I can see your beef with the Wii, but the DS has a great game library.

And here's a newsflash: gaming doesn't exist so you can have fun. Consoles don't exist to make you happy. They exist to make money, which is exactly what Nintendo is doing. They're doing it in a different way, but at the end of the day theyhave the same goal as anyone else.

Gotta be kidding me...9.5!?

It seems like my uncle wants to get Halo 3 and all these reviews would make him want to get it even more so I guess I'd get it for free. However, the single player better be AAA material before I start screaming "OVERRATED! GS IS TEH BIASED! BLASPHEMY!" I was disappointed by Halo 2's single player and I don't play online multiplayer games.

In the meantime, I'll be reading the GS review.

Technoweirdo

Good luck. I find it hard to read a GameSpot review, since they're not written all that well and tend to be on the boring side. That goes for most game reviews, though.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]Just because it outscored MP3..You haven't even played Halo3 yet.foxhound_fox

Yeah, I noticed that, too. They seem to be going out of their way to be different, lately.

this is true but my comment still stands. WiC probably won't beAAA on the 360. I mean, look at Swordfish Studio's past games... That list makes me laugh...

Rugby Challenge 2006, World Championship Rugby and Cold Winter...

That's a sad list and hoping that they will pull off an RTS game well is seriously wishful thinking.

horrowhip

But have they ever really tried an RTS game? Making a bad game in one genre doesn't mean they can't make a good game in another.

Wait a second.... So different standards apply to the 360 when a AAA game like World in Conflict is going to get ported to the 360.WiC 360 made by a different developer(Swordfish Studios... Previous games include Rugby Challenge 2006, World Championship Rugby and Cold Winter... :lol: ).... Lemmings can't say WiC will automatically be AAA because not only will it be coming out mid-late 2008(nearly a year after the PC version), but its made by much worse devs. Also, RTS games are never all that good on the 360(they can be OK, but honestly they are never great).

horrowhip

Let's put it this way: when you're talking about a certain game that's been ported's score, are you going to use the version that got the lower score or the higher score? If you don't want to look like a fanboy in the discussion, you're going to use the higher-scoring version. If we're talking about Splinter Cell: Double Agent, why would we use the half-assed Gamecube port rather than the 360 or Xbox version?

They had three years, hell even in 2004 it looked lousy compared to the stuff coming out on the pc, if they could put online in the PC version of Halo, I don't see any reason they couldn't improve Halo 2. mikemil828

Neither do I. But I still stand by what I said before: Bungie wasn't the one who ported the game. Another game studio worked on it, consulting with the original developers as not to completely botch the final product like so many ports.

And the port itself was announced on Feb. 9. 2006. That's not exactly three years of working on a game, is it?

Fine then..

NorfairCon :)

jechtshot78

I see what you did there! :evil:

Which worked closely with the guys at Bungie, if Bungie really cared about having a completely flawless record series they would probably have put more effort into helping the team make a decent product for todays standards, if gamespot didn't have too many qualms about a two year old port of Halo, I don't see why they would with a 3 year old port of Halo 2. mikemil828

It's a port, not a remake.