so, K2 will be an automatic flop, because the first game got a low score?

never mind the dev changes, more money, sony studio's, better hardware. learning from mistakes....Ok.

had no idea, DMC 3/4 were flops, because the 2nd one scored bad, and GTA 4 is a flop, because the first few sucked.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Every game has its bad shots, this is multiplayer footage after all. in motion the game looks superb as do many other titles.

with all the previews, impressions i've read, K2's a beast, visually.

I love people saying bu bu the beta..do you even know what beta means? beta is almost the representation of the final product dont expect it to look much better or feel different.MojondeVACA

you should really get properly informed. This is multiplayer footage and beta's still get worked on, like the guy said above, they don't just stand their and wait 5 months untill its due out.

imo its just overhyped futuristic COD 4Lidve

so what?

Halo is an overhyped Metroid/Half-like wannabe.

Gears is just an overhyped futuristic Resident evil/killswitch

see how stupid that sounds? everyone copies everyone, if the ideas work. as long as it plays good and its fun. Both Halo, Gears, Hopefully K2 are and should be fun. K2 has a lot of great things going for it, not just great graphics, but a solid online system, great gameplay, animations...etc.

i will wait and see, but what i've seen so far its looking good.

another thing, there's no doubt that epic have pushed the 360 a lot, considering what they are trying to achieve. common sense tells u that there is only so much u can do on a fixed console. so if gears 3 was on the 360 (which is very unlikely) it wouldn't look different at all. thats why usually 2 sequals are made for one generation.

but over time when better tools are out and more can be done, with shortcuts and tricks, you can always improve on something. Halo 1 had more poly counts on Master chieft, than the sequal. but thanks to some improved tools and what not, you can get the same look.

a lot also depends on the developers and there abilitie to make great art and engines.

these threads are tiresome, i'm starting to think these boards are filled with you know what.

anyways, its been proven that both the 360 and PS3 have similar hardware strength, with some minor advantages here and there, what your saying is just silly, for the fact that what ever the PS3 can handle, the 360 could too. Many think the 360's GPU is slightly advances, and the friendly hardware helps devs to further push the console.

if Gears of War 2 was on the PS3, it would most likely be pushing the PS3 A LOT too. keep that in mind.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Espada12

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.

This is ALOT of speculation, what makes you think the BR player made the PS3 release when it did? Also getting out quicker doesn't mean more support (hi dreamcast), MS arranged to get more support(they still do), what I do agree with is that w/o the BR player it wouldn't have cost 600 US at launch but it still would have been more than the 360.

don't even bother comparing with the dreamcast, sega was in finacial ruins.

I recall reading about Bluray diodes not being ready. so thed delay happened.

Sony would have a lot of support from the get go, considering the situation with the PS2.

I dont know about you, but I love Blu-ray. :)

PS1 - CD. PS2 - DVD. PS3 - Blu-ray

MightyMuna

me too, but it seems kinda early, for the consoles. stand alone would have been fine up untill the PS4.

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Espada12

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.