By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - GT: Halo reach falling behind, Epic mickey needs work, SMG2/RED DEAD = GOTY

Torillian on 27 July 2010
selnor said:

ROFL. Reach not only eats Killzone in terms of features and content, but sheer playable scale to. 

I predict Reach will be GOTY on more than 80% of the review sites. 

Killzone 3 better than Reach. Oh wait England won the world cup.


Wanna make an avatar/sig bet out of that prediction?  I'd love to see you with a funny avatar for a month or two.



...

Around the Network
saicho on 27 July 2010
selnor said:

ROFL. Reach not only eats Killzone in terms of features and content, but sheer playable scale to. 

I predict Reach will be GOTY on more than 80% of the review sites. 

Killzone 3 better than Reach. Oh wait England won the world cup.

that's just mean... kowenicki didn't do anything to deserve this!



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

leatherhat on 27 July 2010
DarkisWR said:
leatherhat said:
JerzeeBalla said:
leatherhat said:

They all are, with the possible exception of SC2. The fact that they are considered the best of the year show how far standards have fallen. Not saying that any of them are bad games, but they certaintly aren't up to GOTY snuff.


Uh, what makes these games so much worse than past GOTY nominees or winners? Not attacking you or KylieDog or anyone else who agrees its been a weak year.....But I dont think these are weak games at all. Is it because they are all sequels? What's the last new IP that was the consensus GOTY? Bioshock I think? Before that it was.....I dunno.

Well first off GOTY almost always goes to the most overhyped game of the year. Which is why games like Halo etc. are all contendors. Its not about being a sequel, but in the case of these games its about being too similar to their predecessor or just flat out not as good (ME2). Its hard to keep things fresh. GoW is getting stale and theirs only been 4. Mario is way old. I don't care if they make sequels but give me a reason to play them if I already have other games in the series. But yeah, all these games are good. But none of them are particularly mind blowing or praise worthy.

So you say it goes to most over-hyped...do you not see the sales for it? Or reviews....While you might dislike...clearly the many out number your very shallow opinion.

I'd really like to hear you banter of trash you cleary have against ME2...* and plz don't say cuz I can't have enough inventory bs*

How can you say all those games are good and then say give me a reason to play them...when clearly all of them have made changes in many a way.

 

Oh and on seqls...you might not know but they ''carry on'' from the one before it.

In regards to Mass effect 2, a short list of criticisms:

Less mystery: In ME1 you had no idead what was up with Saren and travelled the galaxy looking for answers. In 2 they may as well had the intro be "the collectors are attacking human bases, are you a bad enough dude to stop the collectors?"And the plot doesn't go anywhere from there, besides the lame '"soylent green"twist at the end.

The characters are far less memorable. Of the new people only the Doc (whose name I can't even remember) is interesting.

Rpg, whats that? The RPG elements from ME1 are ripped out of ME2 completely. Unique skills consist of switcing ammo types and lame abilities like that.If I wanted to play a shooter, I would have. 

Length- maybe 25 hours if you do every loyalty and side mission. And you take your time. Not exactly the standard for an "epic"RPG. The ME team at Bioware should look at Dragon age for a refresher on basic RPG functions.

Mass effect 2 is a good game, but the fact that it gets hailed as a masterpiece boggles my mind. And when people say it has a good story I just have to shut down my brain for a bit for fear of confusion overload.



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

JPH85 on 27 July 2010

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.



Wagram on 27 July 2010
JPH85 said:

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.

Quality > Quantity



Around the Network
Smeags on 27 July 2010
Wagram said:
JPH85 said:

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.

Quality > Quantity


Luckily they're both going to be quality games.



3DS Rec Thread ~ Wii U Rec Thread ~ Xbox One Rec Thread

Seece on 27 July 2010
Smeags said:
Wagram said:
JPH85 said:

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.

Quality > Quantity


Luckily they're both going to be quality games.

Indeed, Reach will have Quality AND Quantity



 

Tigerlure on 27 July 2010
Seece said:
Smeags said:
Wagram said:
JPH85 said:

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.

Quality > Quantity


Luckily they're both going to be quality games.

Indeed, Reach will have Quality AND Quantity


And Killzone 3 won't?



Seece on 27 July 2010
Tigerlure said:
Seece said:
Smeags said:
Wagram said:
JPH85 said:

Let's say Halo Reach is by far the WORST video game every created by man. It deserves a score of -3/10 (that's a negative 3), and Killzone 3 deserves a 20/10. Still Halo Reach will sell 4 times at least MORE than Killzone 3, and will be played a 300 times more than Killzone 3, and gamers will praise it more than Killzone 3. So sucks for Killzone 3.

Quality > Quantity


Luckily they're both going to be quality games.

Indeed, Reach will have Quality AND Quantity


And Killzone 3 won't?

In terms of what?



 

kiefer23 on 27 July 2010
Torillian said:
selnor said:

ROFL. Reach not only eats Killzone in terms of features and content, but sheer playable scale to. 

I predict Reach will be GOTY on more than 80% of the review sites. 

Killzone 3 better than Reach. Oh wait England won the world cup.


Wanna make an avatar/sig bet out of that prediction?  I'd love to see you with a funny avatar for a month or two.

Yeah he would definetely lose if he betted on that.