awesome. another guy who says he will never purchase another Activision game until the next one he really want s comes along. stick it to the man...er, sometimes...maybe i guess.
"Girls with huge melons", it really does everything.
damn straight tough. there are plenty of AAA quality games being developed for 10-20 million dollars. games like GeOW and Uncharted. those games are the top 10% of what the gaming industry has offered this gen, and they can maintain reasonable development cost.
its not my faulty Rocstar, Guerrilla, Square, and others spend 50-100 million on game development. maybe they should learn from others about cost management.
you last point isn't true at all. movie ...
development cost isn't my concern. maybe the should be working harder to find ways to bring cost down.
wages have not increased if you adjust for inflation. its actually come down a bit.
sorry poop but you are the only one acting "BUTTHURT". everyone replying to thief has been reasonable. you really like Reach and thats fine. you may even like it more than the 2 games i mentioned, but you seem to missing my point. i never meant to directly compare any of those 3 games. i was comparing more review standards. i purposely choose 3 well reviewed games to show this point.
Wicko below states, "story wise, it really isn't holding my attention all...
haters gonna hate.
i was thinking the same thing. sure it looked to work well enough there, but i want to know how it works in the heat of battle.
i like the thought.
i like it.
sucks for those 130,000 players. still, with that many players paying $25 a month, that should be over 3 million dollars a month the game brings in.
would get Sport Champions because i need the bundle. would also like to play MAG to see how well it works.
the art style in this game is amazing. the story seems very interesting. as long as the gameplay is passable, this is a day one purchase.
i agree his reasoning given for hating Reachs story is lame. still stand with my previous post, however unpopular.
i think thief is just pointing out Halo has flaws, and a lot of reviewers don't mention or don't have their reviews reflect the flaws. Halo always has great MP features and gameplay. its the SP thats always average.
i understand most buy Halo for MP, and i believe thats how most reviewers look at Halo when reviewing it. the problem is when they harp on other games(BF:BC2 and Killzone2 come to mind)SP to bring the review score down. even when their MP is as big or big...
the Halo story has been crap since 2. people play it for the online. SP is just an added time waister.
if you really think LBP and previous GT games are better than LBP2 and GT5, then go right a head and make the same comment. maybe he really thought Halo3 was better. maybe he is just trolling, but i thought we weren't suppose to feed the trolls.
the video i saw looked laggy and uninspiring on Kinect. if the lag gets worked out Eden could be a fun game for Kinect owners.
im going with funny. people really should laugh more.
1. being free is a plus
2.PS1 is my favorite console and have purchased a few classics, but dont know how much better this makes PSN.
3.what a lame reason. i don't know if i should go on.
4.plus is good if you plan to buy the discounted games
5.American so i can't comment
6.browser and search would be cool if the browser wasn't complete crap. better then nothing i guess.
7.dont care about either trophies or achievements. seems like t...
no i understand. you buy only the Activision games you want. supporting all their other games makes you sick. not only are you an elitist prick, but you are also a hypocrite. good job!!!
FYI, this is the internet. you post your dumbass thoughts, and others comment on them. nothing is solved and everyone keeps being the douchebag that their mother raised.