im not judging halo wars but im pretty sure it may be better then a 50cent game or is it fitty cent.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You are stating the obvious. We are aware that one score is higher than the other. We are also aware of your Playstation love and your inability to comprehend that a 6.5 on Gamespot does not equal a universal truth.
Comparing a console RTS to a GEOW rip off, how original.mitu123exactly. the fact that the rip-off scored higher is the funny part.
[QUOTE="mitu123"]Comparing a console RTS to a GEOW rip off, how original.C_BozkurT_Cexactly. the fact that the rip-off scored higher is the funny part.
I dont see anyting funny over a flawed review
Lol I love system wars, how upset people get. Well back to my ps3 have fun argueing I dont care its just funny to me.
bam706
Well have fun watching your Blu-ray movie or what ever else you do with your PS3. I will go and play some video games with my friends on my 360.
[QUOTE="bam706"]Lol I love system wars, how upset people get. Well back to my ps3 have fun argueing I dont care its just funny to me.
_Pinbot_
Well have fun watching your Blu-ray movie or what ever else you do with your PS3. I will go and play some video games with my friends on my 360.
Let's just pile more ignorance on an already ignorant thread.
Fanboys crack me up.
[QUOTE="_Pinbot_"][QUOTE="bam706"]Lol I love system wars, how upset people get. Well back to my ps3 have fun argueing I dont care its just funny to me.
0bscurity
Well have fun watching your Blu-ray movie or what ever else you do with your PS3. I will go and play some video games with my friends on my 360.
Let's just pile more ignorance on an already ignorant thread.
Fanboys crack me up.
Your post has seemed to help the cause.
It also got better than SOCOM. gg. hopesfall2own
Yeah but Socom was funadmentally broken from the start. Halo Wars is not broken, it is just simplistic and lacks any depth when compared to other RTS games. Blood on the Sand mimics its genre well enough to pass as a good, generic title like Conan did.
[QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]It also got better than SOCOM. gg. Kahuna_1
Yeah but Socom was funadmentally broken from the start. Halo Wars is not broken, it is just simplistic and lacks any depth when compared to other RTS games. Blood on the Sand mimics its genre well enough to pass as a good, generic title like Conan did.
So basically you're saying SOCOM deserved its low score and HW didn't, I already knew this.[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"][QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]It also got better than SOCOM. gg. hopesfall2own
Yeah but Socom was funadmentally broken from the start. Halo Wars is not broken, it is just simplistic and lacks any depth when compared to other RTS games. Blood on the Sand mimics its genre well enough to pass as a good, generic title like Conan did.
So basically you're saying SOCOM deserved its low score and HW didn't, I already knew this. Socom was patched and fixed many of the problems reviewers were complaining about. Halo Wars can't be fixed. It's hard to understand things when you have fanboy goggles on, just thought I'd clarify.[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"][QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]It also got better than SOCOM. gg. hopesfall2own
Yeah but Socom was funadmentally broken from the start. Halo Wars is not broken, it is just simplistic and lacks any depth when compared to other RTS games. Blood on the Sand mimics its genre well enough to pass as a good, generic title like Conan did.
So basically you're saying SOCOM deserved its low score and HW didn't, I already knew this.No. They both deserved their scores. HW deserves its low score because it failed to do what is expected of an RTS.
[QUOTE="hopesfall2own"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]So basically you're saying SOCOM deserved its low score and HW didn't, I already knew this. Socom was patched and fixed many of the problems reviewers were complaining about. Halo Wars can't be fixed. It's hard to understand things when you have fanboy goggles on, just thought I'd clarify. Yes me, most of the guys on these forums that played the demo, and the majority of review sites have "fanboy goggles" on because we realize that HW is a solid game for what its doing. :roll:Yeah but Socom was funadmentally broken from the start. Halo Wars is not broken, it is just simplistic and lacks any depth when compared to other RTS games. Blood on the Sand mimics its genre well enough to pass as a good, generic title like Conan did.
0bscurity
[QUOTE="Jandurin"]You aren't judging halo wars? Then what are you doing? Having a lol?EVOLV3
[QUOTE="EVOLV3"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]You aren't judging halo wars? Then what are you doing? Having a lol?hopesfall2own
Yup. You know what I did when Socom got a 6.5? I bought it and played. Unlike some people here who cant stop ****** about a review because it is too low for them. Just buy Halo Wars and enjoy the game.
[QUOTE="Jandurin"]You aren't judging halo wars? Then what are you doing? Having a lol?EVOLV3I am :P 50 Cent >> Halo. lolz. It could be true :P I've never played either.
i like how people now think the review of halo wars is biased or flawed just becuase the 50 cent game got a higher rating personally i don't care about either titles but still pretty funnyRagashahsUh most people said it was flawed as soon as it was released, where have you been?
[QUOTE="EVOLV3"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]You aren't judging halo wars? Then what are you doing? Having a lol?hopesfall2own
[QUOTE="Rigga911"]shows that the 360 only gets bad game titles nowmitu123Yeah, because that Tenchu game on the Wii got a 5.0 on here, I'm sure that's bad... A number doesn't dictate the quality of a game? What!? That's insane. Thank you for showing us all the light. :roll:
Hello Kitty Island Adventure scored higher than Killzone. :lol: Also, isn't it really annyoing when people here go, "Blah, blah, blah, GameSpot isn't the universal truth," and crap like that? I mean, obviously this thread was made with the sole purpose of trolling in mind.DeathScape666Not necessarily. I think it points out the fact that assigning objective scores to subjective games is a losing proposition. The GS UK reviewer said he didn't like Halo because it wasn't as deep as PC RTS games. What he doesn't understand is that I wouldn't go anywhere near it if it was as complex as say Company of Heroes. As is stands, the review makes me want to buy it more than ever because I hate micro-managment. About 50 cent... that review seemed biased towards 50 and his 'brand'. I think it did better than it should have simply because compared to 50's first turkey of a game, it's surprisingly average.
[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Rigga911"]shows that the 360 only gets bad game titles nowRigga911Or that corpulant Brittish reviewers are too biased towards PC games to be objective. that guy was generous to give a 6.5 And you know this because you played it already... start to finish? Or are you just pulling all this out of your meat-hole?
[QUOTE="Rigga911"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Or that corpulant Brittish reviewers are too biased towards PC games to be objective.donalbanethat guy was generous to give a 6.5 And you know this because you played it already... start to finish? Or are you just pulling all this out of your meat-hole?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment