Time to call Sony out.

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

enygma500

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

[QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

speedsix

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

dude, where've you been?..

COD4, AC, and GTA4 has been released already... ;)

I totaly agree with you.They promised 120 FPS and 4D graphics.That's why I am no more a cow I used to when the PS1 and PS2 were released PS3 is a big flop IMO.ma7moud93

..dont forget HOME where they said it will soon replace all human beings!

err = revolution.

PS3 = nex gen hardware = cell + blu ray.

360 = xbox 1.5

[QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

speedsix

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

i made it very clear that the CURRENT MULTIPLATS are running better on ps3. GS and IGN are both saying this in their reviews GTA for example. im not just pulling **** outta my ass. for the first while xbox 360 dominated the multiplats but not anymore. just because its was like that in the beginning doesn't mean thing haven't changed...also i never said signifigantly better and faster. its only slightly right now and even then i still believe that it could be left a little to personal opinion. also alot of this could be chalked up to the ps3 being capable of installing games. however im not lying about anything ive said and if that arguement is all that you can even find wrong with my posts then that still doesn't stop the other guy from being wrong...so dont try to tell me im wrong.

as for batteries and appearance. no cow has actually used that as a serious arguement. that ive seen anyways. and why should we not be able to bring pc into the arguement???it is after all part of the console wars. the pc is only irrelevent when cows say that all the 360's best are also on pc thus making them not exclusive. but that fact is if i can get the same game on a different platform the game is not exclusive. didn't you lems argue this to the death about NGS.

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

SHuN_G0Ku

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

dude, where've you been?..

COD4, AC, and GTA4 has been released already... ;)

i do belive DMC can be added to that list as well. damn lemmings in this thread

so the PS3 is a flop ???

I guess releasing a faulty hardware, MS originally siding with HD DVD which died, paying online, paying extra for addons and having most of your 'so called' AAAAAAAAAAA exclusives being released on PC, looking & playing better is not a flop right ?????

PS3 is getting great exclusives, and i mean REAL exclusives, with no PC version, an good online service which is getting even better and its free, multiplats are now of equal quality to the Xbox360 version, some even slightly better... and well its good to remember a much more reliable hardware...

So lemmings dont make the mistake of calling PS3 a flop, because this so called flop with apparently bad online service, no games, no exclusives & a higher price tag, is gonna have a larger install base than the Xbox360 in a matter of months (10 months)..

I have a good memory, and spent months reading posts by lemmings bashing the sales for PS3, now when cows mention sales, lemmings reply that they play games not sales (and i agree) but do remember sales you praised when Xbox360 outsold PS3!! .... i remember lemmings bash PS3 for lack of exclusives, but great games came, and others will be shortly be revealed in the coming months.... i remember lemmings bashing PS3 for poor multiplats, but lately many multiplats got slightly better on PS3.... i remember the bashing for the PSN, which it got better and better during the months, and with home its gonna take it to another level, but PSN is still FREE.... i remember lemmings bashing Bluray, lets hope for them MS doesnt release a bluray add-on...

so the PS3 is a flop ???

I guess releasing a faulty hardware, MS originally siding with HD DVD which died, paying online, paying extra for addons and having most of your 'so called' AAAAAAAAAAA exclusives being released on PC, looking & playing better is not a flop right ?????

PS3 is getting great exclusives, and i mean REAL exclusives, with no PC version, an good online service which is getting even better and its free, multiplats are now of equal quality to the Xbox360 version, some even slightly better... and well its good to remember a much more reliable hardware...

So lemmings dont make the mistake of calling PS3 a flop, because this so called flop with apparently bad online service, no games, no exclusives & a higher price tag, is gonna have a larger install base than the Xbox360 in a matter of months (10 months)..

I have a good memory, and spent months reading posts by lemmings bashing the sales for PS3, now when cows mention sales, lemmings reply that they play games not sales (and i agree) but do remember sales you praised when Xbox360 outsold PS3!! .... i remember lemmings bash PS3 for lack of exclusives, but great games came, and others will be shortly be revealed in the coming months.... i remember lemmings bashing PS3 for poor multiplats, but lately many multiplats got slightly better on PS3.... i remember the bashing for the PSN, which it got better and better during the months, and with home its gonna take it to another level, but PSN is still FREE.... i remember lemmings bashing Bluray, lets hope for them MS doesnt release a bluray add-on...

Malta_1980

ummm MS has a bluray player in the works. rumors has it theres even a new SKU with built in bluray. howver thats strictly rumor atm and i wouldn't dwell on it

as for psn it is still free right now and i really hope they keep it that way with home. i dont care how many advertisments they need to put in there. i enjoy gaming for free and if they decide to charge i personally wont be paying. i also wish nintendo would get their online service a little better. then maybe i could enjoy the thing a little more.

as for everything else in you list yeah most of that stuff is pretty much gone now. the most recent thing for lemming to do is bash on the PS2 DRE since they're running outt things wrong with the ps3. one thing i really hafta say is wrong with the ps3 tho. i need a little more variety in the game some action, platformer, and please please some JRPG's. jrps was my reason for going ps3 in the first place. so far it pretty much shooter(meh), and sports(bleh)

err = revolution.

PS3 = nex gen hardware = cell + blu ray.

360 = xbox 1.5

rgame1

if the xbox 360 is only the xbox 1.5, then how is it directly competing against the ps3 and doing a pretty good job of keeping up with it????thats kinda like saying the ps3 is only the ps2.5....

Look, you cannot say that 360 games are superior to PS3 games because:

1. Any game that's been developed for the 360 can be done on the PS3, and perhaps even improved; with the 360 being limited to DVD9 and the PS3 touting Blu-Ray, you're fooling no one but yourself if you think taking a step forward in media formats is a bad thing--or if you feel that a different form of processing is bad as well, or ridiculous to try. How is it bad to want to change the way things are done? Especially if it may end up for the better? Sticking with the tried and true gets you nowhere, fast. Besides, compression will only get you so far; you'll eventually need more space to hold information--are you truly satisfied with having to use multiple discs for a single game? It isn't necessarily bad, but why do it when there's a format that can hold everything on a single disc?
2. The wider selection of titles on the 360 has simply come about because:
   a) Consumers are gullible bastards; they buy the cheaper product because it's cheaper, and are over eager to get their hands on said cheaper product, regardless of it's more than obvious failings, which results in the more widely owned console garnering more attention from developers. Do you buy a cheaper TV if it's bound to fail in two years, when instead you can buy a TV 1.5x the price which could last you 2x or 3x longer as well as provide superior quality and functionality? So you have to save up a little more money or pay off the credit a little longer, and maybe even wait a bit longer too, but isn't it worth it?
   b) Developing for the 360 is like developing for the PC; you put a game out on the 360, you may as well port it over to the PC... Just at a later date. That way they can "improve" the game and convince said gullible consumer to buy the same product a second time because of the extra features which ought to have been there in the first place, which unfortunately wouldn't work as the 360 really can't support some of them. So, if you buy the 360's original version, you've cheated yourself out of a better version, and if you spring for the updated PC version, you've cheated yourself out of money you could have spent otherwise.
3. Microsoft's console has a tendency to scratch discs, and with the DVD9's weaker layer of protection, the content on said disc will definitely suffer from said scratches. The Blu-Ray utilizes some much tougher scratch protection on their discs, making them a much wiser choice, and since they hold much more information and can perform just as well as a DVD9 it begs one to question the actual point in sticking with DVD9 as a standard format. Are you really satisfied with an older media format? Are you truly refusing Blu-Ray even when you know very well that it is a solid product? And finally, don't you want your $60 investment to last you as long as those old Nintendo cartridges have?

Everyone was all hyped for the next generation of gaming, because in the past we've seen them take leaps and bounds. So tell me, why is it that you 360 owners are playing on upgraded Xbox's? The only difference is a newer processor and gfx card, standard stuff you can find in a PC. What happened to all that wishing for the "next generation of gaming" to arrive so you can enjoy a new level of entertainment? Did you get tired of waiting a little too early? Did you figure you'd save a buck or two? Are you all REALLY satisfied with your Xbox 1.5? Would the glaring flaws be as easy to overlook with a much smaller library of games?

Come now guys, do you truly believe Microsoft is out there to make a difference for anyone but themselves? Look at Windows... It's been bug-ridden since its inception; the only reason it's so widespread now is because it was practically forced upon people as the standard Operating System, and I'm sure Microsoft is keeping all the best things about the OS to themselves through Copyright. If not, you can bet your wallet that someone would've come out with a much better Operating System by now.

Want another example? Fine. Take a look at the original Xbox; the DVD drive in it was prone to failure. Fortunately for Microsoft, my Xbox's DVD drive failed not long after the warranty ran out. Funny, isn't it? And when a new DVD drive cost half the price of a newer, slimmer Xbox, what's the point? Hey, guess what? Microsoft didn't really learn from it; they went and released a rocky console. Tell me, what have consoles been known for? They've been known for reliability as well as the ability to pop your game in and go. Microsoft only heeded half of that concept, and threw caution to the wind when throwing the PC parts in to that tiny box of theirs, and to save space and cut down on overheating they put the power supply on the OUTside! It certainly didn't take a genious to whip together THAT console now did it? No, they saved the geniouses for the marketing of said console.

Look, you want your great games on a great console? Then quit giving Microsoft your money in return for a half assed console. I'm not saying go out and buy a PS3, just don't support something from someone who's been bending you over to rape your wallet for years now. But hey, if you do swap out for a PS3, you can bet your ass those 3rd party developers are going to switch over to it once they see those numbers die.

So, grow some balls, steel your wallet, quit getting screwed, and wisen up already. Microsoft isn't out to take a leap in to the next generation; they're intent on taking babysteps to a better future so they can fortify their pocket with bricks of your hard-earned money.

Edit: The Xbox 1.5 is only competing with the PS3 because of it's game library. Honestly, can you think of anything else that would give it an upper hand?

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

enygma500

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

i made it very clear that the CURRENT MULTIPLATS are running better on ps3. GS and IGN are both saying this in their reviews GTA for example. im not just pulling **** outta my ass. for the first while xbox 360 dominated the multiplats but not anymore. just because its was like that in the beginning doesn't mean thing haven't changed...also i never said signifigantly better and faster. its only slightly right now and even then i still believe that it could be left a little to personal opinion. also alot of this could be chalked up to the ps3 being capable of installing games. however im not lying about anything ive said and if that arguement is all that you can even find wrong with my posts then that still doesn't stop the other guy from being wrong...so dont try to tell me im wrong.

as for batteries and appearance. no cow has actually used that as a serious arguement. that ive seen anyways. and why should we not be able to bring pc into the arguement???it is after all part of the console wars. the pc is only irrelevent when cows say that all the 360's best are also on pc thus making them not exclusive. but that fact is if i can get the same game on a different platform the game is not exclusive. didn't you lems argue this to the death about NGS.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

speedsix

Other consoles are irrelevant to most console gamers. 2% of America has +1 console :|

[QUOTE="speedsix"]

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

thrones

Other consoles are irrelevant to most console gamers. 2% of America has +1 console :|

The amount of PS3 owners who also have a 'gaming' pc and therefore access to these 360 games would be miniscule I reckon.

MGS4 ? A tired series
You can't just ignore the hype for this game

KZ2 ? 2009, looks empty
Tons of people are excited for this game. It won't necessarily sell systems, but people are still pretty excited.

GT, motorstorm ???? A racer will save PS3 ?
....um .. do you not know what Gran Turismo is?

LBP ????? That has no gameplay, only the level making matters
Maybe it's not your type of game, but its one of the most creative and original games I've seen in a long time. Again, there is tons of hype for this game as well.

Socom, Haze = no comments
People will still buy these games when they come out.

FF13 = 2010
That's an assumption and people aren't just going to sell their system because they're impatient. There are good enough exclusives to hold them off on getting rid of it.

Disgea 3 is paying full price for a PS1 looking like game

The Agency = no comments

Where are the games that MATTER ? Where are the Gears 2 like shooters, or Fable 2 like RPG's, or even the JRPG's ?

You name FF13, which could come in 2010, PS3 has NOTHING this year, not a thing, just some mediocre shooters and two racing games .... and LBP !!!

I can't understand how anyone would buy a PS3 anymore TBH, it is really laughable what Sony has done to people minds

kostmpekir

I'm kind of in shock as to how you could become so biased towards one console. I noticed you left out Resistance 2. I suppose theres something wrong with that game too though? Both consoles have fantastic games coming out. Regardless of whether you own a PS3 or 360 you won't be dissapointed.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

speedsix

Err, right. About point 2... PCs are very relevant to console gamers. Why? PCs are how we get on here to complain about everything. Duh. And hey, maybe you and all of your gaming friends don't like PC gaming, but ALL of MY gaming friends and I love our PCs just as much as our consoles.

[QUOTE="enygma500"][QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

speedsix

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

i made it very clear that the CURRENT MULTIPLATS are running better on ps3. GS and IGN are both saying this in their reviews GTA for example. im not just pulling **** outta my ass. for the first while xbox 360 dominated the multiplats but not anymore. just because its was like that in the beginning doesn't mean thing haven't changed...also i never said signifigantly better and faster. its only slightly right now and even then i still believe that it could be left a little to personal opinion. also alot of this could be chalked up to the ps3 being capable of installing games. however im not lying about anything ive said and if that arguement is all that you can even find wrong with my posts then that still doesn't stop the other guy from being wrong...so dont try to tell me im wrong.

as for batteries and appearance. no cow has actually used that as a serious arguement. that ive seen anyways. and why should we not be able to bring pc into the arguement???it is after all part of the console wars. the pc is only irrelevent when cows say that all the 360's best are also on pc thus making them not exclusive. but that fact is if i can get the same game on a different platform the game is not exclusive. didn't you lems argue this to the death about NGS.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

1. saying GTA runs with aa and at higher resolution on 360 doesn't make it look better, sure its looks better on paper, but my eyes tell me the paper it lying. as i said in my previous post. hell all you lems have said this same thing about halo(640p or whatever but still looks great)....also if GTa on ps3 is running at lower resolution and without AA but still looks better then GTA on the 360 doesn't that prove the ps3 superiority???

2. just because the pc is irrelevent to you doesn't mean that its not part of the system wars, therefore all my arguements about 360 games being ported to the pc are valid. as i said before IF I CAN GET THE GAME ON A DIFFERENT PLATFORM ITS NOT EXCLUSIVE. how can you even sit there and try to argue this FACT. you lemmings have said it thousands of times. suddenly with the truth glaring you in the face it somehow doesn't matter anymore???

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="speedsix"]

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

speedsix

Other consoles are irrelevant to most console gamers. 2% of America has +1 console :|

The amount of PS3 owners who also have a 'gaming' pc and therefore access to these 360 games would be miniscule I reckon.

it doesn't need to be a gaming pc to run alot of those games. just because crysis has some sick requirements doens't mean all pc game do...

Whats the need of haven an HDDif you dont use it?ragrdoll21

uim sorry that comment kinda came outta nowhere and you may need to explain a little better. while i agre theres no point in having a hard drive if you aint gonna use it. its kinda not really relevent to the topic from what i remember...

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"][QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

enygma500

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

i made it very clear that the CURRENT MULTIPLATS are running better on ps3. GS and IGN are both saying this in their reviews GTA for example. im not just pulling **** outta my ass. for the first while xbox 360 dominated the multiplats but not anymore. just because its was like that in the beginning doesn't mean thing haven't changed...also i never said signifigantly better and faster. its only slightly right now and even then i still believe that it could be left a little to personal opinion. also alot of this could be chalked up to the ps3 being capable of installing games. however im not lying about anything ive said and if that arguement is all that you can even find wrong with my posts then that still doesn't stop the other guy from being wrong...so dont try to tell me im wrong.

as for batteries and appearance. no cow has actually used that as a serious arguement. that ive seen anyways. and why should we not be able to bring pc into the arguement???it is after all part of the console wars. the pc is only irrelevent when cows say that all the 360's best are also on pc thus making them not exclusive. but that fact is if i can get the same game on a different platform the game is not exclusive. didn't you lems argue this to the death about NGS.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

1. saying GTA runs with aa and at higher resolution on 360 doesn't make it look better, sure its looks better on paper, but my eyes tell me the paper it lying. as i said in my previous post. hell all you lems have said this same thing about halo(640p or whatever but still looks great)....also if GTa on ps3 is running at lower resolution and without AA but still looks better then GTA on the 360 doesn't that prove the ps3 superiority???

2. just because the pc is irrelevent to you doesn't mean that its not part of the system wars, therefore all my arguements about 360 games being ported to the pc are valid. as i said before IF I CAN GET THE GAME ON A DIFFERENT PLATFORM ITS NOT EXCLUSIVE. how can you even sit there and try to argue this FACT. you lemmings have said it thousands of times. suddenly with the truth glaring you in the face it somehow doesn't matter anymore???

The PS3 version of GTA has a few artistic differences such as the warmer colour palette and the soft post processing filter which I agree, some people will prefer. Technically the 360 version is superior no bones about it.

I still stand by my point that pc gaming is irrelevant to the majority of console owners.

[QUOTE="ragrdoll21"]Whats the need of haven an HDDif you dont use it?enygma500

uim sorry that comment kinda came outta nowhere and you may need to explain a little better. while i agre theres no point in having a hard drive if you aint gonna use it. its kinda not really relevent to the topic from what i remember...

[QUOTE="enygma500"][QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"][QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

and all the current multiplats are running better and faster on the ps3.

speedsix

What!? Please tell me you are not being serious?

I've noticed PS3 fans seem to be resorting to either very unsubstantial points such as batteries or appearance. Flat out irrelevant arguments like bringing the PC into the topic or worse still, making up complete nonsense facts like the one above. Absolutely pathetic.

i made it very clear that the CURRENT MULTIPLATS are running better on ps3. GS and IGN are both saying this in their reviews GTA for example. im not just pulling **** outta my ass. for the first while xbox 360 dominated the multiplats but not anymore. just because its was like that in the beginning doesn't mean thing haven't changed...also i never said signifigantly better and faster. its only slightly right now and even then i still believe that it could be left a little to personal opinion. also alot of this could be chalked up to the ps3 being capable of installing games. however im not lying about anything ive said and if that arguement is all that you can even find wrong with my posts then that still doesn't stop the other guy from being wrong...so dont try to tell me im wrong.

as for batteries and appearance. no cow has actually used that as a serious arguement. that ive seen anyways. and why should we not be able to bring pc into the arguement???it is after all part of the console wars. the pc is only irrelevent when cows say that all the 360's best are also on pc thus making them not exclusive. but that fact is if i can get the same game on a different platform the game is not exclusive. didn't you lems argue this to the death about NGS.

1. GTA on the 360 is a higher resolution, has anti-aliasing where the PS3 doesn't and runs at a higher framerate.

2. PCs are irrelevant to most console gamers. They sure are for me and pretty much all my gaming friends.

1. saying GTA runs with aa and at higher resolution on 360 doesn't make it look better, sure its looks better on paper, but my eyes tell me the paper it lying. as i said in my previous post. hell all you lems have said this same thing about halo(640p or whatever but still looks great)....also if GTa on ps3 is running at lower resolution and without AA but still looks better then GTA on the 360 doesn't that prove the ps3 superiority???

2. just because the pc is irrelevent to you doesn't mean that its not part of the system wars, therefore all my arguements about 360 games being ported to the pc are valid. as i said before IF I CAN GET THE GAME ON A DIFFERENT PLATFORM ITS NOT EXCLUSIVE. how can you even sit there and try to argue this FACT. you lemmings have said it thousands of times. suddenly with the truth glaring you in the face it somehow doesn't matter anymore???

The PS3 version of GTA has a few artistic differences such as the warmer colour palette and the soft post processing filter which I agree, some people will prefer. Technically the 360 version is superior no bones about it.

I still stand by my point that pc gaming is irrelevant to the majority of console owners.

ps3 has far less pop in and faster loading...how again is the 360 version superior then???while i will agree that the wamer color palette is subjective. also if you try to say the ps3 let you install games so it loads faster is not a valid point. its one of the ps3's capabilities and imo the 360 should do the same thing

theres more pc gamers in this world then there is console gamers... so i would think it should be the other way around saying console are irrelevent to pc gamers. and like i said just because you dont like it doesn't make it truepc has always been part of the system wars and thats the way it is.

from this point on im pretty much just gonna say you have your opinion and i have mine. and agree to disagree cause this is gonna go on forever otherwise

The worst thing about this wholeargumentis that these companies needeach other. So having this discussion isretardedbecause without competition there is noinnovation. Imagine the system you bought but without any competition. So, keep belittling the other company and its users or small problems with the system but we all know that if a company has a monopoly on the market, very little new stuff is created; orat leastit takes forever to be released. Look what happened when the NES had no competition, we were all stuck with one system that failed to make very few awesome games (for having hundreds of game and maybe 20 are awesome, thats horrible) with a system that wasincrediblyfaulty (don't even say you don't remember making the whistle sound blowing into thecartridgeor remember seeing the screen flash with multi-colors); without Sega, the SNES would have never been invented.Shmoe82

lets not forget when theres a monopoly they can drive up the prices as much as they want. without competition the ps3 would've been in the $1000 area. and the 360 in the $800 area.

LOL 100's of games and only 20 great ones? You know what you call a system that has 100's of games and only maybe 3 great ones? Xbox 360 lol.

I keep looking for a reason to get a 360 and pay $60 a year for gaming but I just can't fine one. I mean when Gears first came out I was like yea thats what I want to play. But now after 2 1/2 years that is literally the only game that interests me. And I have a gaming rid and I still haven't purchased Gears on the pc much less get it on the pc.

I'm keeping my mind open for Gears 2 or maybe if huxley ever comes to the 360 which once again will be on the pc to make a descion to purchase a 360. But as of right now nothing interests me at all on the 360. So for now I'll keep playing my no game library of the ps3 for the moment.

Warhawk (ehh)

Drakes Fortune (Awesome)

UnReal Tountament (Cool even for console game, better for pc)

Motor Storm (Pretty fun, needed split screen)

Rachet and Clank (Awesome)

Hot Shots Golf (Awesome)

Multiplats

Cod4

GtaIV

Army of Two

Rainbow Six

Rock Band

Soon to have:

Haze

Metal Gear IV

Socom Confrontation

Resistance FOM 2

Pretty bored with my ps3 at the moment, maybe I'll throw in a Bluray movie to tide me over lol.

Oh yea put Burnout Paradise as a multiplat that looks better on the ps3 list aswell :).

LOL 100's of games and only 20 great ones? You know what you call a system that has 100's of games and only maybe 3 great ones? Xbox 360 lol.

I keep looking for a reason to get a 360 and pay $60 a year for gaming but I just can't fine one. I mean when Gears first came out I was like yea thats what I want to play. But now after 2 1/2 years that is literally the only game that interests me. And I have a gaming rid and I still haven't purchased Gears on the pc much less get it on the pc.

I'm keeping my mind open for Gears 2 or maybe if huxley ever comes to the 360 which once again will be on the pc to make a descion to purchase a 360. But as of right now nothing interests me at all on the 360. So for now I'll keep playing my no game library of the ps3 for the moment.

Warhawk (ehh)

Drakes Fortune (Awesome)

UnReal Tountament (Cool even for console game, better for pc)

Motor Storm (Pretty fun, needed split screen)

Rachet and Clank (Awesome)

Hot Shots Golf (Awesome)

Multiplats

Cod4

GtaIV

Army of Two

Rainbow Six

Rock Band

Soon to have:

Haze

Metal Gear IV

Socom Confrontation

Resistance FOM 2

Pretty bored with my ps3 at the moment, maybe I'll throw in a Bluray movie to tide me over lol.

Oh yea put Burnout Paradise as a multiplat that looks better on the ps3 list aswell :).

GreyFoXX4

Wow, you slam 360 over 20 great games and then list 6 turds for the PS3? Thanks for the fail, come again any time...

LOL I neve said 360 had 20 great games I said maybe 2. Would say 3 but I guess Bioshock may be coming to the ps3 and is already out on pc. Oh dang i guess you have 1 cause geow is on pc aswell. Hmm didnt some halo games to the pc aswell. Shoot 360 just may not have any real exclusives come to think of it possibly.

Also chk metacritic.com 360 games critic reviews always are alot higher than user reviews. Normally by about 10pts difference. Take for instance the holy grail of Geow1, critic score of 94, user review 84. Ps3 games like drakes fortune, Critic review 88, user review score of 88. I wonder how fluffed those critic scores are huh? Things that make you go hmmm.

So becareful when you call out turds lol cause in actuality you may have a turd in your draws. lol

[QUOTE="ermacness"][QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

How do you guys feel about Sony's "revolutionary" console, now that it's been out for over a year, and we've seen what it can do?

I know Sony overhypes their consoles, but this is rediculous. Sony promised a console that would be able to deliver things we've never seen before in a video game. What do we really get? A bloated movie player. The 360 more than holds it's own against the PS3, considering the PS3 came out a year later. What's worse is devs are having to dumb down the resolution, and force players to install half of the game to their HDD to even keep up with the 360. Why are cows not upset about this?

Sony takes out features after the console has been out for 6 months, then adds features later in the game, making people pay $50+ for old technology. I would be highly upset if I were a cow. Sony cannot make up thier mind.

I don't even want to get into all of the vaporware that Sony has been promising.

Where's the revolution? Where's the innovation? I don't want to hear, "Devs haven't tapped into the hidden power yet, just wait!" That didn't work for the PS2, and it won't work here.

REforever101

typically cow response. when you've got no argument, automatically go rrod

Or they could talk about price. The ugly HDD over priced add ons. The $100 WiFi, the ridiculous microtransactions for themes, the lack of real quality first party titles, and the $50 a year online.

Whats the automatic response from a lemming? No games? And that's expired?

LOL I neve said 360 had 20 great games I said maybe 2. Would say 3 but I guess Bioshock may be coming to the ps3 and is already out on pc. Oh dang i guess you have 1 cause geow is on pc aswell. Hmm didnt some halo games to the pc aswell. Shoot 360 just may not have any real exclusives come to think of it possibly.

Also chk metacritic.com 360 games critic reviews always are alot higher than user reviews. Normally by about 10pts difference. Take for instance the holy grail of Geow1, critic score of 94, user review 84. Ps3 games like drakes fortune, Critic review 88, user review score of 88. I wonder how fluffed those critic scores are huh? Things that make you go hmmm.

So becareful when you call out turds lol cause in actuality you may have a turd in your draws. lol

GreyFoXX4

It's SW posters like you that make many of us go hmmm.

Would it be too much to ask you to consider that User scores ( some anti fans ) make the score go down because they are Fanboys who intentionally give a great game a bad score and the Pro reviewer, where the score is high is the best indication of a games true score.

Are you still going hmmmm ? :roll:

[QUOTE="REforever101"][QUOTE="ermacness"][QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

How do you guys feel about Sony's "revolutionary" console, now that it's been out for over a year, and we've seen what it can do?

I know Sony overhypes their consoles, but this is rediculous. Sony promised a console that would be able to deliver things we've never seen before in a video game. What do we really get? A bloated movie player. The 360 more than holds it's own against the PS3, considering the PS3 came out a year later. What's worse is devs are having to dumb down the resolution, and force players to install half of the game to their HDD to even keep up with the 360. Why are cows not upset about this?

Sony takes out features after the console has been out for 6 months, then adds features later in the game, making people pay $50+ for old technology. I would be highly upset if I were a cow. Sony cannot make up thier mind.

I don't even want to get into all of the vaporware that Sony has been promising.

Where's the revolution? Where's the innovation? I don't want to hear, "Devs haven't tapped into the hidden power yet, just wait!" That didn't work for the PS2, and it won't work here.

carljohnson3456

typically cow response. when you've got no argument, automatically go rrod

Or they could talk about price. The ugly HDD over priced add ons. The $100 WiFi, the ridiculous microtransactions for themes, the lack of real quality first party titles, and the $50 a year online.

Whats the automatic response from a lemming? No games? And that's expired?

Well played! There's plenty the 360 can be criticised for aside from RROD, as I tried to prove the other day. And then some of the Lemmings said to me: "You don't own a 360."

:lol: Lemmings......

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="REforever101"][QUOTE="ermacness"][QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

How do you guys feel about Sony's "revolutionary" console, now that it's been out for over a year, and we've seen what it can do?

I know Sony overhypes their consoles, but this is rediculous. Sony promised a console that would be able to deliver things we've never seen before in a video game. What do we really get? A bloated movie player. The 360 more than holds it's own against the PS3, considering the PS3 came out a year later. What's worse is devs are having to dumb down the resolution, and force players to install half of the game to their HDD to even keep up with the 360. Why are cows not upset about this?

Sony takes out features after the console has been out for 6 months, then adds features later in the game, making people pay $50+ for old technology. I would be highly upset if I were a cow. Sony cannot make up thier mind.

I don't even want to get into all of the vaporware that Sony has been promising.

Where's the revolution? Where's the innovation? I don't want to hear, "Devs haven't tapped into the hidden power yet, just wait!" That didn't work for the PS2, and it won't work here.

Floppy_Jim

typically cow response. when you've got no argument, automatically go rrod

Or they could talk about price. The ugly HDD over priced add ons. The $100 WiFi, the ridiculous microtransactions for themes, the lack of real quality first party titles, and the $50 a year online.

Whats the automatic response from a lemming? No games? And that's expired?

Well played! There's plenty the 360 can be criticised for aside from RROD, as I tried to prove the other day. And then some of the Lemmings said to me: "You don't own a 360."

:lol: Lemmings......

lol Exactly. The only griefs I have about the 360 are the griefs I've experinced owning the 360 for over a year and a half.

Well played! There's plenty the 360 can be criticised for aside from RROD, as I tried to prove the other day. And then some of the Lemmings said to me: "You don't own a 360."

:lol: Lemmings......

Floppy_Jim

:lol: One of the biggest reasons I went with the PS3 was because I knew I needed WiFi so I could play my games online. When I eventually ended up getting a 360 I got the $480 Elite, $100 Wifi, and $50 XBL to allow me to play online games. My PS3 was a 60GB so it was $600. All my 360 stuff ended up costing me more $650 (after throwing in a recharable battery pack). All those things that come with the PS3 and even still do now that the PS3 cost $400.

I also choose the PS3 originally cause Sony has better franchises. I broke down and got a 360 because there are a couple games that I wanted to play on it.

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]PS3 = the only next gen hardware. Cell processor and Blu-ray, nuff said.ermacness

The end result is is very average. And since BluRay is the cause of most of the PS3's problems, I'd say BR is far from next gen.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]PS3 = the only next gen hardware. Cell processor and Blu-ray, nuff said.MortalDecay

The end result is is very average. And since BluRay is the cause of most of the PS3's problems, I'd say BR is far from next gen.

i agree. PS3 theoretically has more under the hood, but i have yet to see a game that definitively demonstrates that edge. sure, Uncharted looks great, but so does Mass Effect. and aside from Burnout Paradise, the difference in multiplats is pretty negigible. i guess we shall see with MGS4.

I also choose the PS3 originally cause Sony has better franchises. I broke down and got a 360 because there are a couple games that I wanted to play on it.

CajunShooter

Ya know what's funny though? Is that probably alot of those games you wanted to play for 360 were made by 3rd parties, like Gears of War, Bioshock, and Mass Effect. Those are like 3 of the 4 "big ones" for the 360, which I find funny.

Gears 3, and Bioshock 2 have a chance of going to the PS3. Mass Effect could but I think the devs said they want to keep it on 360.

And people say the PS3 has no games, they have more 1st and 2nd party studios than anybody, that pump out quality titles like God of War, SOCOM, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Twisted Metal, Shadow of Colyusus (spell check?), and Gran Turismo. And that's not all... and doesnt even include the new franchises of this gen like Uncharted, Warhawk, Motorstorm, and Resistance. Sure, hope the lemmings keep saying Sony has no games, :lol:.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

Well played! There's plenty the 360 can be criticised for aside from RROD, as I tried to prove the other day. And then some of the Lemmings said to me: "You don't own a 360."

:lol: Lemmings......

CajunShooter

:lol: One of the biggest reasons I went with the PS3 was because I knew I needed WiFi so I could play my games online. When I eventually ended up getting a 360 I got the $480 Elite, $100 Wifi, and $50 XBL to allow me to play online games. My PS3 was a 60GB so it was $600. All my 360 stuff ended up costing me more $650 (after throwing in a recharable battery pack). All those things that come with the PS3 and even still do now that the PS3 cost $400.

I also choose the PS3 originally cause Sony has better franchises. I broke down and got a 360 because there are a couple games that I wanted to play on it.

I'm in the exact same boat as you- in the long run, the 360 will be more expensive than the PS3 because of those extra costs. And just like you, I had always planned to get a PS3 this gen because of the Sony franchises. But I also got a 360 in the meantime- it had a few games that interested me, but it has it's flaws.

I'm glad you went there so I guess the 88 user score for Drakes fortune is actually higher too cause of lemmings getting on there and putting bogus review scores right lol. Can't just handle that GeoW just caught the general population by surprise with its graphics at a time the 360 had no games, thats right the first year of the 360 there was really no good games til GeoW. But from the graphics, the rest wasn't really there. Not a compelling story, lack of depth for online and no innovation. People talk like the cover system was created when GeoW came out but it wasn't it just did a great job of using the system.

Anyway I got plenty of games and more to come. Only 12 months in the year and if I can get 4 great games I'm happy. That puts me at about 3 months per game. Any more than that I'm just collecting lol and not really getting the most of each game. Even though I'm at about 11 games in 6 months lol.

Shoot lost my train of thought going back to GTAIV, dang lemmings give me a headache lol. Like talking to a Brick, shoot didn't mean to say Brick don't want to worry any of you lemmings. Brick, Brick, Brick lol.