If MGS4 is more successful in sales (which is the only way to calculate game market success - we'll leave profit calculation to the shareholders) than GeOW2, then it will be because of this one simple truth:

MGS4 will be multi-console, taking advantage of both Sony's and Microsoft's market share. The release will be time delayed, but will happen. Though I do agree that MGS4 will probably move more consoles for the PS3 than GeOW2 will for 360.

No offense to RFoM2, but Gears is in a completely different class of pop culture. Regardless of which game will be better, the impact RFoM made - at least in the United States - doesn't compare to the influence of Gears of War. I saw an online trading company's commercial mention Gears yesterday. You hear rappers, musicians, Hollywood types mention it occassionally.

This doesn't make it a better game. I loved Gears, but have never played Resistance so I can't speak to that. But it is safe to say that the two sequels are starting off in two different atmospheres of interest. It is safe to say Gears will build on the large pop culture interest it has going right now and thus reach a similar hype, but RFoM having achieved less market and cultural coverage will be starting from a need-to-build-interest strategy, unlike GeOW.

Hype = sales. Gears has it. Resistance doesn't.

Why must everything be reduced to the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument? I don't see where video game snobbery comes from. They're video games, for F's sake. Have some perspective.

Also, what is all this COD4 v Vegas nonsense? They're both as equally realistic as they are equally unrealistic. Again - video games. Perspective. I personally like both games. Sometimes I prefer one over the other, but I can't recall ever grabbing a soap box and shouting, "Cod4 is the bestest, blah, blah, blah."

Get over yourselves.

I agree with the exception of RPG. If you can get 40+ hours out of a Mass Effect, Oblivion or FF then the 60bucks is worth it when there isn't MP.

I'm sorry, but this one isn't even a close call. To that idiot who said FPS wasn't relevant before HALO, don't post again and go have your mom make you a snack pack.

Pre-Goldeneye there was Doom, Duke Nukem, Castle Wolfand Quake that were making waves on the FPS scene. An established scene on PC. N64 launched with the promise of GE, but the game was delayed. If anyone remembers buying one at launch like me, once you got through Mario 64 and Wave Race, all you did was stare at the images of GE on the back of the console's box.

Then Star Wars Shadows of the Empire came out for N64 adding to a growing FPS genre on N64. FPS was established on consoles. Finally GoldenEye was released with perfect graphics and more importantly, perfect multi-player. The game dominated, and while it didn't do much that was groundbreaking, it did bring the MP experience to the masses and make the game a cultural phenomenon. Anyone in college when it came out can attest to that. What it did was perfect a recipe that was already in existence.

Halo simply used the same recipe with higher quality ingredients. Without GE, there would be no Halo. And that is said with respect to Halo - it has become a cultural phenomenon as well.

I recently broke out my N64 and played GE again. Still holds up. Gameplay is great and the graphics, while aged, are still nice.

The rule of the developing community is that it is easier to port from the PS3 to the 360, but more difficult to develope for the PS3.

I'd link it but I'm not that interested.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="JediRiff"][QUOTE="elcoholic"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]I'm about 5 hours in and I'm extremely impressed by the quality and production values of this game. all of its technical issues are blown way out of proportion. like people searching to find flaws...because most wouldn't be noticed if someone didn't point it out.Dreams-Visions

I keep hearing that. I don't know if i should just call you a liar or if there's somehow a difference in how certain 360's run this game. I can guarantee you on my 360 the framerate is very unstable, especially in the citadel (stutters everytime you take a corner) and when there's alot of action it nearly halts. The texture popup is the wost I've ever seen on the 360, very noticable when you talk to the councel through the holographic projectors (the white lines on their clothes appear like a second too late. Its noticble in almost every cutscene. I can't understand how some people can say its barely noticable. I normally don't notice flaws pointed out by people (didn't see any in Gears for example) but this game is just filled to the brim with em.

I agree with Dreams-Visions, and I am already about 20 hours in on my second playthrough! I have yet to see these major technical issues people are talking about, and I have yet to get stuck anywhere that I had to go and reload.

I've experienced many issues, mostly during combat. It takes me out of the experience alot. Either you two are lying or don't let technical issues bother you :?. Almost every review have stated these problems.

Hmm...sorry to hear that. I'm simply not having significant issues. In fact, the only real issue i'm having right now is my accuracy with that sniper rifle. moves around so much...

I actually get the same severity of problems that elchoholic gets. Itdetracts a little from the game, but I'm still loving it. The story so far is amazing. Gameplay is great to, but I'm still trying to figure out how to be good at it. I'm not much of an RPG guy and I'm tempted to just run at enemies with gun blazing. I die a lot, by the way.

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]

I'm sure that the K&L review played it's part, but I believe it was more of a culmination of issues. As an attorney that has dealt with wrongful termination cases, we won't know anything possibly ever. What does seem the least likely is that GS and CNET let him go only because of an unfavorable review. I recall the pages of LAIR ads that covered their sites before and after the 4.5 review and video review.

But compare the video reviews of both games to each other. There are tonal differences that speak volumes. At the end of the day, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. We also don't know Jeff. He could be just as much a victim as he could be an employee that was getting too big for his boots.

The editorializing in the K&L review IMO went too far. You can say what is wrong with the game without getting personal. And while editorializing in a personal review is expected, I can see Jeff's style of review not jiving with GS's obvious attempt to standardize their review system.

ZIMdoom

As an attorney, surely you should know the difference between a company not taking any action (that we know of) due to a negative review, and a company that pulls (or threatens to pull)future advertising revenue because of a review.

In short, it wasn't the review that got Jeff in trouble. It was Eidos saying they will not advertise on GS and therefore GS would lose money. As far as anyone knows, no such claim was made by the people behind Lair.

As an attorney, I'm versed on my state's law and federal law - a business decision falls outside that relm. What I do know is that GS and CNet is a viable and important source for a publishing company to advertise to a specific audience that is substantial. I don't think Eidos is in a position to not advertise on GS or Cnet.

You're being very speculative on the facts, which admittedly are thin. And as to the review, I didn't take any offense to it - I have no vested interest in it. But I can see where someone who does, would. There is a big difference in telling an audience where a 6.0 game has its flaws and telling that audience not to buy the game.

I'm sure that the K&L review played it's part, but I believe it was more of a culmination of issues. As an attorney that has dealt with wrongful termination cases, we won't know anything possibly ever. What does seem the least likely is that GS and CNET let him go only because of an unfavorable review. I recall the pages of LAIR ads that covered their sites before and after the 4.5 review and video review.

But compare the video reviews of both games to each other. There are tonal differences that speak volumes. At the end of the day, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. We also don't know Jeff. He could be just as much a victim as he could be an employee that was getting too big for his boots.

The editorializing in the K&L review IMO went too far. You can say what is wrong with the game without getting personal. And while editorializing in a personal review is expected, I can see Jeff's style of review not jiving with GS's obvious attempt to standardize their review system.