"only because the online wasnt working doesnt mean it was a bad game"
Um, that's pretty bad for an online-only game. And I do agree that Socom Confrontation was a huge disappointment. I absolutely cannot wait when the geniuses at Zipper will release Socom 4.
Haze was an average FPS that got overhyped. It wasn't a bad game on its own.
Lair's controls were originally horrible. The only reason it got better was because of ...
As much as I like Criterion Games, I feel that EA is milking the hell out of the NFS franchise and is simply churning out mediocre game year after year. This is no different than Activision and its Guitar Hero series. I'd rather have NFS come out every two-three years with more development time spent on QUALITY rather than QUANTITY.
I'm a bit surprised that this made the news. My local best buy had a sale for MAG in April for $30. Great price if you ask me.
dude lay off the poor guy's tweeter site.
Glad they're updating their servers. Lag has been a problem ever since the last update several weeks ago on PS3. A lot of people have left BC2 among my friends because of the lag as well as RDR being great.
Score of Jim Sterling 2/10 for at least knowing English.
ZANGIEF!
It's not even Monolith right?
If I'd make one recommendation, I'd say put Metal Gear Solid 4 last in line simply because once you've played it, every game after it pales in comparison. Leave the best for last.
LAG on PS3 after latest update. Didn't exist at all on PS3 before the update since launch.
Square go down the hole...
If games were free then that would imply that development costs are zero. If development costs are zero, then there's no need to impress investors so anybody would develop any game. Sure we'll probably see more risk-takers who will try to push the boundaries of gaming, but the ratio of crappy-to-good games will also increase because there's no incentive for putting out a good game and no negative feedback for putting out crappy games on the market.
Nintendo charged $50 for their SNES games and that was the 90s when the dollar was worth more. I don't have a problem with $60 if companies provide incentive to buy the game new ie free DLC and maps. I don't, however, support the notion of taking away features ie online play if you buy the game used (for example EA).
Obviously you did not read the actual article. How typical. Callahan09 quoted directly from it, not from the title.
You're an idiot if you listen to pwnsauce. I have a minor degree in audiology.
Is it really necessary to start calling things stupid? Come on try to grow up a bit.
Based on what I've seen on the consoles after the patch (PC still hasn't gotten it yet), nobody plays Assault anymore. Most people get around the simple problem of running out of ammo by picking up dead weapons. This doesn't work if you camp though.
If you play only PC (I play both consoles and PC), you wouldn't know what I'm talking about yet.
Given how strong the rifles in the other classes are, there's really no reason to use an assault class unless you camp and run out of bullets. It's ridiculously easy to pick up and use weapons from downed enemies.
I still enjoy the game but the latest update two weeks ago caused massive lag at any time of the day. This is pretty sad considering that there was zero lag on launch day.
Talk all they want. Consumers have to buy this game mode, making the VIP code virtually useless. This on top of future EA titles taking away features for used game sales, which makes our 2 year old games worthless for trade-ins.
The list in the article, along with the lists people have posted in their comments, are all wrong based on the early preliminary tier lists for Super Street Fighter 4.