that's exactly what this is all about. this is just ANOTHER attempt by the fanboys to justify their argument for that being the better system. that's all this is ever about.
and it's only tolerated on n4g because it's clearly biased. i mean every comment that was banned in this thread was a pro 360 post. look at all the BS comments left by the ps3 side, they get to stay up. look how many bubbles they have. and look at the article it...
So here you have this really good system with some really good games, The ps3. and instead of the owners of this system enjoying it, they spend hours every day trying to convince everyone else (and themselves) that it's the only system worth owning and that the 360 is so terrible.
can you not see what's wrong with this? There is a freakin top article on N4G where you are basically trying to rub it in the face of fellow gamers. and think about what you're actually boasting. yo...
the whole time i've was playing through this game i kept thinking how awesome it would be if it were an MMO. not to say that it isn't awesome now. it's like a combination of diablo and fallout 3.
How you make a top 15 PS games and not mention Resident Evil is beyond me.
regarding GTA. i certainly agree that San Andreas was better. but think about the first time you played GTA 3 and the first time you played SA. SA was the better experience, but it didn't catch you off guard if you played 3. 3 was just a whole new genre. I can remember getting baked and just getting lost in that world for hours going on elaborate killing sprees and car chases.
How on earth do you give a game with noticeably dated graphics, no original gameplay, and no unique ideas a 9.5 out of 10???
why do ppl even bother with a ranking system anymore. it seems like it's a scale from 8-10.
mw2 is a 7. 7.5 tops. and i'm bumping it up that high because i do agree with you that it has tremendous sound. and because the developers had the good sense to keep that boring campaign short enough that i wouldn't wanna kill myself by the time i go...
guess that explains why MW2 sold about 1 million on ps3 and about 4 million on 360 in that first week. and i didn't need some website to spin the numbers to come to that conclusion. the first day i got MW2 (about the 3rd day after release) i played an online game and checked my rank and was in the top 3,600,000. so 3.6 million ppl on the 360 version had already signed on and played a ranked game. according to the closest thing i can find to official charts, it has now sold almost 6 mil fo...
you nailed it. unfortunately, there's a plethora of knowlegless fanboys who disagree.
but that's exactly it. orange box sold very well on 360 and horribly on ps3. why spend the money on porting a game to a system that doesn't sell software?
the fanboys wanna trick themselves into thinking that ONE system they spent money on is the only system worth having games on, but the 3rd party developers know where the money is. and now that all the ps3 fanboys are crying &...
who knows.. you may be right. but i don't get that impression from saaking. no doubt there are tons of fanboys like you just described though. it is very clear in 360 articles that ps3 fanboys comment just to add negative feedback...and it is also very clear that in ps3 articles there is very little of that from 360 fanboys. i own both systems and comment on all the articles and read other ppl's comments. and you never NEVER see ppl say things like "thank you microsoft." but ...
I believe he is saying that it is good that the co-op is a separate mode rather than incorporated into the regular campaign. he isn't saying that additional mode would ruin the single player.
i am just glad there will be some co-op elements. i also really enjoyed the co-op mode they had the first time. the one that added in double agent wasn't anywhere near as good. it was basically multiplayer with bots. but, the one where you had mini campaigns was fun as hell.
nice to see a new free map. but think about it. at any given time there's about 3-5k ppl playing online. that's a very tiny number when compared to the big games. if they did charge, they wouldn't make very much money because probably only about 10-20% would buy it. and that would mean that either they'd have to make a new game mode for ppl who bought it and split up that small number even more, or they'd have to make it so you could only use that map in custom games. they need to keep ...
people should definitely be punished for repeat actions. but in the player's defense...the matchmaking is terrible. not only will it put rank 1s in with people beyond 50, but it will often stack the teams leaving many of the lowbies on one side and the highbies on the other. additionally...i've had a few instances (nowhere near as many as with MW2) where my friend and i will join a game from our party, still be able to hear eachother, but be in different matches. <...
while i do agree that at least 1 or 2 more would have been very cool, I think that the title is a play on words that implies that you are left with 4 survivors. If they did your suggestion, they would have to rename the title to Left 16 Dead. and i don't think anyone would get it.
the first one got great reviews too and you didn't really like it.
and what do you think hype is???
before i wasn't actually calling you an idiot but rather agreeing with the first line of your original comment. but now that i can see that you don't realize when someone is playing off your comment, you don't know the definition of hype (though i'm sure you'll look it up on dictionary dot com now and post it here in a pathetic attempt to make a clever comeback), AND ...
i don't see anyone calling MW2 an expansion. and if there's any series that constantly recycles the same crap on the same crappy engine every year, it's CoD.
@sparta
so you really are an idiot. not cuz you agree it's an expansion...but because you paid money for a sequel to a game you didn't really like just because of hype.
hopefully this game's improved sales will send a msg to insomniac to keep making ratchet and stop making resistance. i don't see how a company can be so damn good at making these platformers and be so damn terrible at making fps.
i like you dude. you generally are a pretty level headed contributor. but on the matter of kz2...i couldn't disagree more.
i own both systems (360 and ps3) and in 2009 i ONLY purchased games for ps3. and of all the games i bought, KZ2 was the only one that i traded the first chance i got. The other exclusives (ratchet, infamous, UC2) i felt i should keep. but KZ2 was just a bland, boring experience with nothing new at all to offer the FPS genre. and then you add the broken ...
i think MW2 is pretty lame. and i def think UC2 is better. and i'll give you ratchet and clank, that was a very fun game. but those other games...no...i don't think they are great games. UC2 is the best of all the ones you said and it's good...not great. It's short, the story is very been-there-done-that and basically told the exact same way as the first one. The dialogue is completely cliche with a variation of "that can't be good" being spouted by every character at least 3 ...
idiots saying @sub4dis only one system has lackluster titles and then call me a fanboy?
how is what i said even remotely fanboyish??? especially when i said i'm playing UC2???
you ppl are so insanely predicable and ridiculous. you make it clear who the fanboys are.
and for the record, neither system had remarkable titles, but yes, sony did have the better exclusives...but they aren't great games...not by a long shot. if there were so remarkable, they ...
