[kingbal]

Please! As a courtesy to others; avoid posting any spoilers in your reviews.

A 10 should only be given for a landmark game that sets new rules, a 9 for a truly excellent game without flaw, and an average game that does things right but nothing special should get a 5 (not a 7 or 8 like some would have you believe).


I'm waiting patiently for blockbuster to open at 10 so i can go and pick this up! This got 9.4 on IGN so I'l be interested to see how this AVF poll pans out. ( I was thinking maybe we'd only need the top 5 poll options )

[dmcmorrine]

Outstanding and genre-defining!. no other words for it. As close to a flawless game as they come, and the new benchmark for the realistic FPS!

[Sinzer]

TBH I think review threads should be put up at least a week after release. How can you possibly give a decent review based on 1 days (less than that) play?

Nice benchmark for first impressions, but to be decent reviews for future purchasers people should have to have time to play the game.

[Rich G]

Originally Posted by Sinzer

TBH I think review threads should be put up at least a week after release. How can you possibly give a decent review based on 1 days (less than that) play?

Nice benchmark for first impressions, but to be decent reviews for future purchasers people should have to have time to play the game.

I agree, I think alot of games ie: Warhawk, when they first come out people go mad saying its the best game ever but ask them a month or two later and its a different story.

I will wait about 3-4 weeks before I vote for what its worth

Rich.

PS: I'm not saying Warhawk is rubbish just that alot of people who gave it an 8 or 9 may now after playing it for a while give it a 6-7.

[paulesparks]

Originally Posted by Rich G

I agree, I think alot of games ie: Warhawk, when they first come out people go mad saying its the best game ever but ask them a month or two later and its a different story.

I will wait about 3-4 weeks before I vote for what its worth

Rich.

PS: I'm not saying Warhawk is rubbish just that alot of people who gave it an 8 or 9 may now after playing it for a while give it a 6-7.

Warhawk is still an 8 or 9 for me. Didn't think much to it at first but grow on me loads after a couple of weeks.

I'll hopefully have COD4 tonight but i won't rate it for a couple of weeks also.

[kingbal]

Originally Posted by Sinzer

TBH I think review threads should be put up at least a week after release. How can you possibly give a decent review based on 1 days (less than that) play?

Nice benchmark for first impressions, but to be decent reviews for future purchasers people should have to have time to play the game.

Totally agree with you fella and tbh, i don't think anybody will vote anytime soon. I was just bored and thought i'd set it up.

After playing the first two levels, i feel it deserves a 9 and i can't see that score reducing after more playtime! Very impressed.

[Rich G]

Originally Posted by kingbal

After playing the first two levels, i feel it deserves a 9 and i can't see that score reducing after more playtime! Very impressed.

Yes but it may get better and you feel it deserves a 10

[kingbal]

Originally Posted by Rich G

Yes but it may get better and you feel it deserves a 10

I have no doubt

[Sinzer]

Yeah for COD4, it don't make much difference, it is as awesome as a FPS game could be.

[dbmccomiskey]

Its an outstanding game!! Graphics are wonderful and gameplay is superb!

[Fen Star]

Got to agree so an excellent first person shooter i will vote in a week or so but it is certainly going to be high a 9/10 or 10/10...to be sure....

Graphics and smoothness are really nice.....

[Tigerblade]

A high 9 from me. Amazing effects and gfx really submerse you into the game. Only reason I wouldn't give it a 10 is because it isn't genre defining imo. I think TF2 and UT3 will have more longevity online, not to say this isn't the best fps I've played probably since HL2 was released.

[kar1181]

Originally Posted by Sinzer

TBH I think review threads should be put up at least a week after release. How can you possibly give a decent review based on 1 days (less than that) play?

Nice benchmark for first impressions, but to be decent reviews for future purchasers people should have to have time to play the game.

Dunno IGN and co manage it...

[beowulf]

this MASTERWORK makes warhawk look like something on the spectrum . it really does

this game is simply jawdroppingly mindblowingly amazing

i'm a bit staggered by the whole experience tbh

and this is the same day as the iphone launch and i'm a total mac fanboy

so it MUST be bloomin' good !



even better than COD2 which i never thought could be surpassed

online it's amazing , even more fun than rfom , and miles more tactical and involving

[Muzzaroo]

Originally Posted by dmcmorrine

Outstanding and genre-defining!. no other words for it. As close to a flawless game as they come, and the new benchmark for the realistic FPS!

Agreed 100%

A 10 from me!

[Moogle]

Originally Posted by beowulf

this MASTERWORK makes warhawk look like something on the spectrum . it really does

Considering they are two very different games I don't think that is a valid point. Besides we all know about your utter distaste for Warhawk judging by the number of times you've commented on it in various threads.

[AndyLFC5]

Relentless kaos, feels like you are there, enemy movement so realistic, amazing graphical touches, superb sound. Maybe now loyal Halo fans will realise this is what next gen is all about, and admit to themselves Halo does not deserve the attention or hype it gets. Saying this is game of the year, is not saying enough.

[zAndy1]

Holy ******* ****! Ennuf said

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by AndyLFC5

Relentless kaos, feels like you are there, enemy movement so realistic, amazing graphical touches, superb sound. Maybe now loyal Halo fans will realise this is what next gen is all about, and admit to themselves Halo does not deserve the attention or hype it gets. Saying this is game of the year, is not saying enough.

I think this is a great game with fantastic graphics, but it runs perfectly well on a 4 year old pc with a very average graphics card so I think we can look forward to better graphically in the near future, maybe with Killzone 2

[zAndy1]

So it looks as good on a 4yr old PC with very average graphics card does it? Somehow I doubt it..

[dekoded]

Originally Posted by zAndy1

So it looks as good on a 4yr old PC with very average graphics card does it? Somehow I doubt it..

Yeah I doubt that as well, what are the recommended and minimum system specs for this game on PC ?

[kingbal]

Originally Posted by AndyLFC5

Relentless kaos, feels like you are there, enemy movement so realistic, amazing graphical touches, superb sound. Maybe now loyal Halo fans will realise this is what next gen is all about, and admit to themselves Halo does not deserve the attention or hype it gets. Saying this is game of the year, is not saying enough.

Yeh its true I've got loads of friends that bum halo and now they have it they (and I) aren't as impressed as they expected they'd be.

This game is a truly cinematic experience and anybody umming and arring about getting it should take the leap. I can only hope that Assasins Creed runs as smoothly and looks as hot as this! The only thing thats holding me back from scoring this a 10 is that were early in the PS3's life cycle and i think the genre defining games won't be seen until at least next year.

[ruffage]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

I think this is a great game with fantastic graphics, but it runs perfectly well on a 4 year old pc with a very average graphics card so I think we can look forward to better graphically in the near future, maybe with Killzone 2

Can anyone say if the PS3 version looks as pretty as the PC version (on a decent rig) please?

As good as this?

I'm thinking my games budget should have gone on CoD4 instead of R&C...

[Moogle]

Originally Posted by ruffage

Can anyone say if the PS3 version looks as pretty as the PC version (on a decent rig) please?

As good as this?

I'm thinking my games budget should have gone on CoD4 instead of R&C...

A console version is never going to look as good as a PC version on a half decent system.

[TheShatter59]

Who gave this a 2 ?!!??!?!?!?!

[kingbal]

not sure but i'd like some justification please whoever you are!

[crown62]

Has anyone by chance got COD4 on the ps3 and 360? My 4th 360 broke recently, and in frustration I got a refund and went for a ps3.

I am real pleased with the ps3 and have COD4 for it,but, finding the controller not as good for fps as the xbox one, and then multiplayer seems a bit more hit and miss for getting on an on line game. Has onyone else with both consoles got any views? Thanks.....

[TheShatter59]

Originally Posted by kingbal

not sure but i'd like some justification please whoever you are!

darn right, this game is mind blowing, the online is superb great action and banter

[dekoded]

From what I could find the system specs for the PC version are:

Recommended Specs

CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better is recommended
RAM: 1GB for XP; 2GB for Vista is recommended
Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better

Minimum Specs

CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista)
Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space
Video card (generic): NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600 or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800Pro or better


I don't actually agree that:
"A console version is never going to look as good as a PC version on a half decent system."

I think a game such as cod4, which is generally regarded as being very evenly matched on all three platforms, can look as good because the PS3 version is more likely to be played on a big widescreen hi-def screen from about 8ft away, rather than a 19" monitor from about 2ft away.

The resolutions at which the game is going to be played on both systems is virtually identical for most people as well.

I admit that a top spec PC would look better, but unless you spend about £500 - £1k on a PC then I think the results will be very similar.

PC gaming and Console gaming are obviously very different 'styles' of gaming, but I don't think one is inherently better than the other, lets face it, the PC was never designed with gaming in mind and although a mouse and keyboard offer much finer control than a pad, is that actually good?

I find that playing a FPS on a PC is easier as it's basically just moving a cursor on a group of pixels and clicking, I actually think this is too easy and doesn't really involve 'aiming', and most people have had a lot of practice moving mouse pointers around a screen and clicking on things, how many real life weapons would be this easy to use without any practice?

On PC FPS games there just isn't any feeling of weight or inertia, it's possible to spin around 180 degrees with a 'big heavy gun' in a fraction of a second.

RTS games really should be played on a PC though!

[paulesparks]

Originally Posted by Johnnie

PC gaming and Console gaming are obviously very different 'styles' of gaming, but I don't think one is inherently better than the other, lets face it, the PC was never designed with gaming in mind and although a mouse and keyboard offer much finer control than a pad, is that actually good?

I find that playing a FPS on a PC is easier as it's basically just moving a cursor of a group of pixels and clicking, I actually think this is too easy and doesn't really involve 'aiming', and most people have had a lot of practice moving mouse pointers around a screen and clicking on things, how many real life weapons would be this easy to use without any practice?

On PC FPS games there just isn't any feeling of weight or inertia, it's possible to spin around 180 degrees with a 'big heavy gun' in a fraction of a second.

Have to agree 100% with this post.

Wheres the skill in pointing and clicking. My Gran could finish a PC FPS doing that!