themanwithnoname said:
Torillian said:
themanwithnoname said:
Torillian said:
Seece said:
CGI-Quality said:
Seece said:
Yeah, who would have thought in Jan this year would have turned out better SW wise for the 360 ... same will happen next year IMO despite the flood of PS3 games (of which most will be delayed or turn out not as great as hyped to be)
|
The flood of PS3 games aren't about sales, but variety and offering. "Most" games won't be delayed "overhyped" (though you can't really have a realistic opinion without owning the system).
It's just in past years, the 360 had more lined up than 2011 looks to have. It's not an insult, just an observation, and people who are fair rarely comment on it.
|
Wasn't talking about sales remotely. PS3 had several games delayed this holiday into next year, so much so it only had GT5 :-S and even that wasn't a dead cert only a month ago.
I didn't say the games were bad, just overhyped (and they are, don't need to play them to guage fan reaction)
At your last comment, wrong. Until E3 2009 MS rarely gave out news on upcoming games, but decided to for 2010 for some reason.
|
downplaying another console's lineup by calling the games overhyped seems like kind a shitty thing to do, but if you want to go that route it can go against the 360 as well.
I remember quite a few people predicting ME2 type Meta for Halo Reach and now it sits at 91: overhyped (while I'm on the subject I dinstintly remember you claming Halo was in a totally different league from Killzone 2 based on Meta, so I find it hilarious that Reach has the same meta as KZ2)
Alan Wake was another contendor for 9 's with many people simply assuming it would beat out Heavy Rain and it didn't: overhyped
Fable 3 again a game where people were thinking Fable would finally get in the 9's and instead it's at 8.0
So if we're just going to discount lineups based on what we deem as overhyped games, maybe the 360 didn't have the banner 2010 people like to think.
|
I love this post. "Downplaying a lineup seems like a shitty thing to do" and then what do you do? Oh that's right, you did the same thing he did. Fantastic. Two wrongs definitely make a right. Shouldn't you be, you know, setting an example on this site instead of partaking in what you yourself have called "a shitty thing to do?" Maybe I just expect more from staff on this site, but making that kind of statement and then posting four paragraphs after pointing out bad behavior makes me want to beat my head against the wall.
|
I was making a point that the idea of a lineup not being that great because it was overhyped could go both ways and showing him that his console of choice wasn't immune. It's called a debate dude, just because I'm on staff doesn't mean I can't partake in an argument if I so care to.
|
That's completely different than what happened here which was:
You: "I think that's a shitty thing to do"
and the next four paragraphs are you doing exactly what you've said was a bad thing to do.
Now if you can't detect the blatant hypocracy in that, then I give up. Calling him out for making a questionable point is one thing, but turning around and making dubious claims just to counteract his dubious claims solves absolutely nothing. There's a difference between partaking in an argument and talking out of both sides of your mouth, nevermind the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.
|
"but if you want to go that route it can go against the 360 as well." is the part where the two parts of my post are connected that you seem to be ignoring.
Ok so I call him out for making a questionable point, what evidence am I supposed to use against him that the point is a load of crap unless I show him that the same can be applied to his console of choice? Am I just supposed to take a ruler to his knuckles or something?
