Gamespot just made me laugh

In their best of 2007 section I read this:

"Let's come right out and say it: 2007 was an incredible year for games, possibly rivaling the almighty 1998 (which was the year we saw Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, and Starcraft hit the market). There have been more blockbuster games released in 2007 across all platforms than you can shake a stick at, and what's even more surprising, most of them turned out to be really good. But "really good" might not be good enough when it comes to making the cut in GameSpot's Best Games of 2007 awards. "

Ok first of all, 2007 was no 1998. Not by a long shot, not even close. And then to basically contradict what they just said they go on to call most of the big releases "really good", and then saying that "really good might not be good enough." It's just laughable.
IDK, I just think it's rediculous to mention games like OoT, MGS, and Half Life, and then say this year's line up of games rivaled that. Then switch it up by sayingthat they're just really good. I mean...huh? I think you'd have to do better than "really good" to beat OoT, MGS, Half-Life, and Starcraft. And nothing in 2007 had the sort of impact any of those had in 1998.

In their best of 2007 section I read this:

"Let's come right out and say it: 2007 was an incredible year for games, possibly rivaling the almighty 1998 (which was the year we saw Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, and Starcraft hit the market). There have been more blockbuster games released in 2007 across all platforms than you can shake a stick at, and what's even more surprising, most of them turned out to be really good. But "really good" might not be good enough when it comes to making the cut in GameSpot's Best Games of 2007 awards. "

Ok first of all, 2007 was no 1998. Not by a long shot, not even close. And then to basically contradict what they just said they go on to call most of the big releases "really good", and then saying that "really good might not be good enough." It's just laughable.
IDK, I just think it's rediculous to mention games like OoT, MGS, and Half Life, and then say this year's line up of games rivaled that. Then switch it up by sayingthat they're just really good. I mean...huh? I think you'd have to do better than "really good" to beat OoT, MGS, Half-Life, and Starcraft. And nothing in 2007 had the sort of impact any of those had in 1998.

Conjuration

2007 has been a great gaming year, one of the best games ever have been released this year, Kane and Lynch.

[2007 has been a great gaming year, one of the best games ever have been released this year, Kane and Lynch.

Selrath

Kane and Lynch really is a good game, so stop being a Jeff fanboy please.

In their best of 2007 section I read this:

"Let's come right out and say it: 2007 was an incredible year for games, possibly rivaling the almighty 1998 (which was the year we saw Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, and Starcraft hit the market). There have been more blockbuster games released in 2007 across all platforms than you can shake a stick at, and what's even more surprising, most of them turned out to be really good. But "really good" might not be good enough when it comes to making the cut in GameSpot's Best Games of 2007 awards. "

Ok first of all, 2007 was no 1998. Not by a long shot, not even close. And then to basically contradict what they just said they go on to call most of the big releases "really good", and then saying that "really good might not be good enough." It's just laughable.
IDK, I just think it's rediculous to mention games like OoT, MGS, and Half Life, and then say this year's line up of games rivaled that. Then switch it up by sayingthat they're just really good. I mean...huh? I think you'd have to do better than "really good" to beat OoT, MGS, Half-Life, and Starcraft. And nothing in 2007 had the sort of impact any of those had in 1998.

Conjuration

2007 saw bioshock, mass effect, god of war 2, halo 3, assassins creed, crysis, super mario galaxy, metroid prime, uncharted, unreal tournament 3, the orange box, world in conflict, command and conquer 3, rock band, call of duty 4, i can go on. you're right 2007 doesn't compare to 1998... it blows it out of the water.

[QUOTE="Conjuration"]

In their best of 2007 section I read this:

"Let's come right out and say it: 2007 was an incredible year for games, possibly rivaling the almighty 1998 (which was the year we saw Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, and Starcraft hit the market). There have been more blockbuster games released in 2007 across all platforms than you can shake a stick at, and what's even more surprising, most of them turned out to be really good. But "really good" might not be good enough when it comes to making the cut in GameSpot's Best Games of 2007 awards. "

Ok first of all, 2007 was no 1998. Not by a long shot, not even close. And then to basically contradict what they just said they go on to call most of the big releases "really good", and then saying that "really good might not be good enough." It's just laughable.
IDK, I just think it's rediculous to mention games like OoT, MGS, and Half Life, and then say this year's line up of games rivaled that. Then switch it up by sayingthat they're just really good. I mean...huh? I think you'd have to do better than "really good" to beat OoT, MGS, Half-Life, and Starcraft. And nothing in 2007 had the sort of impact any of those had in 1998.

jimhogg

2007 saw bioshock, mass effect, god of war 2, halo 3, assassins creed, crysis, super mario galaxy, metroid prime, uncharted, unreal tournament 3, the orange box, world in conflict, command and conquer 3, rock band, call of duty 4, i can go on. you're right 2007 doesn't compare to 1998... it blows it out of the water.

Exactly.