Zelda vs Halo

Yeah yeah I know, it's not all on age. True, quality over quantity is very true...but...I hear no one likes Halo. No one talks about it anywhere, yeah they all play it at Burger Night (cafe I go to on Friday nights every month) but that's it.

Everyone I see, everywhere I go, Zelda Zelda Zelda! Fantasy is good, it's not real, it's fun, mysterious & in this case legendary. My friend today tells me he's finished Wind Waker but then...he did talk about Halo too & I was like "Oh yeah..."

It's strange, those were the only 2 games he spoke about..then I'm at this thread...

Originally posted by Blue Dragon
Yeah yeah I know, it's not all on age. True, quality over quantity is very true...but...I hear no one likes Halo. No one talks about it anywhere, yeah they all play it at Burger Night (cafe I go to on Friday nights every month) but that's it.

Everyone I see, everywhere I go, Zelda Zelda Zelda! Fantasy is good, it's not real, it's fun, mysterious & in this case legendary. My friend today tells me he's finished Wind Waker but then...he did talk about Halo too & I was like "Oh yeah..."

It's strange, those were the only 2 games he spoke about..then I'm at this thread...

...but...I hear no one likes Halo. No one talks about it anywhere, yeah they all play it at Burger Night (cafe I go to on Friday nights every month) but that's it.

Sorry to poke fun at you but do you follow everyone around and listen to what they are talking about?

Originally posted by Zen2nd
Sorry to poke fun at you but do you follow everyone around and listen to what they are talking about?

Originally posted by shadow12
alot of ppl by me love it the alway want me to play it

It's all preference of genre... I have a friend who buys video games solely to blast the crap out of other things. I personally enjoy the puzzles as much as the action... So I'd go for Zelda where my friend would go for Halo. Zelda is made to be a single player adventure game, where Halo is made as a multiplayer 1st person shooter game. Don't even try to compare em...

I perfer to play on my own, I pefer myself to be on my own too, if you know what I mean? When I play a game I have no one interfering, if it's someone who can't play it it annoys me, if someone who can play well then OK.

i like zelda game because it makes you think outside the box

I don't know what that meaning means...well I think I did but forgot...I dunno! 🙁

thinking out side the box it mean think in ways you normally wouldn't

Ah yes that's it. OK then back to topic! Zelda!

Originally posted by Zen2nd
How can a game be better because there is more sequels? Then the Final Fantasy games must be the best ever plus the numerous Dragon Ball Z games. Not the stongest point now is it?

Sequels designate commercial success, something Zelda has definitely demonstrated over the years. Given time, Halo may (and most likely will) establish itself to fall into the same vein, but I think it is still too soon to say that it is a well established series. Let's see what they come up with in their next one or two sequels in order to determine if the formula gets stale or not. Zelda has always continued to raise the bar in its accomplishments: ranging from hidden second quests all the way back in the original Legend of Zelda to the transition from 2D to 3D in more recent years.

So, because of its innovation and varying styles throughout the years, I have to go with the Zelda series as the better of the two. However, if you want to look at a single game that best immerses you into a world and makes you feel like part of it, THEN I might give the slight nod to the original Halo. Series goes to Zelda, however.

Sequels designate commercial success

*In Zim's voice* No they don't you fool! If that was the case the Army Men games would be dead and gone! Just look at his annoying face!

Originally posted by Zen2nd
*In Zim's voice* No they don't you fool! If that was the case the Army Men games would be dead and gone! Just look at his annoying face!

I said commercial success, not whether or not they were any good.

But Army Men wasn't successful in any mediam

You're confusing whether or not a game actually sold with whether or not the game was any good. Having over six sequels equates to some form of financial profits, especially when that was the core of 3DO's business model. They depended on it way too heavily, which is partially what led to 3DO's demise. But early on the series did sell well, which is why they considered putting more out after that.

But early on the series did sell well

Your joking right?

No, I'm not. Check the sales figures if you can find them, or any history on 3DO.

Check the last paragraph on the following article:
http://www.elecplay.com/reviews_article.php?article=4458

Also, a history of 3DO's corporate releases have some financial indicators buried in here, some with reference to how Army Men contributed to one of 3DO's few quarterly earnings reports that actually were positive.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/sigdev.asp?Symbol=US%3ATHDOQ

And June 1999 sales figures... back when Army Men was still in single digits in terms of versions released:
http://psx.ign.com/articles/068/068467p1.html

There's more scattered around, but just realize that Army Men didn't start off poorly from a sales standpoint at the very start.

Originally posted by Zen2nd
*In Zim's voice* No they don't you fool! If that was the case the Army Men games would be dead and gone! Just look at his annoying face!

Oh, he's more than handsome...

😱 You naughty person you... 😛 Wait that makes me naughty too... 🙁 ...oh well..