It did not take one year for the 360 to get a "good" game

[QUOTE="outcasthero"]Modded for disruptive posting? Tell me, Casey....what did I do that was disruptive? Disagree with you perhaps?CaseyWegner

you had more than 5 quotes in your quote chain.

Ah, so I have been told. Thanks, lol.

LOL...did I say that he wasn't? Also, I hardly had an "outburst.":lol: I merely asked why with my own little joke as an added comment, and said nothing else. Who are you, his personal representitve?

outcasthero

Fine then.  Not everybody asks aloud "why did I get modded?" when the answer is right in front of them.  And you just went over 5 quotes again.  :roll:  If you have a problem with getting modded, avoid doing things against the rules over and over again.

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]well you cant actually compare resistance to past or future games , since it was one of the first-The-G-Man-

And yet you were doing it anyway.

[QUOTE="ReverieDLM"][QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

The difference between developing for a dual core 360 (one core being used for OS only) and the cell is tremendous. Dev time transitioning to PS3 with its multi SPE and BD use is a lot more different than Xbox (2.5) 360. Heck, even the early PS3 releases didn't have the 1080p that they should have if it was given more time but Xbox 360 never even started out with hdmi.

So you're pretty much ignoring the fact that the PS3's architecture is vastly different and say 360 is better even though developing for it is much easier.

NobuoMusicMaker

This is completely wrong. The 360 has three cores, each of which can execute 2 hardware threads.

On neither the 360 nor the PS3 does the operating system consume a significant portion of the CPU in games. In fact, unless guide features are being used, it's pretty much idle. The resource most impacted by the OS on both consoles is memory.

The architectures of both are indeed different. However, neither is necessarily simple. For example, using Xenos on the 360 is much more complex overall than using RSX on PS3. RSX is overall a weaker part, but that's generally alright since a lot of that work can be picked up very well by the SPE's.

Uh no. The third core runs the OS which is on all the time. One of PS3's SPE is also used to run whatever background programs are happening while you play games.

That doesn't mean it runs ONLY the OS. Get a clue man. 

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]well you cant actually compare resistance to past or future games , since it was one of the firstLambo2468

And yet you were doing it anyway.

Explain to me why Resistance can only not be compared to past or future PS3 games.  It's alright to compare Resistance to past and future games, as long as those games aren't PS3 games?

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]

but nearly every single PS3 game , even Motorstorm , it got 7.9 , and i dont care what they say but thats not fair , it at least deserves around 8.5Verge_6

If you average gameranking's scores. you will see that the average fo 360 game scores are higher than the average of 360 game scores here. In fact, I think the average of PS3 games here is HIGHER than that of Gameranking's

Edit: I'll do the research and the math since I brought it up...

actually, i'm surprised the ps3 version of Oblivion got as high as 9.5.

They apparently believe that the downloadable content > 1 year later with minor graphical improvements.

TheDarkDisciple

That is my point exactly.  It wasn't judged on downloadable content was it?  That's like giving it a score based on what it MIGHT have in the future.

What this proves is if the PS3 version was released at the same time as the X360 version, it would have scored better.  Just like if Resistance released at the same time as Perfect DArk, it would have scored better and I bet Perfect Dark would not have been rated AAA.

 Like everything I've stated before it's my opinion but it's about as believeable as everyone elses when you look at gamespots scores for Oblivion.

[QUOTE="outcasthero"]

LOL...did I say that he wasn't? Also, I hardly had an "outburst.":lol: I merely asked why with my own little joke as an added comment, and said nothing else. Who are you, his personal representitve?

-The-G-Man-

Fine then.  Not everybody asks aloud "why did I get modded?" when the answer is right in front of them.  And you just went over 5 quotes again.  :roll:  If you have a problem with getting modded, avoid doing things against the rules over and over again.

Great, I guess I will get modded again beings it is so "disruptive", lol. Also, I will hardly lose sleep over it, pal. What do you care anyway? I sure do not need you following me around waiting to quote everything I say so that you can refute it by reading from the GS law book, lol.

[QUOTE="TheDarkDisciple"]

actually, i'm surprised the ps3 version of Oblivion got as high as 9.5.

They apparently believe that the downloadable content > 1 year later with minor graphical improvements.

darthogre

That is my point exactly.  It wasn't judged on downloadable content was it?  That's like giving it a score based on what it MIGHT have in the future.

What this proves is if the PS3 version was released at the same time as the X360 version, it would have scored better.  Just like if Resistance released at the same time as Perfect DArk, it would have scored better and I bet Perfect Dark would not have been rated AAA.

 Like everything I've stated before it's my opinion but it's about as believeable as everyone elses when you look at gamespots scores for Oblivion.

Great, I guess I will get modded again beings it is so "disruptive", lol. Also, I will hardly lose sleep over it, pal. What do you care anyway? I sure do not need you following me around waiting to quote everything I say so that you can refute it by reading from the GS law book, lol.outcasthero

I quoted you in hopes you would stop whining about the moderation.  Apparently it didn't work.

Every day I see people saying that the "PS3 just came out. Give it time. The 360 took a year to get its first good game."

If this is the case, then the PS3 truly has nothing. The PS3's highest rated game is Resistance with an 8.6 score. The 360 launched with three exclusives that scored higher. Do you still even want to compare what the PS3 has now against what the 360 had seven months into its lifespan? Are you really willing to say that your own system has nothing in order to say that the system you oppose took a year to get something worthy?

This argument didn't work for the original Xbox ("The PS2 had a one year head start. That's why its game library is better. /cry) and it's not working now for the PS3. The PS2 had a better lineup in its first year than the Xbox did. The 360 had a better first seven months than the PS3 did.

CaseyWegner

No the 360 didnt take a year to get a good game.  but it did take a year for the must have "gears of war".  Ninja gaiden sigma comes this looks promising potential for AAA. Lair next month.  Heavnly sword the month after that, Uncharted the month after along with a few other high profile "AAA" games. 

SO in conclusion no comparison now, but there is potential in the next 4 months. (AS DOES THE 360).

IN the end its all about what taste in games you have to have a good game.  Perfect dark a 9.0?  I beat the game and I would peronally give it at the most an 8.5.

LOVE TO ALL GAMERS!!!!!!!

It was never a truely fair comparison you tried to say it was to justify your claims.

demoralizer

I'm saying comparing X360 launch titles that had no competition that would give reviewers something to compare them against is NOT a fair comparision.  My point was this, if both PS3 and X360 launched at the same time with the same exact games, X360 would score somewhat lower on their games and PS3 would score somewhat higher. 

The people reviewing these games are human and no matter what people think when they look at resistance for PS3 in the back of their mind they were looking at the most current X360 games to give them a point of reference on how it should score.  Perfect Dark Zero had NOTHING to compare it too, it was the first FPS game on the new HighDef consoles so it was going to get a higher score by default.

I'm not saying X360 had terrible games or PS3 had great games, I'm saying if both consoles released at the same time the scores would be different and threads like these might not even exist.

Kameo, I'll give you that but I'll be damned to hell before I recognize PDZ as a AAA tittle.(in the nicest way that i can say it);)

Kameo, I'll give you that but I'll be damned to hell before I recognize PDZ as a AAA tittle.(in the nicest way that i can say it);)

ragrdoll21

yea thats what im saying in my previous post.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="outcasthero"]

System Wars is not football, baseball or soccer. And since when was it a rule that you had to either admit the 360 had great games before Gears or admit that the PS3 has no good exclusives? As that is what you are implying here. And by taking such a notion at face value, it is clear that it is set up in a pro 360/anti PS3 fashion.

outcasthero

no. the rule is that gamespot's scores are what is used here. therefore, what i said about the choice is simply me abiding by that rule. how is that biased?

Because you are wanting people to either admit that the PS3 has no good exclusives or admit that the 360 had good games before Gears. Just because someone may not have liked any of the 360 games before Gears, it should not automatically constitute them having to also admit that the PS3 does not have any good games either because they recieved similar AA scores as the predecessors to Gears of War did.

The point is that they ARE DIFFERENT GAMES, and regardless of GS rules or scores, some people may just personally prefer the PS3 line-up better than the early 360 line-up. They should not have to admit one or the other just becuase of similar GS scores, lol. Is personal opinion not allowed here?

[QUOTE="outcasthero"]Great, I guess I will get modded again beings it is so "disruptive", lol. Also, I will hardly lose sleep over it, pal. What do you care anyway? I sure do not need you following me around waiting to quote everything I say so that you can refute it by reading from the GS law book, lol.-The-G-Man-

I quoted you in hopes you would stop whining about the moderation.  Apparently it didn't work.

Whining?:lol: I merely asked a question in one post to CASEY...not you. Yet you had to interject. He answered, it's over....mind your own business, okay?

Thanks

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="outcasthero"]Great, I guess I will get modded again beings it is so "disruptive", lol. Also, I will hardly lose sleep over it, pal. What do you care anyway? I sure do not need you following me around waiting to quote everything I say so that you can refute it by reading from the GS law book, lol.outcasthero

I quoted you in hopes you would stop whining about the moderation.  Apparently it didn't work.

Whining?:lol: I merely asked a question in one post to CASEY...not you. Yet you had to interject. He answered, it's over....mind your own business, okay?

Thanks

You really deserve to get flamed.

because your arrogant and because you don't understand the actual argument.

Casey is not really saying that the PS3 has no good games.

Whining?:lol: I merely asked a question in one post to CASEY...not you. Yet you had to interject. He answered, it's over....mind your own business, okay?

Thanks

outcasthero

And yet you continue to whine.  You're blowing this whole moderation thing far out of proportion.  You were moderated for disruptive posting because your quote chain was too long and you decided to ask why you were modded.  And then you threw in that you were modded because you were disagreeing.  Then when the answer was clearly pointed out to you you continued to carry on.  I consider that whining.

oh!, this thread is painful for PS3 fans to wander in

However, not all PS3 fans bash the X360 and arrogantly praise the PS3. But those who do, I hope they realize the x360 is really a good console, and their beloved PS3 has nothing special going for it atm for them to go all arrogant about.

[QUOTE="demoralizer"]

It was never a truely fair comparison you tried to say it was to justify your claims.

darthogre

I'm saying comparing X360 launch titles that had no competition that would give reviewers something to compare them against is NOT a fair comparision.  My point was this, if both PS3 and X360 launched at the same time with the same exact games, X360 would score somewhat lower on their games and PS3 would score somewhat higher. 

The people reviewing these games are human and no matter what people think when they look at resistance for PS3 in the back of their mind they were looking at the most current X360 games to give them a point of reference on how it should score.  Perfect Dark Zero had NOTHING to compare it too, it was the first FPS game on the new HighDef consoles so it was going to get a higher score by default.

I'm not saying X360 had terrible games or PS3 had great games, I'm saying if both consoles released at the same time the scores would be different and threads like these might not even exist.

You have no proof to back up your claims, it's mere speculation. I'm not going to debate which game would of scored higher if they did launched at the same time.

The Oblivion reviews proves nothing to say that GS holds PS3 games to higher standard, that is my point.

gamespot has flopped more hyped xbox/xbox 360 games than it has gc/wii/ps2/ps3 combined. don't even try to bring in the "gamepost is biased" argument.CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="outcasthero"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="outcasthero"]

System Wars is not football, baseball or soccer. And since when was it a rule that you had to either admit the 360 had great games before Gears or admit that the PS3 has no good exclusives? As that is what you are implying here. And by taking such a notion at face value, it is clear that it is set up in a pro 360/anti PS3 fashion.

DrinkDuff

no. the rule is that gamespot's scores are what is used here. therefore, what i said about the choice is simply me abiding by that rule. how is that biased?

Because you are wanting people to either admit that the PS3 has no good exclusives or admit that the 360 had good games before Gears. Just because someone may not have liked any of the 360 games before Gears, it should not automatically constitute them having to also admit that the PS3 does not have any good games either because they recieved similar AA scores as the predecessors to Gears of War did.

The point is that they ARE DIFFERENT GAMES, and regardless of GS rules or scores, some people may just personally prefer the PS3 line-up better than the early 360 line-up. They should not have to admit one or the other just becuase of similar GS scores, lol. Is personal opinion not allowed here?

Understood, and I also even said in other post somewhere in this thread that I am not trying to refute GS scoring, as I believe that they should be used as a general standard around here. But they should NOT be used in order to limit ones personal opinion in favor of someone else's personal preference that happens to be in line with GS scores.

What Casey is essentially saying here is that if you do not agree that the 360 had great games before Gears, then you also must admit that the PS3 does not have any good exclusives. How are you supposed to choose one or the other if you DO NOT AGREE? I think that there was obviously some great games before Gears, and I also think that the PS3 does indeed have some good games right now, and GS scores indicate that is the case.

But just because someone may not like the games that were released on the 360 before Gears, it does not mean that they also have to admit they they do not like the PS3's games, lol. That is what he said. He said that you cannot have it both ways. That is clearly bent rules in favor of the 360. When in fact scores from the first seven months of the 360, and the scores of the PS3 line-up prove that they BOTH had great games within their first seven months. But just because one may not like the pre Gears line-up on the 360., it does not mean that they should have to automatically admit that the PS3 line up sucks as well. Sorry, that is just absurd logic.

I know the cows are going a little crazy twisting things, going over what counts and doesn't count and what-not, but the simple fact is:

The xbox 360 launched with a AAA exclusive, and two AAexclusives which scored 8.7 and 8.8. All three games higher scoring than the PS3's highest-scoring exclusive.

Thus, the xbox 360 did not take a year to get a good game. It launched with three good games, and many others which were also AA and awesome titles, like condemned for example.

It then got GRAW and Oblivion. I realise that oblivion was on the PC, however GRAW was pretty much an exclusive. It was on xbox and PS2 too, however that was a 4.8 scoring FPS; completely different game made by a different studio, with the same name.

I believe casey's point was that if you're claiming none of these AAA and AA games count, and only Gears of War is the "good game" that took a year to arrive, you're effectively saying that your own Resistance, Motorstorm, Virtua Fighter and all of those also dont count, and every AA and AAA game you get also wont count until you finally get a 9.6er like Gears of War, by your own logic. 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]gamespot has flopped more hyped xbox/xbox 360 games than it has gc/wii/ps2/ps3 combined. don't even try to bring in the "gamepost is biased" argument.chaos-SD

No, M$ pay them in gamerpoints, lol jk... well put. 

Every day I see people saying that the "PS3 just came out. Give it time. The 360 took a year to get its first good game."

If this is the case, then the PS3 truly has nothing. The PS3's highest rated game is Resistance with an 8.6 score. The 360 launched with three exclusives that scored higher. Do you still even want to compare what the PS3 has now against what the 360 had seven months into its lifespan? Are you really willing to say that your own system has nothing in order to say that the system you oppose took a year to get something worthy?

This argument didn't work for the original Xbox ("The PS2 had a one year head start. That's why its game library is better. /cry) and it's not working now for the PS3. The PS2 had a better lineup in its first year than the Xbox did. The 360 had a better first seven months than the PS3 did.

CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="outcasthero"]

Whining?:lol: I merely asked a question in one post to CASEY...not you. Yet you had to interject. He answered, it's over....mind your own business, okay?

Thanks

-The-G-Man-

And yet you continue to whine.  You're blowing this whole moderation thing far out of proportion.  You were moderated for disruptive posting because your quote chain was too long and you decided to ask why you were modded.  And then you threw in that you were modded because you were disagreeing.  Then when the answer was clearly pointed out to you you continued to carry on.  I consider that whining.

Good, I am glad that you do. This is SW remember? Nobody cares about OPINIONS here?;)

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

Every day I see people saying that the "PS3 just came out. Give it time. The 360 took a year to get its first good game."

If this is the case, then the PS3 truly has nothing. The PS3's highest rated game is Resistance with an 8.6 score. The 360 launched with three exclusives that scored higher. Do you still even want to compare what the PS3 has now against what the 360 had seven months into its lifespan? Are you really willing to say that your own system has nothing in order to say that the system you oppose took a year to get something worthy?

This argument didn't work for the original Xbox ("The PS2 had a one year head start. That's why its game library is better. /cry) and it's not working now for the PS3. The PS2 had a better lineup in its first year than the Xbox did. The 360 had a better first seven months than the PS3 did.

Bluestorm-Kalas

Hence why he made the point of saying oblivion doesn't count for the 360 either because it's a multiplat. Sheesh.... >_> 

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="GARRYTH"]restistance owns the 360 launch fps pdz. if ps 3 came out before the 360 pdz would had never got a AAA score. resistance would of gotten a AAA score if it was on 360.GARRYTH

Again with the shoulda, coulda, woulda... 

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]well you cant actually compare resistance to past or future games , since it was one of the first-The-G-Man-

And yet you were doing it anyway.

Explain to me why Resistance can only not be compared to past or future PS3 games.  It's alright to compare Resistance to past and future games, as long as those games aren't PS3 games?

Good, I am glad that you do. This is SW remember? Nobody cares about OPINIONS here?;)

outcasthero

Game-wise.  Drop it.

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

Every day I see people saying that the "PS3 just came out. Give it time. The 360 took a year to get its first good game."

If this is the case, then the PS3 truly has nothing. The PS3's highest rated game is Resistance with an 8.6 score. The 360 launched with three exclusives that scored higher. Do you still even want to compare what the PS3 has now against what the 360 had seven months into its lifespan? Are you really willing to say that your own system has nothing in order to say that the system you oppose took a year to get something worthy?

This argument didn't work for the original Xbox ("The PS2 had a one year head start. That's why its game library is better. /cry) and it's not working now for the PS3. The PS2 had a better lineup in its first year than the Xbox did. The 360 had a better first seven months than the PS3 did.

Ninja-Vox

Hence why he made the point of saying oblivion doesn't count for the 360 either because it's a multiplat. Sheesh.... >_> 

dude think before you post , past because there isnt any , future because there always gona be better , if the developer does its best , its like comparing PDZ to GoW or Halo 3 , doesnt stand a chance in any categoryLambo2468

But why does that apply to only one console?  You can't compare Perfect Dark Zero to future 360 games but you can compare it to Resistance on the PS3, which is a future game since it came out a year later?

Virtua Fighter 5 dude. And Oblivion is AAA if you want to go by SW rules. /thread?shungokustasu

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]dude think before you post , past because there isnt any , future because there always gona be better , if the developer does its best , its like comparing PDZ to GoW or Halo 3 , doesnt stand a chance in any category-The-G-Man-

But why does that apply to only one console?  You can't compare Perfect Dark Zero to future 360 games but you can compare it to Resistance on the PS3, which is a future game since it came out a year later?

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]dude think before you post , past because there isnt any , future because there always gona be better , if the developer does its best , its like comparing PDZ to GoW or Halo 3 , doesnt stand a chance in any categoryLambo2468

But why does that apply to only one console?  You can't compare Perfect Dark Zero to future 360 games but you can compare it to Resistance on the PS3, which is a future game since it came out a year later?

Resistance came out a year later, did it not?

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"]Virtua Fighter 5 dude. And Oblivion is AAA if you want to go by SW rules. /thread?outcasthero

umm, what? virtua fighter got an 8.1 and is a timed exclusive (which we all know disqualifies it from being called "exclusive" here) and oblivion is multiplat. if we're going by system wars rules (which we are), what are you talking about?

You not going to sit here and tell me that it's okay to say Kameo, Dead Rising, and COD2 were "good games" and turn around and say VF5 is not. No, AA games are "good" too. Just like SW states. Stop bending the rules.

Exactly. I see this tendency to bend the rules according to ones own personal preferences far too often as well. Just because games like Resistance, Motorstorm, Virtua Fighter 5, ect. are AA games, it does not mean that the PS3 "has nothing", lol. As AA is considered good, if not GREAT in most cases. So obviously, to continue the ridiculous facade in pretending that the PS3 has absolutely nothing is nothing but a biased, closed minded refusal to recognize anything even remotely postive that the PS3 has going for it because you PERSONALLY prefer the 360 line-up more.

So, your statement that the PS3 has ZERO good games is nothing but subjective opinion, Casey. And your opinion is not the etched in stone, infallible rule, mod or not. So stop trying to bend the rules in favor of what your personal opinion is. AA games are good games, and the 360 had more AA games in it's first 7 months than AAA games as well. End of story.

Let's not play blind here, we all know that it takes every console longer than a few months to start to hit it's sweet spots, and PS3 is just now getting ready to BEGIN do that, as should be clearly evidenced by what games are just around the corner. And I do not care what you say, the 360 was not leaps and bounds better than the PS3 after it's first 7 months like closed minded bashers try to pretend.

Anyone who cannot give the PS3 the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt in that it is in it's first 7 months is nothing but biased, and closed minded and prematurely have their minds made up already. As even if the PS3 does not appeal to you on a personal level, if you are unbiased, you would at least give it the benefit of the doubt in that it is only 7 months old. And you would also acknowledge the fact that there are indeed some VERY impressive looking games and features just right around the corner, instead of bashing them and discrediting them at every opportunity before they even have a chance to come out.

Did you even bother reading the OP? It sure does not look like it. Also, you talk about being closed minded, then use the phrase "I do not care what you say..." That is the definition of being closed minded if you sak me, as  you are completely dismising his opinion.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="outcasthero"]

Because you are wanting people to either admit that the PS3 has no good exclusives or admit that the 360 had good games before Gears. Just because someone may not have liked any of the 360 games before Gears, it should not automatically constitute them having to also admit that the PS3 does not have any good games either because they recieved similar AA scores as the predecessors to Gears of War did.

The point is that they ARE DIFFERENT GAMES, and regardless of GS rules or scores, some people may just personally prefer the PS3 line-up better than the early 360 line-up. They should not have to admit one or the other just becuase of similar GS scores, lol. Is personal opinion not allowed here?

outcasthero

Understood, and I also even said in other post somewhere in this thread that I am not trying to refute GS scoring, as I believe that they should be used as a general standard around here. But they should NOT be used in order to limit ones personal opinion in favor of someone else's personal preference that happens to be in line with GS scores.

What Casey is essentially saying here is that if you do not agree that the 360 had great games before Gears, then you also must admit that the PS3 does not have any good exclusives. How are you supposed to choose one or the other if you DO NOT AGREE? I think that there was obviously some great games before Gears, and I also think that the PS3 does indeed have some good games right now, and GS scores indicate that is the case.

But just because someone may not like the games that were released on the 360 before Gears, it does not mean that they also have to admit they they do not like the PS3's games, lol. That is what he said. He said that you cannot have it both ways. That is clearly bent rules in favor of the 360. When in fact scores from the first seven months of the 360, and the scores of the PS3 line-up prove that they BOTH had great games within their first seven months. But just because one may not like the pre Gears line-up on the 360., it does not mean that they should have to automatically admit that the PS3 line up sucks as well. Sorry, that is just absurd logic.

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="Lambo2468"]dude think before you post , past because there isnt any , future because there always gona be better , if the developer does its best , its like comparing PDZ to GoW or Halo 3 , doesnt stand a chance in any category-The-G-Man-

But why does that apply to only one console?  You can't compare Perfect Dark Zero to future 360 games but you can compare it to Resistance on the PS3, which is a future game since it came out a year later?

Resistance came out a year later, did it not?

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]gamespot has flopped more hyped xbox/xbox 360 games than it has gc/wii/ps2/ps3 combined. don't even try to bring in the "gamepost is biased" argument.hongkingkong

No, M$ pay them in gamerpoints, lol jk... well put. 

This type of arguement is flawed, only because the 360 was released a year ahead of time.  If all 3 consoles were released at the same time everything would be different including this arguement.  This arguement is relatively pointless since it really is flawed...

closet lemming confirmed
btw, what other "good" 360 game came out before GeoW?m0rphl1ng

where were you tuesday and wednesday when my halo 3 thread was thriving? :|

OMFG , what did i just say there both launch titles!! you dont understand one bit! , PDZ probably even got more dev time than resistance , since it was rushedLambo2468

It doesn't matter if they are both launch titles.  Resistance still came out a year later than Perfect Dark Zero did.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]gamespot has flopped more hyped xbox/xbox 360 games than it has gc/wii/ps2/ps3 combined. don't even try to bring in the "gamepost is biased" argument.chaos-SD

No, M$ pay them in gamerpoints, lol jk... well put. 

This type of arguement is flawed, only because the 360 was released a year ahead of time.  If all 3 consoles were released at the same time everything would be different including this arguement.  This arguement is relatively pointless since it really is flawed...

                       Nuff Said !

[QUOTE="m0rphl1ng"]closet lemming confirmed
btw, what other "good" 360 game came out before GeoW?CaseyWegner

where were you tuesday and wednesday when my halo 3 thread was thriving? :|

closet lemming confirmed
btw, what other "good" 360 game came out before GeoW?m0rphl1ng

Every day I see people saying that the "PS3 just came out. Give it time. The 360 took a year to get its first good game."

If this is the case, then the PS3 truly has nothing. The PS3's highest rated game is Resistance with an 8.6 score. The 360 launched with three exclusives that scored higher. Do you still even want to compare what the PS3 has now against what the 360 had seven months into its lifespan? Are you really willing to say that your own system has nothing in order to say that the system you oppose took a year to get something worthy?

This argument didn't work for the original Xbox ("The PS2 had a one year head start. That's why its game library is better. /cry) and it's not working now for the PS3. The PS2 had a better lineup in its first year than the Xbox did. The 360 had a better first seven months than the PS3 did.

CaseyWegner

Totally agree with you. The 360 had many AA titles at launch and had their 1st "AAA" title 5 months after launch with ES IV: Oblivion in April 06. The PS3 had 4 exclusive flops right out of the gate with NBA 07, Mobile Suit Gundam, Genji and Untold Legends.  http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp

The PS3 did get their first (and only) "AAA" title a bit sooner then the 360, but it was for the same exact game ES IV: Oblivion. Besides this game, the PS3 only has 3 other games worth playing right now in Resistance:FoM, Motorstorm & Virtua Fighter 5. There is nothing else spectacular on the system. Ninga Gaiden Sigma will be good for people who never played the XBox version. They also have The Darkness & Rainbox Six Vegas this month, but they are also be on XBox 360. It's pretty obvious that the reason it's taking so long for SOE & developers to get any great titles on the market is due to the software tools and difficulty programming for the system. Of course it'll get better, just like it did with the PS2, but will gamers and developing studios wait that long for the goods?