erwingameon's forum posts

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

The PSN is better because it is free.Thank you Sony for this.Why i need to pay for Live on XBOX anyway..??The only good on XBOXLive is the arcade games and that you can save your arcade games on USB.I can't do that on PS3.....why..??AtariKidX

Getting tired of hearing that PSN is better just cause it's free. Being free doesn't make the service itself any better or worse, it just makes the service free.

I don't really care wich service people find better. Personally I mostly play on XBL and I don't mind paying the small (IMO) $60 a year fee for it. But if someone else doesn't see merit in paying that price then just don't get XBL and go with PSN or nothing instead. No point in arguing about the point cause neither XBL nor PSN fans will ever give in and you'll just hear the same arguments over and over again.

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

Here's why XBL is better than PSN.

Besides cross-game chat the functions on PSN and XBL are basicly the same, but on XBL they are user friendly and run smoothly. On PSN on the other hand the functions are made too difficult to acces and use. And loads of time they don't function proparly.

You see that's the price you pay for PSN being free. Sony doesn't give a crap about making it good, cuase they don't get anything for it.

It's a simple concept to understand really. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR !!!!!!!

kraken2109

So does that mean you prefer PS3 to Xbox360 then?

And both are dominated by PC?

I do prefer the actual PS3 console over the Xbox360 console. But when it comes to service and online play i prefer XBL over PSN.

And yes, PC will always be better if you have the cash for a good gaming PC with controller (hate playing with mouse and keyboard) and headset. Consoles wich come out once in 5-6 years just can't compete with PC's for wich you can get new (better) parts and upgrades like every day.

P.S. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are almost the same price so i don't really know you came up with your post using the ''you get what you pay for" reasoning, but i awnsered it just the same.

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

RDR is a very good game even if it does get a little bit boring after a while.

Completed the game twice. Played around 100+ hours in both MP and SP.

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

Here's why XBL is better than PSN.

Besides cross-game chat the functions on PSN and XBL are basicly the same, but on XBL they are user friendly and run smoothly. On PSN on the other hand the functions are made too difficult to acces and use. And loads of time they don't function proparly.

You see that's the price you pay for PSN being free. Sony doesn't give a crap about making it good, cuase they don't get anything for it.

It's a simple concept to understand really. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR !!!!!!!

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

Final Fantasy series average review score >> 7,8

The Legend of Zelda series average review score >> 8,9

THE LEGEND OF ZELDA WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

Final Fantasy series average review score >> 7,8

The Legend of Zelda series average review score >> 8,9

THE LEGEND OF ZELDA WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

Final Fantasy series average review score >> 7,8

The Legend of Zelda series average review score >> 8,9

THE LEGEND OF ZELDA WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="Tykain"]Even though the quality of FF games has dropped in recent years, i haven't been interested in a Zelda game since OoT, so to me FF > Zelda. Maybe if Nintendo would make an action RPG with new characters, story etc it would get my interest. Zelda has been too much milked as far as i'm concerned, i just grew bored of it. The FF series has had a lot of games, but at least it's always a completely different setting, story, characters, different game mechanics etc that kept it fresh to me. Same dev, is under the same name, same genre, but completely different games aside from a few recurrent elements.Krelian-co

Zelda to much milked. Lol unlike FF wich is only one of the most milked out franchises in gaming history. FF always completely different setting, story, characters, game mechanics. No more so than the Zelda series. But let's go into those points shall we.

(SETTING) Both FF and Zelda have different settings for their games. Not counting direct sequals.

(STORY) Both FF and Zelda's stories are different in each game.

(CHARACTERS) Only Link, Zelda and (sometimes) Ganondorf are alway's in the Zelda series and with such great characters who can blaim Nintendo for that. And while most of the time the characters in FF look and are named different their basic characteristics are mostly the same every time.

(GAME MECHANICS) Both Zelda and FF have almost the same game mechanics in their game every time. The difference is that using Zelda's game mechanics is actually fun, instead of FF wich is basicly just running around and pressing the same buttun over and over again to defeat the enemies you encounter.

So looking at all these points theres no way that you can say that FF is completely fresh every time and Zelda is not. You can have a personal preference but comments like yours are just a sign of fanboyism or ignorence.

i sense a great bias in your post, are you actually trying to say zelda changes every game as much as a final fantasy? dont get me wrong i love zelda but being a blind fanboy does not make it true. Every final fantasy has a complete different background, places, story, characters, time, mythology, races, technology, etc.

As for ff and zelda have the "same" mechanichs in their game every time, well thats just shows how you have NOT played a final fantasy yet you talk about them, i specially laughed at the same button until you kill your enemies part, ofc awesome logic right there.

elda is great but the changes over the games are minimal, while final fantasy is a completely different one from the previous except for a few things in common like some character names and races like chocobos and moogles, even the summons are different for every game.

Basically my point is being a fanboy is bad, specially a blind fanboy. Go ahead and say you like zelda and dont like final fantasy thats valid, but bringing up bs arguments is a no no.

Lol, you comment on me being bias and then you post a completely bias post yourself with flawed and false arguments, own opinions as fact and even some twisted quotes. Do me a favor and keep your blind fanboy thoughts to yourself you bad, bad boy.

P.s. I'm glad you find it funny that you can play the enemie fights in FF with a single button. Personally i just found it dull and boring. I guess some people (you) are just easily entertained and impressed.

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

It depends on what criteria you use to decide who's winning.

If you use consoles sold as the criteria then the PS3 would win since a$250 game console/blu-ray player would have sold extremely well back in 2006.

But if you use profit made/lost as the criteria then the Wii would win. Sony and Microsoft would have lost a lot (even more) money if the'd sold their consoles at those prices. I think even Nintendo would have lost money at that price, but not neirly as much.

I guess the biggest winners would have been the players/buyers of the consoles since they would get them a lot cheaper than they actually did.

Avatar image for erwingameon
erwingameon

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 erwingameon
Member since 2004 • 202 Posts

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

You can rephrase it all you want but the outcome is the same. We are not comparing the 2 series/games. You know, it is possible to decide what series/game is better than another without them being of the same sort/gernre.

Sagem28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making