Games being equal to books? That's a hard challenge, since it's entirely subjective. But I could speak to my own experience. Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, which I read when I was a freshmen in high school, are my two favorite books that I hold near and dear to my heart. But nothing has ever had as much influence on me as Final Fantasy VII, the first game I ever played that really made me believe videogames could address the human condition, rather than simply test our abilities.
Since then, there have been bigger and better games with better stories than FFVII, but I'll always remember that game. It's hard for me to believe games can't reach a book's level of equality when no book has ever compared to my experience with that game. But that's just my own experience. To each their own.
Sadly, to some extent, you're probably right. It's like when some employee pisses you off at Wal-Mart and you tell the manager you're never coming back to the store again. He might act apologetic, but you know in the back of his mind he's thinking "who cares, we have enough customers."
Still, they've lost me as a customer, and not really because I'm angry or anything, but rather that all my favorite reviewers like Alex, Greg and Jeff have left. So why stick around?
I love zeropunctuation. He's hilarious and enjoyable to watch, but he's actually a bit biased in his reviews. He obviously has a preference for PC gaming (which is actually slowly subsiding as he grows more familiar with consoles) and he doesn't care for multiplayer games. Hell, he said so outright in his Halo 3 review. Still, I can forgive all that because he's hilarious.
In all honesty, I trust most review sites more than most user reviews. This is because there are two types of reviews. The good objective type comes from someone who has played many games in their lifetime and recognize that games can be bad, miserable, decent, good, great, and every shade in between. They're forgiving of a game series' past trangressions but also realize that a sequel in a well established franchise doesn't guarantee quality.
And then there is the other type, the fanboy/hateboys, that have only two opinions about a game, usually based on console/pc preferences or brand loyalties. They think the game is either the greatest in the world, blessed and sanctified by God himself, or that it's absolute garbage and deserves to be burned in the fire pits of hell along with anyone who thinks otherwise. In my experience, it's far more likely to find the good kind of reviewer in a well-established company, and it's far more likley to find the fanboy in the user reviews section.
Now, of course, it's possible for this general rule to be incorrect at times. I've read fairly bad reviews in game magazines and fairly good reviews from random users, but in my experience, this is usually not the case.
One last random observation, why does everyone have to hate on Halo so much? It's a good game.
Am I the only one who experienced very noticeable screen tearing with this game? I've never had as much screen tearing with a 360 game as I did with Mass Effect. Most times, I'd get screen tearing any time I panned the camera around the Shepard. It happened most noticeably on the citadel.
Great Christmas nothin'. It was a great YEAR! It started for me with God of War 2, ended for me with Assassin's Creed, and had a whole crapload of great in between. Hard to imagine what it would have been like if Smash Bros. and GTA4 hadn't been delayed, along with a few others.
Incidentitally, I'd name the BioShock DLC amongst my disappointments of the year. Great game, but the DLC was kinda weak. The patch that fixed the widescreen issue was cool, but in all fairness it should have been like that to begin with. Go with Folklore.
I love Yahtzee, he's hilarious. But truthfully, reviewing Halo 3 and stating "I don't care about multiplayer" is like reviewing Bioshock and saying "I only care about the hacking mini-game." Okay, maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's still pretty bad.
Actually, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune was developed by Naughty Dog, which is a first party developer owned by Sony, so that doesn't really fall under the category of third-party exclusivity. Also, Insomniac Games (Ratchet and Clank, Resistance: Fall of man), while technically an independent developer, has been developing solely for Sony since 1996 and all of their games have been published by Sony. So its no surprise that they continue to do so.
Still, all that is beside the point and I've steered this thread a little off-topic. I guess if I had to sum up my position, I'd simply state that, perhaps, if one wanted to be cruel, I could abide them to refer to certain aspects of the 360 as "a mess" (such as hardware reliability), but referring to the entire console as "a mess" is just fanboy flamebait. But don't misunderstand my intentions. If anyone was to call the PS3 or the Wii a mess in the same tone as the AC, I'd be defending them just as vigorously. Competition IS good, that I agree with, and I think the market today is finally able to truly support three independent consoles as well as a move toward 3rd party development dominance, both good things.
I hate it when people dissect posts into quotes, but whatever, I'll respond.
Stating that the average player took 8 hours to beat each of the HL episodes to give the unfair impression that the Halo 3 campaign is as short as an episode of HL without actually having research to back it up is unfair. Maybe citing my own anecdotal evidence wasn't the best way to counter such an argument, so I'll use some real stats.
According to these stats, the average person took 5 hours to beat HL:E2. That's not quite 8. Unless you would like to claim that Portal runs an average over 4 hours (go on, I dare ya) that brings the grand total to 9 hours. Hardly a far cry from Halo's single player offerings.
As for the fact that the Orange Box contains an excellent multi player game to make up for its somewhat short single player experience, you're absolutely right. It does, which is why the Orange Box is a great purchase and is, in my humble opinion, the best game of the year.
But who are you to declare that Halo's multiplayer aspect doesn't do the same for Halo 3 when you haven't even played the game? I love that you simply can't imagine a world in which peer-to-peer and a 16 player limit can still produce a good (if not great) experience. Hell, compared to the Orange Box, Halo's multi-player is enormous, despite your uninformed opinion to the contrary, including 4 player online co-op in the campaign, about 2-3 times more maps than team fortress, an easy built in tool for map customization and a seemingly endless amount of game options. Halo 3's multiplayer, despite its shortcomings, is still good-to-great and more than supplies the 50+ hour quota you have placed on a game worthy of your almighty dollar.
And as for the whole consoles-controller-fps thing, that is such an old, tired argument. I'm really tempted to play the "idiot" card again, since I fail to see how anyone with opposable thumbs would find it so detrimental to play a fps on a console. I've been doing it since I was a child and it's never caused me any irrefutable harm. I know playing a FPS with a mouse and a keyboard is easier, but so is driving an automatic transmission. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy a race if I'm driving with a stick, does it?
Then again, it took you 8 hours to beat HL2:E2 with a mouse and a keyboard and it took me 3 1/2 with a controller. Maybe you really are thumbless.
Here's a quote from the article - "With Bungie no longer tied to Microsoft, many speculated on whether the developer would lend projects to consoles other than the Xbox 360. While the option remains, Bungie lead writer Frank O'Connor has said that the developer isn't going to make the move any time soon."
As for the rest of your comments, I might not agree with you 100% but I recognize that Halo, Mass Effect and Forza have their issues. I also recognize that Bungie not being owned outright by Microsoft is a bad thing for Microsoft. And losing any type of exclusivity is probably bad for the Xbox 360. I do not contest any of that. But the AC's tone was what I took issue with. He seems to think that the Xbox 360 is doomed, and that impressions of the system so far are overwhelmingly negative. This seems to be very opposite to the tone of the gaming industry as a whole, or at least what I have seen of it (which is a lot). Very few would argue that the 360 didn't have the best lineup of games for this holiday season. The Xbox Live system is often touted as the most robust online console service. And all three of those games he touted as "graphical disasters" have received very positive overall reviews (check metacritic) and have sold quite well. Terms like "shambles" and "graphical disasters" seem so ridiculous to me. I don't see any reason to believe, as the AC so elegantly put it, that the 360 turned out to be a "mess."
I also forgot to mention in my previous post that the AC's claim that the Xbox is only selling well in the U.S. is a flat out lie. In fact, the only market I know of where the Xbox is NOT doing well is the Asian market, primarily because of lackluster sales in Japan. But in Europe, Canada and Australia, the system is selling very well. I'm not gonna look up the stats to back this up cause I'm lazy, but I'm sure one wouldn't have too look far.
One last thing, you stated third party exclusivity hasn't been anyones strong point so far, but I disagree. The Orange Box (Valve), Bioshock (2k) and Mass Affect (Bioware) were all 3rd party exclusives to the Xbox during the holiday season, (yes, I know this will change but the damage has already been done). I believe last year that Oblivion was exclusive during the holiday season. The Xbox might not retain these exclusivities forever, but they know how to time it right.
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.
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.
Actually, while I agree Assassin's Creed was a little disappointing (but not terrible), I actually appreciated that it was more forgiving than some other "assassin" themed games. I love me some Hitman, but you have to admit Hitmen is a very unforgiving game. If you botch up once, the entire level falls apart quickly. Now, I don't mind that about Hitmen, it's what makes Hitman great. But sometimes I had the urge to just assassinate as many guards as I could and see how long I could get away with it... which was never long. But in Assassin's Creed, I had a lot of fun running on top of roofs assassinating guards as they looked down on the city with little disregard to the consequences. And if I messed up an assassination it was not a big deal and only required a quick run and hide mini-game to make things right again. By the end of the game I got so good with the assassination mechanics that in the middle of a group fight I could knock someone over with a grab, grab-break or non-lethal counter and finish them off with a quick switch to my hidden blade and pounce. It was very fun.
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).
While we're conducting studies lets also grab a group of random individuals, show them a thirty second gameplay clip from Halo 2 and Halo 3, and see if they can't tell the difference in graphics and distinguish one game from the other. I'm no Halo fanboy, but I even take offense to the argument that people couldn't tell the difference between H2 and H3 screenshots. First, I believe that was an issue with the beta, not the final product. Second, a "screenshot" isn't exactly the best way to determine if a game has good graphics or not. Hell, you think a screenshot of Crysis is gonna do that game justice? I don't think so.
In the end, I can name 3 or 4 other games that I enjoyed more than Halo 3 this year, but Halo 3 is still a good game and isn't worthy of all this hateboy nit-picking.
Not necessarily. If Gamespot is anything like the company that I work for, that an overall competent management level does not stop and individual manager from making a ridiculous decision. I'm guessing this unfortunate incident is more of a freak occurrence then an "establishment of operating guidelines." In fact, after the backlash from the gaming community, I wouldn't be surprised if CNET is revising it's managerial tactics in a way that is MORE accommodating to the reviewers. Hell, Gamespot might just be the MOST trustworthy site once they finish cleaning this mess up.
Tepples, you've annoyed me enough to make me go off topic. Here's a short (sometimes abridged) history of your posts in this topic. Try and see if you can guess a pattern.
"What is the essential difference between a PC and a "console"? Is it...to end users? If so, would that make Mr. Stallman a moron because GPLv3 games don't run on consoles by definition? "
"Given the $1,350 price tag to own all three consoles with even one controller (Xbox: $450 incl. two years of Live Gold; PS3: $500; Wii: $400 from a scalper), does a limited income make a player "fake", or just not "hardcore"?"
"Is DDR or Guitar Hero more fun with a keyboard than with its intended controller? And how many keyboards and mice can I connect to a single PC running games for Windows when I have friends over? "
"Then what's a PC? Something that has a Microsoft...because it runs Windows Mobile?"
"I have a Wii. But which platform has both independent games and split-screen multiplayer games? "
"Independent in what way? How do I make my own multiplayer game for Wii?"
"Why is this the case? Is it that home theater PC setups are also "very few and far between"?"
"How can I learn not to be rude? In what way should I have asked those questions?"
Notice the pattern? Here's an idea. If you have a point, make your point. Don't disguise your points as questions. It's a cheap argumentative strategy and all it does is cloud the conversation. Thank you.
I think you're missing the point, tepples. The original post had nothing to do with lockout. Everyone can probably agree lockout deprives innovation. That's not a counter to his point, though, that lack of competition deprives innovation. To sum up the conversation so far:
NLAWALKER- "Being a fanboy is bad because, should a fanboy get his wish, we'd see a lapse in competition that would lead to a lack in innovation."
TEPPLES- "Yeah, but consoles have lockout chips that deprive the world of innovation."
First, I'll reply to what I agree with. GTA Vice city (and 3 and San Andreas) were GREAT games with great stories and great characters (lotsa great). That being said, the GTA franchise is far more linear than people make it out to be. Sure, in between missions there is a sandbox, but once a mission starts, it's a linear endeavor from start to finish. And lets not fool ourselves, what made the characters so appealing in the GTA games was the scripted cut scenes and awesome voice acting, not any sandbox interaction we had with these characters.
I could concede that in between plot points, there is probably room for more sandbox variety in HL, but when it comes to advances in plot or storyline, I'm willing to forgive the linearity.
As for your specific remarks about the HL2 story and Alyx in particular, you're entitled to your opinion, but I for one found it to be remarkably captivating. In fact, Alyx is one of the best formed characters in recent gaming history, in my opinion. One reviewer (I forget which one) cited a specific situation that I think really captures Alyx's character. He was driving through the wilderness when he happened to look over at Alyx in the passenger seat. She looked back at him, smiled and winked.
Slashdot Mirror
And Cubes... beloved companion cubes... *tear*
Games being equal to books? That's a hard challenge, since it's entirely subjective. But I could speak to my own experience. Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, which I read when I was a freshmen in high school, are my two favorite books that I hold near and dear to my heart. But nothing has ever had as much influence on me as Final Fantasy VII, the first game I ever played that really made me believe videogames could address the human condition, rather than simply test our abilities.
Since then, there have been bigger and better games with better stories than FFVII, but I'll always remember that game. It's hard for me to believe games can't reach a book's level of equality when no book has ever compared to my experience with that game. But that's just my own experience. To each their own.
Maybe he'd have trouble walking into an R-rated movie in a theater, but according to a recent study...
here
They are able to purchase an R-rated movie far more often then they are able to purchase an M-rated game. What say you now?
you know, most stores have a 90 day exchange policy on electronics. You probably could have just exchanged it at the store for a working one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbAuMr5eac
There ya go.
Sadly, to some extent, you're probably right. It's like when some employee pisses you off at Wal-Mart and you tell the manager you're never coming back to the store again. He might act apologetic, but you know in the back of his mind he's thinking "who cares, we have enough customers."
Still, they've lost me as a customer, and not really because I'm angry or anything, but rather that all my favorite reviewers like Alex, Greg and Jeff have left. So why stick around?
I love zeropunctuation. He's hilarious and enjoyable to watch, but he's actually a bit biased in his reviews. He obviously has a preference for PC gaming (which is actually slowly subsiding as he grows more familiar with consoles) and he doesn't care for multiplayer games. Hell, he said so outright in his Halo 3 review. Still, I can forgive all that because he's hilarious.
In all honesty, I trust most review sites more than most user reviews. This is because there are two types of reviews. The good objective type comes from someone who has played many games in their lifetime and recognize that games can be bad, miserable, decent, good, great, and every shade in between. They're forgiving of a game series' past trangressions but also realize that a sequel in a well established franchise doesn't guarantee quality.
And then there is the other type, the fanboy/hateboys, that have only two opinions about a game, usually based on console/pc preferences or brand loyalties. They think the game is either the greatest in the world, blessed and sanctified by God himself, or that it's absolute garbage and deserves to be burned in the fire pits of hell along with anyone who thinks otherwise. In my experience, it's far more likely to find the good kind of reviewer in a well-established company, and it's far more likley to find the fanboy in the user reviews section.
Now, of course, it's possible for this general rule to be incorrect at times. I've read fairly bad reviews in game magazines and fairly good reviews from random users, but in my experience, this is usually not the case.
One last random observation, why does everyone have to hate on Halo so much? It's a good game.
Am I the only one who experienced very noticeable screen tearing with this game? I've never had as much screen tearing with a 360 game as I did with Mass Effect. Most times, I'd get screen tearing any time I panned the camera around the Shepard. It happened most noticeably on the citadel.
And that's why they don't stay friends for very long.
Comparing God of War to Mass Effect? That's a stretch. Hey Orange, why can't you be more like Apple?
Great Christmas nothin'. It was a great YEAR! It started for me with God of War 2, ended for me with Assassin's Creed, and had a whole crapload of great in between. Hard to imagine what it would have been like if Smash Bros. and GTA4 hadn't been delayed, along with a few others. Incidentitally, I'd name the BioShock DLC amongst my disappointments of the year. Great game, but the DLC was kinda weak. The patch that fixed the widescreen issue was cool, but in all fairness it should have been like that to begin with. Go with Folklore.
I love Yahtzee, he's hilarious. But truthfully, reviewing Halo 3 and stating "I don't care about multiplayer" is like reviewing Bioshock and saying "I only care about the hacking mini-game." Okay, maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's still pretty bad.
Actually, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune was developed by Naughty Dog, which is a first party developer owned by Sony, so that doesn't really fall under the category of third-party exclusivity. Also, Insomniac Games (Ratchet and Clank, Resistance: Fall of man), while technically an independent developer, has been developing solely for Sony since 1996 and all of their games have been published by Sony. So its no surprise that they continue to do so.
Still, all that is beside the point and I've steered this thread a little off-topic. I guess if I had to sum up my position, I'd simply state that, perhaps, if one wanted to be cruel, I could abide them to refer to certain aspects of the 360 as "a mess" (such as hardware reliability), but referring to the entire console as "a mess" is just fanboy flamebait. But don't misunderstand my intentions. If anyone was to call the PS3 or the Wii a mess in the same tone as the AC, I'd be defending them just as vigorously. Competition IS good, that I agree with, and I think the market today is finally able to truly support three independent consoles as well as a move toward 3rd party development dominance, both good things.
I hate it when people dissect posts into quotes, but whatever, I'll respond.
Stating that the average player took 8 hours to beat each of the HL episodes to give the unfair impression that the Halo 3 campaign is as short as an episode of HL without actually having research to back it up is unfair. Maybe citing my own anecdotal evidence wasn't the best way to counter such an argument, so I'll use some real stats.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/19/1739223
According to these stats, the average person took 5 hours to beat HL:E2. That's not quite 8. Unless you would like to claim that Portal runs an average over 4 hours (go on, I dare ya) that brings the grand total to 9 hours. Hardly a far cry from Halo's single player offerings.
As for the fact that the Orange Box contains an excellent multi player game to make up for its somewhat short single player experience, you're absolutely right. It does, which is why the Orange Box is a great purchase and is, in my humble opinion, the best game of the year.
But who are you to declare that Halo's multiplayer aspect doesn't do the same for Halo 3 when you haven't even played the game? I love that you simply can't imagine a world in which peer-to-peer and a 16 player limit can still produce a good (if not great) experience. Hell, compared to the Orange Box, Halo's multi-player is enormous, despite your uninformed opinion to the contrary, including 4 player online co-op in the campaign, about 2-3 times more maps than team fortress, an easy built in tool for map customization and a seemingly endless amount of game options. Halo 3's multiplayer, despite its shortcomings, is still good-to-great and more than supplies the 50+ hour quota you have placed on a game worthy of your almighty dollar.
And as for the whole consoles-controller-fps thing, that is such an old, tired argument. I'm really tempted to play the "idiot" card again, since I fail to see how anyone with opposable thumbs would find it so detrimental to play a fps on a console. I've been doing it since I was a child and it's never caused me any irrefutable harm. I know playing a FPS with a mouse and a keyboard is easier, but so is driving an automatic transmission. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy a race if I'm driving with a stick, does it?
Then again, it took you 8 hours to beat HL2:E2 with a mouse and a keyboard and it took me 3 1/2 with a controller. Maybe you really are thumbless.
Here's a link to a Gamespot news article.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183773.html?tag=result;title;1
Here's a quote from the article - "With Bungie no longer tied to Microsoft, many speculated on whether the developer would lend projects to consoles other than the Xbox 360. While the option remains, Bungie lead writer Frank O'Connor has said that the developer isn't going to make the move any time soon."
As for the rest of your comments, I might not agree with you 100% but I recognize that Halo, Mass Effect and Forza have their issues. I also recognize that Bungie not being owned outright by Microsoft is a bad thing for Microsoft. And losing any type of exclusivity is probably bad for the Xbox 360. I do not contest any of that. But the AC's tone was what I took issue with. He seems to think that the Xbox 360 is doomed, and that impressions of the system so far are overwhelmingly negative. This seems to be very opposite to the tone of the gaming industry as a whole, or at least what I have seen of it (which is a lot). Very few would argue that the 360 didn't have the best lineup of games for this holiday season. The Xbox Live system is often touted as the most robust online console service. And all three of those games he touted as "graphical disasters" have received very positive overall reviews (check metacritic) and have sold quite well. Terms like "shambles" and "graphical disasters" seem so ridiculous to me. I don't see any reason to believe, as the AC so elegantly put it, that the 360 turned out to be a "mess."
I also forgot to mention in my previous post that the AC's claim that the Xbox is only selling well in the U.S. is a flat out lie. In fact, the only market I know of where the Xbox is NOT doing well is the Asian market, primarily because of lackluster sales in Japan. But in Europe, Canada and Australia, the system is selling very well. I'm not gonna look up the stats to back this up cause I'm lazy, but I'm sure one wouldn't have too look far.
One last thing, you stated third party exclusivity hasn't been anyones strong point so far, but I disagree. The Orange Box (Valve), Bioshock (2k) and Mass Affect (Bioware) were all 3rd party exclusives to the Xbox during the holiday season, (yes, I know this will change but the damage has already been done). I believe last year that Oblivion was exclusive during the holiday season. The Xbox might not retain these exclusivities forever, but they know how to time it right.
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.
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.
Actually, while I agree Assassin's Creed was a little disappointing (but not terrible), I actually appreciated that it was more forgiving than some other "assassin" themed games. I love me some Hitman, but you have to admit Hitmen is a very unforgiving game. If you botch up once, the entire level falls apart quickly. Now, I don't mind that about Hitmen, it's what makes Hitman great. But sometimes I had the urge to just assassinate as many guards as I could and see how long I could get away with it... which was never long. But in Assassin's Creed, I had a lot of fun running on top of roofs assassinating guards as they looked down on the city with little disregard to the consequences. And if I messed up an assassination it was not a big deal and only required a quick run and hide mini-game to make things right again. By the end of the game I got so good with the assassination mechanics that in the middle of a group fight I could knock someone over with a grab, grab-break or non-lethal counter and finish them off with a quick switch to my hidden blade and pounce. It was very fun.
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.
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).
While we're conducting studies lets also grab a group of random individuals, show them a thirty second gameplay clip from Halo 2 and Halo 3, and see if they can't tell the difference in graphics and distinguish one game from the other. I'm no Halo fanboy, but I even take offense to the argument that people couldn't tell the difference between H2 and H3 screenshots. First, I believe that was an issue with the beta, not the final product. Second, a "screenshot" isn't exactly the best way to determine if a game has good graphics or not. Hell, you think a screenshot of Crysis is gonna do that game justice? I don't think so.
In the end, I can name 3 or 4 other games that I enjoyed more than Halo 3 this year, but Halo 3 is still a good game and isn't worthy of all this hateboy nit-picking.
Not necessarily. If Gamespot is anything like the company that I work for, that an overall competent management level does not stop and individual manager from making a ridiculous decision. I'm guessing this unfortunate incident is more of a freak occurrence then an "establishment of operating guidelines." In fact, after the backlash from the gaming community, I wouldn't be surprised if CNET is revising it's managerial tactics in a way that is MORE accommodating to the reviewers. Hell, Gamespot might just be the MOST trustworthy site once they finish cleaning this mess up.
Notice the pattern? Here's an idea. If you have a point, make your point. Don't disguise your points as questions. It's a cheap argumentative strategy and all it does is cloud the conversation. Thank you.
I think you're missing the point, tepples. The original post had nothing to do with lockout. Everyone can probably agree lockout deprives innovation. That's not a counter to his point, though, that lack of competition deprives innovation. To sum up the conversation so far:
NLAWALKER- "Being a fanboy is bad because, should a fanboy get his wish, we'd see a lapse in competition that would lead to a lack in innovation."
TEPPLES- "Yeah, but consoles have lockout chips that deprive the world of innovation."
ENDERJSV- "You're both right. Shake hands."
First, I'll reply to what I agree with. GTA Vice city (and 3 and San Andreas) were GREAT games with great stories and great characters (lotsa great). That being said, the GTA franchise is far more linear than people make it out to be. Sure, in between missions there is a sandbox, but once a mission starts, it's a linear endeavor from start to finish. And lets not fool ourselves, what made the characters so appealing in the GTA games was the scripted cut scenes and awesome voice acting, not any sandbox interaction we had with these characters.
I could concede that in between plot points, there is probably room for more sandbox variety in HL, but when it comes to advances in plot or storyline, I'm willing to forgive the linearity.
As for your specific remarks about the HL2 story and Alyx in particular, you're entitled to your opinion, but I for one found it to be remarkably captivating. In fact, Alyx is one of the best formed characters in recent gaming history, in my opinion. One reviewer (I forget which one) cited a specific situation that I think really captures Alyx's character. He was driving through the wilderness when he happened to look over at Alyx in the passenger seat. She looked back at him, smiled and winked.