You can't argue with stupid people, but you can certainly play with them.


CRank: 5Score: 24940
1176d ago Show

Agree to disagree. The only Sony game that kind of got my attention was Spider Man. I was actually hoping they would show The Last of Us but they didn't even do that. At best, Sony's conference was at par with MS.

1200d ago 1 agree12 disagreeView comment


1200d ago 5 agree0 disagreeView comment


1201d ago 2 agree30 disagreeView comment

I give the MS conference a 7.5/10. They still needed to show at least 1 new exclusive IP. I think $499 for the "X" is a good price; you're basically getting a mid-high end PC that can actually give you 4K (with a 4k blue ray), and not just some upscale pitch. So if you're comparing 399 Pro vs 499 X, i think that extra $100 is well justifiable. Now that i think of it, I think 399 is too high for the Pro.

1202d ago 1 agree1 disagreeView comment

Re-skin? It's brand new game, with entirely new features. Sure the game play is similar, and do you why? Because a battlefield game is supposed to play like a battlefield game; just like a cod game is supposed to play like a cod game, and an uncharted game is supposed to play like an uncharted game and.... well, you get the point.

1559d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

Well no s**t it plays like a battlefield game. What else is it supposed to feel like? The point of going back to WW1 was to give people a fresh, new setting. Other wise, who heck is wants to play pure trench warfare? This is GREAT news for battlefield players.

1560d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

Oh gawd, I hope it has nothing to do with the year 21-- something. But i'm sure it wont, not with Titanfall 2 on it's way.

1604d ago 0 agree1 disagreeView comment

Personally I don't think it's battlefield-like enough. DICE was aiming for a game that could easily be picked up by any gamer, and based on the beta, I think they achieved that goal.

1812d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

No doubt the beta looks slightly better on the PS4, but unless you zoom in and really focus on the detail comparison, the difference is hardly noticeable. That 900p vs 720p does make a difference.

1812d ago 0 agree7 disagreeView comment

I see a lot of PC fanboys getting defensive. Don't be mad because the extra hundreds/ thousands of dollars you spent on a PC don't justify the small graphical difference.

It's not the console players' fault your decided to spend $20 more just to add guacamole to your $5 burrito.

1815d ago 0 agree5 disagreeView comment

Wow, you're delusional. Sure PC looks with ULTRA settings, but the small difference is not worth the extra $1000+. I'll stick with console.

1815d ago 4 agree4 disagreeView comment

The patch does not include the map. You have to go to the store and downloaded from there.

1852d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

I agree with DICE; leave single player out. Because I know once I beat the game, I'll never touch the campaign again. But since DICE is taking this route, I sure as hell expect a good MP.

1871d ago 1 agree2 disagreeView comment

PS Fanboy Bubble ^

1873d ago 0 agree2 disagreeView comment

True, I would have preferred a online only crackdown, but oh well.

1878d ago 2 agree2 disagreeView comment

Makes sense. Can't use cloud tech while offline. At least it gives people the option to play on/offline.

1878d ago 3 agree0 disagreeView comment

Nice, but 155 million is A LOT of consoles.

1884d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

NO! That idea makes too much sense. It defeats the purpose of having something to complain about.

1885d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

This is being blow way out of proportion. Are people seriously enraged by this, or they just looking for something MS related to complain about?

1885d ago 1 agree1 disagreeView comment