I was actually very impressed with Ubisoft's conference, as yes it was plagued with party games such as Just Dance and a rhythm game in the form of Rocksmith 2014, they did reveal a new IP in "Tom Clancy's The Division" which was a high point in looking fantastic despite the story being kind of iffy for me. Assassins Creed 4 trailer was eh, while Watch Dogs had a very awesome trailer toward it. The Stick of Truth looked humorous despite a short trailer, and the new IP "The Crew" looks like it will take a much needed, different direction on driving games all together. As for Rayman Legends, it still looks promising and the trailer looked good. Finally, The Mighty Quest for Epic loot, a free game in beta looked interesting and had a pretty great trailer. Overall, I say that Ubisoft had a better showing than Microsoft and EA despite some low points and a lack of gameplay. Overall, I say a B is a fair score.
EA came on with its own conference, which was a surprise to many considering they are just a company, but then again, they aren't just a company they're EA, and like them or not they're huge. For me, I looked at the event with a lot of "Who cares" especially since the games they announced other than Battlefront 3 were kind of eh... I mean a sequel to the mediocre Mirrors Edge doesn't wow me and Dragon Age Inquisition's trailer revealed nothing while EA revealed the release date has been pushed back. In addition to these announcements, you had an uninteresting showing of Battlefield 3.5 (coughs) I mean Battlefield 4 which was probably the most expected thing I think I've ever seen at an E3, very predictable. The EA sports section was, of course, painful as some of the new features to these games including dribbling and foot physics which sound about as interesting as they actually are. Overall it was definitely a bit worse than Microsoft's showing, but the promise of Battlefront 3 from DICE and my mild interest in the Dragon Age game and the humor behind Plants Vs. Zombies save it from total failure. I give it an overall score of a D.
So, in its conference, Microsoft revealed the xbox one's price at 500 american dollars and revealed many games that will be exclusive for the system.
Ryse: Son of Rome: Looks kind of like a game based around a lot of quick time events and obviously... Roman Stuff.
Deadrising 3: Good trailer for apparently the Xbox exclusive fueled by action, a more open world and hopefully a better main character.
project Spark: Looks like sort of a minecraft like experience utilizing the smartglass and HD graphics.
MinecraftXboxOne: Pretty Self Explanatory.
Killer Instinct: A reboot to the famed franchise of a legendary fighting game that looks pretty decent as far as fighting games go.
In addition to these there is apparently a new Halo (woohoo....I guess), some game they said nothing about made by a small developer, Forza 5, Quantum Break (the Heavy Rain copycat), Titanfall(an fps game centered around...large mech things), and Sunset Overdrive an open world game made by the creator of Spyro and Rachet and Clank, Insomniac.
So did you think they redeemed themselves? I halfway thought so. They're giving two free games to people who get an XBL subscription and thats always good, and have a UStream like thing from Twitch. Overall the games were decent looking, many looking mediocre, but it is not yet worth 500 dollars to me. I probably won't be getting the system anytime soon, but I give their conference a C. It was very mediocre with generic games, many not looking like they were taking much risk but they do seem like they're trying to appeal to a hardcore gamer.
This answer is from: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_American_football_called_'football'
All credit goes to that answerer, these are not my words, this is just made because the lionk would not let me follow it through hyperlink.
Some might say, simply, "because they kick the football." But the real story is deeper. The origin of Gridiron (American football) is in the history of the world's most popular sport: Football (soccer). When soccer -- more universally known as "football" (which of course makes sense because football players use their feet) -- players decided to change their centuries-old game with restrictions such as the no-use-of- hand rules, people who disliked this broke away to create rugby. In the states we have created our own version of the game under the same old name "football" (Gridiron) with more of a rugby style, the whole time forgetting why we call it that. Here are other answers: * Gridiron (American football) is a derivative of rugby football, and while the feet are used more often in rugby than on the gridiron, much of the game is still played by handling the ball. Both variations are still considered football. * North America style Gridiron (American football) didn't used to allow the "forward pass" and much more of the play involved foot work, such as the "drop kick" and the running punt kick. In the first rules, only the " side pass" was allowed, as long as the two players were side by side, with no forward motion of the ball, similar to rugby rules. The Canadian Football League ( CFL ) still allows a drop kick to score a field goal, and also has a thing called a "safety" when the kicker is able to kick the ball through the end zone, so it lands out of play. Both the NFL and the CFL still have the drop-kick available as a weapon - on the point-after-touchdown, or from the field for 3 points. The "safety" is worth a single point here in Canada. The Canadian game also features the ability, on fumbles to kick the ball, but not on incomplete passes. They also feature a 'touch back' which is a tackle in the end-zone, which is worth two points. == Answer == The global name for football is of course football. The global name for American football is Gridiron. Gridiron is a code of handball and not football. Football is a sport where players control the ball with their feet and only football does this. Gridiron is where hands are used to control a ball. Football has been played for many centuries but had no official rules. The British created rules for football in 1848. After that many codes of handball arose including rugger and gridiron, none of which are codes of football. Football, known only in Canada and the USA as soccer (a nickname termed by the English), is the worlds most popular sport. There are many reasons for this. In football you mainly use your feet, chest and head thus making the ball always open and so the game is fast paced and demands intelligence and a vast array of techniques. In football size is not as important as in Basketball, Gridiron or rugby, so anyone with skill can become good at it. Rich and poor alike can play the game as it requires little equipment at a basic level, although at the top level it is the richest sport on earth by some way. Though
Gridiron in US is largely made up of people from poor areas as the NFL is predominantly contested by blacks from downtrodden parts, slums, ghettos, given scholarships to play. Baseball too is played by many poor in the likes of Cuba, Dominican Republic. Football is watched and played by more than any other sport globally mainly due to the excitement of hoping to see a goal and the importance each goal scored has on the flow of the match. Its 90 minutes non stop action. Gridiron on the otherhand is constant stop start and spread out up to a 4 hour marathon....in that period the average actual playing time of an NFL Gridiron game is 12 minutes which is one of endless reasons why its never been accepted outside US. Easy scoring is another reason as teams get the entire width of the pitch and also don't even have to touch the ball down...also get multiple attempts to do so. Each year Football becomes more popular than the year before, no other sports have ever been able to achieve this over such a long period of time. Gridiron on the other hand is played almost entirely by Americans as every attempt made to spread the game has largely failed with leagues folding due to zero fan interest..examples being the "World League"..and more recently "NFL Europe" as one report summed it up by stating "not only did most Europeans not know it collapsed, they didn't even know it existed". Or because the ball is about a foot long. == Answer == It's a reflection of American football's origins. The first football type of game that colleges played in North America was almost identical to what became soccer: You scored by kicking a goal. But every school had its own rules. That was true even over in England, before the Football Association was created to establish a standard set of rules. Over here in the USA, we had no such governing body, so the schools took it upon themselves to sit down and draw up their own set of rules that everyone could agree on.
In an age when overseas communications took weeks, if not months, Americans lived in relative isolation from their football counterparts in Europe and thus weren't able to easily keep tabs on how the game was progressing there. So Americans (and Canadians) took it upon themselves to sort things out on their own and draw up a set of rules that appealed to them. Although most schools in North America were playing some variety of soccer, others, including Harvard, preferred a game that was more like rugby. When the schools first met to discuss a set of rules, Harvard pressed to base their common rules on the English rugby code, and they prevailed. From that point on, the American version of football began to develop out of rugby instead of soccer.
The same process of codifying rules had happened in England, too: After the Football Association was formed, some clubs disagreed over which rules to use -- primarily, the rule that governed the use of hands in the game. Those who favored prohibiting the hands formed the Football Association, and those who wanted to use the hands as part of the game eventually went on to form the first Rugby Football Union.
The American game could just as easily have been called American rugby, but since everyone was already calling it "football," the name stuck. Besides, in the early days, the American game was much more kicking-oriented than it is now. When there was no forward pass and kicks could be taken from anywhere on the field, teams would frequently dropkick to try to score, or they'd use a deep punt as a defensive strategy, if their running game was getting bogged down. It was only when the forward pass was legalized and kicks were limited to those taken from behind the line of scrimmage that the feet began to play a less prominent role in the American game. But again, everyone already called the game football, so there was no reason to change it.
Just keep in mind that what we call "rugby" is actually "rugby football," yet rugby players handle the ball as much as they kick it. What most of the world calls simply "football" is technically "association football," from the name of its founding and governing body. When soccer and rugby split, the association game simply adopted "football" as its name, while rugby football focused on the first part of its name. That doesn't mean one game is football while the other isn't. They're still both football games with a shared origin.
What's more, since the soccer/rugby split, other football-related games have evolved to emphasize other parts of the body to propel the ball. In fact, of the world's six major football codes -- soccer, rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, American (gridiron) football, and Gaelic football -- soccer is the only one that prohibits use of the hands. And theyall employ kicking strategies to a greater or lesser extent.
This is froma post I had earlier on Fuse, but I figured I'd go ahead and make an entire Blog about this eh?
10. Atari Jaguar
9. Sega CD
6. Xbox 360
5. Sony Playstation 2
4. Sony Playstation 3
3. Sega Dreamcast
2. Nintendo Gamecube
1. Sony Playstation (Yes I changed my mind from eariler ;P)
Back when I used to get on this site all the time about a year and a half ago, it was booming with people, and people were constantly trying to communicate with me or rate my reviews. Now I come back with more intelligent views and better reviews and its practically dead here. What gives?
Cons: Red Rings which cause pain and anguish, price for its online service, lack of recent exclusives worth bragging about, no internet browser, and overdoing the Halo franchise... Playstation 3: Okay, lets admit it... The Playstation 3 was rushed, honestly and sincerely. It was advertised as for hardcore gamers, but, looking back... Did it have any exclusives that were considered great? noooo... Not only this, but it had a ridiculous opening price of 599 dollars... Not only did this, combined with the lack of strong exclusives and a 360 headstart, effect its sales, but only begins as the evidence to why the PS3 versions of games did not begin to surpass the 360s until 2008. Original PS2 exclusives such as GTA and Final Fantasy became also avialable on 360, and this hurt the PS3, as Motorstorm and Resistance could only sell so well against Halo, Fable, Forza, or any of the 360's exclusives for that matter. Everything seemed to be going wrong, considered a finanical failure, and predicted to be thrown out of the console race, the PS3 did not give up yet.. (For Sonys Sake) And towards 2008, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, and Infamous began to see some fan spport... And once these games were released, I think it was then the PS3 was truly born.. Starting to look impressive with a lowered price, better games, and a free online network, Sony began looking good, and have prospered from die hardc fans with a a loving companionship with their Playstation 3's, and of course, an always recurring free service for the Playstation Network. A popular feature is the compatibility with handhelds, from what I hear, you can play a PS3 game, stop, and play it on your Vita on the go... Very convenient to people who are around a lot, travel, and do not want to lug around a PS3 with them everywhere. Hacking though, a con... but the network downing is really not that much of a cause of hate to me... I think, anger should be more towards the lack of an updated security system, and that, the PS3 has never excelled at. Not even just the big downing of PSN in April 2011, but even the hackers in common lobbies of games.. On the 360, you hear a lot about hackers getting banned...PS3? nope. It angers me to see the lack of variance in the store, hackers on the network.. it seems like none of the management really cares. Luckily, there appears to be a new man running PSN, so, this should be a good thing, but for the here and now xbox has an edge in that. Hardware? Well there is the yellow light of death, but it only happens to .18 percent of consoles.. which is extremely miniscule to that of the redrings. The components are superior, so the edge goes to the PS3. Slow download times... the bane of PS3. Mostly found in older games, updates and game data downloads can take a painful amount of time on this console, where as the 360's are seconds long.. Edge will go to the 360 here, however this is one thing Sony is attempting to improve on. Pros: Superior Hardware, More recent exclusives, still holds a bit of a more memorable edge carried over from the PS2, free online, Convenient internet browser,Valve's support (steam capabilities), and of course, not overdoing its franchises (except God of War) Cons: Inferior network capabilities, less of a store, lack of care for its network and players, got off to a slow start, High asking price for a time Overall: In my opinion both are equal really.. But the lack of an annual fee gives PS3 the edge. each have a con that the other does better, so really, it just depends on who you are. Maybe, if you're a real socialite, you're willimg to pay an xbox live fee.. Or maybe you like the freedom to hack on PSN without getting banned... Oh or fileshare. But it just all depends... Maybe you're an Infamous Uncharted, or Little Big Planet guy... Maybe youre a Halo, Gears, or Fable person.. Im not really fit to judge. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses But:
Use of Netflix/Hulu/ETC:PS3
Overall, you decide. Just my opinion