I'm with the 'totally disagree with Jeff' bandwagon for this one. In his review he seems to focus on things that he let pass for bigger franchises like CoD, or things that are easily fixable (AI sucks in a multiplayer focused shooter). He's welcome to his opinion, but I could not disagree more and his review seems incredibly biased, almost like he wanted to not like it for some reason.

If you look at Jeff's QL he hated more than the bots.,..he talked about smart, the lack of content, and the feeling of the gunplay as well. I get that a lot of people like this game but dissing the reviewers by saying they didn't play the game "properly" before reviewing is dumb and disrespectful...Jeff even held off his review so he could get games in with actual people and that didn't change his mind.

I remember my first time, just like yesterday.  I was so confused, I didn't know what to do.  I was with my girlfriend and we were still experimenting when all of a sudden it happened.  I found the review.

" @scarace360 said:

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" Looks like a situation where the PC version will likely gather a greater audience that may keep that game alive.  Hearing about dedicated servers on the PC version and seamless netcode from that review makes it sound like they were developing for PC and porting over to consoles, only to mess up a lot of it throughout the process.  However the two complaints that are valid regardless of the platform are the dumb AI (at least true for any characters in the early levels I have heard) and that $60 is understandably quite a bit much for what looks like a multiplayer component to what should feel like a bigger game. "

But your playing multiplayer so why care about AI. "

It doesn't matter what the intent of the product is.  If a developer adds features to the game and they are broken, they are held responsible for the features not working.  The value of AI in a multiplayer game will always be subjective to each and every individual and thus that point still stands in a general context. "

I'm enjoying the game quite a bit.

I'm going to rent this.  I tend to respectfully disagree with GB's reviews. 

" The Witcher 2 > Brink "

" I'm with the 'totally disagree with Jeff' bandwagon for this one. In his review he seems to focus on things that he let pass for bigger franchises like CoD, or things that are easily fixable (AI sucks in a multiplayer focused shooter). He's welcome to his opinion, but I could not disagree more and his review seems incredibly biased, almost like he wanted to not like it for some reason. "

" @DryvBy said:

" This game is horrible on console, at least. Broken on so many levels. I kinda want to return it, and I never return games. I'm going to wait and see if they fix it up within the week. "

I don't know what jerry-rigged piece of shit console you're playing on, but beyond awful texture pop-in, I've had no real issues. "

Congratulations!

You unlocked the "Think for yourself for once" achievement!

This is probably the more rare achievement on all the Internet.

I disagreed with the Fable 3 review partly, since it was based a lot on Brad's (I think) opinion.

meh.  Still doesn't cope well that they went for the whole missions are just maps you complete, ala Unreal Tournament 3.  At least that game was fucked up and silly.  Aslo, I think every single person coming out and defending this game had bought into the hype and preordered it already, so gotta back it up I guess.

Buy this game, it's really fun and it's amazing how they removed the K:D rating. "

Why does removing the K:D ratio automatically make the game better?

Honestly, the game looks like Borderlands mixed with Shadowrun. I've heard the shooting described as "a bit clunky," which will inevitably lead to the game losing popularity to better "feeling" shooters.