The ONE AND ONLY TV technology that that lets you see a digital picture is DLP. ALL OTHERS (plasma, CRT, LCD) can receive a digital signal, but it's converted to analog in the last step before viewing. HDMI is no better than VGA if you don't have a DLP. So all the Sony guys saying "you have to have it" won't even notice a difference unless they have a 1080p input capable DLP. Just a fun bit of info I thought I'd share.
Square has it's share of quality titles, but Xbox1 did great without them. I'm a hardcore RPG guy, but Mass Effect and Fable2 will tower above anything Square can dish out. Who needs em'
WOW, PS3 gets that crappy Final Fantasy series, and the 360 gets this wonderful AAA shooter. (note sarcasm)
Screw Square, MS doesn't need your pity title anyway.
that raw power doesn't make a hit system. The DS is still tearin' it up all over the world.
BRUTUS, if you are actually a kid, I apologize for my rudeness. If you are an adult, then you're still a moron. If, you're an adult that doesn't know English very well, I again, apologize for my rudeness. Lets just keep on gaming, and let's keep the comments relevant. (unless it has anything to do with The Rock. He needs to know what a douche he is)
http://www.dreamersgame.com...
The official website states it's for all next-gen systems.
Now when they said..."But it really drew in a crowd of curious gamers. Including some teary-eyed men from an Xbox magazine"..........my guess is that they were tears of laughter.
Moron. I'm a huge PS3 fan. A game can rock regardless of system. But it's pathetic how people get so defensive about a piece of hardware that will be outdated in 2 years (or sooner) I'll may buy a PS3 when they get cheaper. But for NOW, the 360 is superior and cheaper. I'll jump in now, and welcome change later, IF Sony can prove they're worth it.
I have no idea what you just said. Although it roughly sounds like a PS3 fanboy comment. But then again, you probably are 7 years old and have terrible social skills, so I can't blame you for your horrid attempts at communicating intellectually.
Sony fanboys were saying that AC was too advanced and will never be a 360 game. Not only is it a 360 game, but it turns out it's even better on Microsoft's machine. If Sony fanboys can't see the 360's superiority over the PS3, I suppose it will serve them right to spend $800+ (taxes, game, extra controller) on an inferior system. Let them believe as they wish, they'll look stupid in the end. (actually, most already do. This game is the perfect example)
Because "it's a movie player first, gaming machine second." Those are not my words, and even many of the PS3 fans acknowledge that. It WILL have killer games, but it's Sony's only chance to have blu-ray catch on.
Between this and holographic discs, there won't be a hd-dvd/blu-ray winner. This is fairly old news however.
Any game with whores HAS to be cool. I'm in.
I think 10 or so hours of game play is about AVERAGE for a FPS. There are bigger ones of course, but also ones you can beat in a couple hours. As far as only 8 players online. I think it's just the type of game. Where Halo and Unreal are "run and gun" games, this is a slower and more strategic type of game. Fewer people will allow you to optimize the unique strategy factor rather than having to deal with random, fast paced gunman. Just my 2 cents.
What in ignorant moron. Ken needs help. Sony would be better off hiring Carrot Top.
I remember buying Phantasy Star 4 AND Shining in the Darkness on Genesis for $80 a piece. Final Fantasy 3/6 for the SNES was $70. These programmers worked their asses off and they deserve to make a living too. If you cant afford $60 for hours and hours worth of entertainment, you must still live with mommy and daddy. Get a job and enjoy what gaming has to offer, and don't whine about paying good money for a good game.
Aren't you a diehard PS3 guy? (not that you can't like both systems) Anyway, 360 rocks!!!
Square is the probably the single best reason Playstation did as well as it did, and the only reason they dominate the Japan market. I suppose that merits a little arrogance on their part.
VGA has better clarity, but the colors are a little "washed out" Component is a brighter color cable, while VGA has clarity.
The ONE AND ONLY TV technology that that lets you see a digital picture is DLP. ALL OTHERS (plasma, CRT, LCD) can receive a digital signal, but it's converted to analog in the last step before viewing. HDMI is no better than VGA if you don't have a DLP. So all the Sony guys saying "you have to have it" won't even notice a difference unless they have a 1080p input capable DLP. Just a fun bit of info I thought I'd share.