The PS3 shouldn't be judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet. This is what Sony's PS3 representatives speeches and press releases would sound like if composed into one compilation.
Im just ready for them to put out some good games, so he can say "I told you so"
Xbox 360/Wii/PS3 shouldn’t be judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet, judged yet.
Its a broken record if you've ever heard one..
is that a baby bonnet i see on phil`s head??!?! Oh lord.
Industry news?!?!?! LoL. I'm going to bed.
It takes time and as complicated as the PS3's architecture is to program for, its going to take developers that much longer too learn. So judge not after only a few short months!
talk of out of context @bloodmask dual hdmi hahahahahahahaha
a few short months? More like quite a few long months.
I am perfectly content with paying $200 for inferior versions of multiplatform games. Not to mention that the 4D graphics...paired with CG in realtime and games being rendered at 120 FPS on dual HDMI monitors never ceases to impress.
LOL..cool pic, liar liar was fire fired..
mommie, the PS3 made me cry again. can i bash it to make myself feel better?
I disagree with him on the point of the original PS's launch window lineup... As soon as I saw Twisted Metal, Warhawk, Loaded, Battle Arena T., and WipeOut I was hooked...those were ALL within the first 6 months of launch, most on day 1 (loaded was a few months after i believe)...It is true that much much more impressive games came later, such as MGS and FFVII...but the original playstation still has the best launch lineup of games I have ever seen...but I realize how subjective that is... the Ps2 didn't impress me as much at the beginning...Tag Tournament was good...but I wasn't paying attention to it until TM: Black and and MGS 2...both of which were roughly a year after launch... The 360's launch lineup never once got me interested in it...not a dig at the system...but Perfect Dark Zero didn't impress me a lot...and Call of Duty 2 looked like a regular Xbox game to me...that is the exact reason I decided to wait and see what games where coming to the PS3...and now I am glad I did... I am fine with the PS3's upcoming lineup though...Warhawk is a definite must own...there are a few more that haven't been played yet that all look really impressive...I am not too worried about what system wins this war...I am just content with the fact that the games I am interested in are coming to the system that I bought...
Well x360 is $400/every 3 months and PS3 is $600/for 10 years people shouldnt even be comparing them sales-wise.
I'm actually going to defend Sony...sort of. Yes, their PR and corporate spin are becoming monotonous and repetitive. How often do they have to say, "Please be patient...the games are coming." But make no mistake--the games are coming. They have many quality games in the pipe, and some good exclusives. By the end of the year, they'll have a decent lineup to justify the system's high price. And maybe, a price cut to further aid sales. (Of course, MS has the same, and a Sony price cut would be met with a 360 price drop). Here's where I stop defending them: Once the games are out, it'll be PUT UP or SHUT UP time. No more excuses, no more spin, no more corporate double talk. If the games are there, and sales are still sluggish, then the PS3 will be facing a major uphill battle for market share this gen.
Call Of Duty 2 looks just as good as RFOM on the PS3,Call Of Duty 2was one of the best looking games on the 360 launch.
I have to disagree with you...on some levels... while resistance isn't the best looking game by any means...There are some very very clear advantages it has over CoD 2...facial animations, glass breaking (the best of any game I have seen yet), heat blurring, amount of on screen stuff going on at once, foliage movement (A LOT more of it)...and overall cleaner textures...just to name a few...while resistance had an arguably less advanced (no true character shadwoing) lighting system...it still created more realistic looking evironments...the light sourcing in CoD 2 always looked dated, even though it used real time character shadowing... Call of duty 3 does stuff that resistance can't, on the 360...It is simply that CoD 2 looked better than other 360 games at the time, but was extremely dated looking just a few months later...Even the developers admitted that when asked about the (at the time)upcoming CoD 3...there is a video from gametrailers floating around this site from some "then and now" interviews with the founders of various franchises...in which case the head developer of CoD 1 and 2 shows how much progress they had made with 3...and how CoD 4 is so much more advanced than all of them... I am not picking a system...I am simply comparing two games on two systems...again...Resistance has its flaws graphically...and there are tons of 360 games that overall look better...but CoD 2 is definitely not one of them imo...
I wonder what xbots and sony fanboys are going to talk about after E3. I know PS3 is doing something about their game lineup look at the release schedule, I wonder if M$ is doing anything about their hardware failure. I guess we can always compare multiplatform games and wonder why 1st party PS3 games can do 1080p and 60fps and not EA games. Or we can talk about 360's first year and when the really nextgen games started to arrive.
Owning a X360 sucked ass till Gears of war came out almost a year later. Same thing with PS3. Just depends on which game that will be.
I got my 360 at launch and most of the games on it were PS2 ports. It's easy how people forget that it took 360 1 year to have it's first AAA title. Sony should done what M$ did and nickel and dime us to death. they should release at $450 with a detachable 20gb harddrive and you can only upgrade to another sony harddrive, charge $50 for online service a year and spent the money to develop an online community(mulitplayer is better so keep the servers), charge for everything $99 wifi, $30 for card reader ,charge for rechargable battery. So for $50 more you get blu ray and a more powerful console without them losing any more money.
I think adding Blu-ray was a huge mistake! It added 6 months to a year to the launch and it added hundreds of dollars to the price. By the time it came out, they couldn't make enough Blu-ray components, meanwhile the Xbox 360 had a 10 million user head start and a cheaper price. Looking back, I never thought I would say this, but Microsoft was smart by making HD DVD an optional purchase, not force you to pay for it like Blu-ray.
That doesnt mean anything.
That way I'll feel empowered because I purchased a 360.
We would not have judged *if* Sony had not said some very arrogant things like how 5 million people would buy PS3 even if PS3 launched without any game, (i.e., PS3 still has not sold 5 million units,) and how PS3 would crush Wii at launch, (the reality has turned out to be the complete opposite.) Now that PS3 has failed to live up to Sony's arrogant remarks, Sony is telling people not to judge!? If Sony did not want people to judge, then Sony should not have made all the stupid and haughty comments before PS3 came out. People are only judging because of all the arrogant things Sony execs themselves had said before PS3 came out. People are only judging because Sony has failed to live up to the arrogant posture Sony made before the launch. Sony has no one else but themselves to blame for being judged.
I think every company has some sort of broken record, at some time or another they have all let games slip and made big and costly mistakes. It is really dependent on recovering from those mistakes. If you think about what the Wii has achieved, it is the real winner in the short term. It has nearly caught up with the 360 in around 8 months. The 360 has take 17 months to get that user base. Judging at the 8 month mark for Sony, they have 9 months to sell 6 million consoles. At 10 million consoles more exclusives will happen for Sony (yes I know that the 360 will have more consoles sold by then), both its competitors have done well and Sony will have to prove themselves again. But it is strange how the E3 games are looking, Wii has only 23 confirmed, 360 has 62 on show, but Sony the console in last place has 67 on show. I think it will be a good show for all 3 consoles and look forward to seeing what surprises are pulled out the hat by all 3 companies.
well im sure MS has got a broken record.....failure rate not so high failure rate not so high. well a buddy of mine just got the ring of death. sent me his message through xbox.com
wow its sad how i get a bubble taken away for having proof and talking slightly bad about MS. some people on this site need to grow up, they make it seem like im psysically attacking their mothers or something. oh well kids will be kids i suppose.
yeah im pretty sure the XBOTS got to you. they turn on their own for talking bad about the poorly built crap box. you xbots are sad he has proof, isnt that LIVE in that pic? you xbots are a bunch of low lifes even to your own kind. crap boxes seem to break all time live with it lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
"8 - Yeah. Well x360 is $400/every 3 months and PS3 is $600/for 10 years people shouldnt even be comparing them sales-wise" Stop exagerating.
Did I miss something?
With Peter Moore so whatever thing they have to say bad about Sony PR its the samething with Microsoft PR like Peter Moore being a broken record so really its the samething with Microsoft PR like Peter Moore.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.