Worried about the PS3 fate..

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
> 95% backwards compatibility so games like FF XII and God of War are playable
Good reviews as a blu-ray player (just needs remote)
Roughly as good as Xbox360 for games (launch titles ports a little worse)


Once supply is there and a few more good games are out (including ports), I think enough people will choose it over the 360 that it will be at least a modest success.

I agree with this post. Some say that Microsoft delivers to its customers, but what about backwards compatability? The Xbox 360's backwards compatability sucks at best, and it lags; the emulation software is poorly designed, or there's some issue with the hardware that I'm unaware of.

Backwards compatibility is the most wanted feature that is the most under-used feature. When I was at Zero Hour I was actually talking to quite a few people about this (both from microsoft and third parties) and they were telling me how research showed that about 90% of people wanted backwards compatibility, but only 5% actually used it. These numbers were thrown around by quite a few companies.

And it makes sense. Who the hell gets an Xbox360 or PS3 to play last gen games? No one. Sure it can be a secondary benefit and a treat, but it's not one person is going to say "Oh know, screw that ... I'm not getting an Xbox360 because I cant play my xbox games on it. I'm going to get a PS3 because I can play my PS2 games on it".

I mean I realized the other day that my Wii can play gamecube games, and there are a few I'm going to get now that I missed out on and for damn cheap (Mario Kart DD and RE4), but that had nothing to do with me wanting to get the system at all. I couldn't care less if it didn't have BC.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: randay

I define a BD drive as allowing you to play high definition movies and read high capacity disks up to 50GB(for now). without one, you cannot use your HTPC to do these things. As someone pointed out, an HD-DVD drive would also suffice but would bring the cost up by at least 200 dollars.

Oh also...

Im glad we got that settled.

I could also spend some ludicrous money on a UMD drive to make the HTPC more useable by your definition...but I wouldn't...just like I wouldn't put a BD drive in my HTPC. Both of those are non-standard media formats that I'm not interested in. Your BD drive makes your PS3 no more useable for the normal consumer who is not interested in BD.

huh? I thought this was settled. btw, did you forget which post you originally replied to and the point you were trying to make?

Anyway if you're not interested in view high definition movies and playing high definition games, of course your not going to be interested in a PS3. duh. god.

umm thats not true. you don't need to an HDTV to play PS3 games. you can't even play in HD out of the box, you have to buy an additional cable.

and considering that what, 10% of all TV's out there are HDTV's, are you saying the PS3 is only for those 10% of people?

it's obvious you own a ps3 and are trying to defend your $600 purchase, but to say that if you aren't interested in HD means you can't be interested in a PS3 is a stupid comment to make.

What if you just wanna play RFOM or MGS4 and don't care about resolution, and care about the gameplay?

If you don't care about graphics, then buy the wii. It's a pretty fun console. 360 is the best of both worlds for me. 1) It's not made by arrogant pricks like the PS3, 2) It came out a year earlier and $200 cheaper, and 3) It was significantly better games (Gears of War anyone??

I have both a 360 and a Wii, and yes I agree, it's the best of both worlds.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: trevor0323
The system is well worth the $600, here is an example:

Xbox 360
-Top of the line system
-150 more for HD DVD add on player
$550 total

PS3
-Top of the line system with overall more power than the 360
-Included Blu-Ray player
-$600

Let me try to explain this: the HD DVD and Blu-Ray don't mean jack to the overwhelming majority of gamers. The general public doesn't even know they exist, and most of those who do know don't care. People don't buy game consoles for optical drives. With the 360, the drive is OPTIONAL. With the PS3, you're going to pay for it whether you want the thing or not. You're going to pay for it whether you see the value in it or not.

Yes, the PS3 is a good value given the things that it comes with. But if it also baked bread and BBQ'ed chicken, that doesn't mean people would spend another $200 on it. People wouldn't care about the value of the purchase because a big chunk of the expense is for auxiliary crap they weren't interested in purchasing.

Anyway, THAT'S the difference between the PS3 and the 360.

Oh god trevor0323 went to the facts that only true fanboys go to in order to defend their $600 purchase ...

While you are at it trevor0323, please throw in the extra $50 or so you will need for the PS3 cables that will allow you to actually run the system in high definition. Then add in the price of a headset for the ps3.

as jbourne77 said ... the majority of gamers don't give 2 shlts about High Definition movies and want the game consoles to ... *gasp* ... play games.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: trevor0323
The system is well worth the $600, here is an example:

Xbox 360
-Top of the line system
-150 more for HD DVD add on player
$550 total

PS3
-Top of the line system with overall more power than the 360
-Included Blu-Ray player
-$600

Let me try to explain this: the HD DVD and Blu-Ray don't mean jack to the overwhelming majority of gamers. The general public doesn't even know they exist, and most of those who do know don't care. People don't buy game consoles for optical drives. With the 360, the drive is OPTIONAL. With the PS3, you're going to pay for it whether you want the thing or not. You're going to pay for it whether you see the value in it or not.

Yes, the PS3 is a good value given the things that it comes with. But if it also baked bread and BBQ'ed chicken, that doesn't mean people would spend another $200 on it. People wouldn't care about the value of the purchase because a big chunk of the expense is for auxiliary crap they weren't interested in purchasing.

Anyway, THAT'S the difference between the PS3 and the 360.

Oh god trevor0323 went to the facts that only true fanboys go to in order to defend their $600 purchase ...

While you are at it trevor0323, please throw in the extra $50 or so you will need for the PS3 cables that will allow you to actually run the system in high definition. Then add in the price of a headset for the ps3.

as jbourne77 said ... the majority of gamers don't give 2 shlts about High Definition movies and want the game consoles to ... *gasp* ... play games.
It's the same as people with computers who get off comparing framerates and benchmarks and video card stats and overclocks. They get more enjoyment out of bragging about specs than actually enjoying the games.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
those of you comparing the ps3 price to the xbox 360 should remember..

they are both overpriced and will never sell to the average consumer until the price drops a bunch.

and the video game fanbase is stagnant, and aging, so there isn't enough money to be made to justify spending millions on high def, complex games, so don't expect to ever get many games, except endless rehashes of already developed games.

 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
> 95% backwards compatibility so games like FF XII and God of War are playable
Good reviews as a blu-ray player (just needs remote)
Roughly as good as Xbox360 for games (launch titles ports a little worse)


Once supply is there and a few more good games are out (including ports), I think enough people will choose it over the 360 that it will be at least a modest success.

I agree with this post. Some say that Microsoft delivers to its customers, but what about backwards compatability? The Xbox 360's backwards compatability sucks at best, and it lags; the emulation software is poorly designed, or there's some issue with the hardware that I'm unaware of.

Backwards compatibility is the most wanted feature that is the most under-used feature. When I was at Zero Hour I was actually talking to quite a few people about this (both from microsoft and third parties) and they were telling me how research showed that about 90% of people wanted backwards compatibility, but only 5% actually used it. These numbers were thrown around by quite a few companies.

And it makes sense. Who the hell gets an Xbox360 or PS3 to play last gen games? No one. Sure it can be a secondary benefit and a treat, but it's not one person is going to say "Oh know, screw that ... I'm not getting an Xbox360 because I cant play my xbox games on it. I'm going to get a PS3 because I can play my PS2 games on it".

I mean I realized the other day that my Wii can play gamecube games, and there are a few I'm going to get now that I missed out on and for damn cheap (Mario Kart DD and RE4), but that had nothing to do with me wanting to get the system at all. I couldn't care less if it didn't have BC.

Not to mention that when MS adds BC for a game, they put effort into making it look good on a big HDTV...as opposed to PS3 where the PS1/PS2 games look significantly worse than on the original console.

Halo 2 on the Xbox 360 looks fantastic...definitely better than it did on the original Xbox.
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,301
0
0
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:

nope I wont.. it was a boring repetitve VERY short game..

R6 vegas trumps it in every aspect..
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:

nope I wont.. it was a boring repetitve VERY short game..

R6 vegas trumps it in every aspect..

DWACS!! :| :| :|

(Die With A Chain Saw)

You are just playing with the wrong people if you find it boring and repetitive
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
Originally posted by: loup garou
It's the same as people with computers who get off comparing framerates and benchmarks and video card stats and overclocks. They get more enjoyment out of bragging about specs than actually enjoying the games.
WOW! :Q
Thats about the second or third dumbest thing I've ever read on Anandtech.
And I've been here for three years now, seen many a nef and troll running through.

Since you're INSANELY ignorant I feel like I should try to enlighten you just a little.
We get enjoyment out of playing about 3 times the library and 5 times the variety of video games that the console lovers know about.
Every game that the console lover believes to have a unique feature or new idea has been attemped long since on the home computer and with much better results.

And please dont quote sales records for me. Having seen what goes on in movie theaters and on TV it is blatently obvious what kind of entertainment the average American consumer seems to find enjoyable.
That console game sales outdo computer games only cements my opinion.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
ps3 is going to sell twice the number of consoles and 360 and wii combined just like ps2 will damn near sell 3 times the gamecube and xbox combined. also it will keep selling like crazy even after xbox 3 comes out.

lol.... man youre on the same crack that Sony is on...
you guys really should share that stuff..

they floated a turd and everyone knows it but a few fanboys and them.. and latley even the fanboys been hating on it too..

slow.. shallow games... even ports of 360 games look not as good and load slower.. and are missing features.. their online service is a total joke.. nothing is linked together its the same thing they had before.. just a matchmaking service.. and they threw in an marketplace to be like MS..

i don't understand where you wanted to go with this whole statement? how can you say the system is 'a turd'? the system itself there is nothing wrong with. launch games are notoriously bad. stop trying to slander the system because its launch sucked.
the ps2 had one of the worst launch line-ups ever. some of the games looked barely better than PS1 games and yet were suffering from performance issues. this is because the developers had to get used to the system. same with PS3. no different. 360 had the same flaws.
don't comment on internet. Wii doesn't have anything that even competes. and Sony already mentioned they are working on firmware updates to fix a LOT of the issues people like to complain about. and the online system will find its place and evolve into a much better system. this is really sony's first attempt, and it won't be hard to improve upon it.
stop crying already.

and btw, im no fanboy. i own a PS3, sure... i dont need to own a 360 yet because my roomies have it (and the first game that grabbed my attention JUST launched, that's Gears of War.) i'll likely get a 360 when they get cheaper and if my roomie(s) next year don't have it. i'll probably get a Wii this summer (one of my roomies is getting one for xmas i do believe).
im simply a realist consumer, who understands companies had their own agendas. some consumers need to realize this and get their head out of their a$$ as if companies are supposed to cater to them.

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blue Ray will be awesome to have in the PS3, not for its ability to play movies, but because of its 50 gb data discs. Its in place for data reasons first, and movie reasons only as a bonus. So if blueray movies never take off, who cares?

Are you serious? You're the one saying you are the one "researching" this and you think Sony's main purpose for including a Blue Ray drive in the PS3 was for data first? Um...I don't think so. Ask any industry expert and they will tell you that it is Sony's bid to win the next generation High Definition disc format wars. They saw how many people bought PS2's and used them to watch DVDs and thought the same affect would happen with the PS3. There have been a mountain of articles digging into this exact subject.

This statement along with your statement regarding the Cell processor makes me seriously doubt your "researching" capabilities.

some people look to console manufacturer's as possibly being alternative gods or something.. i look to them as being practical business machines that need to fit their own needs first. hmm, looks to me like including Blu-Ray was a damn good idea. it WILL help get the format out there because well.. nobody has a choice. all of a sudden they have a BD player. why not buy BD's now if they have the player? or if not now, once they get the prices down on the damn new releases.

Originally posted by: loup garou
Just to add some fuel to the fire:

MGS4 coming to 360?

late to the party, eh?
Konami already stated there are currently no plans to bring MGS4 to the 360. it remains PS3 exclusive. no guarantee it won't be released for 360 a year or two later as a special edition.

Do you have a link where Konami specifically stated 'There are currently no plans to bring MGS4 to the 360'? Or are you repeating something you read somewhere? All I ever read was 'MGS4 is a PS3 title'. That does not exclude anything. I've heard about this rumour for months and frankly I would not blame Konami one bit if they brought it out on both.

BTW, my main gripe with PS3 is the forced inclusion of Blu-Ray. I did buy HD-DVD for my 360 but that was a choice made well after buying the system itself.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Do you have a link where Konami specifically stated 'There are currently no plans to bring MGS4 to the 360'? Or are you repeating something you read somewhere? All I ever read was 'MGS4 is a PS3 title'. That does not exclude anything. I've heard about this rumour for months and frankly I would not blame Konami one bit if they brought it out on both.

BTW, my main gripe with PS3 is the forced inclusion of Blu-Ray. I did buy HD-DVD for my 360 but that was a choice made well after buying the system itself.

Here you go.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: randay

Time magazine? Time magazine? :roll:

The only thing arguable from that article is the "beat by Wii" comment (article does not define what being beat means). The rest of the short article was spot on. What about the writers at Time magazine excludes them from writing a decent article regarding the PS3? What do you have that they lack that gives you the ability to come to the "right" conclusion regarding the PS3? The fact that most press, especially ones in the gaming business, agree with this Time article should be clue enough for you.

What I would be rolling my eyes at is your overly sensitive fanboy tendencies.

You're right, Time magazine is the worlds number one source on video game reviews and analisys. :roll:

This statement is irrelevant. Perception is fact and you know who reads Time magazine, right? Yup, parents. You know, the people who buy the systems for their kids.

*Edited due to my inability to quote/reply properly. :p
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Do you have a link where Konami specifically stated 'There are currently no plans to bring MGS4 to the 360'? Or are you repeating something you read somewhere? All I ever read was 'MGS4 is a PS3 title'. That does not exclude anything. I've heard about this rumour for months and frankly I would not blame Konami one bit if they brought it out on both.

BTW, my main gripe with PS3 is the forced inclusion of Blu-Ray. I did buy HD-DVD for my 360 but that was a choice made well after buying the system itself.

Here you go.

Hah well I have no problem eating crow. :p

I will say that 'at this time' is still rather ambiguous and means the next week they could come out with a statement along the lines of 'The blah blah is a PS3 exclusive for a week'. I just don't think they would be in their right business mind to go PS3 exclusive unless hardware numbers increase significantly.

 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: loup garou
It's the same as people with computers who get off comparing framerates and benchmarks and video card stats and overclocks. They get more enjoyment out of bragging about specs than actually enjoying the games.
WOW! :Q
Thats about the second or third dumbest thing I've ever read on Anandtech.
And I've been here for three years now, seen many a nef and troll running through.

Since you're INSANELY ignorant I feel like I should try to enlighten you just a little.
We get enjoyment out of playing about 3 times the library and 5 times the variety of video games that the console lovers know about.
Every game that the console lover believes to have a unique feature or new idea has been attemped long since on the home computer and with much better results.

And please dont quote sales records for me. Having seen what goes on in movie theaters and on TV it is blatently obvious what kind of entertainment the average American consumer seems to find enjoyable.
That console game sales outdo computer games only cements my opinion.

Holy crap you're sensitive. No where in that statement did he say that Computer's don't have better games or anything to that extent. He merely pointed out that people comparing video game systems purely on specs are the same type of people who compare their computers based on framerates and whatnot. They seem to enjoy owning some expensive hardware just for bragging rights over actually putting that hardware to good use. Are you really that sensitive about Computer games?
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,019
216
106
Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Holy crap you're sensitive. No where in that statement did he say that Computer's don't have better games or anything to that extent. He merely pointed out that people comparing video game systems purely on specs are the same type of people who compare their computers based on framerates and whatnot. They seem to enjoy owning some expensive hardware just for bragging rights over actually putting that hardware to good use. Are you really that sensitive about Computer games?

I can't possibly see how that applies to consoles but ok. I guess you can say the same for people who own 70 inch DLP projection TVs, a 20 inch CRT bubble TV is just as good right?
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Holy crap you're sensitive. No where in that statement did he say that Computer's don't have better games or anything to that extent. He merely pointed out that people comparing video game systems purely on specs are the same type of people who compare their computers based on framerates and whatnot. They seem to enjoy owning some expensive hardware just for bragging rights over actually putting that hardware to good use. Are you really that sensitive about Computer games?

I can't possibly see how that applies to consoles but ok. I guess you can say the same for people who own 70 inch DLP projection TVs, a 20 inch CRT bubble TV is just as good right?

The point is that comparing a 70inch DLP with a 20inch CRT is pointless if you don't use them for what they are intended. There are a lot of people who seem to like the bragging rights of having some high tech item even though they barely use that item.

Let me give you two good examples:

1) Camera people are notorious for buying expensive cameras, arguing online for days over which camera lens they own is so much sharper, faster, etc. than some other persons lens, but then don't use their "fancy" camera but once a year.

2) My old boss went out and bought a really expensive HDTV a number of years ago when they were a lot less common. He would go on and on about how it was so big and when people came over they were amazed by how big it was...but when it came to buying cables and I told him he should buy Component Cables to hook it up to his component DVD player, he scoffed at it because it was "expensive" and he was fine with composite. To him, being able to brag that he had a $5K HDTV was more important than actually using it the way it was intended.
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,019
216
106
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Holy crap you're sensitive. No where in that statement did he say that Computer's don't have better games or anything to that extent. He merely pointed out that people comparing video game systems purely on specs are the same type of people who compare their computers based on framerates and whatnot. They seem to enjoy owning some expensive hardware just for bragging rights over actually putting that hardware to good use. Are you really that sensitive about Computer games?

I can't possibly see how that applies to consoles but ok. I guess you can say the same for people who own 70 inch DLP projection TVs, a 20 inch CRT bubble TV is just as good right?

The point is that comparing a 70inch DLP with a 20inch CRT is pointless if you don't use them for what they are intended. There are a lot of people who seem to like the bragging rights of having some high tech item even though they barely use that item.

Let me give you two good examples:

1) Camera people are notorious for buying expensive cameras, arguing online for days over which camera lens they own is so much sharper, faster, etc. than some other persons lens, but then don't use their "fancy" camera but once a year.

2) My old boss went out and bought a really expensive HDTV a number of years ago when they were a lot less common. He would go on and on about how it was so big and when people came over they were amazed by how big it was...but when it came to buying cables and I told him he should buy Component Cables to hook it up to his component DVD player, he scoffed at it because it was "expensive" and he was fine with composite. To him, being able to brag that he had a $5K HDTV was more important than actually using it the way it was intended.

3) I got a PS3, then I got some HDMI cables from monoprice, then I got an HDTV, then I got a netflix subscription, then I rented some BD, I use my PS3 almost every night, whether its to watch a movie, play some games, play some demos, or mess with linux.

Which stereotype/generalization do I fit under?
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: randay

3) I got a PS3, then I got some HDMI cables from monoprice, then I got an HDTV, then I got a netflix subscription, then I rented some BD, I use my PS3 almost every night, whether its to watch a movie, play some games, play some demos, or mess with linux.

Which stereotype/generalization do I fit under?

You don't...my comment was not directed toward you.
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,019
216
106
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: randay

3) I got a PS3, then I got some HDMI cables from monoprice, then I got an HDTV, then I got a netflix subscription, then I rented some BD, I use my PS3 almost every night, whether its to watch a movie, play some games, play some demos, or mess with linux.

Which stereotype/generalization do I fit under?

You don't...my comment was not directed toward you.

my point is that you shouldnt apply that reasoning to people just because they own something expensive.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: randay

3) I got a PS3, then I got some HDMI cables from monoprice, then I got an HDTV, then I got a netflix subscription, then I rented some BD, I use my PS3 almost every night, whether its to watch a movie, play some games, play some demos, or mess with linux.

Which stereotype/generalization do I fit under?

You don't...my comment was not directed toward you.

my point is that you shouldnt apply that reasoning to people just because they own something expensive.

Huh? Who was doing that? I was giving you specific examples where people do that. I've personally known many people who do that with their computers, camera equipment (I'm even guilty with camera equipment), and HDTVs. It is a fact that people do this...where was I generalizing that all people with expensive items only own them for braging rights? You're getting way to sensitive and making every comment out to a personal attack.

 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,301
0
0
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:

nope I wont.. it was a boring repetitve VERY short game..

R6 vegas trumps it in every aspect..

DWACS!! :| :| :|

(Die With A Chain Saw)

You are just playing with the wrong people if you find it boring and repetitive

um 4 on 4 is pathetic BS..

try 8 on 8 in R6.. and with MUCH better modes.. much better single player.. much better story... ..
just a flat out better game.. the cover system in GoW sucks.. it was done 10x better in R6.. the weps are better the maps are 6x bigger...

sorry man I dont want a shooter with training wheels on it.. I was able to beat gears in less than 5 hours.. and the multi player held my attention for less than 2 hours before it was a snooze fest.


 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,834
5,713
126
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:

nope I wont.. it was a boring repetitve VERY short game..

R6 vegas trumps it in every aspect..

DWACS!! :| :| :|

(Die With A Chain Saw)

You are just playing with the wrong people if you find it boring and repetitive

um 4 on 4 is pathetic BS..

try 8 on 8 in R6.. and with MUCH better modes.. much better single player.. much better story... ..
just a flat out better game.. the cover system in GoW sucks.. it was done 10x better in R6.. the weps are better the maps are 6x bigger...

sorry man I dont want a shooter with training wheels on it.. I was able to beat gears in less than 5 hours.. and the multi player held my attention for less than 2 hours before it was a snooze fest.

like i said, you weren't playing with the right people if multi was a snooze fest.

4v4 = perfect size for multiplayer IMO. i am not big on 8v8 games (i hated big team battle in halo 2) and even 6v6 is pushing it for me. i hate big maps and i hate battlefield games too.

i also dont like r6 because it's another fps, i'm sick of fps. i havent played it but part of the demo. the demo was enough to turn me off of that game, and i didn't even get inside the casino on the demo.
 

NaOH

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,015
0
0

How is 4 v 4 pathetic?

I love the fact that gears of war is 4 v 4. More skill involved since you don't have 7 other people to carry your weight.
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,301
0
0
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
and for the record.. gears of war sucked ass..

FVCK YOU!!!! :| :| :|

TAKE IT BACK ... TAKE IT BACK!!!! :disgust:

:brokenheart:

nope I wont.. it was a boring repetitve VERY short game..

R6 vegas trumps it in every aspect..

DWACS!! :| :| :|

(Die With A Chain Saw)

You are just playing with the wrong people if you find it boring and repetitive

um 4 on 4 is pathetic BS..

try 8 on 8 in R6.. and with MUCH better modes.. much better single player.. much better story... ..
just a flat out better game.. the cover system in GoW sucks.. it was done 10x better in R6.. the weps are better the maps are 6x bigger...

sorry man I dont want a shooter with training wheels on it.. I was able to beat gears in less than 5 hours.. and the multi player held my attention for less than 2 hours before it was a snooze fest.

like i said, you weren't playing with the right people if multi was a snooze fest.

4v4 = perfect size for multiplayer IMO. i am not big on 8v8 games (i hated big team battle in halo 2) and even 6v6 is pushing it for me. i hate big maps and i hate battlefield games too.

i also dont like r6 because it's another fps, i'm sick of fps. i havent played it but part of the demo. the demo was enough to turn me off of that game, and i didn't even get inside the casino on the demo.

lol.... yet you are humming on GoWs nuts... same premise dumbed down.. guess there are a bunch of simpletons out there that like dumbed down games..

R6 is exactly like GoW only done to perfection.

sorry i returned my GoW and dont care if I ever play another goW sequel.. I feel extremely ripped off by Cliffy B what a pos game..