Here's something else that doesn't make sense-
Implying that everyone would be equally excited for something new 1 year after the most recent installment arrived, as opposed to 10 years.
There are also other considerations, such as the length of the generation contributing to larger libraries and larger backlogs for gamers, which may ultimately dissuade them from leaping into the next generation immediately. This counts even more when we know the PS4...
Considering that it very clearly praises the graphics incredibly highly, and only says the inspiration and general design isn't as impressive as before (which is purely subjective), maybe the only "idiot" around here is the person who passes judgment without actually being able to read.
DragonKnight: Let me get this straight. You're insulting someone for being a troll and your obvious blind bias doesn't count...?
The depth of the combat is merely different; it isn't that much less complex, especially because you can string together multiple weapon setups just as you could before. It isn't strictly as intricate but "accessible" doesn't immediately make it retarded, contrary to what the action purists want everyone to believe. ...
It's a fallacy to say that Sony lost "half its userbase." That's entirely untrue. The gaming world has only grown in the past decade and there's no chance the PlayStation brand has half the fans it had in the PS2 generation. No chance at all.
On top of which, the PS3 could very well end up selling in the vicinity of 125 million units or so (being at 70 million with at least three years left of full sales, and at a lower price tag), so that's impor...
EVILDEAD: Fanboy drivel. Uncharted 2 and 3 beat the snot out of anything on the 360, hands-down, no discussion. And if God of War III, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5, the Killzones, inFamous' and Resistances, and Metal Gear Solid 4 don't make you forget the 360 at least for a little while, you're too biased for words. I suppose The Last Of Us and Beyond: Two Souls won't make you stop playing the 360, either. Dude, whatever. LOL
Oh wait, you've got 150 360 ...
Oh look. Someone else who doesn't read.
Yeah. That's what it is. Not whining like a spoiled rotten, entitled, whiny, child is "bending over and taking it" from Sony. Yeah. The icon needs to be rebelled against so things can "change."
.....jesus, gamers never stop embarrassing the crap out of me.
Sony has enjoyed quite a few years of general positive vibes in the press. Certainly nothing compared to the bash-fest that was 2007. Only in 2012 are we starting to return to that, where you'll see a new "Sony is in trouble" headline every day.
Actually, the author doesn't predict any sales winners.
Why is everyone stating the obvious? The author and everyone else is well aware WHY it's exclusive.
The question is whether or not this fits on the Wii U and with the intended audience, and as most any Bayonetta or hardcore action fan will tell you, no, it doesn't. Obviously, not a lot of Bayonetta fans around here...otherwise, they wouldn't be confused as to why people are annoyed.
Nowhere in the article does the author say Project Ogre or MGS5 will be exclusive. In fact, he knows they likely won't be exclusive.
Try reading the article rather than just headlines. You know, just a thought.
No, this is beyond what we saw with BF3 on the PC. Absolutely beyond if we're talking in-game.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Gameplay-wise, the differences are extremely significant, especially in terms of detail, clarity, and animation.
I have no idea what you're looking at. I mean, I've never heard anything so...obviously false.
Bottom line:
If they were two fictional factions in a game, and Ubisoft made the same claims, NOBODY would be going, "How come we only see one side dying in the trailers?" No chance.
The only reason anybody is saying anything is for the sake of political correctness and that's IT. Unless people actually believe Ubisoft are flat-out lying and that Connor will somehow be restricted from killing Colonials in the game - and I doubt anyone is dumb ...
MikeCosgrove: Ubisoft is in no way being biased towards or against anything. It's called marketing.
The only one with obvious baseless bias? You.
What in God's name are you talking about? Nothing about killing Americans has been shoved down our throat?
Newsflash- EVERY SINGLE trailer you see where someone is dying in a video game for the past twenty-five years, 99% of the time, that person is basically a white, English-speaking American according to the game's storyline. Gonna just ignore that now? Why? Because it suits your argument?
The rest of your post is just plain adolescent ignorance...
What a pile of anti-American crap.
We've been killing AMERICANS in video games since the dawn of video games. Every last muscle-bound idiot we trashed in the side-scrollers in the 80s, every last gun-toting faceless army dude in any shooter; hell, just about every last zombie we've killed was once an English-speaking American, based on the fictional history of the game.
This is idiotic. This is the standard ultra-liberal agenda once again finding SO...
The article isn't about the absence of booth babes at the show. It's about the lesser coverage in gaming headlines and media.
...I'll be shocked to death the day a N4G member actually reads anything beyond a headline.
The article doesn't say Call of Duty is never coming to the PS4. And as has been the case in previous generations during console shifts, multiplatform games have arrived for one new system while only releasing for the old competitor. In other words, when the 360 launched a year ahead of the PS3, there were multiplats on the 360 and PS2, but not PS3...because it didn't exist yet.
The article also mentions this as a possibility for CoD. If the 720 comes out first, ob...
You talk about "fanboy BS" and post THAT?
Wow.
Reread it and try again.