I'm probably in the minority but I just want a games console, well one that plays blu rays, yeah. It should be backwards compatible and have more memory but I won't be buying Kinect, or playing it's games. I don't want to stream movies and as for mini games - absolutely not. Save that for mobile phones. It would be good to be able to surf the complete internet though but the most important thing is that the console is fab for the games.. At least make a version of the next Xbox for people like me who want it for the standard games. If others want all the extra stuff then good for them.
How can such a huge selling and great game making company make such losses? It's either very badly run or too many very high up staff members are being paid far too much money. It must be terrible for almost every other company if even Take 2 make losses?
I've been using my 360 as a PC and searching the whole of the internet for over a year now, I am not the only one who can do it. downloading music, pron, films, watching flash video, viewing any site or forum, super fast with my broadband connection. Great stuff.
As someone who plays console and PC games I can say that Goldeneye on the hardest setting was a vastly better FPS than Half Life. I completed both games and I'm unbiased so I can comment. It really annoys me how some PC owners on here try to belittle console owners all the time and make out that PC games are some thing they are not. Half Life was nothing special at all.
I wonder how Crysis runs on the Athlon 64 FX-60 when paired with the Geforce 8800 GTX? Is there a reason why Gamespot only used the 1900XT graphics card?
"My new comp arrives in about a week (QX6800 3.2GHz , 4GB OC'd RAM (yes i know the vista issue), 8800GTX 768Mb and even an AGEIA physics accelerator) and I already have this game waiting. I played the demo on my current PC and it looked like trash, so I refuse to play the game until my new comp arrives and I can see it in [almost] all of its glory. I guess it does feed in to the scheme of the big corps, but I weigh looks of a game almost equal to gameplay ... in that if it looks like trash, I simply won't be able to see past it. Also, I really respect the effort that goes in to making the games look amazing ... even if it falls short on optimization ... so kudos to the Crysis art team." alexmatusiak : So how does the game run on that beast of a machine? About running this game on consoles, why can't the extra processors on them, especially all the ones on the PS3, be used to run the game better and take a lot of work off the GFX card? I mean what was the point in all those extra processors if they aren't going to act as physics calculators and stuff?
I'm sure a lot of pc owners simply bullsh!t fps just to make their pc look good. this game looks great though and I can't wait for it to come out on PS3/360.
is it just me or is there more detail in the XP very high quality pics? Take the top screen, there seems more detail on the palm trees near the sun etc.
LOL It does sound good, even though it reminds me of Far Cry which I thought was dull tbh. I meant not THAT good so that I'd spend god knows how much just to play it, and even then, to play it at not anywhere near full quality.
hsl77's comments