If they changed the story of the 3rd game to not completely suck I would re-buy the trilogy.
I'm sick of people using "next gen" to mean something it doesn't.
It has NOTHING to do with graphics, it has NOTHING to do with innovative gameplay.
"Next Gen" is a term that means "a new console generation" nothing else.
Every PS4 game, and every Xbox One game is a "next gen" game by definition.
Write an article about graphics and innovation or whatever, but don't refer t...
I already have an XB1 and a PS4, I was just throwing out ideas for a cheaper alternative.
Not "cheap", but "cheaper".
Please explain the difference to me.
If Sony hadn't bought Naughty Dog, both consoles would get Uncharted and TLOU.
Both examples involve paying money to secure an exclusive game or games.
Buy the game, or buy the whole studio. Why is one perfectly fine and the other a reason to boycott the company?
Isn't this like the 20th time we have seen basically this exact same story?
This is old, old, old news.
I have to admit that was the FIRST "cloud" joke that made me smile.
Well done, sir.
No single player.
It's a "multiplayer campaign".
It's a separate game mode that has some story based stuff to go along with what amounts to just basically a regular multiplayer match.
You can probably get a 360 really cheap and get it that way.
It will all depend on how creative people are and how much time they are willing to spend making something.
Unless there are some kind of crazy size restrictions on the game world I bet you see some nice Zelda-style adventure games within a year.
I suck at creating stuff like this but I'm confident we'll see some REALLY neat things.
Agreed.
I'll be checking it out tonight.
I'm anxious to see what all the PC beta people have come up with so far.
amiga-man, good job at coming in here and doing the exact opposite of what the article was suggesting. lol
I may be on your side in that debate, but that is another conversation entirely and has no place in this article.
Funny part of it is, when it comes to something with a lot of fast movement, 720p looks better than 1080i, which is basically what this was.
In other words... They could have just used a lower res and it would have looked better.
Nope, it's the lying about it that matters.
Sony riding the hype train for months while every internet site bashes on Xbox about resolution, all the while they were hiding behind a huge lie about their biggest game.
That's why everyone is up-in-arms about this.
The problem is that all the Sony fanboys have been screaming about it being such a huge difference for months and now they find out that they couldn't see the difference on their own flagship title.
All the people saying "I can't see the difference" were attacked as MS apologists by the very same people who COULDN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE on Killzone.
THAT is why this is a big deal. Well, that and the fact that Sony lied, something that MS ...
It's not 1080i, no.
It's 1920i x 1080, it sounds like.
I've been one of the ones that has said from day one I don't see a difference between 720p and 1080p on my TV from my viewing distance.
But this is a whole other ballgame.
Interlaced frames suck when it comes to rapid movement. Maybe this is why I never understood why people thought Killzone looked so good. (I've only played the multiplayer, mind you, I have no desire to play the campaign.)
That's similar to how 1080i works, only vertical instead of horizontal.
Why in the world would they do that?? That is terrible.
A progressive scan image is always better than interlaced, even at higher res. (in my opinion, of course)
I only ever played one Timesplitters game. I can't remember which it was, but I think it was on the PS2.
I hated it. lol
I've never understood why people get so excited for it, but to each his/her own.
You mean 1080i.