[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="WORDTOYOFACE"] add's replay value i hope that awnsers your question. MODERN GAMES HAVE NO REPLAY VALUE. gamespot's rating system is a total joke they dont even rate replay value anymore.WORDTOYOFACE

They do, actually, it was one of the flaws mentioned in Shadows of the Damned (reviewed by Tom McShea). I wouldn't say it's a vital component of all games, however.

Tom McShea explicitly mentioned that the lack of New Game + was disappointing and damaged the replay value. It's the only flaw in the game I remember him mentioning so ardently in the vid review.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

There are a few cases where one version is better than the other by a noticeable amount (Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Bayonetta), but the difference is usually minimal. If those people actually cared about the differences between systems, I'm sure most would just choose a PC. What it boils down to is controllers, really, and their personal preference. The differences between the two consoles are usually laughably small.

2Chalupas

Out of those three games that I bolded, Bayonetta is the only one that I would call the inferior version. Dragon Age has a couple extra small textures and shadows which don't matter, and Fallout 3 was indeed inferior at launch but it got patched and works fine now. I know because I used to have the 360 fallout 3 before I got it on PS3 and the ONLY difference I notice on the PS3 is that some textures pop up a little faster and slightly more jaggies in the distance, everything else is the same.

Actually Dragon Age: Origins on PS3 was deemed the "superior" of the console versions by all the review sites, at least with it's textures and graphics holding up better. But the framerate was pretty terrible in my experience, the DLC especially was *almost* unplayable (it took ALL of my patience to 100% this game). Even a minimal improvement on 360 would have helped becuase it was pretty miserable on PS3. But I guess the framerate on 360 was nothing to write home either for the PS3 to still win based on it's texture qualities. This is an example in my opinion where the differences don't matter, because either way the game is way off with all kinds of technical problems... whereas all technical problems are removed on the PC version.

The game itself was amazing but this is one I really want to replay on a PC that can maintain 60+ frame easy - my understanding is even a mediocre graphics card can pretty much destroy this game, which is what made it especially annoying that they couldn't at least get the framerates REASONABLY smooth on the console versions... at least they achieved that with Dragon AGe 2, a shame the game itself did not compare to Origins.

Yeah, framerate was a big problem for the game. I still ended up loving it, but it's a game I'll be getting on the PC when the price drops (still costs a fortune here).

[QUOTE="93BlackHawk93"][QUOTE="WORDTOYOFACE"] mario 3 had cooperative, why not build upon it?WORDTOYOFACE

They do, actually, it was one of the flaws mentioned in Shadows of the Damned (reviewed by Tom McShea). I wouldn't say it's a vital component of all games, however.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Out of those three games that I bolded, Bayonetta is the only one that I would call the inferior version. Dragon Age has a couple extra small textures and shadows which don't matter, and Fallout 3 was indeed inferior at launch but it got patched and works fine now. I know because I used to have the 360 fallout 3 before I got it on PS3 and the ONLY difference I notice on the PS3 is that some textures pop up a little faster and slightly more jaggies in the distance, everything else is the same.

ShadowMoses900

I only have a PS3, but the patches don't excuse the vanilla product. Many buy games at launch so that would be a potential problem. My PS3 version at least crashed a ton and had some awful draw distance and jags that were more apparent than on the 360. And I'm not a fan of how DA:O looks on the 360, looks even worse than the PS3 version (looks were not DA:O's strong point).

Well I didn't have the PS3 fallout 3 version at launch so I don't know, I just know now it's fine. And I don't see any significant difference between Dragon Age on 360 or PS3, infact I think Gamespot was the ONLY review site to claim it was superior. I don't care because as I said I don't see it in the first place so it doesn't matter.

Even then, it's really only a superficial difference. Basically, I completely agree with you, it's negligible at best.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] Pathetic sounds about right.MFDOOM1983

So you have diligently scouted for 3rd party games on the Wii? If you have, then I'd assure you that there is a good number of great 3rd party titles. Just none of them are multiplats.

Comparatively, I might agree. I'm talking about by itself. For me, at least, the Wii has enough 3rd party titles to entertain myself and I don't see why it has to be "pathetic". I can agree with underwhelming, comparatively poor, even weak, but pathetic? That's implicating that there's next to nothing, which is far from the truth. But if you have researched it, then you have at least made an effort. I appreciate that.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] Pathetic sounds about right.-Snooze-

So you have diligently scouted for 3rd party games on the Wii? If you have, then I'd assure you that there is a good number of great 3rd party titles. Just none of them are multiplats.

The mere fact you have the " diligently scout" for a decent third party title, speaks volumes about the poor support.

How do you not see that?

I don't have to. I can find good 3rd party games on the Wii rather easily. I just don't like hyperbolated responses about entire systems. There are plenty of 3rd party games that I have seen on the Wii, and that he hadn't noticed them means that he had to search more diligently.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

There are a few cases where one version is better than the other by a noticeable amount (Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Bayonetta), but the difference is usually minimal. If those people actually cared about the differences between systems, I'm sure most would just choose a PC. What it boils down to is controllers, really, and their personal preference. The differences between the two consoles are usually laughably small.

ShadowMoses900

Out of those three games that I bolded, Bayonetta is the only one that I would call the inferior version. Dragon Age has a couple extra small textures and shadows which don't matter, and Fallout 3 was indeed inferior at launch but it got patched and works fine now. I know because I used to have the 360 fallout 3 before I got it on PS3 and the ONLY difference I notice on the PS3 is that some textures pop up a little faster and slightly more jaggies in the distance, everything else is the same.

I only have a PS3, but the patches don't excuse the vanilla product. Many buy games at launch so that would be a potential problem. My PS3 version at least crashed a ton and had some awful draw distance and jags that were more apparent than on the 360. And I'm not a fan of how DA:O looks on the 360, looks even worse than the PS3 version (looks were not DA:O's strong point).

Zelda number 1 and Pokemon number 2? Ohoho, how I disagree:

5: Donkey Kong
4: Pokemon
3: Super Smash Bros.
2: Metroid
1: Mario

Bam! In your face, Char! (sorry, I just want to be a bit mean for once :P)

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"] I read it, I"m just stating why it failed to delver to me personally. I didn't think it was big revelation on your part stating the obvious fact that the Wii has pathetic 3rd party support.Heil68

Pathetic isn't the word I'd use. It's got many strong 3rd party titles, you just have to look for them.

Why did you stop trying :P You picked the wrong games, mate, it's not the system's fault.

There are a few cases where one version is better than the other by a noticeable amount (Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Bayonetta), but the difference is usually minimal. If those people actually cared about the differences between systems, I'm sure most would just choose a PC. What it boils down to is controllers, really, and their personal preference. The differences between the two consoles are usually laughably small.