The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi everyone, remember me? Probably not, never entered much in this chat room, but anwyays. I was wondering on buying a Xbox but I found out about Xbox 1.5 which is just a smaller and simplier version of Xbox, they made this to have more time on Xbox 2, should I get that instead of Xbox? Has anyone else heard anything about it?
Page:
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> There is nothing to disagree. You think its revolutionary because it
> hasn't been on a console before? Thats just ridiculous.
>
> Halo is about as revolutionary as Aunt Bessies Yorkshire puddings!
LOL hey! They are quite nice puddings!
> There is nothing to disagree. You think its revolutionary because it
> hasn't been on a console before? Thats just ridiculous.
>
> Halo is about as revolutionary as Aunt Bessies Yorkshire puddings!
LOL hey! They are quite nice puddings!
There is nothing to disagree. You think its revolutionary because it hasn't been on a console before? Thats just ridiculous.
Halo is about as revolutionary as Aunt Bessies Yorkshire puddings!
Halo is about as revolutionary as Aunt Bessies Yorkshire puddings!
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
>
> Operation Flashpoint had this as well. Not revolutionary in the
> slightest.
Never played it but it's not a console FPS is it? It's on the PC. Halo is a revolutionary console FPS.
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
>
> You think this is new? This has been around since an old Jame Bond
> game on the Mega Drive where your health regenerated and health packs
> gave you more bars to survive on.
Not in an FPS it hasn't. Maybe in other games. We're talking about a specific genre that has has a revotionary game made for it.
>
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
>
> Operation Flashpoint had vehicles and helicopters. You can't be
> pedantic about specific types of vehivcle because it has been done
> before.
Yes I can because it was done on a console. Not a PC.
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
>
> Agin what the hell has this got to do with revolutionary?
Nothing. That's why I said it didn't.
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
>
> Big deal. Enter the Matrix scored 10/10 in some places. Doesn't mean
> it was revolutionary my friend even though you seem to think it does.
Yes it does. Any person worth his salt would know that Edge is the harshest critic on games in the world. I believe Enter the Matrix got 3/10 in Edge. Previous games to win it were Gran Turismo, Mario 64 and Zelda OOT. they were all revolutionary because they expanded a genre beyond the normal limitations of what we percieved they could do.
Anyway, we could agree to disagree. I'll address these issues tomorrow because I'm off home now.
> Unbeliever wrote:
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
>
> Operation Flashpoint had this as well. Not revolutionary in the
> slightest.
Never played it but it's not a console FPS is it? It's on the PC. Halo is a revolutionary console FPS.
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
>
> You think this is new? This has been around since an old Jame Bond
> game on the Mega Drive where your health regenerated and health packs
> gave you more bars to survive on.
Not in an FPS it hasn't. Maybe in other games. We're talking about a specific genre that has has a revotionary game made for it.
>
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
>
> Operation Flashpoint had vehicles and helicopters. You can't be
> pedantic about specific types of vehivcle because it has been done
> before.
Yes I can because it was done on a console. Not a PC.
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
>
> Agin what the hell has this got to do with revolutionary?
Nothing. That's why I said it didn't.
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
>
> Big deal. Enter the Matrix scored 10/10 in some places. Doesn't mean
> it was revolutionary my friend even though you seem to think it does.
Yes it does. Any person worth his salt would know that Edge is the harshest critic on games in the world. I believe Enter the Matrix got 3/10 in Edge. Previous games to win it were Gran Turismo, Mario 64 and Zelda OOT. they were all revolutionary because they expanded a genre beyond the normal limitations of what we percieved they could do.
Anyway, we could agree to disagree. I'll address these issues tomorrow because I'm off home now.
Unbeliever wrote:
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
Operation Flashpoint had this as well. Not revolutionary in the slightest.
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
You think this is new? This has been around since an old Jame Bond game on the Mega Drive where your health regenerated and health packs gave you more bars to survive on.
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
Operation Flashpoint had vehicles and helicopters. You can't be pedantic about specific types of vehivcle because it has been done before.
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
Agin what the hell has this got to do with revolutionary?
> You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it
> came out.
No you are wrong completely. Halo took elements from Half Life, Unreal, Doom, Goldeneye and a few other games. Wasn't revolutionary at all.
> Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the
> same features that Halo had.
Whats your point? This doesn't make Halo revolutionary. Half Life was back at its time of release but by the time Halo was out we had seen it all before.
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
Big deal. Enter the Matrix scored 10/10 in some places. Doesn't mean it was revolutionary my friend even though you seem to think it does.
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
Operation Flashpoint had this as well. Not revolutionary in the slightest.
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
You think this is new? This has been around since an old Jame Bond game on the Mega Drive where your health regenerated and health packs gave you more bars to survive on.
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
Operation Flashpoint had vehicles and helicopters. You can't be pedantic about specific types of vehivcle because it has been done before.
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
Agin what the hell has this got to do with revolutionary?
> You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it
> came out.
No you are wrong completely. Halo took elements from Half Life, Unreal, Doom, Goldeneye and a few other games. Wasn't revolutionary at all.
> Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the
> same features that Halo had.
Whats your point? This doesn't make Halo revolutionary. Half Life was back at its time of release but by the time Halo was out we had seen it all before.
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
Big deal. Enter the Matrix scored 10/10 in some places. Doesn't mean it was revolutionary my friend even though you seem to think it does.
Unbeliever wrote:
> **G&ng$t3r** wrote:
>
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
>
> Oy, you!
>
> Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't
> even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen
> before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
Deformed head I have, dare you cuss me...
> **G&ng$t3r** wrote:
>
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
>
> Oy, you!
>
> Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't
> even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen
> before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
Deformed head I have, dare you cuss me...
Unbeliever wrote:
> **G&ng$t3r** wrote:
>
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
>
> Oy, you!
>
> Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't
> even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen
> before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
Been there done that, whos your next victim britney spears, atleast she told you she smashed the windows on your mercedes again (oops I did it again)
> **G&ng$t3r** wrote:
>
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
>
> Oy, you!
>
> Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't
> even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen
> before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
Been there done that, whos your next victim britney spears, atleast she told you she smashed the windows on your mercedes again (oops I did it again)
**G&ng$t3r** wrote:
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
Oy, you!
Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
> Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
Oy, you!
Shut it. I won't have my name defamed by a slovenly oaf who can't even check prices for himself. Now scamper off to your playpen before I smash my fist into your deformed head.
Unbeliever wrote:
> ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo
> was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before
> in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
>
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
>
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
>
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
>
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
>
> You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it
> came out.
>
> Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the
> same features that Halo had.
>
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
> ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo
> was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before
> in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
>
> 1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think
> carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
>
> 2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
>
> 3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
>
> 4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very
> revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
>
> You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it
> came out.
>
> Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the
> same features that Halo had.
>
> Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to
> receive that accolade.
Ok, ok, no one wants to hear it, you, YOU, WOMAN BEATER!!:@
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it came out.
Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the same features that Halo had.
Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to receive that accolade.
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
1) Only holding two weapons at one time, foircing you to think carefully about which weapons you wanted to keep.
2) Rechargable shields promoting tactical play.
3) Vehicles and spaceships to utilise.
4) Excellent use of sound and effects (okay that's not very revolutionary but it's an integral part of the whole experience)
You're wrong. It is revolutionary. Just like Goldeneye was when it came out.
Even the PS2's killzone (would be Halo beater) has incorporated the same features that Halo had.
Edge magazine rated it 10/10. It's the 4th game in ten years to receive that accolade.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
Go on my son, give it all you got, Unbeleiver is weak may I add. This is number 102, unless someone posts whilst im writing, this was all done today, by the master, Mc.Snake, resurected, now known as **G&ng$t3®** , we have done better than that star wars spoiler topic, IN ONE DAY. Thanks to everyone that particpated in this forum, KEEP IT COMING!!!!
:)
=)
+)
;)
:P
> Just scanned through the thread and found some people saying Halo was
> revolutionary. No it wasn't revolutionary, it was another FPS which
> just happened to be so bloody good that people kept saying
> revolutionary. It didn't add anything that hadn't been done before in
> any other games, instead it focused on perfecting a genre and for me
> it succeeded. Revolutionary? No. Bloody awesome? Yes.
Go on my son, give it all you got, Unbeleiver is weak may I add. This is number 102, unless someone posts whilst im writing, this was all done today, by the master, Mc.Snake, resurected, now known as **G&ng$t3®** , we have done better than that star wars spoiler topic, IN ONE DAY. Thanks to everyone that particpated in this forum, KEEP IT COMING!!!!
:)
=)
+)
;)
:P
Page: