Whether or not diablo 3 is better on consoles than on pc remains to be seen, regardless Diablo 3 has been a controversial game in the pc gaming community. If you read forums you will see though that a big portion of pc gamers consider it a mediocre game not worthy of the diablo name mostly because of lack of depth, bad itemization, lag(in a single player game) and the auction houses. Combat is nice though but that alone is not nearly enough. 

Hope the improvements make the action even more fun but still as a diablo game a lot of people would prefer it never existed.

It is obvious that they thought the conversation was private so to me this is a trivial issue.

As for d3 i think people need to realize that the diablo series caters to different people for different reasons. Some people find in d3 the things they enjoyed in the previous games. Others including me feel that what made the series (especially diablo 2) fun and addicting for years doesn't exist in D3, for example itemisation for me in d3 is bad on so many levels that patches can't fix it and there are aspects that the developers don't want to change even if they could. Which can't be helped since the design philosophies of the new development team differ quite a bit from those of blizzard north, not to mention blizzard south's lack of experience in making a diablo game.

she isnt the toughest in X factor tho...akuma is, followed by phoenix wright in turnboutlightleggy

Based on what do you say that? Anyway the fact is that if you start saying 'x' character is strong because of 'y' characteristic, then someone is going to reply that there is the 'z' issue that balances it out and so on and you just end up going in circles, that is why tier lists are made up by top players statistics and occasionally top players opinions. Most players like you and me have not played enough players that are so good with their characters that we can make a valid statement about them, we also don't play our characters to the best of their abilitys nor do we have the experience top players have against all the different characters. If you followed the tournament scene (no offense but it is obvious you don't) you would realize how strong phoenix was in vanilla marvel.

I mostly follow capcom fighting games, so i can only speak about them. There are very few cases that it is very clear what the tier position of a character is or if someone is indead overpowered or useless. Examples: eveyrone considered Seth to be mid tier for 2 years after SF4 was released until Poongko started winning tournaments and showed us what that character is capable of. An other example is allready mentioned in umvc3, the japanesse player Kusoru came with a team considered low tier and bodied top players that were using a higher tier team. So i agree with you that at least in capcom fighting games this gen most characters can be considered strong or at least viable in the hands of a very good player.

As for which game is best it really comes down to personal preference, worldwide though the mk tournament scene is dwindling, sf right now is considered the main event at most tourneys with umvc3 being the second biggest event (in US maybe the first some times). Kof is considered a very good game but isn't very popular, same stands for SC5. SFxT has just arrived but i haven't heard so many good opinions about a fighting game from the fgc regarding it's gameplay mechanics in a long time. The online and the dlc issue is a different matter. Personally i like ssf4ae and sfxt, since sfxt was released i haven't played anything else.

edit: wow i think i have shattered the record for grammar-synatx errors and edits, sry for my poor english.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Apssei"]

Saying there is no difference in general between console and pc graphics is a lie and a troll attempt. I can understand however that how significant you consider that difference to be is subjective. Some people perhaps have too high expectations and get dissapointed, though i assume most people claiming they see little to no difference are just biased or trolling.

lowe0

The difference is not worth the extra money for you evildead, personally i find it weird that people think the smoother frame rate alone is not significant not to mention the increased resolution and all the other bonuses (less load times, better textures, more distance draw...), plus you are not just paying for the difference in graphics when buying a gaming pc. As for the plug and play features consoles still have that advantage allthough the difference is becoming smaller. Consoles nowdays require game patches, system updates and occasionally installs. On pc for a lot of games (all steam games at least) you don't even have to get up and find the game disc, you just click on the game icon, i find that very convenient especially if you have many games. The only problem i see is that occasionally you will encounter a problem like low0 is discribing and i have to admit that i also enjoy the less work involved when dealing with consoles.

Saying there is no difference in general between console and pc graphics is a lie and a troll attempt. I can understand however that how significant you consider that difference to be is subjective. Some people perhaps have too high expectations and get dissapointed, though i assume most people claiming they see little to no difference are just biased or trolling.

this is street fighter x tekken right? well i dont remember seeing him in any of those games before. He doesnt make any sense just like darth vader or yoda in sc, i would rather they put an extra sf character, obviously the only reason cole is in the game is for sony to have exclusive content.

If it is precise and fun to use i will get it for mgs rising and shooter games and hopefully more games will make use of it

I am guessing that the guys arguing about killzone 3 looking better, haven't seen the full sized pictures.

That is subjective, i thought far cry and doom 3 looked a lot better