i think quality is better than more features :)

that's why i like apple devices as well. no matter how i look at the mobile smartphone market, manufacturers always sacrifice something to make put a checkmark on the feature list. yes, android but i think for the average person theyll just txt, use the internet to search, take sum pix, facebook, call, and play some games to kill time. android adds things like mobile hostpot, nicer interface, and flash and bigger screens and such.

same thing for gt5 vs forza..... why wait so long for the extra features when they're not really a big part of the core............

still both games are great, i just didnt find gt5 worth waiting, after waiting for so long, it underdelivers.

i liked mw2 better :)

mainly cuz of the commando perk.... it was fun, made me possess skills i didnt really hav and made things more fun for me. on the other side it was also easy to kill ppl with commando, steady aim, stopping power and such. leveled it even, now we're all equal in black ops and i kinda find it boring, the perks are really useless (except for stopping power and marathon)....

yeah controller thread pretty much, cuz well ps3 and xbox 360 fps games usually hav equal graphics (i dont get why ppl say ps3 has better graphics)

anyways u guys got use to the ps3 controller, its been like a week using it and i still havent been able to get use to it... .:( it feels way too weird to use

if they put a keyboard/mouse option its a hands down winnter :) didn't they hav that for ut3?????

alright well just wanted to get some opinions of which platform you like playing Black Ops on better.

well my friend came over two days ago and i was able to try out black ops on the ps3. it's actually my first fps experience on the ps3 (i've done it b4 on ps2 and all) and it fell short from my expectations. i use to lik the ps3 controller because it looked smaller, less uncluttered, and lightweight.

about black ops, i liked it better on the xbox 360 cuz of the controller. don't get me wrong the ps3 controller is nice but the default control scheme is wierd (especially for close range). also when im using the analog stickit feels like my thumbs are going to slip off (round shape analog stick).also using default alternative on ps3 still feels weird,the trigger goes down all the way.

on the 360 the sticks have a curved shape which goes with your thumbs and the trigger has that too, also it feels more comfortable to use in my opinion.

either way the game itself is great but i prefer playing it on the xbox 360 :)

what about u guys????????

oh and please dont say PC!!!!! (yes, i agree pc beats controllers for fps games but this is strictly ps3 vs xbox 360)

I don't think consoles need an update for the next 5 years. :)

An ATI X1900 (Xbox360)and Nvidia 7800GT (PS3) is enough for this generation especially when developers are just getting the hang of making good games for the platform3

It's not that PC Gaming is dying..... it's just that people tend to prefer "what you see is what you get" factor.....

Most people prefer playing on a big screen HDTV while on their couch..... of course you can do this on your PC to it's just not that practical with PC Gaming (I mean I know you can use a wireless Xbox 360 controller but it's just not what PC Gaming is meant for.....)

PC Gaming tends to be more for the hardcore graphics gamers.... and hardcore gamers.

ANOTHER REASON IS.... well the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 is CHEAP..... and many people want somethin' that you just buy, plug, and you ready to play with. Plus this cheap factor also introduces another thing..... more people on the online network (Xbox LIVE and PlayStation Network). Plus don't forget..... PC Games don't have this "central" gaming network where everyone can connect to. PC Games have their own servers (usually) for each game or series or whatsoever. If Xbox LIVE was transported to PC (I mean a serious transition not a crappy Games for Windows games are only qualified kind of transition) then PC Gaming might succeed. Most people get the game not only for the single-player (lonely lol) part but for the multiplayer action... PC Gaming has several people but their on different servers.

PC usually has the best graphics around (as long as you have a beast PC or at least a moderate PC) and bringing a PC back to modern gaming standards doesn't cost that much....

For example:

A 2005 PC with

Intel Pentium 4 2.6GHz LGA775 Processor > Upgrade to Intel Pentium Dual Core for $50... or a better processor Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 for $80.

LGA775 Motherboard with PCI-E x16 Slot and 2x DDR2 slots

2x sticks of 512MB of RAM equaling 1GB > Upgrade to 2x 1GB (for $10-$20) or 2x 2GB (for $20-$30)

Intel GMA 950 128MB IGP (these IGP's were common in low-end computers back in 2005-2008.... it still is now but not as much as back then) > $60 upgrade to a Nvidia GeForce 9600GT (they sell these GPU's for $60 at TigerDirect)

Overall it's just around $130... not saying that's not that much but seeing that people can buy games occasionally for $60 every month or so.... well yeah.

Plus a decent PC with Intel Core 2 Quad, 4GB of RAM, Nvidia GeForce 9500GT, etc. is just $499 around the corner... it's not cheap but it's cheap in general terms when getting a gaming PC. I had a 8400GS (Lower-end 256MB DDR2 version) and I coupled it with a X2 3800+ 2GHz and 1GB of RAM and ran Crysis with it (on Windows XP cause Vista would always give me SLOWWW load times) and it ran on 1440x900 (native resolution of my monitor) at Low-High Settings (Most on Medium some like Shadows and Vegetation on Low and Physics on High) and I got 20-50FPS which isn't bad.... I got an average of around 25FPS. Games on consoles usually are locked to 30/60FPS... usually 30FPS. Meanwhile a 9500GT will do better most likely.

Another thing is DRM thingies and serial number and sh*t..... it's because of piracy. Piracy rate on PC is higher than consoles (most likely but it's just my "estimation")

Another thing is people think tinkering around with PC's is um, dangerous (to tell you the truth it isn't no matter what.... it won't burn you or anything well it will of course just that in years I've been tinkering around with PCs well yeah)

Exactly what happened to me with Assassin's Creed I.

I thought it was going to be amazing.... but well it was just too repetitive. I only finished it because I wanted to see how it ended, it was worth it though.

Assassin's Creed II is repetitive by a bit but not that much it's funner. The story was kinda disappointing but still awesome.