Ratchet and Clank Attacks Xbox Weak Point for Massive Damage
jimmy...@gmail.com
Clank has recieved near-perfect scores from a wide variety of gaming
publications. Coming on the heels of Microsoft's gigantic warranty
extention of flawed, broken, defective Xbox 360 consoles, R&C is a
blow that Xbots will not soon recover from. Indeed, R&C could be the
game that puts the nail in the Xbox 360 coffin.
Compare Xbox 360 so-called "AAA exclusives" to PS3 bona fide AAA
exclusives. The Xbox 360 AAA list is short and contains only bland,
boring FPS games. Meanwhile PS3 has a wide variety of AAA titles from
an amazing racing game (Motorstorm) to an innovative action game
(Heavenly Sword) to the best multiplayer title ever released on any
console (Warhawk) to an amazing FPS (RFoM). Adding R&C to that list
means that PS3 now dominates Xbox 360 in every possible measure.
Bottom line: There's no reason to buy an Xbox 360 anymore. PS3 is
better hardware, has better games and had a wider variety of games.
It's over Xbots, you lose.
Jonah Falcon
Um, no. I'm too busy playing Team Fortress 2 and Halo 3 to care about
a 10 hour kiddie game.
boodybandit
<jimmy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Why must you swat the hornets nest?
The PS3 gets a much needed AAA title and you have to entice more
mudslinging?
Have you even played the game?
I have a lil theory that all trolls aren't actually gamers but attention
seeking assholes.
Am I right?
Jonah Falcon
>
> - Show quoted text -
360.
boodybandit
After seeing elrous, jordan and RMZ's latest lil attacks I take it back.
Carry on.
Jonah Falcon
> <jimmylab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ratchet & Clank is a AAA title?
Rene Garcia
> better hardware, has better games and had a wider variety of games.
> It's over Xbots, you lose.
>
Too bad for you that you already purchased a 360..... right?
So does that make you an xbot and, according to your logic, a loser as well?
NiGHTS
Not according to Gamespot (latest instalment anyway) but your dismissal
of it as a "kiddie game" was amusingly ignorant.
--
NiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo]
Fear Is The Mindkiller
"just a curtain jerking jobber here in RSPWland" -Lord Gow
"a laughably shitty shitbag" -The Teacher
"pretty pathetic" -rwa2play
"a sarcastic douchebag" -Cain
"NiGHTS is gay!!!" -Corey
mordacp...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Jonah Falcon wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 3:06 pm, "boodybandit" <allaboutga...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> <jimmylab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Why must you swat the hornets nest?
> >> The PS3 gets a much needed AAA title and you have to entice more
> >> mudslinging?
>
> >> Have you even played the game?
> >> I have a lil theory that all trolls aren't actually gamers but attention
> >> seeking assholes.
> >> Am I right?
>
> > Ratchet & Clank is a AAA title?
>
> Not according to Gamespot (latest instalment anyway)
> but your dismissal of it as a "kiddie game" was amusingly ignorant.
It's a common complaint by people who have played the game if you read
gamer web sites.
But I guess you'd consider them ignorant as well.
Doug Jacobs
> <jimmy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Why must you swat the hornets nest?
'Cause he doesn't know how to do anything else.
> The PS3 gets a much needed AAA title and you have to entice more
> mudslinging?
Eh, it was expected, no? All this llort knows how to do is spin
everything as a "crushing defeat" for the 360, while being a "decisive
victory!" for the PS3.
> Have you even played the game?
> I have a lil theory that all trolls aren't actually gamers but attention
> seeking assholes.
> Am I right?
I doubt they can afford the objects of their undying affection. Even
then, the games probably wouldn't look at that great on their old 13" B&W
TV.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> Clank has recieved near-perfect scores from a wide variety of gaming
> publications.
How exactly is that a "defeat?" Good scores or not, it will be lucky
to sell 500,000 copies in its first month. Is that supposed to
intimidate MS, in the wake of the Halo 3 juggernaut?
> R&C is a
> blow that Xbots will not soon recover from.
Actually, most "xbots" don't even know it exists, much less give a
rat's ass.
> Indeed, R&C could be the
> game that puts the nail in the Xbox 360 coffin.
Yes, everyone is just going to forget that the 360 just had a game
that sold 3.3 million copies in 12 days and shattered every sales
record known to man.
> Bottom line: There's no reason to buy an Xbox 360 anymore. PS3 is
> better hardware, has better games and had a wider variety of games.
> It's over Xbots, you lose.
To bad Sony execs can't live in your world. I bet they would be a lot
happier there.
-Eric
slaye...@hotmail.com
> Yes, everyone is just going to forget that the 360 just had a game
> that sold 3.3 million copies in 12 days and shattered every sales
> record known to man.
Actually, Burning Crusade sold about 2.4 million the first day, and
rose to almost 3.9 million within the month, so shattered isn't really
the right word.
Jonah Falcon
And you think Halo 3 sales will suddenly stop?
boodybandit
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1193339471.5...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Well about every bit as much as Bioshock or Halo 3, especially Halo 3 since
it's just another in the series and no better than the ones before it.
But than you already knew all of this you were just being your usually smug
immature self. Mommy pick up your copy of Ratcher yet?
Jonah Falcon
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Um, no. Not "every bit as much" as Bioshock or Halo 3. If Ratchet &
Clank were a 360 title, do you HONESTY believe it would be a huge
seller? Would it be on the cover of OXM?
Please, stop trying to label every PS3 game as a "AAA" title out of
desperation.
Mark Johnson
He wasn't trying to label every game. He said R&C is a AAA game and it
is. Most sites giving it a 10/10 or late 9's is in my mind a AAA
Jonah Falcon
>
> - Show quoted text -
AAA titles are about sales and popularity. System Shock 2 got rave
reviews universally, and didn't sell a box.
Ratchet & Clank = Banjo Kazooie. No more, no less.
JoJo#1MSFanboy
jimmy...@gmail.com says...
Project Gotham 4(86.1%), Forza 2(89.8%), Gears of War(93.8%), Halo 3(93%), Ace
Combat 6(83%), Bioshock(95.3%), Dead Rising(85%), Mass Effect(97.5%), Blue
Dragon(77%), Viva Pinata(84.6%..lol...higher score on Gamerankings than
Heavenly Sword, Lost Planet(79.6%), Kameo(81%), Project Gotham 3(88.4%), Dead
or Alive 4(86%).... what was that about games? Muwhahahahhahahahha!
boodybandit
Awe. Look at how cute he is when he is mad and desperate!
Don't be scared whil man. I mean after all, Ratchet is a kids game so you
shouldn't fear it.
It's a kids game.
Ratings don't mean shit (coming from a guy that post nearly every positive
review to validate his opinion good or bad).
I go around touting every game on the PS3 as AAA? LOL!
Man you're a riot.
Listen up there Jonah, only MS fanboys don't see Ratchet as AAA.
It's a kids game. Won't stop Mario from being AAA as it never has in the
past.
Keep shoveling those scared shitless excuses that only you and other
fanboys cling to sweety.
R&C is AAA. Deal with it!
JoJo#1MSFanboy
>He wasn't trying to label every game. He said R&C is a AAA game and it
>is. Most sites giving it a 10/10 or late 9's is in my mind a AAA
Ummm... yes he was. He keeps trying to pass off Heavenly Sword, Warhawk and
Motorstorm as triple A titles and they are far from it. I liked the R&C demo
but I'm not spending $60 on it and its not my kind of game theme wise. I'll
wait until it hits around $20 or $30. Warhawk is a rip off when you consider
it has no single player game.
Mark Johnson
Oh I could say that about Halo and Bioshock, nothing more than generic
FPS. Wolfenstein (1st one) and Doom are still the forerunners for FPS games.
We will see how is sells when it hits the UK and Europe as well ;)
Mark Johnson
How is Warhawk a rip off, its real cheap to download and 32 player
games, Halo3 struggles to do 16 player games and with it being sooo
fucking gimped in the MP department. I would call Halo 3 the biggest
over hyped rip off in the history of console gaming, got to be the worse
game I've ever brought. Apart from Halo 3 and maybe Mass effect, what
system AAA game sellers has the 360 got coming out the rest of this year
and next? I can tell you NONE!!! R&C is a system selling game and will
do when it arrives here in the UK/Europe, all my sons friends are buying
the 40gb PS3 next week to play that game alone.
Gran Turismo is coming soon for the PS3 and that is a massive system
seller over here too.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> Xbots have once again suffered a devastating........
.....trolling from a loser? I'd like to see you take some "massive
damage" on your "weak spot"......which may or may not be the metal
plate installed in your head after the lobotomy didn't take.
Big Daddy
"JoJo#1MSFanboy" <Jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5aaUi.4924$E92....@newsfe23.lga...
> In article <ffr9v2$22v3$1...@energise.enta.net>, mark-j...@freeola.com
> says...
>
>>He wasn't trying to label every game. He said R&C is a AAA game and it
>>is. Most sites giving it a 10/10 or late 9's is in my mind a AAA
>
> Ummm... yes he was. He keeps trying to pass off Heavenly Sword, Warhawk
> and
> Motorstorm as triple A titles and they are far from it.
I didn't like Heavenly sword demo and it's fairly short, so I'm sure I'll
just rent it. Motorstorm was fun for a while but got boring to me before
too long.
Warkhawk is absolutely AAA in my mind. I haven't played online multiplayer
for more than 5 minutes since Doom and I play Warhawk nearly every single
day and I'm not bored of it yet. It's one of the funnest game I've played
in years (and I own a PS2/xbox/PS3/PC).
Tom
"Mark Johnson" <mark-j...@freeola.com> wrote in message
news:ffr9v2$22v3$1...@energise.enta.net...
I thought a AAA title was something that scores 9 or higher on average,
sells very well in software sales that also pushes system sales. Anyway,
R&C can't count as that yet anyway, sales numbers won't be available for
another week. I mean Ninja Gaiden Sigma had one hell of a score, but didn't
sell shit here in the US (over 161k sold since release on July 3rd), and
quite a few sites gave it raves reviews.
Just to add incase anyone says NGS fell below the 9 threshold, right now,
R&C fell below the 9 threshold on Metacritic, so does it still count as a
AAA game?
Tom
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r6OdnSKj9aoldL3a...@comcast.com...
Jordan has lost all my respect, even when he makes a good post. Reading his
latest shit, made any sensible post meaningless. He fell down that crevice
that Sammus did long ago.
NiGHTS
Yep.
Jordan
> Xbots have once again suffered a devastating defeat as Ratchet and
> Clank has recieved near-perfect scores from a wide variety of gaming
> publications.
By this time in the review cycle Bioshock had scored ALL 100%'s. How
many does Ratchet and Clank have?
Oh, look, it's not even a 90% average anymore...
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/ratchetandclankfuturetoolsofdestruction
What's going to happen when all the PSFreaks get home and it won't
play until they either add or delete 500MB of stuff from their hard
drive?
- Jordan
Jordan
> <jimmylab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> After seeing elrous, jordan and RMZ's latest lil attacks I take it back.
> Carry on.
I'd like to think I'm an equal opportunity offender. When the early
reports came out that the Halo 3 case was scratching discs I was the
first to report it here. I don't see how saying Ratchet and Clank
won't play unless you add or remove 500 MB of data to/from the HD
first is any different.
- Jordan
Holy Moses
>Xbots have once again suffered a devastating defeat as Ratchet and
>Clank has recieved near-perfect scores from a wide variety of gaming
>publications. Coming on the heels of Microsoft's gigantic warranty
>extention of flawed, broken, defective Xbox 360 consoles, R&C is a
>blow that Xbots will not soon recover from. Indeed, R&C could be the
>game that puts the nail in the Xbox 360 coffin.
>
>Compare Xbox 360 so-called "AAA exclusives" to PS3 bona fide AAA
>exclusives. The Xbox 360 AAA list is short and contains only bland,
>boring FPS games. Meanwhile PS3 has a wide variety of AAA titles from
>an amazing racing game (Motorstorm) to an innovative action game
>(Heavenly Sword) to the best multiplayer title ever released on any
>console (Warhawk) to an amazing FPS (RFoM). Adding R&C to that list
>means that PS3 now dominates Xbox 360 in every possible measure.
>
>Bottom line: There's no reason to buy an Xbox 360 anymore. PS3 is
>better hardware, has better games and had a wider variety of games.
>It's over Xbots, you lose.
Are you serious with this? I have a PS3 and am looking forward to
playing C&R, but if I had to choose one over the other, I prefer the
360 hands down right now.
RFoM was alright. Nothing to write home about. I was mighty
disappointed in Heavenly Sword and didn't even bother with Motorstorm
after I tried out the game at my buddy's place.
I just gotta wonder what some of these retards are smoking. Cuz, it
must be some really, really good shit, or bad, depending on how you
look at it.
ds...@ncf.ca
> Ratchet & Clank = Banjo Kazooie. No more, no less.
I'll definitely have to pick it up then. I loved both of the Banjo
games.
Jordan
> Jordan has lost all my respect, even when he makes a good post. Reading his
> latest shit, made any sensible post meaningless. He fell down that crevice
> that Sammus did long ago.
I fail to see how posting that there's a fatal flaw in Ratchet and
Clank is any different than, say, posting about how the Halo 3 cases
were scratching discs or how Microsoft erroneously shipped 110 volt
360s to England.
I'd like to think I'm honest when I'm talking about stupidity in the
gaming industry, it's just that Sony has been so much more stupid this
year.
- Jordan
Tom
"Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1193377867....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
No, that's not what I mean, I would point out flaws also, from any
standpoint. I am talking blatant gloating and and demeaning rmarks in what
shows (or really comes across) as obvious pure bias against a console maker,
with barely any objectivity or criticism on the merits in the remarks. I am
not going to go fishing for these comments, I do know you made them, and I
found them rather disappointing. You have a long history of posting in the
gaming forums, but I don't remeber it being so blatantly bad until just over
the past few months.
Don't get me wrong, I am just as bad soudning off at others and it may be
immature at times; I mainly do it to show it as a reflection of what others
do. But I am not attacking an industry, console, etc, rather the inane
remarks most make here in these forums that do not prove a point, but rather
are quasi-troll posts or personal attacks that have none to little merit
based on pure unfounded bias.
boodybandit
"Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:voudnQE95cg1orza...@insightbb.com...
Without question.
Metacritic doesn't know the letter grade to numbers conversion.
They counted Game Revolutions score of a B as a 75. On any chart a B is no
less than a 80.
On gamerankings it is rated properly from Game Revolution "80" (if anything
it could be rated higher "85" if Game Revolution does + and - with their
scores).
Tom
Yeah, a "B" in school would be about 85 in my book, but that translates to
anything less than a 70 would be an "F". But an 85 would only be correct if
a failing game would be a 69 or less is equal to an F using a numeric
system.. But, if you go numerically using the gameer scores, there are
scores that are in the 20s-30s and 40s, would those games be in FF- through
FFFF- range (not being cynical, just using logic). The gamerevolution uses
the range from A+ through F, and if you translate that relative to a number
rankings most sites use (they don't stop at just under 70 being the lowest
possible scores), the scheme would have B be about a 75. Another example, if
85 is a "B", then would a D- be a 70 in numerical gaming scores (which
wouldn't be that bad)?
But anyway, doesn't a "AAA" game also denote how much it sells as well as
contributes to hardware sales. If that is the case, then we won't know until
after a few weeks of game sales.
boodybandit
IMHO the whole "AAA" thing is nonsense.
A term made up by pimply faced teens used on the net to justify their
purchases.
For me there are have and have not's. I never use the term "AAA" title any
where but the internet. I have friends, actually most gamers are probably
this way, that don't even read reviews. They just purchase games they feel
interest them. For me Ratchet is an absolute must have game. It's such an
excellent mix of platform gaming elements with excellent graphics, sound,
gameplay and humor throw in to add to your overall enjoyment.
But this thread is going no where. What else is new? Even though it started
off as a troll post, most non fanboys know you can't say anything positive
about the enemy on their stomping grounds! ;-)
Back to Ratchet.
terryfied
pretty boring. :-)
PS It must be very, very quite in the PS3 group.
terryfied
Nothing. :-)
CellFish
Well said. That was a AAA reply.
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> By this time in the review cycle Bioshock had scored ALL 100%'s. How
> many does Ratchet and Clank have?
>
> Oh, look, it's not even a 90% average anymore...
OH, and they ALMOST had one in the 90's finally!
Better luck next year, PS3 fanboys.
-Eric
Rich Hutnik
> <jimmylab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why must you swat the hornets nest?
> The PS3 gets a much needed AAA title and you have to entice more
> mudslinging?
>
> Have you even played the game?
> I have a lil theory that all trolls aren't actually gamers but attention
> seeking assholes.
> Am I right?
R&C are real good, but I must be a bit jaded here. It didn't quite
grab me as much as I thought, I guess because it is close to the other
games in the series I never got around to finishing. I should likely
finish up The Orange Box and get back to it.
- Rich
Rich Hutnik
> On Oct 25, 6:43 pm, "boodybandit" <allaboutga...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1193339471.5...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> <jimmylab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1193337968....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> Why must you swat the hornets nest?
> > >> The PS3 gets a much needed AAA title and you have to entice more
> > >> mudslinging?
>
> > >> Have you even played the game?
> > >> I have a lil theory that all trolls aren't actually gamers but attention
> > >> seeking assholes.
> > >> Am I right?
>
>
> > Well about every bit as much as Bioshock or Halo 3, especially Halo 3 since
> > it's just another in the series and no better than the ones before it.
> > But than you already knew all of this you were just being your usually smug
> > immature self. Mommy pick up your copy of Ratcher yet?
>
> Um, no. Not "every bit as much" as Bioshock or Halo 3. If Ratchet &
> Clank were a 360 title, do you HONESTY believe it would be a huge
> seller? Would it be on the cover of OXM?
>
> Please, stop trying to label every PS3 game as a "AAA" title out of
> desperation.
Ratchet and Clank, if it was on the 360, would be getting attention.
It is a mascot game, of which the 360 is weak in. It is real good and
looks gorgeoups. It is pretty close to an AAA title. Of course, I am
an R&C fan. I am glad the series should be getting the attention it
hadn't received yet.
- Rich
Rich Hutnik
Actually, no. Microsoft fanboys are filling this taunt and that.
Considering how much crossposting goes on, perhaps all we need is one
newsgroup: rec.games.video.insecure.weenies.taunt
- Rich :-P
boodybandit
Maybe take it back and get another one?
It's what I had to do with my sons scratched to hell LE Halo 3 disc.
But back on topic.
I heard about this error with R%C yet I don't know a sole it actually
happened to.
BTW R&C is over 90 again despite Metacritic not knowing that a B grade
doesn't equal 75.
I don't care if R&C dips below 80. It's one of the best games I played this
gen and defintely the most colorful with possibly the best lighting effects.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> On Oct 25, 11:46 am, jimmylab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Xbots have once again suffered a devastating defeat as Ratchet and
> > Clank has recieved near-perfect scores from a wide variety of gaming
> > publications.
>
> By this time in the review cycle Bioshock had scored ALL 100%'s. How
> many does Ratchet and Clank have?
>
> Oh, look, it's not even a 90% average anymore...
>
>
> What's going to happen when all the PSFreaks get home and it won't
> play until they either add or delete 500MB of stuff from their hard
> drive?
>
> - Jordan
Oh, look, the ranking is 91% at gamerankings.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932369.asp
That's not counting the 5/5 X-Play gave it, or the 90% average score
(8.5., 9, 9.5) that EGM gave it.
Since you only like to report negative news about PS3 games, I figured
you'd never bother with updating your info.
Oh, well.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
My bad. It IS counting the EGM score.
Jonah Falcon
>
> - Show quoted text -
My penis is big enough that I really don't care. I know you have
certain "shortcomings" -- you don't have to displace your ego onto a
console system.
Oh, and the Xbox 360's dick still is way bigger than the PS3's.
Jordan
> Since you only like to report negative news about PS3 games, I figured
> you'd never bother with updating your info.
Well, DUH! This is the Xbox group... if I were interested in POSITIVE
PS3 news I'd be hanging out in the Playstation group...
But this just proves the point further... AAA games don't waver
between high 80s and low 90s. Hence R&C is not a AAA game. :^)
- Jordan
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> On Oct 27, 7:09 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Since you only like to report negative news about PS3 games, I figured
> > you'd never bother with updating your info.
>
> Well, DUH! This is the Xbox group... if I were interested in POSITIVE
> PS3 news I'd be hanging out in the Playstation group...
This title isn't "alt.fanboys.wehatep3.xbox"......if you are going to
complain about Sony fanboys misrepresenting things, then you really
shouldn't perpetuate the threads by acting just as biased as they do.
>
> But this just proves the point further... AAA games don't waver
> between high 80s and low 90s. Hence R&C is not a AAA game. :^)
>
> - Jordan
Your logic is.......interesting to say the least.....sort of like
always citing Metacritic scores, but then claiming all the reviewers
are "wrong" when scoring Enclave.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you an idiot? This is your idea of being a "journalist", or even
a rational human being? Mr. "Ad Hominem! Ad Hominem!" shows his
hypocrisy again, with the last resort "my dick is bigger than yours"
comment. No wonder you made this list of the top train wrecks ever:
http://members.tripod.com/~anxietyny/trainwrecks8.html
Have you ever considered why people think you're such a tool? Or why
they prank call your show so much it forced you to stop taking calls
for a while? Maybe if you didn't act like an arrogant fool just
because you received the benefit of a genetic hiccup, you wouldn't be
the laughing stock of anyone who's had the "pleasure" of seeing your
"social skills" in action.
Unlike you, I don't have some strange vested interest in a corporation
"winning" the console wars. Hell, it's become so sad that you can see
the veiled annoyance in the comments of the other contributors at
Gamestooge.
boodybandit
"Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGord...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193583955.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
wow
I almost fee lsorry for the guy after reading that.
Yrt here he is day after day bashing a toy.
Jordan
> This title isn't "alt.fanboys.wehatep3.xbox"......if you are going to
> complain about Sony fanboys misrepresenting things, then you really
> shouldn't perpetuate the threads by acting just as biased as they do.
Somewhere between 90 and 100% of my responses to troll posts are
solely to get the troll wound up. Really, you can't take troll posts
seriously.
> Your logic is.......interesting to say the least.....sort of like
> always citing Metacritic scores, but then claiming all the reviewers
> are "wrong" when scoring Enclave.
I demonstrably proved the reviewers wrong when it came to Enclave.
They claimed the game had a poor camera. This isn't possible since the
camera is user controlled. If the camera sucks it's the fault of the
player, not the game. One reviewer even went so far as to say he
didn't like the location of the jump button when the button map is
also user configurable. (That review site, fortunately, no longer
exists.)
Still, Enclave is the exception that proves the rule. I could say the
same thing about Ocarina of Time. Bunch of Nintendo Fanboy reviewers
gushing about what is probably one of the crappier games I've ever
played. Boring, uninspired, sleep inducing (yes, I actually fell
asleep playing Ocarina of Time...) yet it scores as one of the best
games of all time.
- Jordan
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> On Oct 28, 7:52 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This title isn't "alt.fanboys.wehatep3.xbox"......if you are going to
> > complain about Sony fanboys misrepresenting things, then you really
> > shouldn't perpetuate the threads by acting just as biased as they do.
>
> Somewhere between 90 and 100% of my responses to troll posts are
> solely to get the troll wound up. Really, you can't take troll posts
> seriously.
Well, if you are going to use "cold hard facts" as a response to the
trolls, you should be a little more consistent.
>
> > Your logic is.......interesting to say the least.....sort of like
> > always citing Metacritic scores, but then claiming all the reviewers
> > are "wrong" when scoring Enclave.
>
> I demonstrably proved the reviewers wrong when it came to Enclave.
> They claimed the game had a poor camera. This isn't possible since the
> camera is user controlled. If the camera sucks it's the fault of the
> player, not the game.
Actually, a user-controlled camera system can suck if it forces the
player to use an FPS control scheme for a game that's so reliant on
melee combat. Enemy to the direct right of you? Instead of simply
pushing the stick right and hitting attack, you have to turn the
character right using the camera, and then push forward (to make up
the lost ground), and then attack. Not intuitive. And, speaking
simply in general, a user controlled camera can suck if it often gets
caught on the environment when backed against a wall, or if it doesn't
respond quickly enough.
>One reviewer even went so far as to say he
> didn't like the location of the jump button when the button map is
> also user configurable. (That review site, fortunately, no longer
> exists.)
If I recall correctly, it's barely user-configurable. I remember that
there were only a couple of choices for the jump button, and the best
choice I found was the "click R thumbstick". I'd have to fire up the
game again to be certain, but saying button mapping is user-
configurable is mostly semantic if they only give a few preset
choices.
Edit: this review confirms it:
http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/enclave.htm
>
> Still, Enclave is the exception that proves the rule. I could say the
> same thing about Ocarina of Time. Bunch of Nintendo Fanboy reviewers
> gushing about what is probably one of the crappier games I've ever
> played. Boring, uninspired, sleep inducing (yes, I actually fell
> asleep playing Ocarina of Time...) yet it scores as one of the best
> games of all time.
>
> - Jordan
Considering that the game had quite a few features that were rare in
console games- a day/night cycle, horseback riding, free-roaming, open
3D environments, a lock-on targeting system to make combat smoother-
as well as a fairly sweeping story, I doubt the reviews were simply
due to every reviewer out there being a Nintendo fanboy. Maybe-
gasp?- it was a game that was considering outstanding for its time,
and you just didn't see its appeal?
Tom
In my top 10 all time! I replayed Z,OoT countless times, mainly doing things
differently and I loved that game.
TheLightsAreOn
I would actualy side with Jordan on this point: A Triple A game should
always get scores above 90 from 100% of all people who review it.
Doug Jacobs
> I would actualy side with Jordan on this point: A Triple A game should
> always get scores above 90 from 100% of all people who review it.
Yeah, but there's always that one review - just like that one ice skating
judge - that just gives an unusually low score out of spite or ignorance,
which just trashes an otherwise consistent average.
Maybe Gameranking/Metacritic should offer adjusted averages where they've
thrown out the highest and lowest scores.
That said, if the only criteria for a AAA game is an averaged 90% score on
Gamerankings or Metacritic, I'd call the PS3's R&C title a AAA game.
Still, as a AAA game, it's a pretty tough sell. It's relatively short,
offers little replayability, and...does it even have online play? (I'm not
an online fan, but this would certainly contribute to better replayability.)
Some of the earlier R&C titles would also be considered AAA but I don't
think you could call any of them to be 'system sellers' - and in reality
that's what the PS3 needs and not just a AAA title.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
By that criteria, Halo 3 would not be considered AAA, as there were 12
reviews in the Metacritic listings that were under 90. Bioshock had 2
reviews under 90. Gears of War had 8 ratings under 90. Would you
argue that those aren't AAA titles?
Ratchet & Clank just barely eeks out a consideration as a so-called
AAA title, but it's harder for a game series that's technically on its
6th installment (including Deadlocked and the PSP game) in as many
years to "wow" critics as universally as a game that's either a
completely new series/IP, has had more "wait time" to build up
anticipation, or has had relatively few installments, thus leaving
more room for innovation. What the PS3 needs is probably less focus
on having a handful of "AAA titles", and simply more volume of "decent
to good" exclusive titles. No one game should have to bear the "fate
of the system" on its shoulders. I'd say the Wii is in a worse
position, as Reggie whatshisface kept reciting the same mantra of 3
games- Metroid, SM Galaxy, and Smash Bros.- as the answer to all
questions about where the "serious" games are. At least the PS3 gets
a fair amount of current gen ports. We'll see if Nintendo steps up to
the plate and starts at least getting more games that push the system
harder.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> TheLightsAreOn <f...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> > I would actualy side with Jordan on this point: A Triple A game should
> > always get scores above 90 from 100% of all people who review it.
>
> Yeah, but there's always that one review - just like that one ice skating
> judge - that just gives an unusually low score out of spite or ignorance,
> which just trashes an otherwise consistent average.
>
> Maybe Gameranking/Metacritic should offer adjusted averages where they've
> thrown out the highest and lowest scores.
>
> That said, if the only criteria for a AAA game is an averaged 90% score on
> Gamerankings or Metacritic, I'd call the PS3's R&C title a AAA game.
> Still, as a AAA game, it's a pretty tough sell. It's relatively >short,
No shorter than Halo 3 or Gears of War......
> offers little replayability,
What? A series goes to a console that you don't plan on getting due
to other reasons, and suddenly, your formerly high opinion of it
switches to "Doubting Thomas" mode? Challenge mode ring a bell? I
can understand if you don't like the PS3 because of the lack of
RPGs....but showering R&C with criticism that you didn't have for the
games when they were on the PS2 seems a little like "sour grapes".
After all, UYA was shorter than the first two games.
>and...does it even have online play? (I'm not
> an online fan, but this would certainly contribute to better replayability.)
Bioshock had no online play- that didn't seem to hurt the love people
had for it.
>
> Some of the earlier R&C titles would also be considered AAA but I don't
> think you could call any of them to be 'system sellers' - and in reality
> that's what the PS3 needs and not just a AAA title.
>
What it needs isn't necessarily a "system seller", but more exclusive
games that are good, if not great. Pricing the first party games
competitively, like they used to do, would also help.
TheLightsAreOn
news:13icgli...@corp.supernews.com:
> TheLightsAreOn <fa...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>> I would actualy side with Jordan on this point: A Triple A game
>> should always get scores above 90 from 100% of all people who review
>> it.
>
> Yeah, but there's always that one review - just like that one ice
> skating judge - that just gives an unusually low score out of spite or
> ignorance, which just trashes an otherwise consistent average.
>
> Maybe Gameranking/Metacritic should offer adjusted averages where
> they've thrown out the highest and lowest scores.
>
>
> That said, if the only criteria for a AAA game is an averaged 90%
> score on Gamerankings or Metacritic, I'd call the PS3's R&C title a
> AAA game.
Didn't someone sugested that to be Triple A, it has to have 90+ scores,
Sell a Million Copies, and Sell a Million Systems? Thus Single A for
doing one, Double A for doing two, and the rare Triple A for all three.
Still, as a AAA game, it's a pretty tough sell. It's
> relatively short, offers little replayability, and...does it even have
> online play? (I'm not an online fan, but this would certainly
> contribute to better replayability.)
>
Some games are marathons, some games are sprints. Some are inbetween.
Some games just are not multiplayer.
slaye...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 25, 4:49 pm, slayerma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 1:36 pm, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>
> > > Yes, everyone is just going to forget that the 360 just had a game
> > > that sold 3.3 million copies in 12 days and shattered every sales
> > > record known to man.
>
> > Actually, Burning Crusade sold about 2.4 million the first day, and
> > rose to almost 3.9 million within the month, so shattered isn't really
> > the right word.
>
> And you think Halo 3 sales will suddenly stop?
Shattered is past tense and he said it sold 3.3 in twelve days. None
of what we are talking about relates to the future. Nice try.
Tom
<slaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193704206....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
But if you're going to use even a month as a measure as you did in your
previous to this post, then it could be considered shattered. On Halo3's
first day, it sold over 2.7mil copies (and I think that is just in the US)
and now just over a month later, it is over 5.5 million worldwide. WoWBC
hasn't sold 5 million yet worldwide, and it was released last January. But,
I read that WoWBC actually did sell 2.7million worldwide its first day, not
2.4, which is still impressive.
But, if you consider the install base of PC gamers to 360 gamers, Halo 3
sales have shattered sales records, and PC games are much cheaper too.
The WoW (released in 2004) was a bigger hit than BC by far, it has over 9
million.
Tom
"Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGord...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193700099.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> What it needs isn't necessarily a "system seller", but more exclusive
> games that are good, if not great. Pricing the first party games
> competitively, like they used to do, would also help.
True, but here's the issue to date. They have had exlcusives come out over
the past 3 months, (I think) more than the 360, and a few are highly rated
games. The issue is, there is enough hardware out for the software to sell
very well, and that is just not happening. I wonder what the attach rate is
right now for the PS3?
For example, Heavenly Sword got pretty good scores, but has sold like crap.
If the exclusives won't sell, people are not going to be compelled to buy
more hardware, and hardware usually sells on word of mouth because of ther
games. One issue I am seeing is that current Sony games are similar to PS2
games, and it isn't translating into the world of online gaming which is at
an alltime high, not only with PCs, but now with consoles. Now people want
games that have online gaming/capabilities and multiplayer, not just games
you pay in one mode and you are done with it; Sony is giving very little of
that, if any at all. In fact, two friends of mine who were avid Sony fans
made 360 purchases this year, my buddy next door, and a co-worker, they love
the games and what they do, but they mainly like the exclusives that have MP
mode and extra features.
For me, I really won't get a game, unless it is an RPG (ala Oblivion) that
keeps me interested for a long, that doesn't have online gaming modes; it is
the reason I got into console gaming. How many times are people going to
play HS, R&C, Folklore, Lair over and over again with getting the same
ending and no MP mode. Do you see a great deal of replay value?. They may
sell those games off causing a slight drop in real sales otherwise. Also
look at the cross-platform games that were huge on the 360, that have been
since released on the PS3, they have like a 1-10 sales ratio, and you'd
think the PS3 owners would be buying these games to have something to play;
something is happening, and it isn't game sales.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1193700099.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
This isn't meant to be going off on you, Tom, so take it as it's
worth:
What the hell has the gaming world come to, where a game must have
online multiplayer to
be considered "replayable"?
When I was younger, the idea of "online gaming" was pretty much
unheard of, except at networks
in college and the government. Bionic Commando had no multiplayer-
that didn't keep me from replaying
it again and again, after winning it. Same with Super Mario Brothers
3, Guerilla War, Revenge of Shinobi,
and on and on and on. Before that, I had no problem playing Commando
on my Commodore multiple times,
or Defender on my Atari 2600, despite the complete lack of
multiplayer. Games aren't just there to
"get to the ending"- it's the journey, not the destination.
Any game that is good enough on its own can be "replayable", barring
either serious pacing issues, a
poor setup, or genre limitations, which I see mostly affecting
survival horror games that rely more on
shocking the player as its source of entertainment. Mundane games
like Red Faction 2 or Project
Snowblind are no more replayable just because they have multiplayer.
And the big problem with games
that rely heavily on multiplayer is that they rely on the assumption
that everyone will love and continue to
play the game online forever and ever. Well, what happens if the game
flops, or if its popularity dies?
If the single player game is an afterthought, then that $60 feels
awfully wasted........
I certainly can understand the appeal of a multiplayer mode. But it
almost seems like reviewers place
an undue emphasis on the idea that multiplayer and replayability are
inseparable, Bioshock notwithstanding.
It feels kind of like laziness to me, as if it's a template statement
for reviewers who are more than
happy to go on cliche autopilot.
OK, rant over.........
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
But, this is what the world of gaming has come to, and we no longer
have a choice that the interent is a huge and growing medium for
gaming. I gave mostly what I say I like, and the reasons why I bought
into the Xbox and the 360, because of online gaming. I didn't buy
Bioshock because it didn't have MP or any extras so to speak. Games
like Oblivion do appeal, because they have a lot of play time involved
and can be played multiple ways; that was the point I was making
really. These games for the PS3 are mimicking what PS2 games did,
except many PS3 game exclusives are not including MP or anything else
online, though it offers this on PSN.
I am not knocking the PS3 games, but Sony has to appeal to the markets
now, not just what I like or you like. Otherwise, what you say would
have games selling of the shelves for the PS3. You do know that the
past and current gens of console gaming is based and developed because
of what games did online for the PC for years before, and it shows
with the first Xbox and the 360.
slaye...@hotmail.com
> <slayerma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193704206....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 2:13 pm, Jonah Falcon <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 25, 4:49 pm, slayerma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 25, 1:36 pm, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>
> >> > > Yes, everyone is just going to forget that the 360 just had a game
> >> > > that sold 3.3 million copies in 12 days and shattered every sales
> >> > > record known to man.
>
> >> > Actually, Burning Crusade sold about 2.4 million the first day, and
> >> > rose to almost 3.9 million within the month, so shattered isn't really
> >> > the right word.
>
> >> And you think Halo 3 sales will suddenly stop?
>
> > Shattered is past tense and he said it sold 3.3 in twelve days. None
> > of what we are talking about relates to the future. Nice try.
>
> But if you're going to use even a month as a measure as you did in your
> previous to this post, then it could be considered shattered. On Halo3's
> first day, it sold over 2.7mil copies (and I think that is just in the US)
> and now just over a month later, it is over 5.5 million worldwide. WoWBC
> hasn't sold 5 million yet worldwide, and it was released last January. But,
> I read that WoWBC actually did sell 2.7million worldwide its first day, not
> 2.4, which is still impressive.
I'm just pointing out that saying 'shattered every sales record known
to man' is hyperbole.
> But, if you consider the install base of PC gamers to 360 gamers, Halo 3
> sales have shattered sales records, and PC games are much cheaper too.
I can't imagine why you would think that.
> The WoW (released in 2004) was a bigger hit than BC by far, it has over 9
> million.
We are talking about sales records. WoW barely made a blip it's first
month. BC set PC sales records and is the fastest selling PC game of
all time. You can't say that WoW is a bigger hit than it's expansion
because you have to buy WoW for BC to be any use.
Tom
<slaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193860275.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Explain how a PC game, and you know the install base for (gaming) PCs far
outnumbers 360, wasn't shattered in sales numbers bu H3. I just showed where
both games sold about the same the first day. But Halo sold those numbers
just in the US. If you go to date, Halo 3 is almost @ 6 million total,
whereas WoWBC hasn't hit 5mil since being released last January. I'd say it
shattered it sales, if going by the numbers. How many Halo3 copies would
have sold had it been a worldwide launch like WoWBC?
This should expand further how to conpare Halo3 against BC, which according
Wiki, "It was released on January 17, 2007 in Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa, and Singapore; in total, approximately 3.1 million copies were sold
across these territories in the first month of release, including 1.5
million in North America and nearly 1.2 million in Europe.[4] It was later
released on February 1, 2007 in South Korea, April 30, 2007 in Taiwan, as
well as the regions of Hong Kong and Macau.[5][6] Availability in Chinese
will be announced in the near future."
BC had 3.1 million it's first month, yet Halo3 did over 3.3 million it's
first week, just in the US.
>
>> The WoW (released in 2004) was a bigger hit than BC by far, it has over 9
>> million.
>
> We are talking about sales records. WoW barely made a blip it's first
> month. BC set PC sales records and is the fastest selling PC game of
> all time. You can't say that WoW is a bigger hit than it's expansion
> because you have to buy WoW for BC to be any use.
>
>
Well, I would say it is a bigger hit for sales, as the numbers show that. Do
you think that BC will sell over 9 million? And, according to Wiki, "There
are more than 2 million players in North America, 1.5 million players in
Europe and 3.5 million players in China as of January, 2007 and as of
August, 2007; the game has over 8 million subscribers worldwide."
That is just for WoW and going still well into 2007.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Consider this, though- the original Xbox had a far superior online
component compared to the PS2,
yet it still came in second by a substantial margin. The Wii is
already ramping up console sales, despite
a weak online system. There is no doubt that an online component is a
consideration. But what you're
saying sort of misses my point- online multiplayer is not a necessity
for something to have "replay
value". As for PC online gaming dictating console gaming, I don't see
that, with the exception of
FPS games. Games like God of War and Grand Theft Auto 3 weren't
inspired by Quake, that's for
sure. And Halo, probably one of the most popular console FPS games,
diverged from PC FPS tradition
by having a fairly significant gameplay element that pulled out of the
first person view- vehicular combat.
Tom
But, the Xbox was a year later, and the DC was all but dead, so for
that gen the only competition was Xbox, so the PS2 had a big sales
jump, consider also, it followed a hugely successful PS1, the Xbox was
no follow up. But what made the Xbox great was not only the better and
more powerful hardware, but the fact that it had a robust online
gaming system in the works that came out nearly a year after its
release. I think Ghost Recon offered the best look at online console
gaming, and it stole the show, that game was freaking awesome for that
time. Then Halo2 set the standard, but the PS2, though having the
capabilities, followed with a fairly poor service with so few games
that offered any online gaming, but it sold and sold big. Now, you'd
think the Sony name would sell itself, and I think Sony kept to that.
Though their hardware sales are getting a bit better with the PS3,
they still are not good. But more importantly, their software sales
downright stink, now think of the times now to then, and consider why.
> The Wii is
> already ramping up console sales, despite
> a weak online system. There is no doubt that an online component is a
> consideration.
The Wii is a niche market, and we know what the N64 and GC did in
sales, it wasn't all that, and give it another year or so, and you'll
see how well it does since it is gimicky (I could be wrong though).
Right now, it has the poorest attach rate of the 3 consoles, that says
it's collecting dust more than being played, people won't keep buying
it if the games are not selling.
.
> But what you're
> saying sort of misses my point- online multiplayer is not a necessity
> for something to have "replay
> value".
Tell me games like Folklore and Heavenly Sword have a lot of replay
value, they have very little at best, and this is what is killing
Sony, they are sticking with what was good years ago when console
gaming didn't require a lot more than initial excitement while they
churn out games en mass for the multitudes of PS2 owners to choose
from, because they didn't have but one element of gaming to them,
mainly single story play. This is different now with all the
experience with different modes of play that PC gaming brought about.
Online PC gaming, when about the time the PS2 came along was taking
off fast, it was barely an infant when about the time the PS1 came
out. But it did take off and so did the reasoning why current consoles
are selling, they are not just single mode single story games anymore,
and people want more because they know there is more out there now.
People do see and think what is out when they play games you know, and
it is going to keep changing, Sony seems to stay the course.
> As for PC online gaming dictating console gaming, I don't see
> that, with the exception of
> FPS games. Games like God of War and Grand Theft Auto 3 weren't
> inspired by Quake, that's for
> sure. And Halo, probably one of the most popular console FPS games,
> diverged from PC FPS tradition
> by having a fairly significant gameplay element that pulled out of the
> first person view- vehicular combat.
I am in no way dismissing what you say, but if what you say really
follows, then PS3 sales for their most recent releases should be
through the roof translating into big hardware sales, it isn't . They
are doing very poorly, and I am only guessing that my assumptions are
the reasons why; the times have changed, and Sony isn't changing.
slaye...@hotmail.com
> <slayerma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Oct 29, 7:34 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> But, if you consider the install base of PC gamers to 360 gamers, Halo 3
> >> sales have shattered sales records, and PC games are much cheaper too.
>
> > I can't imagine why you would think that.
>
> Explain how a PC game, and you know the install base for (gaming) PCs far
> outnumbers 360, wasn't shattered in sales numbers bu H3. I just showed where
> both games sold about the same the first day. But Halo sold those numbers
> just in the US. If you go to date, Halo 3 is almost @ 6 million total,
> whereas WoWBC hasn't hit 5mil since being released last January. I'd say it
> shattered it sales, if going by the numbers. How many Halo3 copies would
> have sold had it been a worldwide launch like WoWBC?
Moot point, because it wasn't, and it wouldn't have mattered anyways
because Halo is mostly an American thing. The fact that you bring up
Halo3 being 6 million to date, and BC sales not changing since January
really shows how much it sold in the first month.
I was saying I can't imagine why you think PC games are cheaper. BC
was $59.99, just like most other new games.
> This should expand further how to conpare Halo3 against BC, which according
> Wiki, "It was released on January 17, 2007 in Canada, New Zealand, South
> Africa, and Singapore; in total, approximately 3.1 million copies were sold
> across these territories in the first month of release, including 1.5
> million in North America and nearly 1.2 million in Europe.[4] It was later
> released on February 1, 2007 in South Korea, April 30, 2007 in Taiwan, as
> well as the regions of Hong Kong and Macau.[5][6] Availability in Chinese
> will be announced in the near future."
All of this means nothing. We aren't talking about what WOULD have
happened had H3 been released worldwide, we are talking about two
games and how much they sold.
> BC had 3.1 million it's first month, yet Halo3 did over 3.3 million it's
> first week, just in the US.
The 3.1 million of BC was mostly in the first two weeks. We are not
talking about what sold more, just saying Halo 3 shattered all sales
records known to man is completely untrue. I wouldn't say H3 shattered
any records. BC shattered a record, and then H3 broke that.
> >> The WoW (released in 2004) was a bigger hit than BC by far, it has over 9
> >> million.
>
> > We are talking about sales records. WoW barely made a blip it's first
> > month. BC set PC sales records and is the fastest selling PC game of
> > all time. You can't say that WoW is a bigger hit than it's expansion
> > because you have to buy WoW for BC to be any use.
>
> Well, I would say it is a bigger hit for sales, as the numbers show that. Do
> you think that BC will sell over 9 million? And, according to Wiki, "There
> are more than 2 million players in North America, 1.5 million players in
> Europe and 3.5 million players in China as of January, 2007 and as of
> August, 2007; the game has over 8 million subscribers worldwide."
> That is just for WoW and going still well into 2007.
We are talking about SALES RECORDS. The only SALES RECORDS that H3
would take is how fast it sold in it's first month. WoW cannot compete
with that, because it took WoW a while to catch on. The expansion
however, did set sales records that Halo 3 barely surpassed, which is
what we are talking about.
Tom
<slaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193866478.8...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 1:47 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> <slayerma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > On Oct 29, 7:34 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >> But, if you consider the install base of PC gamers to 360 gamers, Halo
>> >> 3
>> >> sales have shattered sales records, and PC games are much cheaper too.
>>
>> > I can't imagine why you would think that.
>>
>> Explain how a PC game, and you know the install base for (gaming) PCs far
>> outnumbers 360, wasn't shattered in sales numbers bu H3. I just showed
>> where
>> both games sold about the same the first day. But Halo sold those numbers
>> just in the US. If you go to date, Halo 3 is almost @ 6 million total,
>> whereas WoWBC hasn't hit 5mil since being released last January. I'd say
>> it
>> shattered it sales, if going by the numbers. How many Halo3 copies would
>> have sold had it been a worldwide launch like WoWBC?
>
> Moot point, because it wasn't, and it wouldn't have mattered anyways
> because Halo is mostly an American thing. The fact that you bring up
> Halo3 being 6 million to date, and BC sales not changing since January
> really shows how much it sold in the first month.
Well, you were picking on the term being used "shattered" not applying,
where I showed it did, you somehow got off this point, but oh well, have it
your way.
>
> I was saying I can't imagine why you think PC games are cheaper. BC
> was $59.99, just like most other new games.
Most PC games do not cost as much as console games.
>
>> This should expand further how to conpare Halo3 against BC, which
>> according
>> Wiki, "It was released on January 17, 2007 in Canada, New Zealand, South
>> Africa, and Singapore; in total, approximately 3.1 million copies were
>> sold
>> across these territories in the first month of release, including 1.5
>> million in North America and nearly 1.2 million in Europe.[4] It was
>> later
>> released on February 1, 2007 in South Korea, April 30, 2007 in Taiwan, as
>> well as the regions of Hong Kong and Macau.[5][6] Availability in Chinese
>> will be announced in the near future."
>
> All of this means nothing. We aren't talking about what WOULD have
> happened had H3 been released worldwide, we are talking about two
> games and how much they sold.
And Halo3 shatters anything that BC did in any time frame, that as it simply
did just in the US, yet you won't relate that this is a big thing
considering BC did its sales totals from a worldwide release. Discounting
the fact that H3 wasn't a WW release doesn't make it not shatter what BC
did. You know had it been released the same way, that the sales numbers
would have been substantially higher.
>
>> BC had 3.1 million it's first month, yet Halo3 did over 3.3 million it's
>> first week, just in the US.
>
> The 3.1 million of BC was mostly in the first two weeks.
So, it still did 3.1 million its first month, whether or not it sold
2,999,999 copies its first two weeks is irrelevant to the 3.1mil total that
is mentioned.
> We are not
> talking about what sold more, just saying Halo 3 shattered all sales
> records known to man is completely untrue.
I wasn't talking about "all sales records", just your comparison to BC when
you specified that game.
Anyway, wouldn't selling more mean that it breaks records in this instance,
you don't make sense?
> I wouldn't say H3 shattered
> any records. BC shattered a record, and then H3 broke that.
Well, you are now saying BC shattered a record, and did most of its numbers
in two weeks, yet Halo3 sold more just in the US in one week, as I already
have shown you; make up your mind what shattered means to you.
>
>> >> The WoW (released in 2004) was a bigger hit than BC by far, it has
>> >> over 9
>> >> million.
>>
>> > We are talking about sales records. WoW barely made a blip it's first
>> > month. BC set PC sales records and is the fastest selling PC game of
>> > all time. You can't say that WoW is a bigger hit than it's expansion
>> > because you have to buy WoW for BC to be any use.
>>
>> Well, I would say it is a bigger hit for sales, as the numbers show that.
>> Do
>> you think that BC will sell over 9 million? And, according to Wiki,
>> "There
>> are more than 2 million players in North America, 1.5 million players in
>> Europe and 3.5 million players in China as of January, 2007 and as of
>> August, 2007; the game has over 8 million subscribers worldwide."
>> That is just for WoW and going still well into 2007.
>
> We are talking about SALES RECORDS. The only SALES RECORDS that H3
> would take is how fast it sold in it's first month. WoW cannot compete
> with that, because it took WoW a while to catch on.
OK forget Wow, but the fact that it sold 9 million copies is nothing to
sneeze at, anyway--------
> The expansion
> however, did set sales records that Halo 3 barely surpassed, which is
> what we are talking about.
>
Barely surpassed? LOL, I showed you their respective monthly time frames for
both H3 and BC, again, H3 sold 3.3 million its first week in just the US, it
did 5.5mil its first month, WW. It took one month for BC to do 3.1 million,
WW. At what threshold does "shattered" apply to you?
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
I haven't played Heavenly Sword, but if it was a good game that's
actually fun to play, and
does not have a super-scripted gameplay style (where there's very
little chance to try different
approaches, and the AI _never_ diverges from doing the same exact
thing), then, yes, it would
have replay value. That's different than "value for the money", and
if Heavenly Sword is as
short as the reviews indicate (a little more than half the length of
God of War 2), then it certainly
doesn't have value for the money. "Value for the money" is actually
what is suffering nowadays,
with games being more expensive, but having less content. This is
something that is hurting all
the systems, but Sony isn't helping itself with its sparse first party
release schedule.
Folklore is an RPG, so the "replay value" factor isn't a major one, as
RPGs are usually
long enough for the "value for the money" factor to dominate.
>and this is what is killing
> Sony, they are sticking with what was good years ago when console
> gaming didn't require a lot more than initial excitement while they
> churn out games en mass for the multitudes of PS2 owners to choose
> from, because they didn't have but one element of gaming to them,
> mainly single story play. This is different now with all the
> experience with different modes of play that PC gaming brought about.
> Online PC gaming, when about the time the PS2 came along was taking
> off fast, it was barely an infant when about the time the PS1 came
> out. But it did take off and so did the reasoning why current consoles
> are selling, they are not just single mode single story games anymore,
> and people want more because they know there is more out there now.
> People do see and think what is out when they play games you know, and
> it is going to keep changing, Sony seems to stay the course.
>
But by your argument, Sony ISN'T staying the course when it releases
Warhawk,
which has NO single player element........and that, IMO, was a big
mistake. Look at
Shadowrun, which only had a botmatch as the single player mode. It
flopped bigtime.
If you look at successful multiplayer games, they are usually either
based on a long
established brand name (e.g. Unreal) with years of goodwill behind it,
or are riding
off a successful license (e.g. Star Wars: Battlefront) and use that
license heavily. As
for Halo's success, the first game featured single player prominently,
and got a lot of
its fanbase due to the single player game. After all, the actual
number of gamers who
had the resources for the famous system link parties couldn't have
been that high.
> > As for PC online gaming dictating console gaming, I don't see
> > that, with the exception of
> > FPS games. Games like God of War and Grand Theft Auto 3 weren't
> > inspired by Quake, that's for
> > sure. And Halo, probably one of the most popular console FPS games,
> > diverged from PC FPS tradition
> > by having a fairly significant gameplay element that pulled out of the
> > first person view- vehicular combat.
>
> I am in no way dismissing what you say, but if what you say really
> follows, then PS3 sales for their most recent releases should be
> through the roof translating into big hardware sales, it isn't . They
> are doing very poorly, and I am only guessing that my assumptions are
> the reasons why; the times have changed, and Sony isn't changing.- Hide quoted text -
>
The reason is that Sony launched a year late against a competitor
which WASN'T Sega,
with an overly expensive price tag, and the most moronic pre-launch PR
seen in a while,
and the launch lineup was not really strong. It wasn't necessarily
that Sony was stuck in a
"genre rut", but that people were hoping for titles that reflected the
PS2 lineup at its strongest,
and got something that was more ho-hum.
Tom
Folklore is way more Action/Adventure with a little RPG element.
>
> >and this is what is killing
> > Sony, they are sticking with what was good years ago when console
> > gaming didn't require a lot more than initial excitement while they
> > churn out games en mass for the multitudes of PS2 owners to choose
> > from, because they didn't have but one element of gaming to them,
> > mainly single story play. This is different now with all the
> > experience with different modes of play that PC gaming brought about.
> > Online PC gaming, when about the time the PS2 came along was taking
> > off fast, it was barely an infant when about the time the PS1 came
> > out. But it did take off and so did the reasoning why current consoles
> > are selling, they are not just single mode single story games anymore,
> > and people want more because they know there is more out there now.
> > People do see and think what is out when they play games you know, and
> > it is going to keep changing, Sony seems to stay the course.
>
> But by your argument, Sony ISN'T staying the course when it releases
> Warhawk,
> which has NO single player element........and that, IMO, was a big
> mistake.
Nick, I generalized single story, but in this case, and it is the only
one without a story, but it still has onlys a single element, that
beingMP mode. I was simply pointing out, while the PS2 kept doing its
thing, the Xbox was creating more gaming modes as does the 360, and
the PS3 seems to be doing the same thing as before.
> for Halo's success, the first game featured single player prominently,
> and got a lot of
> its fanbase due to the single player game. After all, the actual
> number of gamers who
> had the resources for the famous system link parties couldn't have
> been that high.
Keep in mind, many Halo sales were bundles with the Xbox, that's how I
got mine.
>
> > > As for PC online gaming dictating console gaming, I don't see
> > > that, with the exception of
> > > FPS games. Games like God of War and Grand Theft Auto 3 weren't
> > > inspired by Quake, that's for
> > > sure. And Halo, probably one of the most popular console FPS games,
> > > diverged from PC FPS tradition
> > > by having a fairly significant gameplay element that pulled out of the
> > > first person view- vehicular combat.
>
> > I am in no way dismissing what you say, but if what you say really
> > follows, then PS3 sales for their most recent releases should be
> > through the roof translating into big hardware sales, it isn't . They
> > are doing very poorly, and I am only guessing that my assumptions are
> > the reasons why; the times have changed, and Sony isn't changing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The reason is that Sony launched a year late against a competitor
> which WASN'T Sega,
> with an overly expensive price tag, and the most moronic pre-launch PR
> seen in a while,
> and the launch lineup was not really strong. It wasn't necessarily
> that Sony was stuck in a
> "genre rut", but that people were hoping for titles that reflected the
> PS2 lineup at its strongest,
> and got something that was more ho-hum.
All what you listed are some reasons for weak sales, etc, those have
been covered for months now. I am talking about now, with the
exclusives Sony is releasing. Don't you see, they are not selling
these games and there is a reason why, considering they have almost
5.5mil consoles out the door and I gave my reasons which I will again,
what other reason can you think of. I am thinking it is because they
offer no more than a single element to the game, that mostly being a
single story that has little replay value. This in a time now where MP
online gaming is big, and the 360 makes almost all of their games that
mode. Sony is selling exclusives with nothing more than one elemnt to
the game (whether it be MP or single story only).
Read the latest attach rates for the PS3, and give why you think the
games are not selling.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
What I gathered from the reviews was that it was an action-RPG- far
more than a "little" RPG element. I could be wrong, as I haven't
played it.
>
>
>
> > >and this is what is killing
> > > Sony, they are sticking with what was good years ago when console
> > > gaming didn't require a lot more than initial excitement while they
> > > churn out games en mass for the multitudes of PS2 owners to choose
> > > from, because they didn't have but one element of gaming to them,
> > > mainly single story play. This is different now with all the
> > > experience with different modes of play that PC gaming brought about.
> > > Online PC gaming, when about the time the PS2 came along was taking
> > > off fast, it was barely an infant when about the time the PS1 came
> > > out. But it did take off and so did the reasoning why current consoles
> > > are selling, they are not just single mode single story games anymore,
> > > and people want more because they know there is more out there now.
> > > People do see and think what is out when they play games you know, and
> > > it is going to keep changing, Sony seems to stay the course.
>
> > But by your argument, Sony ISN'T staying the course when it releases
> > Warhawk,
> > which has NO single player element........and that, IMO, was a big
> > mistake.
>
> Nick, I generalized single story, but in this case, and it is the only
> one without a story, but it still has onlys a single element, that
> beingMP mode. I was simply pointing out, while the PS2 kept doing its
> thing, the Xbox was creating more gaming modes as does the 360, and
> the PS3 seems to be doing the same thing as before.
>
Considering that the PS2 still had a fair number of multiplayer games,
I'm not sure your point is that strong. Xbox Live was a much more
efficient and centralized system, but I'm not sure that the game
libraries themselves reflected any major trend.
> > for Halo's success, the first game featured single player prominently,
> > and got a lot of
> > its fanbase due to the single player game. After all, the actual
> > number of gamers who
> > had the resources for the famous system link parties couldn't have
> > been that high.
>
> Keep in mind, many Halo sales were bundles with the Xbox, that's how I
> got mine.
I'm not sure if that was the case for at least a couple of years after
launch. But Halo was already the most prominent game of the Xbox
library within the first year.
Sony has released little more than a trickle of exclusives. Heavenly
Sword didn't sell that well because of the reviews saying it was far
shorter than God of War 2, but it still sold OK. The God of War games
sold pretty well, despite the fact that they had NO multiplayer. HS
was a case of "not enough value for the money". Ratchet & Clank just
released, and has had precious little advertising prior to release.
Lair suffered TERRIBLE press, due to the motion control fiasco. I'm
sure that if one of these franchises had been the main prop of the
prior console iteration's success, and had $10 million+ in advertising
behind it, the attach rate would have been quite a bit greater. I
can't really think of any other recent Sony exclusives.
Also, are those 5.5 million consoles sold, or shipped?
>I am thinking it is because they
> offer no more than a single element to the game, that mostly being a
> single story that has little replay value.
I've already given my argument why the statement that a single player
story has no "replay value" is erroneous. I haven't seen anything to
show that my argument is wrong.
>This in a time now where MP
> online gaming is big,
Not big enough to keep Shadowrun from flopping.
>and the 360 makes almost all of their games that
> mode. Sony is selling exclusives with nothing more than one elemnt to
> the game (whether it be MP or single story only).
>
> Read the latest attach rates for the PS3, and give why you think the
> games are not selling.
See above.
Tom
GoW2 is for a system that probably still has an install base of at least
60mil units, yet to date RFOM has sold more copies and has MP.
> HS was a case of "not enough value for the money". Ratchet & Clank just
> released, and has had precious little advertising prior to release.
> Lair suffered TERRIBLE press, due to the motion control fiasco. I'm
> sure that if one of these franchises had been the main prop of the
> prior console iteration's success, and had $10 million+ in advertising
> behind it, the attach rate would have been quite a bit greater. I
> can't really think of any other recent Sony exclusives.
Well you gave some reasons why you think these exclusives are not selling.
>
> Also, are those 5.5 million consoles sold, or shipped?
Sold
>
>>I am thinking it is because they
>> offer no more than a single element to the game, that mostly being a
>> single story that has little replay value.
>
> I've already given my argument why the statement that a single player
> story has no "replay value" is erroneous. I haven't seen anything to
> show that my argument is wrong.
OK, RFOM has single story and MP mode, and it sold over 1.7million copies.
Motorstorm sold 1.4 million, it has multiplayer.
Do you see the appeal as these have replay value, times have changed from
2000-2002 to now. People buy consoles that have games, they talk about games
and what you can do with them, and the word spreads, positive or negative.
The recent Sony exclusives (I already gave reasons why cross-platforms are
not selling well) are not selling because they lack anything other than one
playing element to the games, that's my reason, look at what has sold.
Here's another example, Dirt on the 360 came out 2 months before the PS3
version, yet the PS3 version has sold more by 25% in total sales. Though the
numbers are not big, it has MP, and the game is superior to the 360 version.
R7C is pretty much one of the bread and butter games for the PS system, yet
in its first week, it only outsold total PS3 Dirt sales by 16K, and Dirt is
definitely not a household gaming name. But, you see where I am going now?
>
>>This in a time now where MP
>> online gaming is big,
>
> Not big enough to keep Shadowrun from flopping.
You're picking out one game, not all games are going to sell well, that's a
fact on any system. But look at the recent (again I am stressing this to
you) exclusives from Sony that are not selling well at all, and none have
nothing more than a single playing element to the game. Is this just a
coincidence after I showed you the Motorstorm and RFOM numbers?
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1194198422....@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>>>>snipped for volume<<<<<<
>
> >> All what you listed are some reasons for weak sales, etc, those have
> >> been covered for months now. I am talking about now, with the
> >> exclusives Sony is releasing. Don't you see, they are not selling
> >> these games and there is a reason why, considering they have almost
> >> 5.5mil consoles out the door and I gave my reasons which I will again,
> >> what other reason can you think of.
>
> > Sony has released little more than a trickle of exclusives. Heavenly
> > Sword didn't sell that well because of the reviews saying it was far
> > shorter than God of War 2, but it still sold OK. The God of War games
> > sold pretty well, despite the fact that they had NO multiplayer
>
> GoW2 is for a system that probably still has an install base of at least
> 60mil units, yet to date RFOM has sold more copies and has MP
But RFOM was out 5 months longer, and was a "tentpole" game for the
PS3 launch.
>
> > HS was a case of "not enough value for the money". Ratchet & Clank just
> > released, and has had precious little advertising prior to release.
> > Lair suffered TERRIBLE press, due to the motion control fiasco. I'm
> > sure that if one of these franchises had been the main prop of the
> > prior console iteration's success, and had $10 million+ in advertising
> > behind it, the attach rate would have been quite a bit greater. I
> > can't really think of any other recent Sony exclusives.
>
> Well you gave some reasons why you think these exclusives are not selling.
>
>
????
>
> > Also, are those 5.5 million consoles sold, or shipped?
>
> Sold
>
>
>
> >>I am thinking it is because they
> >> offer no more than a single element to the game, that mostly being a
> >> single story that has little replay value.
>
> > I've already given my argument why the statement that a single player
> > story has no "replay value" is erroneous. I haven't seen anything to
> > show that my argument is wrong.
>
> OK, RFOM has single story and MP mode, and it sold over 1.7million copies.
> Motorstorm sold 1.4 million, it has multiplayer.
>
> Do you see the appeal as these have replay value, times have changed from
> 2000-2002 to now.
You're not addressing what I've said. Lack of multiplayer does not =
no replay value. Perhaps I wasn't being clear....my bad.
>People buy consoles that have games, they talk about games
> and what you can do with them, and the word spreads, positive or negative.
> The recent Sony exclusives (I already gave reasons why cross-platforms are
> not selling well) are not selling because they lack anything other than one
> playing element to the games, that's my reason, look at what has sold.
> Here's another example, Dirt on the 360 came out 2 months before the PS3
> version, yet the PS3 version has sold more by 25% in total sales. Though the
> numbers are not big, it has MP, and the game is superior to the 360 version.
> R7C is pretty much one of the bread and butter games for the PS system, yet
> in its first week, it only outsold total PS3 Dirt sales by 16K, and Dirt is
> definitely not a household gaming name. But, you see where I am going now?
>
Well, consider that sports and racing games are more popular with the
general public than platformers. Madden alone helped determine who
won in the PS2/Dreamcast showdown.
>
>
> >>This in a time now where MP
> >> online gaming is big,
>
> > Not big enough to keep Shadowrun from flopping.
>
> You're picking out one game, not all games are going to sell well, that's a
> fact on any system. But look at the recent (again I am stressing this to
> you) exclusives from Sony that are not selling well at all, and none have
> nothing more than a single playing element to the game. Is this just a
> coincidence after I showed you the Motorstorm and RFOM numbers?
You're missing the "Halo 3" factor. Given that the media blitz during
the fall season has been "Halo-centric" (5 hours of launch coverage on
G4???), it's no wonder that recent PS3 titles haven't sold well
compared to earlier ones.
Here's a point: I've seen a number of people write that Call of Duty 4
is now going to just be a rental for them, DESPITE the online
multiplayer, after hearing about how short the reviews say the game
is. When the single player mode becomes an afterthought in favor of
online multiplayer, you're going to see less people wanting to spend
$60. People want replay value and value for their money. I think
that more gamers than not have fonder memories of single player
"watercooler moments" in games, than they have of faceless online
matches. Sure, you've got people waxing poetic about Goldeneye, but
part of that was due to the inclusion of a solid single player mode,
and part was due to the face-to-face social interaction with their
buddies in split-screen mode. Fewer games are now supporting split
screen mode, in favor of making people play online.
The point is, people shouldn't count a game out simply because it
doesn't have online multiplayer. Did Legend of Zelda have multiplayer
at all? Super Mario 64? Ninja Gaiden (both 2D and 3D)?