http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/11/17/call- ... ps-review/

If Treyarch’s goal with their Call of Duty games is to imitate Infinity Ward, they’re finally doing an impressive job. The shooting is as dull, the scripting claustrophobic, and the set-pieces try just as hard to distract from both. But without a great co-op mode to back it up, without a startlingly fresh setting, and interrupted by regular technical screw-ups, Call of Duty’s bluff and bluster has never felt so hoarse.

The visual dazzle and cinematic set-pieces are let down by bad scripting, glitchy multiplayer and increasingly dull firefights.


Tough but very fair review.

PrawnFlaps -LOL

FlounderChops

PC gamer isn't what it use to be. They gave Civ V a 93. Civ V is the MW2 of the Civ Franchise, if you haven't played, and deserves a 70 at best, glitches, barely runs on a beastly PC, and no real depth just horseman rushing in multiplayer plus the AI is retarded and funnels into arty choke points. Every other article is about how awesome minecraft is and honestly they are elitist to the core. They will give any game a good review just because it is PC exclusive and give any game a bad review if it is a multiplatiform game. I use to sub them but they have changed into a bitter mag.

I have to agree on Civ V, after playing the demo it did something that no other Civ title ever did to me, it made me bored.

They're still spot-on on BO IMO.

COD's SP is always going to be like it is i thought this one was the best one yet, + multilayer shows promise, and is fun at the moment think of what it could be. 64 is a stupidly low number they seem to be hating on it because COD is so big, judge it on what it is not were it came from + they do seem to only give PC only games good reviews were multiplatform game can be just as good if made on the PC well and supported, they forgot to talk about the shear amount of moneys worth you get with this game, yes there is no co-op.... there is zombies though and it is a lot of fun, and the is rarely a game that gives you this much content, a very subjective review PC gamer needed to take their blinkers off and look at the big picture a long time ago if you ask me

I dont think its a fair evalutation

really, a lot of people cant play the multiplayer ... a lot of problems with zombies connections ...

it gets you pissed off

spot on review, you cant score a game highly because of what it might be one day if they fix it, maybe.

If he would of said it gets a 64% because of bugs, yes I would agree, but he doesn't instead the review attacks the singleplayer and gameplay. It just seems like a bitter rant. And as I stated before Civ V is just as buggy and even more crappy and gets a 93% wth? What kind of standards is PCgamer using here because I see no consistency.

Look at customer reviews for Civ V http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-V-Pc/product-reviews/B0038TT8QM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 it averages 2.5

+1

I ignore most reviews by company's like Game trailers or PC gamer or other big reviewers i only go for individual reviews and look at a lot of them, this one is 3/4 about the SP and most people got the game for the MP this is y i stopped looking at PC gamer's website way to snoby about PC gaming, and strange inconsistencies in their scoring