I'd say the morons are those buying a Wii, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and choice.
Survey results don't mean much, and obviously only form a part of the analysis - which you'd see if you read beyond your cherry picked quote (hint: have a look at the original Gamasutra article)
Right now, there's not enough good games on the Wii to justify ownership. I bought the Wii on Day 1, as I have always supported Nintendo consoles.
But the GameCube, N64 and SNES were way better.
It's sad that just as Nintendo get back on top, their games have reached a low point. Even the 1st party titles have not been up to past standards (Mario Galaxy is not as good as Mario 64. Mario Kart Wii is not as good as on the N64 or SNES. Smash Bros on Wii is no better t...
Well, I wouldn't say no to another Myth game - and I don't care what platform it's released on.
Yeah, agreed.
"Critical Gamer Writes: The Fallout franchise has gone from strength to strength since Bethesda have gotten their grubby mitts all over it"
LOL! Have they played 1 and 2?
To me, the important quote in that article was...
"...Turek did explain that features of the Cell would continue to be moulded into other processor designs. With the future looking like it’s taking a GPU route, a hybrid technology is the direction IBM will developing."
Any fanboys crying about the failure of the Cell should just read that quote. It explains exactly why the Cell development was a success, and where it is leading.
Also, there's ...
Yep, it would definitely kick start their next-gen sales with a vengence.
Not sure MS would do that though.
They know they are going to get a decent load of Next-Xbox sales from early adopters, and they know they have grown the Xbox brand significantly this gen, so early sales should be brisk even with out Halo. - It would probably make sense to launch next-gen Halo to combat any move Sony/Nintendo makes or when there are a few million Xbox's out there.
Really? Really? Surely not... Surely Microsoft have realised they've pulled on the great udders of Halo to the extent that there's not a drop of good stuff left. /sarcasm
I guess when the cow stops delivering quality and starts spurting cash why not keep swinging on those udders!? When suckers are still buying overpriced expansion packs, and still getting excited about Master Chief branded Mountain Dew, it makes sense for MS to repackage Halo yet again and again and the masses ...
Can't say anything to that comment except... Lol
My feeling is at least 8 hours should be barely acceptable for an FPS.
But ultimately, the answer to the question is... If you feel you haven't got value for money, then yes, the game is too short.
I'm really not enjoying the MW2 campaign, so the length of it doesn't really matter to me. Also I'll be spending a lot of time in the MP, so on a cost per hour basis it's great value.
However I think Activision have set a dangerous precedent... The sales o...
If Sony had Call of Duty as an exclusive it would sell the same numbers as any other PS3 exclusive.
So why would Sony bother with CoD exclusivity when they already have their bases covered? People can choose Killzone or MAG or Call of Duty - Seems like a sweet deal to me!
Halo is the exception, not the rule when it comes to sales - so people really need to realise that we will probably never see another IP that sells in those volumes. Halo is MS' flagship title. ...
The saddest thing is that I'm finding the single player campaign of MW2 really really disappointing.
MW1 kept me gripped. I wanted to play on to see what happened next. MW2 just doesn't have that spark. The airport level does nothing to flesh out or tell the story - it seems to be in there because Infinity Ward were praised for the emotional moments in MW1, and they felt they had to turn it up to 11 in MW2.
Multiplayer... Well that's a different story! Loving it!...
I really enjoyed the game, but was also hugely disappointed. The game just fails to elevate itself to greatness (despite what the metacritic rating may show!).
I avoided the hype, and knew what to expect after playing Fable 1, so my expectations were not high - and yet it still didn't blow me away. Fable 2 had a lot of issues, and I think the dev team focused on the wrong areas.
For me, the whole relationships and impressing people was just pointless and detracted ...
@K1W1
If you liked Fable 1, I think you'll have a blast playing Fable 2.
I may be critical of the Fable games, but only because I think they have so much potential to be even better.
Unique does not equal Good.
Fable 1 was great but flawed. Fable 2 was more of the same, but with bigger flaws and more bugs.
Lets see what Molyneaux pulls out of the bag for this one - however, having seen Milo, I'm not confident.
Damn Molyneaux's work has gone downhill since he left Bullfrog - I hope his new role in MS means he is less involved with Fable 3, as then it might have a chance of reaching the potential the series obviously shows.
@ Meerkat...
...So, PS3 version, yeah??
Sad and pathetic people.
I'm very much enjoying Borderlands.
In some ways it feels a lot like Hellgate : London to me, which itself was compared to an FPS Diablo. Weird how one 'next-gen Diablo' fails so spectacularly, and the other seems to have been well embraced by gamers.
When a game series reaches a certain level of excellence, then deeper analysis is welcome, and possibly called for. But to title the article 'Why does UC2 have to be.. so lame?' shows a lack of any sort of journalistic credibility.
Anyway. In the interest of actually discussing the storyline; I'm a bit torn on it to be honest.
On one hand, a simple well told story is a great thing - and UC2 is definitely nicely delivered and can stand tall next to other pop-cult...
That's cool oobob. Enjoy your Wii gaming.
The great thing about gaming is that everyone can find something to enjoy. I guess the Wii just isn't for me! :)