3 Halo Killers in 08?

[K4tzm4n]

Halo 2 had way better maps than halo 3. They are boring in halo 3
GOW isnt boring.

It's a matter of opinion. The multiplayer doesnt interest me after months and months of it...CoD4 dominates it at the moment, imo.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

wtf?
cod4 was a halo 3 killer

Yea, i think you can make a strong case to call CoD4 a Halo killer. Halo has around 8 million copies sold, so does Call of Duty4, granted thats on 2 systems, a little over 5 mil on the 360 and a little over 2 mil on the PS3. And as Jerry stated Call of Duty is the most played game while conntected to Xbox Live. Im not sure if the actual online user base is a big as Halo, as Major Nelsons numbers are just those who are playing while their Xbox is online, but still thats pretty damn good. But imo, CoD4 is just a better game, but again, my opinion.

 

[kainedamo]

Again, it seems as if you've completely disregarded what I have said so that you may have the last word. You mention there being an art to video games correct?

Art is not the best comparison to use in your argument, considering the fact that art is probably the most debatable topic. You can claim something isn't as good as something else because it doesn't fit the same mold, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other. There is an element of bias either way, and anyone who takes a critic's OPINION at any more than face value should learn to think for themselves. It's all aesthetics, which is just a fancy word that really means an authoritative opinion.

Art is subjective sure. But you're still missing my point.

Even the snootiest art critic would have to admit the different between an experienced artist of decades working in his field and someone thats just started out is a world of difference.

Skill goes into making a video game. When you play a game, you really get a since of how much work went into it. Example, Mass Effect. They concentrated a lot on graphics and making it pretty, but the game has a lot of bugs, and the levels are very repetative. It's a 7 or 8 out of 10 when it could have been a 10 out of 10 if they worked on it longer. Halo 3, feel free to disagree but I'd say BS, the levels just aren't very good. They're too short and not very varied. The game overall is very short. And throughout the whole game its the same thing - bang-bangbang-bang. The only change of pace is when ya use vehicles.

Whereas with Half-Life 2 and it's episodes, I'm blown away by how clever the game is. It's not as pretty as Halo 3. But the game even without the episodes is much, much longer. The game is definately more varied. The action constantly changes, you never really know what to expect next. The scripted sequences give it a feeling of an action movie (like dodging a train, etc). The gravity gun is great and makes for interesting gameplay. They design the game in such a way as that when the action kicks in you're always on the move, the pace is constant. They really know how to move the player along. The levels are varied and different from each other. There's puzzle solving which is just about perfect - not easy, not too hard. At the very least, ya gotta concede Halo 3 is short and Half Life 2 is long.

If it were completely down to taste and opinion, why do most reviewers point out the exact same flaws and praise the same things? There must be definite markers of quality.

 

[Jerry!]

Dude you do know all those games you mentioned that overall out of all their press reviews, averaged a 9 or better? Meanwhile you say Mass Effect is a 7 or 8 out of 10 game yet in your last paragraph you say "why do most reviewers point out the exact same thing and praise the same things" Apparently that is what they did with both Halo 3 and Mass Effect if we go by your logic and they got pretty much all 9s or better. So that means they must be right, again, if we go by your logic. You killed your own argument. You basically argued for what you are trying to argue against. Just drop it man.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Art is subjective sure. But you're still missing my point.

Even the snootiest art critic would have to admit the different between an experienced artist of decades working in his field and someone thats just started out is a world of difference.

Skill goes into making a video game. When you play a game, you really get a since of how much work went into it. Example, Mass Effect. They concentrated a lot on graphics and making it pretty, but the game has a lot of bugs, and the levels are very repetative. It's a 7 or 8 out of 10 when it could have been a 10 out of 10 if they worked on it longer. Halo 3, feel free to disagree but I'd say BS, the levels just aren't very good. They're too short and not very varied. The game overall is very short. And throughout the whole game its the same thing - bang-bangbang-bang. The only change of pace is when ya use vehicles.

Whereas with Half-Life 2 and it's episodes, I'm blown away by how clever the game is. It's not as pretty as Halo 3. But the game even without the episodes is much, much longer. The game is definately more varied. The action constantly changes, you never really know what to expect next. The scripted sequences give it a feeling of an action movie (like dodging a train, etc). The gravity gun is great and makes for interesting gameplay. They design the game in such a way as that when the action kicks in you're always on the move, the pace is constant. They really know how to move the player along. The levels are varied and different from each other. There's puzzle solving which is just about perfect - not easy, not too hard. At the very least, ya gotta concede Halo 3 is short and Half Life 2 is long.

If it were completely down to taste and opinion, why do most reviewers point out the exact same flaws and praise the same things? There must be definite markers of quality.

I gotta agree with Jerry, your arguments just bang into each other.

 

[Grievous]

IA, CoD4 is the best FPS out there. It pretty much killed the attention that Halo 3 got once it was released a month later.

I got COD4 afew weeks ago and it was the only game I played for about 4 days then I went right back to Halo. COD will never be greater than Halo in my eyes.

 

[kainedamo]

Dude you do know all those games you mentioned that overall out of all their press reviews, averaged a 9 or better? Meanwhile you say Mass Effect is a 7 or 8 out of 10 game yet in your last paragraph you say "why do most reviewers point out the exact same thing and praise the same things" Apparently that is what they did with both Halo 3 and Mass Effect if we go by your logic and they got pretty much all 9s or better. So that means they must be right, again, if we go by your logic. You killed your own argument. You basically argued for what you are trying to argue against. Just drop it man.

What the hell are you talking about?

When people complain about Mass Effect, do they or do they not talk about the Mako being a weak point of the game? Do they or do they not talk about the exploration being weak? Do they or do they not talk about the same level designs being used repeatidly?

If I were to say "the non-story explorable planets are very barren with very few points of interest" I'd be stating a simple fact. Not opinion, fact. A guy can't come around and say "the planets are filled with life, aren't repetative, and have plenty of things to see and do" because it just isn't true. So we can say that the exploration of Mass Effect definately wasn't as good as it could have been.

 

[Jerry!]

You bring up that if reviewers praising the same things and if a game consistently gets those praises and high scores then it is a marker of quality, as you say. Then you go on to say that you think Mass Effect is a 7 or 8 out of 10 game despite it averaging over a 9 rating throughout all it's press reviews. Excuse me, but what the **** are you talking about? By your logic, Mass Effect should be seen as it is reviewed, as a great game. You just contradicted yourself and you don't even realize it.