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.

AvIdGaMeR444

Hermit=pc fanboy, so obviously they are gonna bash consoles, same rules apply to cows and lemmings, what makes hermits any different?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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?

horrowhip

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.

Halo's multiplayer has always "excused" it's poor singleplayers. Halo CE was the only all round good one.

[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.

Are you kidding me as going as far RPG's leveled enviroment, no character devolpment.. You could use all their skills and max them all out it made no difference.. Items made no difference because int eh end lgiht and heavy armor wer ehte same with max skills.. Blunts were both axes and maces? Quests 90% of the time involved the exact same thigns and you had NO choice in the matter.. You could beat the game at level 2..

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.

Call what you want I CALL it being dumbed down, they tooke veyrthing out to what makes a rpg a rpg.. The story was subpar to sayt eh least.. You can be successful in that game by picking random skills random stats etc and going out and be able to destroying everything at level 2. Dialogue? There was none it was alot of listening with no real response that gave a actual unique branch it quest choice.. They just put words in place to what is basically a continue button.

Not dissing consoles, but Oblivion imo is a horribly dumbed down game.. There is no consquences, you can become the fighter, mage, thief, assassin guild leaders.. Makes so much sense really.. Be the evil assassin guild leader and the goodly fighters guild leader all at the same time! Hell the only real consquence you have in that game is breaking the law.. Which can get you kicked out of a guild but who cares there are 0 benefits after quests are done...

At high level loot just falls off of every guy.. Nothing liek watching armor that could buy a person a castle drop off a starving thief!.. All dungeons with randomized loot and randomized guys with scaled levels pretty much gives you no reason to explore.. The combat mechanics suck on top of that 4 to 5 different skills, some spells at thats all she wrote!..

Apologies. Point still stands. Ninja-Vox

not really.... I don't think any hermits will contest Galaxy as GotY. It was the best game this year. End of story. PC games DO have SLIGHTLY higher standards. And by slightly I mean only one notch higher. Like I said, Halo 3 is a 9.0

And only because of the MP and its abundance of features. I doubt even the most hardcore Halo fanboys will deny that the campaign was an utter disappointment.

Hermits use the "standards" argument as a fall back on why some console FPS's score higher then PC counterparts I think.Gh0st_Of_0nyx

Lol but why not? Its true. Its when fanboys make **** up or have pathetic excuses that is annoying. Nothing wrong at all about mentioning standards, because its true.

[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? :|

gingerdivid

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 :?

My point makes perfect sense. In fact you even fleshed it out for me. There were more games like battlefront on the PC; therefore it wasn't as well received as it was on the xbox which had few games of that specific variety. That has nothing to do with higher standards of quality; there were simply games just like it which were already out.

My point is very simple; there are no mythical "higher standards". Thats why your battlefront example doesn't apply; that would happen on ANY platform. Any platform which has an abundant number of games in a given genre would receive a game of the same genre with less critical acclaim than a platform with few titles of that variey.

In terms of standards; i dont expect my PC games to be "better" than my console games just because they're on the PC. That's what i'm arguing here. The myth that any console game, if released and reviewed on the PC, would score lower because of the "higher standards".

Indeed.

But I am known to lay down the ownage on hermits from time to time. It isn't difficult.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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?

horrowhip

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.

Wow, if the worst game in the series scores a 9.4/10, then this must be one awful franchise... :|

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Apologies. Point still stands. horrowhip

not really.... I don't think any hermits will contest Galaxy as GotY. It was the best game this year. End of story. PC games DO have SLIGHTLY higher standards. And by slightly I mean only one notch higher. Like I said, Halo 3 is a 9.0

And only because of the MP and its abundance of features. I doubt even the most hardcore Halo fanboys will deny that the campaign was an utter disappointment.

Halo 2's campagin was an utter disappointment. It was an epic step backwards. If you're going to say Halo 3's campaign sucked, lord knows what you consider a good campaign. :?

The only shooter i've played this year which i prefered was Crysis.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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?

Dutch_Mix

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.

Wow, if the worst game in the series scores a 9.4/10, then this must be one awful franchise... :|

Halo 2's multiplayer was the reason for the highscore. Halo 3 had a slightly better singleplayer and a slightly better multiplayer and gets a 9.5. See how it works?

Halo CE was the best but didn't have the online features, but still a great multi and single = 9.6.

Indeed.

But I am known to lay down the ownage on hermits from time to time. It isn't difficult.

dracula_16

Most of the stuff I see from you that you think is "ownage" doesn't make much sense. :P

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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?

horrowhip

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.

Halo 2 was not "terrible". Dont confuse "not as good as the others" with "terrible". :| If Halo 2 is terrible, 90% of the games released every year must be down-right atrocious to you.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

Indeed.

But I am known to lay down the ownage on hermits from time to time. It isn't difficult.

DragonfireXZ95

Most of the stuff I see from you that you think is "ownage" doesn't make much sense. :P

How so?

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Apologies. Point still stands. Ninja-Vox

not really.... I don't think any hermits will contest Galaxy as GotY. It was the best game this year. End of story. PC games DO have SLIGHTLY higher standards. And by slightly I mean only one notch higher. Like I said, Halo 3 is a 9.0

And only because of the MP and its abundance of features. I doubt even the most hardcore Halo fanboys will deny that the campaign was an utter disappointment.

Halo 2's campagin was an utter disappointment. It was an epic step backwards. If you're going to say Halo 3's campaign sucked, lord knows what you consider a good campaign. :?

The only shooter i've played this year which i prefered was Crysis.

I am not saying it sucked, just that it was a disappointment. Bungie could have done MUCH better. MUCH, MUCH better. I think everyone knows that. All they needed to do to keep everyone pleased with the MP was port it. Nobody would have complained at all. I do respect them for adding new features but they could have done better. I hated having to beat Scarabs repeatedly. Just felt like they were repeating the same thing over and over. The Gravemind levels were terrible IMO. The first level was OK. The final level was pretty good but not great. Not bad, just not great. Wasn't as good as CoD4, wasn't as good as STALKER, wasn't as good as Crysis, wasn't as good as any of the major games this year...

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]Nah, sheep act like everything Nintendo does is for the benefit of the entire industry.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 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.

Whats wrong with being a 360 fan????? and why do you say its stupid to like 360???? maybe i cant run bioshock,oblivion,rainbow six,crysis ect on my pc.... so why am i so stupid for liking 360???????is it because ur pc is so much better??? i know it is but why do u have to knock me cause my pc sucks and i like 360????? that just makes you and most of the hermits sound like bitter ppl...

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Apologies. Point still stands. Ninja-Vox

not really.... I don't think any hermits will contest Galaxy as GotY. It was the best game this year. End of story. PC games DO have SLIGHTLY higher standards. And by slightly I mean only one notch higher. Like I said, Halo 3 is a 9.0

And only because of the MP and its abundance of features. I doubt even the most hardcore Halo fanboys will deny that the campaign was an utter disappointment.

Halo 2's campagin was an utter disappointment. It was an epic step backwards. If you're going to say Halo 3's campaign sucked, lord knows what you consider a good campaign. :?

The only shooter i've played this year which i prefered was Crysis.

Meh, while I didn't think Halo 2's campaign was as good as Halo 1's, I wouldn't go so far as to call it an utter disappointment. I felt like, in some aspects, Halo 2 had a better campaign than Halo 1.

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"][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? :|

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 :?

My point makes perfect sense. In fact you even fleshed it out for me. There were more games like battlefront on the PC; therefore it wasn't as well received as it was on the xbox which had few games of that specific variety. That has nothing to do with higher standards of quality; there were simply games just like it which were already out.

My point is very simple; there are no mythical "higher standards". Thats why your battlefront example doesn't apply; that would happen on ANY platform. Any platform which has an abundant number of games in a given genre would receive a game of the same genre with less critical acclaim than a platform with few titles of that variey.

In terms of standards; i dont expect my PC games to be "better" than my console games just because they're on the PC. That's what i'm arguing here. The myth that any console game, if released and reviewed on the PC, would score lower because of the "higher standards".

Standards don't mean that every game on the PC is better, although in many cases they can be. It just means that the amount of competition on the relative platform effects the score somewhat, which is why HL2 got Shooter of the year over Halo 2, despite it getting the lower score, which is why Battlefront was rated lower on the PC. Gamespot even spell it out themselves for you.

"So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another"

They say that scores from relative platforms shouldn't be compared, which is why you can't endorse Halo 2's higher score.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

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

Ninja-Vox

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.

Perhaps they thought "Hey, wel have our cake, and eat it too" ... which they did.... They got to eat their cake, at the cost of game depth to those fans.

I mean cmon, the entire leveling system wasnt the ebst to begin with, scaling enemies was the lasiest and biggest disaster that happened to the series.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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.

Halo 2 was not "terrible". Dont confuse "not as good as the others" with "terrible". :| If Halo 2 is terrible, 90% of the games released every year must be down-right atrocious to you.

that is what I meant. I think we all know what Bungie can and SHOULD have done with Halo 2 and Halo 3. They should have been much better. The campaign was a huge step backwards. Halo 3 was only a baby step back forwards... Maybe now that Bungie doesn't have MS breathing down their necks, they can actually release something stellar.

what? I dont see anybody attacking PC gamers.. because PC gamers dont belong in this system wars.... like comparing car enthusiasts to race car drivers, just leave lemmings, cows and sheep alone to have our little war.

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

what? I dont see anybody attacking PC gamers.. because PC gamers dont belong in this system wars.... like comparing car enthusiasts to race car drivers, just leave lemmings, cows and sheep alone to have our little war.

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]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.Bdking57

Denied.

I'm mainly a PC gamer and i don't bash consoles. I even love the wii and the epic SMG. I dislike PS3/X360. It just doesn't appeal to me. You know it's kind of stupid to hate on a console or a PC. It's just a freaking machine or non living thing that can be touched. Dislike and Hate are very different things. Hating living things is normal but hating non living things is kinda weird and stupid.lordlors

Except problems, everybody hates problems. lol

[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]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?

Koalakommander

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.

Wow, if the worst game in the series scores a 9.4/10, then this must be one awful franchise... :|

Halo 2's multiplayer was the reason for the highscore. Halo 3 had a slightly better singleplayer and a slightly better multiplayer and gets a 9.5. See how it works?

Halo CE was the best but didn't have the online features, but still a great multi and single = 9.6.

No, I don't. :|

The reason Halo 2 received a high score was because it was "an exceptional shooter that frequently delivers thrilling, memorable, and unique moments in its online, co-op, and single-player modes."

You're still missing the whole point of standards.

Standards don't mean that every game on the PC is better...

gingerdivid

Nay, you have missed the point of what i was arguing about in the first place. Because that is exactly it, and you've just said exactly what i said in the first place, nearly word for word.

I am fine with games being reviewed on their relative platforms and variations depending on the games those platforms have available; the only thing i complained about was the arguement tossed around by some hermits that games are magically worse when they are played on a PC.

That is all.

Ninja-Vox does it again :lol:Gh0st_Of_0nyx

What did i do? :| Nevermind again.

your kind of indirectly hitting the nail on the head here... there is nothing to hate about PCs because PCs arent a specific brand, therefore they dont belong in system wars.. on the other hand, people hate sony, ms or nintendo.. or certain developers... for example, I hate epic and their arrogance, and the fact that sony left its previous console owners out to dry with the PS3... and I hate nintendo for tricking me into buying the wii, making all kinds of promises and failing to live up to them....People here hate brands, they cannot hate machines that are brandless.. unless hermits want to go argue about graphics cards or something

I'm mainly a PC gamer and i don't bash consoles. I even love the wii and the epic SMG. I dislike PS3/X360. It just doesn't appeal to me. You know it's kind of stupid to hate on a console or a PC. It's just a freaking machine or non living thing that can be touched. Dislike and Hate are very different things. Hating living things is normal but hating non living things is kinda weird and stupid.lordlors

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

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.

Perhaps they thought "Hey, wel have our cake, and eat it too" ... which they did.... They got to eat their cake, at the cost of game depth to those fans.

I mean cmon, the entire leveling system wasnt the ebst to begin with, scaling enemies was the lasiest and biggest disaster that happened to the series.

I agree completely that they dumbed down the game substantially. It became more about action and graphics then the RPG awesomeness it was in Morrowind. I loved that game. However i dont think you can blame that on consoles. Like i said earlier, they released the hardcore morowind on consoles too; i think they simply dumbed the game down to widen its appeal and sell more copies, not because consoles couldn't handle what they REALLY wanted to do. That was never a problem with the last game, and on much weaker hardware too.

But hey, i dont know. It's all speculation i suppose.

what? I dont see anybody attacking PC gamers.. because PC gamers dont belong in this system wars.... like comparing car enthusiasts to race car drivers, just leave lemmings, cows and sheep alone to have our little war.

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]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.Bdking57

False. PC wins year after year after year. That's the only reason fanboys dont want it here. There is no logic behind its exclusion.

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]

You're still missing the whole point of standards.

Standards don't mean that every game on the PC is better...

Ninja-Vox

Nay, you have missed the point of what i was arguing about in the first place. Because that is exactly it, and you've just said exactly what i said in the first place, nearly word for word.

I am fine with games being reviewed on their relative platforms and variations depending on the games those platforms have available; the only thing i complained about was the arguement tossed around by some hermits that games are magically worse when they are played on a PC.

That is all.

"But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score."

You're comparing two different scores on two different platofrms, which really shouldn't be compared. This is what spawned the arguement.

I think we've got our lines crossed.

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

You're still missing the whole point of standards.

Standards don't mean that every game on the PC is better...

gingerdivid

Nay, you have missed the point of what i was arguing about in the first place. Because that is exactly it, and you've just said exactly what i said in the first place, nearly word for word.

I am fine with games being reviewed on their relative platforms and variations depending on the games those platforms have available; the only thing i complained about was the arguement tossed around by some hermits that games are magically worse when they are played on a PC.

That is all.

"But comparing halo 2 and half-life 2, based purely on whats on the disc, halo 2 was indeed deserving of the higher score."

You're comparing two different scores on two different platofrms, which really shouldn't be compared. This is what spawned the arguement.

I was simply comparing two games in terms of quality; i think halo 2 was indeed deserving of a higher score than HL2, as i said "based purely on whats on the discs".

That's why i pointed out that your whole previous post was irrelevant to the discussion because your first sentence agreed with everything i'd originally said; simply that i dislike the fanboys who claim any game is worse when played on the PC because of "higher standards." I think that's a silly and inaccurate viewpoint.

All the stuff you went off on about platforms and genres i completely agree with. Clearly you just got the wrong end of the stick and thought i was saying there are no differences in standards anywhere from one platform to another. I do not.

[QUOTE="lordlors"]I'm mainly a PC gamer and i don't bash consoles. I even love the wii and the epic SMG. I dislike PS3/X360. It just doesn't appeal to me. You know it's kind of stupid to hate on a console or a PC. It's just a freaking machine or non living thing that can be touched. Dislike and Hate are very different things. Hating living things is normal but hating non living things is kinda weird and stupid.DragonfireXZ95

Except problems, everybody hates problems. lol

Agreed but that reason alone is not enough to hate on a non living thing so much especially with passion. When you and your gf are having big problems or family problems that's where people usually feel hate but if you're having a big problem with a machine people don't usually feel hate with passion. If you have hated on a non living thing that hate usually disappears after quite some time. Again dislike and hate are very different things. Hate is more extreme like you want to do something bad on a person. You get what i mean? From what i've seen in SW, fanboys hate other platforms with passion.

Ninja-Vox does it again :lol:Gh0st_Of_0nyx

Again, what exactly did i do again, oh person i've never come across?

I think I should just say something to make this crystal clear. I HATE when a developer takes a good idea or a good IP and then throws it together for the sake of selling more copies. When I KNOW that a developer can do better than the game they released, I really don't like that. Bethesda screwed up Oblivion. It was a good game but they still screwed it up. Could have been WAY better. EVERYONE knows that it could have been better. Halo 2 and Halo 3 could have been way better. Bungie screwed up. Not bad games, but they should have been better games. Now, I would like to know why nobody else feels the same way... I will play and enjoy games like Oblivion, Halo 2, Halo 3. HOWEVER, when it comes to voicing my opinion about them, I will not speak kindly of them if they clearly squandered loads of potential. SPECIFICALLY when a developer has proven itself capable. That is why I respect companies like Blizzard, Valve and Crytek. They expect perfection. They work very hard to provide perfection or as close to perfection as they can. I am not in any way implying that their games are perfect buttaking a look at their gamesand the level design, the character development, the gameplay, etc in those games, it is easy to see how much care they put into the games.

Crytek takesrisks. They go things that almost ensure mistakes. However, they take the time to meticulouslytweak everything about their game.

Valve plans for everything. They carve out their game world with a fine chisel, developing the characters and shaping the story so that you care and listen to everything. The characters are memorable, the moments are unforgettable and overall the games are fantastic.

Blizzard acts in the same way. They test every possible gameplay choice, they craft their world in a fine manner. The balance they develop is almost impossible to recreate(which is why Starcraft is the only RTS in 10 years to successfully create 3 asymmetric races that play so wonderfully and so perfectly. all this while also creating a memorable story and wonderful design).

Bungie does things in a very good manner, however, they overlook things. They create sections that seem pointless and way overextended(the Gravemind section lasted WAY too long. It didn't need to be as long as it was... Should have been nothing more than a side-story.). The actual story was too short. Could have been expanded and continued much longer. the battles could have been much more intense and large. I never got the feeling that I was just one of the soldiers fighting... It always seemed like it was me, and me alone against an entire army. There should have been much more epic battles. It should have felt like a full-scale war. The constant repetition of setpieces was overly annoying. Seriously, why did I have to fight the Scarab 3 times... They could have done something different...It just wasn't a polished and complete as I felt it should have been. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't what it should have been.

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]Ninja-Vox does it again :lol:Ninja-Vox

Again, what exactly did i do again, oh person i've never come across?

Everytime I see you I think of the Kung Fu Fighting song ... so awesome :D