| JiaJia said: ^ Yep they are all definitely eating crow now. As the graphic fanatic that I am ... all i can say is ... WOWWWWW!!! Game has definitely impressed me and will definitely be a day1 buy for me ... seriously cannot wait at all =D |
Alright, explain to me. What is all this "eating crow" business. Who said something bad about the game that wasn't true, and why would they have been proven wrong?
I just can't remember anyone saying this game was going to suck, lol, or that the graphics would be bad. It's as I expected, this game will probably fall somewhere in the low to mid 90's on gamerankings.
The game I could eat crow about is Killzone 2, which I've said probably isn't going to be AAA, despite good graphics. I could be easily proven wrong about that, but with R2, has anyone been flaming that game? If so, who?
R1 was only above average, but everyone knows that R2 is gonna rock ass, after E3. It's common knowledge.
All this wide-eyed faux entheuiasm on this post disgusts me, btw. The game goes for crow eaters that goes for PS3 fanboys. It's like half of you are finally realizing that R2 is AAA. It's been assumed for quite a while, fyi.
I'm getting sick of pointing out these inconsistancies. I think I've just grown cynical.
As for the Gears 2 verses R2 argument, sales and reviews will settle that pointless discussion. Don't try to marginalize either category because it goes against your interest. The argument isn't "which game is better" afterall, since I largely think that ToV was better than Gears 1(and I'd be right, in my own opinion). It's "which game is more significant." My answer, "We'll see."
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
