Not really much difference on this, apart from the usual tiny differences in multiplats. I.e PS3 always looks lighter etc but Xbox has slightly better close up textures.
typical propaganda induced bullcrap. The idea of communism is nothing to do with a dictatorship. It is just easily turned into one. For example the USSR was meant to be communist, however when Stalin came to power he became a dictator, and the USSR was not longer communist, even though it was still called communist. Communism looks good on paper, but when put into practice it fails due to human nature. Someone always wants to control everything.
That is simply down to adjusting the TV/in-game brightness to suit you. What cannot be changed sadly is the crappy textures on the PS3 version. Although I agree that both versions are nothing spectacular.
I'm a proud PS3/PC owner and I have no bias at all for the 360, if anything I admit I'm against it. But you have to be blind to not see that the 360 version is superior in the graphics department (in this comparison). Why after this long into the PS3's life cycle can devs not make both versions equal. It's not like the PS3 isn't capable of the same graphics, other games prove this. I blame laziness, either that or lack of ability.
All Call of Duties run on the same engine based on the id tech 3 engine; it's just modified with each game, for example W@W was made with the COD 4 engine just slightly altered, and then MW2 was made with a modified COD 4 Engine. COD:BO uses the W@W engine which as Marr1991 said, originally came from COD4. (technically COD 2 though)
What happened to the epic style of the songs in W@W, Why is there Rap with Zombies? Metal/Rock FTW!
that Black OPs has nothing to do with any MW apart from the fact they use the same engine. Although I believe Reznov from W@W is in it.
Cod 4 and MW2 are actually at 60fps, but sub-HD.
but I personally find it amazing how games like this can run on PS3, Devs must be so good at optimising. To get a game like this running on an equivalent PC (same specs as PS3) would be an achievement.
Link to PS3 Specs - http://www.whatconsole.co.u...
I presume when you say 'real' battlefield title, you mean Battlefield 2, 2142 etc.
1. when did I mention that in my comment
2. Yes I do actually, going by the system requirements for Battlefield 2; PS3 and Xbox 360 would run it fine with tweaking. Or if you were referring to a modern update to what you call the 'real' battlefield franchise, I believe that also could, as long as Dice manage to use the full extent of both consoles hardware.
why is it always assumed that console gamers need 'simplified' experience, we're not all 12 year olds. We do actually have a brain. Why do devs think that they need to remove a server browser? Why do they think they need to not show your ping, or have stupid massive numbers showing us that we got points. I know I just got points, I just got a kill, you don't need to point it out to me!
P.S this rant is not directed at you visualb. your comment just reminded me...
The Liars and Cheats pack was going to be free; but because Microsoft only allow limited free content to be added to a game, it was priced. However they did add more content to the pack if I remember rightly, to make it better value for money. But I don't see why it couldn't have been free on PS3, so what if it 'isn't fair', Valve does it with L4D DLC; it's free on PC, paid on Xbox.
but is it just me or is there a laser sight on that ray gun, look at 0:19 and the mini map is different to W@W. It could be Black ops zombies but on Verruckt.
going by the the past entries to the franchise I believe GT5 may be classed as a 'huge hit'.
Bethesda publishes Fallout...
If dumbass parent's allow kids to play the game, it's their own damn fault when their children attempt to imitate the game or are mentally damaged by it.
and on the subject SAW films, they are a prime example of how extreme violence is accepted in other media; but in games it is seen to be 'wrong', mainly due to the ill-informed who think that video games are only for kids.
I mean don't get me wrong I have played CoD before and have even had some enjoyment out of it; especially CoD 4. But this is looks almost identical to MW2 which was just awful IMO. I don't see how CoD franchise gets away with little or no innovation between titles. Yet recently Fallout New Vegas and Medal of Honor were put down by both consumers and critics for being to much like the prequel/lack of innovation despite being great games. Are people just blindly following the franchise ...
that it's four maps, could be wrong though.
not to 100% e.g. max trophies/achievments but I do complete the main story and in the case of open world games/RPGs any side missions I have been given during my playthrough. I even completed the single player in games such as CoD, BC2, KZ2 and AvP before I touched multiplayer. I don't see the point of buying a game and not finishing at least the main story, the only game I have not finished that I'm no longer playing is Farcry 2 because it just got so boring.
pew pew pew pew...
1:06 lol