REVENGEotSITH's forum posts

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
[QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"][QUOTE="Swiftie101"]

Microsoft's X-box 360 is clearly the worst choice a consumer who wants to play video games could make. The lack of quality games exclusive to this system is astounding. The PC, a far more advanced piece of technology, can not only play the best of X-box games, but also run them with improved visuals and higher frame rates. Even though the X-box features the amazing Halo 3, one can be positive that the finer version will arrive on PC sooner or later. Also, very few people will actually care about Halo 3 on its destined release date; the Crysis demo, with enhanced graphics and gameplay, will seep out Halo's awe-inspiring effect. Gears of War, one of the X-box's most touted titles, makes its appearance on the PC with the entire campaign, not just a portion of it. Another exalted game can also be enjoyed on the PC with better graphics and framerate: BioShock. Even if the PC had a dearth of games, consumers can be sure that they made the right choice by obtaining a PC just by judging the quality of the hardware.

Swiftie101

Hey, smarty, its "Xbox" NOT "X-box".

Why do the games have to be 100% exclusive to the system for it to warrant a purchase? The fact is, there are TONS of great games available to play on the XBOX 360. Plus, you can do so for a fraction the cost of the "pliable PC".

I used to be a PC gamer. Hated it. Now a console gamer. Lovin' it. Your argument fails.

Maybe you should read the entire tread before posting next time, smarty, instead of wasting your time like almost everyone else here.

Seems to me that reading the ENTIRE post would be a waste of time in itself, wouldn't it? You posted something. I replied to it. Why do I need to read this entire mass of dribble in order to reply to your first post?

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

Microsoft's X-box 360 is clearly the worst choice a consumer who wants to play video games could make. The lack of quality games exclusive to this system is astounding. The PC, a far more advanced piece of technology, can not only play the best of X-box games, but also run them with improved visuals and higher frame rates. Even though the X-box features the amazing Halo 3, one can be positive that the finer version will arrive on PC sooner or later. Also, very few people will actually care about Halo 3 on its destined release date; the Crysis demo, with enhanced graphics and gameplay, will seep out Halo's awe-inspiring effect. Gears of War, one of the X-box's most touted titles, makes its appearance on the PC with the entire campaign, not just a portion of it. Another exalted game can also be enjoyed on the PC with better graphics and framerate: BioShock. Even if the PC had a dearth of games, consumers can be sure that they made the right choice by obtaining a PC just by judging the quality of the hardware.

A computer is not susceptible to the infamous three red rings of death syndrome that makes a common appearance on the X-box 360. It can easily last over six years without any hardware issues, unless the owner is semi-retarded and pours Sprite into the system. On the other hand, a X-box will need to be replaced every six months. There are some lucky ones who make it past that time period, but many of them are almost "anticipating" the insufferable moment. In fact, owners of X-boxes that have survived for a year like to show off the fact to others, and then pray that their hardware will just last a little longer. Such intolerable problems are quite rare on a computer.

The X-box also lacks the pliability of the PC, which can be made to fit your lifestyle. It can print documents, make power-points, surf the internet, organize data, create 3D art, manipulate photos, and so forth. The amount of features to be found on a computer seems endless, especially compared to those on a X-box.

It is fairly obvious that a PC provides for a superior experience and fulfills whatever needs that may be aching at your stomach. There is simply no reason to buy a X-box.

Swiftie101

Hey, smarty, its "Xbox" NOT "X-box".

Why do the games have to be 100% exclusive to the system for it to warrant a purchase? The fact is, there are TONS of great games available to play on the XBOX 360. Plus, you can do so for a fraction the cost of the "pliable PC".

I used to be a PC gamer. Hated it. Now a console gamer. Lovin' it. Your argument fails.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
Well, say what you will, but I am thrilled that I could rent Bioshock and play it and that I didn't have to pay full price to do so. I just don't see any real replayability in this game. I've bought over 18 Xbox 360 games. I'm just glad that Bioshock isn't one of them.
Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

um....x360 owners get to play UTIII .....:|

How is this ownage again?:?

killab2oo5

Because you get to play it 5 million years later with less maps and possibly no mods.

Unless theyve changed it,they already said if they cant the maps on the DVD,then they will be downloadable...and they said mods WILL come,they just have to get them approved from Microsoft.

You guys realize that this is just all B.S. from Mark Rein, don't you??? He's setting us 360 owners up for having to be charged for those extra maps because, convienently, they just don't all fit on that DVD disk... Doesn't anyone else see this?

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
:lol: Yeah, enjoy that UT3 "single player" campaign. I admit that the graphics in UT3 look cooler than Halo 3's, but the gameplay will be about on the same level. Halo 3's single player will blow UT3's single player out of the water. UT3's single player is just basically multiplayer with bots, or am I missing something???
Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

I fear history is doomed to repeat itself. A market crash is bound to happen in the furture. Games will cost so much to make that only a hand full of gamemakers can afford to due, causing yearly rehash of the same game with little tweaks and the title ending with the year of release. (i.e* EA games)player_leo

Someone who is able to see the forrest for the trees.

As it stands now - the Wii is actually good for gaming in the sense that it gives developers a platform to make games for that have small budgets and that they can take some risks on. XBL Arcade does this to an extent as well.

Look at a game like Beyond Good and Evil. Critically acclaimed. Terrible sales. Same with Psychonauts. The industry tries to make a new/innovative game and it gets slammed in sales. Where is the motivation to make games outside the "cookie-cutter" mold of FPSs and games like that?

The Wii may actually end up saving the gaming industry in the sense that development houses can make money off of making a Wii game and then turn that money around and put it into the high development costs of a 360 or PS3 game. This is not saying that 360 games and PS3 games don't make profits, its just that a publisher may be less apt to fund a "risky" game when their financials aren't doing too well.

HOWEVER, if history repeats itself (and it often does) the Wii may kill gaming in the sense that developers are just going to put out sooo much crap for the system, that it is going to be hard to justify $60 for a game when you you've been burned so many times before paying $60 for a game that was junk. This is what caused the death of the Atari and videogames in the mid '80s. There was so much crap out there, that it flooded the market. For every $50 game, you had 20 crappy games each priced at $20 or less. The average consumer would often buy the cheaper game, only to have it be a pile of dog doo and, thus, turning people away from making another purchase.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

Consoles ruined another PC game? How about EA ruined another console AND PC game. Seriously - when was the last time an in-house developed EA game WASN'T dog-doo? Battlefield 2 was ok, but that was made by DICE before they were bought-out by EA.

Its the developer, NOT the fact that it was made for consoles. Quake:ET is being made for both, but I seriously doubt that iD will let that game go to crap.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
The Normandy Beach invasion levels on both COD2 and MoH were amazing, imo. Just to put yourself into the shoes of the men that were there and give you a sense of the chaos, death, and dispair that they went through left a lasting impression on me.
Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

BioShock has finally been released to universal praise, most calling it the game of the year, and that can only mean one thing: it's time for Mr. Cynic to rain on the parade and set the record straight.

Have Wrench, Will Travel

At first I was getting in to the whole idea of finding different weapons and modifying them until it eventually dawned on me that I was wasting my time. The wrench is simply more effective at dealing out death than any other weapon in the game, more so if you pump up your wrench buffs. Considering the mutated mobs in BioShock relish running around like the cast of Cirque du Soleil, they make for hard targets to hit when using a projectile weapon but they fold like a cheap suit when hit with a plumbing tool. You could, if you wanted, run through the entire game with nothing more than a wrench. It's superior at taking out turrets, bashing in security cameras and caving in craniums, more so than any shotgun, crossbow, pistol, rocket or grenade launcher. If only the main character looked like Mario then the circle would be complete.

Welcome to Paradise, Here's Your Weapon

So Ayn Rand, oops, Andrew Ryan creates an underwater utopia for the great minds of earth to call home and for some inexplicable reason outfits every room with a vending machine the sells ammunition. Does no one else besides me find that a rather idiotic concept? This is supposed to be paradise, a safe-haven, and yet everyone is armed? What happened to just selling mini-bags of Cheetos and bite-sized Snickers that should invariably get caught on a metal spring during its descent to the tray? Do I even need to mention that it probably isn't wise to arm your populace with rocket launchers and grenades in an UNDERWATER world, let alone shower them with infinite amounts of ammunition.? These ideas come from the great minds of humanity?

Glorified Disneyland Ride

BioShock is a very linear game, more than Mr. Cynic enjoys, with huge amounts of hand-holding that ultimately make it noob friendly, but a rather simplistic adventure game for veterans. I mean, they even use an arrow that always points you in the right direction, rendering the sense of exploration and the possibility of getting lost a moot point. Worse, BioShock just feels like a Disneyland ride, something like Twilight Zone and Haunted Mansion rolled in to one. Every room reveals a new set-piece where a story is told through prop placement, though at least you can hop off the ride and roam around a bit. While I do admire the artistic merit of what BioShock has accomplished, I can't help but feel the game is just an excuse to show off sets.

BioShock is a Midget Simulator

Yes, I said "midget", cause if I said "dwarf" you might think I'm talking about Lord of the Rings, and Mr. Cynic doesn't use the term "little person", as I'm neither political nor correct. I'm sticking with midget. I must give BioShock credit for making your character a midget, though I'm noticing a lot of FPS games lately have been doing the same thing, no doubt the result of a powerful midget lobbying group trying to get equal time in the industry. I mean, is it just me or do you feel 3' tall in this game? I've lost track of how many times I've checked to see if I'm still in crouch-mode only to discover that, no, I'm standing fully erect, I'm just 3' tall. It really hits home when you reach the Arcadia zone and you see a slot machine towering over you and you'd literally have to trampoline upwards just to grab the arm. Either that or the citizens of Rapture average about 9' in height.

Contradictory Gameplay

The biggest problem with BioShock is that dying has no impact on the game whatsoever, and this renders the "survival" aspect pointless. At first you might find yourself buying in to the concept that there's a finite amount of ammo and health to be found in Rapture so you had better plan your engagements wisely, lest you run out of one or the other. Unfortunately, if you happen to die then you'll just be reborn at a Vita-Chamber and whatever killed you will continue to lurk about with reduced health, meaning all you have to do is run back and continue wailing on it with your wrench without even bothering with a weapon or using health packs. Why spend precious health packs or use rockets when you can bash in a Big Daddy after three or four attempts with zero penalty? This totally obliterates the feel BioShock was going for. Do I even need to wonder why only your character is reborn at a Vita-Chamber, but the countless masses you slaughter in this game don't seem to have the same luxury?

Yeah, yeah, yeah...BioShock looks amazing. It's an artistic achievement. It has good acting...some good writing. But it's no revolution for gameplay and in many respects, a leap backwards, thanks to a few ill-conceived and nonsensical concepts that render the entire experience shallow and simple. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go play a real man's game: Space Giraffe!

-Maddog-

Though this guy comes off as rather harsh, after 3 hours with the game last night, I pretty much agree with him. What is the point of shooting a pistol at a splicer when you can just zap them once and beat them with the wrench? Same thing with the Big Daddy's - you just have to rinse-and-repeat several times with trips through the Vita Chambers.

The Vita Chambers really kill the game for me. You get killed, regenerate, but your enemy is at the same health level they were at when YOU died??? Its like telling a kid to go sit in the corner when they do something bad, but they just keep coming back as if nothing happened. Its no real punishment.

The game looks amazing and the city is definitely the highlight of the game. I still feel Condemned is creepier and had more tension.

Did anyone else think it was strange how, when your character first finds a plasmid, he just grabs it and jams the needle into his left arm??? Would ANYONE really do this if they were in that situation? No way I would.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

i read it. i noticed jeff is editorial director. he's the boss. i guess that explains him being able to keep his job. he stated that reviews aren't openions, he's wrong. he states that reviews are extensivly fact checked before posting. he makes alot of claims that are disproved by gamestop changing the review score of overloard due to reviewing a preview copy. if it were extensivly fact checked he would have known that bioshock isn't crash prone.

he states that the reviews are for those with limited time and money not the hardcore. then he says pc games are reviewed on high end pcs, which only the hardcore would spend the money on. in the end it seems the reviews are for casuals by casuals that think they are alot more important than the really are. jeff should talk to che over at turn ten. che used to run 1up before he went to work for a developer (he works for the forza2 developer now). che has said that people that work at game wev sites think they know it all, but when they start actually working on games instead of just talking about them they realize they didn't know squat. well squat isn't the word he used but it started with the same letter.

you have to remember that for gamesite staff it's their job, and nobody likes their job forever. it becomes tediouse and thats why they have to lure us to work with paychecks. people that work at donut stores dont eat donuts. people that work at pizza hut dont eat the pizza after a while. if you work with games after a while you wont like them as much either. being rewarded (payed) for something destroyes the intrinsic motivation for it, it stops being fun.

rdo

Nice comparisons. I think that reviewers review sooo many games that they stop asking the biggest question: "is this game fun?" and instead look for stupid nit-picks to bring down the score of a game (an optional guide arrow, for example). While I'm not a fan of Nintendo, I do find it hard to believe that GS is the only site, thus far, to score MP3 lower than a 9.0. They did the same thing with Bioshock. Expect the same thing with Halo 3 and others. The reviews lately seem hesitant to award a game for being fun and instead focus on stupid little issues.