Ubisoft does make crap ports, I agree. But, GRAW 2 is actually good on the PC if your computer is strong enough. I played both the beta and the demo, and I have to say, GRAW 2 PC is good. I can't make judgements on the PS3 version though..but if I take what you are saying, the PS3 experience is a rip off when you compare it to the 360 and PC experiences (PC has text chat, and other things).

The PS3 so far has seen what the Wii is seeing right now, nothing but cheap ports or crappy games made without the hardware (or in the case of the Wii, the controller) in mind. At least Capcom listened to petitioners and may bring a Resident Evil to PSP (Let's cross our fingers and hope it isn't the first one X___X), but Ubisoft? No, they just want to make as much money as possible, and its quite apparent that the stake EA has in Ubisoft is only increasing this need to make money. I just wish that both EA and Ubisoft would stop making crappy ports or crappy games every year (They do have standouts though, like Crysis, Command and Conquer 3, and Battlefield for EA; Rainbow Six Vegas (360), GRAW 2 (360), and Splinter Cell (360, maybe)) What I don't get, is how the developers, after creating such amazing games on the original console(s) they were designed for, go out and make crappy ports to other consoles. Sure, I can see that it can get old remaking the same old game over and over for different consoles, but come on.

[QUOTE="fyre577"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Compression"]

Don't worry. Vista is not high on my list of my must have products. If I would by it, it would be on my 360, which only has one game so far. Shadow Run seems like a 2nd class FPS compared to all the other great ones out there such as UT3, which I would gladly pay to destroy my friends on Live.

the1stmoonfly

PDZ was a full game and it was $50. MS lied when they said all 1st party games will cost $50.

This game is all multiplayer. The single player is 6 multiplayer training missions. It should be $50.

That I agree with, a game with barely any features like this, should be at least $25 on PC.

Yeah I know, but that is where they make the 360 version have advantages, such as better graphics and everything. But meh..I see your point, this game should NOT be $60, it SHOULD be around $40-$50 on BOTH platforms. $40 seems the sweet spot for this game, as its basically like Counter-Strike Source, and Valve is currently selling that for what, $15-$20? Yeah, I definetly see Microsoft's problem with this game, as it barely supports single-player, and almost ALL the achievements are multi-player oriented. While I wouldn't be that hurt to pay to play this game online with my friends who have 360s (Sadly, I don't have a 360 yet, so getting this on PC is the only way I can play with them on their 360s besides Halo 2 on Xbox right now X_X), and start owning people. That was all that I was really looking forward to this game. I never expected this game to have excellent single-player, or very creative achievements, I just wanted the cross-platform multiplayer.

However, I can see this game getting a worse score on PC than on 360...why, you ask? Simple, 360 games, as the system is newer than the PC, have less standards than PC games, as PC games have had hits like Half Life 2, Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, and Counter-strike to name a few, so of course this game will be rated bad on PC. Same with Halo 2 Vista getting a 66 out of a 100 in PCgamer. Sure, I'll still get this (My bro is letting me use his Wired 360 controller for it, so no problems there)(Halo 2 Vista, by the way), and still have fun getting my first 1000 gamerscore until I am able to get a 360, but once I get a 360, I might be putting those games away for a long time. But, as always, there will be other games that will support the movement of Games for Windows (Not neccessarily LIVE Games for Windows, just the brand), that will do better things than Shadowrun.

Hey, you never know, someday we might just have a Battlefield game that takes advantage of Live Anywhere and allows PC gamers to be commanders while 360 gamers act as soldiers and Cell-phone gamers act as Radar and stuff, (I know this was said somewhere else, but I wanted reiterate)and this would be the genius that would evolve gaming from being isolated to just consoles or just PCs or just Handhelds or just Cell Phones, and then all of you would be thanking Microsoft for what they have done, sure, its unpleasant now, but hey, this could be the start of something big, you NEVER know.. 

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Compression"]

Don't worry. Vista is not high on my list of my must have products. If I would by it, it would be on my 360, which only has one game so far. Shadow Run seems like a 2nd class FPS compared to all the other great ones out there such as UT3, which I would gladly pay to destroy my friends on Live.

BioShockOwnz

PDZ was a full game and it was $50. MS lied when they said all 1st party games will cost $50.

This game is all multiplayer. The single player is 6 multiplayer training missions. It should be $50.

That I agree with, a game with barely any features like this, should be at least $25 on PC. 

What might disappoint you, Bioshock, is that if my Bro gets Shadowrun on 360, I am obliged (I even told him I would) to get this on PC, and you know what, I wouldn't care if they charged, as I know Microsoft will allow games like Battlefield (Which will never support cross-platform play, or if it ever does, it'd be the biggest bombshell this side of PC gaming) to remain playing free of charge, with full VOIP and everything (Sorry to interject, but did you even read the latest Games for Windows Magazine? They had an article with interviews of Peter Moore and another leader of Games for Windows Live, and they specifically stated that if companies want their games to remain charge free with full VOIP, they can go ahead, as you are only paying to play with 360 gamers).

Yes, I see your point, but no, Microsoft may not force you to pay to play PC-only games online, but do we know yet? No, we don't. Let's let them get Shadowrun, see how disappointed they are, and then make judgements then, but hey, we can't start assuming, as we are almost always wrong (Well besides me always predicting the bad and it usually happens X_X), and other things might happen, like Developers, after supporting Games for Windows Live, may start up a movement to make everything free, including Achievements, but knowing Microsoft, they might still make you pay to play with 360 gamers, which is alright for me, as it creates a leveled field for everyone during cross-platform play.

While I am excited by Metroid Prime 3 (After playing and liking the first two, why wouldn't I?) , games like Super Mario Strikers Charged will also keep my attention for a while. However, that is far, FAR below the standard that the 360, and yes, even the PS3, are setting this summer. Releases like Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Lair(Even if it flops, for fans of Rogue Squadron, they will go crazy for this), Heavenly Sword (Yeah, I know what you are thinking, "But..Heavenly Sword won't score as well as God of War!" While that may be true in a sense, Heavenly Sword will still probably be an enjoyable game (Too bad I only have a Wii X_X).

All in all, that Wii Lineup does not, and I repeat does NOT (Even with Metroid Prime 3 on there, regrettably) compete with the 360 and PS3 lineups. Sure, Metroid Prime 3 might outsell (and outscore somewhat) most of the 360 and PS3 lineups, but two games and a bunch of third party games that are better on 360/PS3 (And maybe one or two original games that hold some promise), does not equal an amazing lineup. Sure the Wii fans will tell you differently (and I can rightfully see why), but for real, the Wii's lineup for this year just plain sucks. 

I am currently trading away these eggs, for hopefully good offers, just post your best offer, and we will go from there.

Garth FC: 5026 0921 3728

deheerga

This needs to be on the D/P Trading board..so post it on there, but I have to admit I sometimes have a hard time finding that board X_X..but meh, I'll trade ya some if you post this on the D/P Trading board. 

I wouldn't mind it all that much, as I already own a Wii, but the thing I hate most about it besides the crap graphics is the fact that in 3rd-party games, it takes a LOOONG time for the Wiimotes to Sync up. Sure, EA didn't have a problem with this, but games like Rayman and Marvel Ultimate Alliance (My friend owns those games) it is nearly impossible to sync up Wiimotes, even at the Wiimote syncing screen.  A disappointment if there ever was one.

But meh, as long as we as gamers still get good games and not crappy mini-game games and games with no obvious appeal towards the hardcore base, then I will be happy. I am still wanting a 360, and I have a good PC, but it shouldn't be too bad if the Wii wins. 

I like SSBM, and I liked SSB, but SSB is far, FAR from the greatest fighting game series ever made. It is one of the most fun, yes, but Virtua Fighter is THE greatest fighting series ever made. Sure you can say other fighting franchises have tried to stand up to Virtua Fighter, but only ended up finding a niche (Mortal Kombat, anyone?). Even though those games that did find their niche might have been old by the time Virtua Fighter came out, it was VF that revolutionized the 3D fighter. 

Ok, you CAN say that Street Fighter 2 revolutionized the 2D fighter, and I would agree. But put Street Fighter into 3D and it will suck, just like VF will suck if you put it into 2D, as its heritage is of a very complex and realistic fighting series. Sure, it might not be the most fun (Heck, I was bored to death of VF 4 X_X), but you have to say that for a game that aspires to be a TRUE fighting game, it does the best job of doing it.

But getting back to SSB, that game is a lot of fun, and it can be a blast with four players at one time, and is certainly a great fighting franchise.