Gamesradar#1: "I was thinking of giving MGS4 a 20/10, but when i play it, it was only 15/10 :(, so we subtracted one point and gave it a 9/10."
Gameradar#2: "Yeah, i was thinking of giving Grid a 6/10, but it turned out to be pretty good, so we gave it a 9/10."
so sev was right then.
I would like the idea of transformer controller, that would be awesome. But maybe next gen.
but didn't like it as much.
I somehow got lost in the middle, and didn't finish it. The combat system wasn't too complex either.
idk, it's just my opinion of the game. I have to revisit and finish it with my ps2.
The game does look quite good, but I got bored with taking photos of animals.
like i said, i have to go back and finish the game before I can say if i like or dislike it. If i played back in the day, then yeah, i would have liked it...
oooooww. It's a RTS. lost interested quickly.
Wasn't the first aimed for casual audience too? It wasn't that hard, and had cuddly characters.
For consoles and PC?
Is Far cry using the same engine as Crysis?
Yes, there is someone that believes.
multiplayer is not everything.
As along as I know that Eurogamer and I played exactly the same game, then it's doesn't matter to me.
If they don't then I'll know that they are really really bad reviewers. They are anyways, but then it adds a 3 more reallys.
bubbles man. that was good.
Some review it too early, some too late, some are biased, some are payed, some are hyped, some are just wrote by the wrong person, some are reviewed by the wrong site, some use some random scoring method AND some whine about the install time.
If someone doesn't want mgs4 to be labeled in same category as gears, cod4, halo, gtaiv, then fine by me. I am going to buy the game.
But sadly it's going to be judged off that same exact score, when more games come and be compa...
There is always someone with enough time to hit the disagree button.
But most usually, they get outlasted by agree in the long-term.
There are serveral reasons:
maybe they don't like that cuddly avator of yours.
maybe they hate that you didn't say xbox rules.
maybe they don't like people who comment first.
maybe just maybe n4g has a system where a person gets an automatic disagree for not starting a war.
Has N4G thought of gettin...
EUROGAMER#1: "I don't know, something is missing the game"
EUROGAMER#2: "Maybe we haven't played/gotten MGO online. that's why"
EUROGAMER#1: "No, that's not it, something else"
EUROGAMER#2" "MAYBE because we skipped all the CUTSCENES, that's why"
EUROGAMER#1: "I don't know, nah that can't be it"
EUROGAMER#2: "Maybe it's a ps3 exclusive."
EUROGAMER#1: "Yeah....but it's...
lol.
I wish.
I say next to impossible.
They have done no marketing, there have been no reviews, haven't announced a solid release date like June 16 or something.
No, I am just talking about games in general. Not exclusive.
Nobody complained on the ps2, because it wasn't that big. So sony didn't go into it that much.
But now that it's big, Sony is try to make a larger step towards gaming.
I think an Average Joe would be surprised by the things ps3 CAN do right now. I also think that $50 for a service would make consumers reluctant to go online. It's not a lot, but it's something. They are already paying for DSL, then why is it not free.
Breakfast pointing me that way --------------------->
Bill can't leave. He bought out this Zone.
in the same time frame. Probably not.
Since COD5 is out of the picture. most people will buy these.
SADLY, there are gamers that don't know about COD5 not being made by IW. So COD5 will probably affect sales of both games.
well that's not my point sort of.
I am saying that people that say xbox is superior to ps3 because they boast higher resolution and better FPS is simply not true.
they don't need one to review the game.