Yeah, he's funny. I don't think his opinions are worth much, though. In the Halo 3 review video you posted, he admits to not trying the multiplayer and even says he doesn't give a **** about it. After playing the single player campaign, he concludes that the Halo 3 hype was excessive because the game is average and not great.

What he doesn't acknowledge or seem to understand is that the 1 player campaign wasn't the reason for the hype - the multiplayer bit which he never even tried was. Halo fans like the multiplayer and so obviously they weren't looking forward to Halo 3 because of the single player, duh.

I mean, as a review, it's embarassing - but at least it entertains.

edit :

Inevitably, people are gonna do the same to MW2. Some who like multiplayer will probably say it's a great game and then there are those who pick it up and only ever play the 1p campaign and that's perhaps good for what .. 4-5 hours or a bit more of fun?

They're gonna complain of course and say the game is overhyped. ;)

True but his job is not to be a serious reviewer, his job is to rant in a funny way.

I pretty much decided I hated this guy after watching his Brawl review, he made a few good points like the sprites being too small but he clearly didn't get all his facts right. Like when he complained about it taking 10 hours to unlock Sonic, first off that was only one method of unlocking him, he didn't seem to realise that you could unlock Sonic by simply beating the arcade mode with 10 different characters, that's what I did and it only took me an hour.

However I realise that his job is to simply rant about his subjective opinions in a funny manner, not to give objective and professional reviews, anyone who considers his reviews unbiased and reliable consumer advice is clearly an idiot.

But for that I can forgive him for getting his facts wrong from time to time. That's not what he's being paid to do.

At least he's honest for admitting he hasn't played it.

And I do agree with his point that not everybody wants to spend a lot of money on a game that's only good for multiplayer. And that you shouldn't call a game perfect if you keep having to make excuses for it. Half assed single player is a legitimate complaint, if the single player isn't important then why is it there to begin with?

Which is why if I ever get this game I'll be sure I can play it online.

I think that's the part that non FPS players don't get.

Fans of this game type don't buy a COD title for the single player, we buy it for the multiplayer. How good the cpu AI is never a huge concern and how innovative the game is doesn't really matter believe it or not. When you add real people to the mix no two games are going to play out the same way and the game stays fresh b/c strategies have to continue to evolve to remain effective.

That's the attraction of multiplayer games for serious gamers. I honestly think the majority of people who refuse to acknowledge the skill level necessary to perform well in an online FPS are the ones who have horrible reflexes thus having no chance of excelling in said competitions

With that being said, CODMW2 has made enough innovations to make both the single and multiplayer aspects of the game fresh and enjoyable. I'm not going to list them all but the choose your own killstreak and the evolving perks are both near the top of my list.

But at the end of the day, isn't multiplayer always fun? At least when it's with actual flesh and blood people in the room. I just think the industry has gotten incredibly lazy by making everything all about multiplayer, it's becoming a crutch for those that have no creativity left.

I love a good multiplayer but lets be honest, not everybody has friends, sometimes it's just you and the game, and while online play is the obvious alternative for that, playing with a bunch of f*ckwads online who keep throwing homophobic slurs at you for no reason whatsoever other than to be douchebags.... well it's not the same to say the least.

I should at least be able to play a game whenever I want and still have fun because friends just aren't that f*cking reliable most of the time to tell you the truth.

Single player is still highly preferable at the end of the day, because lets be honest, most of the time when I'm hanging out with other people we priobably wont even think about playing video games, but when I'm alone with nothing to do, which is basically all the time, then that's a completely different story. And sometimes friends just ruin the totally emmersive effect a great game can have.

Oh please, like I said before, Call Of Duty is the most casual shooter franchise on the market. Call Of Duty does for FPS's what Wii did for gaming in general.

Hmm.... I'll take that as a compliment. :)

Lol, I meant that in the way that it brings tons of people into the genre who wouldn't play otherwise. This is due to its simple controls, simple gameplay, and addictive multiplayer.

The gameplays only simple when you're playing against people who have no idea what they're doing. Give me an example of a non casual FPS on consoles? Socom, Halo, Rainbow 6?...pffftttt.

If I'm not playing with people on my friends list I actually rarely use my mic b/c of that. Or I just mute everybody who's being obnoxious which I'll admit can very easily be everyone in the room with you.

I have to disagree with your last statement though. Playing with a friend has never ruined a gaming experience for me in fact its been the opposite. A good deal of my memorable gaming experiences have included a friend and thats with going back to Atari.

Notice how I said the most casual FPS. FPS's by nature, are not casual games, so it's all relative.

I would hesitate to call Battlefield: Bad Company casual by any means. It's got huge maps, vehicles, a destructible environment, and far more diverse gameplay than run 'n' gun.