2007's Ten Biggest Gaming Letdowns

Game|Life offers up an anti-top-ten list, noting the three blog authors' biggest disappointments from 2007. Chris Kohler's biggest letdown echoes my own feelings on this topic: "No LittleBigPlanet. PlayStation 3's software library got significantly better this holiday, but there's no killer app. I honestly don't know if LittleBigPlanet would have been one. But I think it's going to be mine. It's going to be the thing that glues me to PlayStation 3... when it ships. I was all ready to start building worlds and sharing them with my friends and generally start being a jackass by now, but it won't happen until next year -- late next year, if you believe the rumors. I hope they're not true. And I do hope LittleBigPlanet sets the planet on fire when it releases." Any gaming 'event' this year an epic fail for you?

Comments

My biggest let down of 2007

[Pojut]

Hands down, without a doubt, would have to be Two Worlds. I mean, the setup was genious. On paper, it appeared to be Oblivion on steroids...I mean come on, a massive, open-ended RPG that you make your own spells and can play co-op over system link on a couple of 360's? My buddy and I were waiting for this one with huge anticipation...only to feel like we had gotten a kick in the nuts. Horrendous menu systems, terrible gameplay, and textures so muddy you couldn't tell what was going on half the time (and this on an HDTV)

Without compare, the biggest gaming letdown of 2007.

Re:My biggest let down of 2007

[eyeye]

Mine was Unreal Tournament III - the textures and graphics are noisy and the interface clumsy.

Re:My biggest let down of 2007

[Voltageaav]

I have to agree, Two Worlds had a ton of potenial. What makes it soo bad was where they did a lot of really good things with the game, the things they screwed up are things that pretty much everyone else nails down and they were really bad. To the point that I doubt most people would bother playing after 20 minutes. The voice acting, textures, and some of the controls are just so bad it seems like they didn't even try. The menues could use some work, but I can live with them. I did end up finishing the game and I feel that if they had put some effort into those three areas, it would have been a really amazing game.

Another big let down

[FredFredrickson]

I couldn't get enough people to click myminicity links! What a dumb game.

Personally?

[JK_the_Slacker]

I still haven't managed to beat VI. You know, that console game where the object of the game is to edit a file and then quit? That's a really hard one, and I'm so disappointed that I got so close, but didn't finish it this year. Ah well, there's always 2008.

Re:Personally?

[rk]

You know there's a cheat code that lets you save your progress before you quit, right? Press escape, then type ":wq" and press enter.

Re:Personally?

[Sciros]

It's a PC game rather than a console game I think. Maybe that's the problem.

Re:Personally?

[SLot]

You think VI is bad, you should try the multiplayer option - IRC!

Some disappointments

[Sciros]

To begin, I'll echo the biggest disappointment as being the Wii's lack of anything good from companies not named Nintendo. A number of my friends are regretting the purchase of the Wii because of this reason, wishing they'd bought a 360 instead. Surely having both is best but I certainly haven't felt so much of the same sentiment from 360 owners I know.

Anyway, my disappointments:
1) Smash Bros Brawl being delayed until next year. Mr. Iwata personally told me that he was hoping to make this game a release title for the "Revolution" (this was in 2005). We're now more than a year overdue, and for something like Smash that really doesn't imply 6.5 solid years of development time. They were simply slow to start on it.

2) Lack of availability of the Wii. I'm not used to having to put so much work into acquiring a $250 piece of technology one year after its initial release; my mornings are usually quite busy. As a result I still don't have one.

3) FFXII: Revenant Wings (DS). I expected much better than what it turned out to be. Even looking at videos of the game on IGN didn't quite get across the abysmal pacing and unbelievable lack of variety in this game. Its supposed depth doesn't amount to anything in practice.

4) Mario 3v3 Hoops (DS). I think this came out in 2007. If not then nevermind. Anyway this game is a giant turd.

5) ArenaNet slowly turning Guild Wars into a grindfest. The one MMORPG that let me play PVE at my leisure and not "fall behind" decided that it's a much better idea to just go into WoW me-too mode rather than stick with the original tenet of skill over time played. The Eye of the North expansion released this year completed the transformation.

6) Bioware going to EA, Blizzard merging with Activision. Let's just say that these *cannot possibly be good things* considering Bioware and Blizzard haven't exactly been in need of an improvement in any way. (Well, Blizzard graphically perhaps but Activision doesn't help there.)

7) Forza Motorsport 2. Great racing engine, cool graphics, good customization, good online mode. But... what is with no music during races? Or having to play your ass off to unlock even the ability to *purchase* a lot of the cars? This isn't supposed to be a 100-hour RPG, it's a freaking racing game. Nobody wants to spend days driving cars they don't like to get at cars they do; there's no storyline or change in gameplay to keep you interested in the meantime. Seems the developers forgot they were making a *game* rather than a training sim for racing teams to study tracks.

Re:Some disappointments

[techpawn]

5) ArenaNet slowly turning Guild Wars into a grindfest. The one MMORPG that let me play PVE at my leisure and not "fall behind" decided that it's a much better idea to just go into WoW me-too mode rather than stick with the original tenet of skill over time played. The Eye of the North expansion released this year completed the transformation.

THANK YOU! Finally, someone else that saw that they turned down that path and because of it lost quite a few players. I gave up on it when I came to the realization that the people who just ran from mission to mission where doing much better than the casual players. It's now a subscription free version of WoW. I've gone back of PnP games. Yeah, it's a hassle to get everyone into someones basement for a few hours each week, but it's all in all a far better experience.

Re:Some disappointments

[tieTYT]

1) Smash Bros Brawl being delayed until next year. Mr. Iwata personally told me that he was hoping to make this game a release title for the "Revolution" (this was in 2005). We're now more than a year overdue, and for something like Smash that really doesn't imply 6.5 solid years of development time. They were simply slow to start on it.

I'd rather have a great game late than a shitty game early. Every game you mentioned after this point could have been better if it was delayed longer. Delays are a good thing. They translate to, "We would rather make this game better than release it in its crappy state."

Re:Some disappointments

[edwdig]

1) Smash Bros Brawl being delayed until next year. Mr. Iwata personally told me that he was hoping to make this game a release title for the "Revolution" (this was in 2005). We're now more than a year overdue, and for something like Smash that really doesn't imply 6.5 solid years of development time. They were simply slow to start on it.

The problem with SSB Brawl is Iwata made a promise he couldn't possibly deliver. Iwata publicly announced a SSB game as a Wii launch title in late '05, THEN went to the designer of the previous games in the series and asked him to make the game. The guy had left Nintendo a few years prior. So, Nintendo had 1 year to get the guy to agree to make the game, get a dev team for him to work with, and create the game. Once this became public knowledge, it was pretty clear it wasn't going to be a launch game. In the end, it took them a little over two years to put it together, assuming no further delays.

Re:Some disappointments

[peterpi]

You make Forza Motorsport sound like exactly the sort of racing game I've been after for so long ;)

Re:Some disappointments

[mqduck]

Bioware and Blizzard haven't exactly been in need of an improvement in any way. (Well, Blizzard graphically perhaps but Activision doesn't help there.) Blizzard chooses to make games that can run well on your average PC that's been around for a few years. Blizzard has "our games are fucking fun" going for it, they don't need to also have the "give your fancy new hardware a workout!" selling point. And WoW STILL looks beautiful. They don't need a change a thing there either.

Re:Some disappointments

[Osty]

Then forget forza, and go get GT3, or GT4.

Better graphics on 4(on an inferior system), you can turn the music off, and you have to play a ton to get cars you actually want to race.

I'd actually recommend against getting GT3 or GT4, or at least get them along with FM2.

• Graphics: You're comparing PS2 games to an Xbox 360 game. GT4 launched a few months before the original Forza, back in 2005. Forza 2 launched this year on Xbox 360. That in itself means it has better graphics, but Forza 2 also has per-track lighting effects (a desert track like Laguna Seca has much more harsh lighting than the fictional Maple Valley track, for example), collision damage which actually affects driving (If your wing comes off, you lose your downforce, for example), much better track depictions (compare the Nurburgring Nordschleife in GT4 against the same in FM2), and more detailed cars. There are only two little issues I have with FM2 graphics: Cars with movable parts like retractable spoilers (Porsches, Lamborghinis, etc) don't move, and there's no in-cockpit view. Neither of those are in the GT3/4 games either.
• Gameplay: Forza 1 had a much better/more realistic physics engine than GT3/4, and Forza 2 takes that even further. The Gran Turismo series uses a modified version of Pacejka's Magic Formula, which is decent but not entirely realistic and suffers at the limit. Forza uses a more expensive model based on actually modelling the suspension and tires (across three separate points on the tire contact patch), which leads to a much more realistic physics model. FM1 ran input and physics at 60fps with graphics locked to 30fps. FM2 runs input and physics at 360fps with graphics locked to 60fps. Collisions are realistic, compared to GT's bumper car/billiard ball collision model (no wall-riding in FM, using other cars as movable ARMCOs risks damaging your own car). Real-world tracks are the most realistic yet, with a real sense of elevation changes, traction surface changes, etc. There are PC games that have better physics simulations than FM, but FM is leaps and bounds beyond GT.
• Control: Assuming you're using a controller rather than a wheel, the analog triggers on the Xbox and Xbox 360 are much better for throttle and brake control than trying to use a PS2's analog buttons. There are a few third-party PS2 controllers with triggers, but they're few and far between and suffer from typical third-party controller problems (fragile, sloppy, etc). GT3/4 may play better on a PS3 with its fully-analog L2/R2 buttons, but if you're trying to play on a PS2 you pretty much have to have a wheel. And that's the only place that GT beats FM in my opinion -- the Logitech wheels are the gold standard, and they simply don't exist for 360 (yet?).
• Cars: I don't know about you, but GT's car selection has never really done it for me. While it's great that you can choose from 15 different models of Skylines or 12 different Civics, the cars I want to drive aren't available in GT. I want to drive Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis, and those aren't in GT3/4 (GT5 is supposed to have Ferraris and maybe Lamborghinis, but I don't believe they'll have Porsche this time around). And no, RUF cars don't cut it.
• Sound: Who cares about in-game music? When I'm driving, I want to hear the engine so I can know when to shift without having my eyes glued to the tach. And when it comes to engine sounds, Forza has always been better than GT (this video pretty much says it all. That's FM1 vs. GT4, but FM2's engine sounds are even better. It's pretty obvious when you hear the Corvette comparison). If you must have in-game music, use the 360's custom soundtrack feature and play your own music. I'll guarantee that any music you choose to play will be better than the built-in soundtracks for either series.
• AI: GT's AI is comp

Re:Some disappointments

[Sciros]

It's called *scaling to hardware.* Make it run on old stuff, and look decent on newer stuff. Simple formula, and some dev houses are good at it. Others simply keep the requirements just as low as Blizzard does yet still manage far better graphics (Guild Wars, for instance).

Don't make excuses when there really aren't any to make. You can cater to a broad range of hardware if you put in the effort. Blizzard doesn't *need* to from a business perspective, but I wouldn't be bothered if they tried.

The Biggest Disappointment

[MonkeyCookie]

...was that Duke Nukem Forever wasn't released in 2007. I was sure that this year was the year!

Assassin's Creed

[nuzak]

Boy is it pretty. And smooth. And climbing things is fun for the first half-hour or so.

The voice acting is ... okay. Actually everyone's good except for Altair himself, but I have heard worse.

But seriously, I was looking forward to being immersed in the role of an assassin stalking his target patiently, taking just the right moment to strike, then blazing a bloody trail out of town. But nope, I get to listen to "Thief! I'll have your hand for that!" over and over and over and over and over again until I get sick of it and decide to have my two-dozenth very high-profile swordfight in the middle of the street -- which the guards will mercifully forget all about when I walk away for a couple minutes to climb the next Generic View Point Tower.

Talk about a wasted opportunity.

Re:more about "The Internet and Jade Raymond"?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

This NSFW

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not own Halo 3 and I have no intention of buying it or a 360 but I'm going to defend it anyway. The whole "640p" thing was because it renders to two 640 row framebuffers which are then composited and slightly scaled vertically to achieve some cool lighting effects. People were only able to notice the slight reduction in vertical resolution by counting pixels on framegrabs. Until I see a study showing that people are even capable of distinguishing 720p and 1080p video sources (not still images), I will continue to believe that all of this fretting over resolution is nothing but fanboy wankery.

That's a challenge to all of the resolution whores out there. I'm sure someone out there can put together a simple double-blind study to test this. Get some volunteers and set up a game to play a demo in 720p or 1080p. Don't let them pause the demo, or get close enough to count pixels, just have them sit an appropriate distance from the screen and ask them which sample was higher resolution. Call it a hunch, but I predict that less than 60% of the volunteers will get it right. If you somehow manage to test "640p" versus 720p I don't see how it could be significantly higher than 50% for a sufficiently large sample.

Wii

[Tailsfan]

What about all the games SEGA churns out.

Re:Wii

[marvelouspatric]

you know, that's a great point. i was looking at my wii (the only next-gen system i own) and i realized that my favorite games for it come from either nintendo or sega. how crazy is that? if you would have told me 20 years ago, when i was playing my 8-bit master system that i'd being playing sega games on a nintendo and love it, i'd have told you you were a doo-doo head, because i was 8.

(my favorite wii games, right now, are wii sports, wii play, sonic, mario, and nights. just got mario and nights, and they are probably the best two wii-exclusive titles 2007 provided.)

Re:This is no new issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't find it a letdown at all. Quite enjoyed it, actually.

Re:Death of the CRPG

[LarsWestergren]

Troika's dead, an Xbox FPS developer has the Fallout IP, and Bioware was eaten by EA before they could squeeze out an uncorrupted Dragon Age.

On the other hand, we have the Witcher, and NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer, which makes it one of the best CRPG years in a long time. Which brings us to my disappointment, mirrored nicely by this article: This was a great year for PC games, the best in a long time, but online media seems only to care about consoles.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[bigstrat2003]

Halo bashing in a games topic? This is new and unheard-of.

Bungie could only manage to get Halo 3 to run at 640p resolution and not the minimum standard 720p for real next gen games. No one with a lick of sense gives a flying fuck. Unless you're counting the lines, rather than playing the game, you can't tell if there are 640 lines or 720. Give me a break.

Side by side screenshots of Halo 2 and Halo 3 had gamers scratching their heads as to which one was supposed to be the next gen game. BULLSHIT. This was true for the beta only. Playing the finished Halo 3, there's a clear improvement in graphical quality. You might want to get with the times on this one.

Bungie didn't bother to bring Halo 3 out of the dark ages of online gaming and implement dedicated servers. And Bungie because of the lack of dedicated servers Halo 3 could only handle 16 players at a time for online games. There are pc shareware games with better online setups. Agreed 100%, but consoles aren't the place to be looking for good FPS multiplayer gaming anyways.

Nope, single player also runs only at 640p with the same last gen looking graphics. See above responses. No one cares, and the graphics look just fine.

The campaign is incredibly short and linear It's hardly "incredibly short" (took me 8ish hours), and every game ever made (except some RPGs) is linear. You can hardly bash Halo 3 for being what 90% of games are, buddy.

The Halo 3 story is easily one of the lamest even by the incredibly low fps genre standard I beg to differ. Halo 3's story was excellent.

But all in all, Pojut is 100% right. If you're going to bash a game for no reason, bash a game that isn't 4 months old. Hell, there are far more worthy targets out there if you're going to sit and unjustly bash old games. Bioshock (an excellent game, I might add) didn't live up to 1/4 of the hype heaped upon it (no game could have), so from a certain perspective, it's by far the most disappointing game of the year. Why don't you pick on that one while you're at it? I'll tell you why, because you're another idiotic anti-Halo fanboy. I've seen very reasonable arguments put forth as to why Halo isn't good, but yours isn't one of them.

Re:Death of the CRPG

[klingens]

Anyone that played Morrowind before and then Oblivion saw the huge difference.

Morrowind was a PC game that got ported to console. Oblivion was was a Console game ported to PC. A "port" as commonly known with PC players. And as most "Ports" it sucked in the same ways like them. The RPG part dumbed down overall with more emphasis on fights, made more lowest common denominator accessible for the "casual gamers", had simplified controls due to the lack of keyboard and mouse, horrible user interface, again due due bad res of the typical console "monitor" (NTSC TV) and controls.

It might have helped Bethesda's pocketbook (bigger market, easier to sell the bonus quests due to missing moddability on consoles, etc) but it made the game itself worse in the eyes of (PC)gamers and especially long time ElderScrolls players.

No it's not a full FPS (yet) but it certaily is a lot less of a RPG like it was.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Bungie could only manage to get Halo 3 to run at 640p resolution and not the minimum standard 720p for real next gen games.

Wait, what? How is that a "minimum standard" for "real next gen games"? You know that the Wii's maximum is 480p, right? If you consider Halo 3 to be even borderline "next gen," then you can't say Metroid Prime 3 isn't, as its single player mode blows Halo 3's away.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[Pojut]

And you apparently haven't read Slashdot since Halo 3 was announced...nearly the exact same cut and paste troll post has been posted in nearly every single story dealing with video games. Changing the first sentence so that it seems to be on-topic with the discussion doesn't make it any less of a shill/troll post.

And no, I won't block AC posts because sometimes ACs do in fact make insightful comments...when they aren't pasting in responses that were written months ago, that is.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to bash a game for no reason, bash a game that isn't 4 months old. Wow, tell me you didn't actually say that, when the title of the article is "2007's Ten Biggest Gaming Letdowns" and his post title (which is also reflected in your Re: response title is a direct derivative.

Are you in the same article that the rest of us are in? Or are you just a little too emotional about HALO for some reason?

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[d3l33t]

I care. I bought a 1080p TV so i could play 720/1080 games.

640 is not HD, sorry.

Halo 3? Disappointing?

[filterban]

Okay, so I can understand someone thinking Portal and BioShock are better games than Halo 3. I don't understand TFA calling Halo 3 a disappointment simply because they liked two other shooters more. From TFA:

The sales of Halo 3. It wasn't surprising that Halo 3 would sell like something that sells really fast, but I was saddened by how many people were exposed only to the world of the Master Chief while missing out on the amazing BioShock or my new pick for greatest game of all time, Portal. Sure, both games sold reasonably well, but when compared to the sales of Halo 3, you begin to realize that gaming accurately reflects the rest of society's entertainment; high-brow, revolutionary fare is ignored by the masses in favor of "wicked awesome explosions."

Please. Saying Halo 3 is only "wicked awesome explosions" would be like saying Star Wars is only "explosions and laser beams." Give me a break.

All of the Halo games have had wicked awesome explosions, sure. But they also have a deeply engrossing storyline, fantastic multiplayer, good AI, and unsurpassed world physics. Halo 3 is the best game in the series and was my favorite shooter (and many other people's) of the year. By no stretch of the imagination was it a bad game. Star Wars is full of light sabers and lasers - but obviously, if you look at it more closely, there's an intricate storyline with fantastic characters (in Episodes 4-6).

Sure, BioShock and Portal are arguably better games than Halo 3 but they didn't sell nearly as well. The reason? Exposure. Most people haven't even heard of Portal. There certainly aren't Portal trading cards, helmets, action figures, and TV commercials.

For christ's sake, you can't even BUY Portal on a console -- at most, an hour long game -- without buying a $60 package that includes another game I've already beaten (Half Life 2) and two expansion packs I don't want. If Joey asks for Portal for Christmas, his mom won't be able to find it in a store.

Sales figures are a result of many other forces besides the quality of the game itself, and that's reality. Microsoft went to bat for Halo 3 with their pocketbook, executed very well, and they reaped the rewards from it. BioShock and Portal did not pony up, and since most people don't know what they are, they aren't purchased at nearly the same rate. It has nothing to do with the average American only liking "wicked awesome explosions."

Wither Spore?

[GaryPatterson]

I remember when Spore was the next huge thing to hit gaming, and every game show had breathless gamers watching previews. Then we waited. And waited. And waited.

Years passed.

Still no Spore! It's an ambitious game, yes, but once you hit the third or fourth year of development, it starts seeming like it'll never get here. Games with extremely long dev times have a history of disappointing. I reckon "No Spore This Year" should be on the list as a disappointment of 2007.

Wither Spore?

Re:Wither Spore?

[LingNoi]

That's why the games industry should only market games that are already almost complete, they're such amateurs. The movie industry doesn't show adverts for a movie that still has three more years of production time. Doing so in the games industry leads to what you just said.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware And Software

[enderjsv]

Wow. You said a mouthful. A lot of your claims are fairly harsh, as well. It'd be nice if you could back them up by citing your sources.

First, what study have you read indicating that Xboxs released in the past year still suffer the same number of hardware malfunctions as their predecessors? I play close attention to gaming news and I haven't seen a study like this anywhere. Please tell me where you get this information so that I can be as informed as you are.

Second, Bioware was bought out. It's not as though they "left". If fact, Bioware was never an exclusive developer, they simply made a few exclusive games, which I'm sure many developers have done at one time or another for one console or another. It's entirely possible that future games developed by Bioware could also be Xbox exclusive. Also, Bungie may be wholly independent now, but they've stated they have no intention of developing for other consoles. Your statements that developers "are in shambles" and have "turned their backs" on Microsoft seem to be considerably exaggerated. Let's not forget that 3rd party exclusiveness isn't exactly Nintendo's or Sony's strong points.

Third... graphical disasters? Really? Let's check some review quotes for Mass Effect, shall we.

• " All in all, Mass Effect is every bit a great as we were promised. The story is fantastic, the graphics are unbelievable, sound is fairly good and the music is wonderful..." Gamer's Temple
• " The cinematic design is nothing short of masterful. This is a game that takes the aspects of film that make cinema so compelling and crosses it with the interactivity of games with unprecedented success." IGN
• "Graphics: 9/10" Gamespot

Basically, I find it hard to believe that anyone could really claim that they were "graphical disasters". Even if you had said they were "graphically subpar", I would probably take issue. But "graphical disaster" makes it sound as though you have some kind of vendetta against these games? I'd call you a Nintendo or a Sony fanboy, but I'm not that petty (wait, maybe I just did).

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[enderjsv]

I'd say you're both a little right. I bought an HDTV after seeing my friend play a game on his. The picture was so clear and nice I couldn't help but be impressed. So it's not entirely unreasonable that there IS a difference between HD and standard and that difference is noticeable. But on the other hand, we're talking about a difference between 80P of resolution. Honestly, while I can tell the difference between 420P and 720P fairly easily, I struggle sometimes to tell the difference between 720P and 1080P. So crying over 80P seems pretty dumb to me.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[enderjsv]

Wow, lots of points to make. I'm lazy so I'm not gonna quote or anything, but here goes.

The people who can't see the difference but still care are idiots. I know that's not the most logical response, but it's the only way I can seem to rationalize a stance like that. In my opinion, elitism like that is nauseating. As for the 5 or 6 people who CAN see the difference, good for you. That's quite an impressive skill. However, if a lapse of 80P is enough to ruin a game for you, maybe it's more of a curse than a skill. Or maybe you're just being ridiculous.

The Half-life episodes weren't 8 hours each. I don't know if you were drunk and thought you were playing when you were really watching Ben Hur, but I can assure you that I beat both episodes in under 6 hours. Episode 1 was 2 ½ hours, Episode 2 was 3 ½. They were great games, but they were short, plain and simple. If you add in Portal, the original single player content of the Orange Box added up to about 7 ½ hours of gameplay.

As for 50+ hours, show me a FPS game that's taken you fifty hours to beat. Hell, show me a "good" one that's taken you 20 hours to beat. I've played a lot of FPS games, and it's rare to find one that lasts more than 12 hours.

Yes, no dedicated servers and a 16 player limit is a bummer, which is simply a testament to how much fun the multiplayer portion of Halo is that it can be remarkably fun and exciting even without these features.

Lastly, I don't even know why I bothered replying to you, since I just read that you have never played Halo 3 and never will. You know, one time my brother and my brother-in-law were having a heated debate about a certain type of automobile. I know very little about automobiles and hadn't driven it. So you know what I did? I went and watched TV. Then next time you feel like participating in a discussion about a game you've never played and know very little about, go watch TV instead.

Re:Disclaimer: never played any Halo game

[doxology]

Deus Ex?

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware And Software

[Doctor_Jest]

I hate responding to trolls.... but.

They took a billion dollar hit to their bottom line to STOP the bleeding of consoles... they admitted (in no uncertain terms) that EVERY console they sold (up to that point) was potentially destined to fail... and fail for the SAME FLAW.

20% not high? 30%? How many consoles have to go back to Microsoft (and how many times), before you admit there's a flaw in the 360 that is VERY troubling and VERY problematic for their goodwill and future as a gaming company.

The failure rate of the PS3 is infinitesimal. Google is your friend. The Wii's also a solid performer. Compared to the 360 the PS2 launch console is more reliable.

You've been nursing Bill Gates' ballsack too long to notice the facts DO support his statement... and it's NOT fanboy rhetoric when the VERY company extends the warranty for a _SPECIFIC_ failure to 3 YEARS, for FREE. That had "class action dodge" written ALL over it, chum.

AC, indeed. Sometimes your asinine insinuations really get to me.

Re:Halo 3 Easily Biggest Gaming Letdown In 2007

[grahamwest]

I can totally tell it's at a lower resolution than other games. I think they're also not using the antialiasing in the same way as most games, or something else is amiss, because I can definitely see the hard edges of walls and doors and so on. Mind you I have a 1080p Full-HD television.

It's not like it's a big deal, they made their choice so they could run at framerate and get the lighting they wanted, but at least some of us could tell immediately. By the way, the reason they do this reduced framebuffer size (and it has to be horizontal as well as vertical) is so the whole thing fits in the GPU's embedded memory and they don't need to resolve to main memory during the rendering process.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware And Software

[NanoGator]

I would just like to point out that the 20 percent number is a guess. It originated from a website that ran a poll and they came up with that number after they received the results. It wasn't scientific, and it wasn't based on anything like retail reports. Some people were given a chance to bitch and they did. The warranty is definitely compelling and definitely says there is a problem, but it is also worth noting that Sony has been deluged with so much bad press that it is not surprising they are trying to nip it as quickly as possible. The internet has gotten very noisy in the last couple of years, especially with regards to Sony. All bad news about any system has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is possible that is an admission of a nasty defect, but it is also possible it is MS making a PR move that helps deal with the noisy backlash and makes them look more customer friendly than Sony. Neither you nor I know. There are a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder out there, just waiting to strike. You should keep that in mind when you're presented with a sensationalist number like that.

As for the AC posting, do you really blame the guy for posting anonymously and going against popular opinion? Slashdot's moderation system is not friendly towards those with a different view.