Well, that $40 per year (or less if you do a little research) for Live is easily worth it. I play on both 360 and PSN, but I definitely play on Live alot more. The yearly fee goes toward securing exclusive DLC, gaming with developers, gaming with celebs, and continuing development of the overall system. You pay for a consistent and reliable party and chat system. I found this out the hard way. Games like MLB The Show on PSN, which is made by sony, have the worst implimentation of chat and buddy systems. Having the exact same friend and chat system in every game is probably the most important feature that makes that $3 and change per month worth it.

GrilledCharlie

True. Always looking out for those sales when you can pick up a Live card for 39 and sometimes 29 bucks for 13 months.

[QUOTE="-Ninja_Dog-"]

Here's some pics to add to the debate.

*pics*

Forza looks ok I think.

Rikusaki

Those are all off-screen. :?

Yeah , just like you play it.

Here's some pics to add to the debate.

Forza looks ok I think.

Yeah,I really am used to the Xbox 360 control scheme for FPS shooters, so when KZ2 didn't have button mapping I had to settle for one of the control schemes and non of them are exact or as intuitive as I would like. I play these games on the highest diffulculty and I need to just react and not have to think about what button does what again. I'm a creature of habit, what can I say.

Any I hope for a day when every game comes with button mapping. A really good example of a game with button mapping wasOblivion.

They're the same. Any game on either system would look the pretty much the same.

They have there pluses and minuses.

It a watch really.

And yes I have both.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]While the textures are nice, off-screen shots make textures look more crisp and sharp than they do normally. Reason being is that cameras capture images differently than our eyes do. Look at any game that has off-screen shots and they will look just as good.illegalimigrant

Take Halo 3 or RE5 off-screen shots and they too will look good.

I remember the same thing being done with Uncharted 1and those graphics were pretty bland and below par for what was out at the time.I was really dissappointed with them.

[QUOTE="-Ninja_Dog-"]

So far its going to be a battle between RE5 and GoEW2 and than the rest. MGS4 is solid in the graphics department, as is Mass Effect. Uncharted is TOTALLY overrated in the graphics department,I almost feel lied to when I played it.

And this thread should only be for those that own both consoles.

Again Uncharted is the suck in graphic.

SragentThom

Use facts not fanboy opinion

Those are the facts. Just because you want to dismiss it as "fanboyism", thatsyour problem. I call it the way it is if I was totally blown away with any PS3 games graphical prowess, I would say so.

Do you own both consoles?

What kinda of TV are you using?

What size is you TV?

Do you wear glasses?

So far its going to be a battle between RE5 and GoEW2 and than the rest. MGS4 is solid in the graphics department, as is Mass Effect. Uncharted is TOTALLY overrated in the graphics department,I almost feel lied to when I played it.

And this thread should only be for those that own both consoles.

Again Uncharted is the suck in graphic.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Comparing the game to "other games in the genre" is where the whole review falls down, and where the reviewer seems to completely miss the point if you ask me. You cant compare it to RTS games on the PC, because they're simply in another class.Ninja-Hippo

Its just the GS is not what it used to be and thats all.

We should rely more on IGN scores, their reviewers seem to be more professional.

Yeah, yeah "but we are at GS" statement should not be used anymore, fo rthe simple fact is alot of these reviewers are not reviewers at all.