sounds about right tbh. you tend to find with sanbox games that you just mess around a lot of the time anyway, neither doing the main story or side missions lol at least thats what i spent a lot of time doing in gta 4 :p
should this not be linked to the original source? since the video is one of gametrailers recently posted up....
thats really impressive tbh and a surprise to see europe selling so many! mayb figures like that is enough to tell sony that europe does still matter lol cus for so long now sony really don't seem too bothered about europe.
anyway i hope we get some more footage at E3 and possibly a release date. Really looking frwd to this game but i am getting impatient :(
do u mean with 3 or confrontation lol cus obv confrontation was different devs.
but if you mean socom 3/combined assault then i agree. They shouldn't have taken a good squad based game and added loads more players. the maps wernt balanced, weapons just wernt as gd etc etc. Coming back to the maps, the best thing about socom 1+2 was the fact that a map was built for 1 game mode meaning it always played really well. with socom 3 you actually had maps that were biased to 1 team or t...
I think it means it will control 7 other ppl. cus a squad leader controlling a team of 8, well they are the 8th person so controlling themselves?
and yeh it sounds bf2 like with the OIC but i think thats a good thing. Playin as the commander in bf2 could be really fun and it was essential to have someone who knew what they were doing for ur team to succeed.
hope they sort this out cus the first could have been good but so many let downs. First of all no clan support! the fact that bf is all about tactics and team work i was amazed.
also. not including the game mode that basically made the franchise on launch! and even when they released the update, conquest just wasn't the same. The maps just wern't built for it which led to stupid flag capture areas etc etc.
I guess the biggest problem is that bf has always been about ...
Huxley and Mag are different enough to co-exist tbh
Huxley - (last time i checked) up to 60v60 battles on pc but can go as low as to play 1v1's
MAG - large scale battles of up to 256 players
Huxley - fast paced 'Unreal tournament' style gameplay
MAG - tactical 'real world' type military gameplay
Huxley - a world outside of the battlefield where people can meet, trade etc (just like an mmo)
MAG - all character levelling etc is done on th...
yeh it does seem a long time ago that we first heard about this game and haven't had much info on it at all. It certainly sounds an interesting concept but i imagine it will take a long time to get right (perhaps why we haven't heard much)
heres to hoping we get some more info at E3
I guess the problem is that people can't upgrade and just buy what they wanted i.e. they will technically be buying the map packs again.
For any1 who didn't buy the dlc when it was released this is a really good offer. i'm tempted by it but mainly for the extra single player stuff (i'd love to play online but it always seems way too laggy :()
just buy a ps2 if you wanna play ps2 games lmao rather than paying $1000 lol and upscaling would look terrible tbh.
oh and my ps3 can play ps2 games lol
so even thought other sites also rate ps3 exclusive's with a similar score IGN are biased?? but then if they scored lower than the average ps3 fanboys would say they're biased in the other direction lol
point being. If IGN give it a 9 and many other reputable sites give it a 9, is IGN still biased?
it's a rumor so gotta take with a pinch of salt but i would expect a slim line version at some point. the ps3 is a giant but i'm sure they could get it a lot smaller, just look at how small they got the ps2 in the end
that must be the US review. UK review gave it 9
anyway a really good score, will give the review a proper read later.
i haven't read all the comments but it seems like a lot of people having a go with comments such as 'who are these guys, i wouldn't take a review from a site like this seriously'
really?? is 8.7 not a great score anymore??
as far as i'm aware mag and huxley are very very different games...
MAG pits up to 254 in 1 arena
Huxley is about an MMO world where you build up your character mmo style and fight fps (but it's not like your fighting with loads at the same time)
point being that both are 'mmo' but they are completely different from each other.
EDIT:
taken from the wiki site:
Little is known about Huxley's gameplay at the moment. Action is...
i haven't got time to read the review atm but a quick scan seems to be that there are a lot of problems with the game (making it hard to play) e.g. i noticed 1 screen shot they talk about how the ui sometimes doesn't load. another point they mention that when you die it can leave you sitting there before anything happens.
sounds like it was too buggy to even get into reviewing the game (which underneath could be good)
perhaps he played so little cus it was so bad (hence the 2/10 score)
I'm sure playing for a lot longer would bump up the score, but still, if a review only plays for a short period of time and gets bored to death of the game? perhaps it deserves such a low score?
Anyway the Reviewer should have spent more time on the game to give a better over all review, but i also feel the developer should stop crying because a 'critic' has given negative feedback. What happens if ...
erm... copyrighting....
are you lost? have a feeling your replying to the wrong article..?
maybe released during E3? wasn't it last E3 that this was announced? can't be that long away from release now surely