Poll: Which October/November release game should i get?

[Anton P. Nym]

Fallout 3 owns my soul at the moment, so I'll recommend that... but we truly are spoiled for choice right now. Gears of War 2 and Mirror's Edge are both very, very tempting but I want to finish F3 before moving on.

-- Steve

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

SR2. Its just plain fun.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

That depends, for games that are actually OUT... either Saints Row 2 or Fallout 3, if you can only pick one. If you prefer action/insanity pick Saints Row, if you'd rather have depth and direction, Fallout 3 is the way to go.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

If you want GTA-VC style mayhem, go for saints row 2.

 

[KrossZer0]

I had to chose between Fable II and Fallout 3 and picked Fable II.

Wish I could take that one back...

 

[DirkGently]

Bah! Why isn't Call of Duty : World at War on that list?

Because he wants to buy a real game, not an expansion pack.

 

[wgreer25]

Depends of what you like.

If you like Horror/Sci-Fi, Dead Space (my fav so far this year).

If you want a FPS that's a little different - Mirror's Edge.

If you liked Oblivion and something that is a little like Fallout - Fallout 3.

If you liked Gears 1 and want more chainsaw weilding action - Gears 2.

 

[DirkGently]

Bah! Why isn't Call of Duty : World at War on that list?

Because he wants to buy a real game, not an expansion pack.

Ah, no. The multiplayer is lined up as a bit of a COD4 reskin, although it has many great additions, the single player is a whole storyline. That is not an expansion. That is barely a reskin.

COD4 didn't have a storyline. It had a couple of bits of dialogue to explain why were where we were and we were shooting people, and some nice political commentary, which I enjoyed far more. While W@W may have some interesting political commentary, it's going to be a fucking WWII shooter using the COD4 technology. And we're done with WWII. Enough with it. We get it. Hitler and the Axis of Evil were bad, and they lost, and America and the Allies Won! With a name like W@W it should have been a FPS version of End War, doing WWIII, with modern & near future weaponry. Hopefully COD5 will be such, ie COD4 + 10~20 years.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I've been dissapointed with the majority of those on the list, except for Dead Space, and judging by the demo, Mirror's Edge.

 

[Altorin]

Seriously though, Fallout 3 gets kinda depressing and boring after a bit, Far Cry 2 less depressing but more boring, and Saints Row 2 I could only recommend if you have the maturity of a 10-year old, and a really badly behaved one at that. I say Mirrors Edge.

it picks up right at the end with the coolest robot this side of Data.

 

[Maddenfreak]

WHAT THE HELL MAN! where is Resistance 2?

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

WHAT THE HELL MAN! where is Resistance 2?

I would put it on, but A I dont have a PS3, and B, there isn't enough space.

 

[DirkGently]

Bah! Why isn't Call of Duty : World at War on that list?

Because he wants to buy a real game, not an expansion pack.

Ah, no. The multiplayer is lined up as a bit of a COD4 reskin, although it has many great additions, the single player is a whole storyline. That is not an expansion. That is barely a reskin.

COD4 didn't have a storyline. It had a couple of bits of dialogue to explain why were where we were and we were shooting people, and some nice political commentary, which I enjoyed far more. While W@W may have some interesting political commentary, it's going to be a fucking WWII shooter using the COD4 technology. And we're done with WWII. Enough with it. We get it. Hitler and the Axis of Evil were bad, and they lost, and America and the Allies Won! With a name like W@W it should have been a FPS version of End War, doing WWIII, with modern & near future weaponry. Hopefully COD5 will be such, ie COD4 + 10~20 years.

You're right. WW2 has been done to a horrible death, eaten then its body has been descrated. We all know this. Developers know this. But a game can still be fun, good or imaginative even if it uses a stale basis for a game.

I would be fine with a futuristic FPS, but no lasers, no aliens, no spaceships and no big suits of armour!

I'm so sick and tired of WWII I can't touch a WWII game. It's completely unimmerisive (okay it's not a word, sue me) to me and to a lot of people. Well, atleast to the people who don't buy a new EA game everytime one comes out.

Unfortunately, futuristic implies that. While there a few exceptions, futuristic implies weapons that we don't have, typically in space, etc. Hence why I want near-futuristic. Or near-futuristic from a 50/60's perspective, but modernized and polished and the like.

 

[DirkGently]

Now there I agree with you. And although WW2 has been overused to a sickening degree, that doesn't mean there can't be a good WW" game, and I can stand the thing as long as it is. But what makes this at least different, is that it's not the god damn Americans winning in France! The fucking landings have gone! Now it is all stealthy pacific fighting against the Japanese, and Russian fighting the Germans in the freezing cold.

Oh, yes, because we've never played a WWII shooter in the pacific theatre. I won't give W@W the time of day when it comes out. I'll wait for COD5.

EDIT: I might play a WWII game where I'm with the Germans. That'd be much more interesting.