One you are leveled up properly, do cave/ruin runs and you will get GREAT items from Necros, Vampires or Daedra. Also, you get a lot of killer items/perks from doing the Daedric Shrine quests.
Who even avoids people based on rep? Not only have I never seen anyone with less than 3 stars (isn't that default? shouldn't you be able to go lower than avarage?) but I'd would never say to myself, "Gee that young man has a 2 star rating. Thatmeanseither we willnot getting along or he will try to taint my experience on Xbox Live; I'd better avoid him ..."
Contact Netflix instead of asking on an Xbox forum. If you already have a Netflix account simply have him cancel his trial membership within the 2 week period. Also, he would have had to add some kind of credit/debit account or checking account, if he did NOT cancel that account would be charged, not the account associated with your Xbox Live membership, unless they are one and the same. Nevertheless, contact Netflix.
thats what i dont get. if you dont get any thing for gs then why even bother trying to get gs? I'm not saying that i'd avoid an acheivment its just that i dont understand those people who just care about acheivments and not the game itself, like i know people who buy games strictly to get points. i mean...get a life
Supertramp20
If you don't care about GS then that's perfectly fine. I have been guilty of caring more about points than the game itself *cough* avatar *cough*. What I don't get is that you don't seem to understand or share in the competitive spirit. That ALONE fuels most people to get their score ever-higher. Yes, easy achievements somewhat detract from this point but even that is part and parcel to the competition - everyone can do the easy ones, but who can do the hardest ones? I STILL don't have the Mile High Club achievement, but some of my friends do, so it compels me to continue to try to get that one instead of just giving up in frustration (and PLEASE no conceited comments about how "easy" that achievement was to get ... if it was easy to get everyone who played COD4 would have it).
Your comment about how people like me who strive to add to their GS should get a life is an easy dismissal but I am sure people who work hard, play hard and live hard probably have more going on than you think.
You get a sense of personal pride knowing that persistent onlineevidence exists of some of your funnest and most challenging gaming moments, or some of your most embarrassing games played.
I rarely get freezes, though it will happen to everyone from time to time. If you have already tried cleaning the drive and your CD ain't scratched I would consider getting a newer one. Unfortunately Xboxs are not the most durable consoles. If you have a 1st gener it sounds like you got a lot out of it.
You COULD turn it in for repairs but it's expensive and if you pay double the repair cost you can have a new Jasper-chipped Box that should last longer than your first.
As far as I am concerned GOW1 will always be overpriced. I really didn't like the game - the cover system was TOO sticky, it didn't have enough weapons, multi suckedand the story was diluted. However, GOW2 improved upon each and every one of these flaws. If continuity of a story is important to you GOW1 should be played first but I would suggest renting that one ... or e-bay an OK but not great copy for cheaper.
Def. get Gears 2 though.
4dry4n
Uhm they didn't make any improvements from the 1st game. Actually most people think that Gears 1 campaign was a lot better than 2. If Gears 1 had HORDE mode I would get it over 2.
How do you figure? The cover system is easier to use in 2. At least IMO 'cuz in 1 I would be running past some ruin and suddely just suck up to it. It got downright frustrating. That rarely happened to me in 2. Also, they added more weapons in 2. Multi got better with different modes, more gernades, the ability to smack 'em into walls (the gernades, that is) and turn them into prox. mines, meat shields and chainsaw duels. The story being vague and diluted in the first is a subjective opinion but I think it's obvious there is more meat to the story in 2. Not to mention the graphics are better the environments are bigger and there is more variety to the levels.
If most ppl think GOW1 campaign was a lot better than 2I think most ppl don't know what they are talking about.
As I read the topic I felt the need to point out Oblivion, but I see your aware of that one. That would be the closest to Zelda, even though Oblivion is 10X bigger, longer and more serious. I too LOVE the Zelda series but unfortunately was very disappointed with Twilight Princess. Umm, if you liked Wind Waker a lot (for me it was second only to Ocarina) you might like Eternal Sonata. Or Star Ocean.
Nothing quite has that unique blend of RPG, hack & slash and platformer that Zelda excels at though.
As far as I am concerned GOW1 will always be overpriced. I really didn't like the game - the cover system was TOO sticky, it didn't have enough weapons, multi suckedand the story was diluted. However, GOW2 improved upon each and every one of these flaws. If continuity of a story is important to you GOW1 should be played first but I would suggest renting that one ... or e-bay an OK but not great copy for cheaper.
Log in to comment