I figured Best Buy would give the game a high rating so more people would want to buy it. You know, cause they sell the game and everything.
Well, I definitely agree that it is not as good as Guerrilla, but it is also nowhere near as terrible as Thor. I don't think that's even possible.
I've played Thor, and there is no way that Armageddon is as terrible as Thor.
malamdra,
I don't know what you were doing in that game, but I didn't get any of the DLC until after the first time I beat it, and it took me 52 hours.
Haha, good point! 15 hours is pretty good for an FPS, but I thought Rage was going to be more like Fallout 3, i.e. open world with tons to do.
Either English is not this guy's first language, or this writer is terrible.
I still don't have a desire to buy a Kinect, but it seems to be capable of some neat things.
Someone apparently doesn't know how to read...
You realize that Bulletstorm and Killzone 3 have been out a few weeks longer than Homefront, right? You know how time works, right? You know what "pace" means, right? You know that 883k is higher than 821k, right?
I don't necessarily agree with that, but your last line deserves some bubbles! It's not just the media though, it's most people.
I know! I thought it reached 1 million pretty fast, but I also thought Killzone 3 and Bulletstorm were already well above that.
Yeah, I think it was well marketed, but do you think it was advertised more than Bulletstorm and Killzone?
FPS great is like RPG mediocre. I want an FPS to have an actual story, not just "here's the reason you are shooting things". Crysis looks awesome, but I'm still waiting to see if the story will be up to snuff.
Yeah, I really don't know why this Richard Morgan guy thinks he's doing something new and innovative by having a story that's dark and serious. Then again, I haven't played the game, so maybe it's as good as he says it is.
I find your lack of reading comprehension skills disturbing.
Because there's a whole paragraph after that, maybe?
I'm not saying it has ANYTHING to do with racing, just trying to understand on what level the Car and Driver guys were talking about the "realistically rendered tracks". Jeez, don't know what all the disagrees are about when I'm just speculating here...
Maybe they mean "more realistically rendered" in the way they look and how many trees are there or whatever, not referring to the exact dimensions of the tracks. Just a guess on my part.
Yeah, I can see people debating over which one is more fun or which is a better GAME, but I would've guessed "car people" would pretty much always side with GT5 for its realism. Guess not!
I found this article helpful. I was getting frustrated thinking I was having connection issues, but it turned out not to be my fault after all. Good advice at the end: turn the 360 off, wait a few minutes and try again. Worked for me.
He could show it off on his wang and I'd still want it. The game, I mean. Uhhh....