Ive never seen fox news until I watched that (I live in Australia), can someone explain to me what the point of the panel is, why would you stop a discussion with a game expert to ask the oppinion of four people that have never played the game? Is this news or a morning show?

It seemed very biased to me and I couldnt help but notice that they mensioned that the internet, video games and even mobile phones let you access "this stuff" but they never mensioned tv.

I prefer the ps3 controller, I find the shoulder buttons on the 360 controller annoying

they are trying to make us by psp's too.

as if launch ps3 wasnt enough money (600$ -_-)

shroom76

Theyre not making you do anything, you can still playthem on your ps3

i would say its something to do with the playstation phone

It is rare that person does not have a headset while playing online seeing as how the 360 comes with a headset. Unless you're playing unranked games I call bull. Its unfeasable to think that a systemt that doesn't come with a headset has more people talking on it then one that comes with a headset. Not to mention my friends little brother has brought it open and its just like Halo 3, nearly everyone has a mic.

Also its impossible for people to talk more on PS3 seeing as how more people own the game on the 360.

Blackbond

That made no sense at all, can you please explain to me how the number of copies sold on PS3 vs 360 affects people's ability to chat?

Such lack of reason.

First, you (the thread poster) ask two entirely different questions. Which is the better game and which game do you enjoy more. This is simply unacceptable, since one does not imply the other. I won't even bother pointing out that we are still in the COD honeymoon period so critical judgement is more unlikely.

Secondly, fast gameplay does not necessarilyequate to skillfull gameplay. Take chess for instance. Nor does dying quickly automatically raise the standard of play.

Thirdly, what on earth does 'better' mean. By one persons criteriaapolished, but unremarkable remake of an aging franchis may be the ultimate game, whereas another person my prefer innovation at the expense of everything else.

If you are attempting to identify some general measure of greatness then you must use much more general language to counteract individual perspective. For instance you could ask which game will be most highly regarded in 10 years time or which game has the largest fanbase. Both these questions ask each person to make the same judgement, albeit from their personal perspective. This is flawed, but infinitely better than asking for a personal view of a personal agenda.

DrEru

Well firstly, you just did.

Secondly, its a simple question, which one did you enjoy more, theres no need to complicate things. Hes obviously after opinions not facts. Which will be more highly regarded in 10 yrs? how are forum goers suposed to answer that? Which has the larger fanbase? thats fairly obvious.

Just wondering who you guys think have taken the least risks in terms of the consoles this gen.

Personally,I think its Microsoft, though I think the genral consensus is Nintendo.

This is getting pretty pathetic.

And yes i read the article, it mensions nothing about mgs4 going multiplat, only that it needs to sell 1 million on the first day to cover costs, and that in the future (after MGS4) there might not be any 3rd party exclusives. Hence MGS4, the last great EXCLUSIVE.