We may be able to score another one for the 360: OXM reviewed LFD2 9.5!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It is only on one console. That is a way, shape, and form... all at once! The "System Wars, not Console Wars" point is so tired and misguided. You're right that this place is called System Wars, but that is because this is a forum where discussions on all systems are welcome. That does NOT mean that we therefore have to include the entire Benneton rainbow of systems in every thread, every post, every sentence, every breath, every thought. Think of it this way: if this were an MLB forum instead of a gaming one, and two people were debating the superiority of the Yankees vs. the Red Sox, would it not be silly for another forumite to wade in with the charge that they were somehow (and bizarrely) trying to pretend that the Detroit Tigers didn't exist? It would be absurd. Of course the Tigers exist, but they wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand, and no one would try to claim that the two original debators were somehow trying to abuse the rules of the forum (and logic) by not including every bloody team in MLB in their discussion when the whole point of their focus was two specific teams. It seems to me that a rather large % of the traffic here in SW is a ******* war between the PS3 and the 360, and that when comparing those two systems, "console exclusivity" (or whatever you want to call it) holds some logical weight. Not as much as full exclusivity, certainly, but SOMETHING.[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
This isn't exculsive in any way shape or form. This is "System Wars", meaning it includes all systems. The PC is included also.
lundy86_4
It isn't exclusive in the terms in which we apply it in this forum. Therefore it is not a way, shape or form ;)
All systems being welcome means we cannot exclude one for the benefit of the other. Meaning I am entitled to come in and also say "X game is on PC", and I cannot be held in the wrong for that. Therefore "Console Exclusive" does not work.
Not exclusive, it's spelled "console exclusive." And if by "we" you mean the gamers that populate this forum, then you must be wrong as the term is used daily. So the way, shape and form seem to be back.Of course you can say that game X is on a PC. That would make it a factually correct statement. But it does not therefore follow that such a statement of fact would be logically relevant to every single discussion. After all, pointing out that, say, Mass Effect, is on the 360 and not the PS3 or Wii (the other consoles) is ALSO a factually correct statement in and of itself, not because it "excludes" the PC, but because it describes a fact that has nothing to do with what is or is not on the PC.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] It is only on one console. That is a way, shape, and form... all at once! The "System Wars, not Console Wars" point is so tired and misguided. You're right that this place is called System Wars, but that is because this is a forum where discussions on all systems are welcome. That does NOT mean that we therefore have to include the entire Benneton rainbow of systems in every thread, every post, every sentence, every breath, every thought. Think of it this way: if this were an MLB forum instead of a gaming one, and two people were debating the superiority of the Yankees vs. the Red Sox, would it not be silly for another forumite to wade in with the charge that they were somehow (and bizarrely) trying to pretend that the Detroit Tigers didn't exist? It would be absurd. Of course the Tigers exist, but they wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand, and no one would try to claim that the two original debators were somehow trying to abuse the rules of the forum (and logic) by not including every bloody team in MLB in their discussion when the whole point of their focus was two specific teams. It seems to me that a rather large % of the traffic here in SW is a ******* war between the PS3 and the 360, and that when comparing those two systems, "console exclusivity" (or whatever you want to call it) holds some logical weight. Not as much as full exclusivity, certainly, but SOMETHING. dsmccracken
It isn't exclusive in the terms in which we apply it in this forum. Therefore it is not a way, shape or form ;)
All systems being welcome means we cannot exclude one for the benefit of the other. Meaning I am entitled to come in and also say "X game is on PC", and I cannot be held in the wrong for that. Therefore "Console Exclusive" does not work.
If by "we" you mean the gamers that populate this forum, then you must be wrong as the term is used daily. So the way, shape and form seem to be back. Of course you can say that game X is on a PC. That would make it a factually correct statement. But it does not therefore follow that such a statement of fact would be logically relevant to every single discussion. After all, pointing out that, say, Mass Effect, is on the 360 and not the PS3 or Wii (the other consoles) is ALSO a factually correct statement in and of itself, not because it "excludes" the PC, but because it describes a fact that has nothing to do with what is or is not on the PC.Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
It isn't exclusive in the terms in which we apply it in this forum. Therefore it is not a way, shape or form ;)
All systems being welcome means we cannot exclude one for the benefit of the other. Meaning I am entitled to come in and also say "X game is on PC", and I cannot be held in the wrong for that. Therefore "Console Exclusive" does not work.
If by "we" you mean the gamers that populate this forum, then you must be wrong as the term is used daily. So the way, shape and form seem to be back. Of course you can say that game X is on a PC. That would make it a factually correct statement. But it does not therefore follow that such a statement of fact would be logically relevant to every single discussion. After all, pointing out that, say, Mass Effect, is on the 360 and not the PS3 or Wii (the other consoles) is ALSO a factually correct statement in and of itself, not because it "excludes" the PC, but because it describes a fact that has nothing to do with what is or is not on the PC.Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.right cause oxm isnt going to be biased in any way right.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] If by "we" you mean the gamers that populate this forum, then you must be wrong as the term is used daily. So the way, shape and form seem to be back. Of course you can say that game X is on a PC. That would make it a factually correct statement. But it does not therefore follow that such a statement of fact would be logically relevant to every single discussion. After all, pointing out that, say, Mass Effect, is on the 360 and not the PS3 or Wii (the other consoles) is ALSO a factually correct statement in and of itself, not because it "excludes" the PC, but because it describes a fact that has nothing to do with what is or is not on the PC.dsmccracken
Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.Obviously I was not meant to type that. It was a typo, I meant to say it isn't console exclusive. The term console exclusive doesn't exist in these forums, as that excludes the PC system, which has been addressed here before. In fact there was a sticky stating that the PC counts as a system, and as such, we count any game on more than one system non-exclusive.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] If by "we" you mean the gamers that populate this forum, then you must be wrong as the term is used daily. So the way, shape and form seem to be back. Of course you can say that game X is on a PC. That would make it a factually correct statement. But it does not therefore follow that such a statement of fact would be logically relevant to every single discussion. After all, pointing out that, say, Mass Effect, is on the 360 and not the PS3 or Wii (the other consoles) is ALSO a factually correct statement in and of itself, not because it "excludes" the PC, but because it describes a fact that has nothing to do with what is or is not on the PC.dsmccracken
Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.yeah but its not platform exclusive. And since pc counts in sw thats what where going with
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.yeah but its not platform exclusive. And since pc counts in sw thats what where going with
Don't confuse "SW" as the total sum of this forum with each and every thread that makes up the forum. There are threads where console exclusivity would be meaningless, and threads where it has ample meaning. A sweeping judgement on a piece of useful jargon, either for fear of abuse by fanboys or for fear of being undermined as a fanboy one's self, is a rash overreaction.How is this another point for the 360?... It's not even the superior version, let alone exclusive.
THIS. It doesn't need to be superior, it just needs to be great and not on the system of it's direct competition, to be of at least SOME value.As usual this is system wars not Console warscarlisledavid79See above, my post on how tired and misguided this argument is.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
Whether it's relevant to the discussion or not. It is on another system, and in these forums it counts as console exclusive. The fact remains it is not exclusive, and our debating will not change this.
It is on PC, it is not exclusive. I don't get the confusion... really :?
Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.Obviously I was not meant to type that. It was a typo, I meant to say it isn't console exclusive. The term console exclusive doesn't exist in these forums, as that excludes the PC system, which has been addressed here before. In fact there was a sticky stating that the PC counts as a system, and as such, we count any game on more than one system non-exclusive.
The term doesn't exist? No, it exists, it just doesn't have wide acceptance. Of course the PC counts as a system, but what people seem to miss is that, far from dismissing the PC or "pretending the PC doesn't exist," it actually does the opposite. PC recognition is implicit in the phrase itself. Were it not, we'd just be saying "exclusive." Recognition of the PC is what makes it "console exclusive" in the first place. And I stipulate that any game on more than one system is non-exclusive. But the phrase is not "exclusive", it's "console exclusive."Why was exclusivity brought up in the first place? The TC simply implied that another high scoring game was coming to the 360. He mentioned exclusivity nowhere.
The problem is that some posters feel the need to play forum police and "remind" people that certain titles are not considered exclusive, even if it was never brought up to begin with. They like to claim they are only sticking to the rules by saying the game is also available on the PC. Technically, that is true. But please do not insult our intelligence and try to pretend there was no other motive there other than to "educate" people about the SW definition of exclusivity. Those statements are made to try to steal thunder from a system and somehow spin a AAA title into no longer counting for anything at all on a specific system. There will always be a benefit to one certain system having a title that another one does not have, regardless of whether or not it is available on more than one system.
[QUOTE="aia89"]
another great console exclusvie for the 360. I think it'll be AAA
If it is, it should OFFSET the Console Exclusives MLB08:The Show, Multiple BUZZ games, Mulitple SingStar Games, and AAA MLB2009:The Show!
Oh yeah, there is no console exclusives...
Also, I predict AA, but I would love to see an AAA score.
MLB09 is not console exclusive... no, I would label it a "current gen console exclusive." I will call it CGCE for short.soooo true, cept i play whatever i can on PC!Sorry all Cows have a gaming PC capable of playing crysis at max settings.....unless it comes to Dragon Age, then they play their port to spite the Lemmings.
tempest91
so you think console graphics king is silly but console exclusive isn't? Correct. well, i guess we agree to disagree. i don't think you can disregard the PC on one argument and include it on the other.[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Console exclusive.dsmccracken
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]Correct. well, i guess we agree to disagree. i don't think you can disregard the PC on one argument and include it on the other. The crux of our disagreement is not my disregarding the PC in some places while not in others. It is that I disagree that I am disregarding it at all, or at least the way some would seem to mean it here: in some sort of snub, or a disingenuous attempt to accrue glory to the 360 while absurdly denying the existence of the PC. To refer to my previous analogy, a debate in an MLB forum about the Sox vs.Yanks does not "disregard" the Detroit Tigers.[QUOTE="clone01"] so you think console graphics king is silly but console exclusive isn't?clone01
I think that "graphics king" is silly, NOT because I can't see any conditions where something like graphics can be debated between consoles, but because I'm not a graphics whore and I find graphics idolatry silly in and of itself.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Why do you keep saying exclusive? If it's on the PC, it is not exclusive. It's spelled "console exclusive." In your first sentence, you say that it counts as console exclusive? So we are in agreement.dsmccracken
Obviously I was not meant to type that. It was a typo, I meant to say it isn't console exclusive. The term console exclusive doesn't exist in these forums, as that excludes the PC system, which has been addressed here before. In fact there was a sticky stating that the PC counts as a system, and as such, we count any game on more than one system non-exclusive.
The term doesn't exist? No, it exists, it just doesn't have wide acceptance. Of course the PC counts as a system, but what people seem to miss is that, far from dismissing the PC or "pretending the PC doesn't exist," it actually does the opposite. PC recognition is implicit in the phrase itself. Were it not, we'd just be saying "exclusive." Recognition of the PC is what makes it "console exclusive" in the first place. And I stipulate that any game on more than one system is non-exclusive. But the phrase is not "exclusive", it's "console exclusive."As a standardized term within System Wars, it does not exist. It exists as a fallback for some posters, but the fact is System Wars hasn't adopted it, either officialy or unofficially.
PC recognition is there, but not as a standalone system, considering you are dismissing the fact it's on that system aswell. It can be seen from two different viewpoints, not just one.how can it be non-exclusive if it's Console Exclusive? :? They are seemingly mutually exclusive of one another.
[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Correct.
well, i guess we agree to disagree. i don't think you can disregard the PC on one argument and include it on the other. The crux of our disagreement is not my disregarding the PC in some places while not in others. It is that I disagree that I am disregarding it at all, or at least the way some would seem to mean it here: in some sort of snub, or a disingenuous attempt to accrue glory to the 360 while absurdly denying the existence of the PC. To refer to my previous analogy, a debate in an MLB forum about the Sox vs.Yanks does not "disregard" the Detroit Tigers.I think that "graphics king" is silly, NOT because I can't see any conditions where something like graphics can be debated between consoles, but because I'm not a graphics whore and I find graphics idolatry silly in and of itself.
well that would be your opinion. the way i see it, you think console graphics king is a silly term, because the PC can produce the best graphics. however, console exclusive is not silly, how? you can play it on a PC. its not exclusive. again, you're entitled to your opinion, but i disagree.[QUOTE="WAIW"]i think he means. another point that the 360 is only known for being a multi plat box.I think he means another possible AAA game available on the 360 but not the PS3.How is this another point for the 360?... It's not even the superior version, let alone exclusive.
spike6566
I laugh at people who try to play off L4D2 meaning nothing. Believe it or not guys, its a game. A game that cows won't be playing, that definitely counts for something :wink:NidgetUnless they have a half decent PC. L4D doesn't have high requirements at all.
So adding another AAA game to a game library isn't "scoring"? Wow..How is this another point for the 360?... It's not even the superior version, let alone exclusive.
WAIW
well, i guess we agree to disagree. i don't think you can disregard the PC on one argument and include it on the other.clone01The crux of our disagreement is not my disregarding the PC in some places while not in others. It is that I disagree that I am disregarding it at all, or at least the way some would seem to mean it here: in some sort of snub, or a disingenuous attempt to accrue glory to the 360 while absurdly denying the existence of the PC. To refer to my previous analogy, a debate in an MLB forum about the Sox vs.Yanks does not "disregard" the Detroit Tigers.
I think that "graphics king" is silly, NOT because I can't see any conditions where something like graphics can be debated between consoles, but because I'm not a graphics whore and I find graphics idolatry silly in and of itself.
well that would be your opinion. the way i see it, you think console graphics king is a silly term, because the PC can produce the best graphics. however, console exclusive is not silly, how? you can play it on a PC. its not exclusive. again, you're entitled to your opinion, but i disagree. It is fine if you disagree, but tread carefully when you attempt to infer why someone does or thinks something. You have a perception of console exclusive as a term, and of those who adopt it as jargon. As such, you now infer through that lense why I feel the way I do about graphics. You infer incorrectly. Graphics King is silly (imo) because graphics debates are silly, and always descend into pointless opinion-fests. Console exclusive is not an opinion, it is a factually correct description, and is not subject to opinion.[QUOTE="Nidget"]I laugh at people who try to play off L4D2 meaning nothing. Believe it or not guys, its a game. A game that cows won't be playing, that definitely counts for something :wink:aaronmullanUnless they have a half decent PC. L4D doesn't have high requirements at all. Any cow can play it on their PC. But to do so, and to dismiss it because of that, requires stipulating that it takes a $300 PS3 + a minimum $500 PC to counter the 360's library.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] The term doesn't exist? No, it exists, it just doesn't have wide acceptance. Of course the PC counts as a system, but what people seem to miss is that, far from dismissing the PC or "pretending the PC doesn't exist," it actually does the opposite. PC recognition is implicit in the phrase itself. Were it not, we'd just be saying "exclusive." Recognition of the PC is what makes it "console exclusive" in the first place. And I stipulate that any game on more than one system is non-exclusive. But the phrase is not "exclusive", it's "console exclusive."VandalvideoMaybe, but all that hinges on the term console, which by modern dictionary standards includes the PC. (Video game console)
Yes, if that console is solely used for video games. Much like my PC.
It shows there are far too many ways to categorize things, and that one standard way of categorizing is needed, and is already in place.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] The term doesn't exist? No, it exists, it just doesn't have wide acceptance. Of course the PC counts as a system, but what people seem to miss is that, far from dismissing the PC or "pretending the PC doesn't exist," it actually does the opposite. PC recognition is implicit in the phrase itself. Were it not, we'd just be saying "exclusive." Recognition of the PC is what makes it "console exclusive" in the first place. And I stipulate that any game on more than one system is non-exclusive. But the phrase is not "exclusive", it's "console exclusive."VandalvideoMaybe, but all that hinges on the term console, which by modern dictionary standards includes the PC. (Video game console) That is correct.... however I believe that OED got that one wrong. Yes, before you say it, I know that OED trumps me as the respected peer-reviewed source. But we all know what the word console means in this industry, to the gamers, to the devs, to the manufacturers themselves, to the everyone, and any definition where the word "console" is so open that it readily includes the PC, cell phones, hand-helds, even my old virtua-pet, clearly didn't do their due diligence.
[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="Nidget"]I laugh at people who try to play off L4D2 meaning nothing. Believe it or not guys, its a game. A game that cows won't be playing, that definitely counts for something :wink:dsmccrackenUnless they have a half decent PC. L4D doesn't have high requirements at all. Any cow can play it on their PC. But to do so, and to dismiss it because of that, requires stipulating that it takes a $300 PS3 + a minimum $500 PC to counter the 360's library. But they have a PC anyway. So...
Maybe, but all that hinges on the term console, which by modern dictionary standards includes the PC. (Video game console)[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] The term doesn't exist? No, it exists, it just doesn't have wide acceptance. Of course the PC counts as a system, but what people seem to miss is that, far from dismissing the PC or "pretending the PC doesn't exist," it actually does the opposite. PC recognition is implicit in the phrase itself. Were it not, we'd just be saying "exclusive." Recognition of the PC is what makes it "console exclusive" in the first place. And I stipulate that any game on more than one system is non-exclusive. But the phrase is not "exclusive", it's "console exclusive."lundy86_4
Yes, if that console is solely used for video games. Much like my PC.
It shows there are far too many ways to categorize things, and that one standard way of categorizing is needed, and is already in place.
Incorrect. If we go by OED, "solely" using it for games is not a prerequisite.[QUOTE="lundy86_4"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Maybe, but all that hinges on the term console, which by modern dictionary standards includes the PC. (Video game console)dsmccracken
Yes, if that console is solely used for video games. Much like my PC.
It shows there are far too many ways to categorize things, and that one standard way of categorizing is needed, and is already in place.
Incorrect. If we go by OED, "solely" using it for games is not a prerequisite.Thanks, I know, i'm not stating it as a definative, just as a loose use of the word.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"] Unless they have a half decent PC. L4D doesn't have high requirements at all.aaronmullanAny cow can play it on their PC. But to do so, and to dismiss it because of that, requires stipulating that it takes a $300 PS3 + a minimum $500 PC to counter the 360's library. But they have a PC anyway. So... They are still using 2 systems to bring down one, what kind of cows are they?:lol: I thought the PS3's library could hold it's own, maybe not after all...
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"] Unless they have a half decent PC. L4D doesn't have high requirements at all.aaronmullanAny cow can play it on their PC. But to do so, and to dismiss it because of that, requires stipulating that it takes a $300 PS3 + a minimum $500 PC to counter the 360's library. But they have a PC anyway. So... There we have it. They "have one" anyway, like it sprouted spontaneously and free from their desk the second they moved into the apartment. Do you find it odd that one of the main knocks against hermits in PC vs. whatever debates is cost... yet for cows, they "have one anyway." So PC gaming costs nothing (or doesn't need to be factored in to gaming cost). Hermits will be so pleased. ATTENTION ALL HERMITS!!! PC GAMING IS FREE AS OF RIGHT NOW, AS DECIDED BY THE COW HIVE MIND!!!! PC gaming always won, but this bovine gift really is too generous!
Maybe, but all that hinges on the term console, which by modern dictionary standards includes the PC. (Video game console)Vandalvideo
Yes, if that console is solely used for video games. Much like my PC.
It shows there are far too many ways to categorize things, and that one standard way of categorizing is needed, and is already in place.
Incorrect. If we go by OED, "solely" using it for games is not a prerequisite. That is not what your post seemed to say. As for your point about one "standard" that is already in place, would you not say that that standard, developed before things like 360/PC games, timed exclusivity, unequal multiplats, exclusive dlc, exclusive expansions, and more has become a little dated, and MORE than a little unequal to the task of describing what was once so simple during NES vs. SMS days, but is now not so simple? I sure would.[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]Incorrect. If we go by OED, "solely" using it for games is not a prerequisite. That is not what your post seemed to say. As for your point about one "standard" that is already in place, would you not say that that standard, developed before things like 360/PC games, timed exclusivity, unequal multiplats, exclusive dlc, exclusive expansions, and more has become a little dated, and MORE than a little unequal to the task of describing what was once so simple during NES vs. SMS days, but is now not so simple? I sure would.Yes, if that console is solely used for video games. Much like my PC.
It shows there are far too many ways to categorize things, and that one standard way of categorizing is needed, and is already in place.
dsmccracken
Like I said, not everything works if we have too many ways to categorize things. Yes if we were running a database and cross-categorizing wasn't a problem, but solely for this forum, it's confusing and overly complicated. If we start breaking it down by "Console Exclusive", would we not soon have "Company Exclusive" (ie, MLB 09: The Show) etc?
Maybe it has become less simple, however like I said, including too many categories is gonna make for one heck of a mess and even more contradictions.
Seriously who really wants to play this on their 360 esp if you own a gaming rig? I downloaded the Demo but never got around to playing it yet but as far as it being another point for the 360 I will not be buying this for my 360. The better combination for me is my PS3/Pc collection as i have the least games on 360 and barely play it.
leave it to a hermet.How is this another point for the 360?... It's not even the superior version, let alone exclusive.
WAIW
It is fine if you disagree, but tread carefully when you attempt to infer why someone does or thinks something. You have a perception of console exclusive as a term, and of those who adopt it as jargon. As such, you now infer through that lense why I feel the way I do about graphics. You infer incorrectly. Graphics King is silly (imo) because graphics debates are silly, and always descend into pointless opinion-fests. Console exclusive is not an opinion, it is a factually correct description, and is not subject to opinion.dsmccrackenbut wouldn't you agree that PC simply has superior technical specifications, which would move it out of the realm of opinion?
[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Any cow can play it on their PC. But to do so, and to dismiss it because of that, requires stipulating that it takes a $300 PS3 + a minimum $500 PC to counter the 360's library.dsmccrackenBut they have a PC anyway. So... There we have it. They "have one" anyway, like it sprouted spontaneously and free from their desk the second they moved into the apartment. Do you find it odd that one of the main knocks against hermits in PC vs. whatever debates is cost... yet for cows, they "have one anyway." So PC gaming costs nothing (or doesn't need to be factored in to gaming cost). Hermits will be so pleased. ATTENTION ALL HERMITS!!! PC GAMING IS FREE AS OF RIGHT NOW, AS DECIDED BY THE COW HIVE MIND!!!! PC gaming always won, but this bovine gift really is too generous! i definitely do agree with this. there is certainly a mentality of hiding behind the PC here.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"] But they have a PC anyway. So... clone01There we have it. They "have one" anyway, like it sprouted spontaneously and free from their desk the second they moved into the apartment. Do you find it odd that one of the main knocks against hermits in PC vs. whatever debates is cost... yet for cows, they "have one anyway." So PC gaming costs nothing (or doesn't need to be factored in to gaming cost). Hermits will be so pleased. ATTENTION ALL HERMITS!!! PC GAMING IS FREE AS OF RIGHT NOW, AS DECIDED BY THE COW HIVE MIND!!!! PC gaming always won, but this bovine gift really is too generous! i definitely do agree with this. there is certainly a mentality of hiding behind the PC here. He is dishing out quite a bit of ownage.
[QUOTE="chessik101"]leave it to a hermet. To tell the truth? What truth? if it was true, consoles wouldn't exist. Because according to SW, everyone owns a high end gaming rig and it only cost them 500$.[QUOTE="WAIW"]
How is this another point for the 360?... It's not even the superior version, let alone exclusive.
Ace6301
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="chessik101"]leave it to a hermet.To tell the truth? What truth? if it was true, consoles wouldn't exist. Because according to SW, everyone owns a high end gaming rig and it only cost them 500$.xsubtownerx
Nah, $600 for a mid-range gaming rig. Only a few wil say that can get you high-end.
Plus L4D2 is superior on PC, with enhanced graphics.
Do cows not see how pathetic it is that they need TWO systems to counter the 360's library?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment