Hellfire Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I'm not sure, but I think the guys at GoNintendo already have a Wii.
dabookerman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 but you never know not saying it would happen with zelda but what if the last bit of the game declines in quality.Like lets say...metal gear solid 2. What .
flameboy Posted November 17, 2006 Author Posted November 17, 2006 I'm not sure, but I think the guys at GoNintendo already have a Wii. yeah they were talking about it on the latest podcast.
McMad Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 What . Come on Dabookerman, even you must admit that Metal Gear Solid 2 just became silly in the end, it certainly made me keep saying; 'WTF'. The end kind of left me with a bitter taste which made me think badly of the rest of the game, but now I have learnt to forgive MGS2 and appreciate the fantastic parts of the game.
Babooo Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 MGS2 was an awesome game but I also have to admit that the latter stages of the game were very disappointing. MGS3 on the other hand is a different story.....
dabookerman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Come on Dabookerman, even you must admit that Metal Gear Solid 2 just became silly in the end, it certainly made me keep saying; 'WTF'. The end kind of left me with a bitter taste which made me think badly of the rest of the game, but now I have learnt to forgive MGS2 and appreciate the fantastic parts of the game. Wait, me admit what? The story being way ahead of its time? The fact that the patriots ended up being controlled by AI? And the fact that all of it was a rouse to create the perfect soldier? The perfect Solid Snake? Where do you see the silly? I certainly don't. Is this to just grab my attention? Is it because people can't handle long cutscenes? Long codec sequences (which I repeat, are skippable) Lets.
Shino Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Yeah, the MGS2 ending did suck, that part about the mechs firing over the refugees and Snake saves them with a cloning gun, right before the meteor strikes them. A bit far fetched.
flameboy Posted November 17, 2006 Author Posted November 17, 2006 hmm... surely zelda can't slip towards the end, altho Wind Waker did, didn't it when you had to collect stupid amounts of rupees to give tingle money for maps...
Girly hiyaz!~ Gamer Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 i totally missed something. why is red steel getting "bad" scores? is it the controls?
flameboy Posted November 17, 2006 Author Posted November 17, 2006 i totally missed something. why is red steel getting "bad" scores? is it the controls? yep i think so, its slow turning circles. EDIT: Etoys major problem with it was the sword play not being responsive enough,
solitanze Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I know it was mentioned above but wasn't sure if everyones read it yet: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=743437 ^-- Red Steel Review. Decent review overall. Multiplayer best part of the game. [JIST: Very poor AI As we all anticipated months ago, tedious sword combat that actually detracts from gameplay, inconsistent graphics and control issues but fun overall].
Shorty Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Yeah, the MGS2 ending did suck, that part about the mechs firing over the refugees and Snake saves them with a cloning gun, right before the meteor strikes them. A bit far fetched. Just started playing MGS2 Maybe I won't bother now >.>
dabookerman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Just started playing MGS2 Maybe I won't bother now >.> You dont actually believe him ..???
river_rage Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Can anyone tell me why there are three different avg. ratios on the gamerankings site? The one near the top of the page says 98% and the two others further down say 98.3% and 98.4% http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928519.asp
dabookerman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Can anyone tell me why there are three different avg. ratios on the gamerankings site? The one near the top of the page says 98% and the two others further down say 98.3% and 98.4% http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928519.asp I think its rounded off, i dunno.
Shorty Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 You dont actually believe him ..??? I meant because everyone was dissing how bad it was towards the end I was enjoying it so far but if it's really going to go that far downhill....
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I meant because everyone was dissing how bad it was towards the end I was enjoying it so far but if it's really going to go that far downhill.... Play it through to the end, and then decide. Yesterday, there were a bunch of you guys knocking Battle Royale 2, but Flaight ended up liking it. Maybe you'll like this two, you ain't gonna know til you finish it.
solitanze Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Can anyone tell me why there are three different avg. ratios on the gamerankings site? The one near the top of the page says 98% and the two others further down say 98.3% and 98.4% http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928519.asp I can answer that question, being the review expert, the 98% at the top of the page is rounding to the nearest decimal in .5 increments taking into account the scores from publications that are BOLDED, in other words, eligible to be added to the average ratio score. The 98.3% represents the average rating of all scores (Its 5 + 10 + 10 + 9.9 + 9.6 + 9.5 + 9.9 [not bold] = 63.9/65 = 98.30) Then you have the average ratio which is the scores from each publication out of 100 marks (Its 100 + 100 + 100 + 99 + 96 + 95 + 99 [NOT BOLD] = 689/700 = 98.42. But seeing that publications that aren't bolded are not eligible to be added to the average ratio, the average ratio in reality is 590/600 = 98.3, hence the 98% above with the rounding down to the nearest .5 increment.
mcj metroid Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Wait, me admit what? The story being way ahead of its time? The fact that the patriots ended up being controlled by AI? And the fact that all of it was a rouse to create the perfect soldier? The perfect Solid Snake? Where do you see the silly? I certainly don't. Is this to just grab my attention? Is it because people can't handle long cutscenes? Long codec sequences (which I repeat, are skippable) Lets. codec sequences are essential to the game.You can't skip them For the first time.If you do you won't have a clue what to do next.You were forced to watch them telling you you're ruining your eyes and to reset the game.It was hilarious but didn't suit the game
river_rage Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 ah I see... Thanks for the quick reply. Now I can sleep sound
dabookerman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I meant because everyone was dissing how bad it was towards the end I was enjoying it so far but if it's really going to go that far downhill.... Who are you gonna believe, me or them? It does not go downhill. codec sequences are essential to the game.You can't skip them For the first time.If you do you won't have a clue what to do next.You were forced to watch them telling you you're ruining your eyes and to reset the game.It was hilarious but didn't suit the game Because MGS games are not allowed to have humour.
mcj metroid Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Because MGS games are not allowed to have humour. I'm guessing you would support this game to the grave anyway.I love the game.Not saying it's bad but everyone can see the decline in quality at the end except you
Shino Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Who are you gonna believe, me or them?It does not go downhill. If by downhill, you mean uphill and since a uphill cannot go downhill, its certainly a uphill.
Recommended Posts