Hear me out; it’s not what you think.
“Combined with the host of subtle and overt improvements to the array of other systems, the additions to make it more appealing to Esports, and the more fleshed out Zombies mode, this is not just a fantastic Call of Duty game, but one of the best shooters of the last decade.”
– IGN’s review on Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.
IGN, in the past decade has given several First Person Shooter games a HIGHER score than a 93.
This includes the following:
- Halo 2, 3, Reach, 4
- Metroid Prime 1, 2 , 3 and the Trilogy (Separately)
- Half-Life 2 & The Orange Box (Separately)
- Resistance 2
- Killzone 2
- Unreal Tournament 2004
- Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare 2
So why is this game “One of the best shooters of the last decade”? First off, this isn’t a slap to the wrist to Call of Duty, this is a slap to the wrist for review scores. This is evidence of why giving review scores is not something I do. I feel that giving a score will never do the game the justice it deserves, especially since they are usually either watered down to the point where anything below a 8.5 is bad, even when 8’s and 7’s are supposed to stand for good games with 6’s being fun but not great and 5’s being average. 8.5 is the new average. When people rely on review score averages, it makes the scores mean nothing. A 0-7 score means the same thing to most people: It’s a bad game. This isn’t supposed to be the case. This is why I use a badge system instead. It gets my point across, my feelings towards the game across, and it gives you something quick and easy to refer too.