Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Anyone else gonna watch this? I'm kinda eager to see who will win Game of the year between (Most likely) Halo 3, all of Duty 4, and Bioshock.

personally, i dont find anything entertaining about award shows of any kind. Id rather watch the highlights of them announcing the winners. The rest is just filler

Can you post a list of categories and nominees?

http://www.ifilm.com/show/23733

There's a list of the categories in a left-hand column, you click it for the nominees.

Personally I couldn't care less about this.

May watch it. Dunno.

It's already been taped, the results are readily available on the web.

When is this going to be shown on TV?

In like 2 hours. And CoD 4 isn't even included in the game of the yearaward, so Halo 3 has a good chance.. it'll pribably lose to Bioshock though. I also don't think that Mass Effect should deserve game of the year, nor Orange Box. They're both fun but not best ofthe year.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
it'll pribably lose to Bioshock though. Not a chance. shocklaugh

It's half over right now, where I live...

Shush you. East coast bastard

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Shush you. East coast bastard

I'm not on the east coast

Originally posted by Lana
I'm not on the east coast

Originally posted by Lana
I'm not on the east coast

Close enough dang'it!

Chicago is closer to the east coast then to the west, isn't it?

Darn it. I missed it. When is it rerunning after the one right after the first one?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Close enough dang'it!

Chicago is closer to the east coast then to the west, isn't it?

Still about a thousand miles off...

ya know what, forget it. Forget j00 Lana, forget j00

Halo 3 doesn't even come close to deserving GOTY. Spike game awards mean nothing, not to mention the entries are quite laughable in general. The mere fact that Mario Galaxy was not even nominated for GOTY is completely ridiculous. I wont be watching this...because mostly I don't care.

There is no such thing as any awards show meaning anything.. considering how good a game is is completely relative. To say otherwise is foolish.

The Spike TV Video Game Awards isn't worth my time.

I won't be watching it.

Nothing video game related is worth time.



Unless you're a junkie of course.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Halo 3 doesn't even come close to deserving GOTY. Spike game awards mean nothing, not to mention the entries are quite laughable in general. The mere fact that Mario Galaxy was not even nominated for GOTY is completely ridiculous. I wont be watching this...because mostly I don't care. Thanks for giving your opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Halo 3 doesn't even come close to deserving GOTY. Spike game awards mean nothing, not to mention the entries are quite laughable in general. The mere fact that Mario Galaxy was not even nominated for GOTY is completely ridiculous. I wont be watching this...because mostly I don't care.

Will Galaxy be entered next year?

That deserves an award.

so who won GOTY?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Halo 3 doesn't even come close to deserving GOTY. Spike game awards mean nothing, not to mention the entries are quite laughable in general.

Originally posted by Hidden Lotus
so who won GOTY?

Bioshock, like we all knew it would.

And H3 certainly deserved it more then say, galaxy. imo.

Yeah, I totally just went there.

Meh....the only good thing in Halo 3 is the multiplayer the campaign sucks.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Bioshock, like we all knew it would.

And H3 certainly deserved it more then say, galaxy. imo.

Yeah, I totally just went there.

You so did, and know you are thought less of.

You do know I am joking by the by.

I'm sure most people think less, though.

"OH MY T3H GOD MARIO WINZ 'CUZ 'CUZ IIT'S INNOVATION HALO 3 IS HALO 2.5 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!"

Halo is the most overrated video game series I've ever seen, in my opinion.

Super Mario Galaxy is timeless.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm sure most people think less, though.

"OH MY T3H GOD MARIO WINZ 'CUZ 'CUZ IIT'S INNOVATION HALO 3 IS HALO 2.5 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!"

Stop whining. Halo will never be what Mario is. Deal with it.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

What was even the point of best Xbox 360 game of the year? It makes no sense because all the nominees for goty were 360 games...
Anyway I was kinda p.o.'d that most of the awards I was looking forward to seeing were skipped over. Like RPG of the year and a few others. Seriously surprised H3 only got one award, didn't see that one coming. Bioshock was crazy as hell, and pretty fun, not goty material imo though.

edit: Prototype looks so f'n badass.

Originally posted by Impediment
Halo is the most overrated video game series I've ever seen, in my opinion.

Super Mario Galaxy is timeless.



In your opinions

And yeah I'm looking forward to prototype also. Looks fun as hell.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk

H3 certainly deserved it more then say, galaxy. imo.
Sure in the hell does.

Thanks for agreeing.

Originally posted by Estacado
Meh....the only good thing in Halo 3 is the multiplayer the campaign sucks.
Meh.. the only good thing in Super Mario Galaxy is the campaign. The Multiplayer- wait a minute..

Originally posted by Impediment
Halo is the most overrated video game series I've ever seen, in my opinion.

Super Mario Galaxy is timeless.
I agree it's overrated, campaign wise, but it's still a great game. The multi player is excellent and in the end that's what really counts.

No, it's not.

There are some games who's entire focus is only on mutliplayer. It's common knowledge that Halo is, at this point, one of those games.

And it's specially important when you've beaten the campaign six times already and don't wanna see an NPC bad guy ever again, ala Bioshock, FFX, and Knights of the Old Republic.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
And H3 certainly deserved it more then say, galaxy. imo.yes

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm sure most people think less, though.

"OH MY T3H GOD MARIO WINZ 'CUZ 'CUZ IIT'S INNOVATION HALO 3 IS HALO 2.5 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!"



Originally posted by Lana
Um...no. The game itself is what really counts. Not an additional add-on. no2

Originally posted by Lana
Um...no. The game itself is what really counts. Not an additional add-on.

Millions of games sold can't be wrong.

"silly n00b salez d'unt' ever cownt!"

Halo 3 is a good game quick get the Adam Sessler comment somewhere

Good ol' Adam Sessler. Haven't seen X-Play in years but god damn that was a great show.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Millions of games sold can't be wrong.

Sales don't necessarily mean it's good. Unless you want to claim that Britney Spears is one of the best singers ever.

Halo originally sold well because it was very heavily advertised, and because it was one of a handful of games available when the Xbox launched.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Good ol' Adam Sessler. Haven't seen X-Play in years but god damn that was a great show. http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/679947/Sesslers_Soapbox_Dear_Halo_Haters.html


Originally posted by Lana
Sales don't necessarily mean it's good. Unless you want to claim that Britney Spears is one of the best singers ever.

Halo originally sold well because it was very heavily advertised, and because it was one of a handful of games available when the Xbox launched. Says the RPG lover. Burn her

Originally posted by Newjak
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/679947/Sesslers_Soapbox_Dear_Halo_Haters.html


Says the RPG lover. Burn her

Yeah, I'm not so easily impressed by games

Originally posted by Lana
Yeah, I'm not so easily impressed by games Yeah because slapping some zany characters put them in a dime store novel fantasy adventure adds depth

Lmao...

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah because slapping some zany characters put them in a dime store novel fantasy adventure adds depth laughcry

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Lana
Um...no. The game itself is what really counts. Not an additional add-on.
People played Halo 2 multi player for over 3 years, and when I say this I mean frequently thousands did. Now let's take a game with a solid plot line, KOTOR for instance. It's got a great plot and most people I know who thought it was a good game played it once, maybe twice, never have a even heard from someone who would've played the game through lets say 8 or so times. Bottom line Multi player is what's going to sell more, very very few people can find enjoyment from playing the same exact game over and over and over and over again.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No, it's not.

There are some games who's entire focus is only on mutliplayer. It's common knowledge that Halo is, at this point, one of those games.

And it's specially important when you've beaten the campaign six times already and don't wanna see an NPC bad guy ever again, ala Bioshock, FFX, and Knights of the Old Republic.

Bungie would disagree, as they themselves have said many many times during the production process that the single player of Halo 3 was the 'back bone' of the game and the most important to them.

That's Bungie's opinion.

super13

As the people who made the game, yes.

And their opinion overrides yours and proves your statement of "Halo is a game whose entire focus is multiplayer"factually wrong. Their main focus was Single Player.

Originally posted by BackFire
Bungie would disagree, as they themselves have said many many times during the production process that the single player of Halo 3 was the 'back bone' of the game and the most important to them.
they can say what they will but the vast majority of their popularity comes from multi player, I know people who've been playing for years but don't know crap about the campaign

Originally posted by Lana
Sales don't necessarily mean it's good. Unless you want to claim that Britney Spears is one of the best singers ever.

Halo originally sold well because it was very heavily advertised, and because it was one of a handful of games available when the Xbox launched.

Music sales hardly translates to video games sales...can you name any one CEO/VP that went from video games advertising to music advertising or anyone that went from music advertising to video game advertising?

The fact of the matter is....H3 sold over 5 million games in 3 months. I can understand selling a butt load in 2 weeks and then the game drastically dying out in sales because of disappointment....but it didn't. Halo not only "brought it" at launch, it continues to bring it months after its release meaning it wasn't just a simple marketing gimmick...how many music albums sell this well three months after their release? How many video games sell as well as a music album many many years after the game and or album is released? (Music created much more residual income.)

You may not like the game and indeed, the single player campaign leaves something to be desired...but your opinion of the game is far from the average opinion.

They don't make games and market them to the distinguished, educated, and eccentric video gamer...they make games to sell games.

The fact of the matter is...Halo 1, 2 and 3 are ALL in the top 50 games of all time...with Halo 3 being #50. Halo 1 wasn't just a marketing gimmick either...it is #11 on the list.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp

Question...what is your opinion on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?

BTW...Super Mario Galaxy is #2 on that list.

haermm good point. Should have orchestrated my point better.

You win this round, Backfire. Next time you won't be quite so lucky.

And yeah it's intresting that many people are Captains and stuff, yet they haven't even played Campaign before.

As the world becomes more competitive, single player games will become less important, at least that's my opinion. There will always be those peopel who are content to beat the story, though. I certaintly am.. at least teh first three times.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Music sales hardly translates to video games sales...can you name any one CEO/VP that went from video games advertising to music advertising or anyone that went from music advertising to video game advertising?

The fact of the matter is....H3 sold over 5 million games in 3 months. I can understand selling a butt load in 2 weeks and then the game drastically dying out in sales because of disappointment....but it didn't. Halo not only "brought it" at launch, it continues to bring it months after its release meaning it wasn't just a simple marketing gimmick...how many music albums sell this well three months after their release? How many video games sell as well as a music album many many years after the game and or album is released? (Music created much more residual income.)

You may not like the game and indeed, the single player campaign leaves something to be desired...but your opinion of the game is far from the average opinion.

They don't make games and market them to the distinguished, educated, and eccentric video gamer...they make games to sell games.

The fact of the matter is...Halo 1, 2 and 3 are ALL in the top 50 games of all time...with Halo 3 being #50. Halo 1 wasn't just a marketing gimmick either...it is #11 on the list.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp

Question...what is your opinion on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?

BTW...Super Mario Galaxy is #2 on that list.

The success of the original Halo has always been something of a mystery to me. Is it good? Yes. Great? In some ways, but it has too many gaping, massive flaws for me to consider it great as a whole. The level design, objectively speaking, is piss poor across the board in the original game, the copy-paste level design is something you'd expect to see in a low budget, amateur game, not one that had the backing of a major studio. The graphics were good at the time and the actual battles were fun, and the AI was admittedly impressive (still is, really), but the story of the whole series, while completely decent, is not anywhere near the greatness of other games in the genre. And the gun balance in the game was atrocious, every weapon was either incredibly over powered or worthless. The multiplayer was decent, but again, not noticeably better or different than other FPS console games like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark.

If I had to wager some guesses as to why the original was such a success, I guess I'd say it was the graphics, hype, lack of competition at the time of release, and impressive AI. Though, take away hype, and you have some criteria that many many other games have met, while not becoming the massive entertainment force that Halo did.

Lana's point is correct, though. When speaking of somethings quality, sales and popularity factually mean nothing. A bad game/movie can be popular and sell well, and a great game can go unnoticed. They aren't aspects that are valid to bring up when discussing the quality of something, unless that something is perhaps the advertising campaign.

Originally posted by BackFire
The success of the original Halo has always been something of a mystery to me. Is it good? Yes. Great? In some ways, but it has too many gaping, massive flaws for me to consider it great as a whole. The level design, objectively speaking, is piss poor across the board in the original game, the copy-paste level design is something you'd expect to see in a low budget, amateur game, not one that had the backing of a major studio. The graphics were good at the time and the actual battles were fun, and the AI was admittedly impressive (still is, really), but the story of the whole series, while completely decent, is not anywhere near the greatness of other games in the genre. And the gun balance in the game was atrocious, every weapon was either incredibly over powered or worthless. The multiplayer was decent, but again, not noticeably better or different than other FPS console games like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark.

If I had to wager some guesses as to why the original was such a success, I guess I'd say it was the graphics, hype, lack of competition at the time of release, and impressive AI. Though, take away hype, and you have some criteria that many many other games have met, while not becoming the massive entertainment force that Halo did.

Lana's point is correct, though. When speaking of somethings quality, sales and popularity factually mean nothing. A bad game/movie can be popular and sell well, and a great game can go unnoticed. They aren't aspects that are valid to bring up when discussing the quality of something, unless that something is perhaps the advertising campaign.

While yours and Lana's points are valid..AND you will not see a Halo 3 game anywhere near my 360. I didn't just pull the fact that the games were good, out of my ass. I posted not only just a source for a game review...but THE list of all time for games...pretty damn cool that the Halo series ALL made the top 50 list of ALL time of ALL video games...don't you think? That much canNOT be denied.

Because of that FACT, Halo is an excellent game for the masses. (regardless of what you and I call it.)

I never denied that they got good reviews, and that's what those rankings are based off of. However, some reviewers have admitted that they were blinded by the hype and overpraised the game. This is particularly true with Halo 2. I believe both IGN and 1up have both admitted that the scores for the game was too high, in retrospect, and they were overhyped for the game which inflated their scores.

Regardless, the people who review games are just that, people, and they are susceptible to hype just as much as anyone else.

Originally posted by BackFire
I never denied that they got good reviews, and that's what those rankings are based off of. However, some reviewers have admitted that they were blinded by the hype and overpraised the game. This is particularly true with Halo 2. I believe both IGN and 1up have both admitted that the scores for the game was too high, in retrospect, and they were overhyped for the game which inflated their scores.

Regardless, the people who review games are just that, people, and they are susceptible to hype just as much as anyone else.

There is another vote there as well...the gamers vote. Also, the professional sources are not limited to just the top 5...there are many reviewers scores on the list. Some reviewers review games for the sole purpose of debunking the mystery around a game while others match the gamers opinion.

No matter how you want to cut it up, Halo pwns all in sales and pwns almost all on reviews.

Halo 3 didn't win?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

"Agck" *gets attacked by Halo haters*

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is another vote there as well...the gamers vote. Also, the professional sources are not limited to just the top 5...there are many reviewers scores on the list. Some reviewers review games for the sole purpose of debunking the mystery around a game while others match the gamers opinion.

No matter how you want to cut it up, Halo pwns all in sales and pwns almost all on reviews.

Yes, but the ranking is based on the professional reviews by default. According to professional reviews, it's number 11, if you change the rankings to reflect the public votes on the site, it drops down to number 86.

I brought up IGN and 1up because if they admitted to over rating the game, then it's completely possible, and really, probable, that other sites did it as well.

And yeah, the Halo series sells well and gets well reviewed, not a word of denial against that from anyone, I don't think. What was brought into question, was whether or not that matters.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, but the ranking is based on the professional reviews by default. According to professional reviews, it's number 11, if you change the rankings to reflect the public votes on the site, it drops down to number 86.

I brought up IGN and 1up because if they admitted to over rating the game, then it's completely possible, and really, probable, that other sites did it as well.

And yeah, the Halo series sells well and gets well reviewed, not a word of denial against that from anyone, I don't think. What was brought into question, was whether or not that matters.

I thought the discussion was whether or not the game was good or bad...since sales are really the only thing that matters as far as manufacturing games goes...it doesn't matter what the gamer thinks or the reviewer thinks in the end...it only matters if the game clears the shelves....or are there actually software developers out there who actually make a game just to make a game that is good, disregarding sales?

But again, a good or bad game has nothing to do with sales. Sales are a non factor in discussing the actual quality of the game. A great game may not sell a single copy, and a bad game can have great sales. The idea of 'A million people can't be wrong" is faulty. Yes, they CAN be wrong.

You're confusing publishers and developers. Developers definitely care if their game is good, they are often in it for the art, to express themselves and such, they very much want their game to be good, usually they care about the quality of their game just as much, if not more, than the sales. Just so long as the game doesn't bomb and cause them to lose their jobs. Publishers are the ones who are likely only in it for the money and sales.

why do they bother with these awards shows... all they do is piss people off

Well of course they do. You can never make anyone happy.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
why do they bother with these awards shows... all they do is piss people off

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well of course they do. You can never make anyone happy. Actually, you can make ANYONE happy.

You can't make EVERYONE happy.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

That's what he meant, duhkrh.

well the thing is.. and I dont know if spike goes by votes or their own opinions.. people take the winners way too seriously, as though its some kind of factual evidence that their favorite game was superior to what might be another persons favorite game..

but it cant be helped I suppose...

-Edit- 131

Originally posted by BackFire
But again, a good or bad game has nothing to do with sales. Sales are a non factor in discussing the actual quality of the game. A great game may not sell a single copy, and a bad game can have great sales. The idea of 'A million people can't be wrong" is faulty. Yes, they CAN be wrong.

You're confusing publishers and developers. Developers definitely care if their game is good, they are often in it for the art, to express themselves and such, they very much want their game to be good, usually they care about the quality of their game just as much, if not more, than the sales. Just so long as the game doesn't bomb and cause them to lose their jobs. Publishers are the ones who are likely only in it for the money and sales.

A good or bad game has a great deal to do with how the game sells. You are mixing your opinion up with the opinion of the masses. The argument is not about "a million people can't be wrong"...the argument is "millions of people can't be wrong". 6 months from now, what game will be the most played? Shouldn't that indicate which games are truly good games? A good game is not just gamer opinion...a good game is many factors

1. How well the game sells at opening.
2. How well the game sells after 3 months.
3. How well the game continues to sell after 6 months and beyond.
4. How may people continue to play the game at release, three months and six months and beyond.
5. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the publisher before release.
6. How well the game was rated by gaming magazines/websites.
7. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the actual gamers.
8. How marketable the game is on the Internet and TV and various other advertising methods.
9. How well the game is hyped in the underground and in the media.

Do you notice anything significant about all of those variables? Right...they all point towards making money. Sure, any one category can be negative and it not cause the game to fail...but fail at more than just one category and the game could fail as far as "money" is concerned...which is really the way a game gets published to begin with.

Did KOTOR deserve game of the year? Hell yes! It didn't have the best graphics...it didn't have the best advertisement...it didn't sell a ridiculous number of games at opening...but IN MY OPINION, it was game of the year for that year.

All of the Halo games are excellent as far as those above variables go...they are not perfect..but they are excellent games, none the less...that much cannot be denied...which is my point. People are entitled to their opinion....I don't really think Halo is all that great but I do recognize its excellence in the gaming community.


FYI...I really only play the Halo games for the single player. teehee

Originally posted by dadudemon
A good or bad game has a great deal to do with how the game sells. You are mixing your opinion up with the opinion of the masses. The argument is not about "a million people can't be wrong"...the argument is "millions of people can't be wrong". 6 months from now, what game will be the most played? Shouldn't that indicate which games are truly good games? A good game is not just gamer opinion...a good game is many factors

1. How well the game sells at opening.
2. How well the game sells after 3 months.
3. How well the game continues to sell after 6 months and beyond.
4. How may people continue to play the game at release, three months and six months and beyond.
5. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the publisher before release.
6. How well the game was rated by gaming magazines/websites.
7. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the actual gamers.
8. Howe marketable the game is on the Internet and TV and various other advertising methods.
9. How well the game is hyped in the underground and in the media.

Do you notice anything significant about all of those variables? Right...they all point towards making money. Sure, anyone category can be negative and it not cause the game to fail...but fail at more than just one category and the game could fail as far as "money" is concerned...which is really the way a game gets published to begin with.

Did KOTOR deserve game of the year? Hell yes! It didn't have the best graphics...it didn't have the best advertisement...it didn't sell a ridiculous number of games at opening...but IN MY OPINION, it was game of the year for that year.

All of the Halo games are excellent as far as those above variables go...they are not perfect..but they are excellent games, none the less...that much cannot be denied...which is my point. People are entitled to their opinion....I don't really think Halo is all that great but I do recognize its excellence in the gaming community.


FYI...I really only play the Halo games for the single player. teehee Look at this GIANT post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
FYI...I really only play the Halo games for the single player. teehee Really? omg

That's unheard of.

(Sarcasm)tongue

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Wandering Flame
Look at this GIANT post.

Thank you for contributing to this thread with that very insightful comment. Can you take me on your next adventure, captain?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you for contributing to this thread with that very insightful comment. Can you take me on your next adventure, captain? haermm Captain Planet Perhaps?

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you for contributing to this thread with that very insightful comment. Can you take me on your next adventure, captain? I contributed in other ways too. 131

Originally posted by InnerRise
Really? omg

That's unheard of.

(Sarcasm)

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

No one I know bought the game for the single player....I will rent the game eventually to play through the single player...but you are saying that a lot of people just bought the game for the single player?

Originally posted by InnerRise
haermm Captain Planet Perhaps?

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....



No....


I am calling hiim Captain because he obviously holds that rank. I know his last name is "Obvious"...it is only natural that I address him as captain.

well I personally enjoyed going through the campaign on co-op.. but playing it single player woulda really been boring (IMO)

A lot of those people are but of a very small percentage of Halo game owners.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No one I know bought the game for the single player....I will rent the game eventually to play through the single player...but you are saying that a lot of people just bought the game for the single player? I'm not saying that a lot did, but I know some people, not many, who did that as well.

It's just that so many, some on here as well, would gasp at the thought of someone buying it just for the Single Player.

I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
well I personally enjoyed going through the campaign on co-op.. but playing it single player woulda really been boring (IMO)

Right...I usually play the single player as co-op with one of my brothers...so really...I am not technically playing the "single player.." I should re-word that to campaign.

Originally posted by InnerRise
I'm not saying that a lot did, but I know some people, not many, who did that as well.

It's just that so many, some on here as well, would gasp at the thought of someone buying it just for the Single Player.

I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

I figured your comment was directed at the haters here and not really for me...I just thought that you knew something that I didn't...which is great in my book...I love learning new things.

Originally posted by InnerRise
I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

I think they have it downloadable on xbox live now

Originally posted by dadudemon
A good or bad game has a great deal to do with how the game sells. You are mixing your opinion up with the opinion of the masses. The argument is not about "a million people can't be wrong"...the argument is "millions of people can't be wrong". 6 months from now, what game will be the most played? Shouldn't that indicate which games are truly good games? A good game is not just gamer opinion...a good game is many factors

1. How well the game sells at opening.
2. How well the game sells after 3 months.
3. How well the game continues to sell after 6 months and beyond.
4. How may people continue to play the game at release, three months and six months and beyond.
5. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the publisher before release.
6. How well the game was rated by gaming magazines/websites.
7. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the actual gamers.
8. How marketable the game is on the Internet and TV and various other advertising methods.
9. How well the game is hyped in the underground and in the media.

Do you notice anything significant about all of those variables? Right...they all point towards making money. Sure, any one category can be negative and it not cause the game to fail...but fail at more than just one category and the game could fail as far as "money" is concerned...which is really the way a game gets published to begin with.

Did KOTOR deserve game of the year? Hell yes! It didn't have the best graphics...it didn't have the best advertisement...it didn't sell a ridiculous number of games at opening...but IN MY OPINION, it was game of the year for that year.

All of the Halo games are excellent as far as those above variables go...they are not perfect..but they are excellent games, none the less...that much cannot be denied...which is my point. People are entitled to their opinion....I don't really think Halo is all that great but I do recognize its excellence in the gaming community.


FYI...I really only play the Halo games for the single player. teehee

No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.

Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.

A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.

You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.

Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.

A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.

You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay. I agree in some ways but you can not deny how well it is doing.

Millions of people can be wrong but then again odds are they must find something they like. You just don't have that many people playing a game if the game got it wrong.

Also if you are gonna judge the quality of the game you also have to take into account not only the surface stuff but you've got to judge its purpose.

Let me put it this way. Games are made for a purpose. They are made to make money. Generally things don't do well unless they have good quality. It's needed for the purpose to be met. So how come Halo 3 seems to have done so well so far if it is a poor game game. I'm not saying you said it was but to sit back and say that sale figures and how many people are playing has no determining factor on its I think is simply removing a key factor.

Now I'm not saying Halo 3 is the best game ever but you can not sit there and dent that as an entertainment based product it hasn't exactly fallen face first. That does count for something you can not deny that it doesn't.

Look, Bioshock deserved a nomination for GOTY, no questions. That game kicked major ass. I haven't played Mass Effect so I cant say weather or not it deserves a spot. IMO Call of Duty 4 deserves a spot as it is the best FPS I've played in a good while, and its certainly WAY better then Halo 3 in just about every way. Hell even COD4's multiplayer is better then Halo 3's. Halo 1 was just an alright game, Halo 2 was admittedly a great game for its time and did deserve praise and notice, Halo 3 however literally WAS Halo 2 with the same multiplayer, basically the same graphics (with some noticeable improvements of course) and, what IMO, is a half-assed story that was not well executed throughout the entire trilogy. Halo 3 was not an amazing game at all, it does not deserve a nomination for GOTY. Mario Galaxy on the other hand is the second highest rated game of all time now and the best game that I (and apparently many many others) have played in probably 10 years. How does it not even get a nomination?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Mario Galaxy on the other hand is the second highest rated game of all time now and the best game that I (and apparently many many others) have played in probably 10 years. How does it not even get a nomination?
Maybe because there are a lot of others out there, if not more, who don't feel the same way.

Not to mention that Mario only appeals to certain gamers.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

The same can be said of any game. That's not the point of awards however. The point is to acknowledge all the best games regardless of personal choice, despite what most argue the "goodness" of a video game is not as subjective as most would have you believe, it can be measured to some degree, and it has been, and Mario stands as the second greatest game ever made. Will everyone agree? No, no one ever can, in anything, not just video games.. but That's not the point. How good a game is is not all opinion.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
The same can be said of any game. That's not the point of awards however. The point is to acknowledge all the best games regardless of personal choice, despite what most argue the "goodness" of a video game is not as subjective as most would have you believe, it can be measured to some degree, and it has been, and Mario stands as the second greatest game ever made. Will everyone agree? No, no one ever can, in anything, not just video games.. but That's not the point. How good a game is is not all opinion.

Well, really, all of this does boil down to nothing but opinion. Mario is the second-highest rated game. How does it have that title? Because of the reviews. What are reviews? Nothing more than opinions.

The only thing about how good a game is that is not down to opinion is the technical stuff - graphics and that sort of thing. But story, gameplay, controls, all of that...nothing but opinion.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.

Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.

A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.

You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay.

I think we are not arguing the same the, exactly. You are arguing red delicious apples and I am arguing granny smith apples...no doubt.

The game (Halo 3) IS an excellent game by almost any standards...read that again...ANY standard. Things the game does well: Lighting, complexity of sound, animation, bugginess or rather the lack thereof, replay-ability, campaign story, and the fun factor is off the charts. Those are all quality aspects of a game...and guess what...those all go back to selling. The graphics are not ground breaking but they are pretty good. (This is relative to other current games.)

Have you played this game with a nice 5.1 surround sound setup?

The game is of the highest quality of current generations games...it isn't the best in every category and it really isn't the best all around either...but the replay-ability in its multiplayer sets it a whole head and shoulders above the competition and that is why it is so successful.

You say that my logic is flawed...but your logic is actually flawed from it onset. Let me explain why:

Quality is NOT an objective term...it is subjective to both the users and the purpose of application. You do realize that for the purposes of quality, Halo 3 is of the top tier, don't you? (That isn't a rhetorical question and I am not patronizing you with it either.)

My logic would be flawed if indeed, I said somewhere that the quality is objective -- I didn't. I simply said that basing an argument about the quality on only popularity and sales is a bad argument, which it is as it commits a fallacy. My logic is fine, since again, I never claimed quality was objective, did I?

Yes, I Halo 3 is good, I think all of the Halo games are good, just not hugely great or excellent. They are solid, yet generic shooters. Halo 3 is the best one, I think, but it still has some rather large flaws that keep it from sheer excellence -- The level design still isn't great, though it's definitely better than the others. There is still backtracking that occurs for no reason other than developer laziness. And the there is no excuse for the aliasing in the game. Also the story was lacking, and the tone of the entire game felt off -- this is a world that's been ravaged by war, there should logically be an air of desperation permiating through the entire game. Yet, whenever your AI companions open their mouths they spout some silly 'funny' shit. The despair, that is even suggested in the commercials, is never even close to being realized in the game. The world just doesn't feel like one that's been ravaged by war. Also the second to last level is one of the most embarrassingly bad levels I've played in a Triple A title, it was shamefully lousy and boring and frustrating and repetitive.

Originally posted by BackFire
My logic would be flawed if indeed, I said somewhere that the quality is objective -- I didn't. I simply said that basing an argument about the quality on only popularity and sales is a bad argument, which it is as it commits a fallacy. My logic is fine, since again, I never claimed quality was objective, did I?

But do you have to out rightly or even indirectly say your opinion about this is objective when from the onset, everything you are presenting is subjective in an extremely subjective environment? In other words, you are trying to pass off a subjective argument about quality as being fact or "this is the way it is because its logical".

What is your position? That the game does not deserve its top spot on the sales charts? My position is that the game doesn't suck because record numbers of people bought and are still playin the game.

My position is simply this:

The game is good, great in some ways, but not as a whole, in my opinion. Over rated.

Also, sales and popularity are NEVER a good basis for an argument when discussing quality, as quality and success don't necessarily have to do with one another.

Halo 3 offered nothing new and nothing memorable.

Yes it did.

*Still remembers the awesome Halo 3 trailer*

Originally posted by BackFire
My position is simply this:

The game is good, great in some ways, but not as a whole, in my opinion. Over rated.

Also, sales and popularity are NEVER a good basis for an argument when discussing quality, as quality and success don't necessarily have to do with one another.

I agree with most of what you said except for a few words that makes a world of difference....

Here is my take on what you said...

"Also, sales and popularity are a good basis for an argument when discussing quality, as quality and success don't necessarily have to do with one another ."

I think we differ slightly on how a game is looked at...even if I don't like a game, I will stall call it a good/great game if it truly is a good/great game to the majority. I also view games from two perspectives...as a gamer and as a publisher. I try to see the awesomeness that a game has as it appeals to my "hardcore gamer" personality and I try to view the game as professional critic/publisher. (Meaning, I try to view that game as a product rather than just a source of fun.)

I see Halo 3 as the epitome of video game marketing coupled with the best multiplayer setup available to the current gamer demand. You can talk about quality all you want...as long as Bungie is able to have a different definition of quality, millions of gamers can be happy with their products.

Honestly, I don't think yours and my opinion on the quality of a video game differ, from our gamer perspectives...in fact, I think I have just of strict standards, if not higher, than you do, when it comes to the quality of a video game.

Again, you don't understand that you are factually committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to popularity 'the game is good because it's popular'). This is not subjective, you ARE committing this fallacy, and your argument becomes incorrect by doing so. This is all according to the rules of logic, this isn't just me disagreeing with you, you are actually wrong in doing so. You can look the fallacy up if you wish.

Otherwise, yes I think we agree -- the game is good.

And yes, I agree again, the marketing for Halo 3 was outstanding and undeniably effective.

Wait, are you a publisher for games?

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, you don't understand that you are factually committing a logical fallacy (Appeal to popularity 'the game is good because it's popular'). This is not subjective, you ARE committing this fallacy, and your argument becomes incorrect by doing so. This is all according to the rules of logic, this isn't just me disagreeing with you, you are actually wrong in doing so. You can look the fallacy up if you wish.

Wait, are you a publisher for games?

1. I cannot argue that my POV is objective...no POV can ever be objective...or rather, perfectly logical. However, the game is not just good...or great...but excellent because it is very well liked across the board from both a gamer's perspective AND a publisher's perspective...this is my logic because I follow logic as it pertains to marketing...not the same as logic from a philosophy class. This isn't philosophy class and my opinion does not have to follow logic as it reads in a college text book...if publishers followed logic like that, they wouldn't sell as many games and satisfy the gamer's current crave trends. Satisfy the gamer by making the game they love and crave...if it sells a shit load of games and is played from months to years by the masses...then the game is GREAT...that may not seem logical to you...but to each their own.

2. I am not a publisher, lol, I just try to review games from a publisher's perspective so my opinion can be more objective and less subjective about things...I do the same with movies...except it is the POV of a producer of course.


*POV is point of view...or rather simply I mean my opinion.

Logic is logic. Something that is wrong according to the rules is wrong all the time, it isn't just pertaining to philosophy or anything like that, but just basic reasoning of any form in any situation. It's incorrect and fallacious because it is completely and absolutely possible for something to be popular and be bad, as it is possible for something to be unpopular and great. Popularity =/= Quality. You can choose to not follow it if you wish, of course. It does make your argument ultimately invalid, though. But whatever, if you don't care then that's that.

I don't understand why trying to think as a publisher makes your opinion more objective. You can look at it as a gamer and be objective. Not just "I had fun with this game, so it's good" but the specifics of what made it good, and the flaws it may have had and how much they hindered the entire experience as opposed to the positives.

Originally posted by BackFire
Logic is logic. Something that is wrong according to the rules is wrong all the time, it isn't just pertaining to philosophy or anything like that, but just basic reasoning of any form in any situation. It's incorrect and fallacious because it is completely and absolutely possible for something to be popular and be bad, as it is possible for something to be unpopular and great. Popularity =/= Quality. You can choose to not follow it if you wish, of course. It does make your argument ultimately invalid, though. But whatever, if you don't care then that's that.

I don't understand why trying to think as a publisher makes your opinion more objective. You can look at it as a gamer and be objective. Not just "I had fun with this game, so it's good" but the specifics of what made it good, and the flaws it may have had and how much they hindered the entire experience as opposed to the positives.

That is illogical in and of itself...think about it...


"it is completely and absolutely possible for something to be popular and be bad, as it is possible for something to be unpopular and great."

How is that even logical to begin with? How can something as trivial as an opinion equate to strict logic on paper? These words "bad", "good", "popular" are wholly subjective in and of themselves and therefore cannot be bound by specific logic...that is my point...that is what I meant earlier. You are attempting to define an opinion as fact based on logic...it can't work...I am attempting to quantify the opinion of the masses...despite the fact that I do no hold the same opinion...still not perfect but a lot closer to "real world" measurement....

Popular? Subjective. Good? Subjective. Bad? Subjective. Calling a game good relative to its "contemporaries" based on sales and use over time?...still subjective but it does hold true in the real world where money counts and the satisfaction of a gamer makes the rules of the market...this is why I think I am right...key word there...."think"....because neither one of us can prove our POV as a fact. (Though you seem very convinced that your POV is perfectly logical.)

As for the publisher idea....I do not have to explain to you at all why taking a different perspective on anything can contribute to a more objective observation....one should always strive to do that when judging something. A gamer will NOT have the same perspective as a gaming publisher...there are definite overlaps and they can be one in the same...I know you know that....consider each game you play, as a publisher.(a competitor of the publisher of the game or even the publisher of the game you are currently interested in/playing.) AFTER you judge the game as a gamer, judge it as a publisher; it may provide some additional insight into your thoughts of the game...it also makes watching those X-Box live downloads about "the making of" a lot more fun as you watch developers talk about their publishers goals...(Basically, what the boss says...)

I personally don't make a conscience effort to think like both a gamer and a publisher...it occurs one in the same with me...I do indeed end up with conflicting thoughts and it seems schizophrenic at times because I seem to argue with myself. (I don't do it just with video games...)

Err... all that, and you still don't understand. I never claimed or insinuated that my opinion is fact. My opinion is as follows -- Halo 3, and all of the Halo games, are good, close to great, but not quite there. There are flaws that I feel hold it back. That is my opinion.

The following is not opinion, but fact as per the rules of logic, which you seem to think don't apply in all situations for some reason (they do) -- Popularity doesn't inherently equate to quality. Popularity only has to do with popularity, the quality is another aspect entirely. It's perfectly reasonable and possible for something to be good and unpopular, bad and popular, or bad and unpopular or good and popular; all are possible.

All this about what's subjective and objective, I know. I know the terms 'good, 'bad' 'popular' are all subjective to each person, really has nothing to do with what I've been saying. I've made it very clear which segments of my statements are and aren't opinion. My thoughts on the game is opinion. My statements on logic and about popularity is not, I'm simply stating the rules of logic that defeat that kind of thinking, nothing more.

I know taking different perspectives can alter an observation. I was just wondering how taking the perspective of the publisher makes it any more objective. How do you even know how a publisher looks at a game or how they think? Is it because you take into account the money that a game could make or something? If so, how does that make it objective?

And, opinion can totally equate to logic, as it can totally be broken and incorrect. I don't get the confusion. Someone saying something like "Gay marriage is bad, if you allow gay marriage then next people will be marrying children and goats and toasters" is using broken logic. The person's opinion in that statement is completely subjective (Gay Marriage is bad), what he uses to DEFEND it is what's incorrect, and it ultimately makes his opinion worthless, he has defeated himself by using broken logic to defend it. He can't sit there and say "Well it's my opinion!" and expect that to make a shit of difference, he's still wrong by using a broken argument to defend his opinion.

Originally posted by BackFire
Err... all that, and you still don't understand. I never claimed or insinuated that my opinion is fact. My opinion is as follows -- Halo 3, and all of the Halo games, are good, close to great, but not quite there. There are flaws that I feel hold it back. That is my opinion.

The following is not opinion, but fact as per the rules of logic, which you seem to think don't apply in all situations for some reason (they do) -- Popularity doesn't inherently equate to quality. Popularity only has to do with popularity, the quality is another aspect entirely. It's perfectly reasonable and possible for something to be good and unpopular, bad and popular, or bad and unpopular or good and popular; all are possible.

All this about what's subjective and objective, I know. I know the terms 'good, 'bad' 'popular' are all subjective to each person, really has nothing to do with what I've been saying. I've made it very clear which segments of my statements are and aren't opinion. My thoughts on the game is opinion. My statements on logic and about popularity is not, I'm simply stating the rules of logic that defeat that kind of thinking, nothing more.

I know taking different perspectives can alter an observation. I was just wondering how taking the perspective of the publisher makes it any more objective. How do you even know how a publisher looks at a game or how they think? Is it because you take into account the money that a game could make or something? If so, how does that make it objective?

And, opinion can totally equate to logic, as it can totally be broken and incorrect. I don't get the confusion. Someone saying something like "Gay marriage is bad, if you allow gay marriage then next people will be marrying children and goats and toasters" is using broken logic. The person's opinion in that statement is completely subjective (Gay Marriage is bad), what he uses to DEFEND it is what's incorrect, and it ultimately makes his opinion worthless, he has defeated himself by using broken logic to defend it. He can't sit there and say "Well it's my opinion!" and expect that to make a shit of difference, he's still wrong by using a broken argument to defend his opinion.

I understand your point and I understood it the first time you stated....the quality of a game and its popularity are two separate measurements made on a video game that are not logically the same.

I disagree with that because the individual definition of quality is different from person to person...something that I think is a good game that doesn't sell well is good only to me...but not the general public...because good is subjective...same thing with quality. A quality game...to me...means a whole lot more than quality means to my Grandmother...who is over 70...who plays Nintendo sometimes hours on end.

A game that is popular IS a good game...to the general population. There are aspects of the game that contribute to being a good game..you brought quality into this discussion...I didn't. If the game sells and it has a large following, then as objectively as I can observe...the game is good...relative to other games...hence "millions of people can't be wrong"...or rather "millions of people can't be wrong about what they like".

Can we talk about something else now?

Can't believe Bioshock won Game of the year... I mean I like the game even though I'm not so much into the survival horror theme but the game is like what 10 hours long? I didn't beat it yet, but thats mostly because I think it gets kind of boring. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much replay value, and no multiplayer which kind of sucks. I haven't played Mass Effect yet but I watched a friend play it a bit and it looked amazing. And Halo 3 is just... ya know Halo 3.

wow I just read the last 6 pages and theres two things I'd like to comment on...

First of all maybe its just me, but when Halo came out, I only wanted it for the campaign... nothing else. To this day I don't think there has been a single time when my best friend (j-beowulf on this forum) has come over and we haven't played coop on the original halo. To me, multiplayer is just an added bonus.

The second thing is... What the Fvck are you guys arguing about? Like seriously don't you have something more important to do?

Originally posted by Spartan005
The second thing is... What the Fvck are you guys arguing about? Like seriously don't you have something more important to do?

Your mom hasn't bee available recently...she gave me that "oh...I need to focus on keeping my marriage together" speech...I think she is getting all "holier than thou" on me.

Nah, it's because she was with me.

While I was posting in this thread.

Oral sex, and such.

Under my desk.

You get it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Nah, it's because she was with me.

While I was posting in this thread.

Oral sex, and such.

Under my desk.

You get it.

I know that's a lie because you're under my desk.

I wasn't then.

Originally posted by BackFire
I wasn't then.

okay okay...you win... You can have his mom...I was just using her anyway. (as she was me.)

We can both use her.

into older women I take it? I mean I don't mind either but when you're licking a 53 year old va....

nevermind.

I can still taste the birth fluid... mmmmm

Originally posted by BackFire
I can still taste the birth fluid... mmmmm

pwnt

Just watched this (for the most part) last night.

Disappointing indeed.

I thought it was rather funny at the end when Samuel L. Jackson was trying to get the Naked/Painted Ladies to take a bow and they wouldn't.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....