BioShit 2 or more of the same crap made even worse

Anyone who says this has a good writing obviously never played original System Shock games. Andrew Ryan, and other gorilla guy (I don't recall his name) are rubbish/cheap villains compared to Shodan.
 
Barnz said:
Anyone who says this has a good writing obviously never played original System Shock games. Andrew Ryan, and other gorilla guy (I don't recall his name) are rubbish/cheap villains compared to Shodan.
Click to expand...

That is because Andrew Ryan is not a villain.
 
villain or not, he's a shitty character - dr. breen wannabe
 
Barnz said:
Anyone who says this has a good writing obviously never played original System Shock games. Andrew Ryan, and other gorilla guy (I don't recall his name) are rubbish/cheap villains compared to Shodan.
Click to expand...

First rule of articulate criticism is to operate within the confines of the subject at hand, not to extend beyond it. That this book, that film or those painting are so much 'better' than the one under discussion doesn't really fit the rule.

Why something works or not, should be apparent within itself.
 
bioshock is described as a spiritual sequel to system shock games, therefore system shock games are part of this subject - same devs, same style, different setting - bioshock isn't even trying to be system shock, it's a wannabe shooter. it's one big step backward for gaming industry. pay for hype, and get a terrible game. I honestly don't know where to start criticize game from, because whole thing simple does not work: combat, useless plasmids, respawning, enemies, and exploring. yeah, rapture is cool - it's well designed, but I didn't pay for a graphics show.
 
Barnz said:
I honestly don't know where to start criticize game from, because whole thing simple does not work: combat, useless plasmids, respawning, enemies, and exploring. yeah, rapture is cool - it's well designed, but I didn't pay for a graphics show.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this falls under the category "bad game design". Are they the same people who made SS? I agree on the fact that Bioshock felt like an unbalanced shooter set in a beautiful environment. And, let's face it, story telling through recordings has become old and stale.
 
I didn't realize there was so much elitist hatred towards this game. When I played it a couple of years ago, I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and I thought what they did with the narrative was quite revolutionary. Maybe I'm wrong about the revolutionary part, but I never saw a game before that admitted to the metaphysical idea that you, the player, are actually submitting yourself unquestionably to the game's narrative ("A man chooses, a slave obeys"). That was very postmodern of 2K Games to do for such a mainstream game, and I applaud them for that.

As for the gameplay, I found it to be pretty good. The end boss was a disappointment, as it was for many, but I had a lot of fun with all the weapons and plasmids.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone's opinion, because this is all subjective, despite what the SS fans are saying. I'm only justifying my own stance on why the game is good and not mediocre.

That's all.
 
Captain M4d said:
When I played it a couple of years ago, I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and I thought what they did with the narrative was quite revolutionary. Maybe I'm wrong about the revolutionary part, but I never saw a game before that admitted to the metaphysical idea that you, the player, are actually submitting yourself unquestionably to the game's narrative ("A man chooses, a slave obeys").
Click to expand...

And yet instead of following up on that idea, you go from being forced to murder you own father, into obeying the very next person to look in your direction, just as you'd done from the beginning.
 
It's not so much that I hated Bioshock, I was just very disappointed. The game had a few great aspects with the rest falling far short - this is even ignoring how it failed to live up to the title of "spiritual successor to system shock" which naturally had people's expectations very high.
Bioshock was an alright game but came nowhere near to its potential.
 
:bonce: : "Meh, I don't like this game. Oh well."
:imu: : "This was one of the most memorable gaming experiences I've ever had!"
:bonce: : "What?! How can your opinion differ from mine?! It's SHIT! Bioshock? more like Bio-SHIT!!! Look, I can prove it by pointing out stuff that won't change your opinion because it didn't bother you as much as me, which only proves that I'm more ninja and have higher standards than you, even though those standards are entierly subjective, therefore I am right and you're wrong and GRAGHGH" :flame:
:imu: : :|

(serious post: I really liked the atmosphere and loved exploring and understanding the world in the original, hope the second one delivers on that as well :) )
 
Barnz said:
It's never really been a spiritual sequel to System Shock games. It's simply a dumbed down action game for consoles with useless weapons/powerups. There's absolutely no replay value, or a reason to go back. You should see youngsters talk how good it is, and how it is better than Half-Life when it comes to storytelling.

I also like how it's reusing System Shock story, and most of its elements, which makes me feel ripped off for paying for this piece of shit. Atlas/Fountain character is a cheap/dumb clone of Shodan. Simply put, this game doesn't even worth ten bucks. Bioshock 2 is also doomed to fail.

tl;dr: Bioshock is a piece of shit.



Get lost, kid. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Hi.

Go **** yourself.

jverne said:
it was the same with BS1. seen videos and i was like "what the hell is this shit?", played the game "this truly is shit".
Click to expand...

Then why do you even give a shit, bro.
 
I'll admit the gameplay isn't up to much in bioshock but bioshock excels more is its presentation and story telling which is really the primary reason for playing it. In that sense I felt it was a success.

And seriously is the biggest complaint against the first game the fact that it is a copy of something good? Doesn't that mean it would be good too? :)
 
It was a greatly inferior copy of something great, which was 'alright' overall and hit the level of its predecessor in a few aspects. A disappointment.
 
If you were disappointed with Bioshock, that's fair. I was as well, even though I still thoroughly enjoyed it. And I think 2K set themselves up to get shot in the foot with the whole "spiritual successor" talk. But let's be perfectly frank here. Most of the people who play games these days, let alone Bioshock, do not know or even want to know what System Shock was. Drop it. Nobody cares about some underdog classic on the PC from a decade ago.

It is ****ing tiring to venture into any Bioshock topic and read nothing but "SS FOR RETARD TEENS" and "GRRR CASUAL BULLSHIT", or perhaps the even greater offense: That Andrew Ryan is a shitty character. I paid thirty dollars for a used copy and never had a single regret over it because I was too busy enjoying nearly every single aspect of it, even when it faltered.

Again, differences of opinion. But I think the ire it receives is disproportionate to how much it actually ****ed up, and some of you are frankly obnoxious.
 
Absinthe said:
If you were disappointed with Bioshock, that's fair. I was as well, even though I still thoroughly enjoyed it. And I think 2K set themselves up to get shot in the foot with the whole "spiritual successor" talk. But let's be perfectly frank here. Most of the people who play games these days, let alone Bioshock, do not know or even want to know what System Shock was. Drop it. Nobody cares about some underdog classic on the PC from a decade ago.

It is ****ing tiring to venture into any Bioshock topic and read nothing but "SS FOR RETARD TEENS" and "GRRR CASUAL BULLSHIT", or perhaps the even greater offense: That Andrew Ryan is a shitty character. I paid thirty dollars for a used copy and never had a single regret over it because I was too busy enjoying nearly every single aspect of it, even when it faltered.

Again, differences of opinion. But I think the ire it receives is disproportionate to how much it actually ****ed up, and some of you are frankly obnoxious.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that praising a mediocre game because you're too ignorant to know where it got its best ideas is the appropriate course of action?
 
Yorick said:
So your argument is that praising a mediocre game because you're too ignorant to know where it got its best ideas is the appropriate course of action?
Click to expand...

He's saying it's annoying that people keep piping on about how they think Bioshock is inferior to SS2, and then get annoyed when other people enjoy Bioshock because they didn't play SS2 and don't share the same inflated, nostalgic memories of it. It's obviously because they're historically ignorant and stupid, and the only logical course of action is to dismiss them with scorn, mistrust and derision, rather than to accept that everything we're talking about here is completely subjective and that a person's like or dislike of a game is no more valid or invalid than anyone else's.

But of course they don't do that, because that would require a certain degree of humility in the face of others.
 
Yorick said:
And yet instead of following up on that idea, you go from being forced to murder you own father, into obeying the very next person to look in your direction, just as you'd done from the beginning.
Click to expand...
And?

I don't follow what you're tying to get at.
 
Yorick said:
So your argument is that praising a mediocre game because you're too ignorant to know where it got its best ideas is the appropriate course of action?
Click to expand...

I'm praising it because I enjoyed it for the experience it offered. And even if it's not the big, badass evolution of System Shock people wanted it to be, it was fun and engaging enough in its own right. You think that if people don't have some reference point in SS2 then they're clueless. I personally don't judge the meat of my games according to the scales of other titles.

It's like saying O Brother Where Art Thou? is a shit film because it doesn't capture the entirety of Homer's Odyssey, and that it's even more shit if you're not familiar with the epic poem O Brother is based on.

But hey, what would I know. I've only been playing games for over the last ****ing decade of my life. Clearly I never correctly assessed the quality of Bioshock via a checklist comparison with System Shock as I should have.
 
I played ten minutes of SS2.

I liked Bioshock.

I do not want Bioshock 2 to be the same damn areas over again, even if it is 'spiced up' a little.

Honestly, how much farther can they go? Big sister? COME ON. THAT'S A RIDICULOUS IDEA.
 
Captain M4d said:
I didn't realize there was so much elitist hatred towards this game.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "elitist hatred". I didn't like the game. I stopped playing before finishing it. Great story and art. Bad gameplay. In my opinion.
 
Absinthe said:
Hi.

Go **** yourself.
Click to expand...

lol little kids who never played classics like ss games, and deus ex - just leave, kiddo

"Kekeke ^_____________^ BIOSOK IS DA GREATEST GAEM STORYZ IS AWSUM!!!"

enjoy your next-gen monster closets, f a g g o t

Absinthe said:
do not know or even want to know what System Shock was. Drop it. Nobody cares about some underdog classic on the PC from a decade ago.
Click to expand...

[some shitty image here.jpg]

seriously, what's the big deal about this game? I can't see myself reinstalling it to play it again - yes, it's that bad. what will people do when 2K release another cheap (dumbed down) SS2 clone set in somewhere else? I bet they'll go like "wow biocock was superior, this game is trying to copy it grrrr" - mark my words, because it's going to happen one day.
 
Barnz said:
bioshock is described as a spiritual sequel to system shock games, therefore system shock games are part of this subject - same devs, same style, different setting - bioshock isn't even trying to be system shock, it's a wannabe shooter. it's one big step backward for gaming industry. pay for hype, and get a terrible game. I honestly don't know where to start criticize game from, because whole thing simple does not work: combat, useless plasmids, respawning, enemies, and exploring. yeah, rapture is cool - it's well designed, but I didn't pay for a graphics show.
Click to expand...

This idea of Bioshock being the spiritual successor to System shock was something concocted by the 2K marketing team and sold at every preview as a way to garner interest in the project. Certainly Ken Levine worked on System Shock 2, but he had no involvement in System Shock 1, this idea of legacy is overplayed (I suspect the vast majority of developers on the project only played system shock 2 Vs made it). Certainly the games share some mechanistic features (the audio diaries principally), but that is really all they share, so criticism through comparison is a bad place to start. Bioshock is not a re imagining of something in the way that the recent series of BSG was a re imagining of the original TV series, or Tomb raider Anniversary was a re imagining of the original Tomb raider game.

I find it funny that you claim (in bold) you don't know where to begin, then start listing things that didn't work for you personally, followed by what did. All criticism is, is making a list of good and bad points and articulating (providing a clear justification as to) why they fall into which camp individually. For example: -

There seemed a degree of grandeur to the introductory flythrough & dialogue that was at odds with the actual scope of the environments, which on the whole were relatively pokey spaces, and didn't seem to conform to this idea of underwater skyscrapers. I was expecting there to be a lot more verticality to the games environments (not necessarily an easy thing to make fun in a game without acrobatics admittedly). If you show me a Bus then I expect to walk through the door and encounter a Bus sized interior, not that of a reliant Robin.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTnZu0mOSko&feature=related

It's all well and good saying something like 'not as good as System Shock 1 or 2' but frankly it's probably fair to say that the vast majority of people reading this thread might not have played either. So running to such comparisons is relatively pointless most of the time, as it doesn't convey useful information that other people can easily access to understand your position.
 
It's also quite easy to gloss over the failings of a game like System Shock with a rose tinted fervor. We do it all the time from our high horses - bigging up Fallout, Planescape, Deus Ex (Deus Ex had truly dire combat!) - remembering the good and forgetting the shit bits. The issue isn't that Bioshock is a bad game, it just isn't a spiritual successor to System Shock and wasn't the 'PC' game most people here wanted. I wanted a tiny font, more stat fiddling, a proper inventory and the need to conserve resources. More strategy and less twitch to the combat. Mouse acceleration that could be turned off! Bioshock disappoints because in our mind's eye it should have all the elements we remember being great about Sytem Shock and doesn't.

Not a bad action/rpg though ;)
 
I think it's pretty funny that people are assuming that anyone who remarks System Shock 2 is superior to Bioshock is remembering it rather than recently playing it. Half-Life 2 is 5 years old, how many people around here do you think still routinely play it?

Bioshock isn't a good game because it isn't a good game. It has nothing to do with the System Shock series. Realistically, Dead Space is more of a spiritual successor to the System Shock games than Bioshock was. The comparisons are there because some gameplay aspects are similar. Yes, Bioshock pales in comparison to System Shock, Deus Ex, or Half-Life 2, but even standing on its own, it really isn't a great game.
 
HL2 does not look or play as dated as Sytem Shock 2 and holds up considerably better by today's standards.

//edit

not really sure what point i'm trying to make there :)
 
Barnz said:
lol little kids who never played classics like ss games, and deus ex - just leave, kiddo

"Kekeke ^_____________^ BIOSOK IS DA GREATEST GAEM STORYZ IS AWSUM!!!"

enjoy your next-gen monster closets, f a g g o t
Click to expand...

lol im contributing to the deth of this industry and hopefully you'll kill yourself as a result of it!

<3 ngr
 
Yorick said:
I think it's pretty funny that people are assuming that anyone who remarks System Shock 2 is superior to Bioshock is remembering it rather than recently playing it. Half-Life 2 is 5 years old, how many people around here do you think still routinely play it?

Bioshock isn't a good game because it isn't a good game. It has nothing to do with the System Shock series. Realistically, Dead Space is more of a spiritual successor to the System Shock games than Bioshock was. The comparisons are there because some gameplay aspects are similar. Yes, Bioshock pales in comparison to System Shock, Deus Ex, or Half-Life 2, but even standing on its own, it really isn't a great game.
Click to expand...

Yorrick, nostalgia colours everything we do in the present. If you were to play SS2 today without having played beforehand, you'd likely be wondering what all the fuss is about (just like people who were late to the party with Deus Ex, Halo etc.) and would probably have little regard for it (the best you could hope for is an understanding of the influence it had on more modern games). So no, you can't just say "Bioshock is a bad game because it's a bad game", because that says absolutely nothing beyond "my opinion is absolute, and if you disagree then you're wrong".

I would imagine a more accurate statement would be "I didn't like Bioshock, because I was expecting it to be System Shock 2++ and was dissapointed that it was not that game." That's fine, but it should not have to reflect badly on people who weren't expecting System Shock 2++ and still liked it (or even those who were expecting System Shock 2++, but liked it in spite of their expectations).
 
Yorick said:
Bioshock isn't a good game because it isn't a good game. It has nothing to do with the System Shock series. Realistically, Dead Space is more of a spiritual successor to the System Shock games than Bioshock was
Click to expand...

I really got to try Dead Space.

Warbie said:
HL2 does not look or play as dated as Sytem Shock 2 and holds up considerably better by today's standards.
Click to expand...

SS2 isn't dated either.

Absinthe said:
lol im contributing to the deth of this industry and hopefully you'll kill yourself as a result of it!
Click to expand...

Just give up, go play Crysis. It's a more suitable game for people like you.

Back on topic, I know - some people ask "why compare it with SS2?" - well, the answer is: some parts were identical to SS2: bio garden area, market area, shops, etc. - especially bio garden area - I thought I was playing SS2, but whatever. it's trying to be like SS2 all the times.

it's like deus ex 2's case - maybe it's not about bioshock not up standarts set by games like half-life/ss2/deus ex, it's about how bad gameplay mechanics are. okay, so what? what's so wrong about console style games? well, I don't like when a game threats me like I'm a ****ing dumbass. go do this, go do that - kill the big diver guy. blablabla...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMiqDqkWn8
 
KagePrototype said:
Yorrick, nostalgia colours everything we do in the present. If you were to play SS2 today without having played beforehand, you'd likely be wondering what all the fuss is about (just like people who were late to the party with Deus Ex, Halo etc.) and would probably have little regard for it (the best you could hope for is an understanding of the influence it had on more modern games). So no, you can't just say "Bioshock is a bad game because it's a bad game", because that says absolutely nothing beyond "my opinion is absolute, and if you disagree then you're wrong".

I would imagine a more accurate statement would be "I didn't like Bioshock, because I was expecting it to be System Shock 2++ and was dissapointed that it was not that game." That's fine, but it should not have to reflect badly on people who weren't expecting System Shock 2++ and still liked it (or even those who were expecting System Shock 2++, but liked it in spite of their expectations).
Click to expand...

It's Yorick. And I do not agree with you.

And I don't mean that Bioshock is a bad game because it's a bad game, that's pretty circular. I should have been more clear. What I meant is that Bioshock is an okay game, independent of its relationship to System Shock. It's a mediocre game all on its own, for lots of reasons.

There's a lot of good about Bioshock, especially when it comes to atmosphere, but I found that the gameplay got old very very quick, and the story just felt a bit ridiculous / terrible. As I mentioned earlier on (or possibly in another thread), it really bothers me that the game sets up for this fantastic paradigm shift where you're told not to be a slave anymore, not to obey others, and then turn around and fall for the same thing.
 
KagePrototype said:
I would imagine a more accurate statement would be "I didn't like Bioshock, because I was expecting it to be System Shock 2++ and was dissapointed that it was not that game." That's fine, but it should not have to reflect badly on people who weren't expecting System Shock 2++ and still liked it (or even those who were expecting System Shock 2++, but liked it in spite of their expectations).
Click to expand...

I just expect games to be better than what's come before. I expect them to build on the strengths of what's been done by the development team previously. I expect them to shore up the weaknesses that became apparent when those old titles reached market and I also expect them to acknowledge the good work other developers have and done and capitalise on them in terms of ideas.

Bioware are a good example of a developer who takes this approach. ME2 from what's been seen is quite clearly going to be a deeper, richer experience than ME1.

Part of me feels that 2K made the same mistake that Ion Storm did with DX:IW in that they went down the Unreal Engine route, which profound as it can be in the graphical stakes tends to throttle development because it's so demanding in terms of processing power. You can only do grandiose in it if you strip out everything else, esp AI entities. Thus in DX:IW you had the joys of pretty dynamic shadows & pointless Havok physics coupled with near empty environments attempting to woefully pass themselves off as teeming Cities. With Bioshock you have a near empty City reduced to tiny hubs woefully out of scale with the fallen grandeur the storyline really demands. It's all rather sordid really. Fair play though, it starts off well.
 
Kadayi said:
There seemed a degree of grandeur to the introductory flythrough & dialogue that was at odds with the actual scope of the environments, which on the whole were relatively pokey spaces, and didn't seem to conform to this idea of underwater skyscrapers. I was expecting there to be a lot more verticality to the games environments (not necessarily an easy thing to make fun in a game without acrobatics admittedly). If you show me a Bus then I expect to walk through the door and encounter a Bus sized interior, not that of a reliant Robin.
Click to expand...
I had this same feeling about the scope Rapture tried to display. Never once did any of the levels felt like I was inside a huge underwater skyscraper. The relatively cramped environments felt more like the player was always in much smaller buildings other than underwater skyscrapers.

If you think about it though, there are plenty of other games guilty of portraying a false sense of scope too. In all Ratchet & Clank games for example, none of the larger buildings in any of the levels where you could actually go inside felt like the scope/scale was proportional. Also, in every GTA game, not every single room in every single building can be explored. I think it has more to do with hardware limitations and production times tbh. Not to mention the whole development process would need an overhaul to something more revolutionary to make something as believable and accurate as say, the Matrix like you guys seem to be wanting.

It helped me to stop being nitpicky and just start enjoying games for what they are. Merely games. I do agree with many of Bioshock's gameplay flaws though that you and others have claimed, and so true everything you said about Deus Ex:IW.
 
Barnz said:
Just give up, go play Crysis. It's a more suitable game for people like you.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I:

1) Never played System Shock 2.
2) Adore the endless parade of uninspired shooters post-Halo.

You're wrong on both counts. The difference between you and I is that while I can appreciate many of Bioshock'ss merits and perfectly serviceable gameplay even if it didn't live up to its hype, you're just a jerkoff.

But yeah, I'm gonna go buy Crysis right now, along with Timeshift and Haze. I'll purchase a dozen copies of Invisible War and feed from Oblivion's endless trough of simple-for-the-masses offerings. All of this to ensure that the industry continues steering in a way to appeal to us commonfolk plebs and scorns gamers such as yourself. Congratulations, sir. Enjoy the future of gaming! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

SS2 isn't dated either.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, wow. Oh wow, buddy. This is really just too good. Not only are you a prick, but you've spent so much time up your own asshole imbibing the fruits of your distorted nostalgia that you've become a ****ing moron as well.
SS2 is dated. It was a great game for its time, but nobody today would give it two looks in the bargain bin, and that's not because everybody's stupid as you would like to believe. The game concepts in SS2 are certainly still strong and worth advancing upon, but the actual game itself is a relic of PC shooters from back in the day. Get real.
 
Bioshock was excellent. I played through it upon release, and once more about a year later. Both times I found myself caught up in the atmosphere and more than satisfied with the gameplay. Obviously it has flaws much like anything else, but a few here are not giving credit where it is due.
 
yMoving-Along-2.jpg
 
Just because Bioshock was highly overrated doesn't mean it was a bad game.

Yes, some of us actually enjoyed it. :O

I never had high expectations for Bioshock nor any nostalgia attachment to SS2 because I never played it. My opinion might be different though if I had but frankly, I don't give a shit about SS2. Never even heard of it before joining HL2.net. The reason being is that I can't stand playing old 3D games as they just look plain terrible. If it was an old 2D top-down game like the Sega Genesis Shadowrun or an isometric game like Fallout then maybe. Just my own pet peeve.
 
Saturos said:
I had this same feeling about the scope Rapture tried to display. Never once did any of the levels felt like I was inside a huge underwater skyscraper. The relatively cramped environments felt more like the player was always in much smaller buildings other than underwater skyscrapers.

If you think about it though, there are plenty of other games guilty of portraying a false sense of scope too. In all Ratchet & Clank games for example, none of the larger buildings in any of the levels where you could actually go inside felt like the scope/scale was proportional. Also, in every GTA game, not every single room in every single building can be explored. I think it has more to do with hardware limitations and production times tbh. Not to mention the whole development process would need an overhaul to something more revolutionary to make something as believable and accurate as say, the Matrix like you guys seem to be wanting.

It helped me to stop being nitpicky and just start enjoying games for what they are. Merely games. I do agree with many of Bioshock's gameplay flaws though that you and others have claimed, and so true everything you said about Deus Ex:IW.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is asking for the impossible in terms of delivery. But a lesser game engine like Source or X-ray (the stalker engine) would probably have offered them up a lot more bang for the buck in terms of environmental scope and AI possibility, with only a slight hit to visual richness.

Captain M4d said:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread is killing me. I think Britany Murphy died after reading this..
Click to expand...

From the above you've made two things clear. Firstly you don't actually know what pretentious means, secondly you're not a person whose opinion really counts for much. GJ. Welcome to ignore :dozey:
 
Kadayi said:
I don't think anyone is asking for the impossible in terms of delivery. But a lesser game engine like Source or X-ray (the stalker engine) would probably have offered them up a lot more bang for the buck in terms of environmental scope and AI possibility, with only a slight hit to visual richness.
Click to expand...
The graphics and atmosphere was one of Bioshock's major selling points. There's no doubt the game was beautiful, but one thing about it's graphics and ambience bothered me.
Early on in the game, the areas were so detailed down to every last doorknob, every room was rife with Art-Deco culture, and everything just looked almost like it was designed by hand, but later on it's like the devs either got lazy or started rushing through the design process as most of the venues started getting more and more bland with copy-pasted textures. It was then that Bioshock just felt like a generic FPS/RPG hyrbrid. I only kept playing to finish the story. Also, that suspense that the player had at the beginning, the atmosphere, those feelings...all those creepy noises and scenes and such seemed to go by the wayside after a while too.

Sometime after the hyrdoponics garden, it just seemed like they lost heart and just wanted to hurry up and finish. Know what I mean?
 
Kadayi said:
From the above you've made two things clear. Firstly you don't actually know what pretentious means, secondly you're not a person whose opinion really counts for much. GJ. Welcome to ignore :dozey:
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about you, for one, and

pretentiousness: Boastful self-importance or display
Click to expand...
 
@Saturos

I hear what you are saying. I think that these are the issues that developing for closed system like the 360 forces onto developers as well though. The lack of HD & the disc licensing really puts the screws on developers when it comes to sound, texture & assets. I think if it had been a PC only title things might have been different in that regard.

@Captain M4d

So let me get this right, you've wandered into the conversation called everyone kunts, but you didn't really mean everyone? Also who exactly is boasting? People are discussing a game and offering up their reasons why they like or dislike a game. No ones claiming they could do better, though some of us are feeling the developers might have made a better game if they'd done things differently (IE a missed opportunity). This a gaming forum, for gaming enthusiasts. I'd of said it's exactly the right place to express an opinion, no? :dozey:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top