surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Are you sitting down? I'll wait ... OK. Look what this Besides the obvious hypocrisy in this coming from EA I think these comments are totally valid. There is definitely enjoyment to be had from playing a game that follows a formula and perfects the existing elements, but I believe 5-10% of a game's score should be based on innovation which doesn't seem to be present in this game. That doesn't mean it can't get a 90 or 95 out of 100, but the reviews of the game I've seen are unusually high. Of course I also believe no game should be 100/100 because that means there will never be a better game, which we all know is impossible.
Now that I've actually played the game, I think its even more rubbish than I did before. It's Duck and Cover. Medal of Honor meets Metal Gear. the graphics are about what's to be expected. WHY I AM REALLY POSTING...
That's not IRONY! Look up the definition.
Irony is when a person says something and means something else. "You're a bright guy!"
Or when the audience percieves something the character doesn't know as in Hamlet.
Or when something ends up totally different than what was expected. This is what Alanis Morrisette tried to do in her song, but failed just slightly.
I know you probably spent most of school playing VIDEO GAMES. But come on, you put abig I LOVE IRONY thing over a hypocritical statement at best. There is nothing Ironic about this statement. WHat is ironic, is that you used the word ironic expecting it to mean something, when it fact it means something else.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/irony.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
That's not IRONY! Look up the definition.
Irony is when a person says something and means something else. "You're a bright guy!"
Or when the audience percieves something the character doesn't know as in Hamlet.
Or when something ends up totally different than what was expected. This is what Alanis Morrisette tried to do in her song, but failed just slightly.
I know you probably spent most of school playing VIDEO GAMES. But come on, you put abig I LOVE IRONY thing over a hypocritical statement at best. There is nothing Ironic about this statement. WHat is ironic, is that you used the word ironic expecting it to mean something, when it fact it means something else.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/irony.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
This guys a moron because he doesnt like Gears of War?
Well:
1. Its all for show, The Graphics are so uber, you know something will be lacking, that is :
2. Originality: " Lets make a game with the same camera of Resident Evil 4." " Cool" " Lets make it a shooter! " " Cool"
"Lets get some jumped up conceited asshole to hype it up."
3.Gameplay: Its an FPS. It wont be originial. Accept it. When it all boils down to it, You point and click, the target dies.
Gears of war is no doubt a good FPS. To call someone a moron cos he's from EA and doesnt like it , It looks like you should look in a mirror.
Well:
1. Its all for show, The Graphics are so uber, you know something will be lacking, that is :
2. Originality: " Lets make a game with the same camera of Resident Evil 4." " Cool" " Lets make it a shooter! " " Cool"
"Lets get some jumped up conceited asshole to hype it up."
3.Gameplay: Its an FPS. It wont be originial. Accept it. When it all boils down to it, You point and click, the target dies.
Gears of war is no doubt a good FPS. To call someone a moron cos he's from EA and doesnt like it , It looks like you should look in a mirror.
I don't understand why things need to be innovative anyways. A baseball player now is the same as he was 10 years ago. No one is complaining that baseball games is more of last years' games. Why do video games 'need' to continually be innovative. Sure, some can be, but I definitely love playing the same old. Like Team Fortress 2. I doubt anything new will come out of it, but it looks like it will be a source version of TFC. Which is perfect. Keep the same gameplay and style, and update the graphics and controls. Same game, new equipment.
Because univentive games are boring and a waste of time, You can just play the original, It was obviously good if it has a copycat game.
"No one is complaining that baseball games is more of last years' games."
False - I've heard this complaint a billion times. It is the biggest reason most people give when they talk about why sports games suck. I frequently read journalists rip into sports franchises for "repackaging the same game with updated stats."
I haven't played Gears, so I can't comment on whether or not the game is innovative, or whether or not the game has good graphics, for that matter. But it seems that every time someone challenges the "96/100" rating that Gears got, everyone jumps all over it without offering up a shred of a reason (outside of graphics) as to why it DID deserve it.
If you think the article is wrong, it must be for one of two reasons -- either you think graphics alone CAN catapult a game to a 96/100, or you think the game is more innovative than these reviewers admit. So if you're out there, Gears Defenders, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, I think graphics have been too big of a component of video games for too long now. I remember when FFVII came out for PS; my friend across the street was losing his mind over the Full Motion Videos throughout the game. Now, I'm not trying to say that FFVII is a BAD game -- I enjoyed playing it, and it WAS graphically pleasing (at the time). But I was finding it really hard to accept that he found the game worth playing essentially only because of the movies along the way, with the whopper for an ending. In the mean time, of course, you had a relatively linear game with a standard RPG interface packaging (outside of renaming the magic-bearing objects for the umpteenth time), where the special attacks that made up the bulk of later battles took 20 seconds to play out.
This has become way too long, but my point is that I personally am tired of "good graphics" becoming a good enough reason to add a video game to your library. If you want to watch something, watch a movie. I assure you the graphics will be amazing.
False - I've heard this complaint a billion times. It is the biggest reason most people give when they talk about why sports games suck. I frequently read journalists rip into sports franchises for "repackaging the same game with updated stats."
I haven't played Gears, so I can't comment on whether or not the game is innovative, or whether or not the game has good graphics, for that matter. But it seems that every time someone challenges the "96/100" rating that Gears got, everyone jumps all over it without offering up a shred of a reason (outside of graphics) as to why it DID deserve it.
If you think the article is wrong, it must be for one of two reasons -- either you think graphics alone CAN catapult a game to a 96/100, or you think the game is more innovative than these reviewers admit. So if you're out there, Gears Defenders, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, I think graphics have been too big of a component of video games for too long now. I remember when FFVII came out for PS; my friend across the street was losing his mind over the Full Motion Videos throughout the game. Now, I'm not trying to say that FFVII is a BAD game -- I enjoyed playing it, and it WAS graphically pleasing (at the time). But I was finding it really hard to accept that he found the game worth playing essentially only because of the movies along the way, with the whopper for an ending. In the mean time, of course, you had a relatively linear game with a standard RPG interface packaging (outside of renaming the magic-bearing objects for the umpteenth time), where the special attacks that made up the bulk of later battles took 20 seconds to play out.
This has become way too long, but my point is that I personally am tired of "good graphics" becoming a good enough reason to add a video game to your library. If you want to watch something, watch a movie. I assure you the graphics will be amazing.
When do we get paragraphs back? Do we have to add our own tags now? Let's see...
<br><br>
Did this work?
<br><br>
Hope so.
<br><br>
Did this work?
<br><br>
Hope so.
The fact that he works for a shitty uninnovative company doesn't mean he's not entitled to an opinion of his own :)
@kam
judging by your comments, i'm convinced that you've never even played gears of war. i think you're just a bullheaded socially inept loser fanboy. moreover, i think you're a complete idiot. hell, even in the information in the wiki link conflicts with the information you stated.
here's the definition of irony one last time, just one more chance for it to sink in:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/irony
want irony? how about some guy comes on a gaming news blog, points out that the journalist posting used irony in the wrong context, gives only an incomplete definition of irony, then states that the act in and of itself was indeed ironic, all the while being wrong himself the entire time. i could go on, but you're not worth it.
except you're saying,"the graphics are about what's to be expected."
if you were expecting the best looking game released thusfar in the history of the world, then yea. or maybe it's the fact that GoW/unreal engine 3 media has been trickling for two years now, so of course it was expected. the game is beautiful. anyone not impressed with it shouldn't be playing videogames...and should probably be euthanized as well. that is a totally objective statement, too. show me something better. i defy you to.
judging by your comments, i'm convinced that you've never even played gears of war. i think you're just a bullheaded socially inept loser fanboy. moreover, i think you're a complete idiot. hell, even in the information in the wiki link conflicts with the information you stated.
here's the definition of irony one last time, just one more chance for it to sink in:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/irony
want irony? how about some guy comes on a gaming news blog, points out that the journalist posting used irony in the wrong context, gives only an incomplete definition of irony, then states that the act in and of itself was indeed ironic, all the while being wrong himself the entire time. i could go on, but you're not worth it.
except you're saying,"the graphics are about what's to be expected."
if you were expecting the best looking game released thusfar in the history of the world, then yea. or maybe it's the fact that GoW/unreal engine 3 media has been trickling for two years now, so of course it was expected. the game is beautiful. anyone not impressed with it shouldn't be playing videogames...and should probably be euthanized as well. that is a totally objective statement, too. show me something better. i defy you to.
GoW has the same typical storyline that most shooters have. You are a good guy, you shoot the bad guys, and you win. The last time I checked that's all I was looking for when I picked up a game and wanted to pump some baddies full of bullets. Gears plays flawlessly, looks amazing, and keeps you playing for hours. I find it inovative beause it doesn't crash constatly and and run like crap. Okay EA, let's say you have better story lines in your games. Oh yeah BF2...oh wait, not there. Battle for Middle Earth 2, oh way, that story was written over 50 years ago. Ugh, EA must be Sony's life partner.
follow
