getting worried

[quote name='Aegith']I dislike Final Fantasy. I dislike Nippon Ichi (Soul Nomad looks promising). My only interest on the PS3 is Star Ocean. Zelda can be considered a sub-RPG genre. Who cares, it's still my favorite game series of all time, that's why I listed it.[/quote]

Is that so?

Hmmm....

[quote name='Aegith']360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!
[/quote]

Gee... look at that... Your one title you're interested in and it didn't even make the list.

Go figure, you're a fucking moron.
 
So you're admitting that you're not listing RPGs that exist/are in development/in the planning stages for various consoles, but, rather, (and this is an important distinction) games you *want to play*?

Well, then, the question becomes this: so fuckin' what? If your argument is "360 has RPGs, Wii has RPGs, PS3 has no RPGs," then back it up with RPGs coming out, not what YOU want to play.

Let me guess: you currently own a 360 and a Wii, and have no immediate plans to buy a PS3? If so, all you're doing is engaging in "cognitive dissonance," babe. Actually, you're doing that no matter what consoles you own. I appreciate that you admit your list is bullshit and has ZERO bearing on what RPGs are coming out for what systems, and thus you've done NOTHING to substantiate your argument that the PS3 has no RPGs coming out for it.

That doesn't mean I like you or respect you, but unlike most trolls/biased types, at least you're forthcoming. That must mean something.
 
[quote name='furyk']My favorite game is Bubble Bobble therefore it's a life sim because that's my favorite genre.[/quote]I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.
 
[quote name='dallow']I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']My favorite game is Final Fantasy X, because I like sports titles.[/QUOTE]

*high fives all around*
 
Gadzooks! That must make Chrono Trigger a hentai adventure game! :hot:

[quote name='dallow']I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Gadzooks! That must make Chrono Trigger a hentai adventure game! :hot:[/QUOTE]

4chan and google image search are not my friends.
 
Now now, no reason to get testy because someone failed to list a game they ended up mentioning. Personally, I'm kinda wanting the new GTA, but otherwise, I don't want any of the stuff coming out. I tried and disliked the MGS games, same with the DMC games, FF games and well, unless Duke Nukem gets a 3rd person incarnation on the 360 or PS3 or Spy Hunter gets another great incarnation, I can wait for MY price to buy either system.

And, forget about the Wii, I didn't even OPEN my GC I bought at a store closing sale, so why would I buy another Nintendo console, especially one whose controller sets cost $60 fuckin dollars.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Now now, no reason to get testy because someone failed to list a game they ended up mentioning. Personally, I'm kinda wanting the new GTA, but otherwise, I don't want any of the stuff coming out. I tried and disliked the MGS games, same with the DMC games, FF games and well, unless Duke Nukem gets a 3rd person incarnation on the 360 or PS3 or Spy Hunter gets another great incarnation, I can wait for MY price to buy either system.

And, forget about the Wii, I didn't even OPEN my GC I bought at a store closing sale, so why would I buy another Nintendo console, especially one whose controller sets cost $60 fuckin dollars.[/QUOTE]

...

...

...

huh?
 
Oh we're not getting testy because he failed to mention one game. We're getting testy because he's a blithering idiot, and we're a bunch of assholes using the anonymity of the internet to protect ourselves from being called out on downright meanness.

Err I mean suck a cock!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My favorite game is Final Fantasy X, because I like sports titles.[/quote]

wth are you on crack, everyone who references to final fantasy games knows that they are world war 2 FPS games...


well i like madden 08 because its a RPG maker...:cool:
 
The one title I had completely forgotten.

Back to topic. This topic was related to the lack of success of the PS3 and opinions thereof. I stated the PS3 currently holds no RPGs that interest me. That is why the PS3 isn't even a consideration for me as of now. Who's the fanboy... The one who plays whichever system holds a library of games that interest him, or the one who blindly ridicules another for not sharing the same opinion as them?

[quote name='Kayden']Is that so?

Hmmm....



Gee... look at that... Your one title you're interested in and it didn't even make the list.

Go figure, you're a fucking moron.[/quote]
 
...the one who sloppily compiles a biased and poorley weighted list of forthcoming RPGs, claiming to have done so (only after scrutiny) to list the games only HE is interested in, and is later found to have omitted titles for the PS3 that he claims to have interest in?

Or is that too broad for you?

EDIT: g'night.
 
I was going to reply, but then I figured you'd just hammer out some more nonsensical bullshit and throw it on top of your already impressive mountain of effluence.

[quote name='Aegith']The one title I had completely forgotten.

Back to topic. This topic was related to the lack of success of the PS3 and opinions thereof. I stated the PS3 currently holds no RPGs that interest me. That is why the PS3 isn't even a consideration for me as of now. Who's the fanboy... The one who plays whichever system holds a library of games that interest him, or the one who blindly ridicules another for not sharing the same opinion as them?[/quote]
 
[quote name='furyk']Oh we're not getting testy because he failed to mention one game. We're getting testy because he's a blithering idiot, and we're a bunch of assholes using the anonymity of the internet to protect ourselves from being called out on downright meanness.

Err I mean suck a cock![/quote]

Hey now, this isn't Gamefaqs, we have RULES here you know. If yer gonna insult someone, do it gentlemanly, with yer pinkies raised.

And, my favorite game is GTA Vice City because I love RPGs.
 
Hurray for idiots taking stuff out of context. Simple phrase stating why someone(me) currently holds no interest in the PS3. My personal opinion SHOULD be confined to what I WANT TO PLAY, not what other people might want to play. I'd all but forgotten Star Ocean until someone mentioned it. RPGamer has yet to list it under Releases for the PS3. You honestly think one game would persuade me to purchase a PS3? No. My posts held relevance to the OP's post, yours--and everyone else who replied to mine with animosity--were off-topic flames.

[quote name='mykevermin']So you're admitting that you're not listing RPGs that exist/are in development/in the planning stages for various consoles, but, rather, (and this is an important distinction) games you *want to play*?

Well, then, the question becomes this: so fuckin' what? If your argument is "360 has RPGs, Wii has RPGs, PS3 has no RPGs," then back it up with RPGs coming out, not what YOU want to play.

Let me guess: you currently own a 360 and a Wii, and have no immediate plans to buy a PS3? If so, all you're doing is engaging in "cognitive dissonance," babe. Actually, you're doing that no matter what consoles you own. I appreciate that you admit your list is bullshit and has ZERO bearing on what RPGs are coming out for what systems, and thus you've done NOTHING to substantiate your argument that the PS3 has no RPGs coming out for it.

That doesn't mean I like you or respect you, but unlike most trolls/biased types, at least you're forthcoming. That must mean something.[/quote]
 
I see mykes point about your methods. I think the easier to defend position is that games DONT MATTER until the hardware gets to certain price threshold, beyond which you are unable to make a value judgement for any number of games. Call it a personal mental block.

For instance: PS3 may have a great future lineup. However, its not worth it to me to pay more than X for it, under any circumstances.

Or I guess you could say that you buy your consoles on immediate lineup and not "potential"

My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).

A gaming conservative, if you will.
 
Valid arguments. My personal reasons are thus: There are only one or two games I would consider buying for the PS3. This is including every game announced up to this point. Tax on unbelievably huge price tag.

And, isn't the platform for SO4 yet to be announced? I'd like to see info for this.
 
The only thing Sony's "trying" to do is to sell their blu-ray stuff. If not they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. They don't care about video games. They haven't had a profitable year off a video game system since PS1 if I recall and it doesn't matter to them. PS2 their real agenda was promoting DVD players, now on PS3 it's blu-ray. Microsoft's losing money too and who knows what they're agenda is maybe just to f with Sony?
Click to expand...

Actually, prior to the ps3 release, Sony's gaming division is the ony division which was regularily profitable.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I see mykes point about your methods. I think the easier to defend position is that games DONT MATTER until the hardware gets to certain price threshold, beyond which you are unable to make a value judgement for any number of games. Call it a personal mental block.

For instance: PS3 may have a great future lineup. However, its not worth it to me to pay more than X for it, under any circumstances.

Or I guess you could say that you buy your consoles on immediate lineup and not "potential"

My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).

A gaming conservative, if you will.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

A regular Tip O'Neill, you!

Your argument about X,Y, or Z not mattering (to *you*) as long as the console is priced out of your range is totally valid. Pointing to issues as temporary barriers to your interest in a product is more than reasonable (*if* the PS3 was $400, I'd consider these games/*if* the 360 has eliminated their faulty hardware, I'll pick one up/etc.).
 
[quote name='snowsquirrel']Actually, prior to the ps3 release, Sony's gaming division is the ony division which was regularily profitable.[/QUOTE]

and would have continued if they put out a reasonably priced GAMING console.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

A regular Tip O'Neill, you!

Your argument about X,Y, or Z not mattering (to *you*) as long as the console is priced out of your range is totally valid. Pointing to issues as temporary barriers to your interest in a product is more than reasonable (*if* the PS3 was $400, I'd consider these games/*if* the 360 has eliminated their faulty hardware, I'll pick one up/etc.).[/quote]He stole that from me, I called him a gaming neo-con long ago. He once used it as his usertitle.

I liked it!
 
[quote name='dallow']Rent a cable box?
Are you living 5 years ago?
Everything's been slowly converting for digital for the past 10 years, slowly but surely.
It's pretty much done in all mid to large cities.

Anytime you get cable now, you get a box.
They are all digital, and have analog to digital converters built in.[/QUOTE]


Um nope. Even here in most of the counties around DC and Baltimore they still offer a couple of tiers of basic, analog cable which doesn't require a box. Usually the unadvertised "welfare pack" of 20 channels or so for $25 or so, and the normal basic cable pack of 98 channels for $50 or so.

Totaly digital conversion is even less common in smaller cities and rural areas. The digital transfer has been going damn slow.
 
[quote name='elmyra']It doesn't matter. The switch in 2009 only affects over-the-air broadcasts. Cable providers can stay analog forever if they want, nobody cares, they're using their own bandwidth. The whole point of the switch is that digital transmissions take up less of the available broadcast spectrum than analog transmissions, and the government wants to free up space for new technologies. Cable companies are trying to push customers to digital, however, for the same reason as the government mandate - digital saves bandwidth, and allows them to offer more content in the same space. My cable company allows current analog subscribers to continue receiving analog, but new accounts have to be digital.


Dallow is right, there is no HD mandate. From here:

Although all broadcasts will be digital after the deadline, not all broadcasts are required to be HDTV, as part of the ATSC standard is 480p/i, which includes current satellite/digital cable transmissions. So even though there is a hard date for digital television, it will likely be much longer before all broadcasts will be in HDTV as there will be no hard date and will likely depend on consumer demand.


[/QUOTE]

My point on the first was just that the switchover won't help sell HDTVs, since not many people (even poor) use solely over the air. Most people have cable--even the super poor as most counties require the cable company to offer some super cheap package of 20 or so channels (it's around $15 where I live).

As for the latter, again, I was off but that just furthers that the switch will have little effect on HDTV sales.

Adoption is going slow. It's speeding up, but doesn't change the fact that HD DVD and BR launched way to soon to be successful in selling to anyone other than the videophile nerds.
 
[quote name='Corvin']
Those two generations Sony had the edge from day one. Not so with the PS3. they put out a machine that cost twice what the PS2 did at launch($200 more than the competition). Not only that, but they were the one's that were a year late to the party. They don't have the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for games this time around. This will be two Christmases in a row that they don't have a AAA title. Meanwhile the competition had COD2 in '05, Gears in '06 and Halo/Bioshock in '07.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, they could afford slow starts then as they had no competition for a year. Now they gave MS a headstart, plus did everything possible to fuck up their chance of selling well with the absurd price tag. And to top it off Nintendo came out of nowhere to jump even MS, selling a console like hot cakes despite having shit software.

They're in a hell of a hole to climb out of, have another holiday season coming up, and yet again no big system seller Halo caliber title on the release slate to help them compete for X-mas sales.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.

I hate to always mention past events, but this reminds me so much of the PS1.. it went under people's radar for a while, and then it just got big. But PS1 had a lot of commercials... good funny commercials. That's what PS3 needs, good reoccurring commecials.. geico...[/quote]

True, the PS1 didn't really take off until Tomb Raider 2 and Final Fantasy 7 came out in 1997. I remember finally caving in and buying one in 1998, because of Gran Turismo.
 
[quote name='MadFlava']True, the PS1 didn't really take off until Tomb Raider 2 and Final Fantasy 7 came out in 1997. I remember finally caving in and buying one in 1998, because of Gran Turismo.[/QUOTE]


I bought one for FF7.

But again, the key here is that the PS1 was never in a big hole like this, and was the same priced more competitively with the N64. Factor in that Nintendo went with carts, alienated Square etc. and it's easy to see how the PS1 took off and won easily.

Totally different this time, with MS having a years head start, a solid game libarary and a lower price tag, and the Wii being one of the fastest selling consoles ever and having a much lower price tag and it's clear Sony will have a much harder time getting the PS3 back in the race.
 
I guess the format war is going to carry a little weight here, which is something that I dont keep track of. How does a $399 blu-ray player fare against the price points of current blu-ray players AND HD players?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).
[/quote]

I like online gaming as an option, but not the core.

I'd normally be against hard drives in consoles but with the PS3, since it's user replaceable, I don't mind. I really don't like it when you've got hard drives locked in to a particular machine (XBox does this, I believe). Let me replace the drive with something off the shelf, the box can reformat it, and away I go.

To me the biggest problem with gaming is how stale the game ideas are.

Basically we've got:
* FPS
* racing
* sports
* mini-games (Wii dominates here)

It'd be nice to see a new / good title outside of these over-used genres.

Little Big Planet may be it.

This isn't a comment on PS3 - just the gaming industry in general.
 
Personally, my problem with DMK's stance is he seems to think all these things he doesn't care about will ruin gaming for him.

It's just not true.

1. Online gaming. I hate, but the vast majority of big online console games have great single player modes as well--Halo, Gears, and on down the line.

2. Hard Drives. Not much negative here, can be used for faster loading (metroid prime 3 would benefit greatly from this), add ons etc. The threat of rushed games and patches hasn't really panned out to be much of a problem in consoles. Microtransactions can be annoying, but for the most part most DLC has either been useless, or full expansions like the Oblivion stuff that's worth the price and is great because it extends the game.

3. High Def. Stupid to hate this. HD TV is the future, and the games still play in SD, so best of both worlds. I want my games to look as good as possible personally.

4. Acheivements. Don't care about them, so I just ignore them. Not a negative in any way, shape or form.

5. DLC. Again, microtransactions can be annoying, but most are useless. Full on expansions like the oblivion stuff is great as it extends the game--and the game was super fucking long to begin with so not like they were selling stuff that should have been in the game to begin with. Great for music games as well, as more songs can extend them forever...just need better prices than what Guitar Hero has had thus far.


That said, I do get that DMK is an ultra cheap ass, and a lot of his concerns are that the above are behind the $400-600 prices the 360 and PS3 launched at and $60 games. And that's somewhat fair. But he's such an uber cheap ass that he should just stay in his cave and buy consoles and games a generation behind and quit all the bitching.

Not many people online get under my skin, but he earned a place on the ignore list by posting that shit repeatedly. I just know he's "that guy" that's in every gamestop. You know the one. The weird, socially awkward, annoying as all fuck guy that always seems to be their annoying everyone spouting off non-sense about gaming everytime you go in.
 
There's a reason why games like Dragon Quest are going to handhelds. PS3 is selling like shit (worldwide) and Xbox 360 is selling like shit (Japan) and Wii may scare hardcore rpg gamers off with the controls.
 
[quote name='VidgamesgivemeA_D_D']There's a reason why games like Dragon Quest are going to handhelds. PS3 is selling like shit (worldwide) and Xbox 360 is selling like shit (Japan) and Wii may scare hardcore rpg gamers off with the controls.[/QUOTE]

Definitely true. The DS will likely remain my most played console this generation.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I guess the format war is going to carry a little weight here, which is something that I dont keep track of. How does a $399 blu-ray player fare against the price points of current blu-ray players AND HD players?[/QUOTE]

That would make it around $100 cheaper than the cheapest standalone BR player, and about $100 more than the cheapest standalone HD DVD player.
 
I still think that many gamers would ignore the PS3's price if:
* there was some super gotta-have game - I've seen gamers basically say, "I don't care what the price is - I've gotta play that game!" (be it a buying a PC / upgrading or a console game)
* Sony's reps hadn't been so arrogant in the beginning with their attitude of, "Well, they'll buy it because we tell them to and it's us." That seems to be slowly fading away though with them (smartly) keeping their mouth shut.

I still think the PS3 is a compelling box in that there are a lot of nice things about it if you add it all up as many other's have already pointed out.
 
I'm sure there are some but for many, the price is just too steep regardless of games.

Be it just to expensive on principle, or simply not affordable on their budget.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That would make it around $100 cheaper than the cheapest standalone BR player, and about $100 more than the cheapest standalone HD DVD player.[/QUOTE]

The Toshiba A2 HD-DVD player is $237. so a $400 PS3 model would be $163 more than the cheapest HD-DVD player.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
2. Hard Drives. Not much negative here, can be used for faster loading (metroid prime 3 would benefit greatly from this), add ons etc. The threat of rushed games and patches hasn't really panned out to be much of a problem in consoles. Microtransactions can be annoying, but for the most part most DLC has either been useless, or full expansions like the Oblivion stuff that's worth the price and is great because it extends the game.[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised at this one. I was a negative nancy when it came to idea of hard drives in consoles. I was on the "rushed games and patches" mindset. I'm of course glad to have been wrong on that one. The developers have kept patches to a minimum. The only real problem now is having content on the game disc you can't access without buying a key through the marketplace. That's bullshit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm sure there are some but for many, the price is just too steep regardless of games.

Be it just to expensive on principle, or simply not affordable on their budget.[/quote]

I'm not talking about the folks who look at the $100 PS/2 and it's a stretch for their budget. I'm talking about the gamers who, given the situation of the 'must play' game, will spend gobs of money to be able to play that game.

It used to happen more frequently on the PCs than consoles but I can't say it's happened recently anywhere. I just remember guys buying new PCs or upgrading their current ones (spending hundreds on a video card, for example) just so that they met the specs for some latest/hot game. I think those folks, given some 'must have' game, would spend the bucks. Maybe not the audience of cheap-ass gamer, but those hard-core types are pretty numerous. I think they've also been starving for a good / original game.

For the family of 4 working through their budget each month to make sure there's food on the table - the PS3 isn't for them.
 
[quote name='Brad Bishop']I'm not talking about the folks who look at the $100 PS/2 and it's a stretch for their budget. I'm talking about the gamers who, given the situation of the 'must play' game, will spend gobs of money to be able to play that game.

It used to happen more frequently on the PCs than consoles but I can't say it's happened recently anywhere. I just remember guys buying new PCs or upgrading their current ones (spending hundreds on a video card, for example) just so that they met the specs for some latest/hot game. I think those folks, given some 'must have' game, would spend the bucks. Maybe not the audience of cheap-ass gamer, but those hard-core types are pretty numerous. I think they've also been starving for a good / original game.

For the family of 4 working through their budget each month to make sure there's food on the table - the PS3 isn't for them.[/QUOTE]

True. So it's just for rich game nerds, single people etc.

That's EXACTLY why it's in distant third place and likely to stay there.

The PS1 and PS2 were raging successes as they were the consoles for casual gamers, families of 4 etc. Everyone had the damn things. Now they've priced it out of most of their core market, and are left selling to tech nerds and hard core gamers with no lives and large expendable incomes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True. So it's just for rich game nerds, single people etc.

That's EXACTLY why it's in distant third place and likely to stay there.

The PS1 and PS2 were raging successes as they were the consoles for casual gamers, families of 4 etc. Everyone had the damn things. Now they've priced it out of most of their core market, and are left selling to tech nerds and hard core gamers with no lives and large expendable incomes.[/quote]Ok.

Can this thread end now?
 
I would make it end, if I could.

WE GET IT, THE PS3 IS EXPENSIVE AND YOU HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN IT.

We hear you loud and clear, loud and clear.
 
If you're not interested in the discussion, stay out of thread. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore. Showing me that I annoy you only encourages further posts from me, as half the fun of this site is annoying the fanboys.

My response was just befuddlement that someone was trying to argue that the PS3 is going to start selling well because there SO fuckING MANY hardcore gamers out there with loads of cash to blow once some big games come out.

Sorry, but the hardcore gamers with loads of cash to blow represent the early adopters who've already bought the 5 million or so PS3's that have been sold. They've already got their consoles and are just waiting on games.

If the PS3 is going to make up any ground, and not stay hopelessly in third place they have to find a way to get the casual gamers that were there bread and butter with the PS1 and PS2 on board.
 
It's not a discussion, you've just been repeating the same crap ad nauseum.
I'm not annoyed by you per se (though I see now why people think you're a bit of a prick). I'm annoyed by this non-argument.
And the number of threads I see it in.
 
I think dallow's point is that you have had dozens of post that are reiterations of the same idea over and over again: the PS3 is expensive.

Like AC/DC songs, they appear uniquely written and different on the surface. Digging a little deeper, their paperthin differences give way to a single, isolated foundation on which they all stand.

Like your posts. You can't back up, at all, the idea that "hardcore" folks have only bought the PS3, and you can't back up your claim that folks are "waiting on games" (again with the "PS3 has no games" argument! Y'all are so predictable that someone should just script an anti-PS3 macro to do all the work for you). You can't back up the claim that the PS3 will remain in third place, and that casual gamers are not only not buying the system at all, but never will.

It's absurd on the surface of what you're saying. That's all.

You and "Iamthecheapestgamer" are much alike. Rambling, ranting, raving, and yet possessing so very little to say that you could shuffle any of your posts with any other posts of yours, and the context would only shift a little bit.

Yes, the PS3 has a high MSRP. Yes, the Wii and 360 are selling well compared to the PS3. But, given that the PS3 is on track to sell 11 million by March of 2008, given sales trends (which is 2-3 months earlier than the 360 did after its release), isn't it remarkably premature to revel in eulogizing, over and over and over and over, a system that *is* selling?
 
I purchased a 360 at launch, then traded it in for a PS3 when it launched. My logic was that since I predominately play sports games, since PS3 is more powerful and the would look better, Ill get a PS3. I don't know if you remember but the 2 games that were for PS3 around launch were NBA 2k7 and Madden 07, both of which got slightly higher review scores than their 360 counterpart. Then the next year, suddenly everything FLIPS and the PS3 versions of almost every multi-platform game is the worst version. The reason I traded in the 360 for PS3 is the very reason I want a 360 again. I want to hold on to the PS3 but how much longer is it going to take developers to fully take advantage of PS3's hardware? And now with Halo 3 out and Mass Effect is coming soon, and my itch for a 360 grows. PS3 wise, the only games I see buying is Skate, Assassins Creed, and MAYBE Rachet & Clank (I've never played any of them). 2 of those games are also on 360. Skate has already gotten better reviews for 360, I'm curious to see if Assassin' Creed does also.

I love my PS3, but my patience it starting to run thin. Like the OP, I am getting worried that I picked the wrong "team". I did it before with the Sega Saturn. And Sega Dreamcast. I haven't even been played my PS3 in a while because I'm waiting for the Madden 08 that was ALREADY released on 360.
 
Ironically, Peter Moore (now in charge of sports at EA) publicly stated that starting now, all 360 and PS3 games will be identical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top