Ghost Train Posted November 21, 2010 Posted November 21, 2010 Hmm... so which FPS should I get for my quarterly tacti-cool fix? Medal of Honor: I Have a Silly Beard or Call of Duty: Rolling Stones?
Warmaker Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Hmm... so which FPS should I get for my quarterly tacti-cool fix? Medal of Honor: I Have a Silly Beard or Call of Duty: Rolling Stones? What platform are you going to play? If on the PC, if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with MOH hands down. COD Rolling Stones has some serious, SERIOUS performance issues (google black ops pc stutter). It's like their devs quickly and hastily coded a PC port and didn't bother to see if it works alright. "It works on a console so it MUST work on the PC without testing!"
Ghost Train Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 What platform are you going to play? If on the PC, if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with MOH hands down. COD Rolling Stones has some serious, SERIOUS performance issues (google black ops pc stutter). It's like their devs quickly and hastily coded a PC port and didn't bother to see if it works alright. "It works on a console so it MUST work on the PC without testing!" I'm going to buy it for PS3 (PC is too far behind the curve). I heard MoH has a more gritty + realistic story with some cool transitions from unit to unit - but Black Ops is a bit more polished.
mikeszekely Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 I'm going to buy it for PS3 (PC is too far behind the curve). I take it you're referring to Black Ops (which I honestly didn't have issues running, but maybe my new hardware just took it better, I dunno). Or maybe craptastic ports of console games instead of games actually made for PC. Or you're just thinking of a different curve. 'Cuz Sony can talk about the potential of the Cell until Ken Kutaragi and Kevin Butler for a tag team wrestling duo, but I'm pretty sure my old PC could outperform the PS3, let alone my new rig.
anime52k8 Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 I take it you're referring to Black Ops (which I honestly didn't have issues running, but maybe my new hardware just took it better, I dunno). Or maybe craptastic ports of console games instead of games actually made for PC. Or you're just thinking of a different curve. 'Cuz Sony can talk about the potential of the Cell until Ken Kutaragi and Kevin Butler for a tag team wrestling duo, but I'm pretty sure my old PC could outperform the PS3, let alone my new rig. but a PS3 doesn't cost $3,000 and doesn't need to be replaced with a faster one every 2~3 years.
Chewie Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) What curve is PC behind? Making graphically dated games(Both MoH and Black Ops come to mind) so they are playable on multiple, extremely outdated(in comparison to how fast other hardware is replaced) platforms? Game breaking bugs that aren't fixable in a patch? Unfinished games that have multiple DLCs at launch that should have been included IN the initial purchase or should be free? The extra $10 most new console games cost over new PC games? Which one? $3,000. Lol. I wish. Edited November 23, 2010 by Chewie
mikeszekely Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 but a PS3 doesn't cost $3,000 and doesn't need to be replaced with a faster one every 2~3 years. Sure, except the computer I built 3 years ago was playing even new games at or near the highest settings, and it only ran me $900 or so when I built it. I didn't need to replace it (as my wife is fond of reminding me), I wanted to have a comp in the bedroom, so I chose to build a faster one. That still only ran me $1100. So yeah, maybe my hardware does cost more than PS3... it's also much more powerful and gives me the option to use a controller or a mouse and keyboard as I see fit, with games that run between $10-$30 less than their console counterparts. PC might look like it's behind the curve, that's just because it's so far ahead that it's about to lap this console generation.
Chewie Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 PC might look like it's behind the curve, that's just because it's so far ahead that it's about to lap this console generation. Beautiful.
Ghost Train Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Hmmm... is it too late to say that it was a typo, and I meant to say MY PC is too far behind the curve? Have not upgraded in close to 1.5 years.
mikeszekely Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Hmmm... is it too late to say that it was a typo, and I meant to say MY PC is too far behind the curve? Have not upgraded in close to 1.5 years. Sure. I mean, I can't really speak for everyone, but it puts my personal universe back in order.
Chewie Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Hmmm... is it too late to say that it was a typo, and I meant to say MY PC is too far behind the curve? Have not upgraded in close to 1.5 years. No. I am still going to find you and.....upgrade you.
VT 1010 Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 ...with games that run between $10-$30 less than their console counterparts. Unfortunately, this price gap is closing. A couple of recent big releases were $60.
mikeszekely Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Unfortunately, this price gap is closing. A couple of recent big releases were $60. Call of Duty springs to mind right away, but I wrote that off to Bobby Kotick being a greedy bastard. I think Medal of Honor did it too, but I'd kinda hoped that was just EA trying desperately to convince everyone that MoH was Call of Duty. I know New Vegas was only $50, and I've seen Force Unleashed II and War for Cybertron for $40. So while a couple of games are going for $60, we're not there yet.
Warmaker Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Call of Duty springs to mind right away, but I wrote that off to Bobby Kotick being a greedy bastard. I think Medal of Honor did it too, but I'd kinda hoped that was just EA trying desperately to convince everyone that MoH was Call of Duty. I know New Vegas was only $50, and I've seen Force Unleashed II and War for Cybertron for $40. So while a couple of games are going for $60, we're not there yet. Except for certain Collector Editions of a game, MW2/BOps and the recent MOH have been the only PC titles that hit $60 U.S. for a standard version. I liked the first Modern Warfare on the PC. It actually still has a strong following with PC FPS gamers today. But I stayed away from Modern Warfare 2 onwards including MOH. Well Ghost Train, my suggestion is if you're getting it on the PS3 platform, to go with MOH instead. It's actually a newer game and not a rehash of MW2. From quick glances, there's a bit more variety in maps & distances compared to the claustrophobic MW2 onwards. Now, back to FPS, at least on the PC for me... I didn't bite with MOH, MW2, BOps, and not even BFBC2. I didn't go for BFBC2 because I was wary of the roots of the Bad Company line of games and how they do FPS. I still have reliable 'ol BF2, BF2142, MW1. I've got all the ARMAII stuff with the learning curve it entails. So I got mountains of FPS to fiddle with And they get the job done. Mods here and there to change and spice things up. What I'm looking forward to are details for Battlefield 3 / BF3. I cut alot of time in BF2 and BF2142, and I loved the aspect of infantry and vehicles (ground & air) in a FPS. I also used to adore the prospect of a sequel to Star Wars Battlefront, but after not playing SWBF1/2 for years now and suddenly remembering details of SWBF2 and how stripped down it was, I was discouraged. I'll have to get my fix for any Star Wars FPS from the dedicated mod teams out there.
mikeszekely Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Except for certain Collector Editions of a game, MW2/BOps and the recent MOH have been the only PC titles that hit $60 U.S. for a standard version. I liked the first Modern Warfare on the PC. It actually still has a strong following with PC FPS gamers today. But I stayed away from Modern Warfare 2 onwards including MOH. Well Ghost Train, my suggestion is if you're getting it on the PS3 platform, to go with MOH instead. It's actually a newer game and not a rehash of MW2. From quick glances, there's a bit more variety in maps & distances compared to the claustrophobic MW2 onwards. Now, back to FPS, at least on the PC for me... I didn't bite with MOH, MW2, BOps, and not even BFBC2. I didn't go for BFBC2 because I was wary of the roots of the Bad Company line of games and how they do FPS. I still have reliable 'ol BF2, BF2142, MW1. I've got all the ARMAII stuff with the learning curve it entails. So I got mountains of FPS to fiddle with And they get the job done. Mods here and there to change and spice things up. What I'm looking forward to are details for Battlefield 3 / BF3. I cut alot of time in BF2 and BF2142, and I loved the aspect of infantry and vehicles (ground & air) in a FPS. I also used to adore the prospect of a sequel to Star Wars Battlefront, but after not playing SWBF1/2 for years now and suddenly remembering details of SWBF2 and how stripped down it was, I was discouraged. I'll have to get my fix for any Star Wars FPS from the dedicated mod teams out there. For me, I want a strong single-player component, even in FPS games. I've never played online with people on my PS3, and VERY rarely on Xbox or Xbox 360 (and then, usually with people I know in real life). On PC, the only games I've played multiplayer are the two Left 4 Dead games (and again, with people I know in real life). That's one of the main reasons that Call of Duty has lost a lot of its luster in my eyes. Call of Duty 2 impressed me for actually engaging me with its cinematic qualities despite being the umpteenth time I'd done the Normandy landing. Modern Warfare was still fun, but the change in focus to multiplayer was starting to become apparent even then. So if you ask me to pick a personal favorite shooter franchise, you're going to be way in the minority. With multiplayer being something I do on the Xbox when friends come over, with my interest in single player story and presentation, well, I'd have to go with F.E.A.R. Sure, both games in the franchise had their flaws, but I cared enough to figure out what was going on and who the characters were, which is more than I can say for any of the Call of Duty games.
Warmaker Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 For me, I want a strong single-player component, even in FPS games. I've never played online with people on my PS3, and VERY rarely on Xbox or Xbox 360 (and then, usually with people I know in real life). On PC, the only games I've played multiplayer are the two Left 4 Dead games (and again, with people I know in real life). That's one of the main reasons that Call of Duty has lost a lot of its luster in my eyes. Call of Duty 2 impressed me for actually engaging me with its cinematic qualities despite being the umpteenth time I'd done the Normandy landing. Modern Warfare was still fun, but the change in focus to multiplayer was starting to become apparent even then. So if you ask me to pick a personal favorite shooter franchise, you're going to be way in the minority. With multiplayer being something I do on the Xbox when friends come over, with my interest in single player story and presentation, well, I'd have to go with F.E.A.R. Sure, both games in the franchise had their flaws, but I cared enough to figure out what was going on and who the characters were, which is more than I can say for any of the Call of Duty games. There's another forum I frequent and on one of the threads, the conversation drifted about the move away from SP and just primarily focusing on MP with FPS games. Your example with COD is good. MW1 provided, for the time, a memorable but very, very short SP experience. It was primarily about the MP game, which is easier for the devs to do since they didn't have to worry about actually making good AI for the NPCs, mission design, mission objectives, and all that. If you look at the big name FPS, primarily the "tacticool" style, SP games are short and the maps are nothing to write home about. Even MW1, as good as a MP game as it was, on SP the maps were extremely linear and a trend that continues with other FPS (again, esp. in "tacticool" dept). Extremely few ways on tackling a problem, *if* they even give such a possibility. It was annoying for me to know that the game will constantly, endlessly spawn NPCs until you reach a certain scripted waypoint. It wasn't really an exercise in fire and maneuver or anything like that. It's just running to the next scripted event, and God help you if you try to proceed but not step on the exact tile to continue the mission. The last FPS games that I had an outstanding SP and MP experience was Rogue Spear and Rainbow Six III. MP was good in those days, especially Rogue Spear in 1999-2000 timeframe. SP in those games was outstanding because of the planning you had to do to accomplish a mission. I took alot of joy in figuring out a plan to accomplish the mission with no friendly casualties and the hostages in safe hands. I also liked the bigger sense of danger that a shot will wound / kill you. There was no BS about hiding behind a wall for a few seconds and then you're good-to-go. Ah, but the R6 series took a s**t ever since R6 Lockdown. Then they went MW with R6 Vegas and got the SP treatment just like the current COD games. I've been fooling around alot with ARMAII. The maps are huge and varied. Infantry, aircraft, ground vehicles to include trucks, APCs, tanks, etc. are there. It's alot more on the realism side and it does have a steep learning curve. SP or MP. The MP crowd is also quite different. It's not the same feel I get when I hop onto any of the current big-name FPS.
anime52k8 Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 I've always hated games like Rainbow six; they're increadibly tedious and frustrating to me. I don't want (and generally hate) realism in games. I want to jump out of an exploding building then start gunning down people with a mini gun; and when I run out of ammo I pick up a flame thrower. I like Games like MW2, they're not realistic but stuff explodes and I find it fun. For me personally I buy games like that because I want a fun Multi-player game, and the Single player is just a fun action movie you get with it. now when I'm in the mood for a a Single player game, I find a game that's focused on Single player like Fallout or bioshock.
Warmaker Posted November 28, 2010 Posted November 28, 2010 I loved the realism because another thing it fostered was teamwork. I remember while doing Red Orchestra, finally figuring out how an Machinegun team of 2 works. Having the gunner (in this case, my buddy with the MG42) and me, the A-Gunner (carrying lots of ammo for the MG42 as well as a Kar98k). The gunner staked out a little spot in some ruined 2nd story of a building to cover a side street with the intention of preventing the Soviet players from flanking our team. The cool thing with the game is that moving next to certain terrain features even while not in the prone will give you support (stability) for firing. A very big bonus for a beast like an MG42. We setup and wait, figuring Ivan will be coming down once they have a tough time against the rest of our team. Sure enough they come and my friend starts suppressing them with the MG. I feed belts of ammo into the MG and in between I spot and provide close defense with my rifle and lobbing potato mashers. We do it long enough before help from the team arrives. You just can't be 100% effective with something like an MG34/42 by yourself. You needed a small 2-man team to reap the benefits. Elements like that also contributed to players sticking together. Not as much Lone Wolves running around to easily get shot up without mutual support. There is no Ost Front "Rambo." He's laying on a rubble street in a pool of his own blood in the snow riddled with 7.92mm bullets It was the same thing with my early experience so far in ARMAII. Like I said, realism is more my side. But it doesn't mean I don't appreciate a "lighter" FPS. BF2142 and especially BF2 bring alot of fond, fun memories also (again, I'm stoked that BF3 is being worked on). BF2/2142 though are "light" on realism, I do love what they bring to the table: * Big maps with varied terrain features for different styles of play. A very important feature for me, as I mentioned in an earlier reply in the thread. I despise games with claustrophobic small maps with long, tight, narrow corridors all over the place. * Vehicles, both ground and air. They add a whole lot more dimensions than a pure infantry FPS.
Shadow Posted November 28, 2010 Posted November 28, 2010 Been playing through Gran Turismo 5. So far I've been kinda "meh" about it. There are some really great aspects to this game like the new driving physics. The tracks with weather and time changing affects are simply awesome to watch. The disappointed me in other areas though. Many of the original tracks didn't seem to get much of a visual boost. The non-premium cars are basically ported directly from GT4 with some visual tweaks. Despite there being 1000+ cars, they still excluded some that I thought really deserved a spot on the list (Ferrari 599, Koenigsegg CCR, etc.)Yet they put in about 20 or so different versions of the Honda S2000. Haven't gotten very far into it yet and haven't tampered with the track editor yet but this is my initial impression so far. Oh yes, Has anyone tried Apache Air Assault? I tried the demo and I thought it was pretty good, especially when the flight characteristics are set to realistic.
mikeszekely Posted November 29, 2010 Posted November 29, 2010 Been playing through Gran Turismo 5. So far I've been kinda "meh" about it. There are some really great aspects to this game like the new driving physics. The tracks with weather and time changing affects are simply awesome to watch. The disappointed me in other areas though. Many of the original tracks didn't seem to get much of a visual boost. The non-premium cars are basically ported directly from GT4 with some visual tweaks. Despite there being 1000+ cars, they still excluded some that I thought really deserved a spot on the list (Ferrari 599, Koenigsegg CCR, etc.)Yet they put in about 20 or so different versions of the Honda S2000. Haven't gotten very far into it yet and haven't tampered with the track editor yet but this is my initial impression so far. As a PS3 exclusive, I was kinda wondering why you brought up GT5 in this thread instead of the PS3 one. Then I went out and bought the game, played it for two hours, and realized that it might be impossible to talk about GT5 without bringing up Forza 3. Within the vacuum of the Gran Turismo series, GT5 is a worthy addition. More than any Gran Turismo before it, GT5 is really about racing... F1, Nascar, and even go-karts supplement the regular car racing. The car list is impressive at around 1000 cars, and in Travel/Photo mode, the premium cars look fantastic. And the improved physics have me sorely tempted to pick up a Driving Force GT wheel. GT5 is handily the biggest and best Gran Turismo to date. The problem is, in the time between Gran Turismo 4 and Gran Turismo 5, three Forza games have been released. Forza was drawing comparisons to GT from the get go (I'm sure the fact that each series being both high quality and platform-exclusive didn't help). While GT5 has a better physics engine (Forza never really had me interested in a wheel), more variety in events, and more cars, there's a lot of things that Forza does better. Sometimes that seems like it's because Turn 10 tries really hard. I think that Forza 3 has more tweakable gameplay settings that help make the game more accessible to more people, and I like how breaking the cars up into classes prevented too large a gap in performance between cars in a given race. But sometimes it feels like Polyphony Digital was slacking off. Like, the 200 premium cars look good, but the other 800 look like crap. Even the premium cars have their share of jaggies and blocky shadows, and the tracks look like they pulled right out of Gran Turismo 4. There's no use in having 1000 cars if you can't make them look like they weren't for a last-gen console, especially when a dozen of them might be different years of the same model that you'd have a hard time convincing people they wanted even one of. And the menus... navigating GT5 is done primarily by drilling moving a mouse cursor from frame to frame with the dpad and steadily drilling your way down through the menus until you get where you want. It's actually a lot like browsing the PlayStation Store. And while that might work for a store, it's a mess for navigating a game. The bottom line is, GT5 is a good game. If you're a fan of the series, you'll almost certainly like GT5. I just don't think that, despite the years of development and related hype, that GT5 is as groundbreaking as the first three games in the series is. What's more, for those of you that own multiple consoles, I can't help feeling like Forza 3 is actually a better game than GT5 (although GT5 is still worth playing).
Shaorin Posted November 29, 2010 Posted November 29, 2010 get this; i don't even have a PS3 yet and i just bought a game for it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atelier_Rorona:_Alchemist_of_Arland http://escapefromrl.com/2010/08/25/atelier-rorona-demo/ i got the special edition that includes a hard cover artbook in a slipcase;
azrael Posted November 29, 2010 Posted November 29, 2010 Speaking of PC vs. Consoles Crytek say “PC is easily a generation ahead”, being held back by consoles
wolfx Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 get this; i don't even have a PS3 yet and i just bought a game for it; Other than the gorgeous art, it apparently isn't a very good game.
Robe robot Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 Eh if you ask me game hardware hasn't really needed to exceed ps2 era. I personally find it annoying to have to replace consoles/computers just because people clamor for more and more graphical capabilities. It's gameplay or story that make a game for me, next gen can take a flying leap.
Zor Primus Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 Ok so I finished Black Ops over the weekend... Was Mason the second shooter in the Grassy Nole? LOL
Einherjar Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 (edited) Just like in real life, please be careful with fire. Edited December 24, 2010 by Einherjar
Warmaker Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 (edited) Speaking of PC vs. Consoles Crytek say “PC is easily a generation ahead”, being held back by consoles It doesn't surprise me. Consider that a bunch of companies do cross platform releases. So what this means is that for simplicity's sake (or whatever), a cross platform game will be made as uniform as possible. What this usually means are lazy ass ports to the PC with all the bad qualities this entails. Console style Save Points which is not a tradition on the PC platform. Not taking advantage of the power and flexibility of a PC. No option for people with better rigs to really spice the game up. Just stuck at lower resolutions and low quality settings. UIs that make sense for a hand controller that the majority of console players use, but are absolutely horrid for Keyboard + Mouse users on the PC. The UI issue is a constant problem with the cross platform releases that include the PC. If you want a shining, big name title example where the developers gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever for the PC UI and designed purely for the console... is the MMORPG of FF XIV. Nevermind that the PC version hit the market FIRST, and now the PS3 version is on hold until further notice since Square Enix screwed the pooch hard on this. Each console generation is naturally stuck at their respective specs. They never, ever have (so far) improved in performance with later productions. But PC users will upgrade or replace their rig every few years. Some alot more frequently to be that guy with the cutting edge stuff. Majority of developers have a "make for console first and foremost" high on their list. Then, if at all, do lazy ass ports to the PC. The only big name company I know of that actually went out of its way to make better PC ports recently is Capcom. So yeah, that's the situation we're at now. Edited December 24, 2010 by Warmaker
shiroikaze Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Just like in real life, please be careful with fire. Adding on to this, And the next day,
JB0 Posted December 25, 2010 Posted December 25, 2010 It doesn't surprise me. Consider that a bunch of companies do cross platform releases. So what this means is that for simplicity's sake (or whatever), a cross platform game will be made as uniform as possible. What this usually means are lazy ass ports to the PC with all the bad qualities this entails. While I agree with the sentiment(and extend it to cross-console games that never see a general-purpose computer), I have to dispute several of your points. Console style Save Points which is not a tradition on the PC platform. Since when is "because that's how it's always been done" a good reason to keep doing it? The easy way is rarely the BEST way. I HATE the post-Doom quick-save attitude. It inspired a LOT of bad level design and cheap deaths because "you can just reload anyways" and ultimately made death meaningless. If you want TRADITIONAL, I can point to a wide swath of computer games from over a decade of PC gaming that only allowed between-level saves. But I always thought the best thing about PC gaming was that it wasn't BOUND by tradition. Used to be that most developers wouldn't let copying someone else's bullet list get in the way of making the game THEY wanted. No option for people with better rigs to really spice the game up. Just stuck at lower resolutions and low quality settings. See, I think this, more than anything, is what's HURTING PC gaming. That desire to make games that bog down the latest and greatest hardware, then immediately introducing new hardware designed to run those latest and greatest games. In the old days, when PC gaming was strong, games were made to fit the hardware. Hardware wasn't made to fit the games. If your game couldn't run on the current hardware, you scaled the game back. You didn't tell everyone to buy a new video card or three. There should not BE a use for three graphics accelerators in one machine. I guess what I'm saying is... I vastly prefer the PC game landscape as it existed in the 80s and 90s. You know, when it was healthy. I can find more of value in a single bajillion shareware games disk from the early 90s than an entire software aisle today. Especially the 80s. I think the final dominance of the IBM clone running Windows has been bad for PCs as a whole. But that's really another topic entirely. UIs that make sense for a hand controller that the majority of console players use, but are absolutely horrid for Keyboard + Mouse users on the PC. True, but... keyboard+mouse is also probably the single worst standard controller ever. I will stand by this stance until the day I die(I also don't even own a mouse. Trackball 4 lyfe!). Each console generation is naturally stuck at their respective specs. They never, ever have (so far) improved in performance with later productions. Aaaactually... The first model of Sega Genesis is slower than all later revisions. Sega used a knockoff of the 68000 for the first model that performed far worse than the official Motorola parts. And the TurboGrafX had a steady stream of RAM upgrades for the CD unit. But really, a stable target is a GOOD thing. Aside from letting developers know what they're working with and make the most of it... Can you imagine trying to explain why SOME Super Nintendos or PlayStations can run later games and others can't? When you're ready for a hardware upgrade, you release a whole new system. Upgrade the entire thing in one shot. But PC users will upgrade or replace their rig every few years. And console gamers buy a new system every few years, often for the price of a single PC graphics card. What's your point? If it's backwards-compatibility, I suggest you dig a few games from 2005 out and try them in your new machine. I've found that a lot of them choke and die... or just glitch in REALLLLLLLLLLY interesting ways. This console generation is actually lasting unusually long, likely due in large part to MS and Sony both over-reaching with their initial hardware designs(as seen in their current systems' unusually high launch prices). Nintendo, though... I can't explain why there's no refresh there. I guess they just don't have to care until the Wii stops laying golden eggs and starts laying silver ones. Majority of developers have a "make for console first and foremost" high on their list. Then, if at all, do lazy ass ports to the PC. The only big name company I know of that actually went out of its way to make better PC ports recently is Capcom.So yeah, that's the situation we're at now. And it's a situation the PC games market has brought upon itself. Spiraling hardware costs and incredibly short life cycles, combined with a lack of diversity and generally shoddy development* have, if not killed outright, seriously crippled a once-vital market. *I have great technical respect for Doom 3, despite being pretty un-fun to me. Largely because there was actual effort spent optimizing the game, and as a result it looked pretty good on several generations of hardware instead of looking best on the latest and greatest and varying levels of crappy on anything older. So yeah. I loved PC gaming once, and I hate what it has become all the more for it.
Black Valkyrie Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Anyone still intrested in the 3DS, even if its going to have a high price tag.
JB0 Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Anyone still intrested in the 3DS, even if its going to have a high price tag. Hell yes. This is where technology SHOULD be heading. Not doing more of the same, but doing more of MORE. I just hope it's available in red and black, so I can get one to match my Virtual Boy. Then I can get some SMS and FamiCom LCD glasses, and a Vectrex 3D Imager(fat chance), and I'll have every 3D game system that ever existed. You can take your PlayBoxes and your XStations and stuff them in the closet where the antiquated junk BELONGS!
VT 1010 Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 You can take your PlayBoxes and your XStations and stuff them in the closet where the antiquated junk BELONGS! Technically the 360 and PS3 support 3D as well. HA! Who's antiquated now?! [Goes back to play Spacing Harrier 3-D]
Recommended Posts