sales2099 said:
Granted MW2 was arguably the peak when the series wasn't getting too stale (it really only took off in 2007 and 2008 COD was a WW2 shooter). 90+ is 90+. No need to sweat the numbers if its above that. Its all AAA so you still didnt refute my comment how Halo has quality and sales to back it up. But I will say this: Sales = Winner, not better. COD wins over Halo, but its all 360 so really, 360 wins. By comparison, the competition loses. And all though I do cite meta, quality is always in the eye of the beholder. Many gamers would argue that MW2 was a better game. Many would argue for Halo. When 2 games are above 90, any argument can have merit because they are both surpurb games. Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games. But clearly your citing the 360 version....cant give me any PS3 examples? :). Your really taking this to a different track. Halo mainline entries have 90+ quality and sell several millions. It can stand up to any PS3 exclusive like the LOU. |
" Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games."
Are you so naive to believe that a game that has say, 89 or hell even 70 can't be better to somebody over a 90 because it is objectively wrong?
If so.. "Wow" once again.
"But clearly your citing the 360 version....cant give me any PS3 examples? :)."
Not sure what you are getting at here. PS3 examples of what?
Awards and critical wise, Uncharted series are one gem of this generation and they sell pretty damn good. The gap between Halo Reach for instance and Uncharted 2 (despite being about a year apart [rather that then Halo 3's 2 year apart]) are like 3.5M. The gap between Reach and Black Ops are about 4.5M.
Now granted, all games I would say are "good" and it comes down to personal preference (despite Black Ops not being 90 meta and despite Uncharted 2 having a record of 96 meta), whereas the sales does not add jack shit to the equation of our perception.
Otherwise, going by your definition and I quote
"When 2 games are above 90, any argument can have merit because they are both surpurb games. Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games."
So we have established that 90+ games (I'd say that isnt even required but whatever, for the sake of making my point I will "agree") :
Comes down to your own opinion.
Would you not say that a game above 5 Million in sales is considerd selling "well" and in the end also boils down to own opinion?
Im not trying to piss on the fact that Halo sells well and is well recieved no => my point is that the sales doesnt tell you ANYTHING regarding its quality.
Black Ops having the lowest meta followed by Reach followed by UC2
Yet the sales are the exact opposite
Also going back
"Comparing Last of Us and Halo is ridiculous but as I said before Halo will have a ton of content while Last of Us will be played once and be done with"
How is it ridicilous when you don't even know the MP aspect of TLOU? What says quantity of the content in Halo equals the quality in TLOU? Yes we've been through this and we know Halo will be a quality title. But how delusional can you be to believe that TLOU doesnt stand a chance because of the wording "content" and "content" alone. Perhaps TLOU will revolutionize gaming for all we know. WE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE YET TO PLAY THE GAME. Vice versa applies to Halo 4 albeit we've seen glimpses of that atleast and the game has leaked.
