Caris Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Haha! I was the one who asked that question on Beyond 3D
Deathjam Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Totally worth it for the silky smooth framerate. After finally playing COD4, I wholeheartedly agree.
LegoMan1031 Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 You know it makes sense to get it on the 360, it's where the CoD4 players have always been Tempting! Agreed. 360 all the way baby! Tempting x2! The 360 pad is also better than the PS3 one. Tempting x3! I thought about it for about 3.5 seconds, and I have decided to get it on PS3. It all boils down to your own preference, they will be the exact same game on both machines. But for me, I prefer the DuelShock, and all my virtual friends are on PSN. I also own both 4 and W@W on the PS3, so I would like to keep the continuity. The only advantage the Xbox has got will be the timed exclusive Map Packs. Don't listen to the Xbots Mike, make up your own mind. Yeah, thanks for that matt. This my problem though, i have virtual friends on both consoles and i also have 'real' friends on both consoles also. I originally had CoD4 on 360, then when i had sold my 360 and bought a ps3 i got it again on that (thats how much i loved it). However when WaW came out i got that on 360... Normally the 360 is my automatic choice for multi-platform games but for this im really undecided! I still have some months to decide i suppose!
Dyson Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 And it's certainly not a game you can afford to buy two copies of at that price
Cube Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 There's something much, much worse than the price hike... 50 Cent is in the game. Which means that MW2 will be utterly terrible.
gaggle64 Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Relax, it's just for a bit of incidental voice work. Just as long as he doesn't rap over the credits. Which he almost certainly will. Edited August 9, 2009 by gaggle64
Cube Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 Relax, it's just for a bit of incidental voice work. Just as long as he doesn't rap over the credits. Which he almost certainly will. They could have gotten people from war films/shows instead (like Halo does with Sci-Fi).
Choze Posted August 9, 2009 Posted August 9, 2009 www.gamezine.co.uk Aiming at the lowest common denominator. Vast majority of tv people buy, will struggle to do half of COD's resolution in motion anyway. Its amusing hearing people raving about 1080p in games like Wipeout when they have a Samsung that only manages 300p.
Emasher Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Aiming at the lowest common denominator. Vast majority of tv people buy, will struggle to do half of COD's resolution in motion anyway. Its amusing hearing people raving about 1080p in games like Wipeout when they have a Samsung that only manages 300p. Some people in a class I took last year thought 1080p meant the graphics were better. I have a feeling a lot of people don't know what any of these terms mean and just use in in "fanboy" arguments.
Cube Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 I remember a conversation I had with a not-so-big "gamer", where he claimed that the graphics on his PS3 on his HDTV could not be beaten. I thought it was fuzzy, so I asked what cable he used. He looked confused and said "the one that came with it" (i.e. the Yellow, Red, White one). I didn't bother explaining the problem to him.
Choze Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Some people in a class I took last year thought 1080p meant the graphics were better. I have a feeling a lot of people don't know what any of these terms mean and just use in in "fanboy" arguments. Pretty much. Moreso the people who play COD games and keep howling on about it being 1080p.
MATtheHAT Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Meh, as I have said before, its worth the upscaled 720p for the 60 frames per second. That engine just looks so goooood.
Choze Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Meh, as I have said before, its worth the upscaled 720p for the 60 frames per second. That engine just looks so goooood. You mean outdated.
Dyson Posted August 10, 2009 Author Posted August 10, 2009 You mean outdated. loooooooooooooooooooool
Zechs Merquise Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 You mean outdated. Modern Warfare 2 will no doubt look better than any other console FPS ever.
Caris Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Haha no it wont. I loved the original but i agree with Choze for once, the game had some horrible textures and shadows. Nothing will be beating Killzone for a while yet!
Daft Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Yeah, you can say what you want about how KillZone 2 plays but it looks stunning.
MATtheHAT Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Killzone does look good when static, but the 30 fps slightly lets it down in motion. Personally, I would rather have the framerate than the detail. And besides, its not as if Killzone didn't have some dodgy looking textures anyway.
Daft Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 But the smoke is so lovely! Once you go smoky...I have no idea where I'm going with this.
Cube Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-2328.aspx £35.97 inc. delivery. It takes the £9 and postage charges off at the end of the checkout (but before you pay). However, I think Tesco charge straight away.
Dyson Posted August 11, 2009 Author Posted August 11, 2009 Which is a good thing, as once you pay for it I doubt they'll be asking for their money back, no doubt they'll honour it.
Recommended Posts