If this can happen to Haze, one of the most hyped PS3 games of the last 12 months

It can happen to MGS4

Nick_D7

Show me anyone who actually believes Lair and Haze were ever the quality that MGS4 will bring. Putting them together is laughable at best.

Ever heard of Uncharted? Ever heard of Warhawk? I guess not.

Have you even read anything on MGS4? Obviously not. Otheriwse, you wouldn't have wasted your time here.

[QUOTE="StringGuard"]

No, you're not on target.

- You say PS3 hasn't/won't be able to "deliver" for the whole year. Who is? How has the 360 been delivering? How has the Wii been delivering? You make it seem as if PS3 has one or two good months this year and the other two are banging them out every week. Come on.

- Ever heard of Socom? Wipeout? Siren? There are some big names from prior gens yet to be seen that will release this year.

- When it comes down to it, PS3 will still outsell 360 for 2008, world-wide. With that said, I'm not sure how you could say its 360's year.

Tragic_Kingdom7

It's quite appearant that you can't read.

I never said it was the 360's year, I clearly said it was a stalemate. I never even mentioned the Wii.

Socom, Wipeout and Siren don't dominate anything. I don't even know what the hell Siren is.

But please, feel free to show me where I said it was the 360's year. I'll be waiting...

Its obvious that you don't know Socom either.

Guess what, even if its a smaller fanbase game like Wipeout, PS3 has the history to pull from. All 360 has is Halo. And that wad was already blown last year without much help to 360 console sales.

Again, how can they stalemate when they won't tie on sales? One will sell more than the other.

Yeah, let's take that review score as the gospel. Becausze we all know GTA4 was a 10/10, right? :lol:

Seriously. They want to tank on issues that actually exist in Haze, fine, it should be done. But don't knock it for the same issues I see on every street of Liberty City.

Just more proof that basing opinions off of reviews is self-defeating.

No, you're not on target.

- You say PS3 hasn't/won't be able to "deliver" for the whole year. Who is? How has the 360 been delivering? How has the Wii been delivering? You make it seem as if PS3 has one or two good months this year and the other two are banging them out every week. Come on.

- Ever heard of Socom? Wipeout? Siren? There are some big names from prior gens yet to be seen that will release this year.

- When it comes down to it, PS3 will still outsell 360 for 2008, world-wide. With that said, I'm not sure how you could say its 360's year.

[QUOTE="StringGuard"][QUOTE="kingkui"]

Gameplay > Graphics

Always has always will.

CreepyBacon

Which is why MArio fo today looks just as boxy and pixelated as the mario on NES. That's why all of these console makers and developers over the past 30 years, or whatever, have improved on graphics every step of the way. That's why handhelds now have color instead of the original gameboy with black and yellow.

I hate this argument with a passion. I hate the "teh gameplay>graphics" crap. Because that's all it is. Game is a merger of vision, hearing, and interaction. They all must be there to create a satisfying experience.

Don't twist it.

What are you going on about? If a game has crappy graphics but amazing gameplay it's *still* a good game. If a game has amazing graphics but the gameplay is crap it's known as "broken". It's not fun, it's frustrating, rubbish, boring.

Gameplay>Graphics

Everytime. I've never understood why graphisc where the end all of a game, if there not good it's gotta be rubbish, it's stupid. Ninja Gaidens gameplay is what you buy a Ninja gaiden game for, no one EVER buys it for graphics.

Go play pong on atari and tell me how many hours of fun that is, dude. The controls work great, the gameplay is there, why wouldn't that be fun?

Are you telling me that playing super mario brothers with mario galaxy's graphics wouldn't be better? Are you telling me that is you released GTAIV in April with GTA Vice City's graphics but with today's gameplay that it would sell?

Again, they all go hand-in-hand. Otherwise, why have graphics impoved so much? Why have game makers put so much time and money into it? Answer these questions, then realize how wrong you are.

Let me explain this to you boys, again.

Paying for live, from its release up until PSN adds in-game XMB and Home, is worth every penny.

But once PSN offers all of the same major features, not much of a reason to justify even a dollar charge from MS.

That isn't to say MS won't revamp Live at some point and add value somewhere no one else has. And at that point, paying will, once again, be justified.

And before anyone gives me "teh live has so amny games and movies", I could care less. XBLA is known very well in the industry of the whore house for small downloadable games. Finding needles in haystacks isn't a huge plus to me. Quality is all that matters. And there's no "major" edge for XBL there.

Gameplay > Graphics

Always has always will.

kingkui

Which is why MArio fo today looks just as boxy and pixelated as the mario on NES. That's why all of these console makers and developers over the past 30 years, or whatever, have improved on graphics every step of the way. That's why handhelds now have color instead of the original gameboy with black and yellow.

I hate this argument with a passion. I hate the "teh gameplay>graphics" crap. Because that's all it is. Game is a merger of vision, hearing, and interaction. They all must be there to create a satisfying experience.

Don't twist it.