OK, I think this marks the 255th time I've seen this exact same article with the exact same headline posted on this site. And then the obligatory reverse "X number of exclusives that 360 gamers wished they had on their console". Garbage "journalists" who have nothing better to write about, so they regurgitate the same old crap to try to generate hits. I think list articles should be banned for that reason, same shit different article.
ZOMFG DOWNGRADE!!!
I kid, I kid. Good to see this take one more step away from being vaporware.
Gears 3 doesn't look better than UC3 by any means. They're both pretty damn close, but gears relies on a bland color palette and a ton of motion blur to hide it's imperfections, whereas UC3 has a much sharper, colorful, and more vibrant image. Both are amazing looking games, however. I really like how Gears uses camera movement when following the player, it adds a nice immersion to it that you don't see in Uncharted. However, when you really look at the two side by side, you s...
If PC can just keep from shooting itself in the foot with DRM.... but being an open platform means piracy, which means DRM (have to be online to play, for instance), it's a vicious cycle.
Actually, there are 8 layer 200GB blu-ray discs available, though they currently cost too much for mass production. they do conform to blu-ray spec though, so ps3 should be able to read them with a fw upgrade. this is what i think ps4 will use as it's primary optical format.
gamingdroid, I agree with you that it does put pressure on the devs to get it right the first time, however there are certain instances where it can get in the way. We've heard devs say before how they are limited by how much free DLC they can give away on 360, and that's likley because of this regulation saying they can only have so many patches (free dlc would likely be considered in that category). So, it's a double edged sword.
For instance:
...
...and the rest of the world cared late.
lol... and with that one comment, author owned.
I didn't say driving a sim of a multi million dollar car was out of reach, I said driving a multi million dollar car was out of reach to the average person. That's why we have sims.
It's as close as the average person can get to driving a lambo without actually getting to drive one. And yes, the simulations are quite accurate. While you don't get the perfect 1:1 experience of driving the car in real life, you do get a simulation of how it accelerates, corners,...
The ability to drive million dollar cars?
you're missing the point entirely. kinect's depth sensor does not run at anywhere near a high enough resolution to do the types of things they are saying (mapping out wrinkes on faces, for instance). they're simply talking about what could be done with this tech in the future, not kinect itself. Kinect is not capable of seeing "right down to the millimeter level". if you need proof, this is what kinect sees (the part of it they are using for this tech, the 3d depth senso...
Some find fun in accurate simulation of real world activities that also happen to be fun but may be out of reach of the average person... Just sayin'.
"Of course, the Kinect's camera and abilities are relatively limited when it comes to resolution; you won't be building 1080p scenes with a $150 camera"
Kinect has nowhere near the resolution to do the things they're talking about, however the tech is promosing for future models.
I've used both side by side, and while passive begins to crosstalk if you're too close (less than 6 feet) from the screen, the 3D effect was even better IMO because it wasn't darkened by the active LCD shutter glasses' dark lenses.
And Drekken, I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean one of them wouldn't end up getting their hands. If I forget to put my pair up, I'd much rather it be a $1 pair.
I have every bit of interest, but I have no interest in active shutter glasses. People complain that passive sets half the resolution, but:
A) Most of those sets are 1080p, 3D gaming content never runs at above 720p on consoles, so you're still getting full resolution on your games anyway.
B) The newer passive sets maintain 1080p in 3D mode.
I don't like expensive glasses that your kid/dog/whatever can break.
That tech won't be available on all games, so this article is intended to give people other sub-$1000 options for 3D that don't mind giving that part of it up. Price was a big factor in why Sony made that TV, if you don't believe me, look at how they introduced it at E3. Price first, split screen stuff second.
It's understandable to be disappointed by a drop to 30fps from a game that was originally 60fps, especially a lightning fast game like Wipeout. However, games like Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, etc. are all 30fps to begin with, and with much, much less movement on screen at any given moment as well. So, you shouldn't be too disappointed with those types of games in 3D.
If you have a PC capable of running games in 3D, it's also no surprise you're not impress...
3D has come a long way, and while glasses-free 3D hasn't proven to be practical other than with handheld applications yet, if you're willing to put on a pair of glasses you can still enjoy a good 3D game or movie without breaking the bank now. I'm really considering selling my 2D set now to buy a 3D one, as I've been dying to play some of my PS3 games in 3D.
I can understand how it isn't for everyone however. My best friend has very sensitive eyes, and 3D ...
Problem being, only a certain percentage of Xbox 360 owners out there will even have a hard drive at all, much less one big enough to hold the over 20GB full install. Every 20GB 360 sold, as well as any 4GB Xbox 360 arcade will not have enough space to install the game without upgrading the hard drive.
That's 3 models that cannot install the game stock, that isolates a nice chunk of the install base.
Also, even though the PS3 version may not do a full ins...
perhaps testing the waters to see if a revival would be a good idea or not?