[navyboy]

That review was bs imo. The reviewer sounds like he hasnt played ace combat before. For some reason the storyline and sound got criticised and the sound department got a low score. These have been the core elements of AC from the start, and the main reason the previous titles scored high 8's to low 9's. The reviewer also criticised the sound being "overdone" without going into details. I dont understand, were the explosions too loud, was the music too epic? He also complained about, get this, there being unexpected twists in the mission that werent mentioned in the briefing before the mission! He was moaning about the fact that these unexpected twists/surprises in the battlefield (which should be praised!) rendered his aircraft useless in some situations - well thats what happens in real life, things in war dont go according to plan. He said stuff about his bomber being useless against air targets - thats true but it would bne lethal against ground units. Ace combat 6 missions will be huge with tonnes of land, sea, air targets - sadly theres no real world aircraft that can be devastating against all these targets. Fighters will struggle against ground forces, attackers will struggle against fighters, thats how it is. He also said that the missile alarm going off was irritating (thats what happens in air combat games) - that alarms meant to stop you from getting your *** shot down, if he flew better maybe he wouldnt be such a hot target. Overall, some really invalid claims against the game. Some of the IGN reviewers are simply incapable of delivering good reviews. I mean they had seperate reviews for the flight stick bundle and the regular version and he said that playing with the stick was "THE WAY" to play the game, and he said it made the game even more enjoyable - shouldnt that mean a higher rating. Both reviews got an 8.4.

The only valid negative claims were the ones criticising the fact that theres no clans and perhaps the multiplayer menu setup screen.

I personally think the score should have been around 8.8, as the reasoning in the review for most of the part, was weak. But yeah, thats why i dont really care too much about reviews - theyre subjective to personal opinion - thats why its not uncommon to see some sites rate games 20% above or below other review sites - this even happens between IGn and gamespot, so they dont count for much. I think hype has a lot to do with it as well, ive read information about how sometimes reviewers give games very high scores because its been hyped so much, even though they dont think it deserves it (this was an article relating to either halo 1 or 2). For example on metacritic, half the reviews gave halo 3 a perfect 100% even though they said it had some flaws.