@GunGriffin That's incredibly biased. You shouldn't be suprised you can use a piece of tech longer then 12 hours in one go, if a device is prone to break because of that they should go back to the drawing board. Sony had 2 major slip-ups this generation, price and release date. If Sony hadn't, Microsoft may have pulled out like SEGA did a few years ago. The original Xbox didn't sell brilliantly and lacked the niche Nintendo had with Wii. Wrong. Epic own the Gears Of War IP, they can do what they want with it. It was announced by them earlier this year. As far as Epic are concerned going multiplatform means a bigger potential market and bigger profit, all the while Epic own the IP the only way Microsoft can ensure exclusivity is by paying them off handsomely because they're not bound by contract like Bungie were. Also, just look at Tomb Raider, Tekken, GTA, Bioshock, Dead Rising, Crysis, Mass Effect...etc... and developers like Bungie and Valve; all were exclusives once but have since gone multiplat. It's not nonsense you know. Either way though, he clearly posted that message referring to Crysis 2; just look at the link.... It just looks as if you felt like having a rant against someone for no other reason then he wanted to see Gears on his system of choice which is 100% down to opinion.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

@Raxyman Lol true, PS3s been getting alot of big releases lately. Don't fret though, Insomniac (Resistance, Ratchet And Clank), like Bungie (Halo) though are working on two multiplatform games which will be on 360,and Gears 3 and Forza 4 are out this year so it's not all bad.

Being mainly a PS3 gamer I'm quite jealous that Xbox still has this title to itself. The main PC games I wanted to come to PS3 have, Mass Effect 2 and Crysis 2. If Gears went to PS3, my Xmas list would be all crossed off, lol. It's looking good although I don't see any major changes from Gears 2 yet, that's not a bad thing I suppose because it was a solid game. I have a 360 but I don't use it and I can't see myself paying £80 (including Live) just for one game sadly. Guess I'll have to make do with Uncharted 3 for my TPS fix this year?

@BuLL3Tz-_ One hit for a melee kill is the standard for almost all FPS games now. The C4 was always used like that online in the original, it's not like they're hard to spot. Lastly Killzone isn't a run and gun shooter, it's often about tactical, stealth squad play online. I don't know why every fps has to be compared to CoD, CoD has little advancement from game to game, poor servers and has children squabbling over the headsets. Killzone's as much like CoD as Motorstorm is like Gran Turismo 5.

@wawasjohn Battlefield has one problem Killzone doesn't, EA. Their servers are jokes, some people getting kicked out. As a game Battlefield is superb but EA lets it down with its shoddy servers.

@Danagan Maybe that's a hint at Killzone 4. They had to leave their options open.

Killzone despite its moderate sales manages to be an underrated fps, it's superb but doesn't get the credit it deserves.

People are cheapskates and whingers these days. If you can't afford it wait for it to drop in price, simple.... That aside that's the retail price, you'll find it cheaper then that.

@amaan4ever There's a considerable difference,if you can't see it you should see an optician.All four are running off what is essentially the same engine,you won't see graphical differences on the scale that Crysis and Counterstrikes are when you compare the two.Black Ops has the grittier,darker look,better textures and far better facial animation.Modern Warfare 2 appears to have better lighting,then again Treyarchs games have always been darker. The AK47 pictures show the graphics have improved,look how blurred the rear end of the CoD 4 AK is.