I think video game ratings are too harsh, i have never played Halo, but it don't seems a M to me. For some reasons movies are getting much more gently rated.
As a PC gamer, this was the game that made sure i'm going to buy a PS 3 sometime in this year.
Okay, as a PC gamer i have wondered why i only have heard about great PS 3 exclusives in the first half of the year, now i can see why, because the 360 got no freaking exclusives, and two on that list have a superior PC version too. This is dark times for the 360.
So are so right, to many people are not counting handhelds when talking about gaming.
Opinion: The guy who wrote this blog just want attention.
The graphics in the PC version of bad company 2 are some of the best i have seen lately, can't speak for the console versions though.
The price has nothing to do with the power, consoles are sold with a loss, PC hardware is not.
Well you may be right in some way, however yes it is only multiplats were publishers have to pay to Sony/Micro but i don't think either Sony or Microsoft have anything against a 60$ price tag.
The main reason have to be found elsewhere, in hardware prices. A PC is expensive hardware, but cheaper games, a console is quite the opposite. Sony and Microsoft need to get a lot of money from their games, because they loose money any time they sell a console.
It's too much like empire, did not add anything really groundbreaking.
Lets look at Mass Effect 2, some of the best the 360 has to offer and a rpg with only 2,5 GB of cut scenes, rest is gameplay. It was on two discs plus there was the day one dlc, plus more dlc coming. That was one example on how more space is really needed, so yes, space affects gameplay and not only cgi.
He just don't want to admit that the PC still have the upper hand in graphics.
Since when has the PC been old technology?
The Witcher and Baldurs Gate 2 should have been there, out with WoW and Fallout 3, i would also replace Dragon Age with KOTOR. Haven't tried FFX or Persona 3, but they looks good, so they pro barely deserves the first to places.
The game was made for PC, the porting to consoles was rushed and turned out quite bad.
The only interesting thing about this game is going to play it on a PC with max graphics. The gameplay seems as mediocre as it can get, just seems like they went for the next graphics benchmark, and honestly i'm not going to pay for that.
If it is anything like Fallout 3, then no!
The PC version would never have monthly fees if the PS3 version did not. As far as i know there has been no confirmation, but i think a monthly fee is very very likely.
Well there is a reason you only got one bubble and only goes for open zone. Heavy Rain never aimed for being a game everyone was going to get? GT5 is going to come out later this year, and i promise you, that is going to be a smash hit. FFXIII is on both consoles yes, but in a disappointing sd resolution for the 360. Now, i'm not going to waste my breath anymore.
I must say i do not agree, this gen Crysis raised the bar for graphics, Mass Effect raised the bar for story telling rpg's, just to mention some of them. PS3 raising the bar is just something new, they did it with UC2 however, and they are going to do it heavily with GOW3 and GT5 (and Heavy Rain if you ask me).
If you put it that way, every game in the same genre has the same gameplay. If you actually look closely at the games you can see the gigantic difference.