WeegeeLazer
New Member
Best part of the VGAs was seeing Hideo Kojima totally flop with his Engrish onstage.
"Metru Gear Sorid has evorved into....sorry."
"Metru Gear Sorid has evorved into....sorry."
Spikes VGA, It was a collosal waste of time.
- Thread starter Crinus
- Start date
I've noticed that except for Nintendo Power, nobody takes Nintendo seriously.
Personally, I've been against Video Game Awards in the "Of The Year" sense for any game that hasn't been out for at least 3 months.
I dunno, perhaps Sony and MS took them seriously because they had to start copying from the Wii in order to keep up.
PS move, Kinect, just to name 2 right there.
Gaming is just one big case of follow-the-leader. They scoff at the Wii's features because they're new and unproven and they think new and unproven features always fail until proven otherwise... then once the Wii proves it's viable they all copy it because now they know it's profitable. That's the business mentality for you.
Well I think that is what it was intended for, but I kind of believe it has turned into a some what of a HC system to at times.
Just minus the multiplayer games like you see on PS3 and 360, and quite frankly I believe those 2 systems qualify more as a PC than they do a console anyway, the games HC gamers play on 360 and PS3 is probably better suited for the PC, like just about every FPS game which is where the money is for MS and Sony. I think FPS games on console is a bunch of malarkey, it just not suited for console like it would be for PC.
Just minus the multiplayer games like you see on PS3 and 360, and quite frankly I believe those 2 systems qualify more as a PC than they do a console anyway, the games HC gamers play on 360 and PS3 is probably better suited for the PC, like just about every FPS game which is where the money is for MS and Sony. I think FPS games on console is a bunch of malarkey, it just not suited for console like it would be for PC.
I think the bigger malarkey is when FPS games mix their PC and console players onto the same multiplayer servers.
Also MMORPGs on consoles. That's nonsense.
Actually I dont think PC and Console can mix players into the same server.
Its also a known fact though that if a match were to take place between PC players vs Console players in a FPS game say like Call of Duty, PC players would just completely destroy console players.
That alone just shows the idea that FPS games is meant for PC, the consoles its just too slow paced, I tried playing COD4 on the 360 not long ago and it was just a fumbling mess control wise.
MMOs, they usually keep on PC, but its no wonder why a game like Phantasy Star Online died out to, you cant put MMOs on console because consoles never out last a PC, they also put Everquest on PS2 and it never did click well.
I commend EA for making Battlefield 3 a game developed for PC first and then ported to consoles instead of a game developed for console and then ported to PC, thats why games like Black Ops never ran worth jack on the PC, you needed a $10 video card and a $200 processor. It just did not make sense, but Activision/IW/Treyarch has screwed the pooch the last many years, Activision is why World of warcraft will fade into the fog since they got their hands in the water with Blizzard.
Its also a known fact though that if a match were to take place between PC players vs Console players in a FPS game say like Call of Duty, PC players would just completely destroy console players.
That alone just shows the idea that FPS games is meant for PC, the consoles its just too slow paced, I tried playing COD4 on the 360 not long ago and it was just a fumbling mess control wise.
MMOs, they usually keep on PC, but its no wonder why a game like Phantasy Star Online died out to, you cant put MMOs on console because consoles never out last a PC, they also put Everquest on PS2 and it never did click well.
I commend EA for making Battlefield 3 a game developed for PC first and then ported to consoles instead of a game developed for console and then ported to PC, thats why games like Black Ops never ran worth jack on the PC, you needed a $10 video card and a $200 processor. It just did not make sense, but Activision/IW/Treyarch has screwed the pooch the last many years, Activision is why World of warcraft will fade into the fog since they got their hands in the water with Blizzard.
Depends on the game. I know it's been done before in a few games but I'm too lazy to look up examples.
FirestormXVI
Member
Portal 2 allows you to play together even if one player is on a PlayStation 3 and the other is on PC.
The Xbox 360 is the best-selling video game console this year. Nintendo's share prices are back at they were before the Wii due to its inability to stay relevant in 2011. Kinect was inspired by Wii, but it's helping the 360 overcome it now.
Call of Duty is still selling gangbusters. Modern Warfare 3 sold even better than Black Ops.
Neither the 360 nor PS3 qualify as PCs.
The Xbox 360 is the best-selling video game console this year. Nintendo's share prices are back at they were before the Wii due to its inability to stay relevant in 2011. Kinect was inspired by Wii, but it's helping the 360 overcome it now.
Call of Duty is still selling gangbusters. Modern Warfare 3 sold even better than Black Ops.
Neither the 360 nor PS3 qualify as PCs.
FirestormXVI
Member
CoD's a console-first game and has been for a while although I believe with either BLOPS or MW3 they put dedicated servers back in after the massive backlash. I don't keep track. Got bored of the franchise after the first Modern Warfare. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are more comfortable with dual analog than KBM. Yes, they'd probably get destroyed when you pair them up against a KBM player, but that doesn't make CoD a PC game.
It was really PC first until about COD4, COD3 I dont even think went to PC though.
But my opinion about why I think FPS is PC more than console is due to the fact I was playing FPS games on PC before consoles saw much light of them, I will say nothing beat Golden Eye on N64 though.
But my opinion about why I think FPS is PC more than console is due to the fact I was playing FPS games on PC before consoles saw much light of them, I will say nothing beat Golden Eye on N64 though.
FirestormXVI
Member
Call of Duty 1, the expansion, and 2 were definitely PC first. That was before consoles had a real online infrastructure in place (aside from the Xbox. And I guess Nintendo still doesn't). 2 was also on 360 and was one of its best-selling launch titles. There was also a spin-off version of 2 called "Big Red One" that was on PS2/GCN/XBX. With Call of Duty 3 they had it on all systems and I don't think they leaned one way or another. After Call of Duty 4's immense success on 360, the franchise thought of console gamers more and more.
Also, Counter-Strike > GoldenEye
Also, Counter-Strike > GoldenEye
which is another thing that just doesnt make sense.
I had the 360 on 2 occasions and got rid of it, 2nd time I got rid of it was for a PS3.
Their is nothing but FPS games on the 360 and then its the 1 system you pay for xbox live services, yet its the most popular.
That is why it just doesnt ever make sense. I never did like the first xbox system either.
I had the 360 on 2 occasions and got rid of it, 2nd time I got rid of it was for a PS3.
Their is nothing but FPS games on the 360 and then its the 1 system you pay for xbox live services, yet its the most popular.
That is why it just doesnt ever make sense. I never did like the first xbox system either.
Otaku
Active Member
Fun fact for the people bringing up the Zelda glitch:
It's been patched! Just sort of a "for the record" thing.
I've always found it funny that hardcore gaming seems to equal online multi-player instead of "casual". It always seemed more "hardcore" when you had to set-up tournaments and such in person, and it seemed more "hardcore" when you were only concerned with beating the computer to... know you could. There is mild bragging rights when you can show a friend that you beat the computer. There is major bragging rights for beating actual people online so that seems less a sign of being "hardcore".
Likewise I find it odd that "hardcore" gamers seem to be the least open to changes other than periodic graphic enhancement.
I used to fancy myself a hardcore gamer, and I most definitely am not now: I just didn't have the money to keep up (and now really wish I'd been saving in High School instead of buying an N64, PSOne, and Sega Saturn plus games and accessories). The Wii was a console designed to appeal to everyone, but the spoiled gamer denounced it and paints it as just for "kids and old people casuals". The spoiled gamer being that guy or gal who can afford to buy at least one new game a week and the time to completely play through said game just as fast, and most importantly not realize how fortunate they are to have both luxuries.
It's been patched! Just sort of a "for the record" thing.
I've always found it funny that hardcore gaming seems to equal online multi-player instead of "casual". It always seemed more "hardcore" when you had to set-up tournaments and such in person, and it seemed more "hardcore" when you were only concerned with beating the computer to... know you could. There is mild bragging rights when you can show a friend that you beat the computer. There is major bragging rights for beating actual people online so that seems less a sign of being "hardcore".
Likewise I find it odd that "hardcore" gamers seem to be the least open to changes other than periodic graphic enhancement.
I used to fancy myself a hardcore gamer, and I most definitely am not now: I just didn't have the money to keep up (and now really wish I'd been saving in High School instead of buying an N64, PSOne, and Sega Saturn plus games and accessories). The Wii was a console designed to appeal to everyone, but the spoiled gamer denounced it and paints it as just for "kids and old people casuals". The spoiled gamer being that guy or gal who can afford to buy at least one new game a week and the time to completely play through said game just as fast, and most importantly not realize how fortunate they are to have both luxuries.
Well I could probably of been considered HC between 2004-2009 in which I was playing World of Warcraft a good bit. Wasnt casual either, I was in end game and high upon arena.
Too much change of the game forced me out of it twice in that span with 2009 being the end of the straw.
Too much change of the game forced me out of it twice in that span with 2009 being the end of the straw.
FirestormXVI
Member
I didn't like the first Xbox either, but saying the 360 just has first person shooters is extremely ignorant. I personally don't pay for Live Gold because I have 3 years free from a promotion, but I'd still rather pay the $25 a year for it than have to deal with PSN. Getting a game of Uncharted 2 going was a complete pain.
Here is my 360 collection: http://www.backloggery.com/games.php?user=Firestorm&console=360
11 of 53 games are FPSes.
17 of 53 games can be considered shooters (I'd say Dead Space is borderline but I included it).
And that's not including XBLA: http://www.backloggery.com/games.php?user=Firestorm&console=XBLA
0 of 33 shooters.
oh the 360 has more, but I cant help but think without the FPS library, the 360 would be behind Sony and Nintendo by a good bit.
The FPS games on the 360 is about the most popular games on that console, it literally supports it.
But then most of the other good games on the 360 outside of those FPS game are multi-platform.
I own the PS3 and Wii currently because both have much better variety of exclusive titles, 360 just doesnt have much for that outside of Halo.
The FPS games on the 360 is about the most popular games on that console, it literally supports it.
But then most of the other good games on the 360 outside of those FPS game are multi-platform.
I own the PS3 and Wii currently because both have much better variety of exclusive titles, 360 just doesnt have much for that outside of Halo.
