nextbigname (User)

  • Contributor
  • 5 bubbles
  • 11 in CRank
  • Score: 20670
""

Comments

Agree. It was a smart strategic move, just what they did and talked even before the reveal. #1.1
588d ago by nextbigname | View comment
How come you are entitled to an opinion, and the author is not?.. #7.1
755d ago by nextbigname | View comment
^
WTF are you talking about? PC is more powerful only because consoles are outdated. Wait for PS4 and 720, and revise your comment.

For LiquidSword93, of course Microsoft and Sony will be releasing impressive machines, what do you expect? That's the only way they can stay in the market, otherwise there is nothing for them to do here and they know it. Read some speculation articles on what the consoles might be. #5.2.3
756d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Destroy All Humans!! What I would give to have another one of those, and if it'd be as good as the first one... loved it! #3
760d ago by nextbigname | View comment
What is "STILL NEW"? I've never played inFamous 2, some people might not have heard of inFamous 2, so for them it is STILL NEW. This is not an indication of how old the review can be, unless the certain time frames are mentioned. #4.1.2
768d ago by nextbigname | View comment
ThatEnglishDude, you're correct - it's not as relevant as the review for any recently released game would have been, BUT - is there a rule that you CAN'T post a review of a game that has been released a year ago, two years ago, 10 years ago, whatever? NO! So wtf is the problem? If you're not interested, then move on. Maybe someone else would be interested. #4
768d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Because different people's perspective are not the same. One article doesn't equal the other, therefore if there is "another" piece on GTA V, someone might be interested in reading it because a) they might not have read about it anywhere else before, b) they are interested in what other people think and compare the opinions to what they have read previously and c) any other fucking reason.

Why would someone AGREE with that cynical comment is what boggles me... #1.1.1
771d ago by nextbigname | View comment
It says "Part 1". You suddenly forgot how to read? #7.1
775d ago by nextbigname | View comment
This whole thing you just said here absolutely doesn't make any sense. #2.1
790d ago by nextbigname | View comment
The only two things good about Sleeping Dogs are 1) Storyline, 2) Hand-to-hand combat. The controls ARE bad, movement is clunky as said before, and this is just not a very good port.

It's not a bad game overall, but I think it's overrated.

And yes, I have played the hell out of it already. #8.1.1
798d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Bingo! This is essential what is being discussed in the article. Unfortunately people don't bother to read that nobody is calling BF3 a crappy game. #25.1
825d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Except for the article's title and the points made, there is pretty much nothing similar between the two. #15.1
826d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Some people obviously didn't read the whole text.

It's impossible NOT to compare BF to COD, because these two are the main rivals, especially after BF3's appearance. What else do you compare COD to?

To whoever said that BF3 is a strategy game: in terms of the way that you have to think more, yes, other than that - it is still FPS, the same genre that COD is. It is different, but it is still FPS, therefore it is up for comparison. Nobody is compari... #11
826d ago by nextbigname | View comment
Showing: 1 - 13 of 13