Because the Call of Duty series (when still in WWII) could always make a brand new person and storyline and basicly new story while still staying in the WWII era. And the fourth one isn't even about WWII. The Call of Duty series could do a different war everytime a new game came out.lukemdizzle said:Im sorry but I don't see how that has any relevance to the previous statement. he was taking about how halo isn't really milking the franchise that much in comparison to other popular gamesPS3fanboy said:Yes but there are differrences.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:To be fair, considering that Call of Duty appeared around the Halo 2 period, and they're currently on their fourth instalment (with a fifth soon to come, and a sixth in development), Microsoft look marvellously restrained in comparison.sunami88 said:Also, 100% agreed. And I love Halo, but whoring = bad.PS3fanboy said:My disapointment.
Master Chief might not be dead.
I do not hate Halo.
I just think it's time for Microsoft to stop milking it.
Halo is around a single person who has almost died twice or more.
Call of Duty is about a whole war not revolving around one person. And the last Call of Duty wasn't even about WWII it was about modern warfare hence the name Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
Um, she isn't. I haven't played any Star Fox games with Krystal in it, so I wouldn't know what you're talking about. That quote is from Pit.Michael_McCloud said:Since when was Krystal in brawl?Stammer said:"You're not ready yet."
In my opinion it's good the way it is. I absolutely HATE WTF endings. It's like playing MGS games only to figure out it was VR missions done by Raiden all along. It really cheapens the conflicts of the story. The whole idea of the game was to show that during the past (Altair), present (you), and future (Desmond), nothing has changed in the conflict in the Mid-East.Somethingironic said:Assassins Creed, one of the best possible twist storylines ever, screwed up because the marketers got overexcited. Imagine playing as Altair all through the game, only to realize that you're really his descendant trapped in a freaking memory machine. That would have been intense.
They should have lessened the memory glitches, and made them rare, they should have made the monologues of the dying guys more general and a lot shorter so that when you did find out the twist ending, you'd be all:
"Oh.... It all makes sense now."
Instead you knew you were Desmond from the start. Great freaking job Ubisoft.
I think Eurogamer summed up Alone In The Dark best by calling it "A noble failure." Because that's exactly what it is- as soon as you get past the admittedly excellent opening sequence and land in Central Park the game becomes an exercise in tedium which always feels like it could be much, much better. Playing through the game is almost a sorrowful experience because you just know it could be so much better.brenflood said:However, I think the true tragedy of this generation has to be Alone In the Dark 4. It was a game I was truly excited about. Yet, so many reviews just continually ripped into it. I haven't played it yet, but I've seen a lengthy video review that pointed out the game's flaws, but also showed all of its great qualities. I'd have to say that the game is quite a bit better than than the reviews say it is. The game is selling so poorly that Atari is most likely going to go bankrupt. I find this so sad.
A