@dontbhatin
You obviously don't understand how the development cycle of a video game works...
I thought Uncharted 3 was going to blow away Gears 3 but Gears 3 actually looks substantially better than Uncharted 3. Well it looks like Xbox 360's best looking exclusive looks better than PS3's...
Sometimes I like to buy used games..................... Why is Sony implementing this awful program... PSN isn't worth having to pay for... Get cross game chat and I'll be more inclined to be slightly O.K. with this...
Microsoft: Amazing online, best in the industry by far
Sony: PSN still desperately playing catchup with Xbox Live and failing miserably in the process
---
So you combine Microsoft's expertise with online and Sony's expertise of first party development, and I would argue that it would actually work out very well.
But not now, and most likely never, the reality.
Compared to one forever classic game being completely graphically remade and having cool additions along with hidden easter eggs put in... This guy is obviously biased towards the 360.
All of these "collections" are the definition of cash a grab. They are just upping the resolution and adding almost nothing. And not only that, if you want to play them with your PS3, Sony is forcing you to re-buy them.
No one is forcing you to re-buy Halo: Anniversary, that's the beauty of it. You can still play Halo: Combat Evolved on your Xbox 360 if you want to, because Microsoft isn't trying to siphon money out of their "fans" like Sony is....
I traded my game back into GameStop the SAME DAY I bought it... I've never played a game as disappointing as KZ3. Was expecting so much out of it, but got the shortest campaign I've ever played in a $60 game, and got a less deep multiplayer than what KZ2 had (I still have KZ2 - it's a lot better than KZ3).
He's a god.
They had MGS: Peace Walker in there. That is what represented the MGS series in the countdown. Mass Effect 2 was in there, but there was no Mass Effect 1. Halo: Reach was in there, but there was no Halo 3. Uncharted 2 was in there, but there was no Uncharted 1.
Read IGN's write-up explaining how their countdown works before crapping your pants bro.
Bad choice for almost ever other number...
Once the competition has a service that is remotely comparable, then yes. But that day has yet to come, regardless of what fanboys would have you believe.
Anyone complaining about it, trying to say Uncharted 2's multiplayer was better, should just shut-up. U2's multiplayer was awful. ZERO depth to it.
The man who presented that video at GDC 2011 stated that the entire thing was captured at a steady frame rate of 30 FPS, and if you think any game on any of the current consoles has foliage that even comes close to comparing what is shown in that tech demo your vision obviously has some sort of impairment that prevents you from being able to tell something that is more visually impressive apart from something that is less visually impressive.
Also, there are water and lightin...
in HD, running at a consistent rate of 30 FPS, on the Xbox 360.
Here is the link moron (I embedded it also, just incase using this link is too confusing for you):
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I love how your comment gets more agrees than disagrees, even though it is blatantly incorrect. It just shows how idiotic every PS3 fanboy is on this hideously biased website.
Which the PS3's video card isn't capable of and will never be capable of... So the Xbox 360 actually already has the ability to have better graphics than the PS3, it's just that only recently did developers realize the 360's video card was capable of tessellation, so I'm guessing you'll see newer games start to use it.
That Lionhead tech demo released a month or two ago showed off tessellation on the 360, and graphically, that was far beyond anything ...
$300 for (presumably) 7+ year old tech is just absurd. No one would buy it except for the most delusional PlayStation fanboys, and Sony would yet again be in third place for the second generation in a row.
And the reason that ports for the PS3 sometimes blow is because Sony didn't make developing for the PS3 user friendly, not because the Xbox 360 came out first.
The PC is the lead development platform for the majority of games and when a game is ported ...
I wonder what all the PlayStation fanboys would say if this happened...
Because you would essentially be paying $300+ for a new OS, which OS updates are currently free on both the 360 and PS3, so I don't understand what the point would be other than to siphon money out of their fans.
BUT, in reality, this is probably just a bad translation. At one point the guy does say "I do not think we’ll have a console with a lot better graphics than the PS3 cur...
For some reason they believe the PS3 has this unlimited amount of power, even though it's just barely more powerful than the Xbox 360. They're always talking about the cell processor in the PS3 as if it's still top of the line even though it's 5 years old... So incredibly stupid.
Because there are well over 1 billion Windows PCs in the world (of course not all of them are even running Windows 7, so more likely a hundred million or so).