Ghoul, Intel did NOT buy out nVidia, I'd love to know which hole you pulled that fact out of.
In fact, this whole thread is a bit light on the facts, rather fitting since the article is from the Inquirer.
To clear things up -
This is about a GPU, not a CPU. It has nothing to do with the CELL in that regard.
Intel is currently working on a discreet GPU codenamed "Larrabee", it's going to be competitive with the likes of Nvidia.
Larrabee's main fun...
Do NOT get excited about this. Data Design Interactive are borderline Con artists. They created Ninjabread man. They don't care about quality games, they literally produce cheap games to make a quick buck, they have never made a title that isn't Shovelware, so expect this to be some silly rendering effect and nothing more.
Call of Duty 4/5 don't look better than a LOT of games this generation. Nobody cares because they're great fun to play.
OMG IT ONLY GAVE KZ2 AN A+! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A 10/10! I KNOW A+ IS THE SAME AS 10/10, BUT IT'S STILL NOT A 10! CLEARLY THERE'S BIAS AGAINST THE PS3 AND SONY HERE!
Note: You may detect a hint of sarcasm within the previous post.
If you're going to claim it's racist because it happens to have a white guy (With a black partner) shooting a bunch of black guys (amongst a bunch of white guys), then why didn't Far Cry 2 get any Flak? As far as I could tell, nearly all of the people you shot were black and nearly all of the main characters were white.
I think Japan is (ironically) proof that price isn't the only thing keeping the 360 in front around the rest of the world - it's cheaper in Japan than anywhere else and the Japanese still aren't interested. I don't think a price cut is really going to change that, they just need to keep on bringing out more titles the Japanese will appreciate and hope they come around.
Can't see it happening this generation, but maybe the next generation. the 1:2 sales ratio of 360:PS3 is still an order...
I'm getting the same error as Sangria, no idea what's up with that.
The Avatar system is free, though. Free is the thing that a lot of PS fanboys state that makes PSN better, so why is it that Avatars being free doesn't count?
Fire starting laptops from Sony Manufactured batteries, you might add.
The plot thickens.
Dude...seriously..get a life.
Go outside or something, leave the basement you so obviously spend too much of your free time in, go meet a few girls (or boys, whatever takes your fancy, the point is you could do with some social stimulation), get high, have a drink, do whatever you feel like, but whatever you do - do it somewhere else, N4G has enough idiots with far too much free time on their hands.
Pretty much all of the problems listed here are inherent with online games in general. COD is just so popular, it's more obvious.
I don't care what they do with home, if they plan to charge good money for it, I wont be interested.
Now, if half of this stuff is actually free, maybe there'll be something to it...
You do realise that XP is significantly "less secure" than this article is claiming Windows 7 to be?
Ok guys before you all jump on Microsoft, keep this in mind: The only reason it's deemed "less secure" is because in order to appease the masses, they (by default) reduced the security level of UAC so it was less annoying. You can make it more secure by dragging a little slider to the top, but it'll be just as annoying as Vista.
So take your pick - annoying or insecure.
I suppose TECHNICALLY he did finish THAT fight, but has just started another one =P
Anyone that's focusing on the fact that you haven't played either game has missed the point entirely of what you're saying.
I agree with the gist of your argument - both are good games, both have a huge following so there MUST be something to it and there's no need to get all hot and bothered just because someone happens to prefer a different game to you.
Really, I don't think the argument is KZ2 Vs. Halo, I think the argument is still PS3 vs. 360, just now there's 2 games ...
COD4 (And COD5) don't look particularly special, either, in fact their best point is that they run at a nice 60FPS, yet it was the gameplay that won most of us over.
Graphics will never be more important than the gameplay. The logic of "It looks amazing, it must be a 10/10 game with great gameplay!" or "It looks like a last-gen game, it must be crap!" scares me, sometimes I wonder if many of us have lost sight of what gaming should really be all about.
I'm sure...
Yeah memory isn't the problem on the PS3, it essentially has two lots of 256Mb, one of which is faster than the other, it's up to the developer to decide which one they want to allocate resources to (and a bit of common sense shows you that you want to put your most heavily accessed data in the faster XDR bank).
The real pain is the CELL, or rather, the 7 SPUs developers can use. Parallel programming itself isn't actually that difficult, the hard part is when you're trying to acc...
@callahan09
It's designed for extremely poor markets that couldn't even afford the £50 or whatever the "basic" version costs.
I'd love to know why this is getting disagrees, he's correct - intel's CURRENT "gpus" are crappy onboard things that have about as much power as a tomato. Their new, discreet (read: A separate card you plug into your PC, like any decent graphics card out there) GPU is designed to compete with the latest stuff from nVidia and ATI, so it's going to be leaps and bounds better than anything Intel currently has.