If you're judging by PS3 games alone, you can make a list--I don't see any 360 games there, but then again your logo is a PS symbol--not that I'm judging lol. But even with Beyond coming out you'd have to be high as hell to think it'll be better than The Last of Us. I mean, don't get me wrong, Heavy Rain was great, but compared to Uncharted? And you really think GoW Ascension is going to be better than a Naughty Dog game? Or Last Guardian? Please. Those are games. You ...
I express interest, and I'm not even a studio
They are probably taken on PC. If you remember Ubisoft and EA Games at E3, they debuting FarCry 3 and Watch Dogs / Crysis 3 and MoA:WF using 360 controllers plugged into decked out gaming PCs. It's not a shoddy new business tactic, devs have been doing it for ages. The problem is the hardware gap has become so large between consoles and PCs that it's now blatantly apparent.
Duh?
Because you're the Heavy.
Unfortunately a 'gajillion' is an "indefinite and fictitious number," otherwise a "non-numerical vague quantifier" and therefore we cannot say with certainty that Gearbox will deliver 870 'gajillion' guns, however, the size is dependent upon the context, but can typically be considered large enough to be unfathomable. So potentially, a lot of guns.
I'd like to see a list of women in games who aren't or failed at being sexy. I mean, I wouldn't like to actually 'see' it, but I don't think it's been done before.
This? At least 10 times a year we see these, and it's usually reminding us of the standard gamer girls in the lists we saw before with a few new ones in the 15-25s.
Disagrees? CoD has always been a popular IP, it wasn't until CoD4 when the franchise really gained traction--and when it did, Activision got greedy, when Activision got greedy, CoD lost traction amongst it's vocal audience, but retained traction amongst it's--to put it politely--"lesser knowledgeable" audience.
Just because you don't like the stupid cool kid in school doesn't make him unpopular. It just means you won't hang out with him becau...
The lack of disagrees in this statement shows you how one sided n4g is.
...
Wait, you thought I was serious? Fuck no.
Now grown men playing with MLP dolls? That's a little much.
Basic ISP speeds aren't fast enough to make OnLive reliable, and they won't be for the next 6 or so years due to, well, greedy ISPs.
Should be one game and a PS4 game. Imagine a Quantic Dream game on next gen hardware--they'd make an incredible launch title.
Diablo 3 was kinda crappy on PC. I still haven't finished the damn thing, and gold farmer's wouldn't shut the hell up. But if it came to Vita, I'd actually buy a Vita just for the namesake It also might grab a nice big cult following. I know the Vita isn't meant to compete with the phone/tablet industry, but if the Vita could somehow transform itself into a phone it would have been incredibly successful at launch.
And for the record--no, I would not feel s...
You charge the game $8 USD an hour based on campaign length. For example, Skyrim has an incredible amount of content, but it's campaign can be beaten in about 8 hours, and the game costed $60+tax at launch which comes to about $64. Journey can be beaten in around 2 hours, so it's $15 price point is a steal. Hell, Portal 2 took me 6 hours to beat but had that long lasting $40 special. So it sounds to me like Lollipop Chainsaw should be $40.
Now it's important to be...
I know that, I've posted about it too!
http://n4g.com/news/1013225...
Comment #1.6
That I can definitely agree with.
Why are there disagrees Halo 4 and Forza look much better than Black Ops 2, and we all know that FarCry 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Crysis 3--hell, every cross-platform game will run at less than acceptable speeds on consoles--we're playing on 6 year old hardware! It's one thing to get a next gen console too early. It's another to get one too late.
Go to the discussions section on Kotaku. Every page isn't full of passive aggressive trolls, and long pagers are followed with constructive advocation from other users. Look at any argument. I just pulled this up, random responses on Kotaku:
"It's hard to disagree with this. Nice article.
I thought Watch Dogs was extremely cool. I definitely want to get it. But I thought people were really overreacting a bit. At the end of the day, it's fine....
Current gen games run at 1080p at 60FPS on the latest midrange GPUs on the market ($200-300). Don't expect a huge jump for a console that's going to cost the same.
Oh yeah, I know that, but you can't really see the difference between 60-80FPS on a 60Hz limit monitor or TV at 1080p, so having the maximum specs just keeps you from flecking frames.
But I'm so psyched, with a GTX670 you can run Skyrim at 80FPS constant with a powerful ENB series, tons of graphics mods and FRAPS at 1080P! Incredible, right?
We saw this with Crysis 2 and BF3.
Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Crysis 3 were both running on an Nvidia GTX 600 series GPU. Consoles can't even hit a tenth of that power. A TENTH. If I bought either game thinking it would be as silky smooth as Call of Duty, I would be sorely disappointed when the console version will struggle to run at half that speed.
It's also coming with FarCry 3 and Watch Dogs, so watch out.
edit: jsyk, these ar...
I want "Interactive Entertainment" not "Video Games."