A mediocre game, presented well for its day. Plus the bullet time thing was lame.

Both the sequels were mediocre at best.

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"][QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

No I don't agree with what you said, nor do I disagree. I didn't feel like quoting or responding to it and I still don't.

Tell me, where are we getting ? I still don't see why you made such a big issue about us responding to part of your post ? Did we leave out vital information ? What is it ?

R4gn4r0k

Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth and do you keep asking yes or no questions ?

What you just said is THE EXACT SAME as what you said before that so I would like to point you to my previous answer ;)

I seriously wouldn't bother, clearly anyone who believes Halo 4, Gears3 and UC3 have superior graphics to vanilla Crysis has no idea what he is talking about.

Ported games can often look worse. It all comes down to optimization. In the end PC will always dominate in graphical capabilities. Devs can throw that statement out in the sea though.

LustForSoul

Even the worst ported PC multiplat looks far better than the console equivlent.

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"]Nintendo has Mario, link. Crappy sony has kratos? lol? and microfail has the generic and boring master chief? Who does PC have? nobody? stvee101

lol

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

No, you didn't. We were following a quote chain, and to be fair, I should have quoted Haberman.

Unfortunately, your entire post is based on assumption and no solid evidence. Saying what you think is not citing "common sense". Just an important correction.

DarthClark

Common sense - "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."

Saying what I think is indeed common sense if it is a "sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts". Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, "common sense" is exactly what it is.

Presumably if I were to say that children prefer to be given presents rather than not given presents and explained clearly why...I would have to cite some sort of globalised survey by an independent organisation for you to consider it "common sense". There won't be one, because it is bewilderingly obvious to anyone with the slightest iota of "common sense". This is how I imagine your response;

"Unfortunately, your entire post is based on assumption and no solid evidence. Just because "YOU think" children prefer receiving presents to not actually receiving presents doesn't mean it is the case, you have provided no solid evidence,"

You'd be right of course, I couldn't provide evidence beyond my own observations and clear sense of rational thought. It's still "common sense" though, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Clearly you haven't read any of my posts, or even the other guys posts (because he corrected his mistake, which you have failed to do), because neither of your statements above contradicts anything I have said.

You are like a child wondering into the middle of a warzone with a toy gun making "pew pew" noises. Just go and sit at the side and play with yourself whilst the adults are conversing.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

I'm not following the segregation of adults hating them and children enjoying them. Any studies to cite?

DarthClark

I never suggested or stated that adults "hate" them, some might, some might be indifferent, some might like them, they aren't terribly important to adults though. The purpose of a blue hedgehog and a comical Italian plumber in a colourful outfit are to entice and familiarise children. Much like mascots anywhere. That doesn't mean adults hate them. Adults will generally judge a game or a sports team on a variety of things beyond a colourful outfit or a friendly animal face. Children could fall in love with a game purely because they like the colour of the main characters shirt or a sports team. Mascots serve little or no purpose for an adult, for a child they breed familiarity and an emotional connection.

I'm citing "common sense".

See above.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

I never suggested or stated that adults "hate" them, some might, some might be indifferent, some might like them, they aren't terribly important to adults though. The purpose of a blue hedgehog and a comical Italian plumber in a colourful outfit are to entice and familiarise children. Much like mascots anywhere. That doesn't mean adults hate them. Adults will generally judge a game or a sports team on a variety of things beyond a colourful outfit or a friendly animal face. Children could fall in love with a game purely because they like the colour of the main characters shirt or a sports team. Mascots serve little or no purpose for an adult, for a child they breed familiarity and an emotional connection.

I'm citing "common sense".

lundy86_4

No, you didn't. We were following a quote chain, and to be fair, I should have quoted Haberman.

Unfortunately, your entire post is based on assumption and no solid evidence. Saying what you think is not citing "common sense". Just an important correction.

Common sense - "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."

Saying what I think is indeed common sense if it is a "sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts". Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, "common sense" is exactly what it is.

Presumably if I were to say that children prefer to be given presents rather than not given presents and explained clearly why...I would have to cite some sort of globalised survey by an independent organisation for you to consider it "common sense". There won't be one, because it is bewilderingly obvious to anyone with the slightest iota of "common sense". This is how I imagine your response;

"Unfortunately, your entire post is based on assumption and no solid evidence. Just because "YOU think" children prefer receiving presents to not actually receiving presents doesn't mean it is the case, you have provided no solid evidence,"

You'd be right of course, I couldn't provide evidence beyond my own observations and clear sense of rational thought. It's still "common sense" though, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="DarthClark"]Ya, thats what I must be seeing. all those screaming and cursing alcohol fueled up kids at sporting events.DarthClark

I appreciate it is seemingly hard for you to grasp basic concepts, I really don't like having to repeat myself though, so concentrate real hard now...

"Children attend sporting events and enjoy sports JUST LIKE ADULTS." (where I've capitalised is the hint)

BOTH adults and children attend and enjoy sports/sporting events.

I've been to alot and there are always children everywhere. Most children grow up supporting a team because a family member, such as their father supported them and perhaps took them to a game. It's a tradition for fathers to take their sons to baseball/football games. In fact a substantial % of the support for my local sports team are under 18. At least 30%.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

Children attend sporting events and enjoy sports just like adults.

lundy86_4

I'm not following the segregation of adults hating them and children enjoying them. Any studies to cite?

I never suggested or stated that adults "hate" them, some might, some might be indifferent, some might like them, they aren't terribly important to adults though. The purpose of a blue hedgehog and a comical Italian plumber in a colourful outfit are to entice and familiarise children. Much like mascots anywhere. That doesn't mean adults hate them. Adults will generally judge a game or a sports team on a variety of things beyond a colourful outfit or a friendly animal face. Children could fall in love with a game purely because they like the colour of the main characters shirt or a sports team. Mascots serve little or no purpose for an adult, for a child they breed familiarity and an emotional connection.

I'm citing "common sense".