[QUOTE="AnemicAnd_Sweet"]

PS3: 10/10

Of the few games the PS3 has great games, MGS4, GT5P, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank to name a few. The console is also reliable with free online and the console doesn't break down after a year of use.

XboX 360: 9/10

One of the best consoles I have ever owned. The 360 is stacked with great games and play host to tons of AAA 3rd Party games as well as first. The console has its reliability issues, but when it's working the games make up for the RROD machine. Online may be expensive, but I sure do love me some DLC.

Well, now that I took care of this gens console line-up you guys rate the consoles from this gen and tell me their pros and cons for you.

Discuss.

pielover666

2 Gamecubes + ductape = Wii =/= this gen = last gen

PS3: 10/10

Of the few games the PS3 has great games, MGS4, GT5P, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank to name a few. The console is also reliable with free online and the console doesn't break down after a year of use.

XboX 360: 9/10

One of the best consoles I have ever owned. The 360 is stacked with great games and play host to tons of AAA 3rd Party games as well as first. The console has its reliability issues, but when it's working the games make up for the RROD machine. Online may be expensive, but I sure do love me some DLC.

Well, now that I took care of this gens console line-up you guys rate the consoles from this gen and tell me their pros and cons for you.

Discuss.

I respect Ubisoft, because they have made good games for my 360. I dislike Ubisoft , because those good games are nowhere close to how good the Ubisoft games were on the original XboX.

IMO

Square Enix is the most worthless company ever. STOP REMAKING AND CREATE NEW CRAP... seriously instead of Chrono Trigger - a 15 year old game - being remade, they should focus their energy on Chrono Break. I mean why not? Why waste resources on a remake when they could make a new game? The only game they should even consider remaking is Final Fantasy VII and only because there is huge demand.AHUGECAT

This could be a huge step if you think about it. I don't mean to get your hopes up, but this Chrono Trigger thing is so random that they may be checking to see how big the fanbase for the franchise still is before giving the go ahead to create a new installment.

IMO

[QUOTE="AnemicAnd_Sweet"][QUOTE="kool-aids"]

MGS1- 8.5

MGS2- 9.6

MGS3- 8.7

MGS4- 10

You are proven wrong.

kool-aids

You are still wrong.

MGS1- 93.5

MGS2- 94.8

MGS3- 91.5

MGS4- 93.3

I would rather we go by scores as a collective of reviewers like I did with thevery first post, instead of using just GS scores which are not credible to the collective gamer anyways.

Sorry we ONLY use GS scores.

May I ask why you would use a sight that has no crediblity. If you only deem this site worthy of you recognition when it comes to scores than you to are not credible. I am done speaking with you.

Nice "facts" you have there. First thing is first; Reviews do not = fact. And THAT is a fact. Second, most of the reviews were only hard on the game because of technical issues, something most fanboys turn a blind eye to. Third, because the first one fails does not mean this one will too. Examples of that have been clear on many game sites through reviews and user opinions. That also goes vise versa meaning it doesnt mean it will succeed just because the last one did.

Now onto actual thoughts about the first game. It wasnt great but it wasnt god awful if you could get your panties out of a bunch when it came to the bugs in the game. The actual premise of the game was actually pretty decent. The story wasnt amazing but was good enough, and the same goes for the gameplay. It was an above average game that could have shined in its scores had it fixed its little quirks. Some people, me included, actually liked the first one(at least a little) because they were able to not be bothered by the bugs. Now, whether the second one will succeed at even getting AA is up in the air. Graphics dont mean everything and while I am personally lost for words seeing the gameplay, others may not think it is all that different from todays main library....and thats that. Nothing can really be 100% positive when it comes to games. As shown with mgs4, things are unpredictable.

mccoyca112

I am sorry I don't enjoy broken games like the fist Killzone like others do. I am very very soory and it wont ever happen again. To prove it to you I will buy the over-hyped Killzone2 with false hopes that the game will be AAA and that's great.

I will aslo throw in the fact that Killzone: Liberation is a game made by the NEW Guerilla Games and that has a averaged rating of 79% on gamerankings. Now, I do see some improvement from the scores of the first Killzone game which averaged a rating of 73.3 at GR. This tells me that the Dev has gotten a bit better since their first KZ game, but look they are not developing on a very hard to develop for console and the game might not be able to reach it's full potentiol. Yeah, a 100 + devs n the team now could make the game really good, but it's expected that they should have that many people anyways in order to develop for the PS3. It doesn't mean the game will be good.

Also whoever compared GTA I/II to GTAIII is not very bright. GTAII to III was a very huge step from 2D to 3D gaming. It just so happens that R* are better 3D devs than 2D and with 3D they were finally able to do what they had always wanted to do with the series.

MGS1- 8.5

MGS2- 9.6

MGS3- 8.7

MGS4- 10

You are proven wrong.

kool-aids

You are still wrong.

MGS1- 93.5

MGS2- 94.8

MGS3- 91.5

MGS4- 93.3

I would rather we go by scores as a collective of reviewers like I did with thevery first post, instead of using just GS scores which are not credible to the collective gamer anyways.

there are facts, i bolded them for you

[QUOTE="AnemicAnd_Sweet"]

Killzone review scores...

IGN 7.5

GS 6.9

GI 7.5

EGM 7.5

OPM 4/5 80%

----------------------

Now lets talk about how the first Killzone was deemed the Halo killer, and was given plenty of dev time to be so. The game is released to luke-warm or lackluster reviews. I own the game and it blows. I could not stomach the game to even get past the first level. The gameplay is terrible, the graphics are okay, but too gray or dark.

Now on to Killzone 2. Killzone 2 has been in development for a long time now, just like the first Killzone. The game is being hyped to death just like the first Killzone. The developers aren't too great at developing AAA games like they would have you believe. So why is Sony fan creaming over such a average series ?

I will also add into this that Guerilla Games (dev of Killzone 1 & 2) is based in Amsterdamn. They are probably high most of the time in dev, which in turn makes them not able to focus to their full potential. They also created thevery terribleShellshock Nam '67 game. The developer has only created two games for consoles and are still very new to creating games on consoles. Killzone 2 will be their third.

With Killzone 2 on new hardware like the PS3 which is hard for devs to make games for, and Guerilla Games pretty much a n00blet Developers it's pretty simple and easy to say that the game has a high chance of bombinglike all the rest of the mess they have put out on consoles.

cakeisntalie

Thanks for the facts.

SO nice !

This thread is just stupid. He says Killzone 2 might be a bad game. Yet, he gives good factual ratings of KZ1 of 70% or higher. A bad game is rated 60% or lower. Next time dont use KZ1 scores for your argument KZ2. Second... wait untill GS reviews KZ2. Have a nice day!! keep in mind many people did not think MGS4 would be as great as it is. Gamersince81

lol those scores are terrible for the hype the game got and the hype that KZ2 is getting. Just terribe terrible scores for the hype.

I was promised facts! Now where are they!no_handlebars

They are the review ratings.