I wish the new SF movie focus on the battle between Ryu andGouki. Sadly, it's about Chun-li...

DragonFlyJ

Yeah but thing is there is no 'real-life' actors that could portray Ryu and Akuma. They are too badass for any ordinary actor or person.

And the other advantage is the chick who acts as chun li is a real honey (very hot). She is the chick from Smallville. Kruek or whatever her name is.

Street fighter anime have always been amazing(apart from Alpha). SF 2V series rocked, SF2 anime rocked, and this just pretty damn good :D Cant Wait!!RazMaTaz-1

It is great because my understanding is that this anime stuff is actually like a cut-scene in the game. I could be wrong but that's what I thought it was.

Gave me goosebumps when Ken arrived. This game is on my "Must Get" list.sargentbotk

Yeah I'm so hyped for this game. This game KILLS the new Soul calibur game game any tekken etc. Go Street Fighter, the original kings of the fighter genere.

Has anyone else seen this video?

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35814.html" title="Street Fighter 4 Anime Video">http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35814.html

It is one of the anime things in the game. This Anime is so damn amazing to watch.

Check it out!

Who else is hyped for this game? THis is an automatic buy for me and if you have either 360 or PS3, I think you'll be happy if you liked street fighter games :)

Akuma VS Ryu is the battle in the Anime vid--check it out, it's worth it :)

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

The most important feature to have in an online service for consoles still is the online multiplayer. You can bet that if the XBL Silver offered online multiplayer, the vast majority of users would go with that plan, since there's the demos, some of the content and there would be the online gameplay. Then, there would be no arguing which service would be better, XBL Silver would really be the way to go.

Yet, MS chose to keep the online multiplayer (must i add, with no dedicated servers, only the low cost P2P play) one of the reasons to bring players to give them the $50 a year fee. Content is good, but it will only draw your attention for 15% of the time you have with a game, while the rest is with single-player and multiplayer (the vast majority of the time spent being in this last one).

ReverseCycology

So people still believe that all PS3 games have dedicated servers, and all 360 games are only P2P? Because if the answer is yes, then it's not even worth having a nice debate.

The TC made no mentions about online, so I didn't talk about online, he just went straight to the $50 bucks a year agrument but failed to even mention about Qore, a $25 annual fee. I mean with XBL Gold you have all these features and content available. While PSN still lack features and content, and these exclusive content will only be found in Qore.

Would you rather pay for exclusive content but free online, or free exclusive content but pay to play online? Double edged sword.

Also part of my agrument was that these PS3 games might not even have these features, while it's guaranteed that every 360 game will have these features.

In a way you are right but I still disagree.

I don't know what is on XBL as far as movies and tv downloads and music downloads etc but one thing I can tell you is that I would never ever pay for content like that. I prefer to download torrents for my fave shows on TV etc (then copy it to the PS3). I don't see the point wasting money paying for content like that.

Xbox Arcade games is a different thing altogether though. That's a good service.

There are still more features in XBL but PSN has given us the core features that make the biggest difference. Being able to msg people from ingame and have a trophy system is fantastic.

I wouldn't want to pay for XBL media content and would not call that a feature.

I do like the fact that in XBL you can leave voice messages and use voice such that you can be in a different game to your friend and still talk to each other. That is a great feature of XBL that I'd like to see on PSN/XMB.

this thread should be called 'ramblings of a cow'...Big_T-Mac

Hahaha, so true.

Actually his initial post is like a template of what System Wars was like when the PS3 first launched except that it was the other way around with Lemmings proclaiming that PS3 would never surpass Gears graphics and that PS3 was dead. Oh and that Resistance had textures equivalent to a PS2 game.

So in the end this is just as silly an argument as it was back then.

The reality is that there is a long way to go during this generation and 360 and PS3 games will continue to improve.

[QUOTE="Sully28"]It flopped on PC and PS3, what makes you think the 360 will make it magically better?HaloJim79

2 words. Voice Chat.. The PS3 version was good in terms of gameplay but a FPS without voice chat is a loss for me.. And besides it didnt flop, it actually scored a 8.5 here on gamespot

News flash. They patched the PS3 version of UT3 and the voice chat in the PS3 game is the best quality of voice I have ever heard in a game. It is crystal clear.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="wisdomWarrior"]

[QUOTE="The_Crucible"]As i just said in another thread, MS needs to swap what is free and what is being paid for. Users should pay for exclusive or early content, not to play online. Make the online gaming free and charge for the other stuff. Really pretty simple.The_Crucible

yeah, what you say here sounds very logical. Not sure what MS is thinking...

But they won't make nearly as much money. So that's a no from MS...

To All Of You Who Say Or Think This /\

Aren't you telling me with this that Live isn't that great? Think about this:

You're saying that if MS charged for the features like early demos, exclusive videos, achievements, cross-game invites, cross-game chat, etc. but gave the online play for free, you wouldn't give them a dime? Are you saying less people would pay for that than there is now?

I find that funny as hell.

I would think it would help sell more!!!! Someone gets an Xbox, they have a slew of games to play, all with online features. They start to play online, they get hooked, they start to look at what Live Gold would give them in all of the features I mentioned earlier.

I think it would be even more successful than it is now. Waaaaay more. And this way, you get more people into paying to get features and to have them improved upon.

Am I that far off base?

(TREAL_since, this isn't necessarily aimed at you. I've just heard like arguments from 360 supporters lately)

I could be mis-understanding you here, but I would think that MS has done things correctly in terms of maximising their revenue.

I would think that most people would rather play their games online against other people as the main feature VS paying for extra media content such as videos etc. (Therefore MS charges users to play online)

I don't think this is ethical though on MS part. I think online gaming should always be free. That's my opinion as a guy who grew up playing games online with PC. Having said that, if I had a 360 (and I'm looking to get one at the end of the year), then ofcourse I would pay for Live because I want to play my games online against other people.

As i just said in another thread, MS needs to swap what is free and what is being paid for. Users should pay for exclusive or early content, not to play online. Make the online gaming free and charge for the other stuff. Really pretty simple.The_Crucible

yeah, what you say here sounds very logical. Not sure what MS is thinking...