A
thingsfallnapart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 72 (100%)
a blue tooth headset and warhawk for 60 dollars? Reasonable..but on any given week you can get a decent blu tooth headset for 20 bucks from frys, and ive seen such a deal at CC now and then. I guess you can consider it a bit overpriced.
The way I see it, they are stating that the game isn't a full-fledged game and is more of an "XBLA" kind of title and thus shouldn't be priced over $30. I think reviews should take price into account. Many sites do this. When you see a game compilation like Sega Genesis Collection, reviews always say something like, "15 games for $20 is a steal." Why can't they state the opposite if a game is not a bargain (ie. Both Final Fantasy games for the PSP).
[quote name='PyroGamer']Price shouldn't be a factor into a game's score.
Consumers themselves can look a the score and the price and decide for themselves if it's worth their hard-earned cash, it's not the reviewer's job to do that, only to rate the quality of the game.[/quote]
I don't know about that, I believe a game's review score should take into account the game's end 'value' (which is to say, does the game's fun and length correlate to its price?)
For example, if Katamari Damacy were to come out today on PSN as a $2 download, I'd expect reviewers to grade it around a 9 because the 'value' is so high. However, were Namco to release Katamari Damacy 1 + 2 as a bundle for the PS3 at $60, I'd expect it to be graded fairly low if there were no new features.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch by Kendro.
Consumers themselves can look a the score and the price and decide for themselves if it's worth their hard-earned cash, it's not the reviewer's job to do that, only to rate the quality of the game.[/quote]
I don't know about that, I believe a game's review score should take into account the game's end 'value' (which is to say, does the game's fun and length correlate to its price?)
For example, if Katamari Damacy were to come out today on PSN as a $2 download, I'd expect reviewers to grade it around a 9 because the 'value' is so high. However, were Namco to release Katamari Damacy 1 + 2 as a bundle for the PS3 at $60, I'd expect it to be graded fairly low if there were no new features.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch by Kendro.
A
Apossum
Guest
This makes me think they didn't like the game all that much-- because if it was a very good game, price wouldn't be an issue to drop a point over.
tangytangerine
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Kendro']Why can't they state the opposite if a game is not a bargain (ie. Both Final Fantasy games for the PSP).[/quote]
They do. EGM complained with both the FF 1 & FF2 reviews that it's not worth the money to buy seperately when you can buy them on GBA or PS1 bundled together for less.
They do. EGM complained with both the FF 1 & FF2 reviews that it's not worth the money to buy seperately when you can buy them on GBA or PS1 bundled together for less.
seththefallen
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
Sony wants to milk this game, its really the only game like it on the console and people want these sort of battlefield multiplayer games to play online. They want to charge $40 at least, they have to recoup lost hardware expenditures through software and this could be a big game. This is the reason that microsoft charges $60 for first party titles when they promised a long time ago not to go above $50.
I agree with 1up, games should be reviewed based on VALUE.
When I see a game review, I hope they take price into great consideration. Sor instance, if a game is 120 dollars, and is as much fun as a game that can be had for 30 dollars, the 120 dollar game should be reviewed lower.
I believe that reviewers do this already, which makes buying good games at low prices even easier. For instance, say a game was released at 60 dollars and scored a 9.0. If I can score the game for 20 dollars, then I read that review score as around 9.6, since the overall value of the game has gone up.
EDIT: 1 whole point is a bit much tho.
When I see a game review, I hope they take price into great consideration. Sor instance, if a game is 120 dollars, and is as much fun as a game that can be had for 30 dollars, the 120 dollar game should be reviewed lower.
I believe that reviewers do this already, which makes buying good games at low prices even easier. For instance, say a game was released at 60 dollars and scored a 9.0. If I can score the game for 20 dollars, then I read that review score as around 9.6, since the overall value of the game has gone up.
EDIT: 1 whole point is a bit much tho.
SpreadTheWord
CAGiversary!
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8299344&publicUserId=4561231
1Up's head guy talks about game price and reviews.
I think he makes a good point about downloadable game prices. Who is going to say that Lumines Live was a bad game? but should it get a score that compares to Bejeweled(is it on XBLA yet?) or other puzzle games when the "core" game costs $15 and all you get is pits and pieces?
Cost does matter for XBLA games. How else do you measure content? It's the same thing that Jaffe said about Gamespot's review of Calling All Cars. You can't ask for a Twisted Metal level of content when the game is a few hundred MB and costs $10. But if PGR 4 comes out and has only 3 tracks and 4 cars then it will get blasted.
This reviewer who says to lower his score by 1 point if the game costs more than $30 has made a choice on how much the game is worth. Lets say he scored it an 8 under the assumption that the game will cost $30. He feels that if the game costs $40 or $50 that the game is no longer as worthy of the 8 and that it is now a 7.
This is not much different than saying "If Halo 3 ships with no online co-op, drop my score by 1 point."
A whole point based off the cost does seems a little extreme to me. But the reviewer feels the game doesn't have enough content to justify a cost higher than $30 and he decides what that will do to his score.
1Up's head guy talks about game price and reviews.
I think he makes a good point about downloadable game prices. Who is going to say that Lumines Live was a bad game? but should it get a score that compares to Bejeweled(is it on XBLA yet?) or other puzzle games when the "core" game costs $15 and all you get is pits and pieces?
Cost does matter for XBLA games. How else do you measure content? It's the same thing that Jaffe said about Gamespot's review of Calling All Cars. You can't ask for a Twisted Metal level of content when the game is a few hundred MB and costs $10. But if PGR 4 comes out and has only 3 tracks and 4 cars then it will get blasted.
This reviewer who says to lower his score by 1 point if the game costs more than $30 has made a choice on how much the game is worth. Lets say he scored it an 8 under the assumption that the game will cost $30. He feels that if the game costs $40 or $50 that the game is no longer as worthy of the 8 and that it is now a 7.
This is not much different than saying "If Halo 3 ships with no online co-op, drop my score by 1 point."
A whole point based off the cost does seems a little extreme to me. But the reviewer feels the game doesn't have enough content to justify a cost higher than $30 and he decides what that will do to his score.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='megabadd']I don't know about that, I believe a game's review score should take into account the game's end 'value' (which is to say, does the game's fun and length correlate to its price?)
For example, if Katamari Damacy were to come out today on PSN as a $2 download, I'd expect reviewers to grade it around a 9 because the 'value' is so high. However, were Namco to release Katamari Damacy 1 + 2 as a bundle for the PS3 at $60, I'd expect it to be graded fairly low if there were no new features.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely silly.
A game should be given a 10 if it's of high quality. Then the consumer can decide if $20 for a rated 10 game is worth it, or if $35 for a 7.5 game is worth it, or if $15 for a 5.5 game is worth it, or if a 9.0 game is worth $60.
What a consumer will pay for a game of a certain quality is up to them, not the reviewers, to decide.
[quote name='help1']For instance, say a game was released at 60 dollars and scored a 9.0. If I can score the game for 20 dollars, then I read that review score as around 9.6, since the overall value of the game has gone up.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely silly and rediculous. A game should be rated on its quality regardless of its price. A game's quality, a games "value", doesn't go up because it's price has gone down. The price of a game has precisely NOTHING to do with its quality or value.
If Warhawk is only worth $30 to this reviewer, he should score it accordingly, not inflate its score simply because it can be had on the cheap.
For example, if Katamari Damacy were to come out today on PSN as a $2 download, I'd expect reviewers to grade it around a 9 because the 'value' is so high. However, were Namco to release Katamari Damacy 1 + 2 as a bundle for the PS3 at $60, I'd expect it to be graded fairly low if there were no new features.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely silly.
A game should be given a 10 if it's of high quality. Then the consumer can decide if $20 for a rated 10 game is worth it, or if $35 for a 7.5 game is worth it, or if $15 for a 5.5 game is worth it, or if a 9.0 game is worth $60.
What a consumer will pay for a game of a certain quality is up to them, not the reviewers, to decide.
[quote name='help1']For instance, say a game was released at 60 dollars and scored a 9.0. If I can score the game for 20 dollars, then I read that review score as around 9.6, since the overall value of the game has gone up.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely silly and rediculous. A game should be rated on its quality regardless of its price. A game's quality, a games "value", doesn't go up because it's price has gone down. The price of a game has precisely NOTHING to do with its quality or value.
If Warhawk is only worth $30 to this reviewer, he should score it accordingly, not inflate its score simply because it can be had on the cheap.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='thingsfallnapart']a blue tooth headset and warhawk for 60 dollars? Reasonable..but on any given week you can get a decent blu tooth headset for 20 bucks from frys, and ive seen such a deal at CC now and then. I guess you can consider it a bit overpriced.[/QUOTE]It's a matter of whether it will even work on PS3. Some bluetooth headsets do, while some don't. The one coming with Warhawk is a really nice headset and really works well with PS3. I was lucky to get a Plantronics 320 really cheap, and it works almost perfect. Many try to buy the Motorola H350 because it's cheap, but it doesn't work right and could actually break your PS3.
As for the review, it's hard to say. I hate how Gamespot doesn't seem to take price into consideration (like with Super Stardust HD and Calling All Cars. Really fun games, but they are budget priced, and tried to put them against full fledged games).
I will say Warhawk is bigger than any XBLA game, but smaller than a traditional retail game. Warhawk and Shadowrun are equal in my eyes. At least Sony is giving us a nice headset and not selling the game itself for $60.
As for the review, it's hard to say. I hate how Gamespot doesn't seem to take price into consideration (like with Super Stardust HD and Calling All Cars. Really fun games, but they are budget priced, and tried to put them against full fledged games).
I will say Warhawk is bigger than any XBLA game, but smaller than a traditional retail game. Warhawk and Shadowrun are equal in my eyes. At least Sony is giving us a nice headset and not selling the game itself for $60.
mrchainsaw
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
I agree with Pyrogamer. The price is going to decrease with time (except for downloads), making the review kind of worthless if it's based off of the initial price. If I was reviewing new games coming out I'd give all of them bad scores because I can't justify spending $50+ on a single game. However, when a game drops to $30 or less, I'm much more willing to buy it. The price will change for the better but the game will either stay good or bad.
If I were to see a $30 XBLA/PSN game get reviews of 9/10 or 10/10, I would have to assume that the reviewer believes the game is worth $30. I would expect it to be a better game than a $5 XBLA/PSN game rated at 9/10 or 10/10.
I think this philosophy really only applies to downloadable games. Part of the reason is that the downloadable games don't seem to degrade in price much (if ever). 6 months down the road I may be able to pick up a disc-based game for half price, so the initial retail price doesn't mean as much.
Perhaps that's not the way it should be, but that's how I see it right now.
I'm not sure where Warhawk fits in to this line of thought, since it's available both disc-based and downloadable.
I think this philosophy really only applies to downloadable games. Part of the reason is that the downloadable games don't seem to degrade in price much (if ever). 6 months down the road I may be able to pick up a disc-based game for half price, so the initial retail price doesn't mean as much.
Perhaps that's not the way it should be, but that's how I see it right now.
I'm not sure where Warhawk fits in to this line of thought, since it's available both disc-based and downloadable.
while i think that price is certainly a factor in buying games (ie, Katamari for 20 bucks, not 50) i think that consumers should be smart enough to decide on their own if they want the game. if people base their purchases solely off reviews and what they think of the games then they deserve to lose money.
whitereflection
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 73 (100%)
[quote name='mrchainsaw']I agree with Pyrogamer. The price is going to decrease with time (except for downloads), making the review kind of worthless if it's based off of the initial price. If I was reviewing new games coming out I'd give all of them bad scores because I can't justify spending $50+ on a single game. However, when a game drops to $30 or less, I'm much more willing to buy it. The price will change for the better but the game will either stay good or bad.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to argue that, why have reviews in the first place? Most games won't hold up after five, ten years. Doesn't that make reviews worthless too?
If you're going to argue that, why have reviews in the first place? Most games won't hold up after five, ten years. Doesn't that make reviews worthless too?
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='rendil']If I were to see a $30 XBLA/PSN game get reviews of 9/10 or 10/10, I would have to assume that the reviewer believes the game is worth $30. I would expect it to be a better game than a $5 XBLA/PSN game rated at 9/10 or 10/10.
I think this philosophy really only applies to downloadable games. Part of the reason is that the downloadable games don't seem to degrade in price much (if ever). 6 months down the road I may be able to pick up a disc-based game for half price, so the initial retail price doesn't mean as much.
Perhaps that's not the way it should be, but that's how I see it right now.
I'm not sure where Warhawk fits in to this line of thought, since it's available both disc-based and downloadable.[/QUOTE]
The more I think of it, the more I feel that the problem instigated by downloadable games can be easily treated by thinking of them as entirely different entities, with different score scales.
Downloadable games have unique properties:
Low price.
Low content amount.
Fixed price.
As such, I suppose you can justify reviewing them differently than "full-release" titles.
I suppose then, that it is not too much a problem that this 1up reviewer is saying "subtract 1 point" if the game is over $30. He's essentialy saying that if the game is to be considered a "downloadable-game" at $30, it should be graded on a more lenient scale, but if it is to be considered a "full-release" game, that just happens to be also available as a download, it should be graded differently.
The problem is, I consider a game that is priced at even $30 to be far from the realm of "downloadable-game", I say anything over $20 should be considered a "full-release" game, honestly, anything over $10 should be considered as such.
I think this philosophy really only applies to downloadable games. Part of the reason is that the downloadable games don't seem to degrade in price much (if ever). 6 months down the road I may be able to pick up a disc-based game for half price, so the initial retail price doesn't mean as much.
Perhaps that's not the way it should be, but that's how I see it right now.
I'm not sure where Warhawk fits in to this line of thought, since it's available both disc-based and downloadable.[/QUOTE]
The more I think of it, the more I feel that the problem instigated by downloadable games can be easily treated by thinking of them as entirely different entities, with different score scales.
Downloadable games have unique properties:
Low price.
Low content amount.
Fixed price.
As such, I suppose you can justify reviewing them differently than "full-release" titles.
I suppose then, that it is not too much a problem that this 1up reviewer is saying "subtract 1 point" if the game is over $30. He's essentialy saying that if the game is to be considered a "downloadable-game" at $30, it should be graded on a more lenient scale, but if it is to be considered a "full-release" game, that just happens to be also available as a download, it should be graded differently.
The problem is, I consider a game that is priced at even $30 to be far from the realm of "downloadable-game", I say anything over $20 should be considered a "full-release" game, honestly, anything over $10 should be considered as such.
I totatlly agree with pyro...the same shit happened to shadowrun, due to it only having multiplayer games...but that didn't seem to affect the scores of battlefield and unreal in there scores. The price of the game, shouldn't be in the scores, but in the total revenue. I can vote with my wallet, and if warhawk is over $30, I probably won't buy it.
mrchainsaw
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='whitereflection']If you're going to argue that, why have reviews in the first place? Most games won't hold up after five, ten years. Doesn't that make reviews worthless too?[/quote]
Good point. I guess you have to keep the date it was released in mind.
Good point. I guess you have to keep the date it was released in mind.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='whitereflection']why have reviews in the first place?[/QUOTE]
People like to know what a game's quality is. They want an objective gauge on a game's quality so they can decide whether or not to spend their time and money on (renting or buying) it.
Also, reviews are a way for developers to gague the quality of the games themselves, striving to acheive the highest rating from the critics.
People like to know what a game's quality is. They want an objective gauge on a game's quality so they can decide whether or not to spend their time and money on (renting or buying) it.
Also, reviews are a way for developers to gague the quality of the games themselves, striving to acheive the highest rating from the critics.
V
Virtua
Guest
Does nobody in the videogame business understand pricing and demand? high prices mean you sell less, low prices mean you sell more. Warhawk should be a $30 product. $50 at retail with headset.
If we can't get these games to a sub $40 price, they shouldn't exist. End of story.
I absolutely believe that price should be a factor in reviews. Publishers like Square need to be called out by someone for the absurd pricing of FF1 and 2 and such. (both of which would fit on half a UMD, with room to spare)
If we can't get these games to a sub $40 price, they shouldn't exist. End of story.
I absolutely believe that price should be a factor in reviews. Publishers like Square need to be called out by someone for the absurd pricing of FF1 and 2 and such. (both of which would fit on half a UMD, with room to spare)
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='jer7583']I absolutely believe that price should be a factor in reviews. Publishers like Square need to be called out by someone for the absurd pricing of FF1 and 2 and such. (both of which would fit on half a UMD, with room to spare)[/QUOTE]
I don't understand the reasoning here.
If you are reviewing FF1 and FF2 on the PSP as "full-release" titles, then you could justify a low score by lack of content.
If FF1 and FF2 were released as "low-feature/downloadable" games (priced at $10-$20), then you'd review it as such, and your review scores would be more lenient on the lack of content.
I don't understand the reasoning here.
If you are reviewing FF1 and FF2 on the PSP as "full-release" titles, then you could justify a low score by lack of content.
If FF1 and FF2 were released as "low-feature/downloadable" games (priced at $10-$20), then you'd review it as such, and your review scores would be more lenient on the lack of content.
DarkNessBear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
They gave Shadowrun an 8/10. . .
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='DarkNessBear']They gave Shadowrun an 8/10. . .
I rest my case.[/quote]
Yeah, that's total
ing hypocrisy. Anyway, these whiny bitch princesses wouldn't be demanding Sony to owe them a price piont if Sony hadn't announced that it would be released lower than $60. While price point/amount of content should be included in a game's quality ascertainment, it should not be used on some finite scale. "Well, I know this is only worth $30" is bullshit, because he would only use that if he knew that it was releasing under $60.
But Shadowrun an 8/10? What a bunch of no dick hypocrites.
I rest my case.[/quote]
Yeah, that's total
ing hypocrisy. Anyway, these whiny bitch princesses wouldn't be demanding Sony to owe them a price piont if Sony hadn't announced that it would be released lower than $60. While price point/amount of content should be included in a game's quality ascertainment, it should not be used on some finite scale. "Well, I know this is only worth $30" is bullshit, because he would only use that if he knew that it was releasing under $60. But Shadowrun an 8/10? What a bunch of no dick hypocrites.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
They shouldn't have said they'd do that. It shows them having a bias. If the game was $60 on PSN, it'd be pretty obvious that Sony would want you to go out and buy the BR version of the game.
If that were the case, it shouldn't affect the score because it'd be the same price either via dl or in-store, meaning everyone's going to get the in-store version. Meaning it should have no impact on the review score.
If that were the case, it shouldn't affect the score because it'd be the same price either via dl or in-store, meaning everyone's going to get the in-store version. Meaning it should have no impact on the review score.
[quote name='seanr1221']So...shouldn't Guitar Hero III get panned for costing 100.00?[/quote]
No, because it is worth that much with the guitar. If Super Mario 3 came out at $60 today it would be a total ripoff and even though it's widely considered one of the best games of all time you couldn't give it a 10, could you?
No, because it is worth that much with the guitar. If Super Mario 3 came out at $60 today it would be a total ripoff and even though it's widely considered one of the best games of all time you couldn't give it a 10, could you?
For the PSN version, $30 seems like a good price for the game. I have a feeling they'll be charging $40, and it won't really hurt them. I played the beta, and I enjoyed it very much. Not my type of game, though, and really only enjoyed the 4 player online co-op portion. Can't say how it stacks up against other 1st/3rd person shooters, because most I won't touch without some sort of co-op/multiplayer (which seems to be pretty rare).
A
Apossum
Guest
if every game were judged by its price, we'd have a lot more 5s and 6s...
V
Virtua
Guest
Guitar Hero 3 is $100??
LOL
Welcome to next gen. I'm staying a generation behind this time.
LOL
Welcome to next gen. I'm staying a generation behind this time.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Of course price should be a factor to any review, because it's one part of the total package that affects the gamer's enjoyment of the game. If a game is overpriced for the amount of content it offers, it shouldn't be given a higher score disregarding any problems with that issue since it affects the game's appeal. It should be noted within the review itself and not just lowered without any explanation.
DarkNessBear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='jer7583']Guitar Hero 3 is $100??
LOL
Welcome to next gen. I'm staying a generation behind this time.[/quote]
Oh god, is it really?
Man...
LOL
Welcome to next gen. I'm staying a generation behind this time.[/quote]
Oh god, is it really?
Man...
I was hoping that it would be 20$ if you DL it.
But 1up seems to be hard on so many games and companies. EMG giving those low end scores was just another example of how tough they are on game reviews.
I dont care to much about this since people can just look at the score and if they are okay with the price see the score as +1
But 1up seems to be hard on so many games and companies. EMG giving those low end scores was just another example of how tough they are on game reviews.
I dont care to much about this since people can just look at the score and if they are okay with the price see the score as +1
[quote name='DarkNessBear']They gave Shadowrun an 8/10. . .
I rest my case.[/QUOTE]
Bout time someone posted that. They didn't knock down any points for Shadowrun, there's no way that game is a 9/10. Also from what i've heard, the game sucked ass.
Anyone who owns a PS3 should stay the away from EGM/1up and Gamespot for reviews.
I rest my case.[/QUOTE]
Bout time someone posted that. They didn't knock down any points for Shadowrun, there's no way that game is a 9/10. Also from what i've heard, the game sucked ass.
Anyone who owns a PS3 should stay the
away from EGM/1up and Gamespot for reviews.
SpecTrE3353
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Kendro']The way I see it, they are stating that the game isn't a full-fledged game and is more of an "XBLA" kind of title and thus shouldn't be priced over $30. I think reviews should take price into account. Many sites do this. When you see a game compilation like Sega Genesis Collection, reviews always say something like, "15 games for $20 is a steal." Why can't they state the opposite if a game is not a bargain (ie. Both Final Fantasy games for the PSP).[/quote]
Agreed.
Agreed.
V
Virtua
Guest
1up just calls them as they sees them.
Almost all the 1up yours guys own PS3s now. Do you honestly think they'd harbor a bias if they personally own one in their own home, and paid $600 of their own cash for one? Don't be so blind. And don't forget Shane.
I bet you were singing EGM's praises when the 9s and such for Motorstorm came out. Damn hypocrites.
This was meant for "gokou" by the way.
Almost all the 1up yours guys own PS3s now. Do you honestly think they'd harbor a bias if they personally own one in their own home, and paid $600 of their own cash for one? Don't be so blind. And don't forget Shane.
I bet you were singing EGM's praises when the 9s and such for Motorstorm came out. Damn hypocrites.
This was meant for "gokou" by the way.
Punk_Raven
Banned
Price should be discussed in the game's review at one point. Gamespot used to have a system where they had a score for " value", which refers to if it's worth the price. Now if they don't have that over at 1 up then they should just put a note in the review, not take a whole point out of the score.
He shouldn't have let this out to the public, though.
He shouldn't have let this out to the public, though.
[quote name='jer7583']1up just calls them as they sees them.
Almost all the 1up yours guys own PS3s now. Do you honestly think they'd harbor a bias if they personally own one in their own home, and paid $600 of their own cash for one? Don't be so blind. And don't forget Shane.
I bet you were singing EGM's praises when the 9s and such for Motorstorm came out. Damn hypocrites.
This was meant for "gokou" by the way.[/QUOTE]
No, you're a dumbass as usual. Motorstorm is overhyped, why would I care if it got a 9? Exactly how do you think they got the money to even afford a $600 console?
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig!
Almost all the 1up yours guys own PS3s now. Do you honestly think they'd harbor a bias if they personally own one in their own home, and paid $600 of their own cash for one? Don't be so blind. And don't forget Shane.
I bet you were singing EGM's praises when the 9s and such for Motorstorm came out. Damn hypocrites.
This was meant for "gokou" by the way.[/QUOTE]
No, you're a dumbass as usual. Motorstorm is overhyped, why would I care if it got a 9? Exactly how do you think they got the money to even afford a $600 console?
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig!
V
Virtua
Guest
[quote name='gokou36']No, you're a dumbass as usual. Motorstorm is overhyped, why would I care if it got a 9? Exactly how do you think they got the money to even afford a $600 console?
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig![/QUOTE]
Go off the deep end much? EGM doesn't even allow companies to pay their airfaire to fly out to see a game. I was defending 1up. Nowhere in my incoherent ramblings did I mention Xbox. You, however, managed to criticize a game based on "what you've heard" because that's obviously reliable. Grow up.
And which part of my signature should I change? My 360 gamercard, or the image I made of a PS2 exclusive game that I love?ing forum kids, I'm going to go play brave story, on my PSP, because I HATE SONY SO MUCH, obviously.
also, on a lighter note, Van Damme made you a little Fairy Van Damme, so you wouldn't be such a sourpuss.
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig![/QUOTE]
Go off the deep end much? EGM doesn't even allow companies to pay their airfaire to fly out to see a game. I was defending 1up. Nowhere in my incoherent ramblings did I mention Xbox. You, however, managed to criticize a game based on "what you've heard" because that's obviously reliable. Grow up.
And which part of my signature should I change? My 360 gamercard, or the image I made of a PS2 exclusive game that I love?
ing forum kids, I'm going to go play brave story, on my PSP, because I HATE SONY SO MUCH, obviously.also, on a lighter note, Van Damme made you a little Fairy Van Damme, so you wouldn't be such a sourpuss.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='gokou36']No, you're a dumbass as usual. Motorstorm is overhyped, why would I care if it got a 9? Exactly how do you think they got the money to even afford a $600 console?
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig![/quote]
What a conspiracy! Sony should've paid 1up more for that 7.5 they gave MotorStorm.
These companies are known to take bribes to adjust their review scores. Time for YOU to face reality.
Edit : Ya know whats funny, jer7583 is. He will defend the 360 no matter what, yet now he doesn't even own one. Better change your sig![/quote]
What a conspiracy! Sony should've paid 1up more for that 7.5 they gave MotorStorm.
bread's done