exactly....if I rereviewed games such as the following below, they would be different
UC2 - 85
Halo 3 - 90
BC2 - 80-85
MW2 - 85
They're all still good games but people rate things too highly or too low based on immediate reactions and games (especially shooters) tend to evolve as far as player base, balance, etc.
no it wasn't....it was supposed to compete with COD
Yay for twisting the truth
and MOH and BC2 and COD WAW and every shooter ever known to man....
geeze people, camping is in every shooter ever (at least in the last few years) and to think otherwise is asinine
looks like it....they've said some weapons won't be in MP that are in SP so here's to hoping those are included in that some.....
yay for having money!!!!!
I think he was saying that some people just prefer playing games on the 360, and there's nothing wrong with that. They either didn't know about Valve's pricing on the PC (or lack thereof) compared to the 360 or just prefer L4D on the 360.
And it's not knowingly getting ripped off if you know....that's you knowing a price and paying for the content because you feel it's worth the money. Knowingly ripped off is almost a paradox (almost)
Imagine that, I have a 360, PS3 and then a PC for any valve game or blizzard game....we're the only two in the world apparently with all this logic floating around the post
Yea, I'm not talking about graphics and all that....I mean part of me just says keep going on 360 (because I play mostly shooters) and just pay for Live and make a change next gen or in a few years to the freeness. Part of me says might as well start now since I could get Frontlines with MOH on the PS3 and and since my current Live sub runs out in July, I might be done with Halo by then and move to PS3 for freeness minus like a 3 month card for Gears 3 and I could get another game a year...
This is why I'm starting to think about buying multiplats on PS3 and I need some answers (figure this thread is as good as any).
1) I've got Halo: Reach and it's worth the Live subscription as it is and I'm sure I'll want Gears later. If I enjoy those two games, then Live seems worth it especially for the way it's all integrated and my friends (some have both consoles) but most only have 360. (This is more rhetorical, comment if you wish)
<...
I'm getting it for cheap (thanks Amazon for screwing up my Reach order)...I mean real cheap so worst case is that I pay 70 bucks for both Black Ops and MOH....and one falls to the wayside.
I can live with that
haha I'm horrible at PC aiming (.45 in BC2 on PC) and I've got a .88 K/D ratio so far (not AS much sniping in BC2)....it's probably a little better for people not as good at shooters but it's definitely not BC2...it's infantry based, much faster paced as well. It has a bit of both major games in it
oh ye are so misinformed but kasta's got ya covered
cool, so why is it horrible? Personally, it's pretty fun. I'm only at a .75 K/D ratio on PC (definitely not used to aiming controls on PC for a FPS) and I've played 2 hours before I realized it.
At worst this will be my 3rd shooter behind Reach and Black Ops and this would be one hell of 3rd game to play
I'm just gonna go back to consoles because I grew up on them and I'm best with them. I realize the PC is probably better "feature" wise and graphic wise but the 360 controller just feels more natural and like I'm in the game. It feels like I'm at work when using keyboard and mouse. I know it sounds weird but it's hard to explain.
I'm not worried about running the game on my PC. I'm just curious how much of a drop off graphically th...
why not download the beta on PC? It only takes a dual core processor and a manageable graphics card...i'm just saying
Eh, I disagree...I'm not fantastic at shooters (1.20 - 1.25 in Halo 3 and Reach --- .9 in MW2 (though I'm usually over 1 now that I've figured out how to play and just played more and practiced more ---- BC2 on PC I'm .45 because it was the first PC FPS I've played and I did not aim so well in it and still don't) but I still enjoy them. There has to be that happy medium where great players and not so great players can coexist and have fun. BC2 was a pain to aim with ...
Well, I'm planning on getting this on 360 but I didn't play the original beta. While I can get a general idea from the PC beta, I'm wondering a few things (can anyone here clear it up?)
Graphics - I realize PC graphics are better but how much? I've got a beefy setup that can run BC2 at medium (probably higher if I tried it) with no lag or drop whatsoever. So the graphics would get an upgrade on PC but how much? The reason I wonder is because I can't ai...
neither does Black Ops or Halo...if there was truly recoil, no one could shoot anything.
That being said, the range on those guns are ACR MW2 range....not good
In the 10 minutes I played the beta (played for 30 but couldn't find games or EA servers for 20 of that) it felt polished and good. Nothing revolutionary but a good solid MP shooter. It seemed like it was a simplified child of BC2 and COD which is good in my opinion. Sometimes simplicity is better and such is the case here.
One thing I'm wondering is how much worse the graphics are gonna be on the consoles (I just can't aim on the PC no matter how I try....that...
8 is not a bad score at all....people just expect too much. In all honesty, I would rate games like UC2 and MW2 at 80-85 and Halo at 85-90.
Seriously, when did 8 become a bad score? Also, I haven't listened to IGN in years....they have never matched up with my own tastes or opinions like other sites have