First, I don't care what system I get it for. I'm a gamer, I just want the game already. If the graphics are better on 360, I'll get the 360 version. If it's better on PS3 version, I'll get that version. But I was thinking just now about what MS has done with the whole DLC scene, and how fanboys have been saying the 360 version is the ''complete'', or the ''definitive'' version. This isn't a rant against the 360, or DLC. I have no beef with the system, but more or less MS, and what gamers are allowing them to do.
If the PS3 isn't getting the complete game, then don't release a PS3 version. It's as simple as that. Us gamers have just allowed MS to potentally screw up a great franchise for a large number of fans. If there's one thing fanboys all have in common, it's that everyone's simply a ''fan''. Lemmings can claim that it's just buisness, but it's much more then that. If a large group of fans aren't getting the definitive game because MS simply payed for content, how can you support this and call yourself a gamer? I'm not talking about graphical differences, that's not at all part of this argument. (that's obviously based on a system's limitations. Nothing can be done about that) I'm talking about content, and/or the loss of it by choice.
A great franchise like GTA now, but what next? If MS payed for exclusive content for every game, half the audience is getting screwed over because the franchise ''sold out'' and allowed a lesser version by choice. Don't you want everyone to enjoy GTA? This isn't the same as paying for exclusive titles... That means the definitive game is only being released on one system. Gamers only have the one choice. Nothing wrong with that.
If Square announced they were releasing the next Final Fantasy on 360, but leaving out 20 hours of the gameplay because Sony payed for those exclusive hours. Almost everyone would say thats ridiculous, and boycott it. 360 would be getting a crippled version. We'll, if the PS3 isn't getting the complete definitive GTA4, what is it getting? A crippled port? But R* didn't leave anything out of the PS3 version. So again, what does that make the PS3 version? The 360's versions little brother? Going by fanboy logic, MS has just messed around with the artistic value of the game for a large majority of fans. Because in the end, the fans are what makes the game. And the last thing I want as a gamer is for the fans to get screwed. Apparently thats okay though with MS, and it's followers.
Again I'm not trying to attack lemmings, the 360, but more or less what MS has done, and how fanboys are all okay with it. I'm not trying to be a fanboy. It's just an opinion from a gamer who grew up during the Nes day, and is virtually disgusted at that what is happening to a beloved franchise, and some of it's fans.
P.S. This is a completely different issue then when consoles get a halfa$$ed ported PC game. Completely different systems, and different subjects. So no need to post ''this has been happening with PC to console games for ever dude. pwnd! /thread''. The usual crap. And the first response that says ''blog it'' should be posted right about... Now. I was thinking about GTA4 's DLC, and MS ...
Wow... this is the most inventive damage control I've seen in a while...Bottom line... PS3 players will get a ''complete'' game but not in the sence that 360 users will... 360 owners will get much much more... Again, it's the difference of buying a car that drives compared to a car with all the bells and whistles that drives...I was thinking about GTA4 's DLC, and MS ...
P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....
[QUOTE=''colmusterd28'']P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....[/QUOTE]well if you feel like spending $90 on GTA, probably more.
[QUOTE=''ski11buzz''][QUOTE=''colmusterd28'']P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....[/QUOTE]well if you feel like spending $90 on GTA, probably more.[/QUOTE]If you're willing to spend that much, you should mock Sony fans for GT5P and buying GT5
I there's one thing I hate about this generation it's definitley arguing about multi-plats.
Rockstar could have simply refused to create separate content for one console by saying ''no'' and cited every argument you present here. They could have said we are going to make all things accessible to all gamers. Where is their culpability in this? If you disapprove so strongly, take a stand and don't buy the PS3 version. Tell them by abstaining that you won't settle for a lesser version.I think MS is working much harder for 360 owners and they have put their money where their mouth is. A lot of money. I appreciate a business working for its customers. Sony needs to take notes in that regard.
So now expansion packs are problems now? Please.That's all the DLC is: EXPANSION PACKS. That the PS3 won't be getting.It is a more complete version. Will the DLC be needed? No. Is it cool to have **** yeah. I'm a big fan of the series and more content is always welcome.
[QUOTE=''thrones''][QUOTE=''ski11buzz''][QUOTE=''colmusterd28'']P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....[/QUOTE]well if you feel like spending $90 on GTA, probably more.[/QUOTE]If you're willing to spend that much, you should mock Sony fans for GT5P and buying GT5 [/QUOTE]No that's nonsense. In GT5's case you are paying for the same content TWICE.
[QUOTE=''ski11buzz''][QUOTE=''colmusterd28''] P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....[/QUOTE]well if you feel like spending $90 on GTA, probably more.[/QUOTE]PS3 version is going to cost $110 and you get no extra content like the 360 version. ;)
What MS has done? This is just business, and deals like this occur often.
hope MS makes profit from it
how many X360 owners don't have a harddrive for DLC?
anyway the geniuses behind GTA are going PS3 exclusive with their comming games so it evens out?
Its all about choice. The people who will be getting the inferior versions CHOSE to not purchase a 360 and a ps3 instead, they arent being punished for owning the ps3, theyre just not being rewarded for owning the 360 version
I've got a 360 so I'm in the clear. But along with having the system, and the game does not alone give you a superior version. We do afterall, have to pay for it. It is just a choice, a small incentive we get for owning, or purchasing the game for that certain system. There is no difference between the 360 or ps3, the game will be awesome on both platforms. The only difference is that when we're all done with the game, people with the 360 version have the option to purchase 20+ extra hours of new gameplay. If you say that it's ridiculous to pay for new content, or that it doesn't matter, then you are not a true GTA fan and should not buy the game. Every true GTA fan knows that more GTA is better, no if's and's or but's.
[QUOTE=''Rhubarb9'']hope MS makes profit from it
how many X360 owners don't have a harddrive for DLC?
anyway the geniuses behind GTA are going PS3 exclusive with their comming games so it evens out?
[/QUOTE]Yeah sure they are. :lol:
If you've read my other posts, you would know I'm most likely buying the 360 version. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. But when I think about it from a pure PS3 perspective, where apparently they don't get the whole game, MS is messing arund with the franchise. Is this what the future of gaming is going to be like. Paying for your system to have the whole game, while the rest get a less ''less-content'' version.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''dr-venkman'']If you've read my other posts, you would know I'm most likely buying the 360 version. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. But when I think about it from a pure PS3 perspective, where apparently they don't get the whole game, MS is messing arund with the franchise. Is this what the future of gaming is going to be like. Paying for your system to have the whole game, while the rest get a less ''less-content'' version.[/QUOTE] This really isn't knew. Tons of games have been released on different consoles with exclusive content. And in those cases the exclusive content doesn't even cost additional money. Why does it's distribution method make a difference?
[QUOTE=''ski11buzz''][QUOTE=''colmusterd28'']P.S. I just read in another thread that you are a fanboy if you think that the DLC makes 360 v. better than ps3...That may be the most simple minded garbage I have ever read and now I'm going to have to go kill a kitten...If you think that the 360 version with huge expansion DLC isn't the no brainer than you have a serious mental issue.Now, were is that kitten....[/QUOTE]well if you feel like spending $90 on GTA, probably more.[/QUOTE] we could say the same thing about GT5P :| anyways.....is it true that we get free content if we buy the game the first day it comes out? i already have it pre-ordered
It will be really annoying for people who only own a PS3 and if it were up to me both systems would have the content.I really hope this doesn't happen with any other multiplats. I would hate to see Sony and MS battling for exclusive content on a multiplat.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Bioshock Concept Art....
http://www.n4g.com/News-117992.aspx Looks like seaworld with the wahle Statue. lol. Looks great. Bioshock Concept Art....
Is that definitely Bioshock Concept Art? He says he's a student after all.Bioshock Concept Art....
No, it's not official.
I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...
[QUOTE=''AAllxxjjnn'']I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...[/QUOTE]...[QUOTE=''Ben Mauro'']These images are for a proposed sequel to 'Bioshock'.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=''bearbones''][QUOTE=''AAllxxjjnn'']I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...[/QUOTE]...[QUOTE=''Ben Mauro'']These images are for a proposed sequel to 'Bioshock'.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]looks like I wasnt paying attention.
That first picture better not be above ground. I hope they don't make Bishock 2 suck.
![]()
:|What is this, a flying whale train?
[QUOTE=''MetroidPrimePwn'']![]()
:|What is this, a flying whale train?[/QUOTE]
Well... it looks interesting to say the least
The first three pics look life concept art for Half-Life 2, the rest of them don't look like Bioshock at all...I don't mind a change of setting, but this game is currently looking totally unrelated to the first game.
doesn't look very bioshockywhere's the cool art-style? this looks a touch more generic
http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-118031.aspxfakefoundation makeup
Is that definitely Bioshock Concept Art? He says he's a student after all.Bioshock Concept Art....
No, it's not official.
I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...
[QUOTE=''AAllxxjjnn'']I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...[/QUOTE]...[QUOTE=''Ben Mauro'']These images are for a proposed sequel to 'Bioshock'.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=''bearbones''][QUOTE=''AAllxxjjnn'']I dont see anything about Bioshock 2 on his blog...[/QUOTE]...[QUOTE=''Ben Mauro'']These images are for a proposed sequel to 'Bioshock'.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]looks like I wasnt paying attention.
That first picture better not be above ground. I hope they don't make Bishock 2 suck.
[QUOTE=''MetroidPrimePwn'']
Well... it looks interesting to say the least
The first three pics look life concept art for Half-Life 2, the rest of them don't look like Bioshock at all...I don't mind a change of setting, but this game is currently looking totally unrelated to the first game.
doesn't look very bioshockywhere's the cool art-style? this looks a touch more generic
http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-118031.aspxfake
Army of Two - Review By Gamerevolver
Army of Two - Reviewed. As a skeptic going into this game, I have a rough view of what this game should be. With numerous delays plaguing this game for over a year, you can't help but wonder how this title will turn out. Upon arrival of our evaluation copy, I threw it in the PS3 as fast as I could, carefully placing Call of Duty 4: MW into its slick, Blu-Ray sized game case. As I booted up the game, my excitement grew. From a gamers stand point, this is the kind of game you dream about playing, but never get to see it released. Today is a different day. Today, we review Army of Two. PRESENTATION 9.5 GRAPHICS 8.5 SOUND 9.0 GAMEPLAY 9.5 REPLAY VALUE 6.0 FUN FACTOR 9.5![]()
Presentation: EA has brought numerous new additions to games over the years, from racing to fighting to first person shooters, but I have to say, this is by far the most unique title we have seen to date. Army of Two not only emphasizes multiplayer camaraderie, but literally forces it upon you. You take on the role of your choice of Tyson Rios and Eliot Salem, to mercenaries working for the Security and Strategy Corporation (SSC). You are given a brief synopsis of how the two met early in the game, but for a more detailed view, just look in the manual, it's all there. Long story short, you were in the US Army Rangers together where, as a team, your skills shined through, impressing the likes of your commanding officer, and grabbing the attention of the SSC, which is where we start our venture. The story behind the game is very intriguing and the characters are brought to life with great voice over and constant chatter, much like Kane %26 Lynch, only better! From cover to game play, this one is pretty sweet. ![]()
http://gamerevolver.com/article-91-Army-of-Two--Reviewed.html Army of Two - Review By Gamerevolver
[QUOTE=''Lord_Pro'']''The story behind the game is very intriguing and the characters are brought to life with great voice over and constant chatter, much like Kane %26 Lynch''[/QUOTE] hmm....
Army of Two - Review By Gamerevolver
Sounds a little high :?And I'm hyped for this game
Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.
The reviewer says he can't get enough and then gives it a 6 on Replay value.I though it would have some kind of multiplayer mode.I'm really not a big fan of the whole ''uber macho banter'' crap that this reviewer seems so delighted by.But...it's interesting to hear that someone does really like this game and praises it's gameplay.
[QUOTE=''joey101010''][QUOTE=''Lord_Pro'']''The story behind the game is very intriguing and the characters are brought to life with great voice over and constant chatter, much like Kane %26 Lynch''[/QUOTE] hmm....
[/QUOTE] well the voice acting was good in kane abd lynch, just the story sucked.
Nice. There's so many great games coming out this month. I'm definitely grabbing this game. I lost interest for a bit until I saw the new gameplay videos. It's weird that they gave the replay value a 6. It's a friggin co-op game, I thought the replay value would be at least an 8.
I plan to get the game, so hopefully wont be disappointed and enjoy the game specially in co-op mode :) PSN ID: anubis1980
Wassup with the replay value?Didnt they say Ao2 had some online game modes you can do too?
why is replay value so low....its a coop game shouldnt the replay value be high?
[QUOTE=''ReverseCycology''] Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.[/QUOTE] Fanboy much? Or just flame baiting?
[QUOTE=''Sollet''][QUOTE=''ReverseCycology''] Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.[/QUOTE] Fanboy much? Or just flame baiting?[/QUOTE]i think its a bit of both :?
it has online co-op so to me it gives it more replay value than 6?
I expect 8.0-8.5 on GS
Pretty poor review if you ask me.
[QUOTE=''skrat_01'']Pretty poor review if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
lots of grammatical errors as well..
[QUOTE=''Lord_Pro'']''The story behind the game is very intriguing and the characters are brought to life with great voice over and constant chatter, much like Kane %26 Lynch''[/QUOTE] hmm....
Army of Two - Review By Gamerevolver
Sounds a little high :?And I'm hyped for this game
Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.
The reviewer says he can't get enough and then gives it a 6 on Replay value.I though it would have some kind of multiplayer mode.I'm really not a big fan of the whole ''uber macho banter'' crap that this reviewer seems so delighted by.But...it's interesting to hear that someone does really like this game and praises it's gameplay.
[QUOTE=''joey101010''][QUOTE=''Lord_Pro'']''The story behind the game is very intriguing and the characters are brought to life with great voice over and constant chatter, much like Kane %26 Lynch''[/QUOTE] hmm....
[/QUOTE] well the voice acting was good in kane abd lynch, just the story sucked.
Nice. There's so many great games coming out this month. I'm definitely grabbing this game. I lost interest for a bit until I saw the new gameplay videos. It's weird that they gave the replay value a 6. It's a friggin co-op game, I thought the replay value would be at least an 8.
I plan to get the game, so hopefully wont be disappointed and enjoy the game specially in co-op mode :) PSN ID: anubis1980
Wassup with the replay value?Didnt they say Ao2 had some online game modes you can do too?
why is replay value so low....its a coop game shouldnt the replay value be high?
[QUOTE=''ReverseCycology''] Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.[/QUOTE] Fanboy much? Or just flame baiting?
[QUOTE=''Sollet''][QUOTE=''ReverseCycology''] Hopefully that replay value is just for the PS3 version.[/QUOTE] Fanboy much? Or just flame baiting?[/QUOTE]i think its a bit of both :?
it has online co-op so to me it gives it more replay value than 6?
I expect 8.0-8.5 on GS
Pretty poor review if you ask me.
[QUOTE=''skrat_01'']Pretty poor review if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
lots of grammatical errors as well..
The Industry should just stop with scori ...
I mean seriously.....there is no way to differentiate with any objectivity the difference between a 9.3 or a 9.4, or even a 9.0 versus a 9.5. Especially nowadays with the seemingly added pressure from developers and publishers to try and somehow secure good scores for their games and the massive amounts of money tied into advertising into the same companies that do the review (man, what a catch 22) it just seems silly to give out scores anymore. It'll never happen because people love fighting over scores and love just looking at the scores and never actually reading the text. But I just think that the 0 to 10 scale and even the F to A+ scale like EGM just adopted are almost silly. What is the difference between an A- and and an A. You can't really point out objectively what that difference is, because in essence, video games are mostly a form of art. And how can you objectively grade it. The Industry should just stop with scori ...
NoThe Industry should just stop with scori ...
Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.
Scores are a projection of the games themselves as seen through the eyes of a person/group - an opinion.The positive about them is that they help to educate the consumer/gamer that wants to buy a game but unsure of how it is, it also helps to raise attention and critical acclaim for the game; the negative, well just look at System Wars.
a review should tell the consumer what they are buying, not what the reviewer feels about the game. Tell them the features, differences in versions (to past games if its a sequel and compared to different systems) and of course about bugs and glitches and such.
Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.
[QUOTE=''JiveT'']Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.[/QUOTE]
Well movies ratings and game ratings are different, there could be a movie that everyone hates and thinks it total crap, but you could love it. Same with games, but playing and watching are different. You could still love a game that gets bad reviews, but games are reviewed on gameplay, sound, graphics, etc. You probably don't understand what I'm trying to say, but whatever. I guess the way each are reviewed are different.
Well I tend to watch video review just to hear what they have to say. If they say stuff is bad that I like I dont assume its bad.
no
While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.
[QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-''][QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and that's all that's needed in a review system. ''Strongly recommended,'' ''recommended,'' and ''not recommended.'' This whole ''AAA/AA/A'' nonsense accomplishes nothing.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.[/QUOTE] I agree. I was only using Portal and Ocarina of Time as examples since they are regarded by most to be exceptional games, rather than picking something controversial or unknown like Halo or Audiosurf (respectively). What I meant by ''instant classic'' is the game should be deserving of the score, rather than a source like IGN that seems to throw 9's at anything that entertains them for more than 12 consecutive seconds. An instant c.lassic doesn't have to be perfect, case in point (at least IMO) Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl.
i think that a good game score will give games good rep. but it doesnt necessary mean it will sell well. like look at okami that game most kick ass and most people who hav played it agree but the scales of that game wasnt has good as it should have been. plus there are alot of **** game magzines and sites that hand out good reviews like free candy. now that IS bull-****. im sure there are alot of dumb kids out there that get watever the hell they want and they think a good review= a good game. there are games that deserve better scores and some reviews that should just be labled s*** like kanye and lynch countless other ones
Yeah...um no...How about they come up with some better review rules? or how about instead of looking at just the score you read the actual review once in a while? let alone the fact most reviwers hardly get to play through 1/3rd of the game and only get to play through a small amount before review time is up.Alot of them put alot of good stuff in the review if you read it then you might find out the game is worthwhile but alot of people just wanna know if they should buy it and just look at the scores. there is no flaws with the review system the flaw is with the user, because all users have different opinions, and all users have different tastes.reviewers cant cater to every one.
I agree because it has become flawed. The reviewer will always have their opinion and for someone to use their score as a basis on whether to buy the game or not is stupid. Sure take this persons view of the game into consideration but people blindly go to the score only and thats the problem. If you take away the score they have to read and actually can gauge better if they will like the game or not. What I hate the most is the power publishers can have over the sites/mags. Exclusive preview/reviews are what alot of these places rely on to get more users and thus getting more advertising revenue. Pubslishers will not offer you the exclusive or even let u review before release in some cases if you dont play ball or have give their games lows scores in the past. The reviews you cannot trust the most are the sites where the game is plastered all over the site in advertisments around the time they review the game. Just look what happend here with kane and lynch and its hard for anyone not to bow down to the publishers to some degree since they literally pay alot of peoples wages in the industry.
[QUOTE=''MikeE21286'']I mean seriously.....there is no way to differentiate with any objectivity the difference between a 9.3 or a 9.4, or even a 9.0 versus a 9.5. Especially nowadays with the seemingly added pressure from developers and publishers to try and somehow secure good scores for their games and the massive amounts of money tied into advertising into the same companies that do the review (man, what a catch 22) it just seems silly to give out scores anymore. It'll never happen because people love fighting over scores and love just looking at the scores and never actually reading the text. But I just think that the 0 to 10 scale and even the F to A+ scale like EGM just adopted are almost silly. What is the difference between an A- and and an A. You can't really point out objectively what that difference is, because in essence, video games are mostly a form of art. And how can you objectively grade it. [/QUOTE]That only goes for console or multi-platform publications. Generally speaking, PC only magazines rate games substantially harder.
but then how will we measure sucess
NoThe Industry should just stop with scori ...
Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.
Scores are a projection of the games themselves as seen through the eyes of a person/group - an opinion.The positive about them is that they help to educate the consumer/gamer that wants to buy a game but unsure of how it is, it also helps to raise attention and critical acclaim for the game; the negative, well just look at System Wars.
a review should tell the consumer what they are buying, not what the reviewer feels about the game. Tell them the features, differences in versions (to past games if its a sequel and compared to different systems) and of course about bugs and glitches and such.
Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.
[QUOTE=''JiveT'']Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.[/QUOTE]
Well movies ratings and game ratings are different, there could be a movie that everyone hates and thinks it total crap, but you could love it. Same with games, but playing and watching are different. You could still love a game that gets bad reviews, but games are reviewed on gameplay, sound, graphics, etc. You probably don't understand what I'm trying to say, but whatever. I guess the way each are reviewed are different.
Well I tend to watch video review just to hear what they have to say. If they say stuff is bad that I like I dont assume its bad.
no
While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.
[QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-''][QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and that's all that's needed in a review system. ''Strongly recommended,'' ''recommended,'' and ''not recommended.'' This whole ''AAA/AA/A'' nonsense accomplishes nothing.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.[/QUOTE] I agree. I was only using Portal and Ocarina of Time as examples since they are regarded by most to be exceptional games, rather than picking something controversial or unknown like Halo or Audiosurf (respectively). What I meant by ''instant classic'' is the game should be deserving of the score, rather than a source like IGN that seems to throw 9's at anything that entertains them for more than 12 consecutive seconds. An instant c.lassic doesn't have to be perfect, case in point (at least IMO) Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl.
i think that a good game score will give games good rep. but it doesnt necessary mean it will sell well. like look at okami that game most kick ass and most people who hav played it agree but the scales of that game wasnt has good as it should have been. plus there are alot of **** game magzines and sites that hand out good reviews like free candy. now that IS bull-****. im sure there are alot of dumb kids out there that get watever the hell they want and they think a good review= a good game. there are games that deserve better scores and some reviews that should just be labled s*** like kanye and lynch countless other ones
Yeah...um no...How about they come up with some better review rules? or how about instead of looking at just the score you read the actual review once in a while? let alone the fact most reviwers hardly get to play through 1/3rd of the game and only get to play through a small amount before review time is up.Alot of them put alot of good stuff in the review if you read it then you might find out the game is worthwhile but alot of people just wanna know if they should buy it and just look at the scores. there is no flaws with the review system the flaw is with the user, because all users have different opinions, and all users have different tastes.reviewers cant cater to every one.
I agree because it has become flawed. The reviewer will always have their opinion and for someone to use their score as a basis on whether to buy the game or not is stupid. Sure take this persons view of the game into consideration but people blindly go to the score only and thats the problem. If you take away the score they have to read and actually can gauge better if they will like the game or not. What I hate the most is the power publishers can have over the sites/mags. Exclusive preview/reviews are what alot of these places rely on to get more users and thus getting more advertising revenue. Pubslishers will not offer you the exclusive or even let u review before release in some cases if you dont play ball or have give their games lows scores in the past. The reviews you cannot trust the most are the sites where the game is plastered all over the site in advertisments around the time they review the game. Just look what happend here with kane and lynch and its hard for anyone not to bow down to the publishers to some degree since they literally pay alot of peoples wages in the industry.
[QUOTE=''MikeE21286'']I mean seriously.....there is no way to differentiate with any objectivity the difference between a 9.3 or a 9.4, or even a 9.0 versus a 9.5. Especially nowadays with the seemingly added pressure from developers and publishers to try and somehow secure good scores for their games and the massive amounts of money tied into advertising into the same companies that do the review (man, what a catch 22) it just seems silly to give out scores anymore. It'll never happen because people love fighting over scores and love just looking at the scores and never actually reading the text. But I just think that the 0 to 10 scale and even the F to A+ scale like EGM just adopted are almost silly. What is the difference between an A- and and an A. You can't really point out objectively what that difference is, because in essence, video games are mostly a form of art. And how can you objectively grade it. [/QUOTE]That only goes for console or multi-platform publications. Generally speaking, PC only magazines rate games substantially harder.
but then how will we measure sucess
Gamernode reviews Brawl.
Review here!Some tidbits:[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']While the a r t s t y l e seemed spot on as usual, I couldn't help but set myself up for a possible disappointment. Well, I know this is a rather unconventional way to start a review, but I'm fairly certain that Brawl is the greatest game I've ever played in my entire life.[/quote]
On the controlls:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Brawl has the absolute best controls of the series.[/quote]
On clones:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Even the three space animals from Star Fox have significantly differing attacks along with overall speed and movement changes.[/quote]
On lag online:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']To my amazement, the lag wasn't nearly as awful as I had anticipated. In fact, it can be directly compared to playing Smash Bros. on a plasma television. That means that casual players will believe lag doesn't even exist, and competitive gamers will be able to adjust to the ever-so-slight delay.[/quote]
On the SSE:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Throw away everything you thought you knew about single player Smash, because SSE is absolutely gigantic.[/quote]
On the visuals:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']At this point, though, I'm absolutely positive that Sakurai sold his soul directly to Satan in order to produce everything you see in Brawl.[/quote]
:lol:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']The models and aesthetics of each character are greatly improved over Melee, and show that the Wii has much more potential than we give it credit for[/quote]
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Brawl's artistic and visual composition rivals games native to even the 360, and never once did the framerate dip below a solid 60fps. Brawl is truly a gorgeous game.[/quote]
Bit of an exaggeration i think :| But it's nice to hear the FPS is solid :)
On the soundtrack:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']With just under 300 songs, most of which are brand new arrangements, any respectable music lover would be content with dropping their $50 bucks down just for the tunes alone.[/quote]
On unlockables:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']I can't say for sure, but I'd average the total amount of unlockables in Brawl at somewhere between 1000 and 1500[/quote]
Conclusion:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']It's clear what Nintendo has done with Brawl. They held a gun to Sakurai's head and told him that if he didn't create the best damn game Nintendo has ever seen, they'd be forced to shoot him and his family.[/quote]And now for some shameless self promotion: My new Brawl sig![URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9717/brawlsigga6.png[/IMG][/URL]
Gamernode reviews Brawl.
Yup, it got a 10 nothing surprising there.Gamernode reviews Brawl.
this game is so awesome and has so much options that it can not take something less than ten.be sure that it will sell like crazy too...
I'm sure Gamespot will find a reason to 8.5 it, oh wait, nevermind Jeff is gone.
How come all these sites I've never heard of are already reviewing it when no big site has a review?
I am really expecting an 8.5 from GameSpot, although 9.0 already seems low from the way others have described it.
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500'']I'm sure Gamespot will find a reason to 8.5 it, oh wait, nevermind Jeff is gone.[/QUOTE]Probably a 9 now.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''-D3MO-'']well lets see. Nintendo doesn't advertise SSBB on GS - 8.0 Nintendo spends $10,000 advertising on GS - 8.5 Nintendo spends $50,000 advertising on GS - 9.0 Nintendo spends $100,000 advertising on GS, plus sends little goodies (like MS did w/ the Halo xbox) - 9.5 Nintendo spends $1,000,000 advertising on GS - 10?[/QUOTE]lol. Is that the same formula Sony will use with MGS4? :P
This is one of those games that I don't care if the reviews are 10, 7, or whatever. Its just my type of game and I know I will play the hell out of it regardless. Only one more week people :)
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500''][QUOTE=''-D3MO-'']well lets see. Nintendo doesn't advertise SSBB on GS - 8.0 Nintendo spends $10,000 advertising on GS - 8.5 Nintendo spends $50,000 advertising on GS - 9.0 Nintendo spends $100,000 advertising on GS, plus sends little goodies (like MS did w/ the Halo xbox) - 9.5 Nintendo spends $1,000,000 advertising on GS - 10?[/QUOTE]lol. Is that the same formula Sony will use with MGS4? :P[/QUOTE]
probably... :
|300 soundtracks just for a game. Holy crap!!
I think giving this game anything lower than a 9 would be a darn shame. It should score a 9 on replay value alone.
Your Brawl sig is a bit too wide for this message board. :)
Yep its gonna be one of my fav of all time but this quote is just BS:''To my amazement, the lag wasn't nearly as awful as I had anticipated. In fact, it can be directly compared to playing Smash Bros. on a plasma television. That means that casual players will believe lag doesn't even exist, and competitive gamers will be able to adjust to the ever-so-slight delay.''I have played melee for about 6 years now and the last half year i've played it on my Plasma. And i havent experienced any lag at all. And no i am not a casual rofl, me pro.
damn it.... I have to buy another game..... ugh.... my wallet is teh crying!
too bad fanboys will miss out on this quality game...
Finally a game I'll actually bother playing online with my wii =o.
On the controlls:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Brawl has the absolute best controls of the series.[/quote]
On clones:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Even the three space animals from Star Fox have significantly differing attacks along with overall speed and movement changes.[/quote]
On lag online:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']To my amazement, the lag wasn't nearly as awful as I had anticipated. In fact, it can be directly compared to playing Smash Bros. on a plasma television. That means that casual players will believe lag doesn't even exist, and competitive gamers will be able to adjust to the ever-so-slight delay.[/quote]
On the SSE:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Throw away everything you thought you knew about single player Smash, because SSE is absolutely gigantic.[/quote]
On the visuals:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']At this point, though, I'm absolutely positive that Sakurai sold his soul directly to Satan in order to produce everything you see in Brawl.[/quote]
:lol:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']The models and aesthetics of each character are greatly improved over Melee, and show that the Wii has much more potential than we give it credit for[/quote]
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']Brawl's artistic and visual composition rivals games native to even the 360, and never once did the framerate dip below a solid 60fps. Brawl is truly a gorgeous game.[/quote]
Bit of an exaggeration i think :| But it's nice to hear the FPS is solid :)
On the soundtrack:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']With just under 300 songs, most of which are brand new arrangements, any respectable music lover would be content with dropping their $50 bucks down just for the tunes alone.[/quote]
On unlockables:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']I can't say for sure, but I'd average the total amount of unlockables in Brawl at somewhere between 1000 and 1500[/quote]
Conclusion:
[QUOTE=''GamerNode'']It's clear what Nintendo has done with Brawl. They held a gun to Sakurai's head and told him that if he didn't create the best damn game Nintendo has ever seen, they'd be forced to shoot him and his family.[/quote]And now for some shameless self promotion: My new Brawl sig![URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9717/brawlsigga6.png[/IMG][/URL]
Gamernode reviews Brawl.
Yup, it got a 10 nothing surprising there.Gamernode reviews Brawl.
this game is so awesome and has so much options that it can not take something less than ten.be sure that it will sell like crazy too...
I'm sure Gamespot will find a reason to 8.5 it, oh wait, nevermind Jeff is gone.
How come all these sites I've never heard of are already reviewing it when no big site has a review?
I am really expecting an 8.5 from GameSpot, although 9.0 already seems low from the way others have described it.
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500'']I'm sure Gamespot will find a reason to 8.5 it, oh wait, nevermind Jeff is gone.[/QUOTE]Probably a 9 now.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''-D3MO-'']well lets see. Nintendo doesn't advertise SSBB on GS - 8.0 Nintendo spends $10,000 advertising on GS - 8.5 Nintendo spends $50,000 advertising on GS - 9.0 Nintendo spends $100,000 advertising on GS, plus sends little goodies (like MS did w/ the Halo xbox) - 9.5 Nintendo spends $1,000,000 advertising on GS - 10?[/QUOTE]lol. Is that the same formula Sony will use with MGS4? :P
This is one of those games that I don't care if the reviews are 10, 7, or whatever. Its just my type of game and I know I will play the hell out of it regardless. Only one more week people :)
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500''][QUOTE=''-D3MO-'']well lets see. Nintendo doesn't advertise SSBB on GS - 8.0 Nintendo spends $10,000 advertising on GS - 8.5 Nintendo spends $50,000 advertising on GS - 9.0 Nintendo spends $100,000 advertising on GS, plus sends little goodies (like MS did w/ the Halo xbox) - 9.5 Nintendo spends $1,000,000 advertising on GS - 10?[/QUOTE]lol. Is that the same formula Sony will use with MGS4? :P[/QUOTE]
probably... :
|300 soundtracks just for a game. Holy crap!!
I think giving this game anything lower than a 9 would be a darn shame. It should score a 9 on replay value alone.
Your Brawl sig is a bit too wide for this message board. :)
Yep its gonna be one of my fav of all time but this quote is just BS:''To my amazement, the lag wasn't nearly as awful as I had anticipated. In fact, it can be directly compared to playing Smash Bros. on a plasma television. That means that casual players will believe lag doesn't even exist, and competitive gamers will be able to adjust to the ever-so-slight delay.''I have played melee for about 6 years now and the last half year i've played it on my Plasma. And i havent experienced any lag at all. And no i am not a casual rofl, me pro.
damn it.... I have to buy another game..... ugh.... my wallet is teh crying!
too bad fanboys will miss out on this quality game...
Finally a game I'll actually bother playing online with my wii =o.
Best Gamespot quote ever
''A typical film tends to be fairly short, and Parasite Eve, in keeping with its cinematic inclinations, is no exception. Expect to finish the game all the way through in no more than 15 hours.''lolBest Gamespot quote ever
Lmao that's gold.
Best Gamespot quote ever
ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P
''What the hell is a zerg?''
-Thug_Pikachu, RIP
''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109'']ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P[/QUOTE]That was from ReverseCycology. The guy who qouted him said, ''forget consoles you should be playing with calculators''. LMAO that is funny.
i saw this is some guys sig today, priceless''grafics are like miniskirts, sure they look nice but they don't tell you the full story''
''Einstein and Hitler were in totally different time periods''-Twinblade''Nintendo doesn't make games fool, they publish them''-Cdog
[QUOTE=''Slyprince''] ''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines [/QUOTE]wok7 shall never live that one down..
in response to snake beats mastercheif by a crotch grab ''well Mastercheif doesn't have a crotch so snake losses'' and my sig but i like this more
Hold on, I'll be right back...
[QUOTE=''hydrophoboe'']''A typical film tends to be fairly short, and Parasite Eve, in keeping with its cinematic inclinations, is no exception. Expect to finish the game all the way through in no more than 15 hours.''lol[/QUOTE]your sig is awesome.on a side note, i think my sig is a pretty good quote
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109'']ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P[/QUOTE]:D ty...one i saw was by kenykyaragi about his 2008 gae play :Pill past it when i find it..
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109''] [QUOTE=''Slyprince''] ''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines [/QUOTE]wok7 shall never live that one down..[/QUOTE] What wok said was something along the lines of, why don't we hear about PC doing HD? Someone is sure to have the exact quote, he didn't say ''Why isn't the PC capable of HD?'' or ''Why don't we hear about the HD capabilities of PC?''Though, on further thought, he must have meant it as such, because one would think it would have been corrected by now if it were misunderstood.My fav. is:
[QUOTE=''C_dog9''] Good. keep their crap from spreading.And another thing, nintendo doesnt make games fool. They publish them.[/QUOTE]
The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:
[QUOTE=''Gh0st_Of_0nyx''] The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:[/QUOTE] angry video game nerd said the same thing in his christmas carol episode
[QUOTE=''Gh0st_Of_0nyx'']The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc7/_D3MO_/2008-03-02_202211.jpg[/IMG]
Biggest Joke Ever...
I had no clue they moved April Fools a month earlier... hmm
I like my sig.
[QUOTE=''bad82man82''][QUOTE=''RobbieH1234''][QUOTE=''bad82man82''] In every gameplay video I saw, I didn't see RPG, all I saw something like gears or ghost recon with magic/abilities, the gameplay seems similer to Lost planet though in terms of movements.It is shooter, don't kid yourself with the idea otherwise.[/QUOTE]Factors that make it an RPG:
Lmao that's gold.
Best Gamespot quote ever
ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P
''What the hell is a zerg?''
-Thug_Pikachu, RIP
''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109'']ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P[/QUOTE]That was from ReverseCycology. The guy who qouted him said, ''forget consoles you should be playing with calculators''. LMAO that is funny.
i saw this is some guys sig today, priceless''grafics are like miniskirts, sure they look nice but they don't tell you the full story''
''Einstein and Hitler were in totally different time periods''-Twinblade''Nintendo doesn't make games fool, they publish them''-Cdog
[QUOTE=''Slyprince''] ''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines [/QUOTE]wok7 shall never live that one down..
in response to snake beats mastercheif by a crotch grab ''well Mastercheif doesn't have a crotch so snake losses'' and my sig but i like this more
Hold on, I'll be right back...
[QUOTE=''hydrophoboe'']''A typical film tends to be fairly short, and Parasite Eve, in keeping with its cinematic inclinations, is no exception. Expect to finish the game all the way through in no more than 15 hours.''lol[/QUOTE]your sig is awesome.on a side note, i think my sig is a pretty good quote
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109'']ill let kirk say the one in his sig and ill go with these two''so why did they call it the 360? because youll do a 360 and walk away from it''''5 X 5 = 20 gigs!''i think we all know who the first one is, ill let people figure out who said the second one :P[/QUOTE]:D ty...one i saw was by kenykyaragi about his 2008 gae play :Pill past it when i find it..
[QUOTE=''linkin_guy109''] [QUOTE=''Slyprince''] ''PC Doesnt have HD'' or something along thos lines [/QUOTE]wok7 shall never live that one down..[/QUOTE] What wok said was something along the lines of, why don't we hear about PC doing HD? Someone is sure to have the exact quote, he didn't say ''Why isn't the PC capable of HD?'' or ''Why don't we hear about the HD capabilities of PC?''Though, on further thought, he must have meant it as such, because one would think it would have been corrected by now if it were misunderstood.My fav. is:
[QUOTE=''C_dog9''] Good. keep their crap from spreading.And another thing, nintendo doesnt make games fool. They publish them.[/QUOTE]
The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:
[QUOTE=''Gh0st_Of_0nyx''] The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:[/QUOTE] angry video game nerd said the same thing in his christmas carol episode
[QUOTE=''Gh0st_Of_0nyx'']The wii is a childs toy :|D3MO :roll:[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc7/_D3MO_/2008-03-02_202211.jpg[/IMG]
Biggest Joke Ever...
I had no clue they moved April Fools a month earlier... hmm
I like my sig.
[QUOTE=''bad82man82''][QUOTE=''RobbieH1234''][QUOTE=''bad82man82''] In every gameplay video I saw, I didn't see RPG, all I saw something like gears or ghost recon with magic/abilities, the gameplay seems similer to Lost planet though in terms of movements.It is shooter, don't kid yourself with the idea otherwise.[/QUOTE]Factors that make it an RPG:
- You create your own character
- The character has skills, abilities and you level said skills and abilities
- NPC interaction and multiple dialogue options
- Character development
- Epic storyline
- Questing
- The player makes choices that alter the course of the story
- The consequences of your choices will most definitely be known (entire sub-plots can be removed by making a decision)
- It's a ******* BioWare game
Didnt EA challenge Gears of War?
I remember a while back EA montreal said they can make an even better game then gears of war. Graphic wise, and gameplay wise. That game was Army of two.
Don't get me wrong, I'm picking the game up, but Army of two itself looks no way near like Gears of war, and it doesnt look like it plays better then gears.
So will EA challege Gears of war2 in the near future?Didnt EA challenge Gears of War?
EA Games: Challenge EverythingDidnt EA challenge Gears of War?
EA will become like McDonalds. Poison the populous with unhealthy, small proportioned food when you can find the same product that is vastly superior, elsewhere.Edit: Im talking about EA inhouse developed games.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
EA Games: If we didnt live up to the challenge, we'll make sure to buy you out next time
when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?
[QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[/QUOTE] Thats strictly EA sports but EA games is challange everything.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[/QUOTE]
EA Sports.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE] all right, though i find sport games to be lackluster and boring....but im guessing ur a fan of sport games, so i`ll take ur word for it
[QUOTE=''EmilioDigsIt''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
EA Games: If we didnt live up to the challenge, we'll make sure to buy you out next time
[/QUOTE] haha thats great. EA games: forget the challenge we own your life
They supposedly did a good job with pretty much all their sports games this past year but I wasn't pleased with Madden. They did make it run at 60FPS but they didn't amp up the animations enough.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]EA Games: Quality Challenged
[QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]CnC 3
Godfather was pretty good.
[QUOTE=''Dante2710''][QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE] all right, though i find sport games to be lackluster and boring....but im guessing ur a fan of sport games, so i`ll take ur word for it
[/QUOTE]
and skate.
i liked burnout paradise too.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]hahahahhahahahahahahhahaahahomg i cant stophold mehahahhahahahahhahahahahaha
challenge? more like copy in my opinion, EA has been like this ever since who knows when , when winning eleven for wii comes out expect the same da*n sh*t from EA
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE]and pro evo Wii is vastly better than fifa
[QUOTE=''razu_gamer2''][QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE]and pro evo Wii is vastly better than fifa[/QUOTE]
Is it really? Fifa08 has some amazing online for PS3 and the graphics are killer. I love the ball physics and some other changes too...it feels just like PES now. Is the Wii version really good?
foundation makeup
Don't get me wrong, I'm picking the game up, but Army of two itself looks no way near like Gears of war, and it doesnt look like it plays better then gears.
So will EA challege Gears of war2 in the near future?Didnt EA challenge Gears of War?
EA Games: Challenge EverythingDidnt EA challenge Gears of War?
EA will become like McDonalds. Poison the populous with unhealthy, small proportioned food when you can find the same product that is vastly superior, elsewhere.Edit: Im talking about EA inhouse developed games.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
EA Games: If we didnt live up to the challenge, we'll make sure to buy you out next time
when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?
[QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[/QUOTE] Thats strictly EA sports but EA games is challange everything.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
I thought it was, ''It's in the game!''
[/QUOTE]
EA Sports.
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE] all right, though i find sport games to be lackluster and boring....but im guessing ur a fan of sport games, so i`ll take ur word for it
[QUOTE=''EmilioDigsIt''][QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]
EA Games: If we didnt live up to the challenge, we'll make sure to buy you out next time
[/QUOTE] haha thats great. EA games: forget the challenge we own your life
They supposedly did a good job with pretty much all their sports games this past year but I wasn't pleased with Madden. They did make it run at 60FPS but they didn't amp up the animations enough.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]EA Games: Quality Challenged
[QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]CnC 3
Godfather was pretty good.
[QUOTE=''Dante2710''][QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE] all right, though i find sport games to be lackluster and boring....but im guessing ur a fan of sport games, so i`ll take ur word for it
[/QUOTE]
and skate.
i liked burnout paradise too.
[QUOTE=''67gt500'']EA Games: Challenge Everything[/QUOTE]hahahahhahahahahahahhahaahahomg i cant stophold mehahahhahahahahhahahahahaha
challenge? more like copy in my opinion, EA has been like this ever since who knows when , when winning eleven for wii comes out expect the same da*n sh*t from EA
[QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE]and pro evo Wii is vastly better than fifa
[QUOTE=''razu_gamer2''][QUOTE=''kaos-hero''][QUOTE=''Dante2710'']when was the last time that EA actually made an decent video game? :?[/QUOTE]
Fifa 08 is vastly better than PES2008. EA won back the football crowd after Fifa 08, and I've been loving Fifa 08 more than any other footbal game.
[/QUOTE]and pro evo Wii is vastly better than fifa[/QUOTE]
Is it really? Fifa08 has some amazing online for PS3 and the graphics are killer. I love the ball physics and some other changes too...it feels just like PES now. Is the Wii version really good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)