No, what they did was add buttons to back to solve an annoying control scheme. They did nothing to make playing an FPS with a thumbstick suck less which is the primary function of any so called FPS controler. Add a damn trackball in there or something...
Thats a lock. At least with the PS3 you can stream those textures and Farcry 2 is a good fit for the console instead of Crysis. If they made a console version of Crysis people will constantly compare it to the PC's version and it's amazing texture resolution which migh piss off more than a few fanboys.
Is there any reason why Asian gamers need their own version of CS? It's not like the game isn't popular enough over there or something.
Very stupid. All they did was add buttons to the back without doing a damn thing to make aiming easier or better which is the real focus of any FPS.
This game is suppose to be the WoW of FPS. It's designed to be extremely accessable with very low system requirements...and free.
30% of the SPU or 70% does it matter? Then there is the question of if it's possible to program a game that take advantage of 90% of the SPU and what would it look like.
Lost in all this Cell and SPU bs is the real advantage of PS3 any gamer can notice today, its the humble build in HDD. This simple little device is already making PS3 games look and perform better than what's possible on the 360.
While people may talk about the PS3's Bluray vs the 360's legacy D...
G4 is nothing without her and the MMO report.
Looks unconfortable as hell and in COD 4 you must frequently press down on the left stick to sprint.
As far as third party controlers goes the best FPS third party controler is still the FragFX. Thats about as close to mouse movements as you can possibly get.
This game will be something like GoW on prehistoric bird.
Its just a bunch of old MGS games on the PS2 right?
I don't usually watch cable TV but this show totally rocks.
Whats the deal with all the lousy FPS these days? Turok, Timeshift, and now this piece of trash. It can't be that hard to make a good FPS is it?
PC games are all 32 players, even COD 4. So if you can't handle 32 players then you're a noob. It's as simple as that, 32 players is the standard regardless of the game modes.
This is my first DMC game and frankly I don't see what's all the hype is about. Its about on par with Heavenly Sword in my book. Both are great action games but not exactly ground breaking, however Heavenly Sword have the advantage of having fantastic cutscenes. Since I haven't played the other DMC games I have no idea WTF is going on in this one.
He's just an artist.
What the hell is The Mart doing in this game??
Not possible without a totally massive patch and CoD 4 on the PC is a totally different beast. On console's ground war mode 8 vs 8 feels like a tactical squad battle, with the PC's every mode is 16 vs 16. It doesn't matter what game mode you play, sabo, domination, TDM etc...the PC's online match feels like you're in right in middle of WW3. The intensity and carnage is just way over the top.
There are a lot cheaper or better ways to watch Lost. Live charge way too much.
This game will suck. This franchise isn't know for it's single player so I doubt they can pull it off. The multiplayer will probably suck too since it'll be tacked on and thats never good.
But the ultimate reason why this game will suck is simple. Battlefield 3 is in development right now and it'll be a true sequel to BF2. In many ways this franchise is similar to CoD, there are two really great games while the rest just use the name to milk the cow and fund the development of ...
PC RTS sucks on the console and I think World in Conflict would be no exception. The heart of most RTS is about being able to effectively micro and you you'll need a mouse to do that. Even a specially designed console RTS like Halo War looks like a total pain the ass to play. When watching the demo I can't help but think if that game will be 10X more fun with a mouse.