Michael-5 said:
You realize pre-alpha is also pre-demo? It's unfinished and generally unplayable...... IGN played a playable level, and said Gears 2 looked better. Also Killzone 2 released 3 months after Gears, really not that far off. I like how 7 months is nearly a year, and 4 months is a couple (meaning 2). Do you accept these facts? or am I biased again? |
you realize, you lied again, as usual.
pre-alpha, is still playable. its just a early build, non-finished. just like the killzone 3 beta in december was pre-alpha. i saw nothing about them playing a level in that article, but i will take you at your word (which i shouldnt because you constantly lie and misrepresent, and back track on you own words).
also it was nearly 4 months after gears, 8 months after e3. thats a hell of a long time in game development. i was slihghtly exagerated the timeframes to get accross a point (i also thought gears 2 released in September)
but none of that matters ign, gave their impressions of games during e3, before the games were release. they were unfinshised builds, opinions of nonreleased games. it doesnt matter we are talking finished product here. and by your own argument, MGS4 has better graphics than Killzone 2. because ign, said MGS4 had better graphics than gears 2.
yes you are very very very biased. i dont think i have every seen someone more biased before, and think they are innocent at the same time.







