Is the graphics war over?! My PS3 says YES!

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Why not? I guess it has to be some 'big ass HDtv that costs $1000+' to be a 'true HD' display, right? It's a 21.5" Acer LCD monitor, full HD with HDMI port right on it. The speakers are a bit tinny, but it serves it's purpose for me.

As for the graphics being responsible for the glitches in the games, I never said that and personally I still don't care about graphics as long as a game is FUN. But most of the 'pretty' games are repetitive bullshit with some frustrating moments in them, but oooooo look at the purty pictures.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Anyone with a bigger TV is a fool, don't listen to them. They're like ladies who get 'jobs' done. The bigger they are, the stupider they are.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']Anyone with a bigger TV is a fool, don't listen to them. They're like ladies who get 'jobs' done. The bigger they are, the stupider they are.[/QUOTE]
I take it you're sporting one of these, genius?
1982_Seiko_TV_Watch.JPG
 
I take it you overpaid for some yard-sized piece of crap. You kids don't realize smaller TV's look better.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So wait....because something is 'exclusive to PS3' it's suddenly graphically superior? Really? :roll: That's a new line I don't think I've heard before.:booty:[/QUOTE]

I'm stating that some games not all that are optimized for one certain system as opposed to two have a much better quality to them because the developers are focusing specifically on that certain system. Their are many games that look very good mutiplatform like Call of Duty games but things like God of War 3 and Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2 and halo 3 look better for their natural platforms. Although their was a much bigger budget for God of War 3 then something like Dante's inferno. That may play a bigger role in the graphical detail of both games. I'm not really trying to be biased here. I'm just stating my own opinions of which I have witness while playing certain games.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']I take it you overpaid for some yard-sized piece of crap. You kids don't realize smaller TV's look better.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly call the Sony 52XBR4 and 46XBR2 pieces of crap, and for that matter, I can't wait to overpay for the yard-sized 60LX900 when it (hopefully) comes out in July.

In all seriousness, not everyone likes to sit with their faces inches away from a tiny ass screen. I bet movie night at your place is loads of fun with everyone crowded around that 13" Magnavox of yours. That's assuming your house even fits more than one person at a time.

I realize this is CAG, but some people on here are straight up bums. If your budget is that tight, perhaps you shouldn't even be spending money on electronics/video games in the first place. Go to the park and toss a frisbee, or something.
 
[quote name='lmz00']I'd hardly call the Sony 52XBR4 and 46XBR2 pieces of crap, and for that matter, I can't wait to overpay for the yard-sized 60LX900 when it (hopefully) comes out in July.

In all seriousness, not everyone likes to sit with their faces inches away from a tiny ass screen. I bet movie night at your place is loads of fun with everyone crowded around that 13" Magnavox of yours. That's assuming your house even fits more than one person at a time.

I realize this is CAG, but some people on here are straight up bums. If your budget is that tight, perhaps you shouldn't even be spending money on electronics/video games in the first place. Go to the park and toss a frisbee, or something.[/QUOTE]

LMFAO I love the people who have to insult other people for 'being poor' because they don't want some huge fuckin' tv that cost $3k. Sorry but some of us prefer to actually have a roof over our heads than some bullshit tv that was outdated before we ever even looked at it in the store where we overpaid for it.

I prefer a smaller tv over some giant screen tv because I have smaller rooms and I don't wanna go totally fuckin' blind by the time I'm 40 from the light emitted by those big screens.

But hey, if you like doing that shit and paying for some giant tv, more power to ya. You support this wasteful consumer economy and I'll keep my SDtv I watch normal crap tv on upstairs for watching tv and playing my old XBox on and my small LCD screen I have for my PS3 downstairs and still have money to my name when the day is done.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']The main problem with that argument comes down to the pricetag for making custom versions for each console though. Why should a developer have to develop either primarily for one console over another when they want their product across both consoles to be the exact same and they can do so via porting from one to the other?

Are we as gamers paying for console specific versions of games? Not if you're a true CAG you're not. You're paying for whichever one is cheapest if you're a multi console owner and then coming here to bitch about how its 'not maximized for the PS3'.

You want a maximized for the PS3's specs version, go out and hire programmers and everybody else and spend millions of dollars and make one. Otherwise, I'm just content to get some games for the console that I currently own. If they're glitchy messes, then I really wait until it's super cheap(like almost always) and I have a real reason to.[/QUOTE]

its not an argument that I was trying to make... the point is that no matter if you're paying 60, 30, 20, 10 or 5 dollars for a game, sometimes you want the best posssible quality no matter what game you buy. As soon as I flopped down my 60 dollars for whatever game, considered those devs hired for services rendered. If the PS3 has a little extra horsepower, then I think devs owe it to PS3 customers to use up some of that power to make the best possible game. Look at Bayonetta, good game, but even the devs won't stand behind their own product.... I just don't like to see games like that (and a host of others) just toatally disrespect the console. What's the point of owing a PS3, if all the third party games are basically Xbox 360 games.. .. then when you play the first party games, its like you're playing on a totally different console. Every game doesn't need blockbuster graphics, but I know that a lot of these third party games could do better.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']its not an argument that I was trying to make... the point is that no matter if you're paying 60, 30, 20, 10 or 5 dollars for a game, sometimes you want the best posssible quality no matter what game you buy. As soon as I flopped down my 60 dollars for whatever game, considered those devs hired for services rendered. If the PS3 has a little extra horsepower, then I think devs owe it to PS3 customers to use up some of that power to make the best possible game. Look at Bayonetta, good game, but even the devs won't stand behind their own product.... I just don't like to see games like that (and a host of others) just toatally disrespect the console. What's the point of owing a PS3, if all the third party games are basically Xbox 360 games.. .. then when you play the first party games, its like you're playing on a totally different console. Every game doesn't need blockbuster graphics, but I know that a lot of these third party games could do better.[/QUOTE]

That's why I own both systems. To get all my Xbox and multisystem games on Xbox 360 and the PS3 exclusives on PS3. Last Gen, the same issue was there just in reverse. Xbox was superior graphically but all multisystem games were built with PS2 in mind and then ported over to Xbox (where they looked like PS2 games). Developers will continue this practice to keep costs down. They don't have loyalty to one system vs another. They are just trying to get the product in the hands of as many people as possible. They will build it on the easiest platform to develop for, which is the Xbox 360, and then port it over.

To those that are hating on people for not having a super expensive TV... HD is HD whether on 13" or on 60". My 40" Sony DLP looks better than my 42" Samsung LCD and it is about 3-4 years older than the LCD. But I guess these people might be the same elite Apple users sitting at Starbucks drinking their overpriced coffee.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']That's why I own both systems. To get all my Xbox and multisystem games on Xbox 360 and the PS3 exclusives on PS3. Last Gen, the same issue was there just in reverse. Xbox was superior graphically but all multisystem games were built with PS2 in mind and then ported over to Xbox (where they looked like PS2 games). Developers will continue this practice to keep costs down. They don't have loyalty to one system vs another. They are just trying to get the product in the hands of as many people as possible. They will build it on the easiest platform to develop for, which is the Xbox 360, and then port it over.

To those that are hating on people for not having a super expensive TV... HD is HD whether on 13" or on 60". My 40" Sony DLP looks better than my 42" Samsung LCD and it is about 3-4 years older than the LCD. But I guess these people might be the same elite Apple users sitting at Starbucks drinking their overpriced coffee.[/QUOTE]

The Xbox and PS2 is a great example. From the games that i played on Xbox, I remember that you could definitely tell the difference between an Xbox game and a PS2 game. The games took advantage over the better hardware that the Xbox provided. But even though the Xbox game looked better, the game always played well on both consoles. The main game that I'm thinking about is Madden (and that 007 game with Mya).
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So wait....because something is 'exclusive to PS3' it's suddenly graphically superior? Really? :roll: That's a new line I don't think I've heard before.:booty:[/QUOTE]

Essentialy... yes.

On paper, the PS3 is technologically superior to the 360. Therefore, all things being equal (they never are), skilled developers with enough time, money, and PS3 developement expertise, should be able to make a game that looks better than anything on the 360.




And for people saying graphics did or didn't matter during some previous console generation, this console cycle is unique.

This is the first time a console manufacturer has put out a 'current' gen console that is decidedly inferior to it's competitors in terms of power and graphic capability.

When Nintendo made the NES, SNES, N64, etc... they were trying to make a console with the best graphics and technology possible, to compete with the newest consoles from Sega and Sony.

Only with the Wii has a company put out a console with last gen tech and attempted to compete with current gen tech.

You can't compare that to any previous console gen. Imagine if instead of putting out the SNES to compete with the Genesis, Nintendo released a new NES with motion controls. Thats what were looking at in this gen.
 
I'd say graphics are at the point where it's up to the creatives how good the graphics look. Technologically they had enough horsepower to do great things for quite a while now, technology is no longer the differentiator, it's up to the game developers to do great work.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']LMFAO I love the people who have to insult other people for 'being poor' because they don't want some huge fuckin' tv that cost $3k. Sorry but some of us prefer to actually have a roof over our heads than some bullshit tv that was outdated before we ever even looked at it in the store where we overpaid for it.

I prefer a smaller tv over some giant screen tv because I have smaller rooms and I don't wanna go totally fuckin' blind by the time I'm 40 from the light emitted by those big screens.

But hey, if you like doing that shit and paying for some giant tv, more power to ya. You support this wasteful consumer economy and I'll keep my SDtv I watch normal crap tv on upstairs for watching tv and playing my old XBox on and my small LCD screen I have for my PS3 downstairs and still have money to my name when the day is done.[/QUOTE]

I genuinely respect your priorities and budget, and by no means should anyone buy a big TV because someone else here says you need one. That said, you are somewhat invalidating your own argument. Without being able to reguarly play on a big TV with great surround sound (audio always gets overlooked it seems), you can't entirely judge how much more immersive top-notch graphics and sound can make a game. They do not make a bad game good, but they do make a good game great.

Endaar
 
[quote name='Thomas96']its not an argument that I was trying to make... the point is that no matter if you're paying 60, 30, 20, 10 or 5 dollars for a game, sometimes you want the best posssible quality no matter what game you buy. As soon as I flopped down my 60 dollars for whatever game, considered those devs hired for services rendered. If the PS3 has a little extra horsepower, then I think devs owe it to PS3 customers to use up some of that power to make the best possible game. Look at Bayonetta, good game, but even the devs won't stand behind their own product.... I just don't like to see games like that (and a host of others) just toatally disrespect the console. What's the point of owing a PS3, if all the third party games are basically Xbox 360 games.. .. then when you play the first party games, its like you're playing on a totally different console. Every game doesn't need blockbuster graphics, but I know that a lot of these third party games could do better.[/QUOTE]

Disrespect the console? You're acting like the console is an animate object with real feelings. That's just......kinda weird. I'm not loyal to any console manufacturer or their console. It comes down to where the companies making the games I want to play put those games. Most of those games have been on the PS3, though many have been multiplatform.

[quote name='Puffa469']Essentialy... yes.

On paper, the PS3 is technologically superior to the 360. Therefore, all things being equal (they never are), skilled developers with enough time, money, and PS3 developement expertise, should be able to make a game that looks better than anything on the 360.[/QUOTE]

On paper it's technologically superior, but since Sony seems to have made the console harder than the Wii and 360 to develop for, you can't really blame the devs for developing on an easier console and just porting to PS3 rather than spending millions more trying to 'maximize' it by trying to figure out the PS3 completely.
[quote name='Endaar']I genuinely respect your priorities and budget, and by no means should anyone buy a big TV because someone else here says you need one. That said, you are somewhat invalidating your own argument. Without being able to reguarly play on a big TV with great surround sound (audio always gets overlooked it seems), you can't entirely judge how much more immersive top-notch graphics and sound can make a game. They do not make a bad game good, but they do make a good game great.

Endaar[/QUOTE]

I've played on my friends' families 37" HDtv before with their surround sound and it was better, but I'm not about to spend $200 on a surround sound system for something I'm using 10% of the time for my entertainment. It just makes no sense whatsoever to me to spend so much for something I use so little.

Now, if I could find speakers I could simply jack into the audio in jack on the back of the monitor I'm using now for my PS3 that has more power than the 1 watt speakers on the monitor and they sound better then I would do that, but only if they were $5-10.
 
[quote name='jh6269']^ I have no idea why people are afraid to admit that good graphics really do add to a game. I love seeing my favorite games upgraded to the latest and greatest; been enjoying it since before 1982. Now, don't get me wrong, graphics alone are not going to make a shitty game good, but they can make a great game even better.

Games have never looked better; I'm truly having a blast with this generation.[/QUOTE]

Couldnt agree more, its a great time to be alive and have money for the nice toys at the same time.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Disrespect the console? You're acting like the console is an animate object with real feelings. That's just......kinda weird. I'm not loyal to any console manufacturer or their console. It comes down to where the companies making the games I want to play put those games. Most of those games have been on the PS3, though many have been multiplatform.
[/QUOTE]
When I said "disrespect the console" I meant that developers can help or hurt a console with their releases. I know you're not "loyal" to any console, but if you purchased that console, then you do have some sort of interest in the platform. I'd like to see developers put a little more effort and development time into the games that they make for the PS3. All multiplatform games should play as well as Burnout Paradise did. Overall, poor 360 ports on the 360 can hurt the platform's success, just like all those poor PS2 ports hurt the PSP's success early on.


[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']
On paper it's technologically superior, but since Sony seems to have made the console harder than the Wii and 360 to develop for, you can't really blame the devs for developing on an easier console and just porting to PS3 rather than spending millions more trying to 'maximize' it by trying to figure out the PS3 completely.
[/QUOTE]

I think that the notion of PS3 development being difficult is just a Stereotype at this point. There's been enough games, and enough dev teams that have worked the system and some of which indicated that the platform was easy to develop for. If you look at Valve, they totally ignored PS3 development and now they're behind. Every third party game doesn't need to be "maximized" but I definitely think they could use a little more polish, using more features from the PS3.
 
[quote name='lmz00']I'd hardly call the Sony 52XBR4 and 46XBR2 pieces of crap, and for that matter, I can't wait to overpay for the yard-sized 60LX900 when it (hopefully) comes out in July.

In all seriousness, not everyone likes to sit with their faces inches away from a tiny ass screen. I bet movie night at your place is loads of fun with everyone crowded around that 13" Magnavox of yours. That's assuming your house even fits more than one person at a time.

I realize this is CAG, but some people on here are straight up bums. If your budget is that tight, perhaps you shouldn't even be spending money on electronics/video games in the first place. Go to the park and toss a frisbee, or something.[/QUOTE]

Lol, that's all you have to brag about? *snicker* You're embarassing yourself, my point about TV size vs. stupidty still stands. Throw away all the money you like on outdated gimmicks. I'll be busy enjoying the games you wish you could afford. And it's a Samsung not Magnavox, that easily beats Sony.

Movies? Not here, hate 'em. Expensive, long, boring, useless. Let me guess you like wasting money on those too?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']

I think that the notion of PS3 development being difficult is just a Stereotype at this point. There's been enough games, and enough dev teams that have worked the system and some of which indicated that the platform was easy to develop for. If you look at Valve, they totally ignored PS3 development and now they're behind. Every third party game doesn't need to be "maximized" but I definitely think they could use a little more polish, using more features from the PS3.[/QUOTE]

I think 'Difficult to develop for' is a euphemism for 'Not like what we're used to' and what they are used to is PC/Xbox style development.

That said, Sony could have made things easier for developers. They basially forced developers to learn a new way to code and program games. And this hurt Sony because most developers either released shoddy ports of 360/PC games, or just didn't develop for the console at all.

Now that lowered prices have increased the userbase, I think we will see that sort of thing fade away.
 
Not gonna read all the posts in here, but I'll say this:

Console-wise, the most graphically impressive games to date for me have been: Killzone 2, Uncharted 1/2, Mass Effect 2

God of War is impressive in terms of scale, but graphically it doesn't have the fidelity of the aforementioned games in my book. You can debate art direction all you want, but on a technical, graphics level I'm just not that blown away by God of War III.

Non-console-wise, I'd imagine the graphics war had been won by Crysis long, long ago.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']Lol, that's all you have to brag about? *snicker* You're embarassing yourself, my point about TV size vs. stupidty still stands. Throw away all the money you like on outdated gimmicks. I'll be busy enjoying the games you wish you could afford. And it's a Samsung not Magnavox, that easily beats Sony.

Movies? Not here, hate 'em. Expensive, long, boring, useless. Let me guess you like wasting money on those too?[/QUOTE]
LOLOL, are you for real? Because I REALLY blew my entire life savings on my televisions, and no longer have a penny to my name as a result. Riiight. :applause::roll: I wouldn't be surprised at all if I've "thrown away" (by your estimation) more money than you wish you could ever save.

And I'm not even bragging, I'm just pointing out how retarded you people sound. It's like trying to say a wallet sized photo is better than an 8x10. If a big TV isn't in your budget, or you can't fit one in your room, that's fine. Just don't go around trying to bash larger screens. That just reeks of insecurity.

As for your comment on movies, that was pointless and out of nowhere. The same could be said for video games, or any form of entertainment, for that matter.

And how the hell are they "outdated?" Last I checked, networks were still broadcasting in 720p or 1080i, and (some) PPV was still being done in 1080p.
 
[quote name='FroMann']How did everyone go from talking about console game graphics to TVs?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure it was the guy that said HD was a waste of money and that it was all about 480i games with good gameplay.
 
[quote name='lmz00']Pretty sure it was the guy that said HD was a waste of money and that it was all about 480i games with good gameplay.[/QUOTE]

Actually it started with your silly little condescending remark here:

"And I'm curious as to what kind of HD display someone who calls himself the "cheapest gamer" would buy. I sure hope it's not some 22" monitor from Dell or wherever. "
 
Exactly. Just another kid who tries to show off with a big TV that actually sucks. They just don't know better so I guess it's entertaining from our end to watch them struggle.

Fact is HD is a gimmick and gameplay will always be first. So while the other person is poor with a big TV I'll keep buying games and enjoying them much more. As for the movies, they've been terrible for decades. Anyone who supports that industry is also a fool. I don't mean download them either, that just shows the studios you care. Actors are overpaid, theaters are overpriced, movies are over-advertised, the whole market just needs to go away.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']Exactly. Just another kid who tries to show off with a big TV that actually sucks. They just don't know better so I guess it's entertaining from our end to watch them struggle.

Fact is HD is a gimmick and gameplay will always be first. So while the other person is poor with a big TV I'll keep buying games and enjoying them much more. As for the movies, they've been terrible for decades. Anyone who supports that industry is also a fool. I don't mean download them either, that just shows the studios you care. Actors are overpaid, theaters are overpriced, movies are over-advertised, the whole market just needs to go away.[/QUOTE]
What kind of ghetto ass neighborhood do you live in where spending a few thousand dollars is all it takes to drive someone into bankruptcy? Public housing?

Where does it end? Who's going to be the one to say "while the other person is poor with all his video games, I'll keep on going to the library and checking out books and enjoying them much more."

But you're probably right. HD is a just a gimmick/fad. In a few years everything is going to revert back to good old 4:3 SD. Video games, television shows, movies, you name it. HDTVs will be nothing more than worthless pieces of crap to decorate one's living room with.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']But more development time=more money per game probably. The way it is I think the $60 starting MSRP for games is a bit over the top.[/QUOTE]

There was an interesting editorial in PC Gamer a few months ago stating just the opposite; that PC games should start selling for more specifically so that devs had larger budgets to work with and could therefore do a better job polishing the product for the PC.

Again, as I stated earlier, game pricing has been pretty damn consistent for a long time. Besides, these days game prices are dropping so fast that if you are somewhat patient, you should never have to pay MSRP.

[quote name='DPsx7']Fact is HD is a gimmick and gameplay will always be first. So while the other person is poor with a big TV I'll keep buying games ...[/QUOTE]

Has anyone on this thread said graphics are more important than gameplay? Nope. The point that has been repeatedly made and repeatedly ignored is that there is no reason a modern game should not have both.

And by the way, as much as posting what size TV one has might be construed as condescending, making assumptions about a person's financial ability to do so is just as bad.

Endaar
 
[quote name='lmz00']What kind of ghetto ass neighborhood do you live in where spending a few thousand dollars is all it takes to drive someone into bankruptcy? Public housing?

Where does it end? Who's going to be the one to say "while the other person is poor with all his video games, I'll keep on going to the library and checking out books and enjoying them much more."

But you're probably right. HD is a just a gimmick/fad. In a few years everything is going to revert back to good old 4:3 SD. Video games, television shows, movies, you name it. HDTVs will be nothing more than worthless pieces of crap to decorate one's living room with.[/QUOTE]

It's about time you learned something here. Now go away quietly and we won't make fun of you anymore.

Books are fine if you prefer them. Yes cheaper, I just like games more.
 
I don't think HD is a gimmick, it's not going to go away... And the graphics war is never over until we have a real live holodeck. Sadly, I probably won't live to see it.
 
[quote name='jh6269']I don't think HD is a gimmick, it's not going to go away...[/QUOTE]
I was only being sarcastic.
 
[quote name='lmz00']I was only being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I was actually mainly responding to this dude:

[quote name='DPsx7']Fact is HD is a gimmick and gameplay will always be first.[/QUOTE]

We know gameplay is the most important, but HD isn't going to make it worse by any means--quite the contrary. Case in point, Yakuza 3 has turned out to be a great game and its not winning any awards. But it's still in HD and still looks great.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']

Fact is HD is a gimmick and gameplay will always be first. So while the other person is poor with a big TV I'll keep buying games and enjoying them much more. [/quote]

No, you just think you will. If you've written off HD without experiencing most games in their intended way then you really don't have as much of a reference point as those who have played them in HD. And that's fine. Acting like you're some true gamer because you ignore the role that graphical fidelity can play in experiencing a game is not, however.

As for the movies, they've been terrible for decades. Anyone who supports that industry is also a fool. I don't mean download them either, that just shows the studios you care. Actors are overpaid, theaters are overpriced, movies are over-advertised, the whole market just needs to go away.
Click to expand...

If you think films in general have been terrible for decades it's honestly just because you haven't been paying attention or are nostalgic for a time period you probably never were even a part of. Transformers 2 isn't representative of the contemporary film market as a whole.

Part of me is still hoping you're just a joke character trying to get a rise out of CAGs who've perhaps spent too much on technology and that you don't really believe the garbage you're writing. Currently it just reminds me of the words of the same type of person who would say they don't like water, sunlight or air in a crowd of strangers just to show how counter-culture they are.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']It's about time you learned something here. Now go away quietly and we won't make fun of you anymore.

Books are fine if you prefer them. Yes cheaper, I just like games more.[/QUOTE]

Dude. You really are a dick. Maybe you should just go away.
 
I remember wanting that TV for my dorm room. The 13" size was perfect, and the speakers were soo loud that it could be your music player as well if you hooked a CD player or CD based game console to it.
 
It's unfortunate that graphics don't make the game, so a graphics war in itself would be meaningless, regardless of a winner. God of war is as hum-drum and simplistic as a game can get, and after devil may cry, bayonetta, and virtually any other goregasm hack-n-slash spectacle fighter there's been, the game holds no real appeal. Once the PS3 gets some serious, hard hitting, and immersive games, things'll be looking up. It's pretty silly that many people bought a PS3 to watch movies on, and yet all the big games coming out are basically movies. MGS4 (as great as it was), Heavy Rain (c'mon.), and even god of war all pretty much fit the description.

Get it together, sony, stop chasing Nintendo's casual crowd and start going after the hardcore market.

If the roles were reversed, and the wii had the best graphics, would you guys be praising how great it is to play Wii Sports HD on your 65" LED tvs? Graphics mean next to nothing of the game isn't good.
 
[quote name='Visitor9x']

Get it together, sony, stop chasing Nintendo's casual crowd and start going after the hardcore market.

[/QUOTE]

There is room for both crowds. A company should not focus on one demographic. They should be able to have something for everyone.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Dude. You really are a dick. Maybe you should just go away.[/QUOTE]
I doubt you'll have to worry about him popping up in this thread again.
 
[quote name='Visitor9x']It's unfortunate that graphics don't make the game, so a graphics war in itself would be meaningless, regardless of a winner. God of war is as hum-drum and simplistic as a game can get, and after devil may cry, bayonetta, and virtually any other goregasm hack-n-slash spectacle fighter there's been, the game holds no real appeal. Once the PS3 gets some serious, hard hitting, and immersive games, things'll be looking up. It's pretty silly that many people bought a PS3 to watch movies on, and yet all the big games coming out are basically movies. MGS4 (as great as it was), Heavy Rain (c'mon.), and even god of war all pretty much fit the description.

Get it together, sony, stop chasing Nintendo's casual crowd and start going after the hardcore market.

If the roles were reversed, and the wii had the best graphics, would you guys be praising how great it is to play Wii Sports HD on your 65" LED tvs? Graphics mean next to nothing of the game isn't good.[/QUOTE]

God of War 3 does some things that have never even been attempted before. The entire game isn't as epic and groundbreaking as some of its parts, but it is by no means hum-drum.
 
[quote name='wildcpac']I cant believe people are complaining about HDTV's. You can get a cheap but effective HDTV 19/20 inches for 200 bucks.[/QUOTE]

And where does one get a 'cheap but effective' HDtv in the 20" range for $200? I looked and looked and the cheapest alternative I found was what I ended up purchasing(21" LCD monitor).

Thing is, I'm too cheap in that I want a 20" HDtv with tuner for UNDER $200. But even the cheapo brands are sitting above that price most times.
 
@Cheapest

Yeah, because you limited yourself to the $200 range. You could have got a pretty decent TV for around $400ish around the black Friday time frame.

But anyway, at least you took the HD plunge, I'm proud of you for that LOL
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']And where does one get a 'cheap but effective' HDtv in the 20" range for $200? I looked and looked and the cheapest alternative I found was what I ended up purchasing(21" LCD monitor).

Thing is, I'm too cheap in that I want a 20" HDtv with tuner for UNDER $200. But even the cheapo brands are sitting above that price most times.[/QUOTE]


http://www.walmart.com/ip/Vizio-19-Class-LCD-HDTV/10854033

19 inch lcd HDTV Vizio for $180 bucks. I have had a 26 inch 1080i Vizio for the past 3 years as a computer monitor and it has worked like a charm with zero problems and great picture and decent sound for the price.
 
[quote name='jh6269']@Cheapest

Yeah, because you limited yourself to the $200 range. You could have got a pretty decent TV for around $400ish around the black Friday time frame.

But anyway, at least you took the HD plunge, I'm proud of you for that LOL[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I finally went HD after saying 'it's hype, it's garbage' for so long. I even admitted I was wrong about that.:D;) A rarity for me. :lol:

But for it's size, I do wish the display I picked up was a bit bigger with better sound, though I couldn't beat the price for it.

However, it seems like far too many companies are making games with smaller text custom made for larger HDtv's.:roll: That's still my ONLY gripe with games this gen is that devs seem to think everyone has the 40"+ tv's and they can make the text teeny tiny and people will be able to see it just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top