Nay, because a remake of Combat Evolved is pointless. The game has aged better than most last gen games and it looks better than most PS2 exclusives. 343 Industries should expand and do something new instead of relying on Bungie's works. They should expand the Halo universe and revolutionize the Halo gameplay formula, not rehash it. Plus, Reach's engine isn't great. It certainly looks good, but it can't keep a steady framerate during cutscenes or moments of intense heated action. I'd rather have a HD re-release of Halo: CE and Halo 2, like Sony did with the God of War series.

Good games: Dead Space 2 and LittleBigPlanet 2.

[QUOTE="hippiesanta"]MGS4 is an ultra great game... the topic starter is only level 4 at this point i'm writing.... what do he knowthe-obiwan

Enigma, I said last gen.5, not just last gen. And I disagree, I had alot more fun with Reaches campaign regardless of if it seemed like firefight mode. 3's story was nonexistent, the ending was terrible, and it felt completely stale. Halo 3's campaign is one of the worst FPS campaigns I've played, right there with R2. The only thing memorable about 3 was the Scarab, which wasn't that amazing. Reach had a better story, better settings, and more memorable moments even if you consider them gimmicks, KZ2 on veteren beat them both.Deathtransit

I would go into more detail to explain why Reach's campaign was immensely lackluster, but I'll probably let this do it for me.

[QUOTE="TheEngima683"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Heres the thing though. Its your opinion. To me MGS4 is the second best MGS. Just cause you thought a certain game was a disapointment doesint mean they should drop it just for you. I found RE5 a disapointment. It just didint feel like a RE game. Thoug it was fun. Im not praying for the devs to drop the RE francise since I still like the series. RE5 disapointed me but whos to say the next will.

finalfantasy94

Well this is SW buddy. IMO is a keyword over here if not you come off as if your saying facts. So get ready to scream alot:D.

*gives in deep breaths*

Here's a list of games that have been unfairly hated-on:

• Splinter Cell: Conviction
• The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
• Grand Theft Auto IV
• Resident Evil 5 (It's a disappointment, but still a solid shooter)
• Treyarch's COD titles
• Fallout 3
• Every Halo game prior to Reach (Then again, Reach gets a lot of unfair bashing from haters claiming as "teh same gaem az gaylo 3! hur hur hur!!!")
• Final Fantasy XIII (I don't like it, but it isn't a horrible game)
• Every Command & Conquer Game that wasn't developed by WestWood, minus C&C4

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Gears2. It´s better than the first one in every single aspect and for some reason it gets alot more hate. Probably because is the exclusive one!

vashkey

Was hated on by alot when it first came out but it is genuinely a very good fun original concept.

Puckhog04

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/deathrow/review.html?mode=web&tag=scoresummary;critic-score

I would say Left 4 Dead 2, but Left 4 Dead had Francis. Therefore, making it the best co-op FPS of all time.

[QUOTE="TheEngima683"]

[QUOTE="soulitane"] Not really, you keep saying it's a bad game, them things don't make it a bad game.Deathtransit

Halo 3 actually had variety and craftsmenship placed into it's campaign, Reach's campaign felt like a six hour FireFight mode.

Visually, neither games looked spectacular. But to say Halo 3 looked like a las-gen game is a gross over-exaggeration. On 1080p, the game boasts hight quality bumped map texture work and impressive high-dynamic ranged lighting effects for it's time. Halo: Reach does look better, but the visuals suffered from occasional framerate issues. Whereas prior Halo titles, always ran at a smooth 30 frames per-second.