Was going to buy it until i read IGN review.

[fede01_8]

W:TNO= 7.8
COD:Ghosts= 8.8

If IGN consider it worst than COD:Ghosts then it must really be an awful game

I'm not going to pay full price for a 7 game. Maybe I'll buy it when it's on sale.

[shelledfade]

Good decision, because it's only worth 20 dollars in any best case scenario.

[KiRA]

IGN gets payd from Activision. The ratings of them have always been an joke. Dont listen to those corrupt bastards.

[SwatForce]

>2014
>tust at IGN reviews

[Dyefed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduQvX4nU0k

[Adam]

Advice: Always take a "professional" review with a large grain of salt.

[Derangel]

And this folks is why review scores are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid and should never have been using in game reviews in the first place.

[shelledfade]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Derangel:

And this folks is why review scores are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid and should never have been using in game reviews in the first place.

Tihs is why I love game reviews, especially a consensus of player reviews rounded up. Otherwise, we may end up buying this for 60 dollars and then getting completely burned by it.

[Chaz]

This rocks. Could care less what IGN cares about this game.

[Ben]

Opprinnelig skrevet av ЯSCi Chaz:

This rocks. Could NOT care less what IGN cares about this game.

[Derangel]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Shelledfade:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Derangel:

And this folks is why review scores are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid and should never have been using in game reviews in the first place.

Tihs is why I love game reviews, especially a consensus of player reviews rounded up. Otherwise, we may end up buying this for 60 dollars and then getting completely burned by it.

Game reviews are great to have, review scores however are not. Reviews are ment to be read and taken into context. What do those two scores say on their own? Absolutely jack. There is no context to them. Hell for all we know it's a completely different writer for both which makes the comparison entirely null and void.

[Leon kennedy]

Ratings are REALLY subjective, it is all about what you expect from the game. This game is solidly made and was not made with laziness. It also runs REALLY well, better than a lot of games that are far older, and it looks just as good. The expectations these days is that games need to have multiplayer or else they get rated down... Not because the game is not fun, but because it does not cater to that kind of thing.

This is a single player game just like Bioshock is a single player game.

[Adx]

never listen to ign or gamestop.Iam long fan of wolfenstein and i instant bought it.Played for 2 hours now and had no issue at all.Gameplay is fun and fast paced.Iam getting 80 fps on gtx titan with i7 4.4 ghz.

[Big Boss]

an 8.8 for CoD:ghosts... isn't it obvious enough for you that that rating has been bought, not earned?

Don't look at ratings in the first place, ignore them. Look at people that review them and listen to thier experience and why they like/don't like it. Some like things that you don't, some hate things that are great for you. Ratings only show a number, not a reason...

[Mr. Bovine Joni]

Take a look at all the games you like, and then look at the IGN scores. If any of them are below COD:Ghosts.. what does that mean?

[Snorrlax]

The most obvious troll all day.