UK has good taste... F1 2010 outsells Halo
- Thread starter Wolfram23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mr.Petey said:
Now this!:Iwata said:
"It is also the most successful British-made film of all time,[26][27][28] as well as being the highest grossing film of all time at the UK box office, eclipsing the record previously held by Titanic on the December 16, 2008, some 20 weeks after the film's original release, until Avatar broke the record. This is not adjusted for inflation.[29]"
BOOM! So without inflation it was the top grossing movie off all time... until Avatar moseyed in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamma_Mia!_(film) (Little more than halfway down)
reasons why this thread fails:
1. taste is completely subjective therefore saying someone has better taste then someone else, especially in video games, makes you, and you know who, look like an ignorant dumbass
2. comparing a RACING GAME to a SHOOTING GAME, i can't even justify this one because it's so increadibley stupid
3. your opinion is your opinion and insulting other people on theirs just proves how your real life is such a failure you need to insult people on their likes/dislikes. Personally i think straight racing games are a waste of life and energy and watching paint dry is more exciting but i'm not going to trash other people who do like it.
4. financial gains for a games do not mean it's not a great game, if you think otherwise you're once again an ignorant fool. halo 3 sold extremely well yet the campaign was AT MOST sub par and the multiplayer had so many problems with it i could write a book. (btw i'm an avid halo fan).
5. not a point but i have to say it, Reach kicks so much ass that even Chuck norris can't compete
Feel free to add more to list for those who need more of a slap in the face to understand their ignorance.
1. taste is completely subjective therefore saying someone has better taste then someone else, especially in video games, makes you, and you know who, look like an ignorant dumbass
2. comparing a RACING GAME to a SHOOTING GAME, i can't even justify this one because it's so increadibley stupid
3. your opinion is your opinion and insulting other people on theirs just proves how your real life is such a failure you need to insult people on their likes/dislikes. Personally i think straight racing games are a waste of life and energy and watching paint dry is more exciting but i'm not going to trash other people who do like it.
4. financial gains for a games do not mean it's not a great game, if you think otherwise you're once again an ignorant fool. halo 3 sold extremely well yet the campaign was AT MOST sub par and the multiplayer had so many problems with it i could write a book. (btw i'm an avid halo fan).
5. not a point but i have to say it, Reach kicks so much ass that even Chuck norris can't compete
Feel free to add more to list for those who need more of a slap in the face to understand their ignorance.
From what I've seen of the game sure they've made the menu system more immerse (there isn't much else) but mostly time consuming as a result. And yes it would probably be infinitely more interesting if most of the game played out as the beginning of Heavy Rain and you hardly got to touch an F1 vehicle but that is not what I was getting at. I was getting at the fact that these racing sims aren't about you mastering the controls of your vehicle but mastering the various bars/graphs that decide if your driving was a waste of everyone's time (sure you missed that turn but that one algorithm for this track was used and you set a setting a little too high, you were fucked before you started accelerating).Karim Saad said:
I wouldn't buy a game without renting, playing it at a friend's house or downloading a demo; most people who play games that I know of are the same, a demo-less release usually only preys on the fans and those who don't know better.
so...we are comparing a multiplatform racing game to a sci fi touch of an fps game exclusive?
well, troll, good job and all, i dont see the need for this but whatever floats your boat i suppose.
ot : played a little bit of the game, not my cup thats for sure, i prefer mario kart and the likes compared to these kinds of racing games, so i wont be buying it, but not to deter anyone from buying it, its decently solid for what it goes for.
well, troll, good job and all, i dont see the need for this but whatever floats your boat i suppose.
ot : played a little bit of the game, not my cup thats for sure, i prefer mario kart and the likes compared to these kinds of racing games, so i wont be buying it, but not to deter anyone from buying it, its decently solid for what it goes for.
Wow a lot of people who jizzed when they bought Halo Reach are apparently rather upset that I think F1 2010 is in higher taste than Halo Reach.
First let me clarify something. I said I don't mind Halo. I bought the first Halo when it was available on PC and it was an ok game... nothing great, just another shooter with a couple neat features to set it apart. The next games didn't add anything to it. There's also a hundred other FPS games just like it out there, some better and some worse.
F1 2010 on the other hand, well guess what. There hasn't been an F1 game in 6 years! Dissing the game for being a racing game is rather stupid, by the way, as it can take far more skill, endurance, patience, and composure to win a race in F1 2010 than to beat the entire Halo Reach campaign. I say this because 55 laps around Monaco is FUCKING HARD. Now, you certainly don't need to go that far, I've been playing 30% race length so it's more like 15-17 laps, but it's still very tough.
A reason why F1 2010 is in better taste is because, aside from not being "yet another shooter" - which, fanboys, isn't me saying Halo Reach sucks, I'm saying it's all been done before in one form or another and very recently to boot. F1, as I said, has not been done in years and years. Sure there's been other racing games, GRID, Dirt, Forza, GT5P etc etc but these are not F1. It's like a JRPG vs a WRPG vs an RTS! The only similarity is that you're in a vehicle on a track.
They also definitely raised the bar for racing game immersion. You have interviews. You do practice, qualifying, and race day. There's dynamic weather which truely affects the race. You can be fired from your team, or hired by others. There's R&D objectives for small upgrades. The track gets rubbered over the course of the weekend and gets grippier. You have fuel weight, so your car is faster by the end of the race than at the start. Tires wear and can pop. All kinds of stuff that's either innovative or far refined over what any racing game has given in the past.
Halo Reach adds a jetpack. Wooosh!
I'd give Halo 1 credit for having some new things to bring to the genre. But Reach is same old hat. This isn't to say anything of the story mind you. A story is a story, and if I wanted a good one I could play many games with excellent stories, or just read a book/watch a movie.
F1 2010 is in much better taste than Halo Reach. Sorry but it's true.
I've put about 15hrs into the game and have had only those 2 "glitches" occure, with very little impact overall.
Having a few bugs to work out firstly, doesn't make a game crap when it's still super fun and for MOST PEOPLE works just fine. Secondly, that has nothing to do with taste. I've explained myself already in that regards.
As a final point to the guys out there who got their panties in a bunch... of course taste is subjective. I say it's in bad taste to hang onto a long running sequels with nothing to add. I think CoD is in bad taste too, surprisingly, while I think Portal or Metro 2033 or Cryostasis or Mirror's Edge were all in quite good taste as they all bring something different to the table.
Now piss off! lol...
First let me clarify something. I said I don't mind Halo. I bought the first Halo when it was available on PC and it was an ok game... nothing great, just another shooter with a couple neat features to set it apart. The next games didn't add anything to it. There's also a hundred other FPS games just like it out there, some better and some worse.
F1 2010 on the other hand, well guess what. There hasn't been an F1 game in 6 years! Dissing the game for being a racing game is rather stupid, by the way, as it can take far more skill, endurance, patience, and composure to win a race in F1 2010 than to beat the entire Halo Reach campaign. I say this because 55 laps around Monaco is FUCKING HARD. Now, you certainly don't need to go that far, I've been playing 30% race length so it's more like 15-17 laps, but it's still very tough.
A reason why F1 2010 is in better taste is because, aside from not being "yet another shooter" - which, fanboys, isn't me saying Halo Reach sucks, I'm saying it's all been done before in one form or another and very recently to boot. F1, as I said, has not been done in years and years. Sure there's been other racing games, GRID, Dirt, Forza, GT5P etc etc but these are not F1. It's like a JRPG vs a WRPG vs an RTS! The only similarity is that you're in a vehicle on a track.
They also definitely raised the bar for racing game immersion. You have interviews. You do practice, qualifying, and race day. There's dynamic weather which truely affects the race. You can be fired from your team, or hired by others. There's R&D objectives for small upgrades. The track gets rubbered over the course of the weekend and gets grippier. You have fuel weight, so your car is faster by the end of the race than at the start. Tires wear and can pop. All kinds of stuff that's either innovative or far refined over what any racing game has given in the past.
Halo Reach adds a jetpack. Wooosh!
I'd give Halo 1 credit for having some new things to bring to the genre. But Reach is same old hat. This isn't to say anything of the story mind you. A story is a story, and if I wanted a good one I could play many games with excellent stories, or just read a book/watch a movie.
F1 2010 is in much better taste than Halo Reach. Sorry but it's true.
Just need to respond to you, specifically. F1 2010 is a "crap racing game" and you reference the forums. Bravo. Firstly, I frequent those forums. The vast majority of people bitching are either bitching that it's "too easy" because they don't spin out every corner, or else bitching about things that have been proven to be DESIGNED THAT WAY FOR A REASON and not at all glitches/bugs. There are, admitedly, a few bugs that are hurting SOME PEOPLE. Sometimes if you pit, you get held up too long while cars pass you. Sucks but if you just pit the next lap it's no issue and CM said they're patching this. Same goes for a few of the other more prominent possible "game breaking" bugs like the possiblity of a corrupt save. Again, there's a very easy work around for that while the patch is being made.scorch 13 said:
I've put about 15hrs into the game and have had only those 2 "glitches" occure, with very little impact overall.
Having a few bugs to work out firstly, doesn't make a game crap when it's still super fun and for MOST PEOPLE works just fine. Secondly, that has nothing to do with taste. I've explained myself already in that regards.
As a final point to the guys out there who got their panties in a bunch... of course taste is subjective. I say it's in bad taste to hang onto a long running sequels with nothing to add. I think CoD is in bad taste too, surprisingly, while I think Portal or Metro 2033 or Cryostasis or Mirror's Edge were all in quite good taste as they all bring something different to the table.
Now piss off! lol...
Choosing a game with no story, little artistic value, and a premise already provided by an age-old sport over an original sci-fi interactive war story about courage, sacrifice, and determination? How on earth is that good taste? I don't care how fun F1 2010 is, it doesn't deserve that. Yet again, Halo is being hated beyond what it deserves for no good reason. I really wish people would just shut up about this...
What? Since F1 hasn't had a game in 6 years, its automatically the better game and those that get it is in better taste? You claim Halo isn't as good because it hasn't improved on the formula that works? Saying Reach is Halo 3 with jetpacks is clearly a sign of your blatant ignorance, willful or otherwise. Now, I haven't played F1, so I can't attest to its quality. However, just because a game hasn't a sequel in a number of years and includes a number of upgrades in it doesn't mean its a better game than any other game, especially when it comes to game that has been tweaked and refined into its current form. You don't have to like Reach, but to say what you say is completely idiotic and extremely dense. With your logic, Duke Nukem Forever is going to be better than Mass Effect 2 for the fact that it has taken longer to come out and because it has more improvements than its previous iteration.Wolfram01 said:
Not only that, but why in the hell are you comparing a racing sim to a sci-fi FPS? Where are the similarities? Call me a Halo fanboy, I don't care. My liking of Reach doesn't change the fact that your logic makes no sense.
Now I'm getting the impression that you don't what "bad taste" means. Bad taste usually refers to doing something that might seem vulgar or insensitive or exploitative. So when you say that Call of Duty is in bad taste, what exactly do you mean?Wolfram01 said: