Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Blasting on Metacritic Users 8: Black Ops II

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at Call of Duty: Black Ops II. It scored an overall 4.7/10 based on 642 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews", obviously way underrated and this article is going to explain why this game is more of a 8/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a positive rating on the website. A review is optional!


Haters love to hate and say that critics reviews for this game is biased. Maybe, but isn't haters just as biased. After all, they're probably fan boys of Halo or Battlefield and they think that the franchise is so superior that they have to hate every other games by saying it's the same thing every year (which is pretty cheap). But don't worry, this review is not biased. This review comes from a person who plays Call of Duty but accepts the fact that other franchises are just as good or better, but some do suck. We can't like everything but you can trust an unbiased review, like this one, where details about the game are considered, not the haters who say it's the same because it is and that's it.

Call of Duty is not getting better but to say it's the same is completely false and that's not even an opinion, it's a fact. Sequels can be different but they generally aren't which would usually make the franchise, as well as the business, inconsistent. Is Halo 2 so much different than Halo: Combat Evolved? Don't expect something completely new, it's a new game for a franchise that's been around for almost 10 years now. Also, game franchises that are released annually doesn't mean bad. Is Call of Duty the only franchise that does this? No, look at Assassin's Creed and Fifa. So, there are three modes. Campaign, Multiplayer and Zombies. Seen before but revamped with added features, campaign is the first in the franchise to feature branching storyline driven by player choice. It's also the first to feature nonlinear gameplay, thanks to it's multiple endings. But this feature is not so impressive if you're not into the story in the Black Ops series, you would instead go straight into the multiplayer like many fans. If you are, campaign is a real treat. The way you play the game is different and the story is not too predictable. Strike Force sounds awesome on paper and it could have been if it had been executed a bit better. The AI for allies is poor, you often have to direct them to one area and then do everything yourself.

When it comes to multiplayer, Infinity Ward has always been stronger with a more innovative and addictive multiplayer mode that adds depth to the franchise. Infected and Kill Confirmed especially in Modern Warfare 3. Theatre Mode sucks, it doesn't save all recent gameplays and you can only view them as clips but hopefully Treyarch will fix that. There are obviously new stuff you would expect such as guns, perks and scorestreaks. Pick 10 system is the best system in the franchise for class customization. It changes the way you play the game so instead of having to choose a grenade, you can replace it with another attachment if that's what you prefer. Wildcards cost one point each, they break the normal rules of creating a class, which allows you to select an additional perk. Three wildcards can be used in a loadout at a time which lets you select a perk from Tier 1, 2 or 3. The Pick 10 systems lets you choose 10 elements to make up a loadout and this is a system that should be used in future titles. Good thing about small maps is that the gameplay is paced faster so that shouldn't be a negative aspect, although the multiplayer map designs aren't the best in Black Ops II. CODCast is an innovative feature which allows you stream via YouTube if making YouTube video is one of your hobbies, which it is for many people. There may be a lot of little kids online but children these days don't play games that are age appropriate. Does that mean the franchise is bad? Hell, no! Kids play Grand Theft Auto and Halo but I don't hear any complaints about that. They may ruin the multiplayer experience but it's no one's fault but the parent who is responsible for the content that their child plays and watch.

Zombies comes with two new modes as well as Survival, Tranzit and Grief. Grief supports  8 players, 4 players per team, and the team wins if at least one of their players is the last one to survive. Tranzit mode is basically a combination of multiple maps and the only way to travel is by bus, as you might have seen in the trailer. Zombie is good fun and these are fun new modes if you want to play more than just Survival. Lava encourages you not to stand in one place, like you could do in previous titles featuring zombies, and it makes it more challenging but it's also annoying. When you get hit by a zombie a few times, you would often run into a lava and you could die. Still, you die and try again in many video games. Zombie is still the best aspect of Black Ops, although it's not as fun as it was in previous Call of Duty now that Modern Warfare 3 features Survival Mode. Graphics isn't everything and it doesn't have to look the best, the franchise isn't really known for having the best graphics, but it's still good enough for the standard of modern games. They use the same engine from Black Ops and improved it but because Infinity Ward uses a newer engine for their Call of Duty games, Modern Warfare 3 looks better.

8/10

Blasting on Metacritic Users 7: Modern Warfare 3

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. It scored an overall 3.0/10 based on 4961 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews", obviously way underrated and this article is going to explain why this game is more of a 9/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a positive rating on the website. A review is optional!


Modern Warfare 3, though not as good as it's predecessors, is a fantastic game. It's a bit similar to MW2 but hey, it's Call of Duty. What do you expect? A hack and slash game with a bit of RPG element? You came to the wrong place.

Call of Duty gives you more of the same, like many other franchises, and that's what Call of Duty should do. People talk about how Call of Duty should change but no one contributes any ideas and the formula sells so why change it? Hence why there are so many negative reactions and you can tell some just follow the bandwagon, not having an open mind or an opinion for themselves.

The compelling campaign and stellar multiplayer modes is what makes Call of Duty. Call of Duty can become a football game but then it wouldn't be Call of Duty and the franchise has enough b****es jumping on the bandwagon, boycotting the franchise as well as using the same excuse to hate the franchise every year "it's the same thing", so change is not going to solve anything. If anything, it'll make it worse.

Even if they use a newer engine, with loads of haters complaining about the "dated" graphics (graphics isn't everything y'know), there would still be haters. Same amount as it is today. It runs consistently at 60 FPS which makes up for it's graphics, it's not the best but it still looks good.

Consistent frame rate is required for competitive play rather than graphics that makes you go "wow" and there are loads of better looking games such as Uncharted as well as Final Fantasy. Because that's what makes Call of Duty the fast-paced, addictive shooter that it is today. What makes Call of Duty the most famous shooter?

Simple, this game offers what very few games offer, you know, sometimes there's nothing like running around stabbing people or quick scoping and running while shooting on all directions. Call of Duty does that better than any game, that's what the fans like and that's the right answer. There are many worse games out there, Prison Break: The Conspiracy and Terminator: Salvation are just some of the games that are worse than Call of Duty.

Survivor Mode is an addition to the already seen Spec Ops. It's not original but it's a great addition to the franchise that surpasses zombie mode in Treyarch's Call of Duty, enemies don't spawn in the same place. Instead, they move tactically based on your current location so you can camp in one spot and shoot all the enemies but you can't do that forever. It lets you practice all the weapons seen in multiplayer so the skills that you've learnt can be extrapolated and transferred into multiplayer, Call of Duty's highlight feature. Zombies is just for fun but it's not really that fun anymore now that Modern Warfare 3 has Survival Mode and, hopefully, we'll see it again in Infinity Ward's next Call of Duty (presumably titled Modern Warfare 4).

Multiplayer has some great new modes that adds more depth into the multiplayer mode. Infected is like zombies and it's really intense as well as addictive. It's a fun mode for those who don't care about their K/D ratio. Kill Confirmed is another good one, it's TDM but you collect dog tags that counts as a kill. This is a bit more team based mode as opposed to the regular TDM where players are free to wonder about.

Killsteaks is revamped so it's now called Pointstreaks. Kills doesn't just count towards your Killstreaks anymore, completing objectives such as planting bomb or capture the flag counts towards Killstreaks and this encourages players to play the objective in objective based game modes.

Killstreaks are organized into three different strike packages. Assault for chopper gunners, Support for UAV and Specialist for more perks. These are also customizable so you can have one class where you have the Assault packages and in the other class, you can use Specialist so you don't have to go back to the menu to change your Killstreaks; just customize them from your existing classes.

There's a lot of features in Modern Warfare 3 that haters fail to see. Prestige Shop encourages you to prestige, you get a token every time you prestige and you can use that token to buy double XP as well as an extra class. Each weapon has Proficiencies, which is basically perks, and you can only use one at a time. You can have one where you can add an extra attachment, one that reduces recoil and many more.

Overpowered perks and dolphin dive, seen in Black Ops, have been removed so the game is more balanced. Infinity Ward fixes bugs and glitches unlike Danger Close, who did a really bad job with Medal of Honor: Warfighter. With that being said, Modern Warfare 3 has gone above and beyond the Call of Duty with an amazing campaign as well as stellar multiplayer modes.

FPS fans, don't miss out. Call of Duty lives up to the hype, and this game is how Call of Duty evolves. Infinity Ward takes a streamlined approach, which is why Modern Warfare 3 isn't as good as Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 4. But still, Infinity Ward did a good job with the Call of Duty franchise.

9/10

Blasting on Metacritic Users 6: Black Ops Review

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at Call of Duty: Black Ops. It scored an overall 6.0/10 based on 798 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "mixed or average reviews", obviously underrated and this article is going to explain why this game is more of a 9/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a positive rating on the website. A review is optional!


Black Ops is the best from Treyarch's Call of Duty that deserves high praise with even more customization and awesome new weapons such as the crossbow. RC-XD is a bit overpowered but when you become more advanced, RC-XD isn't the ideal killsteak you want to use. You can certainly get a kill with it but you get even more with other killstreaks like dogs and choppers. It's a good way for newbies to get into Call of Duty and it's an awesome killstreak to use. It's much like driving a remote controlled car in real life.

Map designs are stylish that goes with the games' Cold War setting. The game still runs perfectly at 60 FPS even if the graphics isn't the best. Theatre Mode is a great addition for those who wants to post their gameplay on YouTube. You can pick out the best gameplay and record that instead of recording everything then cropping, during editing, until you get the best ones, like you would do in previous Call of Duty games, the feature as well as the video runs perfectly. You can only record about 30 seconds of the gameplay with Theatre Mode so if you want to record everything, you'll need to buy a capture card.

Wager matches is a great addition to Call of Duty's multiplayer. Currency is a bit controversial but we wouldn't have wager matches without them. Gun game is a fun mode where you start with a Python and each kill allows the player to move up one weapon tier which will grant you a new weapon. You win by getting to the last tier and kill an enemy with that weapon. You downgrade a tier when you're knifed. One in a Chamber is where you start with one bullet with a M1911 and you get one more bullet for each kill.

Sharpshooter cycles a random weapon every 45 secs, you get perks for every kill and eventually a scoring multiplier. You lose the perks when you die and you have to earn them again. Sticks and Stones is a rubbish game mode where you kill enemies with a Crossbow, Tomahawk and Ballistic Knife. If you have the skills to handle these weapons, Stick and Stones might be fun for you. Top 3 gets money and it's the best way to earn money to buy goods like weapons and attachments. Everyone else would lose money but hey, it's like gambling so don't complain. You lose some, you win some!

Dolphin Dive is unbalanced, the idea of dive to prone while still maintaining accuracy is the reason for so. Some balancing issues, connection problems and crappy game modes makes this Call of Duty not as good as Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare series but it's still better than World at War. Zombies is also really fun and it's probably the best feature in Treyarch's Call of Duty. If you missed out on Medal of Honor so that you can play Black Ops, you've made the right decision.

9/10

Blast on Metacritic Users 5: Modern Warfare 2 Review

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It scored an overall 5.9/10 based on 1657 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "mixed or average reviews", obviously underrated and this article is going to explain why this game is more of a 9/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a positive rating on the website. A review is optional!


Modern Warfare 2 is an improvement on Call of Duty 4. Campaign is short but compelling, Special Ops is a slick package of a variety of mini missions but it's the multiplayer that keeps you hooked on Call of Duty.

It has a lot of depth, killstreaks allow you to do more than just shoot. It's very rewarding and awesome to use. In Call of Duty 4, you only had 3. In Modern Warfare 2, you can only use three but you have 15 killstreaks to choose from.

Modern Warfare 2 introduces several new features, not seen in Call of Duty, aside from new weapons, equipment and perks that upgrade to "pro versions" after meeting utilization requirements. If you're really good, you can get a nuke (25 killstreak) and the person who use it will win for the player, him or herself, or the team no matter who's winning.

Host migration is a bit annoying, since the host likes to rage quit, but it lets you continue on with the game instead of going back to the lobby, where you would lose your victory points and extra exp if you were about to win.

Third person is an option in selected game types and there are new game types as well as the return of Team Deathmatch, Search & Destroy etc. Trophies/achievements is very easy so this game is a good collection for you trophy/achievement whores as there are no multiplayer achievements, though you would need two players for some.

Special Ops has a variety of mini missions from snowmobile race to eliminating enemies. Special Ops is great if you need a change from multiplayer. Graphics isn't the best but it runs consistently at 60 FPS on console. Consistent frame rate is required for competitive play rather than graphics that makes you go "wow" and there are loads of better looking games out there, such as Uncharted as well as Final Fantasy.

People like to annoy you online, doesn't make the game itself bad. If you run into some annoying c**t, just mute him. Simple! People b***hing about trickshotters. So what? They get killed more than they kill anyway. Again, doesn't make the game bad. It's how the player chooses to play. Killstreaks isn't consistent but it's how the franchise evolves. It's one of the best shooters out today so if you haven't played it, you're missing out.

9/10

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Blasting on Metacritic Users 4: Act of Valor Review

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at Act of Valor. It scored an overall 6.6/10 based on 121 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "generally favorable reviews", obviously overrated and this article is going to explain why this movie is more of a 2/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a negative rating on the website. A review is optional!
Theatrical poster
Act of Valor is about a group of soldiers whose mission is to rescue a kidnapped CIA agent and save America from terrorists.

From first time directors, Scott Waugh and Mike McCoy craft a generic action movie rather than a realistic war film. Casting real active Navy SEALs, as leading actors, to make the rescue mission more authentic is a good attempt, they may know how to run Special Ops but they sure as hell can’t act. It’s almost laughable when they talk and the lame dialogues make their interaction even more embarrassing than it already is. Before you continue reading this review, you don’t have to like Act of Valor to support the troops for their services. After all, it’s just a movie with a fictional story.

What’s real is the shooting (using real ammunition), explosions and active Navy SEALs but the performances are not? It's unnatural and surely good acting makes a film more realistic, right? The action sequences were thrilling to watch, give the movie that. The way the soldiers move in silence is really intense and engaging, though at times it makes you feel like you’re playing a FPS game, but some of the action sequences, such as the chase scene, does feel too Hollywood.

The script is so cliché that it would even mortify real actors, the plot to this movie can be described in two lines like in the first paragraph because the story is so basic. It’s probably the only movie to cast active duty Navy SEALs but you don’t have to cast real Navy SEALs to make a movie more realistic. Take Saving Private Ryan for example, worthy of Best Picture award, a war film that redefines the genre featuring realistic battle scenes, anchored by Tom Hank’s performance and he’s not a Navy SEAL.

A film that’s based on actual events, missions conducted by Navy SEALs in this case, doesn't always classify a movie as good, J. Edgar and Amelia for example, even if the topic seems interesting enough to make a movie based on it. The film shows you what it’s like to be a U.S. Navy SEAL but it completely ignores the complexity of war, the soldier’s attitude doesn't help the movie to try and show it either. Their extreme patriotism makes them feel so positive that they’re going to complete the mission, without worrying about the consequences and return home safely to their family; they’re almost like the cast of The Expendables. The lack of character development, basically a group of men with no discernible personalities, makes the film unemotional when at least one of the soldiers predictably dies in the end or when Rorke leaves and his wife is upset to see him go.

On an unrelated note, for those who hates Call of Duty because of Second Chance (and Final Stand) or they feel that getting too many hit markers makes the game unrealistic then watch the scene where Shabal shoots Dave near the end. He shoots Dave around 30 times then Dave, critically wounded, pulls out a pistol and shoots a suicide bomber dead which is the equivalent of hit markers as well as Call of Duty’s Second Chance or Final Stand. Let’s just hope that Act of Valor, advertised as based on true events, and Call of Duty, advertised as one of this generation’s best shooters, isn't the sole reason for someone to join the military.

In conclusion, the realistic missions are admirable but the plot gets muddled as the movie goes on and the mediocre script as well as the poor acting only makes it worse. This movie would've been better if it were a documentary, as this would really show the intensity of war and capture it realistically if well-made.

2/10

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Blasting on Metacritic Users 3: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

This new blog series titled "Blasting on Metacritic Users" is about metacritic.com users who overrates or underrates a movie, TV show, game or music and just how wrong they are. Today, we're taking a look at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It scored an overall 8.2/10 based on 1946 ratings according to metacritic (the scores can easily change) which indicates "universal acclaim", obviously way overrated and this article is going to explain why this movie is more of a 5/10. If you strongly agree with this review, you can help bring the ratings down by submitting a negative rating on the website. A review is optional!
Theatrical release poster
Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s novel, The Hobbit, but here’s the question? The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than The Hobbit but that film was adapted into a two-parter so why make another trilogy, based on one novel, when you can just adapt the novel into one film, or two at most?

Oh, of course, money! It’s all about trying to top up the box office success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy for Peter Jackson, and fans don’t seem to realize this. The Hobbit does not match the standard that was set in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. It may not be the same film franchise, as fans keep mentioning all over the internet, but it’s certainly very similar in terms of the film’s setting, characters and visual style.

Just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie suffers from a long running time. But without the emotional and engaging storytelling that The Lord of the Rings trilogy has, The Hobbit just seems to drag on and on with its slow pacing.

The Hobbit uses a higher frame rate and it’s the first film to use 48 frames per second instead of the standard 24 frames. It may improve 3D footage but it doesn't add any value to the movie viewing experience so is it really necessary? Some scenes looks great, just like Peter Jackson’s many other films, but at times, it looks like the actors are on set rather than a scene. It can be hard to get use to but fans will hardly notice.

The special effects are amazing, just like they were in The Lord of the Rings, but The Hobbit is missing Peter Jackson's combination of practical and special effects that makes the orcs so realistically terrifying that the orcs in this movie look a little cartoonish. This is probably to cut down on budget cost but surely this movie will make billions or, at least, generate more than enough profit at the box office. The music score is also amazing, evoking memories of The Lord of the Rings.

It just shows that Peter Jackson relies too heavily on visual effects nowadays that his most recent films are lacking. One of which is The Lovely Bones, a film which lacks the majesty of the novel that made it such a huge success. Another is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a film, as mentioned earlier, that’s too similar to but does not match the quality set by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Peter Jackson is still a worthy director, considering every film he has ever directed, but if he keeps this charade up, then he won’t be.

The film’s cast are short of any complaints, with standout performances from Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman, as Bilbo Baggins. Andy Serkis's voice acting, as Gollum, is fantastic as always and Richard Armitage was also spot on in his role, as the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield. This makes him the most memorable dwarf out of the 13 and the rest feels like they were just stuffed in as there's not a lot of character development compare to The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

It’s great to see hobbits on a quest across Middle-earth once again but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is no excuse to revive the “Middle-earth franchise”, just like The Bourne Legacy, a film that tries to revive The Bourne franchise, and The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that tries to revive The Spider-Man franchise, though these two films are pretty decent overall. But in the end, all these films are really unnecessary and we can live without it. It just shows that Hollywood have no new ideas, as many people might have speculated, and has to resort into rebuilding the franchise that should have been left alone when it ended satisfactorily.

In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.

5/10

Saturday, 29 December 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

Theatrical release poster
The Amazing Spider-Man is a superhero movie. It’s the first of another Spider-Man trilogy so you can probably guess what the movie is basically about, the origins of Spider-Man and how he saves the day.

After director Sam Raimi decided not to make a fourth Spider-Man film, Sony Pictures Entertainment decided to start from scratch and reboot the series so that they can keep the rights to make a motion picture based on the franchise.

Initial impression of the casting choices was, at first, skeptical  Sure, Garfield and Stone are great actors but were they suitable for their role? After seeing the movie, you can see the effort that the cast puts into their role, especially Garfield, as well as the easy chemistry between Garfield and Stone.

As usual, the actions sequences are thrilling to watch but some of them, as well as the CGI for The Lizard, were very unconvincing. The Spider-Man costume looks a bit weird but this doesn't drag the whole movie down. The film also feels rushed as the film moves along; it just couldn't wait to get to the next scene.

We do want to see Spider-Man back in action but we don’t want to see the origins of Spider-Man over and over again. The movie revisits many of the same plot points from Raimi’s first Spider-Man movie. It would've been more exciting to see Spider-Man 4, despite the disappointing third film, because then the story would've continued.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man when compared to Raimi’s Spider-Man. His films displays the struggles that Peter Parker goes through every day, whether he’s Spider-Man or an unpopular high school student. Garfield, as Parker, is a little cocky, despite getting picked on by Flash, but still quite likable.

In conclusion, The Amazing Spider-Man is far from amazing with its many flaws. But for what it is, The Amazing Spider-Man is a thrilling superhero movie thanks to Webb’s bold direction and the enjoyable performances from its cast. It’s great to see Spider-Man back into web-slinging action but we could probably live without the reboot.

7/10