You can't really lose with either. However, Bioshock 1 was a masterpiece in my mind, while ME1 had some gameplay issues (aka combat). It's not gamebreaking, but it does get annoying when you have to play the game for 20+ hours. Anyways, probably the most well-rounded game would be Bioshock...
The lack of smart, intelligent teammates. I mean, you can only shoot at the wall a number of times before you SHOULD realize that Shepard is getting his ass torn apart.
Dante's Inferno is not for everyone, but it's definitely worth at least a rental. I played it, and I didn't think it was as bad as all the reviews are saying it is.
Well, I mean, Demon's Souls for the PS3 has a metacritic score of above 85 I believe, and it's apparantly the hardest game ever. I wouldn't say Blood Bowl got a bad score just for being hard or bad graphics, seeing as how there are millions of others things potentially wrong with it.
And why...
Was Dante a complete douche or was it just me? The flashbacks, I believe, were used in an attempt to paint Dante as a tragic hero, but in my opinion, he was a complete d**k. Any opinions?
I think Mass Effect 2 got a better overall rating for its innovation with story-telling and character development. While both games were sequels to great games, the Mass Effect frachise is, in my opinion, the more innovative one. While Bioshock 2 may have been a good game, Mass Effect 2...
I got all the flags on Assassin's Creed ^^.
Anyways, I think your friend is wrong in his idea of a gamer. Considering gaming is a passtime, I don't see why a "gamer" MUST strive for 100% completion on every game he/she plays.
Last time I checked, "gamer" was used to name people who played...
Yeah the "Empires" and "Xtreme Legends" games are bad, but the normal games are actually nice stress relievers. Also, DW5 is the best game of the series.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.