@texasgoldrush @pathosfire @mlcarter815 @Enforcer246 The illogical twists and turns are EVERYWHERE in the third game. It's not even having to do with the ending. SPOILER ALERT: once everyone knows that a super powerful enemy is coming to kill EVERYTHING.. they logically would have made temporary alliances in order to fight off the threat. ALL other issues would take a back seat. Therefore, it was completely ridiculous that Shepherd would bother helping Miranda with finding her sister, or that the Quarians and Geth would choose THEN to start a monster battle with other, etc. The story would have been much better if they had done something like this: Reapers send in a first attack wave. Everyone bands together and fights them off. Everyone thinks that the war is over and in that moment of chaos following the war, they try to take advantage of each other (aka, this is where it would make sense for the Geth to try to attack the Quarians or vice versa). After these side stories get wrapped up, the main attack wave comes in from the Reapers and then the end of the game unfolds from there.
The first game was good, second game was great, and I wish I didn't even play the third game. Now that I know how the story ends, it makes the outstanding ME2 less fun to play. I recommend to everyone who hasn't played these games yet, just play the first 2 campaigns, and then play the co-op in the third game. Don't ruin the replay value of the first games by seeing how they butcher the story in the third game.
The zombie coop could be fun again... Personally, I've become less and less interested in competitive multiplayer over the years. The competitiveness and ranking systems make the games more about achieving goals than they are about having fun with your friends. Back in the COD2 days, if you had a bad round, you almost never got trash talked by your teammates. Now, if you do well, you're labelled as a fat, nerdy hacker, and if you do poorly, you're a disgrace to your team and shouldn't even be playing the game. In short, everyone is taking gaming WAY too seriously these days.
wow.. I'm still looking forward to this game, but this just seems like 343 trying to get brownie points from the media.. is it coincidence that they make anti-sexist statements after the media made such a big deal out of the Aliens: Colonial Marines thing? and just a week before their game launches? I doubt it..
Halo games are good.. they don't need to 'buy' a good score they are just good games.. you have the right to dislike them, but if you are reviewing games, what are you going to rate? Voice acting, graphics, gun-play, story, length, etc. right? So for a shooter, it excels in every one of those categories (the story and length aren't Mass Effect 2 good, but they are definitely better than your typical "a terrorist has a nuke! kill him before he ends the western world as we know it!" story-lines).
Ram is cheap-> depending on your motherboard, you should be able to upgrade to at least 8GB for around $100.. however, the biggest factor on whether your game with run or not is your video card... the second biggest factor is your CPU..If you increase your ram, make sure your version of Win7 is 64-bit not 32-bit.
As always, make sure your computer matches or exceeds the requirements on the box before you buy games..
Basically, I didn't like the classic Slayer in Reach very much. Team Swat and Team Snipers with 3 buddies was really fun though and the weekly challenges for firefight and campaign added replay value. I'm concerned about the Halo4 ranking system because of the stat-altering unlocks (like CoD) as well as its connection with the co-op modes (Spartan Ops). I hated in Warhammer: Space Marine how you had to complete PVP challenges in order to unlock everything in the CO-OP. I hope you can rank up and unlock everything for Spartan Ops via the campaign if the multiplayer doesn't turn out to be your thing.
tushwacker's comments