Video Games DCC

I always prefer if a game has a demo because then I actually get a feel of the game. There are a few games that I watched a lot of gameplay of and loved it, but when I actually purchased the game it wasn't as good as I though it would be.

Before i bought TFD i had already copies of Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun. I managed to sell them for 20 euros (normal price for the bundle with C&C Renegade).

StarCraft 2 is another RTS game i adore, it has a demo (called Starter Edition) but you kinda need to like the different stuff it has.

EA made a mess of the series with Tiberian Twilight. They pretty much took a big **** on well... everything. Wars was great - But Twilight was garbage.

I don't thik there is a demo for RA2.

I can't remember the exact name of it, but the first collection pack I bought had TibSun/Firestorm, Renegade, And RA2/YR.

I got TFD a few years ago on sale.

Anyone ever play Supreme Commander or SupCom Forged Alliance

I agree... Twilight was pure garbage... Never bought the game but looking at reviews i didnt got a single feeling to buy it.

I had that same collection bundle before i got TFD, i still have the Renegade disc, but Renegade... It wasnt that great... Loved the idea of a RTS turned into a FPS, but it just wasnt so appealing to me.

Uh, reviews can buy me games or they can make me forget about them. I always read at least 3 reviews before I decide on buying a game unless it's something I'm already pretty certain on or it's just come out and doesn't really have any reviews. For instance, I was thinking of spending a bit on Riptide on Steam, but I saw 4 reviews which rated it really low and I heard a few YouTubers say it wasn't a good game so I left it where I had originally wanted to buy it without seeing any of the content, just based on the fact that I quite liked Dead Island. And I know that with my liking of Dead Island I might have liked Riptide however I found that a massive flaw of Dead Island was that it is repetitive and that's one of the biggest complaints in Riptide.

Same here, though i sometimes buy a game regardless of reviews, and most of the games i do that are pretty fun.

And some games do get good reviews and barely have something new added to the game (mostly sequels of games). I bought StarCraft 2 since i liked the demo a lot and i played it cause i saw some gameplay on Youtube which made me really excited about the game. I have it now for 2-3 months and im still playing it a lot.

Although, a review is just a gamers opinion, and it may be a completely different view from what I think of the game. But if several gamers share the same opinion, it sends a message.

Indeed, yet it can still be liked, not everyone shares the same opinion, but is does send a message. Citadels for instance. Never heard of it till i saw it on Youtube... Im glad i watched that cause that game isnt worth $40 at all.

Also appearantly battle.net is down from 3am CEST till 11am CEST, and i suck at converting timezones. I badly wanna play StarCraft 2 since the patch does a lot of great stuff... Still imo Terrans are OP...

A lot of the times though it's just up to preference.

One of my new favorites, Stardrive, have pretty low scores. Metacritic have it rated 61. Very low scores, you'd think it would be a very crappy game... But it's awesome.

Anyway, if you like GTA you should give Just Cause 2 a try.

A review is just a way of someone expressing there opinion. However, often times some 'professional' critic reviews just just like advertisements for the game while others just lambaste the game just for attention using paper-thin reasoning.

That's why I cannot trust any professional reviews as well as user reviews and word of mouth via IRL or the internet.

There are a number of games that I've played through and enjoyed, to later find out that it has terrible ratings. Whereas I have bought games due to the high praise of critics, and I couldn't stand to finish them. It's definitely all about preference and past gaming experience...Also, some games have technically bad aspects (i.e., bad graphics?) but have a comforting characteristic about them. Game critics aren't necessarily objective.

I understand, and you are perfectly right. It's just that from personal experience, what critics think tends to be what I think.

Lol right. I bought BO2 for my XBOX and its awesome, but i was checking it on Amazon and its rating: 2.5 stars lmao. I was like wtf? Whats wrong? Same happened when i bought WWE SvR 2008 it wasnt so bad and it was only 3 stars.

BO2? Like in CoD: Black Ops 2?

If so i can see why it has such a low rating tbh. Its the same thing over again, with a few new stuff.
Fun fact: BO2 has the same engine as MW1

I think it's because people have realized how overrated Call of Duty games are now and yeah, it is fun, but looking at the qualities a game should have, in lacks in many departments. Call of Duty has lovers and haters, to say the least.

I used to like Call of Duty, a lot. MW2 was a game i really loved, BO1 was a bummer... but then MW3 came... And all the hate started to grow as i slowly experienced what people hate about the game... Without the community the game is ... decent, cant say i like the single player since its rubbish imo.

That is exactly what happened to me. I played over 38 days worth of MW2 in hours, yes, that long, I actually got to tenth prestige legitimately. Unfortunately that wasn't too much of a praised achievement because pretty much everyone had tenth prestige via hacking it or through someone else. I ended up with a total of 51 nukes. I was a MW2 bandit.

I had 0 nukes... I came close to it, but then some random guy blasts me in the face with a dual shotgun... Love to use the ACR silenced+FMJ

I had my classes organized for different styles of play. I would whip out the n00btube when things just got real.

I fell in love with MW2's assault rifles. SCAR, F2000, ACR... i even used the FAL a lot
Barely used snipers or riot shields, cant handle them properly