Sheikah

lol. No No Kuni then Persona. What is aaaap.

But in this case they get a night kill, a team protection and co-ordinate 3 votes together. All I'm saying is it'd be unusual to get that stuff and have Mafia involved (as the Mafia would surely use this information to take the teammates out at first opportunity). It could be that an included Mafioso wasn't part of the main faction but you still would expect shenanigans when it came to power usage. Out of interest did the teammates have their own board?

Awesome, that's good to hear. Emerald I think the Vita battery is pretty decent, at least comparing it to the 3DS.

Well maybe it wasn't impossible that some were Mafia, but unlikely - if someone on the team was Mafia he'd probably try kill them or screw with them since he knew they had the ability to make a kill and form collective decisions. Wouldn't take too long to suss it out I reckon. Yeah I can't deny that we were doing ok up to that point. Redirecting Aqui1a gave us some extra moves which really came in handy. Ahh man, so that's it. Well I can't feel too bad about it then. It's a shame the coin didn't land the other way.

What I mean is they could join their votes with their three players which is pretty powerful and had no reason to waste their investigatory powers/votes on each other, significantly increasing the chance of targeting us, the Mafia. :p ...to make things worse, we couldn't protect against investigations nor could we ever appear town for any reason so it was pretty tough. I don't think my thanking of posts had any effect since it was pretty obvious that a lynch train had gone down anyway (Cube even knew Marca couldn't have been Mathius and stated it after majority). What happened on the night when DuD was killed? (when mr-paul tried to redirect Aqui1a).

In P3P I controlled them all. Need to get round to playing this, had it for a while (US version) just haven't opened it. I think because I completed P3P not too long ago that I am sorta bracing myself. P3P was a great game but by god, exploring the Tartarus becomes repetitive.

Wait so Cube, Jon and Tales were never going to vote for each other?

Ironically I posted a chart from VG saying that said Sony have the majority market share for 2012, but he chose to ignore that. :p They should really bottle whatever powers Zechs - 'the Zechs effect'. They could use it as a weapon to deteriorate brain function. Aight Zechs, let's trim the quote chain here: - There are tens of people on this forum. That's a sample. Yes, a sample. The size doesn't have to be huge to yield important information. How do I know? I sample all the time during my PhD. We can get away with making valid conclusions based on less than 7 samples per any one group in scientific publications. So 'not the smartest in class?' Fuck you. - If anything all you've shown is that Sony use Killzone in tech demos often, it doesn't mean it's a game for direct compare with Halo. It doesn't mean they consider it anywhere near as valuable as Microsoft do Halo. It's just you drawing comparisons where there are none. - Typing out a long list of exclusives is completely pointless. By that merit the Wii could even look like it excelled itself in third party support. Let's just put this one down - sheer quantity is never a way to prove anything. As I say, from personal experience it seems that a lot of 360 owners aren't happy with the third party offering on the 360, at least not within the last few years and not compared to the PS3. And lastly: Ooh you are talking absolute shiiit. You really must be proud. Number of consoles out there does not equal market share. If that was true then the NES has still got one hell of a market share! Think about the drivel you are saying! Even VG Chartz, your muse, lists the PS3 market share for 2012 to be 45.1% and the 360 at 32.7%.

But the downside of success in the casual area means a switch in focus and effort on producing more of these games. Also I think we're being a bit dramatic. The PS3 did really well and like I've been saying, market leader. Sony might not be in a good financial situation but they've got good third party support and a good console coming.

To be honest I don't see why people argue the first point. We're gamers, we want to game. Commercial success is stuff like Kinect. Also even from an overall perspective, Sony does have the majority market share.

Nada, having a few really good games will get people to buy your console initially, but then what? It gathers dust since you don't buy many more games, all the while your competitor seizes the market share by a long shot. Note Sony do have the majority market share. Besides, as Zech's stats show, Sony has a title that sells as well as gears. It's just Halo then. You can't seriously believe that having a library of really neat and often strongly selling exclusives (recent favourite being Ni No Kuni) is worse than having 1 game that sells really well.

Whereas a few critics actually comprise the combined consciousness of two million people. The number of people on this forum is a decent sample size, plus the critics I have seen have been very favourable about the PS4. Not really, if you still have to stump up £30-40 a year for online. Everyone knows you win in terms of cost with Sony by a long shot. I imagine the Xbox will be cheaper but also lower spec. You're not getting it: MS have only a small handful of decently selling exclusives left relative to Sony. For MS to be as secure as Sony in the respect of exclusives their titles should be selling far more to make up for the small number. Like you've shown, they're selling the same number or less than certain Sony exclusives. That's pretty bad. Yes - a NEW Killzone game that shows off the system capabilities! Old Killzone games were hardly special and didn't sell much, so why use the sales for these games? You're comparing one game that people like a lot to another that people have lukewarm feelings towards. Why not draw on several PS3 exclusives that people liked a lot and pool the sales of them, and compare those sales to the pooled exclusives on the 360. Sony are less 'all eggs in one basket' so the fact they don't have a 'Halo' doesn't really matter. They get a lot of sales over many exclusives, with Uncharted even matching the 360's second best selling exclusive. Exactly, it's ridiculous. That was the effect I was going for to illustrate what you're doing is silly. (Small niggle: always post your sources alongside any stats) So then take Kinect out of the equation as that means little when gauging how the console fares for gamers like you and I. Screw the shareholder Zechs, we don't have a vested interest in these companies. We just want good games. @Jonnas obviously much about the next box is based on rumour, but one thing we can say is that the remaining exclusives are few and aren't enough to carry the console.

Of course the people on forums matter! They are the ones who will buy the console after all. Besides, critics too have been very excited about the conference on the news sites I've visited. The point of Sony's reveal was that it was a teaser. People are interested and talking about the PS4 without knowing too much about it yet. Honestly, anyone who thinks MS are in the better position right now needs their head examining, IMO. Those figures illustrate the point quite well; can't believe you are trying to spin it as something else. Like others have said, the remaining 360 exclusives aren't the system sellers people believe. Which in some ways is more unusual given that the 360 has less exclusives. You've shown Uncharted to sell pretty much the same number at the present time as Gears. The comparison you're making is really weak. Even if it was used to show off the technical capability of the PS4, you're making a big leap in assuming that Killzone is comparable (it's not exactly a system seller). In that case I'll compare Metal Gear Solid 4 sales to Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts. Fair? Actually it's most easy to claim that MS are in trouble with exclusives. For in your post you've demonstrated something rather crucial; Microsoft's main exclusives for the most part, sell no more or even less than some Sony exclusives, but most importantly, Microsoft has far fewer of them. Simple maths dictates that that's not a good thing. Far more accurate at looking at game sales would be to collate sales of all PS3 exclusives relative to the 360. Of course no one would do it, but we know Sony would have more sales.

It's funny when you think about it, assuming people have paid for Live since getting an Xbox in 2006, the will have paid around £210+ (assuming £30 a year). That's enough to buy the PS3 again at today's cost with change left over.

Well it's fair enough when you put it like that, but his initial comments were clearly suggesting the 360 had exclusives that sold more consoles, which I would disagree with. What exclusives the 360 has left (well, they're on PC too often) aren't as popular as they once were, and the PS3 has sold more units which goes some way to refute this.

Well a bad example tailored to make a point is obviously going to be difficult to dispute. He argued that the 360 will sell more consoles based on two franchises relative to just one less popular title on another console. By the same logic, I could comment that the PS4 will sell more consoles because of Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet compared to Fable on the Xbox. It's a bad example.

I don't agree with any of this (bad choice of exclusive example, too). You only need look around these forums for instance to gauge that people aren't satisfied with the few remaining tired exclusives on the 360. To suggest that 360 exclusives have more appeal/draw than those on the PS3 in its current state is a bit of a joke really. Made worse is that the PC does what the the 360 does so much better. Also no one ever 'accepts' the Live charges. Everyone knows it's a rip off, and given the same experience for nothing I'm sure many people will take the chance to switch. Why pay £30 a year for something free on another console? Sure, people pay it now, but they've committed to that console. Given the opportunity to move to another console without the charges I'm sure many will take it.

Well I think that speaks for itself then; PS3 dominates in Japan, leads in Europe and does ok in USA (albeit not leading). And have the global market share out of the existing current generation of home consoles. So I don't see how you could say originally 'PS3 is not the strongest'. It is. You can't just look at USA and make broad sweeping claims about the shortcomings of Sony when they've quite clearly had a much better run when you look at the bigger picture. Also comparing a cheap handheld to a home console is pretty ridiculous and having one doesn't dissuade people from buying the other. They both serve different needs. And in Japan they're much more likely to play handhelds while traveling, so the inexpensive 3DS is always going to sell a load over there.

Not true. The PS3 sells decently in USA while the 360 sells next to nothing in Japan. And the PS3 leads in Europe. So overall the PS3 does better. The PS3 was globally the market leader for 2012 as you can see here (VGChartz): And by quite a chunk. Sony have already said their price will be competitive, it remains to be seen what that is though. But anywhere under £400 would be a decent price compared to the WiiU.

Sony said it's up to the publisher. I don't see how anyone can think Sony are in a better position launching the PS4 than they were launching the PS3. Sony back then were coming of a hugely successful PS2 in which they totally dominated the market. It was only through incompetence in believing that PS2 owners would just automatically flock to the PS3 regardless of the price which screwed things up for them. Sony have nowhere near the market share they had back then. Going forward I don't think MS has to much to worry about. Specs don't sell consoles, games do. MS will get all the third party games and have enough exclusives to make sure they will hang onto those who have 360's to play those games. I think Nintendo are in the weakest position as the next gen consoles are not only who the Wii u is up against. It's also up against the 360/PS3 and so far consumers see no reason to purchase Wii u instead of those consoles. Nintendo has huge ip's but so did the game cube and the cube still struggled. It doesn't really matter how popular the console before it was if you're offering something new and different or if the fascinating aspect of the previous console no longer appeals- the gamecube wasn't that successful compared to the PS2 yet the Wii took off at lightning pace. Likewise the PS2 was very successful but the PS3 took off slowly. So your comment that the PS4 is probably in a weak position due to the sales/popularity of the PS3 is...pretty irrelevant. And doesn't really make sense since out of the 3 remaining current gen consoles, the PS3 is arguably performing the strongest. We already know the PS4 won't be a crazy price anyway relative to the PS3 (PS3 launched at £425 a whole 6 years ago, while ShopTo have set an absolute max price for the PS4 of £400). The Wii is dead and had been dead for a while, and I've noticed a number of former Xbox fans saying they're most likely turning to a PS4 next gen. Put simply, people like what the PS4 is offering. Oh, yeah. I just wouldn't personally call that a success. Kinda like how I don't consider V-tech to be a success in the gaming industry.

Why would they be worried? Anyone with half a brain cell can tell there are many future customers very, very excited about the PS4 who will buy it. Sony are in a very strong position unlike last generation. Namely because: - The hype/fad status the Wii had is not there for the Wii U. We knew this would happen. Motion control sports games were fun for a while, but we knew they wouldn't captivate the public for long. - Sony have built up a large fanbase, offered a very attractive Plus service and are only rivalled by Microsoft, who charge for their online services and have far fewer and somewhat tired exclusives - People remember. The Wii was never a console to play must-have multi format games, on account of it not being able to handle what the PS3 and Xbox could. People need only look at the specs of the Wii U and know we're in for a repeat. So even if people want to play future Nintendo games, they'll still need another console to play many of the games they want. This is so wrong. Sony going first was completely the right idea. Microsoft can't change their console now; if it is going to be technically less impressive with more focus on the casual market (as rumoured) then no amount of conference preparation is going to help them. The 360 releasing first was a massive boon to Microsoft in attracting and keeping customers on their console (and Live), which they probably won't have this time if they're going second. And this was by no means a lukewarm reception. From my overall perceptions, people seem to have been very impressed. Excluding the Nintendo fanboys that suddenly entered the Other Consoles board for the first time in their life. :p

It's because you're playing the same type of game with the same basic formula over and over. Which I find more than a touch ironic given your love for Pokemon.

I think that would do the trick. This thread has attracted people who have hardly set foot on this board, it clearly has some sort of allure. Well, for haters with hardly anything positive to say.

Nah, ICO is pretty much overrated. SotC is much better.

ooo err.