Hermits --- the most biased group?

The diehard hermits in system wars just seem to HATE consoles and put them down regularly. This is happening even though Xbox 360 had a stellar 2007. This is happening without them giving consoles a shot. They just can't see the appeal at all. Yes, we get it hermits. You like graphics, your KB/M control, and mods. Console owners don't have that. 360 owners do have achievments though. Hermits on system wars won't even acknowledge the greatness of some of the console games.

Again I see another thread singling out a certain fanboy group when all of them are guilty of the offense mentioned. A lot of fanboys disregard anything that is not their system of choice.Ibacai

360 STELLAR 2007? Maybe ... IF you didnt have a PC ... but from our point of views? a handful of exclusives at best.

whats a hermit? and yeah dont single out one fanboy group to support another your all fanboyz and need to stop being so ignorantCommanderTy

[QUOTE="CommanderTy"]whats a hermit? and yeah dont single out one fanboy group to support another your all fanboyz and need to stop being so ignorantCommanderTy

PC Gamer.

Cows = the most defensive group in SW

If you bash anything that has the sony name on it they go into damage control

You bash there sales they bring up japan and europe and Vgchartz

You bash there games they bring up uncharted and a couple of multiplats

You bash ther 07 year they say just wait till 08

They get deffensive about everything.

The diehard hermits in system wars just seem to HATE consoles and put them down regularly. This is happening even though Xbox 360 had a stellar 2007. This is happening without them giving consoles a shot. They just can't see the appeal at all. Yes, we get it hermits. You like graphics, your KB/M control, and mods. Console owners don't have that. 360 owners do have achievments though. Hermits on system wars won't even acknowledge the greatness of some of the console games.

AvIdGaMeR444

Hang on a second.... Console fanboys get to bash the PC all they want, claiming it is too difficult, it is too expensive, it has no good games, it generally sucks, but when Hermits try to defend themselves, the hermits are being biased... While I will say that I don't agree with the few hermits that actually go out and start things like that, the LARGe majority doesn't say a peep until a console fanboy bashes the PC. We aren't allowed to have hype threads without people claiming "All graphics, no gameplay" or "RTS's suck" or "Oh look another expansion." I do understand this happens with SOME console exclusives but EVERY PC exclusive gets one of those.... EVERY SINGLE ONE.horrowhip

Agreed.

I have a gaming PC and I played Crysis, STALKER and The Witcher. Those 3 games were nice but the multiplayer for both STALKER and Crysis sucks not to mention nobody is on even ground in multiplayer PC gaming. If a person has better hardware for their PC they instantly get boost in kills in whatever game they're playing. When I upgrade my hardware and get more frames its like night and day.

The sad thing is that every PC game I ever played got hacked and aimbots were of plenty and they also have Punkbuster hacks.

They can't stop cheaters on the PC like they can with XBL by banning modded consoles. If only Microsoft would ban cheaters PCs(not gonna happen)

The really sad thing was with WoW when people actually cheated in a game they were paying 15 bucks a month for.

I know some PC gaming is going to flame me but I don't care cause I know from experience as well as do my friends that are ex PC gamers.

Cows = the most defensive group in SW

If you bash anything that has the sony name on it they go into damage control

You bash there sales they bring up japan and europe and Vgchartz

You bash there games they bring up uncharted and a couple of multiplats

You bash ther 07 year they say just wait till 08

They get deffensive about everything.

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

I have a gaming PC and I played Crysis, STALKER and The Witcher. Those 3 games were nice but the multiplayer for both STALKER and Crysis sucks not to mention nobody is on even ground in multiplayer PC gaming. If a person has better hardware for their PC they instantly get boost in kills in whatever game they're playing. When I upgrade my hardware and get more frames its like night and day.

The sad thing is that every PC game I ever played got hacked and aimbots were of plenty and they also have Punkbuster hacks.

They can't stop cheaters on the PC like they canwith XBLby banning modded consoles. If only Microsoft would ban cheaters PCs(not gonna happen)

The really sad thing was with WoW when people actually cheated in a game they were paying 15 bucks a month for.

I know some PC gaming is going to flame me but I don't care cause I know from experience as well as do my friends that are ex PC gamers.

Truffle-Shuffle

I disagree yes there are hackers but if you actually join secure servers that are good you well seldom after get a hacker int here. And many online services stomp out hackers all the time..

The first part is untrue as well.. You do not need to have the best hardware to have the edge.. Not for RTS's not for RPGs not for fps's.. Infact many people in FPS's play at 800 x 600 resolution even when their hardware can go much higehr then that.

Besides that I have no problem with consoles.. Some of my favorite genres sucha s fighters are on the console..

I have a gaming PC and I played Crysis, STALKER and The Witcher. Those 3 games were nice but the multiplayer for both STALKER and Crysis sucks not to mention nobody is on even ground in multiplayer PC gaming. If a person has better hardware for their PC they instantly get boost in kills in whatever game they're playing. When I upgrade my hardware and get more frames its like night and day.

The sad thing is that every PC game I ever played got hacked and aimbots were of plenty and they also have Punkbuster hacks.

They can't stop cheaters on the PC like they can with XBL by banning modded consoles. If only Microsoft would ban cheaters PCs(not gonna happen)

The really sad thing was with WoW when people actually cheated in a game they were paying 15 bucks a month for.

I know some PC gaming is going to flame me but I don't care cause I know from experience as well as do my friends that are ex PC gamers.

Truffle-Shuffle

Crysis has a great MP. It is just complicated. You either love it or hate it... That is how it is. As for hackers, yes there are hackers. However, you can get around them... See a hacker, report him to the server admin. He will get banned shortly. Since most server admins are active in the community, they can tell other server admins about this guy. He will get banned from those too. You can't beat them all but still... Also, you can always just find a new server. Certain servers are better servers and have less hackers. I rarely ever run into hackers because I stick to servers that I know.

I have a gaming PC and I played Crysis, STALKER and The Witcher. Those 3 games were nice but the multiplayer for both STALKER and Crysis sucks not to mention nobody is on even ground in multiplayer PC gaming. If a person has better hardware for their PC they instantly get boost in kills in whatever game they're playing. When I upgrade my hardware and get more frames its like night and day.

The sad thing is that every PC game I ever played got hacked and aimbots were of plenty and they also have Punkbuster hacks.

They can't stop cheaters on the PC like they can with XBL by banning modded consoles. If only Microsoft would ban cheaters PCs(not gonna happen)

The really sad thing was with WoW when people actually cheated in a game they were paying 15 bucks a month for.

I know some PC gaming is going to flame me but I don't care cause I know from experience as well as do my friends that are ex PC gamers.

Truffle-Shuffle

What does any of this have to do with hermits being biased?

[QUOTE="Truffle-Shuffle"]

I have a gaming PC and I played Crysis, STALKER and The Witcher. Those 3 games were nice but the multiplayer for both STALKER and Crysis sucks not to mention nobody is on even ground in multiplayer PC gaming. If a person has better hardware for their PC they instantly get boost in kills in whatever game they're playing. When I upgrade my hardware and get more frames its like night and day.

The sad thing is that every PC game I ever played got hacked and aimbots were of plenty and they also have Punkbuster hacks.

They can't stop cheaters on the PC like they can with XBL by banning modded consoles. If only Microsoft would ban cheaters PCs(not gonna happen)

The really sad thing was with WoW when people actually cheated in a game they were paying 15 bucks a month for.

I know some PC gaming is going to flame me but I don't care cause I know from experience as well as do my friends that are ex PC gamers.

DragonfireXZ95

What does any of this have to do with hermits being biased?

Hes trying to make out our grass is yellow, when its clearly greener.

"oh snap" I guess i fall under Avidgamers label ... Yah well, I game on consoles aswell, I just say it how it is.

Here's is why PC gamers are so defensive/offensive/elitist:

A.) Whenever console players are comparing the best games, graphics, hardware or anything gaming related -- they leave the PC out saying, "oh it doesn't count."

B.) PC gamers either build and/or customize their own machine, and it usually turns out to be more powerful than any of the big 3 advertised consoles on the market.

C.) Superior FPS controls (and yes people it is a fact, whether you are better on a gamepad or not)

D.) Because of superior controls, online capabalites, and other features, nearly all competitive gaming lies on the PC format. Console controls and hardware are too slow to support the amazing skills of some pro gamers out there. This why games like Starcraft are nearly a national sport in Korea -- and Halo is not.

E.) Computer games and especially FPS games have done so much more 10 years ago than alot of new games coming out for consoles today. The best example is Halo 3. When you have narrow minded strictly console gamers shouting nonsense like, "Halo 3 is the best FPS ever made!", a PC gamer could easily name you 5 PC FPSs over the last 10 years that still have more advanced features.

F.) Computers are practically a necessary part of life now, and having one that not only does everything you can imagine, but also plays high end games is something to brag about.

G.) Someone always says PC gaming is dying -- when it's only getting stronger.

And funny thing is, most of these "elitist" PC gamers are also console gamers and are big fans of other franchises that never made it to PC (like Mario, Final Fantasy, GT etc...). But when a game like GeOW or Halo comes out for the 360, everyone is worshipping these games and paying $10 for each new map pack while hermits just sit back and say, "uhm, we've been playing better FPSs for the past 10 years, and we can wait for Crysis and COD4 on PC as well." Not to mention, most 360 shooters eventually come PC anyways, and sell horribly.

Trust me, when you own every console and PCs, you become much more open minded. Most people on here don't know that Starcraft 2 may be the biggest game of this generation because they are so hyped for their SSBB or GeOW2.

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Here's is why PC gamers are so defensive/offensive/elitist:

A.) Whenever console players are comparing the best games, graphics, hardware or anything gaming related -- they leave the PC out saying, "oh it doesn't count."

B.) PC gamers either build and/or customize their own machine, and it usually turns out to be more powerful than any of the big 3 advertised consoles on the market.

C.) Superior FPS controls (and yes people it is a fact, whether you are better on a gamepad or not)

D.) Because of superior controls, online capabalites, and other features, nearly all competitive gaming lies on the PC format. Console controls and hardware are too slow to support the amazing skills of some pro gamers out there. This why games like Starcraft are nearly a national sport in Korea -- and Halo is not.

E.) Computer games and especially FPS games have done so much more 10 years ago than alot of new games coming out for consoles today. The best example is Halo 3. When you have narrow minded strictly console gamers shouting nonsense like, "Halo 3 is the best FPS ever made!", a PC gamer could easily name you 5 PC FPSs over the last 10 years that still have more advanced features.

F.) Computers are practically a necessary part of life now, and having one that not only does everything you can imagine, but also plays high end games is something to brag about.

G.) Someone always says PC gaming is dying -- when it's only getting stronger.

And funny thing is, most of these "elitist" PC gamers are also console gamers and are big fans of other franchises that never made it to PC (like Mario, Final Fantasy, GT etc...). But when a game like GeOW or Halo comes out for the 360, everyone is worshipping these games and paying $10 for each new map pack while hermits just sit back and say, "uhm, we've been playing better FPSs for the past 10 years, and we can wait for Crysis and COD4 on PC as well." Not to mention, most 360 shooters eventually come PC anyways, and sell horribly.

Trust me, when you own every console and PCs, you become much more open minded. Most people on here don't know that Starcraft 2 may be the biggest game of this generation because they are so hyped for their SSBB or GeOW2.

Koalakommander

agreed for the most part. Your choice of words may be a bit harsh but the general idea is there... And, about Starcraft 2... Lemme put this lightly... This game will sell more in South Korea on the opening day that 99% of games sell in their entire lifetime... Halo included.... The only games that have a chance to sell more are WoW, The Sims, Pokemon and GTA(all its platforms combined).

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Ninja-Vox

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Ninja-Vox

not "much lower" but a tiny bit lower. Like I would say that Halo 3 would have been a 9.0

I probably didn't deserve the 9.5 to begin with but, I can see where that is coming from. 9.0 is the deserved score.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Koalakommander

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Koalakommander

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

No they do not. Halo 2 was more of a complete package than Half-Life 2 with the insanely broad multiplayer. I imagine mods and add-ons like Counter Strike, Garrys mod and the like aren't taken into account when games are reviewed.

I prefer half-life to halo, always have done. But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

horrowhip

not "much lower" but a tiny bit lower. Like I would say that Halo 3 would have been a 9.0

I probably didn't deserve the 9.5 to begin with but, I can see where that is coming from. 9.0 is the deserved score.

How? :? There's enough content on that one disc to last years. And it's all of a very high quality. Had there been no forge or theatre/saved films/file-share i imagine it would have been a 9.0 - but that extra chunk of content made the game very good value for money amongst a lot of games this year releasing at full price with very short lifespans.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Ninja-Vox

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

No they do not. Halo 2 was more of a complete package than Half-Life 2 with the insanely broad multiplayer. I imagine mods and add-ons like Counter Strike, Garrys mod and the like aren't taken into account when games are reviewed.

I prefer half-life to halo, always have done. But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score.

and then PDZ getting a 9.0 a year later....

standards go up as time goes on, but PDZ i guess is only .2 away from the greatness of HL2..

reviewing systems in general are flawed.

Nah, sheep act like everything Nintendo does is for the benefit of the entire industry.tomarlyn

While we are at it.

I label Lemmings as the most biased, they seem to think they are the gamers platform of choice and all the "hardcore" games are on thier platform.

Not understanding the fact that Bioshock/Oblivion/Rainbow Six Vegas and a whole stream of other similar games have been dumbed down so that the lemmings could actually have games in the first place, in most cases other than graphics they are mainly empty shells of thier predocessors ... get better commercial scores .... but those that played thier older counter-parts are always left unsatisfied.

Thats a genrelization I know ... but ROFL when lemmings pride themselves above Cows & Sheep especially.

and then PDZ getting a 9.0 a year later....

standards go up as time goes on, but PDZ i guess is only .2 away from the greatness of HL2..

reviewing systems in general are flawed.

Koalakommander

PDZ was a horrible game. Pretty much everyone agrees that review was messed up. What's your point? :|

360 owners do have achievments though.

AvIdGaMeR444

You guys can't even claim that. Valve's brought achievements to the PC with Steam, and all Games for Windows LIVE titles also get achievements.

:D

While we are at it.

I label Lemmings as the most biased, they seem to think they are the gamers platform of choice and all the "hardcore" games are on thier platform.

Not understanding the fact that Bioshock/Oblivion/Rainbow Six Vegas and a whole stream of other similar games have been dumbed down so that the lemmings could actually have games in the first place, in most cases other than graphics they are mainly empty shelves of thier predocessors ... get better commercial scores .... but those that played thier older counter-parts are always left unsatisfied.

Thats a genrelization I know ... but ROFL when lemmings pride themselves above Cows & Sheep especially.

Meu2k7

I dont see how oblivion or vegas were dumbed down. Or even BioShock. Vegas was a huge advancement for the series; Lockdown was the series being dumbed down, and it flopped critically and commercially for it. I dont see how BioShock would have been any different had it only released on the PC. :?

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

360 owners do have achievments though.

dgsag

You guys can't even claim that. Valve's brought achievements to the PC with Steam, and all Games for Windows LIVE titles also get achievements.

:D

.... Achievements.... If you guys seriouslly buy games based solely if it has achievements or not, then standards have really gone down.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

Ninja-Vox

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

No they do not. Halo 2 was more of a complete package than Half-Life 2 with the insanely broad multiplayer. I imagine mods and add-ons like Counter Strike, Garrys mod and the like aren't taken into account when games are reviewed.

I prefer half-life to halo, always have done. But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score.

Here's a quote from the Battlefront review, the PC version scored lower.

"the PC version of the game is technically the best, it also faces the stiffest direct competition, because to many PC shooter fans the game may come off as old hat. After all, aside from the Star Wars universe, Battlefront doesn't deliver anything PC players haven't seen before, even though it's a solid game in its own right. The console versions of the game--especially the Xbox version--might seem more fresh and appealing to their respective audiences, who don't have as many choices in online team-based shooters."

Standards do exist. The evidence is there.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

While we are at it.

I label Lemmings as the most biased, they seem to think they are the gamers platform of choice and all the "hardcore" games are on thier platform.

Not understanding the fact that Bioshock/Oblivion/Rainbow Six Vegas and a whole stream of other similar games have been dumbed down so that the lemmings could actually have games in the first place, in most cases other than graphics they are mainly empty shelves of thier predocessors ... get better commercial scores .... but those that played thier older counter-parts are always left unsatisfied.

Thats a genrelization I know ... but ROFL when lemmings pride themselves above Cows & Sheep especially.

Ninja-Vox

I dont see how oblivion or vegas were dumbed down. Or even BioShock. Vegas was a huge advancement for the series; Lockdown was the series being dumbed down, and it flopped critically and commercially for it. I dont see how BioShock would have been any different had it only released on the PC. :?

You cant see it in Oblivion? Really? :S ... I thought that was the most obvious one... sure it had some "Next gen features" but the game and its world left much to be desired compared to its predocessors.

Vegas, I never said it was the worst, but its far from the earlier ones, which were complicated, difficult and compeltely more tactical ... on Normal on the 360, I completed the story just by sending my 2 guys in ... I barely ever had to fire a shot ... they did pretty much everything for the most part, except a few events.

Bioshock was a 360 port to the PC, I cant proove it either way, but what went from an incredible hard game, became a game a todler could complete.

GunRaiden had more examples yesterday but I cant think of them now -_-

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

I have a nice shiny new PC, and i too find it difficult to go back to playing my consoles. Perhaps you should maybe consider that hermits look down upon console gaming, not because they are fanboys, but because such an attitude is perhaps justified? When 90% of the 360s stellar 2007 games are on the PC anyway, and - granted you have a good rig - are being run at higher frame-rates with better graphics and free, superior online... how can you blame them for not being too keen on the consoles?

The only thing i dislike about some hermits are the mythical "high standards". Eg when a console game receives high scores, it isn't acknowledged because apparenlty, had it been released on the PC the vast standards would have left it with a much lower score.

Absolute nonsense.

gingerdivid

I'm sorry but Halo 2 outscoring Half Life 2 is wrong on so many levels. Console shooters have lower stanards.

No they do not. Halo 2 was more of a complete package than Half-Life 2 with the insanely broad multiplayer. I imagine mods and add-ons like Counter Strike, Garrys mod and the like aren't taken into account when games are reviewed.

I prefer half-life to halo, always have done. But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score.

Here's a quote from the Battlefront review, the PC version scored lower.

"the PC version of the game is technically the best, it also faces the stiffest direct competition, because to many PC shooter fans the game may come off as old hat. After all, aside from the Star Wars universe, Battlefront doesn't deliver anything PC players haven't seen before, even though it's a solid game in its own right. The console versions of the game--especially the Xbox version--might seem more fresh and appealing to their respective audiences, who don't have as many choices in online team-based shooters."

Standards do exist. The evidence is there.

even as a person who sees Halo as inferior to alot of older PC FPSs, I would have also scored it in the high 9s because it's a great shooter for the console audience.

the fact remains that the Tribes series did everything and more nealy 10 years ago -- and it was a great game until the community left.

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

Ninja-Vox

You cant see it in Oblivion? Really? :S ... I thought that was the most obvious one... sure it had some "Next gen features" but the game and its world left much to be desired compared to its predocessors.

Vegas, I never said it was the worst, but its far from the earlier ones, which were complicated, difficult and compeltely more tactical ... on Normal on the 360, I completed the story just by sending my 2 guys in ... I barely ever had to fire a shot ... they did pretty much everything for the most part, except a few events.

Bioshock was a 360 port to the PC, I cant proove it either way, but what went from an incredible hard game, became a game a todler could complete.

GunRaiden had more examples yesterday but I cant think of them now -_-

Meu2k7

Oblivion's inventory was certainly simplified for consoles; but simply to fit the controller. Nothing was lost or "dumbed down." And yes the game did differ from it's predecessors but you forget that the older, more hardcore morrowind also made it to the xbox complete with its expansions and nothing was "dumbed down" there at all.

They made the game more accessible and less complicated, i imagine, to reach a wider audience. I think it's silly to simply assume that the very presence of a console forced it to be dumbed down. Especially when consoles nowadays aren't the outdated crap-boxes they once were which couldn't hold a candle to PCs. Most people with 360s and PS3s in their home own consoles superior to their PCs in terms of raw power.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

You cant see it in Oblivion? Really? :S ... I thought that was the most obvious one... sure it had some "Next gen features" but the game and its world left much to be desired compared to its predocessors.

Vegas, I never said it was the worst, but its far from the earlier ones, which were complicated, difficult and compeltely more tactical ... on Normal on the 360, I completed the story just by sending my 2 guys in ... I barely ever had to fire a shot ... they did pretty much everything for the most part, except a few events.

Bioshock was a 360 port to the PC, I cant proove it either way, but what went from an incredible hard game, became a game a todler could complete.

GunRaiden had more examples yesterday but I cant think of them now -_-

Ninja-Vox

Oblivion's inventory was certainly simplified for consoles; but simply to fit the controller. Nothing was lost or "dumbed down." And yes the game did differ from it's predecessors but you forget that the older, more hardcore morrowind also made it to the xbox complete with its expansions and nothing was "dumbed down" there at all.

They made the game more accessible and less complicated, i imagine, to reach a wider audience. I think it's silly to simply assume that the very presence of a console forced it to be dumbed down. Especially when consoles nowadays aren't the outdated crap-boxes they once were which couldn't hold a candle to PCs. Most people with 360s and PS3s in their home own consoles superior to their PCs in terms of raw power.

Possible, but then again, why would it have been made more accessible? Possibly the sales differences influenced thier choice?

That being said, need I remind you of what happened to UT3?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

linkthewindow

What sense does that make? :|

He claims Half Life 2 got a worse score than Halo 2 but won GOTY, therefore standards must be greater on the PC. Yet galaxy scores less than Crysis, scores less than Halo 3, COD4, loads of games.

So are Wii standards the highest? Your post makes no sense. Even if we still had the .1 system, galaxy would still be rated lower.

Yet, HL2 got 2004 shooter of the year, despite the lower score. Suggesting HL2 was the better game despite the lower score.

Here's a quote from the Battlefront review, the PC version scored lower.

"the PC version of the game is technically the best, it also faces the stiffest direct competition, because to many PC shooter fans the game may come off as old hat. After all, aside from the Star Wars universe, Battlefront doesn't deliver anything PC players haven't seen before, even though it's a solid game in its own right. The console versions of the game--especially the Xbox version--might seem more fresh and appealing to their respective audiences, who don't have as many choices in online team-based shooters."

Standards do exist. The evidence is there.

gingerdivid

Let me add something to this as well. Fromt he Halo 2 PC version it says at the start of the review in bold

"Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters."

There is indeed a higher standard.

Possible, but then again, why would it have been made more accessible? Possibly the sales differences influenced thier choice?

Meu2k7

They've sold infinately more copies on the PC than on the 360. I dont see why they would dumb down the entire game to fit the lesser market.

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

Ninja-Vox

Galaxy got a 9.5

That is tied with the highest on any platform. To be quite honest... Galaxy is the only game that even remotely deserved anything higher than a9.5

If there was one game this year that could have gotten a AAAA, it was Galaxy. Galaxy is just pure gaming bliss.

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]

Yet, HL2 got 2004 shooter of the year, despite the lower score. Suggesting HL2 was the better game despite the lower score.

Here's a quote from the Battlefront review, the PC version scored lower.

"the PC version of the game is technically the best, it also faces the stiffest direct competition, because to many PC shooter fans the game may come off as old hat. After all, aside from the Star Wars universe, Battlefront doesn't deliver anything PC players haven't seen before, even though it's a solid game in its own right. The console versions of the game--especially the Xbox version--might seem more fresh and appealing to their respective audiences, who don't have as many choices in online team-based shooters."

Standards do exist. The evidence is there.

bignice12

Let me add something to this as well. Fromt he Halo 2 PC version it says at the start of the review in bold

"Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters."

There is indeed a higher standard.

Or maybe the fact that three years had passed and recent high-profile PC shooters were indeed, much better? As one would expect given three years?

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

Ninja-Vox

The quote clearly states that the PC has more options in the feild, making the Xbox version more fresh on it's relative platform.

It's not just BF, the original TF, Operation Flashpoint, Tribes 1-2, counter-strike and many more TEAM BASED shooters that were around at that time period.

Why do 360 owners matter to PS3 owners? A Halo-Esque game would be well recieved with PS3 gamers, that's what matters, as it's fresh for the platform. You're missing the concept, games are reviewed relative to the platform. GS even say it themselves "We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres" in their very own rating system.

Galaxy got a higher score than HL2, what's your point? Nothing got higher than Galaxy this year :?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

No, you just chose something which suited your arguement. Battlefront is just battlefield 1942 but in the star wars universe. Which never came to consoles, nor anything like it. So obviously when Battlefront came to the PC it wasn't received as well because there was already an established series of games there which filled that spot.

Just like if a halo-esque game came to the PS3 i doubt it'd be received as well by xbox-owners; they've had their fill of Halo already.

As for Half-Life 2 getting shooter of the year; Galaxy just got GOTY despite a lower score. Are Wii standards higher than PC standards then? :|

horrowhip

Galaxy got a 9.5

That is tied with the highest on any platform. To be quite honest... Galaxy is the only game that even remotely deserved anything higher than a9.5

If there was one game this year that could have gotten a AAAA, it was Galaxy. Galaxy is just pure gaming bliss.

Apologies. Point still stands.

Or maybe the fact that three years had passed and recent high-profile PC shooters were indeed, much better? As one would expect given three years?

Ninja-Vox

or maybe, Halo 2 was terrible... By far the worst in the series. Just because it had good online doesn't excuse a piss-poor campaign. Same for Halo 3.