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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo 4 release date September 2010 - MS is set to attack 2010!!

Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Killzone 1 was only a little above average. So you think going from average to excellent meets hype better than going from excellent to excellent because the latter example there isn't much change whilst the former is quite a huge change? Theres nothing even remotely objective about that. Just because there weren't many fans to disapoint doesn't give a free pass for a game or developer.



Tease.

Around the Network
Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:
Leonidus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Killzowned said:

Sorry, but you coloured the wrong game in that sentence. Killzone 2 lived up to it's hype. Halo 3 did not. Halo 3 was the most hyped game ever and yet was only a good shooter, not the best thing since sliced bread that microsoft told us it would be.

How do you know? What has a game to do to live up to its hype?

Reviews? 94 on metacritic
Playtime? Still no. 1 on Xbox Live
Sales? 10 million units should be enough.

 

Stop this fanboy-stuff. Halo DID live up to its hype. It actually surpassed it.

No, its totally opinionated as to whether a game lives up to its hype. I see Halo 3 the same as I see GTA4; both failed to live up to their hype.

Yes, both games sold a shitload, got fantastic and somewhat biased reviews.....but they both failed compared to their previous installments and left alot of fans quite dissapointed

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Honestly, this sounds like some contrived definition of "hype" fabricated to back your point. It really does not have much merit considering Halo 3 was released so long ago and is selling on par with Kill Zone 2. A few posters have already disproved your logic, but you seem to be a persistent overly zealous Sony "supporter."

I am not even a fan of the Halo franchise, but for anyone to say it didn't meet its hype...just screams bias. Even if you did not like the game, Halo 3 was a phenomenon in terms of sales and its multiplayer critical acclaim. I am sure Microsoft is quite happy with the Halo franchise, especially in comparison with the Killzone franchise. Ask yourself, would Sony prefer Killzone 2 type sales or Halo 3 type sales? It's not rocket science.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

jcp234 said:
Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:
Leonidus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Killzowned said:

Sorry, but you coloured the wrong game in that sentence. Killzone 2 lived up to it's hype. Halo 3 did not. Halo 3 was the most hyped game ever and yet was only a good shooter, not the best thing since sliced bread that microsoft told us it would be.

How do you know? What has a game to do to live up to its hype?

Reviews? 94 on metacritic
Playtime? Still no. 1 on Xbox Live
Sales? 10 million units should be enough.

 

Stop this fanboy-stuff. Halo DID live up to its hype. It actually surpassed it.

No, its totally opinionated as to whether a game lives up to its hype. I see Halo 3 the same as I see GTA4; both failed to live up to their hype.

Yes, both games sold a shitload, got fantastic and somewhat biased reviews.....but they both failed compared to their previous installments and left alot of fans quite dissapointed

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Honestly, this sounds like some contrived definition of "hype" fabricated to back your point. It really does not have much merit considering Halo 3 was released so long ago and is selling on par with Kill Zone 2. A few posters have already disproved your logic, but you seem to be a persistent overly zealous Sony "supporter."

I am not even a fan of the Halo franchise, but for anyone to say it didn't meet its hype...just screams bias. Even if you did not like the game, Halo 3 was a phenomenon in terms of sales and its multiplayer critical acclaim. I am sure Microsoft is quite happy with the Halo franchise, especially in comparison with the Killzone franchise. Ask yourself, would Sony prefer Killzone 2 type sales or Halo 3 type sales? It's not rocket science.

Chill out, I'l put my opinion across more clearly for you. Here:

A teenage boy loves Halo, and adores Halo 2. He therefore gets really hyped up for Halo 3. He gets Halo 3 and He thinks that it isn't as good as the other two. He therfore thinks that Halo 3 didn't live up to its hype.



Leonidus said:
jcp234 said:
Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:
Leonidus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Killzowned said:

Sorry, but you coloured the wrong game in that sentence. Killzone 2 lived up to it's hype. Halo 3 did not. Halo 3 was the most hyped game ever and yet was only a good shooter, not the best thing since sliced bread that microsoft told us it would be.

How do you know? What has a game to do to live up to its hype?

Reviews? 94 on metacritic
Playtime? Still no. 1 on Xbox Live
Sales? 10 million units should be enough.

 

Stop this fanboy-stuff. Halo DID live up to its hype. It actually surpassed it.

No, its totally opinionated as to whether a game lives up to its hype. I see Halo 3 the same as I see GTA4; both failed to live up to their hype.

Yes, both games sold a shitload, got fantastic and somewhat biased reviews.....but they both failed compared to their previous installments and left alot of fans quite dissapointed

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Honestly, this sounds like some contrived definition of "hype" fabricated to back your point. It really does not have much merit considering Halo 3 was released so long ago and is selling on par with Kill Zone 2. A few posters have already disproved your logic, but you seem to be a persistent overly zealous Sony "supporter."

I am not even a fan of the Halo franchise, but for anyone to say it didn't meet its hype...just screams bias. Even if you did not like the game, Halo 3 was a phenomenon in terms of sales and its multiplayer critical acclaim. I am sure Microsoft is quite happy with the Halo franchise, especially in comparison with the Killzone franchise. Ask yourself, would Sony prefer Killzone 2 type sales or Halo 3 type sales? It's not rocket science.

Chill out, I'l put my opinion across more clearly for you. Here:

A teenage boy loves Halo, and adores Halo 2. He therefore gets really hyped up for Halo 3. He gets Halo 3 and He thinks that it isn't as good as the other two. He therfore thinks that Halo 3 didn't live up to its hype.

But if he isn't the vast majority then that doesn't prove it didn't live up to the hype.
For you Halo 3 didn't but you are in the minority and pushing you opinion as fact.

You know what after all the rabid fanboys said about KZ2 before it came outr when I tried it I wasn't impressed.

There you are FACT it didn't live up to the hype.
I'm just doing what you did.

Actually I'm not.
You just blindly stated Halo didn't live up to the hype never implying it was your personal opinion or that it was your personal hype if didn't satisfy.
stop bactracking by pretending you meant In your opinion.
several posters on here have quoted you not saying that.
Nothing backs your "opinion" sorry facts up that halo failed.



I think everyone expected Halo 3 to perform amazingly in regards to sell (which it did and is still accomplishing) and most expected the multiplayer aspect to be addictively fun which it is (according to past and present Live statistics).

I personally, have zero interest in Halo 3, 2, or 1, but I would have a really hard time claiming it did not meet its hype before release. With any product, its impossible to have 100% customer satisfaction. Just because a vocal minority perceives the game as inferior to previous installments, does not equate to not meeting hype expectations.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

Around the Network
Lord Flashheart said:
Leonidus said:
jcp234 said:
Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:
Leonidus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Killzowned said:

Sorry, but you coloured the wrong game in that sentence. Killzone 2 lived up to it's hype. Halo 3 did not. Halo 3 was the most hyped game ever and yet was only a good shooter, not the best thing since sliced bread that microsoft told us it would be.

How do you know? What has a game to do to live up to its hype?

Reviews? 94 on metacritic
Playtime? Still no. 1 on Xbox Live
Sales? 10 million units should be enough.

 

Stop this fanboy-stuff. Halo DID live up to its hype. It actually surpassed it.

No, its totally opinionated as to whether a game lives up to its hype. I see Halo 3 the same as I see GTA4; both failed to live up to their hype.

Yes, both games sold a shitload, got fantastic and somewhat biased reviews.....but they both failed compared to their previous installments and left alot of fans quite dissapointed

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Honestly, this sounds like some contrived definition of "hype" fabricated to back your point. It really does not have much merit considering Halo 3 was released so long ago and is selling on par with Kill Zone 2. A few posters have already disproved your logic, but you seem to be a persistent overly zealous Sony "supporter."

I am not even a fan of the Halo franchise, but for anyone to say it didn't meet its hype...just screams bias. Even if you did not like the game, Halo 3 was a phenomenon in terms of sales and its multiplayer critical acclaim. I am sure Microsoft is quite happy with the Halo franchise, especially in comparison with the Killzone franchise. Ask yourself, would Sony prefer Killzone 2 type sales or Halo 3 type sales? It's not rocket science.

Chill out, I'l put my opinion across more clearly for you. Here:

A teenage boy loves Halo, and adores Halo 2. He therefore gets really hyped up for Halo 3. He gets Halo 3 and He thinks that it isn't as good as the other two. He therfore thinks that Halo 3 didn't live up to its hype.

But if he isn't the vast majority then that doesn't prove it didn't live up to the hype.
For you Halo 3 didn't but you are in the minority and pushing you opinion as fact.

You know what after all the rabid fanboys when I tried KZ2 I wasn't impressed.

There you are FACT it didn't live up to the hype.
I'm just doing what you did.

Yes, considering a couple of my previous posts in this discussion where about how the whole topic is all about opinions



well, halo does take alot to make right? (i dont remember)



PullusPardus said:
well, halo does take alot to make right? (i dont remember)

Halo's advertising campiagns cost more than most games cost to actually make.

Killzone cost a fortune to make also though



Leonidus said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Leonidus said:
jcp234 said:
Leonidus said:
Squilliam said:
Leonidus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Killzowned said:

Sorry, but you coloured the wrong game in that sentence. Killzone 2 lived up to it's hype. Halo 3 did not. Halo 3 was the most hyped game ever and yet was only a good shooter, not the best thing since sliced bread that microsoft told us it would be.

How do you know? What has a game to do to live up to its hype?

Reviews? 94 on metacritic
Playtime? Still no. 1 on Xbox Live
Sales? 10 million units should be enough.

 

Stop this fanboy-stuff. Halo DID live up to its hype. It actually surpassed it.

No, its totally opinionated as to whether a game lives up to its hype. I see Halo 3 the same as I see GTA4; both failed to live up to their hype.

Yes, both games sold a shitload, got fantastic and somewhat biased reviews.....but they both failed compared to their previous installments and left alot of fans quite dissapointed

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Honestly, this sounds like some contrived definition of "hype" fabricated to back your point. It really does not have much merit considering Halo 3 was released so long ago and is selling on par with Kill Zone 2. A few posters have already disproved your logic, but you seem to be a persistent overly zealous Sony "supporter."

I am not even a fan of the Halo franchise, but for anyone to say it didn't meet its hype...just screams bias. Even if you did not like the game, Halo 3 was a phenomenon in terms of sales and its multiplayer critical acclaim. I am sure Microsoft is quite happy with the Halo franchise, especially in comparison with the Killzone franchise. Ask yourself, would Sony prefer Killzone 2 type sales or Halo 3 type sales? It's not rocket science.

Chill out, I'l put my opinion across more clearly for you. Here:

A teenage boy loves Halo, and adores Halo 2. He therefore gets really hyped up for Halo 3. He gets Halo 3 and He thinks that it isn't as good as the other two. He therfore thinks that Halo 3 didn't live up to its hype.

But if he isn't the vast majority then that doesn't prove it didn't live up to the hype.
For you Halo 3 didn't but you are in the minority and pushing you opinion as fact.

You know what after all the rabid fanboys when I tried KZ2 I wasn't impressed.

There you are FACT it didn't live up to the hype.
I'm just doing what you did.

Yes, considering a couple of my previous posts in this discussion where about how the whole topic is all about opinions

I think most logical individuals will agree that Halo 3 was much closer to meeting hype expectations than Kill Zone 2. Halo 3 was a phenomenon when it released and its performance was even reflected in hardware numbers.

Kill Zone 2 pretty much came and went. You may have your own esoteric standard of "meeting hype" but most unbiased individuals will admit the sucess and impact of Halo 3.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.

Leonidus said:
Lord Flashheart said:

But if he isn't the vast majority then that doesn't prove it didn't live up to the hype.
For you Halo 3 didn't but you are in the minority and pushing you opinion as fact.

You know what after all the rabid fanboys when I tried KZ2 I wasn't impressed.

There you are FACT it didn't live up to the hype.
I'm just doing what you did.

Yes, considering a couple of my previous posts in this discussion where about how the whole topic is all about opinions

Think I missed them.

Could you show me please?