@neotheinstein

Leaps and bounds ahead...how? If you're talking hardware power, I think you'll find yourself sorely mistaken. Sony's new console is packin' some heat this time around. It's CPU (which is actually an APU) is based off the Jaguar architecture, which is the architecture used for AMD powered supercomputers. On top of that, its graphical prowess is somewhere between that of a Radeon 7850 and a 7870. By PC standards those are upper mid-tier gaming cards, so by console standards that's just epic. Let's not forget that the PS4's memory is universally shared GDDR5, which means the GPU has access to it, and in turn the memory has the bandwidth to keep up.

I'm really interested to see what Microsoft will bring to the table with their next console. With the PS4 being revealed to sport an x86 architecture, Microsoft will no longer have the "Easy to code for" advantage the 360 held over the PS3. It'll be real interesting to see which platform developers focus their efforts into. On the one hand, focusing on the PS4 in x86 would make the title much easier to port to a PC natively, however Windows is capable of running the same XNA framework that the Xbox runs on

In addition, the PS4 has some pretty decent hardware on it. Though Microsoft's Xbox has a reputation of usually being the strongest gaming console, I'm not sure they can out-spec Sony this time and still retain a competitive price point.

Lastly, and this isn't necessarily just on the Xbox, but are we going to finally see consoles push forwards and try to follow the trends PC has been setting for a while now? By that, I mean are we going to consistently see games in full HD (1080P minimum) at 60 FPS? Right now it seems to be either true HD at 30 FPS, or upscaling at 60 FPS.

@Lach0121 Uhhh, they're sorta like the platforming classics of yore, but with a lot more shooting and explosions, and a dash of ridiculous. Still, there's a heavy emphasis on exploration and platforming and it actually does mesh rather well with the shooting. Overall the R&C games are fantastic titles, and I think you'll find your $30 more than well spent for the HD collection, especially if you haven't played them before.

@Toysoldier34 @TriumphantToad @almann12 Dude, those new 660 Ti's are pretty beastly. For such a small and inexpensive card, their performance astounds me.

@Toysoldier34 I got Borderlands 2 for free with my new 680 Lightning, lol. But yeah, I stated the same thing in my previous comment. If you combine the costs of your console and normal everyday PC, it's roughly the same cost as a gaming PC. The cost of a gaming PC doesn't seem so outrageous when you think of it like that.

A really, REALLY good high-end system can be had for about $800-900 USD. However, that price isn't as bad as it seems. Many households have a PC, and if you're a gamer looking at the PC platform, consider that a gaming PC can be your "console" and you computer all in one. So assuming you would normally spend $400-500 on a store-bought PC for entertainment/web browsing/whatever else, and $300 on the latest console for games, if you subtract the cost of both from the cost of simply building gaming PC, it's not really expensive at all. In fact, it's essentially in the same price range.

That being said, gaming PC's require more TLC and patience than consoles. There's drivers and compatibility, sometimes you're running a program your new game doesn't agree with, errors out of left field etc. Then you have to sit down, find the root of the problem and come up with a solution. Sometimes the devs will fix these things in a patch but that's not always the case.

Because consoles are guaranteed to not have compatibility and driver issues, they are much easier to deal with, and much more plug 'n' play than PC's are.

Lastly, you pretty much have to build your own gaming PC. You can buy pre-built ones (Alienware, Cyberpower etc.) but they will always have very large markups because the companies building them need to make a profit too. Not everyone is knowledgeable enough to build a PC, or even know what they're looking at when shopping for parts. So it's a tough fact, but PC gaming is nowhere near as accessible as console gaming and probably never will be.

I actually logged on just to say this: Stay away from Need for Speed World. I played it from closed beta all the way until I couldn't take it anymore. It started out as a pretty good game, but EA's greed turned it into another Pay 2 Win game.

First it started with the exclusive cars that cost real cash. That wouldn't have been bad until you realize that those cars are head and shoulders above the others in most cases.

Oh but that's alright, they have a parts drop system (much like a loot system, after each event you might get a rare part...or more likely a crappy one/none at all, the rates are horrible) and if you work at it long enough, you might get some good ones. Well EA thought of that, and by again opening your wallet, you can buy card packs that GUARANTEE you one of the best parts in the game every time you buy one. And I do mean literally guaranteed, you will always get AT LEAST one end-game part.

So all the people with deep pockets will have the fastest cars with the best parts, meaning their car handles better so you can't beat them in the corners, accelerates faster so you can't beat them out of the corners, and has a higher top speed so you can't beat them in the straights. GG.

The game looks fun, and a SSB-esque game with a Playstation cast is pretty appealing. The thing I don't like is that only super moves can kill, and they're an instant kill if they touch you. Not only that, but doesn't that make it insanely hard to balance? After all, a majority of a character's worth is going to come down to how powerful their supers are (or rather ease of use vs how many kills can be acquired in one use) because all their regular moves are just for show (yes, for building meter, but they do absolutely nothing beyond that)

Even if they do manage to balance it, I feel like it might get stale rather fast. I fear it will boil down to "Mash standard attacks to get meter, when full press the super button next to someone for a point."

The thing that makes SSB so entertaining is it's extremely dynamic. Every character has a set of moves that have different damage and power rates, plus the character's themselves have different weight's etc. You might land an extremely good blow on someone, but they'll just barely manage to make their way back to the stage, whereas you land the same blow on a different character and they won't have a chance. With All Stars, it doesn't matter who you're facing off against, if you touch them with a super move they're gone.

I'm not saying SSB is more balanced or anything (let's not get into that :/) but it's that dynamic "You never know exactly what's going to happen" factor that gives the game its re-playability and makes it so interesting. So far, All Stars severely lacks that from what I can tell, and I can't say for certain it will get stale, but it'll really have to hit a sweet spot with the way the game mechanics are set up.