Yeah, see, that's just too much work/ money to put into gaming. Id much rather pay $300-350 and leave it at that. Graphics are solid and I love using a controller over a mouse. But to each their own, I guess.
True. That's why I only upgrade every three years and I just buy the best hardware available at the moment. Usually I'll be able to run every game that comes out for the next three or so years and then you'll have something that sets a new standard (HL2 in '04, Crysis in '07 and now BF3 in '11)
True. That's why I only upgrade every three years and I just buy the best hardware available at the moment. Usually I'll be able to run every game that comes out for the next three or so years and then you'll have something that sets a new standard (HL2 in '04, Crysis in '07 and now BF3 in '11)
+1
It's like buying a Ferrari and capping the speed at 60 mph.
More like 90. The ps3 and xbox arent that bad, come on now! Lol
Nintendo announced the Wii 2 and it's supposed to be significantly more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but we all know the next Xbox and Playstation systems will be more powerful than the Wii 2. Ut oh!
The Wii 2 is supposed to have a high-definition LCD display built onto the controller, too.
Stream to the controller? Why? That sounds kind of pointless to me. Am I missing something? Is it basically a DS? Sounds like it could be overkill or very innovative thinking. Might hurt DS sales if they're not careful.
Stream to the controller? Why? That sounds kind of pointless to me. Am I missing something? Is it basically a DS? Sounds like it could be overkill or very innovative thinking. Might hurt DS sales if they're not careful.
What, you didn't like the Dreamcast?
__________________
"Don't forget your history;Know your destiny:In the abundance of water,The fool is thirsty." Bob Marley - Rat Race
"Celebrity is when your lifestyle sorta supersedes what your talent is" Questlove from The Roots
Wii 2 is not guarenteed to be better hardwae wise, conflicting rumors right now on that.
Either way doesn't matter, nintendo has failed to produce enough interesting content for the past three consoles. I don't need a console to output 2^n polygons if everything looks like a giant circle.
The wii did well because of the motion controllers. Now that that's old news, so is the wii. They're going to have to get much better graphics if they're going to compete, IMO.
It's an admirable plan but in direct conflict with their current MO. So either they're dumping the kid-friendly-only aesthetic or there going to have some angry parents.
The fact is the Wii could have been a fantastic gaming system.
It's an admirable plan but in direct conflict with their current MO. So either they're dumping the kid-friendly-only aesthetic or there going to have some angry parents.
The fact is the Wii could have been a fantastic gaming system.
This is all too true.
But ever since the n64 nintendo has become more and more family friendly (relative to its competition).
And since I brought up the n64, I have to mention body harvest. That was an underrated game, the developers went on to become rockstar. Its like an early build of GTA 3, but with giant alien bugs and hovercrafts.
The gamecube turned out to be tuna (please someone get this joke).
At any rate, there's nothing stopping Nintendo from once again being the premiere gaming system except their recent reputation as being the choice for girls and children.
At any rate, there's nothing stopping Nintendo from once again being the premiere gaming system except their recent reputation as being the choice for girls and children.
All the Wii needs is better graphics if they want to compete. Pretty simple. It's not like their entire library is kids games. They, too, get the call of duty's and dead spaces.
By the time the next Xbox and Playstation systems come out though, they'll be far ahead of the Wii 2. The Wii 2 is supposedly, RUMORED to be coming out around the Holidays this year. I saw it on IGN, I thought at first they said next year, but w/e. Anyways it's nice it will get a head start, but given the next Xbox and Playstation won't be out for at least another year, they're going to be far ahead of the Wii 2 in terms of performance and power.
Looks pretty good but the graphics will never be enough to take over COD. The Game Engine is just too slow for the majority of FPS fans. I don't mind it that much but prefer the smooth movement of COD games. MW3 will still outsell BF3.
__________________
"Don't forget your history;Know your destiny:In the abundance of water,The fool is thirsty." Bob Marley - Rat Race
"Celebrity is when your lifestyle sorta supersedes what your talent is" Questlove from The Roots
Looks pretty good but the graphics will never be enough to take over COD. The Game Engine is just too slow for the majority of FPS fans. I don't mind it that much but prefer the smooth movement of COD games. MW3 will still outsell BF3.
It will definitely take sales from CoD. It's going to be the better game, hands down. It leans more towards realism than fast, arcadey gameplay.
I like to think of it like this, if the games were movies:
Call of Duty is your typical summer action film probably made by Michael Bay that is garbage and features a retarded amount of explosions and fire.
Battlefield is your Saving Private Ryan/Black Hawk Down film that tells a great story and tries to be true to actual war.
Looks pretty good but the graphics will never be enough to take over COD. The Game Engine is just too slow for the majority of FPS fans. I don't mind it that much but prefer the smooth movement of COD games. MW3 will still outsell BF3.
The game engine is not too slow. In fact the game engine can handle those nice smooth movements you are talking about (and quite easily as well).
That slowness you are referring to is a design choice to make the game more tactical and less twitch. What is the point to try and stick to cover if anytime someone shoots at you a quick flick left and right and a dive to prone gets you out of trouble?
How do they do that? Well they set the movement acceleration much lower, which is more realistic unless the military manages to clone percy harvin and make him into a killing machine. On a side note if you have ever played a console game where the aiming was just off, it was most likely because the designers have the aim velocity constant. Many of the best shooters instead associate an acceleration (actually 4- [x axis, y axis] x [speed up slow down]) with your crosshair movements. While not a FPS, a good example of what a game with constant velocity is like try Max Payne for the old xbox. While the computer version was great, the console version was almost laughable sometimes in how bad the aim was.
Why do they do that? By reducing the speed your position becomes much more important, getting kills in battlefield is less about how well you can aim and more about where you are at. I for one love that as it rewards patience and experience.
But no, it is not because of the game engine. It is a common mistake though. The game engine in all honesty is flat out baller. Just think of all the meshes that game has to put out and the time it processes new ones. At the end of the multiplayer trailer you see the most astonishing thing. Someone shoots the side of the building and the facade falls down! The wall that is breaking down is actually modeled and breaks into pieces and falls down in the specific location the wall was shot. Honestly while it looks pretty cool, that is more of testament to how strong their game engine is.
Call of duty will outsell battlefield (2 to 1 I believe). Battlefield will meet more critical acclaim (metacritic scores of 94 vs. 90 is my guess). So which do we consider king?
Linear Mode
