Skipping school for a video game is dumb. Just ask the taxpayers in your district.

Skipping work for a video game is awesome, because work blows.

Topic. I find the games so unrewarding, it really is just a combination of buttons during gameplay, and there is really no control over where the game is going. Some people say Guitar Hero is innovative,but I believe it's just a lazy developer getting tons of money because they monopolised a new market. It makes me feel discouraged about "next gen" technology when a collection of songs that allow you to press buttons to get the priviledge of hearing the whole thing through could actually be well received, and be sold to many people at a premium price over other games.

I appreciate thinking outside the box, so I look at Mass Effect, BioShock, and Assassins Creed. But seeing people listen to songs while mashing buttons with little to no rewards in terms of gameplay...makes me feel...poor almost.

Im not here to troll, Im here to find people who share my OPINION.

kevint1818

You make it sound like GH is the equivalent of opening up WMP and just clicking play. Thing is, GH is popular for the same reason the Wii is: it's interactive. I mean Christ, if you've never played air guitar while listening to a great song, there's something wrong with you. GH is like playing air guitar, except it's closer to the real thing. And you have to admit, it's never really been done before.

You actually sound like the nine year old dude.. To get YOUR facts straight, Halo 2 did actually break a sales record. It was the most money made in one day for entertainment sales.

dreamscott

I don't see how I sound like a nine year old any more so than anyone else in these forums, or you, for that matter. I at least paid a little bit of attention to grammar conventions. And I seriously doubt nine year olds are capable of forming complex arguments and supporting them with evidence.

You might want to reread my post. I didn't mention anything about sales made in one day. I was talking about total units sold, as people were using the justification of popularity to define Halo's value, as here:

I said it was one of the best games of all time and its sales certainly reflect that...Clinton015

Actually while he didn't put it very elequently he is exactly right. Halo 1 and 2 are two of the best games ever made period. Your opinion is irrelavant. Comparing the Halo series to The Dukes of Hazzard is like comparing sushi to dog ****. People like you are the same kind of people who hate bands they used to love, just because they become successful. The Halo series is amazing and it will continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars.Nothing you or yourelitist friends do or say will change that.

z3dd1cu5

In fact, almost all of the support for Halo contains a couple hidden premises, along the lines of

1. Popularity reflects a game's value

2. Halo is popular

Perhaps you misunderstood. Maybe you should read a post twice before replying, or just don't bring up irrelevant subjects in an argument, it makes you look ignorant.

You guys do know that opinions can't possibly be wrong because they're subjective, right? It's ok if I don't think Halo is that great for whatever reason, I'm entitled to my opinion. It's ok if you think Halo is great for whatever reason, you're entitled to your opinion.

Some of you need to get your facts straight, though. Beliefs should be based on evidence; if you base your beliefs on anything else, you're being irrational. It took me a whole 30 seconds to find a Wikipedia list of best-selling video games, and according to it, the entire Halo franchise has sold roughly 14,000,000 copies. Compare that to Super Mario Bros. 3's 18,000,000. Halo is not the best selling game of all time (according to that list it's Pokemon...I know Wikipedia isn't infallible, but those statistics are probably fairly accurate).

To those saying Halo was a "revolution" as far as gameplay goes, what exactly is your evidence of that? Compare it to, say, Half-Life. Fundamentally every shooter is the same game, what differentiates them is their style. Thus, to me, Halo was solely about HOW the game delivered, not WHAT it delivered. Halo did style very well. I just don't think the same style three times over is that compelling.

And for the love of all things holy, at least try to use some punctuation and grammar. I'm pretty sure nine year olds can type better than some of you.

facetious (adj) -

1: joking or jesting often inappropriately
2: meant to be humorous or funny : not serious

Both are just reiterations of stale gameplay being regurgitated by developers hungry for a buck.

Save your money and buy Mass Effect in November.

Crackdown was fun. For 6 hours. Thus I would categorize it as a bad investment, not a bad game. Overlord, on the other hand, was 20 hours of repetitive crap. Madden 07 absolutely blew, and the Darkness was a good story wrapped in forgettable FPS packaging with gimmicky powers.

Worst....Overlord. I'm bitter about that lost $60.

e;s

The 360 is much better bang for your buck than say $300-$500 worth of PC hardware. The 360 will still be able to play video games just fine in 2010 when it's cycle is up; can't say the same for $300-$500 worth of PC hardware bought in 2005.

Also, Mass Effect is a planned trilogy. The Force Unleashed looks pretty awesome, and it looks like it's console exclusive. Aside from these two, there are excellent racing games on the 360 (Forza 2, etc) and sports games. I don't know of any platformers coming out.

But seriously. GTA IV. Enough said.

Just because there's no chainsaw bayonet doesn't mean Bioshock is boring.

But at any rate, did anyone ever look down in the Bioshock demo and turn completely around? Floating disembodied head and arms syndrome. Also, it was apparently a big point about using the environment against your enemies (which seems gimicky to me, as the only thing I've heard mentioned was zapping enemies in water and burning enemies with oil slicks). Why don't enemies use the environment against you, or at least to their own advantage?

This game strikes me as one that demands to be played, but not necessarily owned.