I don't know if you are gonna come back here, but you have given ZERO examples of how much customization Halo 3 has. I gave specific examples of things Killzone 2 had that Halo 3 didn't while you are just telling me. I played Halo 3 and I didn't see much more than what Killzone 2 had. Hell the fact that you can customize badges, how long each gameplay mode will last before it rolls through to the next one (in a single game mind you) and several other things on top of that, Killzone 2 might ha...
You guys obviously haven't played Killzone 2. Aside from Forge, a coop campaign and the ability to record matches, Killzone 2 probably has more distinct options than Halo 3. Also, if Killzone 2 is so gimped why does it have classes to pick and choose from (medic, heavy, engineer, etc.) while Halo 3 does not? Why does Killzone 2 have Assassination mode (an entirely new game mode) while Halo 3 does not? Why does Killzone 2 have the ability to roll through several game modes (Team D to Capture t...
Just keep telling yourself that. If you played the game you would know that Killzone 2 has quite a bit to offer in the online department. For one, you can pick what kind of matches you are going into (pistols only; snipers and shotguns only; some maps turned off; certain game modes off; etc.) instead of the game just going, "lol matchmaking" and you are shoved into a generic game mode like team deathmatch.
"1.6 -
Activision should STFU?
Lower prices for consoles and £5 extra for MW2? WTF?
Little bit of info. Sony's revenue - $80 billion, MS revenue - $60 billion
Activision revenue $3 billion (actiblizzard $5 billion)"
You do realize that Sony and Microsoft are invested in industries other than the gaming industry, right?
Microsoft is the biggest software giant in the world. Sony is huge in a TON of industries. Activision i...
Also, at all the people arguing that the Xbox 360 is more powerful than the PS3, just let me know when there is a 360 game that is pushing more polys and higher res textures onto the screen than Uncharted 2. Kay thx bye.
Bullsh!t dude. All you did was take the fuzziest looking Killzone 2 picture and a good-looking Halo: Reach one and called it a "comparison". Here are two Halo: Reach and two Killzone 2 pics from the same site. Both the Halo: Reach and Killzone 2 pictures are taken from the games when they were in the alpha stage. Same quality pictures, same conditions makes for a much better comparison.
@kaveti: You can be biased AND ignorant. Just look at Bill O'Reilly for a shining example of that: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Edit: Also, IGN are more like trolls. They add wood to the flames only to get enough hits to meet their quota. Pathetic sons of b!tches, they won't be getting my hits anymore! Fvck IGN, they care more about advertising money than the gaming community!
The contributor is flaming us! They didn't give the game a score. The reviewer just said how he felt about the game, and then gave closing comments.
I don't get why I'm getting so many disagrees here. I was not hating on Mass Effect 2, but complementing on the reviewer for discussing what he liked and didn't like about the game. Also, this website doesn't even give scores for their reviews, but instead talk about their experience with the game, it was whatever a$$fvck that contributed that gave a score that the website didn't even give. Hate the contributor for being a liar and handing out flamebait, not me.
To tell you the truth I feel most reviewers are hyperbolic when they review anyways. For games they don't like, they will give the game the lowest possible score they can with it BARELY making sense. Then for games they like a lot, they will give it some ridiculously high score that also does not make any sense. Personally I found that this review was fair because he did not give it a 5 for finding fault with it, but instead said that even though he didn't like quite a few of the changes the ...
The review is actually well thought out and the reviewer makes a solid argument for why he gave it a 7.5. He said it wasn't a bad game, but he preferred the first one because it felt less stripped down for the masses. I have to say I like this review a lot more for actually taking in both the positives and negatives and coming to the conclusion that the game is still a good buy, but not without fault. Much better than IGN's which can basically be summed up as, "OMG dis game is SO EAZYto ...
The guy writing the article is completely wrong. The SVER guns are actually the worst guns out of all three, with Raven having the best. Funny thing is that Raven loses the most while SVER wins the most. WHY? The age group and personality of people playing the factions. It is obvious that people would pick Raven straight out of playing MW2 because they want the Godlike guns and to go on and be a lone wolf, while the SVER group includes very hardcore players who want to work as a team, most wi...
Name a flaw in MAG for me please. I haven't found AT ALL yet, whereas I could name a sh!tload in MW2, a couple in Battlefield: Bad Company and a couple in Killzone 2. Stop believing what reviewers say or else you'll keep on buying crappy games like MW2 and ignore the good ones like MAG.
I was about to agree with you there kingdavid... then you put GT down as one of the sites you actually believe. Whew! GT sucks more M$ d!ck than any other reviewer out there! I lost so much respect for them I stopped going to their site months ago. With IGN doing the same troll reviewing bullsh!t, I'm gonna stop going there too. MAG>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>&...
Dude, most First Person Shooters are pretty much online and cost 60 dollars. Halo, MW2, Battlefield: Bad Company all have very short story modes and then an online mode that you'll probably spend days worth of hours playing. I say get MAG, I played the beta and it was so much fun! I'm getting this game this weekend and I am gonna love every moment of it. S.V.E.R. for life!
I stopped going to GT, but before I did stop going there I looked up their reviews. They have zero reviews for the PS3 games that went over 9.5 whereas many Xbox 360 exclusives have gone over 9.5. It annoys me how people blurt out "GT isn't biased! GT isn't biased!" when they've shown so many times that they are. Mass Effect 2 looks great don't get me wrong, I just hate GT.
Totally agree. *Sigh* even gaming journalists are casual players nowadays, sucking the c*ck of Modern Warfare. It's sad really, very few people ever play a game for a satisfying experience anymore, but instead want an easy experience with win handed on a platter to them.
It looks to me like the developer decided to drop lower detailed textures running in 1080p at 60fps for highly detailed textures running in 720p at 30fps. I must say that dropping 1080p for better textures was a good choice in terms of visuals.
:'(