HVS Tony, what's your opinion on....

#11ZimbabweBobPosted 7/7/2010 5:27:35 PM
I play COD alot...and this is the only FPS that is a day1 must have for me. the others may end up in my collection, but TCON2 is gonna be the first.

---
Non potes tangere hoc.
MWR FC:4529 2522 5149
#12FarMaster2008(Topic Creator)Posted 7/7/2010 5:35:54 PM
I think I can go with The Conduit and Black Ops i think ill wait on goldeneye thanks guys
---
http://i47.tinypic.com/2yw9zpt.jpg
#13ddd87Posted 7/7/2010 5:41:36 PM
@ Ryan

The problem with goldeneye is that you don't have to put every feature other shooters use just because the exist (same for this game); at this rate, the game is closer to play like a CoD clone with a goldeneye theme.
I don't think the game is bad at all, actually with classic and gamecube controller support and the different modifiers for the multiplayer add tons of gameplay variety.
#14donkeypunch1116Posted 7/7/2010 5:44:13 PM
HVSTony, just curious, are you planning on picking up any of the other shooters coming out for the wii? lol i know youre gonna be playing conduit 2, but anything else grab your interest?

---
Modern Warfare Reflex: 3426 0715 8657 tag: PUNCHOUT1116
***pizza and colt 45: the unofficial meal of conduit 2***
#15DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/7/2010 5:59:43 PM
I have seen the media and information related to GoldenEye and obviously they are trying to cash in on the original's success. That doesn't mean in any way that the game won't be great. If you want to play the original, go play the original.

I don't want to play the original. It had a horrible framerate, ugly visuals, and the controls are unresponsive and awkward. I'd much rather play Perfect Dark, and even then, it suffers most of the same issues.
The problem is, why in hell should I replay Modern Warfare 2 right after playing it, in spite of that game sucking huge monkey nuts while rolling in a massive pile of crap?

The "it's good because it's different" argument is getting really old, and never addressed the main issue with the remake; It isn't any different from the crap ton of CoD clones that have more content, more dev time, are released on a more capable platform, and don't try to cash in on an ancient N64 game.

It HAS to be updated for today's market. So, you can only carry 2 weapons and the health system is different...boo hoo, that's how the genre works in today's market. You're making it sound like some cheap, pure cash in like Rogue Agent which had nothing to do whatsoever with the movie or the game, and how is Eurocom cheap?

It is a cheap cash-in like Rogue Agent, but worse, because it tries to masquerade as the original instead of a bastard sequel.
And no, you don't have to make every single game ever a total clone of Call of Duty. It's not even the small CoD features that they took, but the whole look, feel, and style of the game. And the lack of content. The amount of multiplayer content they're aiming for is like a cheap-ass cash-in PS2 FPS. There are DS FPS with more stuff.

And, how isn't Eurocom cheap?
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#16Ryan SiPosted 7/8/2010 4:08:53 AM
You don't even know all the features that are going to be in the final game...Have you played the game? Do you know it "feels?" Call of Duty is insanely popular for a reason, taking certain features from that series isn't a big deal.

and how is Eurocom cheap? For real, I'd like to know why you would say that. I don't really follow development companies. Are there examples of them being obviously cheap...or do you just not like them for some fanboy obsessed reason?
#17Ryan SiPosted 7/8/2010 4:09:32 AM
* how
#18ammartin08Posted 7/8/2010 9:49:28 AM
I'm really hesitant about Goldeneye, and I think it really might suck. The thing is, it doesn't need to be modernized--if it is, then it wouldn't be Goldeneye. The 8 weapons you could hold at a time, starting out with no weapon, large amounts of health, body armor laying around... if they take away all the things that make it a "retro-shooter", it's not going to be anything exciting.

They need to do what Rare recently did with Perfect Dark. The gameplay wasn't modernized, because it didn't need to be. It was still fun in its original form. They just added online functions and slightly better graphics.

But all in all, I think Activision is just going to be cashing in.
---
currently playing: Minesweeper
#19DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/8/2010 9:59:40 AM
You don't even know all the features that are going to be in the final game...Have you played the game? Do you know it "feels?" Call of Duty is insanely popular for a reason, taking certain features from that series isn't a big deal.

The amount of content being aimed for and all the major features have been revealed, and there's gameplay footage out.

and how is Eurocom cheap? For real, I'd like to know why you would say that. I don't really follow development companies. Are there examples of them being obviously cheap...or do you just not like them for some fanboy obsessed reason?

They do low quality titles licensed by larger companies.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.