So console or PC/DOS games? Which one was better. PC or Console? Basically, console games are good but PC games are better in terms of everything. Ever since 1993 I can remember PC games being a generation ahead of its time. Consoles come close and even surpass the PC gen when they are released in terms of graphics. This trend started when the Dreamcast was released. Ever since then Consoles were able to always excel in certain genres anyway other than the FPS genre. This will be a short post because the answer is obvious, PCs are superior.

You may think Pcs are Unstable? Not from a theoretical point of view. Pcs can do something consoles can't and thats run fps games with mouse and kb. Pcs are just a neat way to multi-task. Example, when i was a mugen dev back in the day, PCs were a major factor to my problems. I never could get them to work with a lot of programs until now. The fact is mugen crashes and was known to, but with a lot of knowledge, things like video accel turned down would fix that. A PC is problematic because of ram resources. If too many programs take up ram, eg unknown spyware, its going to be a hazard. Also PCs have no way to get hit franchises like halo etc. However, a 2002 game on an hd-converter will make your pc look like an xbox 360 game is running. Why play xb live when you get the same amount of fun on a 10 year old pc game at high def. The sixth gen showed it could be better than the PC, the seventh gen showed games are art, but PC has always been at that level somehow. PCs catch up fast, and 10 year old games never show age. Unreal tournament looks like it could compete with a hit xbox live arcade game but..say...a third party dreamcast, ps2, gamecube, or xbox 1 bandwagon game won't touch it in terms of graphics. My pc has a fighting game with over 200 characters and 400 stages. The game also hosts 2v2 matches and never crashes. When growing up PCs were so advanced as to have high def games with doom-like graphics whilst snes was released. It took literally 20 years for consoles to catch up technologically speaking. They have always been and always will be ahead of consoles and arcade because of their customizations, however consoles are catching up in the field due to limitations in power or slow downs in ram (see below). This is why they are superior and a reason why they will become inferior.

UPDATED! Dreamcast vs PC. Dreamcast was the first console to be released which was better than PC and Arcade because of its SH4. It was a dumbed down version of the ati video card and could compete with ps2, gc, and xbox 1 early. Here's the reason why. n64=3dfx voodoo2 tech (defunct) where it was incapable of scaling polies or rendering them whilst dc was 200mhz at around 128bits and 7m pps streaming off the disc. This meant it held more data than gamecube, and could stream or load faster instead of loading everything into the ram, using the ram inturn for graphics. That's why it was better than gamecube, and ps2 had no graphics capabilities like bumpmapping, only vertex shading because of its nvida tnt 2 technology. The Xbox 1 was just not fun. It was nvidia with large scale environments but wasnt fun. Dreamcast was really technology in par with gamecube because the sh4 was the first ati card so to speak. If PCs were better than consoles before 2000 you would see n64 be able to do games in realtime lighting like le mans, or be able to do particle effects in soul calibur or use the half-life or q3 engine. Ati and nvidia are on the top of the market. Ati though is the card PS4 and xbox 720 will have. DC also had the ability to be better than gc in terms of ports such as sonic adventure and soa not being able to hold the data or load it correctly, for that matter (no bumpmapping on sonic, gc is generally slower or it sacrifices gameplay for stuttering problems during gameplay). Dreamcast was revolutionary and def a 7th gen console. Dreamcast was the first console to have the videogame industry literally change in what seemed to be a 10 year leap in technology instead of a two year one. :) After getting my dc fixed recently, i thought of how elitist pc gamers are. The fact is PC gaming is expensive to maintain. For instance, with PC gaming you need to literally know your way around a pc, that's why I did both. I still play 2001-2005 pc games with my hardware, however I opted for consoles because I got too tired of buying console gaming. After Dreamcast came out, games on PC had to catch up and beat graphics within their lifespan, and its going to stay that way if not get better. Consoles though sadly lost their edge with only one advantage and that is exclusives. Albeit both are the same so my conclusion is the following.

Conclusion on PC vs Consoles

Actually, if you don't have a PC with the right hardware, it will most likely have issues, so a 400 dollar pc will limit your experience..and your games. Hardware on mbs can sometimes slow down, or not work (ie call of duty 1 on an ati xpress amd 64 2.0 runs slow, yet on a sony viao pc runs well...except CS Source can not even boot on the viao & runs at 30fps on the amd vm2 board both with onboard ati cards)...or dvdrws and 200gb harddrives will likely burn out above 70 degrees within a few months due to the circuit boards being soo compact (with a console its usually just a metal plate on the lens issue see also red ring of death solution). Updates are everywhere nowadays as well and will slow down the PC. PC is better in the long run, if youre tech savy and want to spend the money on custom building pcs. Consoles are easier and therefore more fun, but limited. My Cost effective solution is buy a cheap pc for non-gaming and console for gaming eg a stable sony viao with 2 drives will run you 40 dollars! Or buy a console only, with internet apps being available everywhere its easy. Unless youre really tech savy, console gaming is better but when it comes to graphics PC gaming is much better, but its also much more expensive.

I have noticed a plethora of games of which were released that have to do with history. Being an independent historian myself, this topic peaked up. While I am not going to focus on science fiction because of the lack of knowledge in their independent universes I will talk about historical videogames, and which ones should be created because they are fun. So here is a quick list of a few good historical games. Call of Duty series, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 1942-45 series, Stalker Shadow of Chenoybal (sci-fi horror) and a few bf mods such as the Iraq war one.

Urban warfare

COD has great urban warfare scenario, so a stalingrad mod would be perfect for it. Close combat warfare unleashed. A true depiction of the horrors and difficulties of war, and of achieving objectives. It is the only major urban warfare, although chechnya, and iraq had a few dozen battles in this scenario which werent made. There is definately a lack of substance here, or a fictionalized evolution from the cod series. No games out in this field, historically speaking but a great idea and fun to play. The turkish wars against sunni and shiite would be fantisful because both sides cooperate with another against israel, of whom is too powerful. Wierdly enough, the African wars in Somalia would be perfect for videogames. As seen in the game splinter cell, Africa like any other guerilla insurgency, has uburn conflicts in small areas. The advantage of guerilla warfare in urban areas is almost equal in strength due to the masonry of buildings shelling bombardments. Fake Muslim extremists are held up against their communist counterpart as part of a capitalist agenda. The enemies are usually arabic, like usual the collective of wars is usually of turkish descent against a religious arabic following that the mainstream tends to ignore. In the end though those small conflicts turn into large battles such as the Congolese war for capitalist gains or some dumb hidden agenda.

Mods and lack of Guerilla Warefare in fps

As you know, world war II is a hit franchise and their have been games made from the Civil War to the Vietnam War. The Cold war in fps is not going to happen, because it was made up of many smaller wars, such as the Korean War except that was even made in the form of sci-fi thrillers such as Stalker which would be a great Chechnyan war Mod. The Chechen fighters on one side, the Georgians on another and finally the powerful russians in a cod type guerilla warfare scenario (chechens would have heavy cia artillery, such as boozakas and homing missiles etc. the russians modern technology such as tanks, and planes and the georgians western advanced technology such as tanks and planes). This would be difficult because the Russians owned both of these forces, historically given the size and military strategy...historically speaking. Well anyways back on topic. There have been no unpopular war games, such as the Korean war and the Chechen war because well they were unpopular in the mainstream. They achieved nothing to benefit humanity, and sides were unequalized. The korean war because of military and timing and the chechen war the same. So this is why historically the games would be inaccurate. Korea, had no military at the time and got owned by usa until china was involved, and russia was too powerful as well. The Iraq war mods and games worked well in fantasy settings, and they worked well in certain battles (a great candidate for a jetfighter sim though). The Iran war was much the same as the former. Guerillas almost never win, sadly. Now what could have been the Hezbollah war of the 2000s with Israel could have turned the sides, but sadly Israel decided to pummel Lebanon instead (another idea for a great mod). The last great wars was with Germany and Vietnam. Advanced Technology has much blurred the lines today between sides. This and the fact that war isnt pretty so anything goes. I hope this clarifies why some games are popular and others arent. Because of unequality on both sides...and basically lack of some great ideas for mods on bf, counterstrike etc. Historically, Guerilla warfare has never won in sides except for in the civil war in the form of hit and run tactics, or strategic control, movement through terrain with hidden depots, supply traversion and checkpoints which no gamemaker has thought of doing, although it was popular in the american revolution (which no gamemaker will think of doing history+learning does not = a good idea although I think a strategy fps does) and in the old mongolese invasions. Having read books on guerilla warfare, I know what I'm talking about. Why make a game of a larger nation literally eating a smaller one? Which is usually the case. Seriously though, a modern war with great powers never really culminated recently either, because of fear of nuclear fall out or something. Think about it.

Before the 20th Century wars

Some Roman wars come to mind, as well as the Civil War. These games have never been done in fps, or done quite badly. The American Civil War is interesting because it is possibly the only war where a larger entity loses against a smaller one, given the military might head on, and technology at the time. Its also very complex. The battles are brilliant, and tactical terrain awesome. Open fields against largely forested ones. Another is the Carthage Punic Wars. This has two opposing forces, both equavalient in might go head to head against each other. And finally the Mongolese and Alexander the Great invasions are interesting. The small but significant advantages of one side against the other. The only problem I see in these field battles is replacing a BFG with a spear though and if a field fps were to be invented I would start with the greatest tank war of the 20th century in Kursk instead.

Land, Sea or Air

There have been many games which mimic war on land and sea, the best being strategy games, but only a few world war II games in this category. I can only think of Conflict Zone, except I know there are a few dozen WWII games in this category and in a flightsim arcade type of category. A submarine, or sea game is a must, from the Napolean invasion to World War I and II, this would be great except I am not sure what category it would be put in for fun. This article is about arcade, action games so this section is irrelavent and besides for WWII there are no arcade games in this category...only simulators. Simulators don't make good sellers and arent fun as well. With learning about history this is a deadly combination. Anyways these wars are usually made in simulation strategy fps games like Operation Flashpoint, or the Rainbow Six series and even in the strategy games like Men of War or a dozen others. The Fps arcade action wouldnt be there but you could find planned scenarios here.

*Update* Future of FPS realism

There were a few time traveling fps games for 360 like Darkest days, and some demos i played like America's army 3, which i thought was actually pretty good with its realism (compared to the god awful first game of the farcry series on 360). Other games include a plethora of other clones. Ever since the release of area51 blacksite, developers have tried a realism approach with Battlefield 3 being one example. Interactive environments and complete emersion. Although i can't pinpoint it eg shenmue was copying a 1995 3dfx game about crime alleys and streetbums, this trend tends to make the gameplay realistic with a bold new approach for fps cod, q3 ut gameplay. Oh yeah, it was a 1998 game called kingpin where bum killing was fun ala the 'postal' fps games. Ok well maybe that was a bad example, shenmue was good no great compared to the quake 2 engine. Anyhow sega for some reason makes the best detailed 3d graphics on the market from dreamcast to now. Lets move on from this drabble. These clones are fun, yet unlike say counterstrike or graw series it is not necessarialy the best. However the one shot one kill factor and multi-functions of most games do make it easier to play. A few take it a step further like conflict desert storm, operation flashpoint or delta force x because of the fact you can ride vehicles and go anywhere in immersive environments depending on your pc yet sometimes simple tactics are best so i give it to the rainbow six series.=]

Conclusion

Strangely enough though I have not thought of any close bunker world war I games released yet...possibly because its technology is too similar to its wwii counterpart or something, it would still work great though. Real Bunker warfare realized. Like the Prussian War, or a cavarly war with the Mongolian invasion, kids these days are just turned off to history it seems. A dull, mundane, lame excuse for a great idea.

In Racing:

From my experience, racing games became realistic in last gen's era and always excelled on PCs ofcourse. Although the Forza, Gt series are realistic in number of cars and physics they are not in the fact of environment. Gt being too dark with fake realworld settings and Forza's physics and car handling as well as crashes being 'impossible.' The most photo realistic game in this genre is probably Test Drive Le Mans for Dreamcast and what continued on to Xbox 360 is this series in its recreational original. Le Mans 24 hrs for Dreamcast has realworld lighting and effects to give that photo-realistic look in its replays as well (from a distance). Other genres, usually sports racing games because they have the fewest options and are the easiest to mimic in real life, are Motogp 2, and the Nascar series. Being an avid fan of realism because of the easier or more comfortable controls which arcade racers tend to avoid, any Sports racing series here are therefore included while exagerated realism not (for instance Grand Turismo is, Need for Speed or Burn out too arcadish with realistic elements). Most Excellent car physics in gaming as well, le mans and pc rally games coming in second. Test drive le mans and 4x4 evo is known historically in the subculture of console gaming for first game to pass for photorealism in replays via the 'dim eye' effect where one sees objects from a distance that pass for real-life footage (which techically gaming, realtime and even cgi have yet to accomplish or to get rid of the 'art draw' effect). These are by far the most photorealistic, with crash physics for anyone looking for the best of the best on their ps3 or 360. After seeing Splinter Cell (its shading technology was the first ever done, very impressive; graphics since then has not changed and is heavily used via the 7th gen) for the first time on the original xbox i was always interested in seeing what these machines could do in terms of realism. PCs have always had the advantage of textures in this category, lets move on to strategy.

In Strategy:

The only strategy games I know of and played on consoles are C&C and Conflict Zone. I can tell you rigt now realism in strategy games needs to be defined by how it plays and looks, not how it feels. Conflict Zone for Dreamcast and Ps2 is the closest you will get to a real weapons in a real world environment give or take on console. The realism test is taken from a topographical point of view and checks out fine as well.

In FPS:

First person shooters are good but sadly there arent any realworld fps shooters, unless you count strategy FPS like the Rainbow Six series or Operation Flashpoint. The most photo-realistic games would have to be the Battlefield series, although its physics are way out there, the game will prove to be the best in Battlefield BC 2. Real-world weapons and handling in a fast paced environment on 360 gives it this one. The smaller environment of the 360 than that of the ps3 makes this one almost perfect. 360's bf badcompany 2 is mainly better as a war game than ps3 because in ps3 the feel of the weapons and environment is more realistic, so its kind of like team formation vs weapon realism here or realworld environment (non-exagerated eg giant supermen on ps3) and textures with AAvs larger environments, realistic weapon effects and explosions. Photo-realism and real physics, really make you seem small and displays a good idea of a completly destructable controlled environment. For WWII, I would try COD 2. This outweighs the PC's famous MOH series and gives the player a real feel for what certain weapons in a small environment were like during world war II, surppasing the 1942 series in terms gameplay (decisive instead of random or strategical) not replay and story though (the story mode puts you as almost invincible in taking down armies single handedly). Personally the way to go is to any rainbow six sim whether it be delta force, operation flashpoint or battlefield. The new homefront is also a good game with large environments and lots of leg room. However, censorship is still an issue, as seen since the days of mortal kombat. Censorship comes from violent videogames, however, the realism in the games are what makes it dangerous eg the subtle differences between pc and console games like how the body swings backwards when impacted by a bullet in cod for pc and just drops unrealistically via ragdoll physics for the console versions. Cod 2 was still a fav for 360 though, due to the potshot factor and urban-like environments but particularly because of the sniper stages.

In Flightsim:

Flightsims have always been photorealistic on PCs, and its a tough call. The first series to display realworld physics was aerowings, with 'shiny' arcade graphics it could look photorealistic at times through replay but so could the arcady ace combat series. Ace combat was not as real in terms of physics so it doesnt count. It is like Airforce Delta, an arcade flightsim and the legacy of once was Afterburner for genesis. The best fightersim for the consoles that I can think of in terms of photorealism and physics are def. Over-G minus the confusing characters this one would be a winner due to the realism and accuracy to its real-life counter-parts. It could have worked if they got rid of the story board..seriously how many flightsims have ace combat 'sci-fi' storyboards, cus last time i checked ace combat was arcade flight, or had unrealistic elements, yet over-g, the only true flightsim and third party game for 360 was ruined with these elements. IMHO ruined. Might as well play warthunder or world of tanks. Like how the genesis's famous f15 strike-eagle shooter, arcade shooters should be arcade shooters in fantasy settings and realistic shooters should well be real. Personally, I would like to see realworld pilots maneuvering the crafts, it would make more sense then fictional cartoons as coops or friendlies. It is fictional esque, although their skills are rated and enhanced, they seem generic or not quite real-esque, on purpose compared to the realistically boring gameplay which works in a way. Except even if i'd still like to see a realworld simulator like aerowings, I doubt there will be one. Over-G is a combination of both, but as previously stated storyboards dont count, only physics and gameplay.

In Sports:

Finally in Sports or Other, for instance realistic fps strategy as well or gameplay that mimics life or the human form (of which oddly enough the Ps2 excels in dispite the hated controller and grain effect, it is the console you want to get for photorealistic sports game genres) we have games which are meant to be photo-realistic. These games are built to mimic the environment because, well, thats how they play. Some examples are Brothers in Arms, the Rainbow Six series and the plethora of Sports games such as the UFC series or the Madden series. These games are a given to realism. They may not have the importance of a racing/flightsim game's mechanical environment or the realistic nature of an fps but they do have one thing, and that is human movement. In consideration with this type of area are physics of the human anatomy, which in all likeness are the same, robotic motions. The next gen or CGI gen of gaming will play well here. Robotic mechanics of the human being will be ever more clear and at the same time FAST! Imagine playing UFC with every movement imagine fast and slow with great details and blurred vision in an open chaotic surrounding. Quiet a task to create indeed. Much is gained, yet much can be improved here.

In Handheld:

A rec handheld console for realism in the handheld market is of course PSP. See my first post on psp vs dreamcast. PSP has an advantage of environments being large. Therefore all types of games are done via psp with realistic accuracely or semi-realism. My own interpetation is that PSP is bad at graphics, but its cpu saves it from going under by creating large multi-purpose environments which the sony brand excels at. The CPU power as the central computer processor for AI. Psp alone in cpu can have multiple ai instruction set in environments. From test drive, to gta, to fps PSP has those realistic sony graphics which make ps2 so successful. Having 60 cars or so on the screen is more important sometimes than having say..moving clouds, sigma and people. Realistically speaking of course, the psp only beats ps1 in terms of graphics. Of course this does not save it from multi-tasking environments at a fast speed, eg msr and le mans but it does create a portable psone with the same graphics and better environments, the first handheld ive seen to beat a console technically and in the same era almost!

Overall, the best replays that you can find are career mode's motogp 2 series, le mans 24 hrs, Conflict Zone, Bf series and Over-g. These are great sims that you can find on consoles. Photo-realism is important because it creates immersion in a realworld environment and can be a good use for training, excersizes or real-world situations. Sadly, this interface is usually exploited on sim console games with storymodes in the mainstream for better or for worst. Ps3 games tend to stay away from PC with unique Asthetics and Authenticity while the Xbox 360 has art asthetics and style. In this category, the past consoles that excelled in graphical realism can now be beaten easily by the xbox 360, PC and ps3 as a universal standard in graphics despite the loss in certain past genre gameplay, storyboards and/or the unique hardware visuals at the time.

Analysis:

This post will be about the best controller in the history of videogames. From my experience, I have grown up in the game gen from atari 2600 to sega master system to xbox 360 and ps3. The best controller, matters to me as the most comfortable and durable. Obviously, the 16 bit gen takes this one, but the durability of the controllers puts in in second place while the 8 bit being in third as nintendo's square controllers being very comfortable and durable. The square design of the stolen sega master system puts it in last place (they broke easily although more comfortable then the nes)...while I like the sega genesis controllers for there comforability, their durability is flawed in every single design, being easily broken. While the 16 bit is in second place, the 32 bit is in third leaving the durability of the sega saturn and psone controllers...well...flawed until n64 and the second v. of sega's controllers leading the way (although n64's joystick was always easily broken as was saturn's plastic weak) + comfortablility is judged in 2d and 3d games making the famous n64 the best...for 3d only though (like nes 8bit is for 2d) dropping it from 1st to 3rd. Sega's axis pads were always better than the hurtful nintendo, except nintendo was better than sony (plastic pads would press inwards and sensitivity would literally no longer be there) and so on, so for 2d games it actually steadily got worst. The sega saturn was the most comfortable in this gen, while the psone was and always will be a little wierd on the wrist. Now that we have second, fourth and third place, lets move on to first place and finally fifth. First place is obvious, the 128 bit gen takes this one. Leaving Dreamcast, as big but comforable with new features. The second xbox controller is by far the best design ever surpassing the comforability of the xbox 360, and ps3 and it is by far the most compatible with PC games with a simple affordable usb adapter attachment. Ps2, and Ps3 hold its own so I wont even count the current gen (or at least just put it in with the 128 bit gen). So here you have it as follows:

1st place: 128 bit gen/256 pc gen 2nd 16 bit gen (first PC gen) and finally 3rd 32 bit gen 4rth 8 bit gen

Innovations:

Dreamcast invented the vmu, which sadly dissapeared (not the most comfortable, def heavy at times but the most fun to use bringing back old school elements imho), while it was what followed a horrible upright joystick design in future consoles, n64 was the only to get the joystick posi right followed by the near perfect psone of which only the wrist effect angles or tilted wings made it close but not as good. The rumble feature on dreamcast paved way for rumble function, instead of being just loud and clumsy like n64s 'motor.' The Saturn stayed true to 16-bit's small grips. This is important, yet wouldnt last. Xbox 360 is bye far the most technologically advanced, and playstation 3 as well. Combining motion sensors, rumble functions and wireless. What is now dubbed bumpers was inevitable to happen given the complexity of games. Wii is the most universal bringing oldschool back with wireless motion sensor (apparently for 3d) technical achievements and funfactor. Gamecube, not mentioned above, was great for all games and luckily the system was not built for fighting games (much like how n64 stayed away from 2d because of its technology). Nintendo has always reared its way towards fighting game destruction in controls and at the same time became universal due to the close proximity of its buttons. Xbox and ps2 invented the famous click joypads. This was cool, but not necessay for non fps gamers. The PC has always been there and done that of course.

Best Periphirals:

Flightsticks, fishing rods, keyboards, dancing mats arcade sticks. These were always essential for gaming so it is avoided (Unless it is the kb and mouse combo via bba quake III pc ownage via dreamcast or any fps for example). Sometimes its essential though, like when maneuvering in Over-G on 360 with a tilt formation, or aiming the machine gun with a flightstick (for dogfights). BTW the Av8r flightsticks etc. are useless without rewiring the buttons on this 360 1st gen game and personally I prefer a secondary chain gun configuration for the joystick (as the right one) or a flightstick mounted one. For instance, they are not widely compatible for console games like a kb and mouse with Conflict Zone for dreamcast (which is required in order to pass the first few very dif levels). Usually because they require a hardcore devoted gaming fan and maybe at least even one game ala virtual on, fishing games. Other times its just how you play it (and up to the developer's choice of compatibilities, hopefully made for most games). So in the end there is not really a bad or good periphiral, only a hardcore gamer who could probably beat anyone on your block8). In my case though strategy games will always need kb and mouse, fps realism as well although it can do without (360 as the best controller for this genre being proof of that). Sega Saturn is by far the worst built racing wheels, lacking both rumble function and grip. It is made for arcade racers only, putting it last on the list in this peripheral. PCs like always are first. Flightsticks need plane games and console fighters arcade sticks and so on, thats why PC is def. ahead in this category.

Conclusion:

PC's famous unique designs with the gravis gamepad and microsoft sidewinder put it in its own place with the 16-bit generation as durable and comfortable but only for certain games. Although the 8bit gen was a close call as being comfortable and durable, it did not change the face of gaming with its square features and was not usually easy to controller with 3d games. While the 32 bit was the most innovative with features such as the rumble function, and the joystick, it did not create a comfortable controller. Like how Dreamcast's controller hurts the wrist, Ps2/ps3 can hurt the coordination. Overall though DC is better or most comfortable when its light, without the vmu and rumblefunction. The second best rumble function goes to Dreamcast as well, with xbox 360 as the best, then ps2's wierd motor and finally N64 innovative but sadly last or worst. The trick with rumble functions is to make it not feel like its there, thats why 3rd party parts and controls are never included and thats why first party controls are, because of the feel, durability and strength of its products (eg third party rumblepacks are known to be horrid or built with cheap motors, designs are wierd or break easily etc but cheap! Memory cards usually dont fall under these categories). Fitting for the console but loud and not in charge, very annoying imo. The PC controllers after its first gen, well after the sidewinder and the gravis gamepad, were just redundant and boring mock offs. At that time those two controllers were an essential combo for 2d games and flightsims.

Aesthetics and Controller design

Most people prefer ps3 cases over xbox 360. I know this for a fact because the ps3 is usually the living room hd-tv console where the stereo equipment is. In actuality though, the xbox 360 belongs there. Ps3 belongs there for some rich expensive place for you to play videogames once every month or so BUT xbox 360 is reasonably aesthetically soothing and easy to find riddled amongst the dvd players and stero equipment. First it is not a bookcase, nor is it a file cabinet, extra stereo equipment or barbecue grill like the ps3 is. Second it stands vertically or horizontally, and screams videogame console. It is light therefor easy to switch inbetween computer and console. The Ps3 is also irrelevant, its size does not matter because aesthically it is not seen. The controller works preferably better than the redundant ps3 one. The Ps3 controller works well though for the casual gamer and is def. more comfortable. The xbox 360 brick is huge to see but never really there because noone really ever sees a powersupply.

Case design:past present and future.

Having grown up with dreamcast, xbox, psone and other consoles I know kids always want to find the videogame console and turn it on. 3do starting the ugly household dvd stereo console theme well before the age of where consoles looked like computers and after the age they looked like stereo equipment/dvd players. Sega had a few faults though. The sega addons were unfriendly to the eyes for anyone from this planet although the weird rare gamecubes durability makes THAT design passable. Saturn continued the dvd expensive player just because of its size, plastic and dark color (possibly giving microsoft and its xbox bad ideas for its first stable but ugly pc/console). Sega genesis, n64 and snes cartridge systems being designed exceptionally well because of its simple technology, light weight, durability and small size. Ps2 and xbox were not that friendly for young users one being huge and ugly the other being hard to use (basically even I had a hard time finding the power 'buttons' on ps2). Wii's design is just stupid..srry it just is. It looks like a minidvd player. Although it is easy to navigate like the old 360 menu and the dreamcast gamecube psone saturn menus and its nintendo games are for 'smart gamers' who just want to have fun. Well anyways to add for the cheap gamer majority who can't afford that expensive saturn, 3do, ps3 experience or whatever there was with there HDtv setup 360 being easier to hack/mod eg copied dvds without originals + 6 months free xbox live accounts. I have only one reminder. Its not the future just yet. Cheap gamers get 360/PCs, smart gamers wii and casual gamers ps3. 360 is just like last gens cheap gamers gen. If you want a gamers console get 360 if youre a casual gamer get ps3.

After playing both demos and growing up with the Battlefield 1942 series I contemplated which one is better in multiplayer. I thought both games were similar. Afterwhich I will post a quick blog upon this short concise review. Cod 4 is good for pro gamers...it has better graphics because the environments arent destructable and there are no vehicles but in the long run BC2 takes the cake. BC2 is alot better because BC2 has a better realistic approach. The problem with the cod series is that it feels like close combat indoor bunker kills/or frags. The BC approach has a wide open environment to put the sniper rifle into heavy use. With the sniper rifle your team wins. Except its too realistic. No way can one see where ones going or whats going on unless on a team in xbox live. BC2 has an easy combat system with a new engine while cod is much like Airforce delta to Ace Combat gameplay where it uses the quake 3 engine and only graphics change over time. The cover fire and the surroundings make it much more than that...but for a world war II setting it just gets too repetitive and better integrated for cod. Although if you must choose a world war II fps, make it MOD in vain of COD and 1942 bf. Onto gameplay on the bf series, medics the worst class is actually the best for small stages and full squads therefore it is essential to class swap constantly in this game. The glitches due to lag and right-left gamepad issues (eg i press left for a medkit or for a knife guess im not used to it) + campers are enough. Medal of Honor was all around what makes COD what it is. In the end though I reccomend BC2 because I suck at cod4...and besides cod4 has throw back grenades and dog attacks, its more innovative and fast pace. Console internet games like these are in great need of an autobalance though, it might harm the aesthetics but it plays fair. PS: Both seem to have a new age nationalist russian army adversary type thing going though one actually speaks russian(bf bc2) which is always def. a plus.

Mini-review after a quick playthrough

After playing the xbox 360 demo online, i played through the ps3 version of bf bc 2. The ps3 version is akin to being the best in single player probably...due to the cell architecture. Albeit the ps3 is good it lacks inconveniences in its realism. Such is the case when you have no shadows on your gun for the ps3 version, it sacrifices lighting effects for keen bumpmapping capabilities like the ps2 did before it and is a reason why gamecube's radeon was chosen over the pc/xbox 1's nvidia and will be the card of choice for ps4 and xbox one after it. It lacks in controller configs or at least it is more confortable on the akward ps3 to throw with the left hand. therefore I throw the grenade with the right hand and cut the fence with the left. Apparently its vice versa. This glitch should be graphically redone, or should have the controller config fixed I guess. Next time I wont complain, like if theres a volcano going off in the village mountain in the background, minor flaws and issues having to do with completion rather than complexity...also run as fast as a tuplev aircraft and get in the hanger from a hill lately? And another thing with mp, the ping needs to stay. Sometimes I get confused if thats my score or the bad host server's ping. Or at least have a scoreboard in conquest to make it challenging. Anyways art over preference and ps3 games is a must for unique asthetics and style. The complaints are all minor, egoistic ones and best be ignored or left alone. The glitches like when getting headshots with no contact are enough, well for most fps anyways but the new collision detection hl destruction engines makes this problem worst. I didn't get a good playthrough but for a few hours in mp, and it was hard for me in particalur because I am one of those people whom are good with strategy but not with tactics eg carthage sliced their enemies heals, thialand invaded burma with utter humilation and sucess, stalingrad was turned around via urban corridor and door-to-door warfare, however a grecian troy in athens took down darius's sumer with advanced technology, armor and tactics. In bf, it is unbalanced because of lack of stats and deathmatch scenario though eg Balance with noobs, noobs can not win in rush. It is simply because they lack the experience on where everyone is, even if they have skill they don't usually know where their team mates are, what they are doing or how they play. Noobs can not use large stages in this game and expect to play against rank 40s and up. The Cod vs BF review is the same way, one plays like Chess while the other like the eastern chinese game 'Go' where you appear where your enemy is not expected. Its more like a strategy turned fps type of thing. The arcadey 360 version pass I guess...and the game is more of an artsey balance, works well with the ps3 powerhouse. overall good story and highly rec so watever.

*Update*

"No Russian" {Spoilers}

An Updated BF3 Mini-review:

Sorry, no this is not a review of the legendary revolutionary game, modern warefare 2 but a quick bf2 review instead, which is still just as good. When I played through this game I thought it was interesting. The scenario, the story-arc and everything was better than BFBC2 in terms of imagination and depth, but BFBC2 still has the adventure-style callofduty type gameplay which this one lacks. Its always the russians causing problems except this time where we find out an entrepeneur from San francisco invests his hard earned cash on stolen Nukes!!! That's right, the CIA is tracking russian factions when in reality it was this guy the whole time. Who would have thought we would be fighting american muslims from San francisco!?! I have now a keen interest in Modern Warfare 2. The concrete graphics and tracers are interestingly incorporated and enhanced but the buildings are no longer able to be leveled and desert tank warfare via long distant travel mileage (ala gulf war scenario)is gone perhaps. I didn't see anything worst but better in improvement and realism. Makes more sense, and I could see this being a sim for the military actually. The side-stepping to dodge bullets when you run works too! Its THAT realistic. However I do have some qualms about the gameplay. If for instance you upgrd your munitions to say a game with noobs like bf2 in mp you will have an advantage by the way you play but in bf3 you need a really good tactic strategy or run if say youre on a small euro-italian esque stage with 4 tanks blocking the flags or snipers blocking the narrow corriders and small alleys. Not enough leg room, afterall these are made for mp only games. Big stages in this game means hard shots, and best of all no lurkers or cherry picking cheese tactics. In the previous game I remember alot of base camping and squating during rush where even noobs can win, but you still get the pros playing with the noobs in this game too soo...your friends will take potshots at you through objects and fences too..which was cheap (sometimes tanks are useful for tree clearing in deathmatch mode). At least People don't squad rush or base-squat as much.

The option I liked the most was the fact that they replaced the armies. Before it was us army, now it seems more of the usmc colors but that's a personal note or irelavant fact to point out. The Army colors in the previous game were good, but they lacked a little on the russian side. Was I playing with a serbian militia ot unknown country in the heart of slavia before? Maybe it was the Czech republic IDK. In bfbc2 it sure seemed i was. The distopian flag on the tanks (pic found here) and lack of russian weapons says so. Now the russian stripes of a post-communisitc era are clearly visible. As well, on a minor note of the story-arc, i kind of got the impression the side of your character Blackburn was like the bad guy working for the CIA, whilst the brasilian arabs being financed economically were good for some reason. With a powerful militaristic organization like that ruling the planet, any small organization like that would be looked at as heroes, actually. Isn't that technically how communism started? A handfull of individuals with different ideas? This capitalist entrepenuer whom seemed like the villain (Solomon) in the game must be some kind of hero or something. Interesting story-arc but not perfect and I give this one an A- at best.

I was thinking the other day, why videogame companies dont have good graphics if they arent japanese. I mention this alot in my posts, so it must be because the Japanese developers have some sort of artistic development. If you think about it, American companies wont touch fighting games and european ones also. Its not there style. They stick to a sci-fi fantasy genre type of gaming instead of japanime (technological advancements in realworld environments)...but still have a keen eye for talent and skills. Although they may not even be able to mimic fighting games, unless its something fancy like Mortal Kombat vs DCU but in the end, Japan wins. The leading companies like Tecmo, Namco, Sega and Capcom have always been on the top for unique artstyles, just like there animation. It can be done, it just needs alot of technical know how. Not American based companies like EA, Activision and ubisoft focus on that, they tend to make games with either more Realism or Animation never a style inbetween. This means detail+emotion that cant be duplicated in most realistic games PC gamers tend to delve into. The Games in Japan are like water, its culture goes back millions of years to the time of the Jews and so on. There is no way esoteric knowledge is not helping them win the war for art. They are Shintoists believers of life...so they, with the help of capitalism win. Japanese love playing arcade games and are better at making them. Personally, I was always into fast pace competive gaming as well. We all dig games. Except arcades are a great market and best of all not addictive. It makes the moment mean something, whether online or off. Now adays its coming to a crawl, but it will always be up there. Personally American realism will always feed the violent side of videogames, and who can beat a good MKII player? Noone, but streetfighter leans towards that fat and slow 'reject from society' guy kicking the skinny guys butt mode (no pun intended). Arcade made in Japan for the win. im out.

Xbox 360, or may I say Showoff box 360..my pun..has a plethora of hardware problems. Micorsoft for one does nothing, will do nothing for problems, except take up shares and marketing so I will list them and how to fix them. Economy is now useless in gaming because of them. The system wars...dead. Xbox 360 is what someone would call the videogame crash. It is made out of crap, marketed as a showcase for its neat menu. Its what maybe one person built with a machine in a small factory in mexico. But in the end it dies. Psfree and Wii win. Xbox 3shtty lose. After thinking alot about the marketing campaign..well scheme put up by them I took time to list the problems and the one I ran into. The failure rate can now reach 50 percent with what is listed taking videogame developers hard earned time for noone to play there games, whether it be arcade or not, and most of all money doesnt matter when you cheat in the end. This will be a gamer blog since im a money saver.

1.) The RROD. Bringing the failure rate to 30 percent, RROD means the console overheats. This has been taken care of, after devoted fans of videogames called gamers bought up to three xbox's from microsoft in less than a few months. Really though the engineers did not control the fan flow correctly, where in engineering term's heat is not an issue, see ps3. A minor engineer flaw turned mainstream is all it really was.

2.) The controller. The controller is lifeless. A heaping pile of garbage. What caught me after I realized it needed AA batteries is that the lifespan would go from 40 hrs. to 20 to 12 to finally 5 and maybe 1 hour for third party battery manufacturers. This is what it does in a few months...to battery life and well an unused controller duh.

In my case it was somehow severe. The battery was inclined. The contact inside bent inwards so I lined it with aluminum foil. What is common was the rumble pack shaking the contact of the batteries, and the plastic clamp no longer holding it in place (due to humidity or what is called ?plastic expansion and/or warping? for obvious reasons). What else happened was the joystick. When dry, its rotatory clamp breaks from ground plastic (most will remember the n64 effect:P), so I cured this with a little oil (any type of oil can be used)...misalignment.

To by pass this you need to put tape around the batteries. Electric tape preferably. Not around the case. Batteries wobble and the signal breaks...alot. BTW to not get screwed over in buying so many batteries, buy a pack of duracles, when they are drained, get a used ac adapter, rip the wire open, take the red cord and tape it to the top of the duracle, so you get a new recharged battery in a few hours. Now layer the top sticker of the inside controller with tape so the pressure of the plastic does not bend inwards. Dont forget the tape on the battery to hold it in place. The best solution is to buy the standard usb recharger.

ON a future update, the xbox 360 controller can be lighter without the ridiculous battery charger pack. Basically just fuse the red and black wires and you get a corded controller with a cheap 2 month rechargable overheating battery pack. As well the xbox 360 has slippery buttons which seap in sweat and makes the buttons brake. Ah well, every console's hardware has its flaws, from the n64's cheap joystick, to the ps1's sinking laser to the xbox, and xbox 360's slippery buttons. The weighty controller is only second to the brick we call dreamcast mostly since it can outweigh or reduce weight depending on how you 'fix' the defunct cheap battery recharger. Jaguar is not even a 'key' player. Its just a sucky console and im not too familar with videogames past the dreamcast gen anyways. Psone, snes, and ps2/3 have the upper hands in durability, but not in comfort. This one goes to saturn/genesis 1st place.

3.) The cds, they will scratch if xbot is moved. Why not add a four, the 20 gig harddrive takes up like 10 gigs of 'emulation space'

Just dont move it, not a big deal if you have a nice living room, or not standing it vertically.

5.) The sexbox 36 is in need of a good monitor cable to hide its AA problems. The only thing ATI does well is make...well..good shadows. What saves sexbox is some of those few capcom games. They are perfect surpassing the ps 3s capabilities. Sometimes textures and shadow DO matter. THIS is def. not a japanese system though hardware wise. It is the holocaust of gaming. Psfree is ahead...way ahead. More than it should be...and so is wii...and the dreamcast....and even the snes. The xbot360, its loud, and annoying so get used to it...vga or no vga built in.

6.)The well woven menus of microsofts obvious software legacy is there of course...to earn money and waste peoples time. The xbox 360 is an egoist's heaven...and a gamers hell if not used to pay for. Almost every well organized game is there for payment. The PC and Arcade ports are usually redone with permission somehow but the huge library is worthit. I will give it to you straight microsoft, you are crooks. The only reason Halo was great was not because of the hardware but because we felt srry for you. no jk. Even though Halo is a marvel, technically and always will be the Starwars of gaming. grrr. New xbox's. Can't afford it don't buy it.

7.)The motor box 360's large power supply and system fan is loud. TOo loud. There is no room anywhere. Well ok..this is not true because noone keeps the powersupply in visible view. Plus xbox 360 is loud, but HD dolby completly eliminates that, earphones or not. The xbox 360 is great, but design isnt everything, they did after all release sp, dreamcast needs the devkit boot menu to show up its gen but it shows off its power already, i wouldve liked a smaller version of the xbox 1 too you know. Ah well you can't have everything.

spamspamspampspamspamspamspam...

Ps3 from my experience, never looked so good. The only reason companies are releasing games is because they feel sorry for you. They are releasing games which look good on both systems, and play just as good but in reality ps3 is built for HD, not component. Ps3 has what is called AA, and Multi-functional cpu technology not crappy edram. 360 is basically a mediocre arcade machine with a nice cover and cool design. Companies like Capcom do wonders on it, and thats what makes it great. The games are never that realistic to ps3s and shine like a console should...even in HD if its done right, by japanese developers in a good art****. The last american system that failed was 3d0 and here comes another one (albeit original xbox sucks, personally i like xbox for its durability and function, + other reasons which make it unique). Its not great to trick people, but the wii isnt great and it works. It holds its own. Somtimes people dont overhaul a system for good reason. Never has any game company, sega/sony/nintendo overhauled a system and its games. The Xbox 3.50 is Microsofts last console...and vista sux so...Pls retire. Im sorry.

PS: PC Gamers just get a PC made by another game manufacturer.

Now here is the real JOKE for the article. Both systems are great and its preference over quality. Xbox has preference, while Ps3 has quality. Xbox has superior AA, pixel blur, textures and shadows while Ps3 has AA and motion blur (at a cost to framerate, its cpu can utilize blur in the environment as opposed to onscreen blur eg smoke on the car of an ai) with superior lighting and environments. Basically its effects (smoother environment but smaller with no texture loading, usually no AAvs environment (large environment but slow texture loading). Ps3 is the system for graphics, and physics engines with hit new exclusives...which is better on HD though? Judging by the arguments I made earlier and the scaling that xbox 360 has (eg monitor scaling on hd tvs and consoles with low res), apparently ps3 wins hands down on this one or will anyways with developers making gt5 in 1080p somehow..technologically though, by an irrelevant inch:P. The truth here is ps3 will never be able to use bumpmapping effectively putting its funfactor down a notch but this is just dribble. Its always gameplay vs graphics and gameplay has it when it comes to bumpmapping therefore the 360 wins imho, private nudge, curiousity or watever u call it (which is why i stand by my purchase). Its always been textures vs effects for sony and microsoft. Same with Ati and Nvidia with the exception of last gens console, Xbox being far superior than the ps2. Xbox so far has a majority of game ports with smoother fps but that might change. Ps3 exclusives show that it can do more, but doesnt make it as shiny and detailed under a good gamer's eye. Ps3 is good for realism, while xb is good for arcade but imho i think realism is still not real and arcades are just textures being fluid. Sony's brand had always had better colors and environments for their sims but when you see the AA problem in say vf5 on ps3 its the dev. Xbox is the game system for gamers. A huge library, and greatly organized menus. A better GPU vs a better CPU. There is no difference really. If you like xbox get xbox if you like ps3 get ps3. The systems themselves are getting better and this gen is very much reliant on past, present and future gaming. My take, ps3 once warred with xbox 360 and noone cared. Don't forget the Wii for innovation!

The Sixth generation: The start of Nextgen Online Gaming

The best AA games in this gen are obvious. Gamecube has hard to find games but its best is Zelda Windwaker, Dreamcast obviously kicked off the trend with AAA titles since its release, and Ps2/xbox followed with its exclusives. AA doesnt mean exclusive, although this post will be about the exclusive versions of all AA games. It means ratings higher than 9.0 but I will list the obvious ones for each system and which ones I think are best. Sonic Adventure to start was an AA Game followed by Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast. Gamecube has Zelda Windwaker and Zelda Twilight Princess, as well as a few Mariokart games which I regard as AA. Ps2 has its killer gameapps such as the Grand Turismo series and MGS while XBox reinvented FPS with its Halo series. If I were to name all the 9.0 rating games for each system the list of the number of games would pretty much be evenly matched. It would be hard to match Shenmue with Final Fantasy 10 but you get the big picture. These consoles still hold its own, and can make a fun system with the right games. Another advantage is Ps2 has superior texture compression than the dreamcast ala vf4 quality graphics, however lacks bumpmapping and AA. Sometimes its not the library and hardware that counts. Ps2 is good in racing games, excels in sports games and realism, like Gamecube in arcade shooters, Dreamcast in Arcade games and Xbox in Adventure games...Xbox probably covering all the gens effectively in this one graphically and gameplay wise. The sixth-gen, my favorite gen, still holds its own and was the best technological boost ever seen in the console wars yet, but I am not so sure its confined to just that. The nextgen is my personal favorite gen I grew up and out of. Good luck finding your system this holiday season.:P

Here's a list of console achievements in technology and which progressed the most with an asterix * under its innovations, we will skip the first few gens because they progressed the most slow. With it are its relevant consoles. Pls note this is a theory to be tested if all consoles were run on a standard hd plasma tv without the aid of emulators or PCs.

1980 1st gen 1-bit - (first home computers, arcades) N/A

1983-1988 2nd gen 4-bit - (atari 2600, Intellivision) great videogame crash occurred, color achieved N/A

1989-92 3rd gen 8-bit - (Nes, Master-system, Turbo graphix 16) 2d achieved, sprite animation equivalent to 486 if not better, ie commander keen etc level art ex super mario world, sonic. 2d gameplay with color and animation achieved. Linear art style as a standard achieved,

1992-1994 4rth gen 16-bit - (genesis, snes, 32x, jaguar) 2d animation, multiple scrolling, polygonal 3d animation invented, cd-rom data storage achieved, PC at this time is far ahead of its competition with fps games such as doom and descent released. It took the consoles until the 6th gen to reach graphics this far. Sound in PCs were far more superior as well, graphics were far into the 5th gen in every aspect. Scaling achieved, Height in 2d gameplay achieved.

1995 era 5th gen 32-64 bit - (3d0, psone, saturn, cd-i) 3d graphics achieved but not perfected ie trees don't look like trees, insignia is usually blurred or cameras pan out of view, transition into 3d, 3d sprites, 2d genres covered, first arcade equivalencies and upgrades ex tekken 3, cgi achieved, 4 player multiplayer achieved, polygonal animation achieved as a standard for 3d, home gaming at its height, achieved. Height in 2d animation.

*6th gen 128 bit - cell shading, bumpmapping, online gaming, HD, 30-60 fps standards achieved, Hi-res, backwards compatibility, DVD data storage-like transitions, first PC equivalencies and upgrades ex test drive le mans, quake 3 on dreamcast (dc, ps2, xbox, gamecube). Above arcade equivalency achieved ie soul calibur. Modern art and game style achieved ie rogue squadron, shenmue etc, real-time achieved, PC complexity achieved (cut-scenes as animation, rag-doll physics, car realism in movement to boot), hacking also achieved, fps pixel based technology abandoned. PCs reduce the size of their boxes to directly compete. The plasma HD age begins.

7th gen PC equivalency - what should be 256 bit, mmog, cooler interfaces&dashboards, cheaper 20 dollar bin genres easily accessible via online, online compatibility achieved to compete with PC, PC communication&complexity not achieved or downgraded to controller only based, data storage achieved (xbox 360, ps3, wii). 10 dollar equivalent arcade games easily downloaded, older genres easily downloaded. Multi-user interface equivalent for apps such as movie, music etc to compete with pc windows 7 etc, pcs looking more like the console's easy access and simplicity. The lazy gen, no more buying games in stores.

*8th gen PC equivalency - upgrded firmware, photo-realism achieved through aesthetics, above pc equivalency achieved ex star citizen, drive club...graphical progression CAN possibly be achieved (ps4, xbox one, wii u, pc). CGI still unachievable. Movie budget games achievable.

32 bit, 16 and 8 bit gens.

Here is my take on older gens. As for older consoles above the 128 bit or sixth gen, I would reccomend Psone. PsOne is the first AA game console in graphics and design def. beating its rehashed predessecor Ps2. Not only did they kick off great franchises on the Psone, but its the only console with the best games of their franchises they kicked off. Older SNES and NES consoles, as well as N64 have their AA games, while I regard N64 as the best console for simple funfactor reasons (better than Gamecube), gamecube has at least countered its massive AAA games with unique and new franchises. PsOne owners, dont get a Ps2 unless you play for sports games, surround sound and loyalty. Ps2 is good, for those games you need like MGS or its exclusives. Actually the best system in terms of sound, dolby surround in its gen imo, loud and deep although sometimes I can't tell. Gamecube for uniquness and Dreamcast for AA+ games. We all know the cartridge 16 bit era were the last consoles with company AAA game genres, what we don't know is AAA games are much different now since the introduction of 3d. Dreamcast being perfect at certain genres like gamecube and maybe Ps2. The 32-bit era such as Saturn, Psone, and N64 were good except it did not perfect 3d graphics (trees did not look like trees, glitches etc.) similar to how the 8 bit genre did not perfect 2d in hardware. It's technology simply was not there. Some examples are sinking laser lenses, or cartridge glitches. Because of its cartridge format and its simple technology, Snes and Genesis will always be the most durable longest lasting technology though exceeding the might of Ps3, Wii and Xbox 360, the masters of software interface in the latest gen (arcade hits, puzzlegames and creativity ala wii). Contrary to belief like how Saturn was not as bad with its rare AAA games, NES was worst than Sega Master System. It pumped out 100s of games for the shear mass market popularity and mainstream culture...and you know what they all sucked, only managing to kick off a few popular franchises for nintendo's future systems. The genres minus the graphics were best on certain consoles here though, like n64's Zelda, Genesis's Sonic, Nes's Super Mario or Psone's Ff7 (due to its simple button layouts, playability, 2d artform of no camera issues and lack of glitches for the 16 bit genre at least) and its gonna stay that way. Due to new hardware configurations, PC will always be the most instable or second best in terms of fun, access and playability. In with the old out with the new apparently!

Marketing fashioners are skilled at what they do. I have always never comprehended what programs they use, but I did comprehend one thing, why they beef up the resolutions of games. Back then they just took a low-res shot. Nowadays they take shots at the best resolution possible, regardless of what capture card and television/monitor you use (the best imo being Ati capture cards). This will be a short post on screenshots. Screenshots are never taken unless at its highest resolution usually inbetween realtime and cgi quality which makes me think its even photoshopped at times (for marketing purposes it is most likely pre-rendered stills made exclusively by the developer or a process similar to that of rendering captures). Okay for ps3 and 360 owners, but when you want to see how the game on a ps2, psp, psone, dreamcast or xbox really look at the best vga resolutions (usually 480p) to find for that great HDtv of yours, sometimes it isnt pretty -look for my previous posts on native vga signals and how it effects HD).