[QUOTE="Citan_Uzuki"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"][QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"]

Like I said.

Ultimate ninja spy. How fun. More like retarded. A game can be fun without having to be totally outlandish.

usmcjdk6

first off, what?

second off its a god damned game....if anything so outlandishshould be enjoyed it should be unrealistic games you crack head

I, like most people, am not a scientologist.

I, like most people, do not like totally bewildering story lines about aliens named Xenu and what not.

I, like most people, see a connection between MGS and Scientology.

I, like most people, am not easily duped into buying this crap.

What???????? I'm sorry but MGS has nothing to do with scieentology if anything it talks about the effects of war and human nature, the connections of nature vs nuture and our environment versus our genetics. exactly how do you see a connection between scientology and MGS cause there is none if you had played the games you would know this.You are not as smart as you think as evidenced by your poorly constructed first argument against the game as well as you outlandish/retarded response about it being a tool for scientology.

The connection isn't in story. The connection is how it is presented to people in the same fashion. MGS fans act like this game is the truth.

No, this game sucks. The only reason MGS is good, is that it proves there is some good weed out there because Kojima is the one smoking this stuff into fruition.

exactly what are yoiu saying you haven't had anything resembling a decent argument against the games except you don't like how the fans really like the games then go on to say kojima is smoking weed. Also your scientology connection still makes no sense maybe if you actually explained how they are similarily presented otherwise you arguments make as much sense as me saying well halo series is actually a ripoff of Einsteins law of conservation of energy cause they both have energy (actually my argument makes more sense cause I actually stated something they share in common as stuipid as the comparison was)

[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"][QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"][QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"]

Like I said.

Ultimate ninja spy. How fun. More like retarded. A game can be fun without having to be totally outlandish.

Synthetic_NinJI

first off, what?

second off its a god damned game....if anything so outlandishshould be enjoyed it should be unrealistic games you crack head

I, like most people, am not a scientologist.

I, like most people, do not like totally bewildering story lines about aliens named Xenu and what not.

I, like most people, see a connection between MGS and Scientology.

I, like most people, am not easily duped into buying this crap.

you do know most people of the world dont play video games so your right....secondly theres nothing in common between scientology and MGS a series that has sold (mgs1 sold 6 million mgs2 sold 7 million and mgs3 sold around 4 million) so thats 17 million people that have at one time bought one of the games....how many people do you think will buy this game?....and why?.....thats right BECAUSE ITS A FUN GAME, your opinion means very very little to the people who will buy this game....and enjoy it for what it is.....a game

Sure it's a fun game. Ninja Gaiden is a fun game.

But it's story is GARBAGE. And fanboys hyping it's story as greatness need to just crack open a science fiction novel.

lol tell that to the halo series.....everyone knows thats absolute garbage......so what were you saying?

People play Halo because it is a fun game.

People play Half Life because it is a fun game.

You play MGS because of its anime oriented story-line, which indeed is trash.

Oh come on the story is a bit over the top and even a bit pretentious but they are well constructred and have interesting albeit unrealistic characters. Also MGS gameplay is fun I mean some of the best boss battles ever plus the interactive environement where you use your surrounings to outwit or use against your foes. It may not be your preference and thats fine, you opinion is your opinion at least you have a valid opinion unlike the "genius" who thinks MGS is scientology brainwashing tool.

[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="usmcjdk6"]

Like I said.

Ultimate ninja spy. How fun. More like retarded. A game can be fun without having to be totally outlandish.

usmcjdk6

first off, what?

second off its a god damned game....if anything so outlandishshould be enjoyed it should be unrealistic games you crack head

I, like most people, am not a scientologist.

I, like most people, do not like totally bewildering story lines about aliens named Xenu and what not.

I, like most people, see a connection between MGS and Scientology.

I, like most people, am not easily duped into buying this crap.

What???????? I'm sorry but MGS has nothing to do with scieentology if anything it talks about the effects of war and human nature, the connections of nature vs nuture and our environment versus our genetics. exactly how do you see a connection between scientology and MGS cause there is none if you had played the games you would know this.You are not as smart as you think as evidenced by your poorly constructed first argument against the game as well as you outlandish/retarded response about it being a tool for scientology.

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

Uh, no according to them they did it cause it's cheaper.

Jaysonguy

Sorry to make you have to choose a new arguing point but please read this headline

You can read the whole article HERE

Learn to read, you whole topic has been twisting words. He says "doesn't lower costs much" but it does still lower costs hence the new cheaper price point they are still taking a loss either way but saving a few dollors here and there. Yes they are trying to push more software but to say it isn't part of the reasoning is ignorance of the facts to cater to your argument.

Your topics whoel argument is essetially nitpicking about what random exec said and has no real arguments for or against the ps3 or its new sku or price point but simply a "he lied" meaning you shouldn't buy a ps3 as if its some sort of moral issue. The fact is execs from all 3 companies BS and exaggerrate all the time, they lie or change stances based on what their respective companies business plans are. Didn't reggiue at one point say that nintendo was taking online seriously even though the wii is clearly defficient of any real online setup and something abuot mario strikers being the best multiplayer experience on consoles or something. IT is BS and if you base you arguments for or against a system based on what execs say and not your game prefrences you are being completely illogical.

[QUOTE="Citan_Uzuki"]

The orginal quote said "Backwards capatability ......is a core value we believe we should OFFER"They still offer it so the TC is technically wrong on this one.

Jaysonguy

Sorry, no

They said offer as in ALL versions. They went out of their way to show that all of their versions could play older games. Until this one of course.

Now they do not.

Actually you are now putting words in their mouth, they may have implied but never actually said that but I am simply stating that going by the statements they still offer BC so the losing core values thing is technically wrong. If the quote had said offer in every ps3 then yes you would be right but from a strict wording of the quote you are wrong whether they implied it or not. Find another quote that states every ps3 and I will agree with you. Still it doesn't mean the 40 gig ps3 and dorpping of price for the 80 gig were bad business decisions and that is ultimately what it comes down to

[QUOTE="nicenator"]

Is this just like Microsoft didn't need HDMI for the full HD experience?

Stop acting like Sony are the only ones that do this. Jaysonguy

Who said you can't call Microsoft on that?

Also why is it that you want to deflect the problem instead of addressing it?

Sony was still releasing games for the PS2 after the PS3 launch. What Sony is telling PS3 customers is that nothing in the PS2 library is worth playing.

actually they aren't saying that at all. remember the ps2 has sold over 100 million worldwide and is still selling at a decent pace(I believe MS and nintendo are the ones who feel the GC and xbox have nothing as they have stopped supporting those systems completely which sony hasn't done with the ps2). Sony are giving people the option to get a cheaper ps3 so they can play the new ps3 games, people who are content to play ps2 games will not buy a ps3 for backwards compatability because they most likely have a ps2. Also of note is they dropped the price of the 80 gig so to make it less expensive for those who do want BD in their ps3. The fact is if you have bought a ps2 in the last 2-3 years it makes sense to buy a cheaper ps3 to save some money as the ps2 they have should be able to last another 5-6 years(I still have my ps2 I bought just after launch here in jan 2001 and its still plays all the games I own). I don't have a ps3 and was planning on buying the 40gig when the rumours were going around but now that they have dropped the 80 gig I will proabably get that seeing as I know my ps2 won't last forever.

As for the actual post the two quotes are not totally contradicting each other they still do offer BC in the 80 gig but now they are saying that it is a secondary consideration because the do want to push ps3 software which is totally unerstandable if the had removed the BC from all units then you could say they are losing their core values. They still offer it but it is now a choice instead of a standar feature. The orginal quote said "Backwards capatability ......is a core value we believe we should OFFER"They still offer it so the TC is technically wrong on this one.

[QUOTE="comstrikeiscool"]To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA.
anotherhaloguy1

He has a right to make this thread halo 3 scored just as well in other places he isn't talking about any specific review (althopugh I can't speak for him it may be about halo3 doesn't mean we can't give our opinion on GS reviews. Read my response as to what I feel about the reviews here on GS. if you don't want to read it I'll summarize the reviews are okay here and still better than most but were far better before the new system which sucks because reviewers do not have categories to justify their score and seems to have thrown any consistancy right out the window..

I think most veteran users of GS would agree the new system plain sucks the .5 system is too leanient/harsh depending on the game because of the lack of flexibility. Also those little stupid icon/acheivement things in the review just scream super casual "ohh look we have a text review, score and now little trophies we are so cool" most of the time the things are totally lame and random and should be obvious if you read the review its like they don't want you to read the review. I still love the forums here and the reviews themselves are still alright although lately I have found ign reviews much better they may give out retarded scores sometimes but the reviews are usually very in depth an really give you a great idea of what the game is about.

Ever since Greg Kasavin left I have not found one reviewer here on gamespot that I cant agree with consistantly so the reviews here have definately fallen in my book they are still better than most but the inconsistancy has really killed it for me. I mean Greg was one of the harshest reviewers ever but was always fair across the board in terms of consistancy now on GS the effort just doens't seem to be there and seems more about what mood the reviewer was in that day and if the old system was in place it wouldn't be so noticable but now seems like if the reviewer was in a bad mood the game gets score .5-1.0 point lower or vice versa if he is in a good mood. The old reviews had categories that actually had to justify a review not just an arbitrary number that the reviewer felt like putting in there once he wrote up his review.

You cannot sit there and actually tell me with a straight face that Uncharted looks better than Crysis.

jethrovegas

hey I agree with you crysis looks alot better than uncharted but its a PC game the standars are different because its fixed versus constanly changing hardware. That being said it would be nice to post a more recent pic of drake that is not a blurry scan just to be fair.

I've watched several videos, and it looks like nothing more than Tomb Raider with a guy. Only it'll probably be half as long as the Tomb Raider games.

Remember, this is Naughty Dog. The makers of the awful "Way of the Warrior". Don't expect much.

Number_1_Gamer

what about the jak and daxter series I duno if you are joking around or not but wasn't way of the warrior like their first game and on 3do maybe I'm thinking of a different game.

Anyway this TC is obviously a fake boy trying to hype the game up to AAA status only to come in here with a differnt acount if it doesn't score AAA and use this thread as evidence of the crazy cows hyping anopther game that flopped.

Unchartered isn't taking gaming to new heights but could bring the aventure genre to new heights I am excited about the games animation system and blending the exploration with solid combat in most games in this genre its usually great combat or great platforming/puzzle elements only to have the couterpart be a letdown (the combat or platforming/puzzle elemnents). The graphics are great and contrary to what the above poster is trying to imply naughty dog has developed into one of the best consoles devs out there. This game is going to be good and if it wasn't for the fact that GS seems to lately handicap games for lack of multiplayer I would say it has a solid chance at scoreing AAA here which it still may if the game hits everything right but don't expect more than 9.0 cause like I said GS automatically knocks off points for lack of multiplayer whether its fair or not, or at least that my conclusion from some recent reviews(bioshock)