Kane & Lynch: Dead Men gets multiplatform launch on PS3, 360, and PC

Should I bitch like the Sony fanboys when DVC4 went Xbox 360?

OH NOOEESSSSS.

Edit: DMC4. Come on the V and the M are...no where near each other on the keyboard. Screw you then.

@ShaolinDolemite

Should the PS3 fanboys ridicule and laugh at the XBox fanboys like they did when DVC4 went XBox 360?

Meh. It's Eidos, of course they'd go multi-platform.

Haha! What comes around goes around.

Quick! Someone draw up an online petition!

;-)

I think the xbots laughed because the PSFanboys went all crazy with the petition and whining.

Wait, this game was exclusive? That's news to me.

Oh well. QUICK LETS MAKE AN INETERNAT PETESHION LIKE SONY RETARDZ DO! U R BETRYAYING UR FANBASE!!

its good to see the ps3 getting some love

finnaly

I'm surprised Joystiq didn't mention that Crossfire exclusivity has been lost too.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/crossfire/360-loses-kane--lynch-crossfire-as-exclusives-254845.php

This isn't a big deal like the DMC4 thing because DMC4 is a AAA title and I've never even heard of this fucking game. Isn't Kane a wrestler or something? yeah, this is gonna be great....

~

Maybe Attack of the Show will do a loop on how the 360 is losing its
exclusives and how its so doomed now.probably not. They reserve that
love for the ps3 only.

Phranctoast,

Yeah, I saw Morgan Webb on G4 last night asking Sony to give them some damn games on the PS3 already.

I think everyone wants games on the PS3.

I didn't buy a 360 until it was out for a year, so I didn't suffer through that drought. Was it as bad as the PS3's lack of games right now? What was out on the 360 in April '06?

So it does look like the PS3 has more exclusives than the 360. Basically Mass Effect for the 360 and that's it. I think exclusives are the only thing keeping consoles relavent anymore. With the PC sharing the love now, I think there is no reason to buy a console anymore.

If shooting yourself in the foot was a contest I think between Sony and MS we would have a tie. :)

So when will we see the latest Zelda or Paper Mario on the PC? Or even 360 or PS3?? We won't!! That's what keeps Nintendo and the Wii relavent and thus the reason they are kicking ass over everyone else.

@Phil

It was very bad drought for 360 on first 6 months just like PS3 too.

@cheater

Only this time, a drought on a new "next-gen" system has to go up against a "next-gen" system with plenty of games.

Haven't you guys heard? Exclusivity is soooooooooo last gen, especially with these HD budgets. A good question would be, on which platform will we NOT be able to play in the FFXIII universe?

"Was it as bad as the PS3's lack of games right now? What was out on the 360 in April '06?"

Oblivion, GRAW, CoD2, Burnout, Project Gotham, Geometry Wars, Fight Night 3, DoA4, NBA2K6, Condemned, PD0, King Kong, Kameo, Marble Blast, Astropop...

So far my PS3 has been a GoWII and Blu Ray player. I would love to have a really good title for it right about now. Yes, I have RFOM, but I really find it a chore to play...

I'm happy that Sony fans get something to laugh about, though I think losing an RPG hurts Microsoft more than K&L.

I personally didn't even know it was exclusive in the first place.

As for exclusives, Microsoft has plenty more than just Mass Effect (Too Human, Halo franchise, Gears franchise, Bioshock, Blue Dragon, TimeShift, Lost Odyssey, Alan Wake, Fable 2, et al.), but so does Sony.

This time around, it's not so much 'who has more exclusives' as it is 'who has the exclusives I want.' Some people will want Sony's more, some people will want Microsoft's more. I favor my 360, but that's not to say it's wrong to favor the PS3 (well, at least, it won't be when some games come out for it later). That's just not my preference.

Kind of surprising. Are they essentially saying they are holding the PC and 360 versions so the PS3 version can be completed?

@GJM

Really? You can't play RFOM? Shame really...

It appears you don't know what's out there either. Here's a list which has few more titles than the 360 had in the same timeframe, without including at the PSN titles either, unlike your list.

Armored Core 4
Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII
Call of Duty 3
College Hoops 2K7
Def Jam: Icon
Enchanted Arms
F.E.A.R.
Fight Night: Round 3
Formula One: Championship Edition
Full Auto 2: Battlelines
Genji: Days of the Blade
Madden NFL 07
Major League Baseball 2K7
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance
Motorstorm
NBA 07
NBA 2K7
NBA Street Homecourt
Need for Speed: Carbon
NHL 2K7
Resistance: Fall of Man
Ridge Racer 7
Sonic the Hedgehog
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
The Godfather: The Don's Edition
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Tony Hawk's Project 8
Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom
Virtua Fighter 5
Virtua Tennis 3

theDude,
It appears you missed my point entirely. The first part was simply to answer someone else's question of what was available during the first 6 months of the 360. (BTW: I listed highly rated original titles. You listed a bunch of rehashes and low rated titles to make a counterpoint.) The second part was my personal experience with the PS3 so far.

It is a shame I'm not really enjoying RFOM as that is the main game I bought the system to play. I'm very disappointed with it to say the least.

I feel both the 360 and the ps3 are in the same spot one year apart.

For every 360 title that was out at a specific time, a ps3 title could be named to compensate.

example.
360 ps3

cod2 cod3
doa4 vf5
full auto full auto2
oblivion oblivion


you get the point. the 360 may have had one or more ace up its sleeve. I know graw came out around april or so.

It did take the 360 a year to bring out gears however, which by most is considered the first must have game.

I think the ps3 will have the must have with heavenly sword. dont get me worng. lair looks great, and so does ninja gaiden sigma, but i believe HS is going to be one of those wow games!

"It did take the 360 a year to bring out gears however, which by most is considered the first must have game."

Oblivion

@GJM

If that was your point, it didn't come across that way. Your list appears to be a direct response to the question.

Highly rated, hardly: King Kong, Kameo, Marble Blast, Astropop, PD0 (one of the most overrated games ever)? Come on, who are you trying to kid? Don't back-peddle, you said what you intended to say. The titles you listed are pretty much all of what was out at the time for the 360, less a couple titles. Whether or not they are "highly rated" or "original" makes no difference, the fact is that there are more titles on the PS3 now than there were on the 360 in the same time-frame.

It is a shame, RFOM is a fantastic FPS which has a deep, long and original storyline. Many more hours of gameplay compared to GoW, which I also like very much, but is a very short game.

theDude,
Check metacritic. Thw world doesn't revolve around us. I'm just going by the general consensus. You keep talking quantity and that has never been the point. I own one non-PSN PS3 title. At this point in the 360s life I owned at least 8. I haven't even finished RFOM yet but I am at the end and if that is what you consider to be a deep storyline, you are either too young or need to get out more. I think RFOM would have greatly benfited from a shorter Gears-like length as IMO many parts feel needlessly stretched out. Again, I feel RFOM is all about quantity while Gears is all about quality.

GJM.

I did say "by most".

Oblivion is an awesome game. I bought it for the ps3. They were both out at the same time in their respective consoles lifetime.

Phranctoast,
I know you said "most". I feel "most" felt Oblivion was a must buy game. Personally, almost everyone on my friend's list had it. I could be wrong though. It's all good...

:)

@GJM

Go back, read the quote you responded to. It's a question about quantity, not quality that you responded to. You're changing things in the midst of the discussion to try to support your position.

I currently have six non-PSN titles and have traded-in two already at this point. I currently have fifteen 360 titles having already traded-in about ten others. There are also three Wii titles on my shelf right now, collecting dust. Big deal.

The depth of the story of RFOM comes from the variation on the standard WWII title, sorry you don't see it, but it's clearly there. Age has nothing at all to do with this, but that statement clearly dates you. I totally disagree with your assessment of quality over quantity, RFOM has both, GoW has quality graphics with lots of minor issues and a very short game.

As for quality, the only "next-gen" system games rating more highly than many of the same titles on the last gen systems isn't really a big surprise. The early launch of the 360 benefited those titles with better ratings due to what they were competing with at the time. There are some truly good games in that list, but only two of those titles in your list scored a 9 or higher on Gamespot which would indicate a truly great game IMO. A few of them scored less than 8 and a couple less than 7, again, hardly great games.

I don't own a PS3 (Wii and 360 only) but I'm happy for people who do. Multiplatform seems like it's the way every publisher is going, and IMO that's good for gamers.

theDude,
He doesn't say it explcitly, but it's pretty obvious it is referring to the *quantity* of *quality* games. No one questions whether or not the PS3 has a lot of games. People question the quantity of all new top tier titles.

So the depth on RFOM is because instead of fighting Nazi's you're fighting aliens? I don't see how a variation on a theme equals depth. As far as dating myself, what's your point? I've been playing games since the 2600. No shame here.

are sony people really laughing about this? really?

all 360 has to do to win this console race is play the same games PS3 does but for cheaper.

there's currently no reason to prefer a PS3 version of a multiplatform game over 360, they still most often run and look worse (see IGN's review of F.E.A.R. ouch), don't have rumble and have less online features on a much more expensive platform.

Sony has to keep games AWAY from 360, not continue to have inferior versions of them.



.

@GJM

You've clearly read what you want into:
"I didn't buy a 360 until it was out for a year, so I didn't suffer through that drought. Was it as bad as the PS3's lack of games right now? What was out on the 360 in April '06?"
There is no implication there about quantity of quality as you suggest. You're applying your interpretation to what the post says after the fact.

You don't see how variety creates depth? You don't see how the fusion of two standard game genres develops into an alternate historical storyline which leads to depth of the story? Your statements make me question if you have actually played the game at all.
The alien spin on a WWII FPS is certainly deeper than just fighting aliens rather than nazis and it's does more with it than any other WWII FPS has done. Return to Castle Wolfenstein scratched the surface of alternate reality in a WWII FPS. A title which had zero in the way of character development/change, which RFOM does have. Wolfenstein threw in some aspects of black magic, but those aspects had no affect on gameplay and were things taken from historical knowledge of Hitler and his beliefs and brought them to the game. There is a protagonist in this story as opposed to an unknown faceless character and his story is what you are playing through, again more than most WWII FPS titles have done before. Sure in COD games you are spoken to by other characters, but there is no question as to your loyalties or anything else for that matter, you're just Joe American in WWII.

As for dating yourself, your unsubtle attempts at insults is how you date yourself as being younger. I too was playing my 2600 when it came out back when I was a kid, I also played my Atari Pong and my Magnavox Odyssey when I was a kid.

Interesting twist, I never said anything about you feeling shame, just that it's a shame you don't appreciate RFOM as it's an excellent FPS, both graphically and story-wise.

i love how people live in such vacuums.

the 360 was much better off in April 2006, simply because it existed. regardless that Oblivion and GRAW were out by then, they were the sole next generation console.

the same can't be said about April 2007. unless you're living with fanboy blinders on, not taking into account the clear competition relative to your releases is simply myopic.

it especially hurts when the versions of games coming out now look worse than they did in 2006. this MUST change if PS3 is going to "erase" the 360.


.

theDude,
Bottom line: FFOM: Aliens attack, you're infected but don't transform, you kill aliens, enough room left open for sequel. Been done many times in games. Everything else is extracted from your own imagination. Bravo. I have had 2 friends come over, also in their 30s, and also FPS fans, and play through the first 75% of the game with me co-op (if which it had this online would greatly improve the game for me as I am not the biggest split screen fan). They too were completely unimpressed. While one of them has no intention of owning a PS3 any time soon, the other was going to buy a PS3 specifically for RFOM. Playing it changed his mind (which really surprised me as he almost exclusively only plays FPS's)

RFOM is a solid shooter with excellent production values. but it certainly doesn't move the genre any farther, mechanically or even conceptually.

so they included aliens to WWII (both things we haven't seen before right?), so what? will RFOM2 include ninjas and pirates?


.

I will agree with that Digi, RFOM certainly has nice production values. Playing in uncompressed 7.1 is sweet too.

at 30, how is going multiplatform better for gamers? For cheap gamers who only own one console, maybe, but I'd be damned if I spent 600 on a system only to find out the big exclusives are all getting ported to the 360 or PC. There's no point in having 3 systems in the industry if all the games are multiplatform, one or two first party franchises are not enough for a system to merit a buy.

When in doubt, just listen to Digi. He basically always tells it like it is.

You just can't say "look at the 360 in 2006 and compare it to the PS3 in 2007". That is stupid on multiple levels. The 360 was superior to all of its competition in 2006. The PS3 is lagging the 360 in 2007. Ever since November 2006, owning a 360 was better than owning a PS3. But, owning both is always the best. ;)

@GJM

Have you played Motorstorm? I'm completely hooked on it still - probably the best racing game I've played since Burnout 4. Maybe racing isn't your thing.

What about VF5 or Tekken 5 DR? Both great fighting games for different reasons.

As for RFOM, it was the first FPS that I was finally able to play all the way through and I enjoyed it. I barely made it through Halo 1 and I quit Halo 2 about 1/3 of the way through - too simple and the story was in 1 was different but #2 was the same old thing. I grew up playing Wolfenstein and Rise of the Triad so my FPS roots are in the PC I must admit so it's hard for me to give Console FPSs a fair shake.

@Digi Smalls

"there's currently no reason to prefer a PS3 version of a multiplatform game over 360"

Really? You couldn't think of one? I think you should read less online reviews and rent more games on both systems to see the pros/cons yourself. I think each game has their strengths and weaknesses - although up to date they are small for the multi-platform games. I just thought that your absolute statement was fairly "strong" ;)

Look at the end of the day it doesn't matter which system gets the more games, as long as you get what you personal prefer it all that matters

I bought the ps3 on it's second and third party titles.....what with 3rd parties going multiplatrom left and right...first and second parties are going to be massively important this generation

@41

Sorry "I bought the ps3 on it's first and second party titles"

for once i actually agree with Suck. i also bought the PS3 for 1st and 2nd party titles. i just wish there were enough to justify this offensive early adopter price.

wally - sorry if that statement sounded too absolute, but the lack of rumble, and in-game cross inviting/friend checking on PS3 games are undeniably empirical (ie. absolute) facts about ALL PS3 games, not just 3rd party.

these are some pretty major features i've been enjoying on 360 since 2005, and for a game to not have those in offers no incentive at all to prefer (much less wait for) a PS3 version.

if i had to pick some 3rd party games that have been improved on PS3, you could point to Oblivion and Fight Night i suppose - but oblivion still isn't out yet and well if any game needs rumble...it'd be boxing. don'tcha think?


.

What the Fuck?....Digi and I agree on something......ahhhhhhhh Hell.......I better get to the church and prey.....if this is not a sign of the apocalypse then I don't know is......almighty pancakes..........I mean almighty GOD......

@GJM

LOL. It's been done "many times in games"? Sure, whatever you want to believe. Name some of those "many" other games that have the same basic concepts and throw them into a WWII alternate reality timeline. Also, be so kind as to tell me what I pulled from my imagination. Certainly you know of many deeper games than this one.

So, you and your other two '30 something' friends spent more than 8 hours (it’s generally understood to contain more than 12-15 hours of gameplay to complete it) playing the game that you and your friends didn't/don't like. Your story sounds rather fishy and becomes more so as you progress.

For someone that goes by the "general consensus" you seem to ignore it for RFOM. It scored very well with pretty much every game site out there, better than most of the 360 titles you listed and later claimed were "highly rated". Yet, you and your two '30 something' friends know better too. You're all over the place, but that's not really very surprising based upon your previous back-peddling.

@Digi

What? Oblivion isn't out yet on the PS3? I've had it for over a month.

This is why I tend to ignore you Digi, you're either a bad liar or you're horribly misinformed. That and you seem to mainly troll.

the shivering isles/ improved graphics 'patch' that is supposed to make the PS3 version better than the 360 version isnt out yet. you've had it for how long? wow, wanna know how long i've had it?

for someone who's so informed, if you read those high reviews of rfom, they all pretty much said the same exact thing i felt about the game. great production values, nothing really new. claiming Resistance did anything novel with the timeline or narrative is solely your unbacked personal opinion. if you want to experience an innovative FPS, see Half-Life2 which most reviewers agreed it couldn't match.

thanks for the name calling and the deliberate (and cowardly) dismissal of every other argument i made besides the one you managed to muster a retort for. wait, what's the definition of a troll again?



.

@Digi

Sorry, I've got both versions, had them both since they each came out. The PS3 version looks better and doesn't have issues with loading and painting problems that the 360 version has.

Maybe, if you want people to not take you for a troll you should say what you intend to say rather than amending it after the fact.

There are often nuggets of truth to your posts, but many times, they're filled with fanboy/troll BS and aren’t worth responding to. I responded to the blatantly ridiculous part of the post, no mention of patches or SI before now, but you expect reaction to your valid points even though you had that little comment mixed in there?

Here, let me respond to your posts, I don't want you to feel left out.


“are sony people really laughing about this? really?”
No, they don’t need to stoop to the level of the MS fanboys that go nuts every time something that was an exclusive becomes multi-platform.

all 360 has to do to win this console race is play the same games PS3 does but for cheaper.
This is one of the most tired arguments around. I paid less for my 360 than I did for my PS3. But I got much more for my money with my PS3 than I did with my 360. If it wasn’t an issue MS wouldn’t need to add a third version to the line-up or release new add-on devices to make-up for what’s missing when compared to the PS3.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the 360’s lead isn’t going to help them, just like superior hardware didn’t help them in the last generation. Microsoft has a very dedicated following, but they don’t seem to understand what their demographic is, they keep changing their minds and that’s why they won’t be in the lead for long.

there's currently no reason to prefer a PS3 version of a multiplatform game over 360, they still most often run and look worse (see IGN's review of F.E.A.R. ouch), don't have rumble and have less online features on a much more expensive platform.
Appearance is subjective. I’ve played multi-platform titles on my machines and have not agreed with most reviews. ATI and nVidia produce slightly differing appearances and that’s where most differences seem to come from. One is brighter and one is darker, they both look fine in the long run and reviewers have bias too. I’ve found that the PS3 handles graphics better than the 360 for some reason, like in Oblivion, why that is, I don’t know or care, I just notice it. To some rumble is important, I find it to be insignificant; the same goes for online play. You constantly refer to XBL and how much better it is than PSN, it didn’t start that way and to those that prefer single player titles it’s also irrelevant. Most people I know don’t play online games or prefer to not play online.

Sony has to keep games AWAY from 360, not continue to have inferior versions of them.
I don’t agree completely. First off, I don’t agree that the PS3 versions are inferior, that’s fanboyism, as I stated before, pluses and minuses exist on both platforms. Then again, exclusivity is why I’ve owned every major console for the past 30+ years. It’s good and bad.

i love how people live in such vacuums.
So, that wasn’t meant as an insult? Statements like this are why I referred to you as a troll.

the 360 was much better off in April 2006, simply because it existed. regardless that Oblivion and GRAW were out by then, they were the sole next generation console.
I believe that’s what I said too. I made the remark regarding ratings by game sites, but that’s the general point. However, that doesn’t change anything about the discussion you were entering into at the time.

the same can't be said about April 2007. unless you're living with fanboy blinders on, not taking into account the clear competition relative to your releases is simply myopic.
No insulting remarks there, again. So, don’t discount the retaliation. I did mention that they were the only next-gen console and that the reviewers were basing scores then on the previous generation in comparison to the titles on the 360, but you ignored that. So, I’m not the only one guilty of doing what you accused me of.

it especially hurts when the versions of games coming out now look worse than they did in 2006. this MUST change if PS3 is going to "erase" the 360.
Again, I disagree with your opinion. The games coming out for the PS3 do not look worse than games for the 360 looked the year before. Opinions are like @ssholes, everybody has one and nobody wants to hear someone elses.
RFOM is a solid shooter with excellent production values. but it certainly doesn't move the genre any farther, mechanically or even conceptually.

On this point I agree with you, almost completely. There was at least one new weapon introduced in RFOM that I’ve never seen before in any game.
so they included aliens to WWII (both things we haven't seen before right?), so what? will RFOM2 include ninjas and pirates?
The blending of the standard WWII FPS and SF FPS is an important change. Both things have been seen before, just not together. There are no new ideas, only approaching old ideas from a fresh new perspective.

for once i actually agree with Suck. i also bought the PS3 for 1st and 2nd party titles. i just wish there were enough to justify this offensive early adopter price.

Again, I’ll disagree with you here. There are plenty of titles out there, just not if you’ve already bought them on the 360. Also, the price issue is off the mark. If you just bought the PS3 with the intention of playing games then you shouldn’t have bought it. If, however you bought it with the intention of using all of the aspects of it, then it’s well worth the money.
wally - sorry if that statement sounded too absolute, but the lack of rumble, and in-game cross inviting/friend checking on PS3 games are undeniably empirical (ie. absolute) facts about ALL PS3 games, not just 3rd party. these are some pretty major features i've been enjoying on 360 since 2005, and for a game to not have those in offers no incentive at all to prefer (much less wait for) a PS3 version.

If those features are what you were interested in then you made the mistake of being an early adopter. Sorry you feel that way. Those features are coming; you just need to be patient. Sorry. Also, you don’t mention it here, but I’ve seen you harp on it before, background downloading wasn’t available on the 360 at launch and Sony has gotten that functionality into the PS3 in a timelier manner than Microsoft did, but I never saw you give them credit for that, as a matter of fact, I’ve seen posts of yours which claimed that it was built into the 360 at launch, which is completely wrong.
if i had to pick some 3rd party games that have been improved on PS3, you could point to Oblivion and Fight Night i suppose - but oblivion still isn't out yet and well if any game needs rumble...it'd be boxing. don'tcha think?
Rumble doesn’t matter to me and I’d rather play Fight Night on the PS3, it’s faster, smoother and the overall appearance of the fighters is better, plus the bloom effects on the PS3 aren’t completely overdone and it looks more realistic. The Oblivion remark here is what set me off, sorry for that, but this is what you said, apparently not what you meant though.
the shivering isles/ improved graphics 'patch' that is supposed to make the PS3 version better than the 360 version isnt out yet. you've had it for how long? wow, wanna know how long i've had it?
I haven’t heard about this patch and from my experience, the PS3 version already looks better than the 360 version, so I don’t see where you’re coming from with that comment. As for how long I’ve had it, well, I covered that too. I’ve got ‘em both and I regret having spent the money on the 360 version at this point. This game benefits from nothing one the 360 over the PS3, except for the fact that you like rumble. No online benefit, no friends list benefit and it runs better on the PS3.

for someone who's so informed, if you read those high reviews of rfom, they all pretty much said the same exact thing i felt about the game. great production values, nothing really new. claiming Resistance did anything novel with the timeline or narrative is solely your unbacked personal opinion. if you want to experience an innovative FPS, see Half-Life2 which most reviewers agreed it couldn't match.
Sorry, go back and read some of those reviews again. Most of the ones I read, IGN, Ars, Gamespot, all at least mention that the story was what made this game different. Heck, Black did nothing to move the FPS forward, it was just a solid FPS and most reviews of it were also very positive.
OK? I hope that makes you happy.

now that's a response.

ok well, if you've seen my posts, you'll know i think the PS3 is very much worth it for big media/AV guys who can use the Blu-Ray, memory cards, and media hub functionality. you may catch me omit that because the topic discussion (and this entire site) is ostensibly about *videogames*. much of the PS3 value you cite above, and the pricey add-ons you describe surrounding the 360 aren't game related.

your statement of " If you just bought the PS3 with the intention of playing games then you shouldn’t have bought it. If, however you bought it with the intention of using all of the aspects of it, then it’s well worth the money." is a sentiment i've echoed here for months. but since this is joystiq, and we're talking about games, its that first sentence i harp on.

speaking of, this forced fracture between game players and HD media consumers is exactly the demographic problem you described but on the wrong party. The PS2 was the 'console of the people' last generation, hardware be damned, this generation, the 360 is the 'console for everybody' only with comparable hardware. Sony forgot what the PLAY in Playstation meant (insert spiderman font comment)

another segue, the hardware visual differences you speak of seem personal at best. you like nvidia's 'look' better than ATi's? did you like xbox1 then? much of the differences you described are subjective at best, but one thing with visuals that isn't subjective is framerate. unless you personally like your games choppier than 360's versions, the vast majority of PS3 ports have visually suffered with the transition. it's universally acknowledged by the press, just not you.

re: XBL and rumble. you personally state that you and 'your friends' don't like rumble or play online. didn't you just vilify someone else for making the same kind of rather useless statement? also, being able to check with your friends in a SINGLE player game (*especially* a long one like oblivion) is a godsend.

background downloading? no, i said XBL pioneered game DOWNLOADS. that before XBL, you werent downloading games onto your console, in the background or otherwise.

yeah i counter what i think are fanboy comments, just as you do, but those insults you say i made weren't directly pointed at you. much less named at you specifically and your previous posts. there's the difference.




.

@Digi

OK. I can see where you're coming from. I don't look at this generation as "video game systems" since, aside from the Wii, they're more along the lines of "living room systems" which, potentially, encompass so much more than just video games. I also feel that forums like these are for open discussion regardless of the major driving topic and you can't ignore the other factors without doing an injustice to the discussions. But, your point is well taken. The reality is that Sony set out to do something more than just make a game system, so did MS, but, IMO (certainly not so humble), they've done it in an underhanded way. The 360 is a delivery system for MS's vision of the living room and they should be up front about that.

I don't see the 360 as the 'console of the people' this generation, I see it as a means to an end. The Wii, however popular or not is the 'console of the people' this generation. It's the system that's really just for games, for the most part. I'm not a big fan, it's not bad, I have one and so far I am only slightly impressed. I see the PS3 as the single-point entertainment system and the 360 as a mish-mosh of indecisiveness. I like my 360 and it's selection of titles, but they'd have been better off if they would've just delivered a cohesive system.

Let me give you some background. I had a PS2 a week after launch. I got a Gamecube when Rogue Leader came out, I think that was a launch title, but I don't recall for sure. I got an XBox when it became much cheaper than it's original price. That being said, for quite some time I only played PS2 games. Then I played PS2 exclusives and the GC was my cross-platform hardware of choice. Then I played PS2 exclusives, GC exclusives and XBox was my cross-platform hardware of choice.
That being said, I have not seen choppy framerates on any of my PS3 cross-platform titles. Tony Hawk, Marvel:UA, COD3, Fight Night3, Tiger Woods 07, Godfather, Oblivion, I haven't noticed any loss of frame-rates over the 360 versions. I have noticed a the improvements in Oblivion I mentioned before.

Frame-rates, I've seen Oblivion hiccup and get screen tearing, and major drawing issues on the 360, but not yet any of those on the PS3.

As for visually suffering? I would guess that this has much more to do with the move from DirectX more than anything else. Factor 5 made some comments about how it's better to do the initial work on the PS3 in terms of ease of design. I can't recall the other company off the top of my head right now, but another company made similar remarks about how it's easier to move from the PS3 to the 360 rather than the other way around. I would guess that the 360's heavily proprietary code base is more to blame for this than anything else and once we see more titles ported from the PS3 to the 360 we'll see much better looking games on the PS3.

Online play is a nice distraction and a wonderful way to play games with others that aren't in your living room at the time, but I don't see it as the most important part of the systems. My "vilification" of GJM was due to the fact that GJM was making statements about quality as defined by the reviewers and not personal opinion and then justified his perspective by contradicting that point with his personal, yet questionable, experiences. "Highly rated" and all then slam the PS3's "highly rated" title with contradictory experiences.

I'm not the type of person that wants help with any game. I not the type of person that appreciates "...being able to check with your friends..." on games. I don't use FAQs or cheats. I believe that's just a form of cheating. Comparative discussion is one thing, but other than that I have no reason to be in contact with others in a single player game.

My discussion with you here, I believe, is about our personal perspectives as well as those of others which is why I am bringing up my own experiences. I didn't mean for it to come across any other way than that, sorry if it did.

As for what you've said here on Joystiq, I don't spend much time in the forums, except for lately. So, I speak from a limited base of reading of your posts. I find that you generally have very good insight but with an acid tongue at times that leans toward MS, again, limited experience. I'm fairly certain that I have read you remarking about downloads, as I've wanted to respond, but haven't. I'll just take your word for your statements, as it's not worth the time to dig through joystiq looking for anything like that.

I assumed, yeah yeah ass-u-me, that you were directing your remarks my way. That's why I thought you were saying I was ignoring you. Of course there's a difference. Sorry to offend, if I did. You seem to have a pretty thick skin though... I'm sure you won't take it too badly in the long run. ;~| Sorry I called you a troll.