BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I prefer Battlefield to CoD myself (haven't played Bad Company though), but that's just me. Also, the controls in GoW are awful.
[Advice/feedback please] Buying an EXBAOX
- Thread starter Spoonfeed
- Start date
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ratty said:
From consumer's perspective, it's actually pretty good compared to the other two, especially now that it's the cheapest console. It wasn't the most expensive one at launch and the price quickly dropped until it became the least expensive. PS3 gets more complaints regarding price since they haven't lowered it. They just discontinued consoles and removed features (backwards compatibility removed completely), they haven't really lowered the price, neither has Nintendo.
All consoles are second rate, stripped down PC's, even the Wii. There was a Wii remote type controller for the PC long before Wii came out, which is why I think Nintendo marketing people are geniouses for what they've done. So, I continue to disagree on this one.
360 actually has a crap load of JRPGs. I'm not even sure the PS3 has more JRPGs than 360. It also has quite a few platformers, including Sonic. Viva Pinata and Fable are pretty much Xbox mascots and they're pretty unique. Microsoft also aggressively went after playstation exclusives turning them multiplatform or even 360 exclusive. There are definitely a lot of shooters on 360 but how can anyone say that its library is crap compared to other consoles is beyond me.
In my honest opinion, Nintendo Wii has the worst library ever. Yes, they have a Mario and Zelda and whatnot but they are not making games anymore. They have more of that Wii Dogs, Wii Cook, Wii fit crap than actual games. There are only two games that I'd actually want to play on the Wii: Metroid Prime 3 and Mario, that's all (!). I played the latest Zelda game on Gamecube (identical to Wii version, except for the controls) and it's almost a remake of Ocarina of Time.
I agree that it's very overhyped. It doesn't make it a mediocre game though. It's not like Stalker or HL but its not trying to be. They're different games.
I don't know of any other game that handles both FPS and vehicle battles so well. Coming out into fields and fighting armies and vehicles is a lot of fun and that's what a console game should be. Halo is both a really fun game and probably the best FPS on consoles. It also has a pretty cool sci fi setting going. To each his own and I disliked Halo at first too but now I'm a fan and replay them from time to time. I recommend giving them another chance and getting into the story.
You are forgetting the part where Wii and PS3 can actually be expected to *work* when you plug them in, rather than die horribly after a couple of weeks. Hell, 360's design and craftsmanship are so demonstrably shoddy that the machine should never have even left the drawing boards, let alone go into production and *remain there* for years. Better gaming systems tanked because they didn't meet the quality standards of their era, and it boggles the mind how 360 managed to escape their fate.maximaz said:
I hardly think it's valid to compare an obscure PC peripheral to Wiimote, which is not only the primary input unit of the Wii console, but games actually take advantage of its functionality to varying degrees. It's fair to say that Nintendo managed to redefine the way players interact with their games, an evolutionary step that hasn't been achieved in decades and represent a massive achievement. Not to mention that the device is of good quality and quite affordable given its capabilities. Hell, some groups I've worked with, who conduct research in the area of virtual reality and embodied conversational agents, purchase a fuckton of Wiis only to strip them down for their Wiimote sensors, which they later reuse in their various projects involving human-computer interaction. You don't often see a gaming peripheral that revolutionizes not only gaming, but also scientific research!
You're missing the point. Xbox may have JRPGs, beat 'em ups and platformers, but none of these can be characterized as defining the console and the surrounding gaming culture. Most of these titles are also available on other platforms (and often look and play better), and for every exclusive you can always find superior alternatives on a competing system. Not a single seminal franchise originates from the Xbox. Not one genre-defining game, nor a new and imaginative gameplay style that could be qualified as emblematic of the platform. Again, it's just an underpowered, stripped-down PC, as irrelevant to the artistic and cultural evolution of gaming as the Toshiba notebook sitting on my desk.
I will not dispute that Wii game library contains piles upon piles of low-quality shovelware. But then again, so did Atari 2600, and yet if you were to list all the video game classics of the late '70s and early '80s, I'm guessing your list would be 90% Atari and 10% everyone else. It's still far too early to tell if Wii will be even half as important and influential for gaming as the 2600 was all those years ago, but there is little doubt that it will leave its mark.
You are also forgetting that many of these shareware-quality titles aren't bad per se, but rather target an audience that expects simple, facile games. Wii Sports and Wii Music are neither X-Com nor Half-Life, but I suspect your grandma and your little sister would nonetheless prefer them over either. In that respect, both games are achievements of sorts and qualify as good, solid games, in spite of the utter simplicty of their mechanics.
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ratty said:
Oh come on now. While there are definitely problems with some 360s, it's not like you can't expect them to work. Let's not be silly. I'm sure other consoles break too, although probably not as often. I personally have only had good experience with a 360 and I've had a drink spilled on it and go straight through it and it still works. If you do have problems with yours, you still get a working console for your money because of policies they have to make up for the trouble. Yes, it shouldn't happen and it's a fault but the bottom line is that consumers pay the least money for a console and they don't have to worry about it for 3 years because of the warranty. I'd say that they get a deal.
The fact is that that technology is not new. Nintendo saw its potential and focused on improving it and had their genious marketing department pimp it. I admire them for what they've done but it's hardly state of the art technology. Nintendo was the cheapest console at launch and the only one that actually made money from day one. That should tell you something about Wii. The ones who actually spent effort and money on developing new technology and can brag about it are Sony, they just have horrible marketers who thought that PS3 doesn't need any effort after the success of PS2.
What game can be characterized as defining PS3 or the original xbox? PS2 probably had some but PS3? Littlebigplanet is not more for PS3 than Viva Pinata is for 360.
The fact that most of 360's games are also on PS3 means that most of PS3 titles are also on 360, so I don't see logic there.
Most of the multiplatform games are actually known to be better on 360 too. I haven't personally compared any but if you go by what most sites say then that is the case.
So far, as gaming consoles, the 360 and PS3 have been achieving the same thing (even though PS3 might be capable of more), 360 just has more shooters, is cheaper, and doesn't have bluray.
Yes, except that there are hardly any "classics" on the Wii. There are barely any games worth playing.
I sort of agree with your second paragraph, Wii does have games my grandma or little sister might want to play. That doesn't make it attractive to me personally. Apart from the fun of waving a remote instead of pressing buttons, the wii games are extremely primitive, if you can call them games. I'm not saying that there aren't some good ones but I can only think of two out of the whole Wii library.
I think your problem with 360 is that it doesn't introduce anything new to the world of video games. I agree, it doesn't. If that's the point you're trying to make then I'm with you.
However, it doesn't qualify the 360 as a waste of money because it still gives you lots of enjoyment for an affordable price. It's not more of a waste than the original Xbox was or the PS3 is.
The truth is that consoles will never be as good as PC's and video games got to a point, sometime in the late 90's, where they simply weren't going to grow more complex and deep on consoles. That task has long been given up to PC's. Unfortunately developers can't think of ways to make it as profitable as releasing eye candy on consoles. So consoles that don't introduce new neat controllers are not to blame. They do their job of providing fun games that are great on the big screen across from the couch and there is plenty of that to be found on 360.
PS3 is not really a waste (although it IS a bit overpriced), but it is only worth getting if you like Japanese games - and are, possibly, going to import them. Otherwise, it does no better than the 360, except that the hardware is more reliable.
Games defining PS3: DMC4, FFXIII, possibly BlazBlue
Not sure about gamepad, but controls with KB&mouse was one of the things that bothered me the least.
True, however they are in the exact same genre thus can and should be held to the same standards. The hype only raises the expectiations, but does not interfere with the analysis. Without the hype, it is very easy to effectively argue how Quake or HL or Battlefield are better FPS games; with the hype calling it "the best shooter evah!" (without particular grounds for that) one simple becomes more pissed off and determined to point out the obvious.
It is an average (=mediocre) game in nature, but the excessive hype makes it stand out as such for people who are familiar with and appreciate the classics and the masterpieces of the genre.
Games defining PS3: DMC4, FFXIII, possibly BlazBlue
BloodyPuppy said:
Not sure about gamepad, but controls with KB&mouse was one of the things that bothered me the least.
maximaz said:
True, however they are in the exact same genre thus can and should be held to the same standards. The hype only raises the expectiations, but does not interfere with the analysis. Without the hype, it is very easy to effectively argue how Quake or HL or Battlefield are better FPS games; with the hype calling it "the best shooter evah!" (without particular grounds for that) one simple becomes more pissed off and determined to point out the obvious.
It is an average (=mediocre) game in nature, but the excessive hype makes it stand out as such for people who are familiar with and appreciate the classics and the masterpieces of the genre.
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
BlazBlue looks awesome. I'm a really big fighting game fan myself. I'd also say that Little Big Planet is a console defining game for the PS3.
And I've only played with a gamepad, and the control is like a tank. But yeah, there are other issues I take with the game. I hate the cover system with a fiery passion for example.
And I've only played with a gamepad, and the control is like a tank. But yeah, there are other issues I take with the game. I hate the cover system with a fiery passion for example.
Out of the 11.6 million units that shipped by early 2007, over 1.2 million had by that time already been returned due to defects. In other words, over 10% failure rate in the first year of retail sales! And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The defect rate of the initial production line was 68%. Sixty-eight percent! And that doesn't even mention how IBM initially had barely 16% yield for the Xenon CPU (In other words, of every 100 chips manufactured, only 16 could be expected to work!), or how Xenos was rushed out the gates even though ATI had half the engineers necessary to pull of a GPU that complex, or how Microsoft suffered from chronic shortage of qualified engineers, a malady further exacerbated by the fact that the best engineers were pulled off the 360 project in order to work on Zune... You don't have to take my word for it, it's all in this article. At least one of Microsoft's top engineers openly petitioned his superiors to shut down the production line in 2005, but Microsoft went ahead anyway. The end result are failure rates that may already be well into the thirties, as well as staggering financial losses for the company. Loss of reputation need not even be mentioned, and it may well permanently compromise the company's future in the video game business.maximaz said:
Did I say it was state of the art technology? No, of course not. Motion sensing for 3D applications has been around since the beginnings of virtual reality in the '80s and early '90s. What Nintendo managed to do was deliver the technology to the market in a very polished form and at an affordable price. Those research groups I mentioned have enough funding to purchase motion sensing equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet they chose to go with the Wii. That's saying something. What's saying even more is that there is a whole slew of games out for the Wii that use this input technology in new and creative ways. Yes, the technology has been around for years, but Nintendo were the first who used it to profoundly change the way we play video games.
Comparisons with the PS3 are always interesting. At the time when the PS3 was released, Cell was probably the most impressive chip ever seen in a consumer-grade device. Its novel design can be regarded as one of the key influences in development of upcoming manycore architectures such as Intel Larrabee. However, Cell's novelty is already proving itself to be its downfall, its unorthodox architecture and arcane instruction set preventing developers from taking full advantage of its impressive capabilities. This, coupled with some idiotic decisions on Sony's part (the principal of which is PS3's stupid hypervisor preventing third-party applications from accessing the RSX, effectively barring enthusiasts and researchers in the field of graphics from doing anything interesting with the system), is the chief reason why PS3's hardware will never have an impact on gaming that Nintendo did with its Wiimote.
As far as I'm aware, the franchises that defined the previous two PlayStation consoles (Square Enix JRPGs, Soul Calibur, MGS, Resident Evil) are still going strong on the PS3. Whether the PS3 will spawn anything new and original remains to be seen. But the thing is, it doesn't need to, since it already has a strong legacy of the PSX and PS2 going for it, even if some of their seminal series went multi-platform due to lure of Microsoft's dollars.
I wouldn't know, I generally don't play console games and I only played a few noteworthy titles on the Wii. But it's difficult to believe that of all these massively popular party games, puzzle games, platformers, action-adventure games and whatnot, at least some won't be remembered as classics of our age. Like Einstein said in Red Alert, only time will tell.
That's part of my point, yes. My point is also that since the 360 doesn't have any particular defining traits (other that its notorious unreliability, that is) or comparative strengths, pretty much anyone contemplating a purchase of the 360 would have their gaming needs serviced better on one of the competing platforms. Really, when PC has better shooters and RPGs (I won't even mention strategy games and MMOs), PS2 and PS3 have better beat 'em ups and JRPGs, Nintendo has better casual games and platformers, what possible incentive could anyone have to invest in a 360?
While the superiority of the PC as a gaming platform is unquestionable, it's still possible for creative evolution of gaming to occur on consoles. Nintendo were the first to realize that while their machines can't possibly hope to match the PC in terms of raw processing power, profound changes to the gaming experience can still be effected by other means - in their case, it's the introduction of new and unorthodox peripherals.
Ninetendo screws over its customers just as badly in many ways. First of it's basically an xbox with the harddrive taken out and miniturized. It's true consoles can't compare to PC graphics, but it would at least be nice to have HD graphics. The Wii also lacks the processing power to handle true next-gen gameplay i.e. Dead Rising. Back to the harddrive, it's curious that in a world where I can get 1 gb of flash memory for >$10 Nintendo still has you using bullshit cards.
Secondly, they haven't even done the motion controls very well. They basically admitted this when they decided to release their new peripheral which makes the controller much more accurate. This is funny because 2 years before the wii came out I could spend out $50 and get a gyroscopic mouse and not have to bother with sensor bar bullshit.
Thirdly, there's the Nintendo peripheral obssesion. Between balance boards and zappers you could spend quite a lot of money. It wouldn't be all that bad if the peripheral weren't edxtremely overpriced. The Wii zapper is basically just a shitty piece of molded plastic.
Finally, there's this nonsense with friend codes. It's cool that the online is free, but friend codes are the worst thing since virtual boys. It's not that hard to make a streamlined online experience.
I'm not trying to say that Nintendo is worse than Xbox or PS3, I'm just pointing out that everyone is always trying to screw the consumer. That's just how big business works.
Secondly, they haven't even done the motion controls very well. They basically admitted this when they decided to release their new peripheral which makes the controller much more accurate. This is funny because 2 years before the wii came out I could spend out $50 and get a gyroscopic mouse and not have to bother with sensor bar bullshit.
Thirdly, there's the Nintendo peripheral obssesion. Between balance boards and zappers you could spend quite a lot of money. It wouldn't be all that bad if the peripheral weren't edxtremely overpriced. The Wii zapper is basically just a shitty piece of molded plastic.
Finally, there's this nonsense with friend codes. It's cool that the online is free, but friend codes are the worst thing since virtual boys. It's not that hard to make a streamlined online experience.
I'm not trying to say that Nintendo is worse than Xbox or PS3, I'm just pointing out that everyone is always trying to screw the consumer. That's just how big business works.
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ausdoerrt said:
I disagree completely on the games of the same genre thing, they can be very very different. For example, GTA and Jak and Daxter 2 are both free roaming games; Gran Turismo, Carmageddon, and Mario Kart are all racers and yet they are very different games and cannot therefore be judged by the same merits. Halo and Stalker are both FPS but one is more of a tactical survival game while the other is fast paced action shooter that's all about fast action with big battles and different vehicles.
While I agree 100% that it doesn't deserve the hype it's received, I can list particular grounds for some hype. The sci fi setting is really great. The action is very fast paced. I can't think of any game with faster and more intense action than on Library levels, for example, in the first Halo where hundreds of Flood are popping up all around you. The variety of vehicles is also fantastic and each one is a lot of fun to play, more than in any other FPS I can think of. Halo 3 has some fantastic vehicle battles in open areas that can be replayed and enjoyed endlessly.
Halo didn't introduce anything really new to the genre but it pulls off what it does perfectly. I don't want to sound like a fanboy (which is probably too late) but it's highly underrated by a lot of people for being so hyped.
Ratty said:
I aknowledge that there is a problem with 360 defect rate. I never said it wasn't so. You are definitely more likely to have a problem with 360 than the other two consoles but it's not like you can't expect a 360 to work. That's exaggerating things a bit. My main point, though, was
Which means that the money you pay for a 360 is not going to waste.
Yes, their marketing people are geniouses. As for the rest, I agree 100% with what M-26-7 said. Most Wii owners I know say that it's just a white dusty brick under their TV's now.
We seem to agree on PS3. A great machine; horrible decisions on Sony's part.
Yes, Playstation 2 was responsible for making those titles its own. PS3 didn't. It may not need to but the point is that PS3 itself hasn't done anything the 360 hasn't when it comes to games. Considering how great a console PS2 was and how successul it was, PS3 is the worst possible successor. That's why I have a 360 and a PS2 in my livingroom. PS3 adopted some of PS
2 titles but so did 360
On top of that, 360 is now associated with Ninja Gaiden, Dead Rising, Viva Pinata, Halo, Crackdown, Kameo, Forza, Fable, GOW, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragonm and so on. Those are all very different games and they all define 360. The fact that 360 has a lot more exclusive games than the PS3, even if you don't count the ones that also made it to PC's. On top of that, most playstation games are now also or exclusively on 360, and according to most comparisons, play or look better. I saw absolutely no reason to get the original Xbox because I had a PS2; now it's reversed. If you have a 360, there is no reason to get a ps3 unless you want blu ray. They even removed backward compatibilty from PS3's to make the decision easier. 2009 will change things because a lot of promising games are going to come out for PS3, while 360 has a pretty weak lineup. However, up to this point, 360 has been a no brainer. Why would you pick something that's more expensive, has few games and very very few exclusives?
maximaz said:
Or you can compare Carmaggedon to Burnout and NFS =)
Seriously, Halo got the fast-paced action and sci-fi setting from UT, Quake and HL series. It didn't invent anything new and didn't revolutionize the genre. If you're referring to single-player, it's worse than in Serious Sam: Second Encounter, or the original Unreal. The vehicles were only introduced because people liked them in BF and UT2004.
Seriously, it's a lump of mediocrity and collection of ideas from other games for people who have never played other shooters. The thing that defines it as mediocre is the lack of a characterizing feature.
Multidirectional
Mildly Dipped
I love Gears Of War 1 for PC at least. I love the atmosphere and I love controls and cover system, it's easy to use and isn't annoying. At first I hated this game cause I knew how it was hyped as if it was something special when it wasn't, but then I tried to like it again the hype notwithstanding and succeeded. I loved that it wasn't pretending to be anything more than it actually is. It was a stupid fun, and it didn't take itself too seriously, hence not insulting my intelligence. It seems it's a minority opinion on this forum though. I'd love to play GOW2 too, but I'm not gonna buy a console for any game. If I had Xbox though, I'd definitely pick it up. But I find it hard to imagine playing it with a gamepad.
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ausdoerrt said:
I never said that it invented anything new or revolutionize the genre. It just does what it does very well. Quake, UT and HL are great games with fast paced action but it's very different from Halo type action. Those Library levels I mentioned, had crazy action; the rooms were filled with hundreds of flood creatures jumping at you from all directions. The vehicle combat is also on a whole different level. The action is just not even similar. There is alot of great action sequences that came as a result of the series being originally planned as an RTS. Again, it didn't invent anything new but it does what it does very very well. The sci fi setting is also very different. It's more of a blockbuster movie type setting than the one in the games you mentioned.
I enjoyed GoW1 for awhile, but it got old way too fast, just hide, wait, then shoot, gather armour. rinse & repeat. And regenerating health was getting on my nerves. I also hated how you have to have GfWL for multiplayer.
But I definitely agree that the game looks pretty (credit goes to EPIC), and the controls are easy (although I am seriously yet to see a shooter with COMPLICATED controls
)
My argument was though - it neither invents anything new, nor does it do what's already invented better than any other games. HL or HL2 have a similar movie-style setting, but a better story; Unreal is probably faster, and the enemies are smarter (I am yet to see a critter more evil than Skaarj); Serious Sam beats it hand down in massive fights (just play through the very last level of Second Encounter); Battlefield implemented vehicles much better (it almost turns into a flight simulator, or tank simulator sometimes).
All in all, Halo suffers from the same syndrome as FO3 - it tries to throw in a lot of "cool stuff", but fails to implement every specific aspect well. It's not a bad game, but not great - it's a lump of mediocrity without a defining feature. I pretty much agree with all you said, but none of that makes Halo a great game, or "teh bset game evah!"
But I definitely agree that the game looks pretty (credit goes to EPIC), and the controls are easy (although I am seriously yet to see a shooter with COMPLICATED controls
)maximaz said:
My argument was though - it neither invents anything new, nor does it do what's already invented better than any other games. HL or HL2 have a similar movie-style setting, but a better story; Unreal is probably faster, and the enemies are smarter (I am yet to see a critter more evil than Skaarj); Serious Sam beats it hand down in massive fights (just play through the very last level of Second Encounter); Battlefield implemented vehicles much better (it almost turns into a flight simulator, or tank simulator sometimes).
All in all, Halo suffers from the same syndrome as FO3 - it tries to throw in a lot of "cool stuff", but fails to implement every specific aspect well. It's not a bad game, but not great - it's a lump of mediocrity without a defining feature. I pretty much agree with all you said, but none of that makes Halo a great game, or "teh bset game evah!"
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Well Halo does have significantly more polish than Fallout 3, for all it's unoriginality and shortcomings. I'll give it that much.
The best FPS game in my book would have to be Goldeneye 64.
Sure, it ain't anything special nowadays (although i am sometimes tempted to give it another try!) but back in 1997 it was awesome and somewhat revolutionary.
Sure, it ain't anything special nowadays (although i am sometimes tempted to give it another try!) but back in 1997 it was awesome and somewhat revolutionary.
I don't know why anyone bothers to discuss Halo's contributions to the FPS genre, or even compare it to "serious" shooters, when PC has had shooters with both better gameplay and better storylines for years before Halo came out. In particular, the battle for the FPS with best vehicular combat was won on June 22, 2001 by Bohemia Interactive Studio, 5 months before the release of the first Halo game. Bungie might as well pack it up and leave, because nothing they ever did can hope to top the awesomeness of commanding an Abrams crew and taking out three T-72s without so much as a scratch on your ride, or escorting a convoy in a Hummer, driving straight into an infantry ambush and getting your brains blown out through the windshield by a Soviet sniper. Shit, you could probably fit an entire outdoor map from Halo into a single square of OFP's map, that's how epic OFP's scale is compared to Halo's playground-style shoot-outs. And OFP was by no means the first FPS featuring vehicles, I recall that SkyNET (1996) featured both ground vehicles (with mounted cannons, no less) and fighters, and I shouldn't even need to mention shooter / RTS hybrids like Battlezone series and Uprising. Damn, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo pooled all their resources together and directed them solely towards making AAA shooters, I doubt they would even come close matching the creativity and brilliance that was going on in the FPS genre on the PC in the 1992-2002 period. That's precisely why any console that depends on shooters as its primary offering automatically *fails*.
That's not good enough. When I pay $300 for an electronic product, I also pay for the convenience of being able to use when I want and as much as I want until the end of its lifespan. I shouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience of sending the broken husk of the device back to the manufacturer and spending days (or is it weeks?!) for the replacement unit to arrive, only to go through the same ordeal again a couple of months later.maximaz said:
Heh, most of these games I would play only if someone stapled a controller to my palms. Halo, GOW and Crackdown? I had access to superior shooters in 2002. Fable? You have got to be kidding me, that glorified hack 'n slash is inferior to PC RPGs as old as 1997. Forza Motorsport? Another Gran Turismo wannabe, just what the gaming world needs. And did you say Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon? Sorry, I can barely hear you over the deafening noise of Sakaguchi's fans not caring. Finally, we have Dead Rising and Ninja Gaiden series, both very fine, but sadly insufficient to build the success of a game console on. Bottom line - XBox 360 *fails*.Yes, Playstation 2 was responsible for making those titles its own. PS3 didn't. It may not need to but the point is that PS3 itself hasn't done anything the 360 hasn't when it comes to games. Considering how great a console PS2 was and how successul it was, PS3 is the worst possible successor. That's why I have a 360 and a PS2 in my livingroom. PS3 adopted some of PS
2 titles but so did 360
I wouldn't. PS3 right now is an even bigger pile of *fail* that the 360, at least in terms of game selection. However, chances are PS3 will be rescued by its PS2 legacy (many traditional PlayStation series have yet to get their PS3 iterations), while 360 will always wallow in its little mudpool of mediocrity, because the entire system is horribly ill-conceived and inherently worthless.
That's kind of a silly way of looking at things. After The Godfather came out, film critics didn't go around saying "Marty should pack it up because the best mob drama has already been made". With that attitude nothing new would ever get made. And I realize that you're not saying that nothing better than ARMA/Flashpoint will ever be made, but it's still stupid all the same. Maybe their games aren't the best, the most innovated, but neither are Michael Bay movies. The guy's still an idiot, and not an idiot I really like, but his movies can still be fun in their own stupid way. That's not to say that nothing made by them will ever compare to your own perfect image of an FPS.
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
The first one was fun. No regenerative health and godlike pistol? Yes please.