Which videogame will become 2008's greatest?

Originally posted by Nemesis X
The Wii version of Dead Rising sucks bollocks and will never deserve to be one of the choices to be game of the year!

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you know?

It's true that I don't have a Nintendo Wii. But I do have what you call Youtube smart guy.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
It's true that I don't have a Nintendo Wii. But I do have what you call Youtube smart guy.

does this 'youtube' device allow you to play wii games?

But...it's not out on the Wii yet 🤨

There's hardly any videos on it, and certainly not nearly enough to judge the game. The hell, dude.

There haven't been any vids for DR on the Wii? Huh. Guess it was just a one time show thing I guess. Let's just forget I said anything about this because now I'm thinking this conversation is gonna go down somewhere I'm not gonna like.

Fair enough. Since I just looked at it for the first time, I must actually say that it looks quite good, imo. I am not a fan of the Wii, all the games I played have been extremely unfun at worst, at best alright, but this looks actually like it could be fun on the Wii just as much as it is on the X-Box.

I only think DR on the Wii is bad because the graphics look less awesome than the 360's.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I only think DR on the Wii is bad because the graphics look less awesome than the 360's.

Graphics don't make a game, gameplay does.

Well graphics kinda do make the game but I do see your point. Gameplay does matter (added with good graphics 😛 )

Yes I understand things have to look nice, but the emphasis should be on the gameplay more then the graphics...however i agree with your point, the game has to look good as well.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Well graphics kinda do make the game but I do see your point. Gameplay does matter (added with good graphics 😛 )

No, no, graphics do not make the game at all.

Gameplay is infinitely more important than graphics.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This has been another year of sequels.

Last year Bioshock took the cake and this year Spore should have done the same. But I think the reviews are the ones that damage the reputation of the game.

On one hand the most anticipated game of the year (Spore) doesn't get the perfect score...but a game like MGS4 gets all perfect reviews? It makes you wonder....are sequels really that BETTER?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. Since I just looked at it for the first time, I must actually say that it looks quite good, imo. I am not a fan of the Wii, all the games I played have been extremely unfun at worst, at best alright, but this looks actually like it could be fun on the Wii just as much as it is on the X-Box.

clearly you're playing the wrong games...although people who have an xbox or a ps3 1st tend to try and buy games for the wii that are similar to those out for those consoles...like red steel...which was shit

go for the crap looking party games like wario ware smooth moves...wii sports...they tend to be hilarious playing in groups

Originally posted by jaden101
clearly you're playing the wrong games...although people who have an xbox or a ps3 1st tend to try and buy games for the wii that are similar to those out for those consoles...like red steel...which was shit

go for the crap looking party games like wario ware smooth moves...wii sports...they tend to be hilarious playing in groups

I did actually. I played both those games. I played Smash Brothers. I also played Trauma Centre and Super Monkey Ball (which are both actually kinda fun). They just don't appeal to me that much at all, I dunno.

ah well...to each their own i guess...they're not all that much fun single player though....and when me and my friends are playing it...we're usually drunk...which helps

one of my friends was doing the pumping up balloons thing on smooth moves and fell headfirst through a glass coffee table and needed 43 stitches in his head....now THAT was comedy gold

Call of Duty: World at War. It's easily the best multiplayer game with a satisfying "Nazi Zombie Mode". Sure, it's like CoD4 but the added features make it worth the money.

However, I think Fallout 3 will take most of the yearly awards though.

If CoD5's single-layer follows that bullshit "Enemies respawn foreveaz lol" formula, it's automatically bared from being GotY.

They obviously did that so it'll encourage you to keep fighting forward instead of camping. I honestly think it's a plus the way they did it.

I never did that.

I just ran forward hiding behind cover from time and let my invincible allies kill all the enemies. It was pointless. Even on Veteran they can't kill me fast enough before I jump into cover and the next check point.

My friend couldn't beat it on Veteran and I did it for him in like 3 hours doing that. 😂

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
If CoD5's single-layer follows that bullshit "Enemies respawn foreveaz lol" formula, it's automatically bared from being GotY.

And it does.

Originally posted by Mr.blanka
They obviously did that so it'll encourage you to keep fighting forward instead of camping. I honestly think it's a plus the way they did it.

No they did it to be irritating and to stretch out the game, it's pathetic and unneeded, especially on the veteran difficulty...veteran is already a challenge, spamming enemies at you is nothing more then a cheap trick.