TE_Lawrence's forum posts

Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
[QUOTE="TE_Lawrence"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]As soon as I heard they were putting FPS levels into Warhawk to "break up the flying" I lost interest. It seems odd they would bring back the franchise and then totally bastardize it by making it a hybrid-FPS...bballboy986
Exactly what I felt, especillay because them ground combat seemed to have no solidfied purpose at all other than being there. IMO they should remove the ground aspect but still keep the fighting ground armies... do I make sense?

Yeah, you mean just have a ground war going on but don't actually have the player participate in it (except for raining down some air support). When I first heard that they were adding the ground aspect, it made me think that they weren't confident about the flying mechanics/gameplay.

Thanks, it's good to know that I make sense from time to time. :D And I agree the lad battles seem more like a last second adition.
[QUOTE="Alpha2"]Not everyone wants a FPS, Warhawk is a FLYING game, yeah they added a few new vehicles and that will add to some of the fun but addign full on FPS levels? that sucks, if I wanted to "break up the flying" I'd turn it off and go play another damn game.
GoddBless
I was about to say the same thing. People buy flying games to fly, not get out and hoof it on foot. I remember playing Starfox 64 and Crimson Skies. There was never a moment where I said "man I wish I could get out the plane an shoot that guy" instead of maneuvering around and blowing him up.

Agreed, my biggest issue with the ground fighting is that it seems utterly pointless, why would one leave the plane? :? Surely one would be a lot better assistance from the air. The the 3'rd person gameplay needs a purpose like having to enter a building, a bunker or one of those gigantic enemy mother-ships, arease where the Warhawk is no use. Also I'd have liked to be a part of a squadeon both on ground and in air instead of playing the lone wolf. Maybe being part of a huge air battle with a simultanious ground battle. The E3 '05 video made me think that one was part of that huge fleet. :(
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
Not even a blind fanboy would predict such silly Halo 3 sales or think that it costs twice the amount to develop a PS3 title. Supporting this so called "article" is like putting a "kick me" sign on ones own back :? This uninformed "article" can be added to the pile of BS the Inquirer has been letting out.
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
Is it a confirmed new game or is it more a "I would like them to make a new game" topic?
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
that game looks really....really...really crap. I play golf (yes in real life) very often and why you'd want to play that when you could play Tiger Woods PGA Tour 200x i don't knowGenTom
So that's your opinion but it doesn't change that Hot Shots Golf/Everybody's Golf/Minna No Golf is a million seller and the best selling golf game in Japan.
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
[QUOTE="BenderUnit22"][QUOTE="d_agra"]

[QUOTE="BenderUnit22"]considering there are a lot less PAL games than NTSC games I don't care. Oh, and stop bringing up the price argument, the 360 costs almost as much more (the ratio is abot 1.38 for the PS3 and 1.36 or so for the 360 in the UK).d_agra

How is that? a 360 cost £265 with extra wireless controller and game like gears of war..!!i dont start that stuff about its the same price if you add the HD drive!!Secondly ad least we have achoice about HD drive but sony just throws bru-ray down our mouths

i dont know why people are even defending sony!! they really screwed up

Talking about launch prices here (prices from amazon.co.uk): X360: £279 = $545 $545 / $399 = 1.36 PS3: £425 = $830 $830 / $599 = 1.38 1.36 to 1.38, almost same ratio

It doesnt matter about what ratio it is

the fact of the matter 360 is  nearly £150 less..and thats a lot of money for the average person!!

And the 360 is sold with a profit while the PS3 is sold with a loss. In case you haven't noticed the PS3 got more expensive components and not it's not because of the Blu-Ray drive.
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts

Fixed

What's wrong with people here? You act like thinking is the devil. :?

1. It's because of European taxes that the PS3 cost more just like the 360 cost more.

2. It's not Sony's fault that countries like UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland), Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and so on chose not to be a part of the Euro Zone.

3. The minor difference in exchange rate for the none Euro countries is due to the price being set with almost a years difference and as we all should know the exchange rates constantly change.

4. Europe is part of the PAL region meaning that the TVs follow different specs.

5. Only very few people in Europe compared to North America and Japan got HD TV. And as people should know by now the issues with B/C is that PS and PS2 games were never designed for HD TVs.

6. It's people who do the software and they can't do it all in one day, and the NTSC issues were more prominent because both Japan and North America uses NTSC TVs and the PS3 was already released there.

Only a brain-dead monkey would spent the resources on making B/C in the PAL region look better while people in North America were complaining about their B/C.

7. North America and Japan didn't have perfect B/C out of the box at day one either.

Sony had the focus on delivering bug free hardware as the software this time around is going to be updated through Firmware updates.

Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
:shock: those pictures makes the TGS build look like a PS2 title.
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts

[QUOTE="firestorm91"]What I don't get is how Sony had ALL this time (delaying the PS3 launch) to make killer games (not all Sony developers are working on the PS3) and now we are stuck waiting for the PS3 to climb a mountain. Sony put themselves in a position that they never had to be in. :( I just hope everything works out...pimperjones

Exactly can you believe Sony spent 130 million on "Stealth" which made like 2 dollars. Even with hollywood martian accounting Sony had to have at least spent 100 million on that turd. If Sony spent 100 million on PS3 launch titles we'd have like twice the amount of games we have now and wouldn't have to stand 360 fanboy redicules.

:?

Movies got bigger budgets because there's more sources for financing them like product placement (You do not see VAIOs in Sony's games) and there's also more sources for revenue (Cinema release, video release, out-leasing to TV channels) where the box office alone many times surpasses the production budgets.

Yes Sony made a blunder with Stealth in 2005 but the director had previously made two box office hits xXx and The Fast and the Furious (a wonder people only realised that his movies suck when Stealth was released).

Another thing is that those money could not have been moved to a game because they came from different investors, a way to split the risk, the big studios should be more seen as publishers for other movie studios than sole investors.

In the end taking risks which may end up as flops has brought Columbia Pictures from the edge of bankruptcy to the annually highest or second highest grossing studio for the last 5 years (2005 was a total blunder) and setting the record for highest annual box office gross twice.

Did anyone read the article? Why not argue his points instead of flipping out over the word "inquirer" its not a tabloid article by any stretch. JiveT

No it's worse, have you even bothered to look at its previous articles? The Inquirer has been way off so many times that it has become the laughing stock.

It's so sad that it's not even funny and what is the point of debating something not even people in System Wars wouldn't waste time on?

Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"] alright, though I totally see what you are saying you forgot they have games that can do this. They intend to use games like FF to showcase the Cell's powers. Nobody wil argue either when they see these games.sportwarrior
Yeah I just chose not to include those first party games in my argument. It's been my experience that FF fans are generally Sony/PS fans already. Games like FF and GT and even MSG4 cannot be considered as games that will drive console sales because, again, they're all largely tied to Sony fans already. MSG has a counterpart in Splinter Cell, GT with Forza or PGR. I'm talking games with broader appeal. Games with massive amounts of marketing power like a GTA. Those are the games that drive console sales, and Sony failed to lock any up.

:? this kind of "reasoning" makes me dizzy.
Avatar image for TE_Lawrence
TE_Lawrence

6934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 TE_Lawrence
Member since 2005 • 6934 Posts
Reminds me, they should have brought back the inside view.