GOWIII deserved a 9 as much as ODST did.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] On Normal, campaign alone will give you 10+ hours depending on your skill. If you think you're a GOW master then challenge yourself with Titan mode first. After that do challenge of the gods and you'll be good.caligamer

Just cause u got 4 times more doesnt mean most did

I could say i got over 100 hours on GOW3...

GOW3 doesnt offer anything over ODST????...........Really so the graphics are equal ?

having extemely good graphics on a new game is nothing new, hell uncharted's graphics were way better than gow 3, and besides gameplay>graphics

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] I didn't play ODST so I wouldn't know and I have no opinion on it. But GOW 3 is not just an "8 hour campaign". It's at best on a reasonable difficulty 11-12 hours. And it's longer if you include challenge of the gods and combat arena to actually play the game in it's entirety.

Zero_epyon

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"] I could say the same for ODST. It has different diffuculity settings. You can play it with 4 friends split screen or online. GOW 3 can not. You can compete against eachother with META score. In gow you can not. You can record your games and share pictures and films with the Halo community, in GOW you can not. You have different difficulty boosters which change the gameplay. In gow you can not. You have a survival mode with several different maps which you can play with 4 friends. Gow doesn't have this. You get the entire halo 3 multiplayer experience. In gow you don't. And you get a beta for halo reach. In gow you don't. So what does GOW 3 have that makes it so special except being flashy? Sandvichman

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

yep, call of duty 4 and modern warfare 2 proves the point

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] 10? I got 4 times that on ODST.I fail to understand this arguement, you say that ODST is short, and doesn't matter, yet you somehow argue for GOW 3 which doesn't seem to offer more then ODST in any way possible. Sandvichman

Im pretty sure the average player did not get 40 hours worth of campaign play on ODST

Even if it is 8 hours and ODST is 4 hours thats still 2 times more

I would say average is 10 hours for GOW3 and 5 hours for ODST

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"] I will rent and play the game, but my point is that I know what the game is trying to be and is by just playing the demo. It is a linear hack n slash game with an 8 hour campaign that leaves very little replay value. That's what it is and that's why I think it doesn't deserve the score. Maybe Heavenly Sword should have been a 9 too then huh?peanutbudduh

I have proven why you can't determine that. You have not proven anything, so you cannot know what the game is without playing it.

I'll put some more context into it. I see a girl walking down the street, and have a 2 sentence conversation with her. Do I walk away and determine that she has a bad personality from that instance? Or do I need something more substantial (i'm not talking about attraction, merely determining her personality). It's an impossibility, as oft times things like nerves play a role, and things are said, that are out of character. much like teh GOWIII demo is out of character due to lack of gameplay elements and story elements, along with lesser performance.

Most hack and slash games are linear (which you are using in an overplayed sense), as it's essential to the combat elements, and again you cannot determine if it has no replay value because a.) you are not everyone and cannot speak for them and b.) you must play and complete the game to determine that (for blindingly obvious reasons, which I don't doubt you are completely unaware of).

Saying Heavenly Sword deserves the score is like saying one FPS game, such as Haze, deserves exactly the same score as Halo, Crysis, Killzone 2 etc. They have different stories, gameplay elements, etc etc.

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

I have proven why you can't determine that. You have not proven anything, so you cannot know what the game is without playing it.

I'll put some more context into it. I see a girl walking down the street, and have a 2 sentence conversation with her. Do I walk away and determine that she has a bad personality from that instance? Or do I need something more substantial (i'm not talking about attraction, merely determining her personality). It's an impossibility, as oft times things like nerves play a role, and things are said, that are out of character. much like teh GOWIII demo is out of character due to lack of gameplay elements and story elements, along with lesser performance.

Most hack and slash games are linear (which you are using in an overplayed sense), as it's essential to the combat elements, and again you cannot determine if it has no replay value because a.) you are not everyone and cannot speak for them and b.) you must play and complete the game to determine that (for blindingly obvious reasons, which I don't doubt you are completely unaware of).

Saying Heavenly Sword deserves the score is like saying one FPS game, such as Haze, deserves exactly the same score as Halo, Crysis, Killzone 2 etc. They have different stories, gameplay elements, etc etc.

lundy86_4

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

ahh but games like killzone 2 differs greatly from their predecessors, but games like gow 3 stays practically the same with major graphical improvements

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] 10? I got 4 times that on ODST.I fail to understand this arguement, you say that ODST is short, and doesn't matter, yet you somehow argue for GOW 3 which doesn't seem to offer more then ODST in any way possible. johnryandaplin

Just cause u got 4 times more doesnt mean most did

I could say i got over 100 hours on GOW3...

GOW3 doesnt offer anything over ODST????...........Really so the graphics are equal ?

having extemely good graphics on a new game is nothing new, hell uncharted's graphics were way better than gow 3, and besides gameplay>graphics

Obvioulsy unchartedhas better graphics than GOW3 thats PART of the reason it got such high scores Graphics do matter

Sure gameplay> graphics

but how can u compare gameplay of a hack and slah and a FPS

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"] That's a poor analogy. Why can't I have an opinion? I've done research on the game, I've played the demo, I've read the reviews, I've read people's opinions, I know the story, I've played the previous games too. So it's not like God of War is new to me. GOWIII is not different from the prequels because in every single review, they've said it's basically the same game. I guess I should just take their word on it right? Certainly it's not the same as meeting a girl who you've never met before and judging her on a sentence.johnryandaplin

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

ahh but games like killzone 2 differs greatly from their predecessors, but games like gow 3 stames practically the same with major graphical improvements

How is a hack and slash meant to stem greatly away from it's predecessors? As the genre has remain unchanged for quite a long time. The hack and slash genre doesn't lend itself to being majorely overhauled, as introducing things like open-world elements as an example would move away from the fast-paced and exciting story telling.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"] I could say the same for ODST. It has different diffuculity settings. You can play it with 4 friends split screen or online. GOW 3 can not. You can compete against eachother with META score. In gow you can not. You can record your games and share pictures and films with the Halo community, in GOW you can not. You have different difficulty boosters which change the gameplay. In gow you can not. You have a survival mode with several different maps which you can play with 4 friends. Gow doesn't have this. You get the entire halo 3 multiplayer experience. In gow you don't. And you get a beta for halo reach. In gow you don't. So what does GOW 3 have that makes it so special except being flashy? Sandvichman

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"] That's a poor analogy. Why can't I have an opinion? I've done research on the game, I've played the demo, I've read the reviews, I've read people's opinions, I know the story, I've played the previous games too. So it's not like God of War is new to me. GOWIII is not different from the prequels because in every single review, they've said it's basically the same game. I guess I should just take their word on it right? Certainly it's not the same as meeting a girl who you've never met before and judging her on a sentence.johnryandaplin

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

ahh but games like killzone 2 differs greatly from their predecessors, but games like gow 3 stays practically the same with major graphical improvements

How is ODST so different from halo3

it doesnt have major gameplay changes OR major graphic improvement

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

Just cause u got 4 times more doesnt mean most did

I could say i got over 100 hours on GOW3...

GOW3 doesnt offer anything over ODST????...........Really so the graphics are equal ?

caligamer

having extemely good graphics on a new game is nothing new, hell uncharted's graphics were way better than gow 3, and besides gameplay>graphics

Obvioulsy unchartedhas better graphics than GOW3 thats PART of the reason it got such high scores Graphics do matter

Sure gameplay> graphics

but how can u compare gameplay of a hack and slah and a FPS

you dont have to "compare" them, you just have to take the information gathered from the gameplays and then conclude which has better gameplay for surely comparing a game like metal gear solid 4 to a game like killzone 2 wont be hard as killzone 2's controls are rather stiff and unresponsive while mgs4's controls are smooth but cna sometimes be a little bit confusing, THERE!

ijust compared MGS4 to killzone 2

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

I have proven why you can't determine that. You have not proven anything, so you cannot know what the game is without playing it.

I'll put some more context into it. I see a girl walking down the street, and have a 2 sentence conversation with her. Do I walk away and determine that she has a bad personality from that instance? Or do I need something more substantial (i'm not talking about attraction, merely determining her personality). It's an impossibility, as oft times things like nerves play a role, and things are said, that are out of character. much like teh GOWIII demo is out of character due to lack of gameplay elements and story elements, along with lesser performance.

Most hack and slash games are linear (which you are using in an overplayed sense), as it's essential to the combat elements, and again you cannot determine if it has no replay value because a.) you are not everyone and cannot speak for them and b.) you must play and complete the game to determine that (for blindingly obvious reasons, which I don't doubt you are completely unaware of).

Saying Heavenly Sword deserves the score is like saying one FPS game, such as Haze, deserves exactly the same score as Halo, Crysis, Killzone 2 etc. They have different stories, gameplay elements, etc etc.

lundy86_4

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

caligamer

ahh but games like killzone 2 differs greatly from their predecessors, but games like gow 3 stays practically the same with major graphical improvements

How is ODST so different from halo3

it doesnt have major gameplay changes OR major graphic improvement

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] Again, I don't have an opinion on ODST since I did not play it. Also, you gotta see what's going on here. We're comparing games that are in different genres with different designs in mind. Do you see any hack and slash adventure games being multiplayer? Do you expect to see and FPS's that aren't online enabled? GOW should be compared to Bayonetta, Dante's Inferno and Ninja Gaiden. ODST should be compared to Call Of Duty, Halo and Killzone 2. But in GOW's Genre, it's nothing short of an amazing game with an average SP length. johnryandaplin

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

yep, call of duty 4 and modern warfare 2 proves the point

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

ahh but games like killzone 2 differs greatly from their predecessors, but games like gow 3 stays practically the same with major graphical improvements

johnryandaplin

How is ODST so different from halo3

it doesnt have major gameplay changes OR major graphic improvement

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

Zero_epyon

yep, call of duty 4 and modern warfare 2 proves the point

half life 2 episode 1 and 2 has extremely short campaign, and no multiplayer, you have to separately buy counter strike

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"] That's a poor analogy. Why can't I have an opinion? I've done research on the game, I've played the demo, I've read the reviews, I've read people's opinions, I know the story, I've played the previous games too. So it's not like God of War is new to me. GOWIII is not different from the prequels because in every single review, they've said it's basically the same game. I guess I should just take their word on it right? Certainly it's not the same as meeting a girl who you've never met before and judging her on a sentence.johnryandaplin

It's an appropriate analogy actually, as the opinion would be fundamentally flawed, as not I stated you are not determining attraction, but the quality of one's personality. Which would need time together to determine.

I\ve stated this before, and it's applicable again, as the research you have done uses fractured story and gameplay elements, and offers an opinion based on an old build of the game, from almost a year before release.

Playing previous games means nothing because, if it did, games like KZ2 would be garbage, because their predecessor wasn't all that good. Makes no sense. You have to determine the game based on it's own merits aswell.

It's obvious you won't budge, even though it's been proven, repeatedly, why your opinion, and logic on this matter is extremely flawed.

You may also wish to relearn debate abilities, as it requires evidence for statements, unless they are widely known for being factually sound.

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

How is ODST so different from halo3

it doesnt have major gameplay changes OR major graphic improvement

caligamer

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

you never really understand the big deal until your playing, hell, the amount of times i die of the mistake thinking im still a spartan and getting killed for rushing the enemy with an SMG, and the fact that you run slower, ohhh man, that is the MAIN killer for me, and everything just seems to do too much damage

Playing previous games mean everything if the sequel is exactly the same thing. KZ2 was quite different compared to the original. The reason why I won't budge is because you haven't really said anything to change my mind. Most people here think that in order for someone to have an opinion on the game, they must play the full game and that argument is flawed. I've told you reasons why it is. I am not reviewing GOWIII, I am simply telling you what is said by everyone who has played the game and I am making the judgement of what kind of game it is out of that. I know what to expect from it, I won't be surprised when I play the full game. Believe it or not, but sometimes it just takes a few videos, reviews, impressions, and a demo to have an opinion on the game.peanutbudduh

Already approached that point with another poster. So I won't repeat it.

I've oprovided proof, and logic, and a well structured argument. If that doesn't change your mind, you are either stubborn, or just confused. I'm inclined to believe the former, as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, I have shown why your ideology is flawed in this instance, and I won't carry on the debate.

I advise you though, to actually read what I said and take it in, because the points I have provided, and backed up are well worth noting.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="caligamer"]

Im pretty sure the average player did not get 40 hours worth of campaign play on ODST

caligamer

Even if it is 8 hours and ODST is 4 hours thats still 2 times more

I would say average is 10 hours for GOW3 and 5 hours for ODST

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

How is ODST so different from halo3

it doesnt have major gameplay changes OR major graphic improvement

caligamer

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

as for changing what works, well , sometimes we gotta improve, in reach they are improving the gameplay, making it better than halo 3, though change could be bad too, just look at mw2, the only problem with cod 4 is the m16 and the occasional juggernaut, but now WHOA, everything is freaking noobish, i mean come on, noob tubes, pave lows, ac130s, weak man, thats why i sold mw2 and bought BC2

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

Being a genre doesn't mean you somehow have a rule to abide. Shooters are not always known for having a super long single player campaign either, so ODST did it right.

Zero_epyon

yep, call of duty 4 and modern warfare 2 proves the point

I think they both deserve a 9.0!

I win!

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

yep, call of duty 4 and modern warfare 2 proves the point

johnryandaplin

half life 2 episode 1 and 2 has extremely short campaign, and no multiplayer, you have to separately buy counter strike

I think they both deserve a 9.0!

I win!

TomMcShea

agreed

I think they both deserve a 9.0!

I win!

TomMcShea

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] Where they come up short in Single player they make up in Multiplayer. That's why they can get away with it. Hence my point, do you expect to see shooters without a multiplayer component? You won't. And if you do, I bet the campaign will be twice the length of it's multiplayer competitors.Zero_epyon

half life 2 episode 1 and 2 has extremely short campaign, and no multiplayer, you have to separately buy counter strike

i didn't get orange box, im on PC so i have to buy all the games individually

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

johnryandaplin

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

you never really understand the big deal until your playing, hell, the amount of times i die of the mistake thinking im still a spartan and getting killed for rushing the enemy with an SMG, and the fact that you run slower, ohhh man, that is the MAIN killer for me, and everything just seems to do too much damage

Yes they both have minor changes but nothing too different

Why would GOW make major changes to gameplay that has been called the best of hack and slah games

They changed what they could and make the graphics top notch, what else do u want

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

caligamer

you never really understand the big deal until your playing, hell, the amount of times i die of the mistake thinking im still a spartan and getting killed for rushing the enemy with an SMG, and the fact that you run slower, ohhh man, that is the MAIN killer for me, and everything just seems to do too much damage

Yes they both have minor changes but nothing too different

Why would GOW make major changes to gameplay that has been called the best of hack and slah games

They changed what they could and make the graphics top notch, what else do u want

new animations for executuons maybe, stabbing a demon cat in the eye and stabbing its neck get tiring after the 1,000th time

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

have you noticed that your not playing as a spartan? no? you cant dual wield, you run slower, jump lower, die easily, use health kits rather than health regen, your screen turns red when hit and so on and so forth, as for graphics, i agree

johnryandaplin

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

as for changing what works, well , sometimes we gotta improve, in reach they are improving the gameplay, making it better than halo 3, though change could be bad too, just look at mw2, the only problem with cod 4 is the m16 and the occasional juggernaut, but now WHOA, everything is freaking noobish, i mean come on, noob tubes, pave lows, ac130s, weak man, thats why i sold mw2 and bought BC2

I think once you find something that works you should only make minor changes to perfect it.

they could make a 'halo 4' with a new story and exact same graphics and gameplay and it would sell like crazy

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

not playing as a spartan is from the story

cant dual wield and jumping lower...OMG revolutionary game changer

MY POINT IS:

Neither game really changed its gameplay...............WHY CHANGE WHAT WORKS?

caligamer

as for changing what works, well , sometimes we gotta improve, in reach they are improving the gameplay, making it better than halo 3, though change could be bad too, just look at mw2, the only problem with cod 4 is the m16 and the occasional juggernaut, but now WHOA, everything is freaking noobish, i mean come on, noob tubes, pave lows, ac130s, weak man, thats why i sold mw2 and bought BC2

I think once you find something that works you should only make minor changes to perfect it.

they could make a 'halo 4' with a new story and exact same graphics and gameplay and it would sell like crazy

that was done by another series called gears of war

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="johnryandaplin"]

you never really understand the big deal until your playing, hell, the amount of times i die of the mistake thinking im still a spartan and getting killed for rushing the enemy with an SMG, and the fact that you run slower, ohhh man, that is the MAIN killer for me, and everything just seems to do too much damage

johnryandaplin

Yes they both have minor changes but nothing too different

Why would GOW make major changes to gameplay that has been called the best of hack and slah games

They changed what they could and make the graphics top notch, what else do u want

new animations for executuons maybe, stabbing a demon cat in the eye and stabbing its neck get tiring after the 1,000th time

People who like these types of games never get tired even after the 1000th time

Would u ever get tired of getting a head shot or beat down kill

[QUOTE="110million"]ODST at its core is like a 4 hour campaign isn't it? All the other stuff is based around OTHER games, not ODST itself. peanutbudduh

At the time of this post:

GOW 3 Gamerankings score 92.32%

Halo: ODST Gamerankings score 84.98%

There's a reason it's the only Halo game to get under a 90% on Gamerankings. It had a really short campaign and a new Firefight mode; the rest were extras that you could get elsewhere. You could DL the maps if you wanted them badly.

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] And i'm pretty sure that the average player didn't get more then 8 hours out of GOW, so what makes it so much different from ODST, it seems to offer less. Sandvichman

Even if it is 8 hours and ODST is 4 hours thats still 2 times more

I would say average is 10 hours for GOW3 and 5 hours for ODST

ODST does have more in terms of online which is pretty much standard now on FPS games

you asked what God of war3 has better than ODST and i said Graphics which theres no way u can deny and it also has a better campaign than ODST

Sure u can keep saying ODST is better "package" but dont say GOW3 has nothing better

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="caligamer"]

Even if it is 8 hours and ODST is 4 hours thats still 2 times more

I would say average is 10 hours for GOW3 and 5 hours for ODST

caligamer

ODST does have more in terms of online which is pretty much standard now on FPS games

you asked what God of war3 has better than ODST and i said Graphics which theres no way u can deny and it also has a better campaign than ODST

Sure u can keep saying ODST is better "package" but dont say GOW3 has nothing better

its definitely just a rental

GrannyGoat

If GOW3 is a rental only..What to you would be a buy? I would say that launching 3-4 games "HALO" on one console in the same GEN would make them rental only. Not picking on HALO its just what came to mind.

I only played the demo of GOW3 and that alone makes me say you are either a blind fanboy, or not into epic games or not a gamer? WHich is it?

Metacritic has ODSTat an 83. Gamespot definately got that one wrong.

What a joke. you probably haven't even played GOW3. There are many games that don't deserve a 9.0 on Gamespot and GOW3 isn't one of them. ODST is a different type of game all together but GOW3 is just on a whole other level of quality and epicness.

KratosTwin

[QUOTE="alextherussian"][QUOTE="peanutbudduh"]

Neither games deserved that score but I would even say that maybe ODST deserved it a little bit more. ODST had its own multiplayer game mode, it came with Halo 3 mp with all the mappacks and it came with a Halo Reach beta invitation. So it has way more content than GOWIII does. GOWIII has a linear 8 hour long hack n' slash campaign mode so why does that game deserve the score? With very little replay value, it really is nothing more than just a rental. Seriously a 9 for a game like GOWIII in today's standards? What is this, I don't even...

peanutbudduh

[QUOTE="peanutbudduh"][QUOTE="alextherussian"] Have you played it? What are you basing you opinion on?jonesy1911

[QUOTE="110million"]ODST at its core is like a 4 hour campaign isn't it? All the other stuff is based around OTHER games, not ODST itself. peanutbudduh

I think they both deserve a 9.0!

I win!

TomMcShea

Thread over, I think.

This is why God of War III deserves it's AAA status

[spoiler] in one 90 minute session, I slew two Gods, ****** the goddess Aphrodite - twice - and killed a Titan the size of a small country... [/spoiler]

ur dumb if u think ODST is better than GoW3

ur dumb if u think ODST is better than GoW3

x8VXU6

ODST is better.

i m dum.

ur dumb if u think ODST is better than GoW3

x8VXU6

please provide evidence or GTFO

[QUOTE="x8VXU6"]

ur dumb if u think ODST is better than GoW3

BioShockOwnz

ODST is better.

i m dum.

You forgot to capitalize the "I", you forget the apostrophe and there is a letter "b" in the word dumb.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="x8VXU6"]

ur dumb if u think ODST is better than GoW3

BlancoBX

ODST is better.

i m dum.

You forgot to capitalize the "I", you forget the apostrophe and there is a letter "b" in the word dumb.

But that'd make me smart.

i m dum.

[QUOTE="BlancoBX"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

ODST is better.

i m dum.

BioShockOwnz

You forgot to capitalize the "I", you forget the apostrophe and there is a letter "b" in the word dumb.

But that'd make me smart.

i m dum.

You were smart enough to bother other people about spelling and grammar, so I figured I would help you a little with yours. ;)

GoW3 is more in the 8.5 range. ODST is more of a 10+.

GoW3 is fun, but it's not AAA stuff.

BioShockOwnz