I haven't played it yet so I couldn't say. Judging from the review though, if true, it seems like it was an accurate score if it indeed has some technical and gameplay glitches. Objectively that is. Because glitches like the ones described totally don't matter if the game is great in my opinon.

Hell, when KOTOR was released a few years back, it was my personal GOTY. I played it more then 10 times through. But guess what, I didn't even like the combat gameplay. So that's really weird but true. I'm pretty sure even without playing it though that Mass Effect will be my personal game of the year. And in my mind it would get a 10. But objectively, I would probably score it 8.5 or 9.0 if the Gamespot review is correct.

I definitely did not expect this. Mass Effect is a huge flop theoretically for me because I actually didn't think it would get lower then a 9.5 so I was very suprised to see it only got an 8.5. But after watching the review it seems to me like it's being deducted mostly on technical errors and glitches which gamers can forgive if the game is great. It's not that the game has bad points to it that much, just technical stuff. So, I don't mind.

I'll definitely still get it. I've been waiting for it for 2 years and I think it's still the game I expected it to be.

[QUOTE="-Aus-"]Depends how it pans out. I want to see gameplay video's, developer interviews and solid previews before I decide. Because in my opinion, San Andreas was beyond crap. They put loads of stuff in it and nothing worked well. Sounds to me, though, that this time around with GTAIV they are really aiming for quality instead of quantity gameplay wise. They aim to make it more realistic to boost cars and such. I'm happy about that. But so far, I'm not sure yet.D3ADMaggot911

Yeah, that does sound better. But my main problem with San Andreas was that every single gameplay mechanic in the game sucked. The shooting was horrible. The driving was pretty bad, not all that bad but still bad. The fighting was a joke too. The game was still fun because there was just so much in it, but they sacrificed gameplay and graphics to put that much content into it. It was an enjoyable game when you first played it just to be 'wowed' by the sheer amount of things to do, but after a while you start to get annoyed by the gameplay because it just sucked. But that's my opinion.

The framerate is better especially in progressive scan or the 480p, 720p, and 1080p settings, which means smoother play. The games looka lotcrisper because it has a higher resolution than the regular tv and the 360 is built for a higher resolution than a regular tv can handle.

It's actually quite surprising when playing them side by side,though itmay not sound like much, the difference is pretty big. I played GOW on a huge 1080p screen once and it looked amazing to say the least. 480p isn't much to look at, but if you can afford 720p or especially a 1080 tv it's a huge difference. It isn't at all necessary to have a hdtv as you already know, but if you can get it, it's definitely a great thing to have because the resolution on the systems is geared to those quality tv's so you'll get a more complete and much better looking experience. Lastly, 720p would probably be the best buy.

Tokinblckgie

I'm no technical wizard, but I'm pretty sure frame rate issues are connected through hardware performance (Xbox 360) and programming (video game) and have nothing to do with the output it's played upon.

[QUOTE="-Aus-"]Don't know about the States, but where I live the original Xbox was E 349,- so it probably would have been $ 349,- in the States.bcardamone

It wasn't. The Core was $299 and the Premium was $399 here in the U.S.

He said the original Xbox. If he meant the 360 he should have been more clear.

in doing a school work on the PS3, Xbox and Wii so i have to compare the similarites and differences

thanks by the way

Eaz105

Wait a minute. Are you talking about Xbox 360 or Xbox?