Nowadays we don't have video-games anymore, just interactive movies that people mistake them for actual games.360 & PS3 are anything but video-game consoles,they are Entertainment Centers.As for Nintendo, nowadays they make only rehashes, cliches, remakes & sequels, it was inevitable as all the ideeas are exhausted, depleted.Moreover, the so called "games" of this generation, totally lack replay value so that means they are worhtless & people waste their time with them.& the old games are short, so you don't feel like you're wasting your time with gaming, in this life & age we have a lot of other things to do besides gaming.& literally, you can never get bored of an old game, no matter how much you play it.If i play a modern game more than twice, it become really annoying & irritating.So yeah, the games nowadays are just ghosts, shadows from the past, parasites that live on the succes established by the originals & people think they are better just because they have must more realistic graphics, but realism is not the answer in gaming, fantasy is.If i want realism, i watch a movie or go & play paintball or whatever.Playing an old game is like reading a book, it expands your imagination & horizons, playing a modern game is like watching a movie based on a book, it steals all your imagination & you remain limited.So yeah, old games are definitely better, same thing goes for movies & music.

snes_vs_ps1

its the gamers' fault. one hundred percent. its turned many gamers into mindless cod/halo addicts, but honestly its nothing to freak out about now, this thread would be relevant 2 years ago. now its just common knowledge that a large portion of gamers are those bland fps freaks. its not stopping other genres from coming up with great games and its not killing gaming at all. corporate greed is making gaming much more of a money sink for much less content and watered down games. thats what the problem is.yellosnolvr

Also, I think when the elder scrolls skyrim comes out, a lot of these "casuals" will be lining up too. Quality games still have a universal appeal up to some degree.

I play COD because i like it and it's the only game of it's kind which really surprises me. I can't believe no other company has tried their hand at the COD formula. It's the only game that gives you the option of primary guns, side arms, attachments, and perks that you can mix and match to your liking, that's one of the main reason's i never got into BF:BC was because i hate the fact that it has preset classes to where i can't choose to have a sniper rifle, with a rocket launcher, and be a medic at the same time.

JayQproductions

Anyways, I always had a few issues with COD that I couldn't shake off, probably because I was used to halo games. First of all, everything is horribly scripted and on-rails. This is usually not too bad, but in COD it also means most (or all) allies you have are invincible and don't do much against the enemies. They're just mascots most of the time. In Halo games I had a lot of fun actually protecting my allies because I know they'd be useful to me at some point. Pair this with the never ending stream of enemies until you pass a certain point, and the campaign usually felt tacked on to me.

In multiplayer the main problem I had was the horrible matchmaking. COD games have the potential for lots of strategy and tense matches. However, that never happens in "matchmaking" because at least half the players each match are horrible, and the good players end up kill-farming them and the game is won by how bad your teammates are instead of how good the rest of the players are. I quess this is pretty normal for most people, but having played halo games a lot, I was used to a much higher level of skill from my teammates and opponents. Basically, a lot of players online in halo 2 and 3 knew some advanced tactics, and were good at teamwork. It really made the game a lot better. In COD there was no such thing as teamwork.

That said, it's a good game for what it's trying to achieve. That is, being the Madden or Fifa of shooter games.

Both Chromehounds and Shadowrun. I knew from previews and the concept of the games that I was going to like them. And it turned out to be true. Two of my favourite games, rated 7.1 and 6.6 respectively on metacritic.

Persistent online worlds. MMO fps doesn't have to mean big servers and thousands of players in one area. Chromehounds had an online mode that went in the right direction - a worldmap filled with +/- 100 smaller maps that people can go head to head on. If a faction wins the battle, they get points toward dominating part of the map. If a faction occupies all capitols, they win the war.

Actually, that would make an awesome game for bungie to develop. With a forge-like system, let the community make the majority of the world, and have battles going on in smaller matchups (16v16 as max for example). It would be a cool merge between MMO's and FPS games.

They won because the libs opted to focus on **** that the public wasn't interested in.... like Health Care, Card Check, and Scam and Trade. They were elected to fix the ****ing ECONOMY. Barack Obama came into office with 60+ percent approval ratings, and they gave him TWO YEARS to get something done. That hasn't happened, and since Obama had literally nothing impeding him in the implementation of his agenda, they took his power away.

This thread just shows that libs still don't even understand why they lost, which means the party is even more screwed than I initially thought. You are tone deaf, libs.

Tone DEAF.

And I still stand by my assertion that if the repubs don't make significant progress, they'll get booted, too. The electorate is ****ing pissed off, and I say that is a great thing. Holding politicians' feet to the fire is long, long, LONG overdue. Let them burn, we'll find more of them. Until we get people in there who aren't stupid, sold-out, or incompetent.

Shame-usBlackley

Also, going from economical collapse to proper economic state again can take a lot longer than 2 years. There's no magically fixing the economy, no matter if you choose republican or democratic policies. Especially with how hard the US has been hit. Some european countries are doing good again, but they had better social security to cushion the blow, and less suspect banks to drain the economy.

Isn't this the same thing that happened with the republican party? Once upon a time the republican party tried to get the evangelical vote. Then the evangelicals started controlling the policy of the republican party. That's my (limited) view of it anyways. And now religion has claimed the right wing in america. I'm afraid this is going to happen with every right wing movement in the US except for the libertarian party and the like.

At some point, the non religious conservatives have to collectively make a stand against the evangelical influence, or the republican party won't ever become a truly conservative party. I can see why Gingrich is frustrated.

Past: Eric Cantona
Current: Lionel Messi
Future: Gareth Bale

antiredcap

Why has Diego Forlan been mentioned twice in this thread!? Im_on_a_boat

For best player, Messi is an obvious choice. However, players like Lucio and Sneijder should also be considered. After all, for all the potential best players in the world playing at barcelona, Inter Milan still won the champions league.

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]

because the majority of rappers are black.

auron_16