"'Halo 3' and 'Bioshock' are not 'Next-Gen'" says unproven developer.

I'm not pissy. I'm a jackass, and have been all my life. I'll refute points back and forth civially, but for the most part, I enjoy pointing out how incredibly stupid some people are, and how some of the things they say contridict themselves over and over again.

I'm just amazed that people react so defensivly when you bring up one little thing negative about Halo. It's like they think I killed their whole family or something.

you kept saying that people buy it for MP, but dont care about the story...co-op, while multiplayer, is still campaign mode, therefore not the multiplayer you were reffering to (slayer, ctf, etc.) and IS the story.
 
I'm aware. But I'm not saying that people only buy it for the co-op, or that they only buy it for the campaign, or that they only buy it for the multi-player. I'm saying that more people bought it for the multiplayer over campaign, than people who bought it for the campaign over multiplayer.
 
I'm aware. But I'm not saying that people only buy it for the co-op, or that they only buy it for the campaign, or that they only buy it for the multi-player. I'm saying that more people bought it for the multiplayer over campaign, than people who bought it for the campaign over multiplayer.

I think the majority of the people probably bought it for both...
 
Right, but you'd be crazy to think more people would buy it for JUST the campaign than they would for JUST the multiplayer.
 
I think it probably evened out...you're insane to think anyone would buy it for only either of those features...
 
I know for a fact that people bought it strictly for the multiplayer, whom hadn't even played the first two. Like, I know people that did that.
 
I know for a fact that people bought it strictly for the multiplayer, whom hadn't even played the first two. Like, I know people that did that.

And I know people who were DYING to see the conclusion to the Halo trilogy, people who neither regularly play nor give a damn about competitive multiplayer (in any game for that matter).
 
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=85108



There you have it. "The Outsider" is both a "Halo 3" and "Bioshock" killer. :whatever:

He did not say that though did he? :whatever:

He did not say- 'This game will be a Bioshock/Halo 3 killer'.
He said it will be the first real next gen title, and that it will more than stand up to the two previously mentioned games. Meaning quality wise, it will be on the same level.

Try reading it properly.

By 'first next gen game' he means this title is either going to be the first this gen to really push the hardware, or, the first this gen to do something new and change perceptions of what can be accomplished in the medium.
 
Don't bother Dangerous, I raised those exact points and they started going nuts.
 
... stupid posts though.

People just post first, think second.
Or not think..
 
After reading about this game Outsider, it better have mind blowing gameplay, because the story sounds like the same dull thriller about the agent that gets turned on that Hollywood loves to churn out.
 
... stupid posts though.

People just post first, think second.
Or not think..


Again, if he was talking about Oblivion or Two Worlds, we could see an RPG game. Crackdown or Saints Row could be a sandbox. He said Bioshock and Halo 3, meaning that its a shooter first and foremost. Now why not create a game that is better than the competition? Wouldnt you think that is the smart thing to do. That said, how could he not want to take Halo down from its perch. He didnt specifically say "Halo Killer", but by mentioning it rather than other games, he is implying that his game is better, therefore in his mind "kills halo".
 
So...

Can we have, like a "next-gen" conversation, or something, cuz this whole what is and what is not "next-gen" thing seems pretty arbitrary... If I have an totally innovative game with PS2 graphics... is that "last gen?" If I have Halo 2 with superkeen updated almost-real grpahics... is that "last gen?"

I don't get it.
 
He did not say that though did he? :whatever:

He did not say- 'This game will be a Bioshock/Halo 3 killer'.
He said it will be the first real next gen title, and that it will more than stand up to the two previously mentioned games. Meaning quality wise, it will be on the same level.

Try reading it properly.

By 'first next gen game' he means this title is either going to be the first this gen to really push the hardware, or, the first this gen to do something new and change perceptions of what can be accomplished in the medium.
Have you been paying attention to gaming media for the last six years?

Didn't think so. Also, realize you're an idiot for missing what everyone else got.
 
Right, but you'd be crazy to think more people would buy it for JUST the campaign than they would for JUST the multiplayer.

There are zero advertisements for the multiplayer. Everything you've seen is strictly for the campaign. In fact, multiplayer isn't even mentioned. It wasn't even demoed. The only real showing it had was with the Beta. Multiplayer really isn't the forefront of Halo that you're making it out to be.
 
K, keep thinking that. What with there being at any given time around 1 million people on Live, out of the about 5million copies that were sold.

You do the math.
 
K, keep thinking that. What with there being at any given time around 1 million people on Live, out of the about 5million copies that were sold.

You do the math.

So the minority of people are playing on live? I thought you said that the majority bought it for the mp aspect. Now I know that people lan and coop, but thats still campaign, and do you think that 3 million people lan? Probably not.

BTW, thanks for proving my point for me, man!
 
Well, if Bioshock isn't "Next-Gen" then I can't wait to see what this Outsider game brings to the table
 
Let's not forget that little ol' SouLess here is insinuating that there ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE AT ALL that the players who go LIVE with Halo 3 could have actually ever given a damn about the campaign. No sir, if you play on LIVE, that means you bought the game ONLY for the multiplayer. Oh dear me...:(
 
So 1 million>5 million?


Wow! I did not know that...

I knew you people would say that. No, 1 million isn't greater than five, but if theres just about ALWAYS near a million users on live at any given time, it's safe to say that around 2-3 million of them are on it. But then again, you guys are just gonna say :lol no it means theres only 1 million on duh moron!: because you have no real understanding of the numbers.

I mean, seriously, World of Warcraft only has an estimated 2-3million people on at any given time, and that game has almost 10 million active subscribers that log in at least once a week.

You people take everything so goddamn literal, it's infuriating.
 
Let's not forget that little ol' SouLess here is insinuating that there ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE AT ALL that the players who go LIVE with Halo 3 could have actually ever given a damn about the campaign. No sir, if you play on LIVE, that means you bought the game ONLY for the multiplayer. Oh dear me...:(

When did I say that? Seriously, quote me saying that if you play it on live you don't give a damn about the campaign. I just said that people bought the game more for the live aspect than for the campaign, and since you guys can't seem to come up with anything other than "lol, no, thats not true, you're an idiot", I'm going to go ahead and assume I'm right.

What with there being an estimated 5 million copies sold, and something like 20% of that base always on live...Gonna have to go with "SouLeSS is totally right on this one, and we shouldn't of ever doubted him".

You guys should seriously adopt that phrase when it comes to this kinda stuff.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"