The Cell is an extremely powerful processor with 8 CPU cores and is actually very well suited in particular for graphics and physics processing applications (i.e., game processes).
It's actually its general processing capability that is in question (general OS tasks and operation).
Not enough to override the comfort and enjoyment of playing this game on the couch and big screen, with a 5.1 surround and controller. I'll take the PS3 version over the others.
Wouldn't you WANT a Persian guy to play a PERSIAN prince? Not another offensive white guy putting on blackface?
With the PS3's web browser.
Seems like YOU'RE the fanboy for pretending that none of the upcoming PS3 games could possibly be even CLOSE to Crysis (especially in light of the fact that none of these games are even out yet, thus accurate comparisons being impossible). You're the one sounding like the defensive and insecure fanboy.
That actually looks damn good, graphically. Looks more like what a PS3-exclusive SHOULD look.
EA stinks on ice, no matter how slice it. Their sports division is no different.
Was anyone really stupid enough in the first place to even begin to think that the lone game, Spore, could save PC gaming?
There are hardly any features exhibited in the DX10 build of Crysis that couldn't be done in DX9. This is a proven fact. The most advanced shaders and effects that you speak of, including Parallax Occlusion, Ambient Occlusion, HDR, and what have you, are all completely doable under the DX9 api, with possible performance gains, no less.
Use of some baseless and fabricated distinctions between DX9 and DX10 is nothing more than fanboy fodder to boast one gaming platform over another...
Agreed that it's a AAA-category score. This game is ranked among the best.
Good for them. I'm looking forward to the EA console. That way, gamers will know what exactly to NOT buy.
From what I can tell, this delay is probably for Europe/France only. US release is still on track for March 11.
How would you like to be stuck with the name "Littlewood" for the rest of your life?
In more ways than one.
That "foggy" look you speak of is a high-end graphic effect called "HDR." Which appears to be totally absent in Vegas 2.
To me, Vegas 1 looks significantly better. You can see it in the overview of the complex cityscape, and the little details like glass particles on the casino carpet, and better fog.
I love how there's always going to be the few dissenting fanboys in ANY group claiming unequivocally that the "future is bright" or "our format/platform is THRIVING" or "we're doing great right now, but it will be even better THIS year." Denial much? No matter how many industry professionals and journalists speak to the contrary, you get these fervent, outspoken few who stamp their feet every once in a while.
If you believe this, then you should also...
I would have very much preferred the option for Japanese subtitles, especially if the English voiceovers end up being teh suck, which is the case for most Japanese games.
You seem quite biased in the approach you take in comparing the specifications of the two platforms. Such as only posting the aspects in which the 360 has the (arguable) upper hand, and also making it appear as though the PS3 has half the memory of the 360, when in fact the two are very, very close in terms of amounts of RAM.
I think, also, the truth of the matter is that the RAM the 10mb of EDRAM on the 360 is in many situations more of a limiting factor than a boon for a game's...
It's a well-known fact that this game started development as a PC-only game, and has been a PC-exclusive for the better part of 3+ years. Console versions have only began very recently when R&D testing with engine showed that the game could feasibly be ported over to consoles.
In other words, the existence of the console versions have had virtually no effect on the PC version of the game. No such "consolation" process has ever occured.