yeah, i tried the third-person view. but the animation was horrible. dude looked like some puppet on a string, gliding around on the field like he was trying to moonwalk or something. the game had a deep and engaging story, nice dialog, and a wide-variety of customization; but with me, rpgs have to excel at everything (gameplay, character development and story) to hold my interest. as it was, Obilvion excelled at everything but the fighting/gameplay aspect. many people hype Oblivion as t...
well i hope they don't, since i've invested over $600 in the system. good to see that they're in it for the long haul: and while i may not like the morals that run the Corp. overall, i can applaud the efforts (EFFORTS) they've made in the videogame market, despite the legions of fanboys who so doggedly and subjectively support them.
as i've said before, i'm DEFINATELY getting this game. yes, its hard not to compare it to COD; but it offers enough of its own flavor to stand as a solid title all its own. will it redefine the fps genre? probably not; but it does seem to meld all the genre's quality ingredients into a solid, enjoyable compilation.
you seem to be new around these parts. let me be the first to welcome you with a sound opinion: objectivity is a concept that is NOT known on this site. you will find a few of us who prefer to share our opinions in a respectful, constructive manner; but thats a slim (i'm talking maybe 3%) few. me, andy capps, DJ (sometimes), outlaw, and a few other PS3 and 360 fans. but for the most part objectivity is met with cynicism, criticism and plain'ol immature biasness from fanboys. for my part:...
i wasn't that impressed with the 360 version, mainly because of the first-person fighting system (i thought it was kinda repetitive and lacking). but who knows? additional content (especially 10 to 20 hours worth) is always a good incentive to re-purchase a game...i guess.
the reason people are saying that this news is bogus is that its dependent upon Ubisoft, who itself is bogus for not taking advantage of both (BOTH) consoles. its like they'd prefer to make their games for the 360, then cripple them by porting them to the PS3; which, like i said above, is in a sense depriving gamers of the true quality that they can achieve. if the PS3 is capable of more, then it would stand to reason that they'd develop for the superior system, then port; not vice versa. ...
4.2 what are you talking about footing the bill? Ubisoft could just as easily develop for the PS3 and port to the 360. its not my fault that i demand the best for the money i choose to spend. it's not my fault that Ubisoft would rather take a self-admitted easier road to producing their games, and subsequently deprive their unbiased fanbase the epitome of quality that they can conceivably achieve. how many multi-platform XBox games were graphically lacking because developers preferred dev...
"another" article didn't state differently. it was the same article, which initially misconstrued Ubisoft's words.
here's the original article:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles...
and here's the updated one:
http://xbox360.ign.com/arti...
in any event Ubisoft's prefer...
eh. i just played (AND deleted) the 360 demo of Sonic. not too impressive...looks like a medicore XBox game. the demo did serve a purpose however: it made me salivate even more at the prospect of playing the next Ratchet and Clank on the PS3. good to see that Wal-Mart's selling PS3 games pretty inexpensive. hopefully this will be the average price, even for games like Resistance and Heavenly Sword. this should silence all the naysaying 360 fans (and fanboys).
"I wonder why Ubi keeps saying this stuff?"
when have they said anything like this before?
glad i'm not a hardcore soccer fan (or a soccer fan of any level), as that wasn't too impressive.
agreed kmis87
agreed. furthermore, to say that the PS3 is inferior to the 360, after admitting that the PS3's version of the same game is a port (instead of being built from the ground up to take advantages of its capabilities) is a bit far-fetched and biased, especially when the developer pretty much conceded to not taking advantage of the PS3's hardware. to pour a little bit more sauce of untruth on this whole thing, the article refers to the misconceived statement that Assassins Creed's AI is better o...
why is it hard to buy that 60% of 360's have overheated? Microsoft just issued extended warranties for all 360's manufactured before 2006. they wouldn't have done that it there wasn't any persistent problems
what i find curious is that none of the known gaming sites (computerandvideogames, ign, gamespot, 1up, next-gen, kikizo, gamesindustry, gamedaily, etc.) who had actual time with the PS3 ever reported problems of system malfunctions. but rather, they report on how an analyst noticed the problems, and how said analyst caused Sony's stocks to decrease. my question is: if this problem was so wide-spread, why hasn't any one beside this analyst (and Kotaku) reported about it? furthermore, if (IF...
three bubbles huh? looks like you do a lot more than "just reading". seems the mods think you come (to PS3 articles specifically) to instigate flamming fanboy wars, no doubt.
"obviously not beyond next gen graphics or online play"? yeah, shouldn't you have plenty of that to play on the 360...right now?
i just beat Dragon Quest VIII, and re-beat both Res Evil 4 and God of War. but i don't have that many good 360 games to play; thats why i'm on this site reading stuff about the PS3. whats you're excuse thelandofsand?
you're taking this stuff WAY too seriously. Sony's rise or fall won't benefit you in the slightest, unless you're some secret agent of Microsoft.
agreed. all it's gonna do is enflame fanboy wars, and thats what this site DOES NOT need. few will realize that this guestimation is just that, an opinionative piece from ONE gaming site. they are neither right or wrong: this is just their OPINION. everyone has their own opinion, which makes gaming diverse, the way it shoudl be.