[QUOTE="actionquake"]

And Transformers the movie is better than Gone with the Wind, which had crappy black and white graphics and scores zero for special effects and the chick in it isn't even hot. You are right explosions and headshots and hot chicks and story by committee have heralded a new age of enlightenment with ever better movies, games, novels and TV shows.

Sarcasm aside there are some amazing things being done in computer games in the present day, but the best of the older games are still amazing. Without the massive amounts of memory and graphical power developers really had to work hard on that ethereal concept of gameplay (plus they had more time to spend on it) which is what still separates a great game from a good one.

tidus222

the difference is games of old didnt have stories, voice acting, great soundtracks realistic graphics, or in depth gameplay...

movies can be compared cause the only real difference is CGI....

But voice acting, great soundtracks, realistic graphics are not requirements of an amazing game. Stories aren't even a neccesity (anyone know if Tetris has a story?), and I don't know what in depth gameplay actually means (complex controls?). Maybe the difference for older gamers is that for them a game does not have to be as close to an interactive movie as possible.

And if you want to talk story, for pure story telling, the best of the old text based adventures beat anything that is out today just as a good novel beats the story of any movie. A lot of point and click games also had excellent storylines.

And Transformers the movie is better than Gone with the Wind, which had crappy black and white graphics and scores zero for special effects and the chick in it isn't even hot. You are right explosions and headshots and hot chicks and story by committee have heralded a new age of enlightenment with ever better movies, games, novels and TV shows.

Sarcasm aside there are some amazing things being done in computer games in the present day, but the best of the older games are still amazing. Without the massive amounts of memory and graphical power developers really had to work hard on that ethereal concept of gameplay (plus they had more time to spend on it) which is what still separates a great game from a good one.

[QUOTE="Brettheman12"]Somehow I just don't see Microsoft's flagship title flopping.Eggheadz

metroid floped and next is halo.....

it seems if ur not doin something totally new with current gen fps.....ur gonna flop

I doubt Halo will flop. Gamespot is in the business of making money, and they are not gonna piss off the majority of their customers by giving Halo below a 9. But, given the Bioshock score, it is unlikely that Halo 3 will get above a 9.0 either.

This is the stupidest thread I think I have ever read on system wars, except for some of the PS3_FTW threads. If you have 200+ good games on a system no amount of bad games can detract from this. Thats like saying you won't go to see movies like the Bourne Ultimatum because Norbit was produced in the same medium. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

I haven't played boogie but seems like a stupid game.Tuky06

My wife and I bought Boogie and I thought it was actually pretty good, at least a lot better than some reviews have made out. I have to admit though that the main source of humor was making videos with my atrocious singing which I guess could be replicated with a tape recorder and a microphone but still it was definitely fun for more than 3 minutes. The dancing is relatively enjoyable as well, and the presentation is good. The only part that I hated was the lack of voice acting for the characters in single player. The cutscenes become really annoying to the point where we skipped past them thus missing whatever lame storyline they came up with.

[QUOTE="anasbouzid"]

two, judging without sufficient knowledge....is called ignorance.....by the way

jetthrovegas

Can reviews not give me sufficient knowledge? I do not have the time/money to play every game. A GR ranking is a good indicator of a games quality.

Reviews, the actual text and not just the score, can give you a lot of information as to whether YOU personally should buy a game as you know what you like. If a review says how amazing a game is due to its open ended sand box elements and you hate open ended sandbox games then that might tell you not to buy the game even though it is a major factor in the game getting a positive review and score.

Excellent post. I think what most people want from games (in general) is a movie level of realism. People in real life are not really able to run and shoot two sub machine guns simultaneously with excellent accuracy. In real life hiding behind a desk or a thin wall or door is not gonna protect you from assault rifle bullets. Real life physics are good up until a point, but would we be really pleased with the physics if our character just dropped dead for no apparent reason because of a random ricochet from a firefight at the opposite side of a level. Realistic AI is a good thing up until a point, but too realistic and games would be imposibly hard, all those 4 against 1 situations would result in instant death. Plus the best AI would use the annoying tricks that real people use in games, like bunnyhopping etc. Would COD4 be as immersive if the enemy soldiers were all bunny hopping across the levels. As far as graphics, for games that are supposed to represent real life, the closer to reality the better, although the most important thing is to avoid glitches, I don't care how good the textures are if you see a tank stuck five feet off the ground (happened to me in a Medal of Honor game) any feeling of 'being there' is gone. Plus there is no real mechanism to interact with your environment to the full extent that you can in real life so there is always going to be a certain level of disconnect.