eidos was one of the publishers.
the other reason I doubt they remake FF7 is because they can just make a bunch of spin offs with FF7 in the name and it will still sell, plus it's much cheaper.
but I feel Final Fantasy is losing ground to other developers who have entered the scene and made a name for themselves. Bioware, Bethesda, Blizzard, Mistwalker and Factor 5 all have rpgs that I'm far more interested in.
eidos interactive \o/
Rofl someone disagreed with me.
http://www.square-haven.com...
see what it says on the bottom? Right Eidos Interactive.
I just can't wait to do mongoose racing after building a track with explosive barrels.
It's very deserving in that position.
But i think all the gta-ddr-guitar hero's should be removed since it's not a soundtrack to the game, but just a compilation cd. KI should be on that list same with LOZ:OOT.
I couldn't even tell the difference in some of the screenshots.
halo has the same ammount of enemies in the last scene of the second level than in the entire first halo game. That's well over 20 times the amount of enemies.
2 of bungies games in that list.
Marathon and Halo ftw.
but what halo did do was add a lot to the genre.
-For starters the wepaons system. Halo's weapon system where holding 2 of any weapon was used in games like FEAR and gears of war, where an extra weapon was substituded in. This was rare to see in games before hand, most used a menu system or limited you with 1 primary, 1 secondary.
-regenerating health. Real no explination here as regenerating health is probably noticable in most games now where it once never exi...
but klz2 doesn't look much better than gears of war, and the game has a good 3 or 4 people in a battle, halo will have into the hundreds. So yes I think halo will look better than killzone 2. Texture wise maybe not but in shear volume of on screen enemies, draw distances, and the plethora of other effects halo looks better.
in fact I think that lair would do worse but because it did have so much hype many people rated it higher because of it.
it's fear.
I guess a lot of people were expecting more out of these games. That they're the AAA titles that were going to make the ps3 worth buying but in the end they didn't really deliver. They're good just not as good as expected. And until that game comes, that gears of war, or that wii-sport arrives for the ps3 people will be disappointed.
Anyways, warhawk is far more deserving of the title of AAA, or it would be if it had singleplayer.
which isn't very impressive graphically either.
THE GAME IS FUN.
Yeah you know... Fun that thing that games are supposed to be. That's why it's good.
And thats why people like it.
and teams of 5 feel fine, I agree, smaller teams are better. Even from TFC I got use to 12 on 12 but that's only because it's 6 defense 6 offense. I think the 8 on 8 is perfect for the game types and map offering of halo.
Also Fopums, halo 2 had 32, 16 v 16 on big team matches. It's obvious that bungie is making a conscience decision to lower max player count.
killzone 1 sucked, Try playing it. It was glitchy. Good graphics doesn't mean a good game. Halo has set the standard for console fps. Killzone cannot hold a flame to that.
the banshee, and hornet. then there's the elephant warthog scorpion wraith etc for land. Jet packs maybe we don't know yet(probably not but brutes have them) but there are man cannons instead.
I tried the game.
Some of the graphics were nice, frame rate dips and the colours and textures were repetitive and a some felt bland but overall the game looked really good. Also I felt that the fire should've had more work since you spend so much time shooting it out.
Controls kill the game for the average gamer. And the difficulty.
I'd have to give this game around a 7 but not much better than that. I think there's a lot of people in denial because they ...
omnislash.