7 replies to this topic

[BduSlammer]

or is more looked at as the most reliable , game spy gave MWO best at E3, gamespot gave it to {The last of us]

[Melissia]

Neither one...

[Manthony Higgs]

Neither. And I don't think this should be in general discussion

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

BduSlammer, on 07 June 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

or is more looked at as the most reliable , game spy gave MWO best at E3, gamespot gave it to {The last of us]

never take the word of anyone, no matter how reputable or credible. you need to make your own mind up - however previews and reviews are often a good place to be tipped off about things to look into.

reviews these days are usually nothing more than cleverly disguised paid advertisement, so it's good to look up things like developer comments, company track records with customer relations. what developers say in interviews is a great way to spot a trainwreck before you spend money on it. where customer reviews are a great way to spot trainwrecks after the hype engine stops

Edited by Battlecruiser, 07 June 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Arafinar]

Does it matter? Not to me, rarely do I pay attention to them.

[Team Leader]

This is in the wrong section. Just saying.

[Elgirts]

If either talk about MW:O, then they are both good as far as I am concerned. Each have a following, and each will hopefully generate interest in MW:O.

[Freyar]

GameSpot's coverage has been more enjoyable (overall) than Gamespy. Gamespy has kind of slipped into obscurity after their multiplayer backend decided to never improve.