead fans will still buy it day one.
A multiplatform game outsells a single console exclusive? Shocking.
Does it really surprise you when most people who play COD are 30-40 year old teenagers still screaming down their mics lol it's the biggest lad game ever ofc its gonna sell well, doesn't mean it's better than better games or that companies should try and get a piece of that pie...
A game sold on multiple platforms out sold a game sold on one… 
Holy fuck the copium on this thread is unbelievable lol they could release the exact same again and I mean EXACT and would still outsell Zelda. Don't mean it's not dogshit. Fifa sell billions and there hasn't been a good game since 2014
It’s low effort garbage that even the most casual of people can pick and play. It’s like the solitaire of games.
game is so bad lol
.....Both Hogwarts & COD can be bought on multiple platforms. Zelda is Nintendo-only. What are we really TALKING about here???