This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="swguy123"]
I wasnt really talking about sales. I was thinking more a high qualityFPS similair to Halo.
loadedboon
high quality FPS and Halo in the same sentence don't match :lol:
if you wanna understand why halo is so popular watch this...link at 0:31 and you'll get why ;)
[QUOTE="loadedboon"]
[QUOTE="swguy123"]
I wasnt really talking about sales. I was thinking more a high qualityFPS similair to Halo.
Kane04
high quality FPS and Halo in the same sentence don't match :lol:
if you wanna understand why halo is so popular watch this...link at 0:31 and you'll get why ;)
Watched the link and all I can say is that man speaks the truth about HALO.
[QUOTE="Kane04"]
[QUOTE="loadedboon"]
high quality FPS and Halo in the same sentence don't match :lol:
loadedboon
if you wanna understand why halo is so popular watch this...link at 0:31 and you'll get why ;)
Watched the link and all I can say is that man speaks the truth about HALO.
I bet if he reviewed SC2, you would say the exact opposite thing You probably think he's talking about Halo that way so people like you can get pleasure out of someone else making derogatory remarks about something they hate and think that everyone else should hate. Haters gon hate, I guess.[QUOTE="loadedboon"][QUOTE="Kane04"]
[QUOTE="loadedboon"]
high quality FPS and Halo in the same sentence don't match :lol:
Arbiterisl33t69
if you wanna understand why halo is so popular watch this...link at 0:31 and you'll get why ;)
Watched the link and all I can say is that man speaks the truth about HALO.
I bet if he reviewed SC2, you would say the exact opposite thing
You probably think he's talking about Halo that way so people like you can get pleasure out of someone else making derogatory remarks about something they hate and think that everyone else should hate.
Haters gon hate, I guess.
one thing is let a less good thing about a game slide.
take MGS4, it got 10, imo it was fair, but its obviously not an absolute perfect game, there are some low rezz texture at some points, etc etc etc.
but that honestly doesnt make a scratch on the overall experience
to be fair i only own Halo 2 but i've played enough of Halo 3 to be comfortable talking about it besides, i dont agree with the Halo 2 reviews the kinda the same way too so... (i think Halo 3 its even more unfair)
my problem with Halo 3 is that the games as so many flaws, so many bad things that trowing a perfect score its plain unfair. no one is saying the game is bad, not even that guy trashing the game said that (if you watch the hole video) what i'm saying is, or better asking, why is Halo 3 above everything? a normal games gets its score penalized by "less good things" while halo 3 people just look the other way and pretend its not there.
look at this other videolink and then tell me exactly why Killzone 2 didnt got the same or better score.
Depends on what you mean.
If you mean a quality FPS, then there are some people already named. I'm not one to judge as they're not my cup of tea.
If you mean killer app. It doesn't really have a specific whole userbase killer app.
I would break it down by region. In Japan the killer app was FFXIII. It has an attach rate of about 1 in 3.
In Europe it will be GT5.
It still doesn't really have one in the US I don't think. The closest things were probably MGS4 and God of War III.
[QUOTE="Arbiterisl33t69"][QUOTE="loadedboon"]
Watched the link and all I can say is that man speaks the truth about HALO.
Kane04
I bet if he reviewed SC2, you would say the exact opposite thing
You probably think he's talking about Halo that way so people like you can get pleasure out of someone else making derogatory remarks about something they hate and think that everyone else should hate.
Haters gon hate, I guess.
one thing is let a less good thing about a game slide.
take MGS4, it got 10, imo it was fair, but its obviously not an absolute perfect game, there are some low rezz texture at some points, etc etc etc.
but that honestly doesnt make a scratch on the overall experience
to be fair i only own Halo 2 but i've played enough of Halo 3 to be comfortable talking about it besides, i dont agree with the Halo 2 reviews the kinda the same way too so... (i think Halo 3 its even more unfair)
my problem with Halo 3 is that the games as so many flaws, so many bad things that trowing a perfect score its plain unfair. no one is saying the game is bad, not even that guy trashing the game said that (if you watch the hole video) what i'm saying is, or better asking, why is Halo 3 above everything? a normal games gets its score penalized by "less good things" while halo 3 people just look the other way and pretend its not there.
look at this other videolink and then tell me exactly why Killzone 2 didnt got the same or better score.
Many refuse to admit it,but Halo 3 got all those scores becuase of the close to $800 in Halo stuff MS was sending to journalist,the graphics were bland,the whole corridor thing over and over again,hell Resistance had more interaction great AI like Halo,more enemy's at once,more players online,came a year before Halo 3 and looked just as good,and use a form of regenerating health better than Halo,instead of getting your full health by just hiding for a while,on Resistance health is mesure by bars,if you loose half a bar you can regen it,but if you loose the complete bar you can't unless you find a healing bar,which is some times drop by enemy's,it makes the game better,because it force you even wounded to fight to get soem more health instead of just hide here for a while.
Reviewers are a joke this day,many are under the take and are hugely pay by sites to over scores the usual games,mainly highly hyped ones.
Take Gears for example is a squad shooter where your squad can't shoot for the life of them,often they just get you in trouble because they go running and gunnig,and end up screming for help,instead of help you they do nothing but stand in your way and are little help,something Killzone 2 does way better,the AI was bad and cheap,enemy's taking cover would score hits on you,even when you are targeting the place where they are hiden,as soon as they break cover you are getting hit,without aiming nothing some times the guns weren't even completely pointed toward you and you were getting hit.
Online was broken for a year,heavy lag,host atvantages,crashes,if you played this game on his launch you have to be totaly blind to not see how bad it was,but journalist were to busy with the pretty graphics,to actually see how flawed it was,and the high scores rained.
Take Killzone 2 for exmaple how several sites try deliveratly to break the score for the game,by comparing it to 2 or 3 shooter at the ame time,well killzone doesn't do multiplaying better than Halo,is not a control friendly as MW,and the gameplay is not as good as gears,all that to try to sabotage the game,hell EGM even give the game and awar for having the worst AI,because of a demo they saw which was just purely make to show the graphics,yet in the same page they give Halo 3 the best AI award,but is funny becuase Killzone 2 has better AI than Halo 3,in the end journalist are for the take,and they are a joke.
one thing is let a less good thing about a game slide.
take MGS4, it got 10, imo it was fair, but its obviously not an absolute perfect game, there are some low rezz texture at some points, etc etc etc.
but that honestly doesnt make a scratch on the overall experience
to be fair i only own Halo 2 but i've played enough of Halo 3 to be comfortable talking about it besides, i dont agree with the Halo 2 reviews the kinda the same way too so... (i think Halo 3 its even more unfair)
my problem with Halo 3 is that the games as so many flaws, so many bad things that trowing a perfect score its plain unfair. no one is saying the game is bad, not even that guy trashing the game said that (if you watch the hole video) what i'm saying is, or better asking, why is Halo 3 above everything? a normal games gets its score penalized by "less good things" while halo 3 people just look the other way and pretend its not there.
look at this other videolink and then tell me exactly why Killzone 2 didnt got the same or better score.
Kane04
What are these 'so many bad things' that Halo 3 has? I can think of one big legitimate complaint, and thats the graphics. They're alright, they can look damn pretty at times, but you'd expect more from an AAA blockbuster game and I agree with that. Fortunately though, Graphics do not make a game, gameplay does. Other than that though, Halo does everything right.
Killzone 2 didn't get the same score as Halo 3 because its half the game Halo 3 is. In my opinion, Killzone 2 was more of a 8.5 game. Yes, it has awesome presentation, but the story was boring as hell and the characters were forgettable. Wheres the split-screen multiplayer? Wheres the replay mode and ability to share videos with friends over PSN? Wheres the map editor? Wheres the online co-op? I could go on, but I won't. Killzone is like the bare bones of FPS these days. A single player campaign (thats average imo) with a good multiplayer which needs to be fleshed out a lot more.
Many refuse to admit it,but Halo 3 got all those scores becuase of the close to $800 in Halo stuff MS was sending to journalist,the graphics were bland,the whole corridor thing over and over again,hell Resistance had more interaction great AI like Halo,more enemy's at once,more players online,came a year before Halo 3 and looked just as good,and use a form of regenerating health better than Halo,instead of getting your full health by just hiding for a while,on Resistance health is mesure by bars,if you loose half a bar you can regen it,but if you loose the complete bar you can't unless you find a healing bar,which is some times drop by enemy's,it makes the game better,because it force you even wounded to fight to get soem more health instead of just hide here for a while.
Eltormo
Now think about this logically. Why would only MS bother to, as you claim, "Bribe" reviewers with Halo stuff, and not Sony? I mean, we are talking about the company who puts rootkits in CD's here, and then defending their crime by saying that people don't know what they are, so why worry about them?
Resistance did not have better interaction, it's AI sucked, and the only thing good about it was it's weapons. More players online does not = better game. I played Resistance 1's online, and it was just bad. No fun modes, a campfest, and heavily unbalanced.
Also, Halo 3's regenerating health kinda helps when facing troops in legendary, who can take your shields in 3 hits, and then your health in 2.
Reviewers are a joke this day,many are under the take and are hugely pay by sites to over scores the usual games,mainly highly hyped ones.
Take Gears for example is a squad shooter where your squad can't shoot for the life of them,often they just get you in trouble because they go running and gunnig,and end up screming for help,instead of help you they do nothing but stand in your way and are little help,something Killzone 2 does way better,the AI was bad and cheap,enemy's taking cover would score hits on you,even when you are targeting the place where they are hiden,as soon as they break cover you are getting hit,without aiming nothing some times the guns weren't even completely pointed toward you and you were getting hit.
Online was broken for a year,heavy lag,host atvantages,crashes,if you played this game on his launch you have to be totaly blind to not see how bad it was,but journalist were to busy with the pretty graphics,to actually see how flawed it was,and the high scores rained.
Eltormo
I do agree that reviewers are a joke, but not for overscoring.
To your second paragraph, what are you talking about? Gears AI isn't actually too bad, I think that you are just talking out of your "expeletive" here. Killzone 2's AI is good, yes, but Gears isn't too bad either.
If you mean Gears of War 2 here, then yes, online was broken, but it was incredibly fun too. Horde mode is one of the best survival modesout there, only beaten by Halo:Reach firefight and it's insane customization.
Also, how can a reviewer see how broken an online system is, when it came out? As far as I know, Gears of War always had good online at launch, it's just post-launch when problems arise.
And your final point: If gears got reviewers only obsessed with graphics, what does that make Killzone? I don't think that the story or gameplay was involved in the praising reviews.
Take Killzone 2 for exmaple how several sites try deliveratly to break the score for the game,by comparing it to 2 or 3 shooter at the ame time,well killzone doesn't do multiplaying better than Halo,is not a control friendly as MW,and the gameplay is not as good as gears,all that to try to sabotage the game,hell EGM even give the game and awar for having the worst AI,because of a demo they saw which was just purely make to show the graphics,yet in the same page they give Halo 3 the best AI award,but is funny becuase Killzone 2 has better AI than Halo 3,in the end journalist are for the take,and they are a joke.
Eltormo
Killzone 2 got a 9.0 average, what it deserved, as it sure as heck did not deserve a 9.5. Also, comparing to other shooters is how you review, as reviews are related to the general population of games. Also, it got the same reviews as MW, and Gears 2, on GAMESPOT (The only site which really matters, in SW).
EGM isa joke, why bring them into this, you are only lowering your credibility...But I'll humor you. Think about this, Halo 3 came out in 2007. Killzone 2 came out in 2009. that's two years, where standards change.
So, in summary, your argument is full of opinion, bias, and fake conjecture, and there is no point in replying further, as you will still keep talking out of your ass to fulfil your bias.
[QUOTE="Kane04"]
[QUOTE="Arbiterisl33t69"]
I bet if he reviewed SC2, you would say the exact opposite thing
You probably think he's talking about Halo that way so people like you can get pleasure out of someone else making derogatory remarks about something they hate and think that everyone else should hate.
Haters gon hate, I guess.Eltormo
one thing is let a less good thing about a game slide.
take MGS4, it got 10, imo it was fair, but its obviously not an absolute perfect game, there are some low rezz texture at some points, etc etc etc.
but that honestly doesnt make a scratch on the overall experience
to be fair i only own Halo 2 but i've played enough of Halo 3 to be comfortable talking about it besides, i dont agree with the Halo 2 reviews the kinda the same way too so... (i think Halo 3 its even more unfair)
my problem with Halo 3 is that the games as so many flaws, so many bad things that trowing a perfect score its plain unfair. no one is saying the game is bad, not even that guy trashing the game said that (if you watch the hole video) what i'm saying is, or better asking, why is Halo 3 above everything? a normal games gets its score penalized by "less good things" while halo 3 people just look the other way and pretend its not there.
look at this other videolink and then tell me exactly why Killzone 2 didnt got the same or better score.
Many refuse to admit it,but Halo 3 got all those scores becuase of the close to $800 in Halo stuff MS was sending to journalist,the graphics were bland,the whole corridor thing over and over again,hell Resistance had more interaction great AI like Halo,more enemy's at once,more players online,came a year before Halo 3 and looked just as good,and use a form of regenerating health better than Halo,instead of getting your full health by just hiding for a while,on Resistance health is mesure by bars,if you loose half a bar you can regen it,but if you loose the complete bar you can't unless you find a healing bar,which is some times drop by enemy's,it makes the game better,because it force you even wounded to fight to get soem more health instead of just hide here for a while.
Reviewers are a joke this day,many are under the take and are hugely pay by sites to over scores the usual games,mainly highly hyped ones.
Take Gears for example is a squad shooter where your squad can't shoot for the life of them,often they just get you in trouble because they go running and gunnig,and end up screming for help,instead of help you they do nothing but stand in your way and are little help,something Killzone 2 does way better,the AI was bad and cheap,enemy's taking cover would score hits on you,even when you are targeting the place where they are hiden,as soon as they break cover you are getting hit,without aiming nothing some times the guns weren't even completely pointed toward you and you were getting hit.
Online was broken for a year,heavy lag,host atvantages,crashes,if you played this game on his launch you have to be totaly blind to not see how bad it was,but journalist were to busy with the pretty graphics,to actually see how flawed it was,and the high scores rained.
Take Killzone 2 for exmaple how several sites try deliveratly to break the score for the game,by comparing it to 2 or 3 shooter at the ame time,well killzone doesn't do multiplaying better than Halo,is not a control friendly as MW,and the gameplay is not as good as gears,all that to try to sabotage the game,hell EGM even give the game and awar for having the worst AI,because of a demo they saw which was just purely make to show the graphics,yet in the same page they give Halo 3 the best AI award,but is funny becuase Killzone 2 has better AI than Halo 3,in the end journalist are for the take,and they are a joke.
u mad?
sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
[QUOTE="HavocV3"][QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"] Well when your fans act like it's the best game ever in the world, yeah, that will happen.FlamesOfGrey
ever consider cause and effect?
rabbid haters will bring out the worst in the fans of the series.
or it could be vice versa, you can't trace the beginning of that one.
and it's the same story for all fans of X series, that behaviour isn't exclusive to the Halo fanbase:|
Again alot of big games are overrated from Halo 3 to Uncharted 2 however, this thread is about Sony FPS games and Halo. I mentioned the game being overhyped and he countered with it being overhated. Sony doesn't have any FPS games on Halos level of acclaim, sales or overhype. I listed the overhype part because well, hype definitely plays a huge rule in the former whether people want to believe it or not.How is it "overhyped" Can a game be overhyped? Who gets to judge how much anticipation a game should have? Hopefully not you ...
[QUOTE="HavocV3"][QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"] Well when your fans act like it's the best game ever in the world, yeah, that will happen.FlamesOfGrey
ever consider cause and effect?
rabbid haters will bring out the worst in the fans of the series.
or it could be vice versa, you can't trace the beginning of that one.
and it's the same story for all fans of X series, that behaviour isn't exclusive to the Halo fanbase:|
Again alot of big games are overrated from Halo 3 to Uncharted 2 however, this thread is about Sony FPS games and Halo. I mentioned the game being overhyped and he countered with it being overhated. Sony doesn't have any FPS games on Halos level of acclaim, sales or overhype. I listed the overhype part because well, hype definitely plays a huge rule in the former whether people want to believe it or not.over hyped? halo meets the standards everytime it released. the hype is always justified (well maybe not ODST but all other halos) with the reviews it gets and the number of ppl who buy it. a big game like that, it deserves the biggest hype ever. a over hyped game is a game that is hyped liek crazy but fails to deliver at the end of the day.What do you think is the PS3s Halo? Resistance? Killzone? Something else? Do you think it is better or worse then Halo?
swguy123
The PS3's Halo, or the PS3's Halo 3? Because Halo isn't an exclusive franchise, and in my opinion Halo 3 was horribly bland and uninspired. So, what are you talking about? Sales?
[QUOTE="swguy123"]
What do you think is the PS3s Halo? Resistance? Killzone? Something else? Do you think it is better or worse then Halo?
raynimrod
The PS3's Halo, or the PS3's Halo 3? Because Halo isn't an exclusive franchise, and in my opinion Halo 3 was horribly bland and uninspired. So, what are you talking about? Sales?
Sales. Critical Acclaim. Ongoing online popularity.
All of the above.
Now think about this logically. Why would only MS bother to, as you claim, "Bribe" reviewers with Halo stuff, and not Sony? I mean, we are talking about the company who puts rootkits in CD's here, and then defending their crime by saying that people don't know what they are, so why worry about them?
Resistance did not have better interaction, it's AI sucked, and the only thing good about it was it's weapons. More players online does not = better game. I played Resistance 1's online, and it was just bad. No fun modes, a campfest, and heavily unbalanced.
Also, Halo 3's regenerating health kinda helps when facing troops in legendary, who can take your shields in 3 hits, and then your health in 2.
[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
Reviewers are a joke this day,many are under the take and are hugely pay by sites to over scores the usual games,mainly highly hyped ones.
Take Gears for example is a squad shooter where your squad can't shoot for the life of them,often they just get you in trouble because they go running and gunnig,and end up screming for help,instead of help you they do nothing but stand in your way and are little help,something Killzone 2 does way better,the AI was bad and cheap,enemy's taking cover would score hits on you,even when you are targeting the place where they are hiden,as soon as they break cover you are getting hit,without aiming nothing some times the guns weren't even completely pointed toward you and you were getting hit.
Online was broken for a year,heavy lag,host atvantages,crashes,if you played this game on his launch you have to be totaly blind to not see how bad it was,but journalist were to busy with the pretty graphics,to actually see how flawed it was,and the high scores rained.
siddhu33
I do agree that reviewers are a joke, but not for overscoring.
To your second paragraph, what are you talking about? Gears AI isn't actually too bad, I think that you are just talking out of your "expeletive" here. Killzone 2's AI is good, yes, but Gears isn't too bad either.
If you mean Gears of War 2 here, then yes, online was broken, but it was incredibly fun too. Horde mode is one of the best survival modesout there, only beaten by Halo:Reach firefight and it's insane customization.
Also, how can a reviewer see how broken an online system is, when it came out? As far as I know, Gears of War always had good online at launch, it's just post-launch when problems arise.
And your final point: If gears got reviewers only obsessed with graphics, what does that make Killzone? I don't think that the story or gameplay was involved in the praising reviews.
Take Killzone 2 for exmaple how several sites try deliveratly to break the score for the game,by comparing it to 2 or 3 shooter at the ame time,well killzone doesn't do multiplaying better than Halo,is not a control friendly as MW,and the gameplay is not as good as gears,all that to try to sabotage the game,hell EGM even give the game and awar for having the worst AI,because of a demo they saw which was just purely make to show the graphics,yet in the same page they give Halo 3 the best AI award,but is funny becuase Killzone 2 has better AI than Halo 3,in the end journalist are for the take,and they are a joke.
Eltormo
Killzone 2 got a 9.0 average, what it deserved, as it sure as heck did not deserve a 9.5. Also, comparing to other shooters is how you review, as reviews are related to the general population of games. Also, it got the same reviews as MW, and Gears 2, on GAMESPOT (The only site which really matters, in SW).
EGM isa joke, why bring them into this, you are only lowering your credibility...But I'll humor you. Think about this, Halo 3 came out in 2007. Killzone 2 came out in 2009. that's two years, where standards change.
So, in summary, your argument is full of opinion, bias, and fake conjecture, and there is no point in replying further, as you will still keep talking out of your ass to fulfil your bias.
Why people insist in create lies about games,Resistance AI suck did you even play the game,enemy's flank you,go for cover,run when you trow a grenade to them,hell try to hide from a Auger carrying soldier,go hide and see how easy they shoot you through a wall and kill you on your hiding place,how Resistance did not have better interaction when you can even blow the soldiers cooling system hoses and see them kicking wildly in the air letting the cooling air scape.
You did not play Resistance from what i can see which is a game i still own now,dude on Resistance there was no camping parade ,even on big stages,yeah try to camp me and i Auger you through a wall no problem,that is the beuty of it,the game was very balance,the Humans could run while the Aliens could see through wall,and both have waekness,the gun are incredibly fun to use,and the game was not only fun it was smooth even with 40 players online at once.
Killzone 2 is on a new level of FPS doesn't even stand close is not graphicaly,the interaction again far greater than Halo 3,the online play was fun and a refresh with the different clases and badges,it allow you to play a set of different modes in just 1 something not done by other FPS,it has reward just like MW.
It did not had co-op but then again Halo 3 doesn't had bots to play either,which are incredibly smart,so if you don't have online connection you could still experience a good multiplaying fun.
Graphics are the least of Bungies and MS worries,is how deep and great Killzone has become,and with 3 i think the bar will be raise even more,oh by the way you could say i was biased,but Gear did have many problems,why do you think it got patches for.
[QUOTE="GrabTheYayo"]
sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
Eltormo
Haze is not made by Sony and both Resistance and Killzone are solid FPS try harder.
he's right, you're wrong.
Halo outscored, outsold and outplayed all the aforementioned titles. KZ2 is barely played online anymore, compared to Halo, goes to show it's lasting power.
With that saidI prefer KZ2 to Halo 3. Facts however are facts
I would argue the Uncharted series.
[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
[QUOTE="GrabTheYayo"]
sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
-Snooze-
Haze is not made by Sony and both Resistance and Killzone are solid FPS try harder.
he's right, you're wrong.
Halo outscored, outsold and outplayed all the aforementioned titles. KZ2 is barely played online anymore, compared to Halo, goes to show it's lasting power.
With that saidI prefer KZ2 to Halo 3. Facts however are facts
How i am wrong when i say Haze is not make by sony which it isn't and Killzone and Resistance are 2 solid games.?
Well the last Halo game did not even out score Resistance,and using sales as quality messure is not a very good,Wii fit has sold more than Halo does that mean is better.?
Also you forget FPS on xbox brand of consoles are more popular than on PS line of consoles,MW2 is sold allot more on 360,a game out doing another based on how many people play it or buy it is not a good metter for quality,allot fo people buy crappy things over much beter ones,which explian why the Wii is the market leader when the xbox 360 has far better games and came a year before it.:)
nothing, they need to focus on creating a unique fps with awesome music. Thats what halo is, even if the gameplay is somewhat basic.
They don't have one yet but soon since Bungie will be making their next game a multiplat including the PS3. :o
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
Haze is not made by Sony and both Resistance and Killzone are solid FPS try harder.
Eltormo
he's right, you're wrong.
Halo outscored, outsold and outplayed all the aforementioned titles. KZ2 is barely played online anymore, compared to Halo, goes to show it's lasting power.
With that saidI prefer KZ2 to Halo 3. Facts however are facts
How i am wrong when i say Haze is not make by sony which it isn't and Killzone and Resistance are 2 solid games.?
Well the last Halo game did not even out score Resistance,and using sales as cuality messure is not a very good,Wii fit has sold more than Halo does that mean is better.?
Also you forget FPS on xbox brand of consoles are more popular than on PS line of consoles,MW2 is sold allot more on 360,a game out doing another based on how many people play it or buy it is not a good metter for quality,allot fo people buy crappy things over much beter ones,which explian why the Wii is the market leader when the xbox 360 has far better games and came a year before it.:)
He's right in saying Sony tried and failed, you disagreed with him, therefore you're wrong and he's right.
Fact is Halo sold more, and score more. It's played ALOT more then KZ2. If Halo was so bad why would it still be played so much? Yes people do buy crap (I bought god of war 3) but they don't then play them for years ... Like Halo 3
343 is obviously screwed then... :/sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
GrabTheYayo
343 is obviously screwed then... :/they probably are. which is why i mite not buy a xbox 720. i just dont think they can pull it off...[QUOTE="GrabTheYayo"]
sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
shinrabanshou
343 is obviously screwed then... :/they probably are. which is why i mite not buy a xbox 720. i just dont think they can pull it off... I have my doubts, but 343 does have some talented developers (iD, Gearbox, MGS4, Bungie) so who knows - hopefully it'll be a solid FPS whatever. I wonder if Bungie have been giving them any guidance - at least Frank O Connor is there.[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]
[QUOTE="GrabTheYayo"]
sony tried but failed 3 times. resistance...haze....killzone. only one team of ppl can make a halo game. and that is the god like power at bungie.
GrabTheYayo
[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
he's right, you're wrong.
Halo outscored, outsold and outplayed all the aforementioned titles. KZ2 is barely played online anymore, compared to Halo, goes to show it's lasting power.
With that saidI prefer KZ2 to Halo 3. Facts however are facts
-Snooze-
How i am wrong when i say Haze is not make by sony which it isn't and Killzone and Resistance are 2 solid games.?
Well the last Halo game did not even out score Resistance,and using sales as cuality messure is not a very good,Wii fit has sold more than Halo does that mean is better.?
Also you forget FPS on xbox brand of consoles are more popular than on PS line of consoles,MW2 is sold allot more on 360,a game out doing another based on how many people play it or buy it is not a good metter for quality,allot fo people buy crappy things over much beter ones,which explian why the Wii is the market leader when the xbox 360 has far better games and came a year before it.:)
He's right in saying Sony tried and failed, you disagreed with him, therefore you're wrong and he's right.
Fact is Halo sold more, and score more. It's played ALOT more then KZ2. If Halo was so bad why would it still be played so much? Yes people do buy crap (I bought god of war 3) but they don't then play them for years ... Like Halo 3
Sony did not wanted to create a Halo killer,that has always been the media wanting to create a war,sony wanted to create solid FPS which they did.
Yeah so did sonic and mario on the olimpics and i bet still been play more as well by kids,but does that make it better,i betn more people use their Wii fit than those who play Halo,yet wii fit is not better.
Hell more people user their wii than the xbox 360,i guess that make the wii a better console.
and lol at GOW 3 been crap at least i see where you stand now.
In that case its definitely Killzone and I greatly prefer it to Halo. I used to be a big Halo fanboy but Halo 2 and 3 dissapointed me. I prefer feeling like a soldier than a super cyborg. Killzone's story isn't as good but I do prefer its setting, weapons, core gameplay and enemies.I wasnt really talking about sales. I was thinking more a high qualityFPS similair to Halo.
swguy123
If you're looking for a carbon copy of Halo on the PS3 then you won't find it, nor should they try. They're better off creating an alternative exclusivewith its own identity, which Killzone provides extremely well.
[QUOTE="siddhu33"][QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"]They don't nor will they ever have a FPS as critically acclaimed and overhyped Halo or one that will sale over 10 Million copies IMO. Sony tried with Resistance and Killzone, while great games aren't it. Strictly in terms of sales they have the Gran Turismo franchise.FlamesOfGrey
And Overhated equally.
Well when your fans act like it's the best game ever in the world, yeah, that will happen. Every franchise's fanboys act that wayFirst, like most things here it is opinion, but I bet Sony would love a Halo killer. The media did not need to create a war, it has always been war when 2 different companies offer a similar product in the same industry. -----------------------------------Judging by the obesity rate, no, people are not using Wii fit more than Halo. And most kids are trying to get to play Halo not Sonic and Mario. As for this whole "better" thing you keep bringing up, there is no way to decide which is "better". That is subective to your needs and wants from a game console. The deal is, what is best FOR you.cainetao11
Really but the ones who tag the first Killzone as Halo killer was the media not sony,they never once came and say here is out Halo killer,Halo vs Killzone was more on the analogy of GT vs Forza were people think Forza was better,but does it have the sales to prove it.? That is what he is doing using sales as metter for quality which is wrong.
Really then whay Mario and sonic at the olimpics sold better than Halo 3,or why the new mario world also sold more than Halo 3,hell Mario kart wii has sold more than Halo 2 and 3 combined,it stands at 22 million units worl wide,dude 22 millions and you say kids are trying to play Halo give me a break,Mario Kart alone has surpase Halo 2 and 3 sales combined and The new SM game is close to do the same.
Well gaming is a taste thing i do agree,but a game doing something better than other is not,you can't change things done better by one game over the other just because a game sell more or is more played.
[QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"][QUOTE="siddhu33"]Well when your fans act like it's the best game ever in the world, yeah, that will happen. Every franchise's fanboys act that way not really but even if they did halo fanboys do take it to another levelAnd Overhated equally.
93soccer
Every franchise's fanboys act that way not really but even if they did halo fanboys do take it to another level[QUOTE="93soccer"][QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"] Well when your fans act like it's the best game ever in the world, yeah, that will happen.1stPlaceWinner
No, Really. Every franchise's fanboys act that way. Because they are FANBOYS.
Derp.
Again alot of big games are overrated from Halo 3 to Uncharted 2 however, this thread is about Sony FPS games and Halo. I mentioned the game being overhyped and he countered with it being overhated. Sony doesn't have any FPS games on Halos level of acclaim, sales or overhype. I listed the overhype part because well, hype definitely plays a huge rule in the former whether people want to believe it or not.[QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]
ever consider cause and effect?
rabbid haters will bring out the worst in the fans of the series.
or it could be vice versa, you can't trace the beginning of that one.
and it's the same story for all fans of X series, that behaviour isn't exclusive to the Halo fanbase:|
-Snooze-
How is it "overhyped" Can a game be overhyped? Who gets to judge how much anticipation a game should have? Hopefully not you ...
Sure it can be is easy to spot,when you see some sites talking and making articles about Halo,and other games don't get the same cover in fact do you think that the New Super Mario game got the same kind of attention as Halo 3 did.?
not really but even if they did halo fanboys do take it to another level[QUOTE="1stPlaceWinner"]
[QUOTE="93soccer"] Every franchise's fanboys act that waysiddhu33
No, Really. Every franchise's fanboys act that way. Because they are FANBOYS.
Derp.
No actually Halo fanboys are something special for them no PS3 shooter is good,all are bad and all are generic,for example GT 4 was not as good as forza,i can admit that now a Halo fan would never admit that another shooter on PS3 is better than Halo 3,and some just run to hide on sales,and popularity because as we all know they are a perfect messuring way for quality.
not really but even if they did halo fanboys do take it to another level[QUOTE="1stPlaceWinner"]
[QUOTE="93soccer"] Every franchise's fanboys act that waysiddhu33
No, Really. Every franchise's fanboys act that way. Because they are FANBOYS.
Derp.
fanboy doesnt mean u think ur franchise is th best franchise ever invented[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
[QUOTE="FlamesOfGrey"] Again alot of big games are overrated from Halo 3 to Uncharted 2 however, this thread is about Sony FPS games and Halo. I mentioned the game being overhyped and he countered with it being overhated. Sony doesn't have any FPS games on Halos level of acclaim, sales or overhype. I listed the overhype part because well, hype definitely plays a huge rule in the former whether people want to believe it or not.Eltormo
How is it "overhyped" Can a game be overhyped? Who gets to judge how much anticipation a game should have? Hopefully not you ...
Sure it can be is easy to spot,when you see some sites talking and making articles about Halo,and other games don't get the same cover in fact do you think that the New Super Mario game got the same kind of attention as Halo 3 did.?
the audience who go to these websites are limited. This is why the wii and pc are largely ignored.im gonna say gt5, ill add an interesting twist on the subject by saying that this isnt just comparing fps's to fps's, im gonna compare the games based off of there effect on the system, with that said i see gt5 doing big things for the ps3 when it launches, its kinda a popular franchise from what ive heard :P
i enjoy killzone 2 than i do halo 3, so for me killzone is my halo for ps3
Chris_Williams
Lulz
[QUOTE="bigboss5ak"]There best bet would be versus 13 at this point. Sony has some of the worst franchises this genedo-tenseiGOTYS so far dissagree with you. Yeah when did Metal Gear Solid, Demon's Souls, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Killzone, inFAMOUS, God of War, LittleBigPlanet, and MLB The Show become bad franchises?
That's not an interesting twist considering about 10 people on the first page said the exact same thing :P.im gonna say gt5, ill add an interesting twist on the subject by saying that this isnt just comparing fps's to fps's, im gonna compare the games based off of there effect on the system, with that said i see gt5 doing big things for the ps3 when it launches, its kinda a popular franchise from what ive heard :P
linkin_guy109
What exactly to you mean by that? Are you talking sales, or top shooter? The answer to both is really nothing. There is no Halo for PS3. Halo seems to be the must-buy game for Xbox. It has been the flagship title since the beginning, and nothing but current COD games have ever truly rivaled it in sales. Playstation doesnt have that kind of title. PS1 and PS2 so dominated the market that just about any game worth playing was on the system. The result is a lot of titles that have huge fan bases rather than just one or two. GTA, Gran Turismo, MGS, platformer group (Ratchet/Jak and Daxter), FF, Socom, etc. all have huge fan bases. Now you can add LBP, Uncharted, COD, and yes Killzone to the mix. There just isnt one title that dominates the system, or ever has.What do you think is the PS3s Halo? Resistance? Killzone? Something else? Do you think it is better or worse then Halo?
swguy123
[QUOTE="Eltormo"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
How is it "overhyped" Can a game be overhyped? Who gets to judge how much anticipation a game should have? Hopefully not you ...
TerrorRizzing
Sure it can be is easy to spot,when you see some sites talking and making articles about Halo,and other games don't get the same cover in fact do you think that the New Super Mario game got the same kind of attention as Halo 3 did.?
the audience who go to these websites are limited. This is why the wii and pc are largely ignored. Ignored on these forums? Because in the real world the Wii and PC are the two most popular and most played systems this gen.[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]
i enjoy killzone 2 than i do halo 3, so for me killzone is my halo for ps3
Lulz
Why? I assume they're laughing at the strange logic. I like Mass Effect 2 more than Halo so it's my Halo on 360. I like Super Mario Galaxy 2 more than Halo so it's my Halo on Wii. I like Demon's Souls more than Halo so it's my Halo on PS3. See how ridiculous it sounds? Of course it's not exactly what they meant but it's what they wrote.[QUOTE="siddhu33"]
[QUOTE="1stPlaceWinner"] not really but even if they did halo fanboys do take it to another level
Eltormo
No, Really. Every franchise's fanboys act that way. Because they are FANBOYS.
Derp.
No actually Halo fanboys are something special for them no PS3 shooter is good,all are bad and all are generic,for example GT 4 was not as good as forza,i can admit that now a Halo fan would never admit that another shooter on PS3 is better than Halo 3,and some just run to hide on sales,and popularity because as we all know they are a perfect messuring way for quality.
when you think about it, it acutally is. M$ doesnt force ppl to buy their games and they certanly dont force ppl to CONTINUE playing it years after the release. if a game is lame and just not good then ppl will stop playing it no matter the hype or reviews. halo 2 had 20,000 ppl online b4 the xbox got shut down. that says alot.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment