Uh, I have a question:
[i]Why is Halo 3 on there? And Halo 4, but that's a little more reasonable.[/i]
OT:
I was only 8 in 2005, so I'm not a very seasoned gamer. However, I'll do my best.
2004: Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green
2005: Jak and Daxter
2006: Jak II
2007: Jak 3
2008: Halo 2/Halo Combat Evolved (I played more Halo 2 than CE, though.)
2009: Pokémon Platinum
2010: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
2011: Halo: Reach
2012: Assassin's Creed III
2013: Pokémon X/Y
English
-
[quote]Why the fūck is Halo 3 on there? [/quote] That seems a bit hostile.
-
Yeah, it sounded more playful in my head.
-
I don't mind your opinions, but that should have been phrased better.
-
I changed it. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Much better.
-
Edited by Logfish111: 11/12/2013 3:55:07 PM[quote][i]Why the fūck is Halo 3 on there?[/i][/quote] At first I was like, "Who is this troll?" [quote]I was only 8 in 2005[/quote] Then I was like "Ah, that explains why you are so stupid."
-
Being young =/= stupidity Halo 3 is a terrible game. It ruined both Halo: Reach and Halo 2.
-
[quote]Being young =/= stupidity[/quote] Evidently it does [quote]Halo 3 is a terrible game. It ruined both Halo: Reach and Halo 2.[/quote] Or maybe you're just a troll, because this makes no sense.
-
[quote]Evidently it does.[/quote] Why, because I have an unpopular opinion? I enjoy Halol 3, but it's no where near as fun to play as Halo 2/CE, and pretty much made the multiplayer irrelevant to me from it's release onwards. [quote]Or maybe you're just a troll, because this makes no sense.[/quote] Makes perfect sense, if you bothered to ask "why?" But you don't, because you're a condensing assuming cûnt who needs a new hobby.
-
Edited by Logfish111: 11/12/2013 4:15:40 PM[quote]Why, because I have an unpopular opinion?[/quote] No. Because you sound like a tool. [quote]Makes perfect sense[/quote] It makes no sense because Reach came after 3, so there is no way 3 could have ruined it. Also, one game ruining another title that you think is better makes no sense to me either.
-
It makes perfect sense. Halo 2 sucked because they didn't have enough time to finish it (MICROSOFT). So Halo 3 is essentially DLC for H2, which is why it's campaign is 76% fluff. And it ruined Halo Reach because of the equipment, which was the genesis of AAs. I'm very justified in my disliking of this game, you just don't know how to accept someone else's opinion.
-
Oh it's you. I didn't even realise.
-
Halo 3? Well, maybe because it was (and still is) one of the best games ever made, both in terms of broader content from the community and the sheer following it gained, and in terms of how -blam!-ing good it is.
-
Nice nostalgia glasses you got there.
-
Coming from the bellend who put Halo Reach on their list along with MW2. I mean, it's not like Halo 3 got [url=http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/halo-3]great reviews[/url] and is one of the most-played games of all time - for good reason. It's a great game. Hell, I've amassed over 6500 games on Halo 3 alone, which works out at over a month of game time. Would I really have played that much if it was as bad as you're making it out to be? You were saying?
-
Yes, I put MW2 and Reach on my list, because I believe they were amazing games that deserve to be there. And the amount of hours/games you've played on Halo 3 is irrelevant. Anyone can do that. And I do think Halo 3 is a terrible Halo game, but it's still one of my favourite games overall.
-