@Gbullet I understand your sentiment, but truth is, people do like the extra stuff. A few weeks ago MS announced that for the first time users connected to LIVE used the console more for streaming media and apps than to game.
OTOH, most of this stuff is easy to ignore on the PS3. It's one of the reasons why sometimes I hope Sony doesn't rise to the top of the pecking order, as long as it keeps the whole thing profitable so to maintain itself. Let the majority use Netflix on MS's console, I just want to play games like Journey, or even be able to play online with no extra charge or hoops to jump over.
I apologize if "Americanitis" sounded offensive. The only real intention was to add a bit of humor. If you could read some stuff I've written on my own language you'd know that if I have any bias against any people, it's my own (Brazilians). To the point I won't suffer living here for one more year if I can avoid it, no matter where I go (no, not a new alien coming to the US - if I had the desire to go the illegal route I'd had done it 15 years ago).
About the Battlefield statistic - I see that the point of the article was the controller thing. I just wanted to point out that this isn't the only reason why people choose one or other version of a game, FPS or not. And that was also a hook to dispute the brand recognition part. It's only natural for the Xbox brand to be more recognizable in America, and it would be foolish to hold any grudge against Americans for that. It happens in many industries in many countries, Brazil included - as any foreign car manufacturer trying to grow here would tell you. So I thought it would be good to remind everyone that maybe that recognition thing doesn't follow in other countries.
All in all, the only intention was to add more info to an already informative article, info the author may not be privy too - and shouldn't, as most of it is too obscure even for some local gamers. Gaming platform giants' perspectives are global, and all these little things count in the end.
@godofwar210495 @Elnath10 Conversely, the d-pad on the Dualshock is way better for fighting games, and so on. Things are rarely simple. Lots of nuances.
@googlematt Tell me where did I lump anyone in any group whatsover and I'll retract.
Re-read my comment again without the butthurt/defensive attitude and you'll see I said "just a little bit" - exactly because it was just ONE point out of a "good article overall" (my own words).
I also never even got close to comment on the controller issue for FPS.
Please don't read anything between the lines that's not there at all.
@Ares360 Yeah. People talk a lot about LIVE's superiority, and while this is still true, the gap has diminished a lot in the last couple of years (recent security fumble notwithstanding). It's been a while since I had any major performance problem with online play or update downloads on PSN, and Plus is a way, WAY better deal than Gold, which gives me no free games at all.
@mav_destroyer Nah. In fact, it hurt Sony very bad to include backwards compatibility this gen. Only when they released a cheaper PS3 (only possible due to the removal of backwards compatibility, amongst other small things) they left the absolute dirt of the first one or two years in the market.
The reality is that we come here and say we'd like to have backwards compatibility, but in practice, almost no one uses it. And even if they did, that would hurt sales of new games and IPs due to easy access to cheaper, acclaimed titles from the current gen. Imagine this: someone who owns an Xbox, a Wii, or no console at all walks into Gamestop and gets a PS4 with backwards compatibility. He/she now will proceed to the games. He/she can buy an Uncharted dual-pack for $30-40 (or the GOTY version of Uncharted 2 if you must) or The Last of Us for US$ 60. No matter how good The Last of Us proves to be, which do you think most people will pick up?
Note that a similar effect already happens within any given console's lifecycle. People are way more likely to pick the next CoD than, say, Dishonored. New consoles are the best chance to reverse this trend for a while, as people are more willing to get anything that works great in their new home toy, and backwards compatibility hurts it some.
Good article overall, but it suffers of Americanitis just a little bit.
For example, Battlefield 3 global sales are about equal in both consoles, with only a 10% difference (http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=battlefield+3). The only reason why it still sold better in the Xbox globally is the fact that America still is the biggest market there is. Looking at that link, you can see that the game sold better on PS3 on the rest of the world. And it's not surprising, as the Xbox version is terrible if you don't have a MS hard drive to install the texture pack (my case until very recently, BTW). Most American gamers probably have a recent Xbox console with the built-in drive, but that probably isn't true for the whole world.
America's share of the pie will most likely be reduced a bit in the next gen as the platform holders move towards overseas representation and certain countries start to lift taxes and other impediments to the growth of their gaming markets. One example is Mexico, which went from essentially zero share to become the 8th (or 6th, can't remember) biggest market in the last three or four years, all thanks to new tax policies alone.
Once that happens, things could look brighter to Sony as the Playstation brand is way more recognizable than the Xbox brand in Europe, Asia and Latin America. And Microsoft knows this - for example, they're pushing their hand in Brazil to establish a foothold here before the next generation starts, anticipating a healthier market soon as the government talks about revising tax policies. Brazil has about the same population as the US but with a fraction of a fraction of the sales. The potential for growth is enormous. Microsoft has the right idea here, and Sony should counteract fast too.
Carolyn gave a better score to Max Payne 3 than Diablo II-2. She's my new hero.
Before anyone jumps in calling me a Rockstar fanboy or pointing out the painfully obvious, I friggin' now already that comparing the two doesn't make a lick of sense. The point is that giving Max a better score still could (and will) generate a lot of flack from a wide variety of fanboys, from Blizzard ones to PC master race members, and she still had the balls - ahem - to look at both games critically. Fact is, Max Payne 3 still feels a step or two ahead in the series, while Diablo II-2 is a step forward (streamlined interface) and two back (online requirement, buried customization options). The scores reflect this.
Finally got the game yesterday and played 5 hours straight, something I had not done this year for any other game save Mass Effect 3 and Darkness II.
Very surprised on how it plays pretty much like the original despite all modern bells and whistles. Sure, there's cover and now your bullet time/shootdodge is cancelled if you hit a wall or other obstacle mid-jump, but they feel like they're so integral to the game that I believe the original would have indeed these features if Remedy could pull them off at the time.
And this is one of the most seamless narratives I've ever seen in a game. Note I'm not saying it's *fantastic* or anything (I know the whole plot already, I've worked on its translation to my native tongue), but it flows very, very naturally when you're playing. The transition between cutscenes and gameplay is on par with the latest Uncharted, and the game never pulls you off this immersive state.
And the multiplayer? Goodbye Gears, goodbye Uncharted, goodbye Gotham City Impostors... Sorry, I loved every minute with you, but Max Payne 3 multiplayer is addictive as all hell, and it's as polished and varied as all you three combined.
What did you do in the previous games 95% of the time?
Answer: run, dodge, shoot.
Yeah, I do remember the hallucinatory scenes. Where you ran, picked up the phone, ran some more, and then had to walk instead of running so not to fall off an imaginary ledge. Great difference. And they didn't amount to 20 minutes in a 10+ hour game anyway.
Selective memory is a b*tch. The 1st game was great and STILL was a regular shooting gallery. Just because it's cool to complain about shooters it doesn't make EVERY shooter inferior.
RealFabioSooner's comments