Thanks, I know. :/
Thanks, I know. :/
So if shooting doesn't make a game a shooter than what does?
I'm aware there's a difference, but my point is that it might not make the game any "better" beyond that. At one point in time, Crysis was head and shoulders better looking than anything before it, but the game was only decent. How do we remember it now? As a game with a graphics engine that no one could run on…
Sarcasm is funny.
Exaggerated to prove a point. Yes when you examine it there's a pretty big difference, but not to such a degree that it should ruin the experience for anyone (at least in my opinion). We're not talking last-gen to current-gen disparities.
I do, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that throughout the entire game you're avoiding said people that are constantly shooting at you. If the game were only the time trial runs and no enemies firing at you then I would agree that it didn't have any shooter elements. With the ability to pick up and fire guns, you'd…
Thanks. I assume you meant the Dead Island comparison?
Unless you're a devout vegan, then the beans taste better.
If I remember correctly, a lot of the textures in the 360 version weren't as high quality as the PS3's. The difference however was negligible.
Well I'll admit that it isn't specifically a shooter, but it is from a first-person perspective, it's combat heavy, and you can shoot in it. It's almost as much (or as little?) of a shooter as Dead Island is.
I was merely speaking about the graphics end of the discussion, but if we were to stay on the metaphor that I was using it would make for a hilarious comparison.
You're welcome!
Extremely well done.
I haven't, but it's something for me to look for now. :)
Thanks! I'll look into those.