@mems_1224: You mad that the console you're siding oh so desperately for lacks an exclusive shooter, probably the most important genre for the typical gamer who buys an xbox?

I hope I don't stoop to some of your guys' level once Ryse launches and it gets obliterated by the media.

@kingoflife9: I think you're one of the most ANNOYING fanboys ever to exist on system wars.

Here's the gist of it, bud: no one cares what score their game got by overpaid, snobby editors when the game is in their hands and the console has launched. Cry harder :D

@kingoflife9: I think you need yo get your head out of the gutter and look at the console in terms what i can offer 2, 4, or even 8 years from now.

This whole blatant fanboyism you're displaying only makes you look bad. As far as I know, a vast majority of people will still buy the console in the coming days, it will outsell the xbone in terms of hardware and software, and more people will enjoy it because it's a better gaming machine - simple as that.

Lastly, there's more to gaming that whatever score gamespot assigns in its reviews...I'm sure you knew that already though... (faceplam)

[QUOTE="TheMaryCeleste"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] An online service that puts PSN to shame? In what? Dedicated servers? Oh right, more PSN games have dedicated servers then XBL games... Oh and you pay 60$ a year for it... Yes, for the 1 month i tried it out, I got absolutley no reason to say that XBL demolishes PSN. They are the same thing when playing games. mystervj

Obviously, it doesn't "put it to shame", but it's clearly superior.

The 360 list seems a little odd, since they forgot to mention even Gears of War 1 or 2. Seems kinda odd since both were great AAA titles...Surely they can compare to Halo ODST?

I don't understand how playstation fanboys today consider graphics to be the best part about the ps3 when back in the ps2 days, not only did they graet games, but those games had mediocre graphics. Still didnt stop them from being awesome (Resident Evil 4, Shadow of the Colossus, etc).

The thing is, the 360 hardware might not be the best, but it does have the best of everything, decent graphics, and games that appeal more to the "older gamer." I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom playing Modnation Racers, of Little big Planet, or even Heavy Rain because these games are sort of an acquired taste. But that doesnt make these games bad in anyway, since they're great for fans and people who actually PLAY them

How about you stop arguing about "exclusives" and just enjoy the games, no matter what they are? These devs spend their lives making great games, and here you people bicker about exclusivity and other meaningless stuff. You fanboys should do yourselves a favor. Take a 6 month break from gaming, and durng that time, i don't know, try to get laid or something. Then go play a multiplat on any system and tell me how much you enjoyed it.

PS3 fanboys give console gaming a bad name, which sadly, this website is mostly comprised of.

Exactly TC. A game's quality should not be dependent on its length.

I played Uncharted, and although it was about 6 hours long for me on normal difficulty, i had a blast.

PS: what was so bad about the later levels? i liked them...

[QUOTE="saleen335"]

I used to be a regular visitor to system wars about 2 years ago, and after a long hiatus, i have come back to see that all fanboys care about is graphics these days.

Now i might not convince anyone, but i for one, own a ps3 and xbox 360, and seeing these daily threads about GT5 vs Forza piss me off a great deal.

People need to realize that a game cannot be "Graphics King.' Every game has something that it does so well that other games who try to emulate the same aspect fall short. Similarly, every game has its weaknesses.

I finally gave the Uncharted 2 beta a whirl today, and found out to my surprise, that all this fanboy talk about graphics had led me to believe beforehand that Uncharted 2 would blow every other game out of the water. That was not the case. Sure, the art style was pretty, the animations the best i have ever seen, and the lighting and colors excellent, but the game had no alluring aspect that wanted me to instantly downplay any other game out there.

This is where i make my point: graphics do depend on the technical prowess, but even more so, they depend on the eye of the beholder, the person himself.

Now i know games like Gears 2 or Call of Duty 4 might not be as technically strong as Uncharted 2, but they have different things going for each of them.

Now gears has incredible physics. Every guy you kill dismembers completely. The cover is somewhat destructible, and the characters themselves require a higher amount of detail because of their armour. However, the game has a few jaggies, and it has the blurry Unreal Engine 3 effect that we all hate so much.

Similarly, COD4 might not be the greatest technical game, but because of the realistic artstyle is has, one can overlook the low-res textures in favor of the 60FPS and the fast controller response time. Killzone 2 is the same: blurry textures in favor of excellent animations and high poly models.

My point is: both the ps3 and 360 have a limited amount of resources, and to make the game shine, devs tend to favor on some aspects over another. You cannot have an excellent textures, 60 fps, destructibility, and time/weather cycles all in one time (at least not this gen).

Now Uncharted 2, while it is a looker, lack dismemberment. This takes the pressure off of the cell, so it does not have to render as much physics as a game like Gears 2. Similarly, a slower controller response time can allow devs to take the free power and use it on stuff like ambien occulsion and depth of field. While the game is great, it wasnt the beast i expected it to be.

This was just my two cents on the graphics debate. I know i should have blogged it, but seeing as how fanboys do not appreciate the differences that these games have, i decided to make this thread.

topgunmv

Good post. You know gears2 uses depth of field and ambient occulsion as well.