I hated the combat and I hated how scripted it was when they promised otherwise, but you can't rate games on expectations. It has the best storytelling in an FPS ever, it's really immersive and it pretty much sets the bar for digital characters. It probably scored a little bit higher than it deserved just because of all the hype, but it's not the first game in history to do so *cough* halo-series *cough*. I don't think it's "overrated" though, it's really polished and excellent in most ways. And I hate Valve.kyrieee
There were two major problems the game had.
1. The story was way different in feel, and the game less scary, but especially, it wasnt tense at all.
2. The game was too easy on all settings, and the weapons were terrible except for the gravity gun.
It has been called the best game of all time. It has gotten AAA rank in almost every review publication. But does anyone else think it should have scored much lower of an average? I do, but Im curious as to what you people think. And why?
Jesus.....lets end the whole PC-360-multiplat-standards argument.
This game is great and it would be just as great had it been released on the PC or the 360.
Ninja-Vox
Hermits are trying to troll the game..simple..cant admit the 360 has GOTY candidate and possible Crysis killer :shock:
The beauty of it is I have a high end PC and a 360 so no matter what. I WIN... :lol:
World In Conflict- PC Version
Halo 3- 360 version.
Mass Effect- 360 version.
I have a new PC still in the box. I cant wait for Crysis. My intention was to set it up the day it comes out, but i might open it up early for World in Conflict.
Log in to comment