Is the pc the reason the 360 lacks in exclusives?

lol your such a fool.
Lets see the 360 still has more exclusive games than the ps3...your just talking about High scoring exclusives regular old exclusive list shows 360 at more, The ps3 didn't beat the 360 till about a year and a half 2 years ago in high scoring exclusives.

WilliamRLBaker

We know you like kinect childrens titles but most people on here do not, this thread is mainly about core gamers, MS have abandoned them.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

leigh's remarkstenaka2

We know you like kinect childrens titles but most people on here do not, this thread is mainly about core gamers, MS have abandoned them.

I think everyone needs to wrap their minds around the fact that casual gamers are core gamers now. True "core" gamers are now closer to being niche.

Xbox is the evolution of PC.

waltefmoney

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

leigh's remarkssayyy-gaa

We know you like kinect childrens titles but most people on here do not, this thread is mainly about core gamers, MS have abandoned them.

I think everyone needs to wrap their minds around the fact that casual gamers are core gamers now. True "core" gamers are now closer to being niche.

If youre not a PC gamer the 360 is the console to own period.

[QUOTE="fadersdream"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Unlike you, I actually read all the reviews. You should read them. None of them gave the game a 0 and said anything of the sort that you mentioned. They thoroughly stated what they hated about the game. I know you xbots are cute with your conspiracy theories of PS3 fanboys downgrading all xbox exclusives, but it's time to go see a psychiatrist.BattlefieldFan1

you think negative, generic comments about halo reach are proof that people played the game but the exact same thing being done for unchartedis just the work of jealous 360 fanboys. how do you expect to be taken seriously after that?

[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

Well if major hits like Gears, Halo, Fable and other ''System sellers'' are also on PC, then what does the 360 have besides Halo spinoffs and Forza?

It's Microsoft's fault, they're too focused on Kinect.

cainetao11

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="fadersdream"] No you didn't. Liar. Damage control? Or are you guilty of doing it? I think you just got busted, how many of those zero scores are your alt accounts?fadersdream

Your paranoid PS3 fanboy conspiracy theories are amusing. Be sure to check in with your local psychiatrist. I know it's heart breaking to find out that not a lot of people like those mediocre games.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="fadersdream"] No you didn't. Liar. Damage control? Or are you guilty of doing it? I think you just got busted, how many of those zero scores are your alt accounts?CaseyWegner

you think negative, generic comments about halo reach are proof that people played the game but the exact same thing being done for unchartedis just the work of jealous 360 fanboys. how do you expect to be taken seriously after that?

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Rofl... Yes, I have, dumbass. I suggest you read them. They're **** hilarious. 360 owners getting pissed that they got a garbage game as their prime exclusive of 2011.BattlefieldFan1

you think negative, generic comments about halo reach are proof that people played the game but the exact same thing being done for unchartedis just the work of jealous 360 fanboys. how do you expect to be taken seriously after that?

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

you think negative, generic comments about halo reach are proof that people played the game but the exact same thing being done for unchartedis just the work of jealous 360 fanboys. how do you expect to be taken seriously after that?

CaseyWegner

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

[QUOTE="fadersdream"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Rofl... Yes, I have, dumbass. I suggest you read them. They're **** hilarious. 360 owners getting pissed that they got a garbage game as their prime exclusive of 2011.BattlefieldFan1

Your paranoid PS3 fanboy conspiracy theories are amusing. Be sure to check in with your local psychiatrist. I know it's heart breaking to find out that not a lot of people like those mediocre games.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="fadersdream"] No you haven't, you're a liar. I don't know if you're an idiot who believes what he says or a liar who doesn't care what anyone else says.delta3074

Your paranoid PS3 fanboy conspiracy theories are amusing. Be sure to check in with your local psychiatrist. I know it's heart breaking to find out that not a lot of people like those mediocre games.

*yawn*

No. I understand you aren't even in high school. I can tell by your horrendous grammar and the fact that you own a 360.

I'm not denying it goes both ways. I'm just saying having a few trolls giving it a 0 is negligible as a whole. You guys think there's a massive PS3 fanboy conspiracy to downrate 360 exclusives to get them lower than an 8.0 score. It's laughable and that's why barely anyone is defending you. No one likes paranoid schizophrenics.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

BattlefieldFan1

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

-could be read in a review.

-could be found out anyway.

-if you believe that's real then i have somebeachfront property in kansas that i'll sell to you for a good price.

way to ignore the second half of my post, dude.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

BattlefieldFan1

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

I know you're just trolling and all that, but seriously, you'd have to have had the thoughts to be able to spout that **** in the first place, and the thought that anyone could have such fanboyish and idiotic thoughts makes me seriously fear for humanity.

I literally cannot comprehend how something like you thinks/reasons.

I thought you were Kuraimen at first, but even he's not that bad, you're like the horrible off-spring of Kuraimen and Eddie-Vedder *shudders*

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

CaseyWegner

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

-could be read in a review.

-could be found out anyway.

-if you believe that's real then i have somebeachfront property in kansas that i'll sell to you for a good price.

way to ignore the second half of my post, dude.

- The fact is, Gears 3 is not impressive and it's not hard to surpass it graphically. If gears was top 10 in console graphics, I would understand. That's not the case.

-???

-And how do you know that's not real?

Honestly, I don't know who the **** master chief is other than that s/he's a character from halo. What's your point?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

LOL... Try again. I stated why those "generic comments" were valid and why those troll reviews for Uncharted 3 were from trolls.

BattlefieldFan1

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

Snugenz

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

I know you're just trolling and all that, but seriously, you'd have to have had the thoughts to be able to spout that **** in the first place, and the thought that anyone could have such fanboyish and idiotic thoughts makes me seriously fear for humanity.

I literally cannot comprehend how something like you thinks/reasons.

I thought you were Kuraimen at first, but even he's not that bad, you're like the horrible off-spring of Kuraimen and Eddie-Vedder *shudders*

Read the posts above yours.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

BattlefieldFan1

-could be read in a review.

-could be found out anyway.

-if you believe that's real then i have somebeachfront property in kansas that i'll sell to you for a good price.

way to ignore the second half of my post, dude.

- The fact is, Gears 3 is not impressive and it's not hard to surpass it graphically. If gears was top 10 in console graphics, I would understand. That's not the case.

-???

-And how do you know that's not real?

Honestly, I don't know who the **** master chief is other than that s/he's a character from halo. What's your point?

-why are you talking about whether the graphics are good or not? it doesn't matter. saying that the graphics are bad is not a specific detail.

-why does somebody playing the game immediately make it not a troll review?

-because i have common sense. :|

my point is that nothing you mentioned is a specific detail and you're still ignoring the second half of my previous post.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Your paranoid PS3 fanboy conspiracy theories are amusing. Be sure to check in with your local psychiatrist. I know it's heart breaking to find out that not a lot of people like those mediocre games.

BattlefieldFan1

*yawn*

No. I understand you aren't even in high school. I can tell by your horrendous grammar and the fact that you own a 360.

I'm not denying it goes both ways. I'm just saying having a few trolls giving it a 0 is negligible as a whole. You guys think there's a massive PS3 fanboy conspiracy to downrate 360 exclusives to get them lower than an 8.0 score. It's laughable and that's why barely anyone is defending you. No one likes paranoid schizophrenics.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

no. bad graphics is not a specific detail that proves a game was played or that the person isn't a troll. saying the multiplayer is like call of duty and with less than 15k players is not a specific detail. a nonsense rant about guns and mommies is not a specific detail. the one you gave me already proved you wrong since you said there were no troll reviews.finally, master chef is not a character and what does playing the game have to do with anything we've been talking about?

let's look at your list and applying your logic. the story is simple...he must have played it to know that. the game is short...he must have played it to know that. :|

delta3074

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

Rofl... Having 1 or 2 big enemies on screen isn't a lot. Try killzone 3. Crap tons of things happening at once, particles all around you, destruction happening everywhere and a lot of enemies. To top it off, there's no pop-ins and the frame rate never drops below 30. Killzone 3 **** all over gears, and that's not even the best the PS3 has.

Gears of War 3 does have high-res textures, I admit. It's been a long time since I've played it at a friend's. I'm sorry it sucked so much it wasn't even worth remembering. It doesn't even have AA. Not to mention the fact that the artstyle is utter garbage.

Face it. You're an xbot and you're trying to prove how powerful the 360 is, but it falls far shorter than where the PS3 is. Cry all you want. Facts are facts.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

BattlefieldFan1

-could be read in a review.

-could be found out anyway.

-if you believe that's real then i have somebeachfront property in kansas that i'll sell to you for a good price.

way to ignore the second half of my post, dude.

- The fact is, Gears 3 is not impressive and it's not hard to surpass it graphically. If gears was top 10 in console graphics, I would understand. That's not the case.

-???

-And how do you know that's not real?

Honestly, I don't know who the **** master chief is other than that s/he's a character from halo. What's your point?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

-could be read in a review.

-could be found out anyway.

-if you believe that's real then i have somebeachfront property in kansas that i'll sell to you for a good price.

way to ignore the second half of my post, dude.

delta3074

- The fact is, Gears 3 is not impressive and it's not hard to surpass it graphically. If gears was top 10 in console graphics, I would understand. That's not the case.

-???

-And how do you know that's not real?

Honestly, I don't know who the **** master chief is other than that s/he's a character from halo. What's your point?

1. Uncharted 3

2. Uncharted 2

3. Killzone 3

4. God of war 3

5. Crysis 2

6. Battlefield 3

7. Killzone 2

8. Rage

9. Heavy Rain

10. Batman: Arkham City

Dude, how can you lie so much? Gears 3 wasn't even a nomination for console graphics king.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Perhaps that guy who stated bad graphics has a PS3, whose exclusive games **** all over Shotgun's of Bore 3's graphics. Maybe that's why he had such high expectations. Or maybe he's a PC gamer. The game does have bad graphics will low res textures and no AA with no hectic action happening all at once. It's the best the 360 can do, but for people who have a PS3 or PC, gears DOES have bad graphics.

The multiplayer is like call of duty, except it's in third person and everyone uses a shotgun. It does have less than 15k people playing at once. People got bored of it and resold the game.

How is it nonsense? The reviewer is a child and hates violent games. I told you before user reviews don't give a **** about story or character development that "professional" reviewers care about. The average gamer cares only about gameplay, and that reviewer gave gears what he thought it deserved: a 0.

BattlefieldFan1

Rofl... Having 1 or 2 big enemies on screen isn't a lot. Try killzone 3. Crap tons of things happening at once, particles all around you, destruction happening everywhere and a lot of enemies. To top it off, there's no pop-ins and the frame rate never drops below 30. Killzone 3 **** all over gears, and that's not even the best the PS3 has.

Gears of War 3 does have high-res textures, I admit. It's been a long time since I've played it at a friend's. I'm sorry it sucked so much it wasn't even worth remembering. It doesn't even have AA. Not to mention the fact that the artstyle is utter garbage.

Face it. You're an xbot and you're trying to prove how powerful the 360 is, but it falls far shorter than where the PS3 is. Cry all you want. Facts are facts.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]now i know you have never played gears, the multiplayer is nothing like Cod and gears 3 is considered one of the best games on consoles as far as graphics are concerned, there lots of high res textures and lots going on on screen at once,basically what you stated is the complete opposite of what gears 3 actually is as a game,good job "The smart money says we're nine months away from the reveal of brand-new Xbox hardware, that major advances in visual technology are being held back by the hardware limitations of six-year-old architecture. Gears of War 3 begs to differ. Developed in parallel with the hugely popular Unreal Engine 3 technology, the game looks absolutely remarkable: put it side-by-side with the last game, or even up against Epic's own Bulletstorm, and it's clear that the current gen is still capable of some genuine surprises. " "Another notable inclusion in the VFX toolbox is the excellent implementation of atmospheric rendering, giving a real sense of scale and ambience to a variety of levels. Alpha and particle effects in general are quite remarkable - a real improvement over what we've seen before in previous Unreal Engine games, and reminiscent at times of the gritty atmosphere evoked by Killzone 3 and Resistance 3. The fact that Unreal Engine 3 throw so many transparencies about while maintaining its performance level to the extent that it does is another feather in the cap of the Epic engineers. " "It's safe to say that Gears of War 3 is one of the most advanced video games of this generation, and a ringing endorsement of what the Xbox 360 is capable of handling when the right people, the right tech, a lengthy development cycle and an inordinately large budget are in play." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-gears-of-war-3?page=2 The other guy was right, you are a flat out liar.delta3074

Rofl... Having 1 or 2 big enemies on screen isn't a lot. Try killzone 3. Crap tons of things happening at once, particles all around you, destruction happening everywhere and a lot of enemies. To top it off, there's no pop-ins and the frame rate never drops below 30. Killzone 3 **** all over gears, and that's not even the best the PS3 has.

Gears of War 3 does have high-res textures, I admit. It's been a long time since I've played it at a friend's. I'm sorry it sucked so much it wasn't even worth remembering. It doesn't even have AA. Not to mention the fact that the artstyle is utter garbage.

Face it. You're an xbot and you're trying to prove how powerful the 360 is, but it falls far shorter than where the PS3 is. Cry all you want. Facts are facts.

Ahh, yes. The "marginally" more powerful that xbots like to use to downplay the power of the PS3.

Dude, go play killzone 3 and (assuming you aren't a **** which you are) look any gamer in the eye and tell them Gears 3 is **** awesome.

Gears 3 DOES NOT have many enemies at once. Stop lying. Hardly any particle effects.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

- The fact is, Gears 3 is not impressive and it's not hard to surpass it graphically. If gears was top 10 in console graphics, I would understand. That's not the case.

-???

-And how do you know that's not real?

Honestly, I don't know who the **** master chief is other than that s/he's a character from halo. What's your point?

BattlefieldFan1

1. Uncharted 3

2. Uncharted 2

3. Killzone 3

4. God of war 3

5. Crysis 2

6. Battlefield 3

7. Killzone 2

8. Rage

9. Heavy Rain

10. Batman: Arkham City

Dude, how can you lie so much? Gears 3 wasn't even a nomination for console graphics king.

I honestly don't care about the Xbox brand anymore. I'm not only interested in sequels to Halo, Forza and Fable and we could say MS fully wasted any potential Rare and Lionhead had at this point. On top of it they're forcing Kinect everywhere and are further delaying their next console which will proably be underpowered and wholly focused on motion controlls (which could be kinda cool but I suspect more enforced Kinect stuff). If it turns out it won't even have a optical drive then it will be worthless for me since I want a physical copy of the game if I buy it.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Rofl... Having 1 or 2 big enemies on screen isn't a lot. Try killzone 3. Crap tons of things happening at once, particles all around you, destruction happening everywhere and a lot of enemies. To top it off, there's no pop-ins and the frame rate never drops below 30. Killzone 3 **** all over gears, and that's not even the best the PS3 has.

Gears of War 3 does have high-res textures, I admit. It's been a long time since I've played it at a friend's. I'm sorry it sucked so much it wasn't even worth remembering. It doesn't even have AA. Not to mention the fact that the artstyle is utter garbage.

Face it. You're an xbot and you're trying to prove how powerful the 360 is, but it falls far shorter than where the PS3 is. Cry all you want. Facts are facts.

BattlefieldFan1

Ahh, yes. The "marginally" more powerful that xbots like to use to downplay the power of the PS3.

Dude, go play killzone 3 and (assuming you aren't a **** which you are) look any gamer in the eye and tell them Gears 3 is **** awesome.

Gears 3 DOES NOT have many enemies at once. Stop lying. Hardly any particle effects.

I honestly don't care about the Xbox brand anymore. I'm not only interested in sequels to Halo, Forza and Fable and we could say MS fully wasted any potential Rare and Lionhead had at this point. On top of it they're forcing Kinect everywhere and are further delaying their next console which will proably be underpowered and wholly focused on motion controlls (which could be kinda cool but I suspect more enforced Kinect stuff). If it turns out it won't even have a optical drive then it will be worthless for me since I want a physical copy of the game if I buy it.

nameless12345

Yeah, how did they let Rare fall apart? Or did they essentially just buy the name? It is really surprising that MS is unwilling to throw money into GAME DESIGN--it is all marketing at this point.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no i'm not an xbot actually, and i know the Ps3 is marginally more powerful than the 360, but not by much, if you knew anything about how theses consoles worked you would realise that, nothing you are saying is facts at all, you have not played gears 3, otherwise you would realise that there a shed load of enemys on screen during some of the battles not to mention an insane amount of particle effects and other post processing effects, granted it doesn't Have AA but thats the only thing you have been right about so far, also, artstyle is subjective and down to an individuals personal opinion, you don't like the artstyle, ok, but that doesn't make it bad.delta3074

Ahh, yes. The "marginally" more powerful that xbots like to use to downplay the power of the PS3.

Dude, go play killzone 3 and (assuming you aren't a **** which you are) look any gamer in the eye and tell them Gears 3 is **** awesome.

Gears 3 DOES NOT have many enemies at once. Stop lying. Hardly any particle effects.

LOL... Don't even talk about that xbox fanboy John Carmack. In order for the xbox to keep up with the PS3 on rage, it needed a massive 22 gb installation. Even then, there were frame rate problems when there were multiple enemies on screen.

And again, I ask why didn't gears of war 3 win any graphics king award for 2011? I mean, if it's really one of the best, it had to win at least one, right? Your articles state that the reviewers thought the graphics were impressive. Nowhere does it hint that they thought it was top 10. People say arkham city is impressive, but I think it looks garbage, even if it is in top 10.

Nice try.

LOL... Don't even talk about that xbox fanboy John Carmack. In order for the xbox to keep up with the PS3 on rage, it needed a massive 22 gb installation. Even then, there were frame rate problems when there were multiple enemies on screen.And again, I ask why didn't gears of war 3 win any graphics king award for 2011? I mean, if it's really one of the best, it had to win at least one, right? Your articles state that the reviewers thought the graphics were impressive. Nowhere does it hint that they thought it was top 10. People say arkham city is impressive, but I think it looks garbage, even if it is in top 10.Nice try.BattlefieldFan1

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Ahh, yes. The "marginally" more powerful that xbots like to use to downplay the power of the PS3.

Dude, go play killzone 3 and (assuming you aren't a **** which you are) look any gamer in the eye and tell them Gears 3 is **** awesome.

Gears 3 DOES NOT have many enemies at once. Stop lying. Hardly any particle effects.

BattlefieldFan1

LOL... Don't even talk about that xbox fanboy John Carmack. In order for the xbox to keep up with the PS3 on rage, it needed a massive 22 gb installation. Even then, there were frame rate problems when there were multiple enemies on screen.

And again, I ask why didn't gears of war 3 win any graphics king award for 2011? I mean, if it's really one of the best, it had to win at least one, right? Your articles state that the reviewers thought the graphics were impressive. Nowhere does it hint that they thought it was top 10. People say arkham city is impressive, but I think it looks garbage, even if it is in top 10.

Nice try.

you were saying the graphics were bad.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]Really?, according to digital foundry it does and they are far more credible than you "Another notable inclusion in the VFX toolbox is the excellent implementation of atmospheric rendering, giving a real sense of scale and ambience to a variety of levels. Alpha and particle effects in general are quite remarkable - a real improvement over what we've seen before in previous Unreal Engine games, and reminiscent at times of the gritty atmosphere evoked by Killzone 3 and Resistance 3. The fact that Unreal Engine 3 throw so many transparencies about while maintaining its performance level to the extent that it does is another feather in the cap of the Epic engineers." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-gears-of-war-3?page=2 John carmack, another guy who has more knowledge of hardware in his little finger than you do in your whole family, said this about the Ps3 and 360 "I can make benchmarks that will show either the PS3 or 360 to be superior, so they are close, but I prefer the trades on the 360" http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/124917372040642560 Experts opinions>your baseless opinions with no evidence to back them up, you don't even have a clue how these console worked, if you did then you would realise that both have an equal amount of RAM which common sense dictates makes them roughly equal, RAM being the most important part of the console for unning anything because everything a console does has to be loaded to RAM and niether can PRoccess more than 512MB at any one time, come back when you actually have the knowledge to even slightly impress me dude. "It's also worth noting that while the game looks super slick, the framerate will often collapse under the crush of a multitude of enemies on screen, or too many bullets fired too fast while using ironsights. " http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/1194638 Tell me dude, what does "a multitude of enemies on screen" mean,lolCaseyWegner

LOL... Don't even talk about that xbox fanboy John Carmack. In order for the xbox to keep up with the PS3 on rage, it needed a massive 22 gb installation. Even then, there were frame rate problems when there were multiple enemies on screen.

And again, I ask why didn't gears of war 3 win any graphics king award for 2011? I mean, if it's really one of the best, it had to win at least one, right? Your articles state that the reviewers thought the graphics were impressive. Nowhere does it hint that they thought it was top 10. People say arkham city is impressive, but I think it looks garbage, even if it is in top 10.

Nice try.

you were saying the graphics were bad.

I thought I said it's not hard to surpass Gears 3 graphically, and thus it wouldn't be surprising if the average gamer thought the graphics suck.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

LOL... Don't even talk about that xbox fanboy John Carmack. In order for the xbox to keep up with the PS3 on rage, it needed a massive 22 gb installation. Even then, there were frame rate problems when there were multiple enemies on screen.

And again, I ask why didn't gears of war 3 win any graphics king award for 2011? I mean, if it's really one of the best, it had to win at least one, right? Your articles state that the reviewers thought the graphics were impressive. Nowhere does it hint that they thought it was top 10. People say arkham city is impressive, but I think it looks garbage, even if it is in top 10.

Nice try.

BattlefieldFan1

you were saying the graphics were bad.

I thought I said it's not hard to surpass Gears 3 graphically, and thus it wouldn't be surprising if the average gamer thought the graphics suck.

that's not a specific detail that would require playing the game. nothing you mentioned was a specific detail and if that's somehow something you incorrectly perceive as a specific detail,you can see the exact same thing in the uncharted reviews as i've shown you yet you choose to ignore.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

you were saying the graphics were bad.

CaseyWegner

I thought I said it's not hard to surpass Gears 3 graphically, and thus it wouldn't be surprising if the average gamer thought the graphics suck.

that's not a specific detail that would require playing the game. nothing you mentioned was a specific detail and if that's somehow something you incorrectly perceive as a specific detail,you can see the exact same thing in the uncharted reviews as i've shown you yet you choose to ignore.

I'm sorry, but no one should take you seriously. Technically, gears is not impressive like Uncharted 3, Uncharted 2, God of war 3, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and many games both exclusive and multiplat.

There are rarely any scenes that are hectic, and even then there are framedrops during those scenes. The lack of AA makes it even worse. Stop being a butthurt fanboy and admit the truth. It is highly possible that the average gamer doesn't think gears is impressive because these games are out and stomp all over gears.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

I thought I said it's not hard to surpass Gears 3 graphically, and thus it wouldn't be surprising if the average gamer thought the graphics suck.

BattlefieldFan1

that's not a specific detail that would require playing the game. nothing you mentioned was a specific detail and if that's somehow something you incorrectly perceive as a specific detail,you can see the exact same thing in the uncharted reviews as i've shown you yet you choose to ignore.

I'm sorry, but no one should take you seriously. Technically, gears is not impressive like Uncharted 3, Uncharted 2, God of war 3, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and many games both exclusive and multiplat.

There are rarely any scenes that are hectic, and even then there are framedrops during those scenes. The lack of AA makes it even worse. Stop being a butthurt fanboy and admit the truth. It is highly possible that the average gamer doesn't think gears is impressive because these games are out and stomp all over gears.

why are you talking about graphics? how many times do i have to tell you that you don't have to play the game to know what it looks like. can you pleasefocus and stop arguing against points that i'm not even making? hell, i've never played the game but i know what it looks like.

No. The kinect is though.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

that's not a specific detail that would require playing the game. nothing you mentioned was a specific detail and if that's somehow something you incorrectly perceive as a specific detail,you can see the exact same thing in the uncharted reviews as i've shown you yet you choose to ignore.

CaseyWegner

I'm sorry, but no one should take you seriously. Technically, gears is not impressive like Uncharted 3, Uncharted 2, God of war 3, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and many games both exclusive and multiplat.

There are rarely any scenes that are hectic, and even then there are framedrops during those scenes. The lack of AA makes it even worse. Stop being a butthurt fanboy and admit the truth. It is highly possible that the average gamer doesn't think gears is impressive because these games are out and stomp all over gears.

why are you talking about graphics? how many times do i have to tell you that you don't have to play the game to know what it looks like. can you pleasefocus and stop arguing against points that i'm not even making? hell, i've never played the game but i know what it looks like.

Because someone brought up a review about calling gears graphics bad. You're saying that it's impossible and that everyone in the entire planet should acknowledge Epic's wonderful job at creating such artwork.

I'm calling **** and saying it's plausible that not many people think it's impressive due to all the games that were released 2-3 years ago on the PS3 and PC that completely destroy gears 3's graphics.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

I'm sorry, but no one should take you seriously. Technically, gears is not impressive like Uncharted 3, Uncharted 2, God of war 3, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and many games both exclusive and multiplat.

There are rarely any scenes that are hectic, and even then there are framedrops during those scenes. The lack of AA makes it even worse. Stop being a butthurt fanboy and admit the truth. It is highly possible that the average gamer doesn't think gears is impressive because these games are out and stomp all over gears.

BattlefieldFan1

why are you talking about graphics? how many times do i have to tell you that you don't have to play the game to know what it looks like. can you pleasefocus and stop arguing against points that i'm not even making? hell, i've never played the game but i know what it looks like.

Because someone brought up a review about calling gears graphics bad. You're saying that it's impossible and that everyone in the entire planet should acknowledge Epic's wonderful job at creating such artwork.

I'm calling **** and saying it's plausible that not many people think it's impressive due to all the games that were released 2-3 years ago on the PS3 and PC that completely destroy gears 3's graphics.

no i'm not. i'm saying it's not a specific detail that you need to play to see. are you going to address the comments regarding uncharted?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

why are you talking about graphics? how many times do i have to tell you that you don't have to play the game to know what it looks like. can you pleasefocus and stop arguing against points that i'm not even making? hell, i've never played the game but i know what it looks like.

CaseyWegner

Because someone brought up a review about calling gears graphics bad. You're saying that it's impossible and that everyone in the entire planet should acknowledge Epic's wonderful job at creating such artwork.

I'm calling **** and saying it's plausible that not many people think it's impressive due to all the games that were released 2-3 years ago on the PS3 and PC that completely destroy gears 3's graphics.

no i'm not. i'm saying it's not a specific detail that you need to play to see. are you going to address the comments regarding uncharted?

It doesn't need to be specific. Not in this case.

If a game released right now with the graphics of super mario in the 1990s, would you need a DigitalFoundry to tell you the graphics suck? If you played Killzone 3 and gears 3, you can easily say Killzone 3 is better graphically. Games with better graphics were released before.

Now if the game was released in 2008, before killzone 2, and a review like that came up, it should be called into question. But for now, there are plenty of reasons to believe why that reviewer didn't think it was impressive, because it's not.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]

Because someone brought up a review about calling gears graphics bad. You're saying that it's impossible and that everyone in the entire planet should acknowledge Epic's wonderful job at creating such artwork.

I'm calling **** and saying it's plausible that not many people think it's impressive due to all the games that were released 2-3 years ago on the PS3 and PC that completely destroy gears 3's graphics.

BattlefieldFan1

no i'm not. i'm saying it's not a specific detail that you need to play to see. are you going to address the comments regarding uncharted?

It doesn't need to be specific. Not in this case.

If a game released right now with the graphics of super mario in the 1990s, would you need a DigitalFoundry to tell you the graphics suck? If you played Killzone 3 and gears 3, you can easily say Killzone 3 is better graphically. Games with better graphics were released before.

Now if the game was released in 2008, before killzone 2, and a review like that came up, it should be called into question. But for now, there are plenty of reasons to believe why that reviewer didn't think it was impressive, because it's not.

should i thank you for proving my point? why do you keep trying to convince me that the graphics are bad? i don't care if they are or they aren't. the only point is that you don't have to have played the game to know what it looks like. something so generic is not specific and unless you want to be a hypocrit and change your argument now, stop talking about the graphics and address my comments about the uncharted reviews.