[QUOTE="legionofdugi"][QUOTE="2Chalupas"]Too bad the actual campaign was even worse than MW's relatively average campaign. Multiplayer at least actually is better, but for all the talk about "knocking MW off it's thrown" they really didn't do much with this sequel. Weak single player campaign (true to the original), and an only *slightly* improved multilayer. Lots of little rough edges left this game. Text that sometimes doesn't fit in the background, little texture issues (I ran across a house that's floor flickered between GRASS and wood???), enemies materializing themselves halfway into inanimate objects, screen tearing, etc. And that has nothing to do with the topic... lol Yeah it does. Like you said - they are taking in-game shots at MW2, even though in most ways the campaign itself is even worse than MW2. It was pretty obvious what they were doing. It wasn't so clever, and when they did it just reminded me how much better MW's campaign was. I sped through the campaign first, so that was my first impression. Fortunately the more I play the multiplayer the more I realize how much it kicks ass. Still could have used that something extra though over the 1st one. 64 players on the maps or something like that.
I'm getting it barring some epic screw up. But I don't really expect much out of the reviews. Probably around 6.5 or 7.0, maybe even lower. The only thing that would make me cancel is if it's got some bugs or other jarring issues. I KNOW it's going to be a 16 bit zelda ripoff with HD/3d graphics, and I'm perfectly OK with that.
The games in 2011 will be a mix of delayed games from 2010, and games we will hear about later THIS year. Just as most of 2010 games are delayed games from 2009, and games we heard about in late 2009 or in some cases have just been announced since the new year. In short if you look 2 years out it will always looks like a 'dry spell' because not so much has been officially announced yet.
Too bad the actual campaign was even worse than MW's relatively average campaign. Multiplayer at least actually is better, but for all the talk about "knocking MW off it's thrown" they really didn't do much with this sequel. Weak single player campaign (true to the original), and an only *slightly* improved multilayer. Lots of little rough edges left this game. Text that sometimes doesn't fit in the background, little texture issues (I ran across a house that's floor flickered between GRASS and wood???), enemies materializing themselves halfway into inanimate objects, screen tearing, etc.
No game mentioned in this thread really excites me. I'm getting tired of so many sequels. SOCOM 4 at least is the first "proper" SOCOM on PS3. So I guess it has something going for it other than the sequels mentioned on this thread.
I haven't played the retail sequel yet (just got it in the mail today, and will be playing tonight)
But I can tell you there was plenty of screen tearing in the first game. For Bad Company 1 the XBOX version was slightly worse framerate wise than PS3, but screen tearing was present on both. I noticed some tearing on the beta test of the sequel as well, so I guess it wasn't fixed for the final product. Shame really. Wish I had a reasonable PC as that would be the way to go to get perfect graphics. Eventually I'll probably do that, dump the PS3 version and get it on PC. It should be noted the tearing isn't as bad as Uncharted 1 or Assassin's Creed, but it was enough to make it one of the few games I've ever noticed this graphical glitch on PS3 (having played probably 40 different games).
Me too. There needs to be a deal. I'm thinking I'll be waiting more than 2 weeks though. Maybe two months. I guess my "target price" is $39.99. Hopefully as the real MLB season gets close they will put it on sale.
There wasn't even a $10 credit for pre-ordering which seems to on the majority of pre-orders now. Heavy Rain and MLB: The Show are two I'm surprised didn't have a deal even on the pre-orders.
The file system really doesn't matter for a NEW drive, because it's quite easy to reformat a new drive with either file system. I'm assuming the OP is already using his drive for PC and it's the wrong file system for PS3. That's the problem I ran into. I already had mine half full with PC data and at that point couldn't reformat it. He is thinking about putting in a FAT32 partition on his open space which also should be possible, but you need to have a little more PC savy to deal with multiple partitions.
My solution was even simpler. I just used a thumb drive and gave it a fresh FAT32 format. I did have to reformat the thumb drive to FAT32 file system as that wasn't the stock format, but it takes about 1 minute to reformat. The entire backup easily fit even though it's only 8GB drive. My guess is the OP could get by with something similar. When you do a system backup really not that much stuff gets copied, because it doesn't copy game data, doesn't copy PSN downloads, doesn't copy demos, and it doesn't even copy every game save (some game saves will be lost)
Not an answer to your question. But I would guess that 32GB would be plenty because you won't be copying over any game data. When I backed up my system I had 60GB of system data used (mostly demos) but I'm pretty sure the backup file was less than 5GB. None of the demos, or other installed game data gets copied over. I kind of had the same problem as I had a large HDD I wanted to save the backup data too (same HD that I use to backup my PC files). I quickly learned the file system issue that it was not compatible. In the end I found that because the backup took up such little space I was able to clear out a 8 GB thumb drive, format it in FAT32, and then back everything up there without even needing to use my main external HDD.
Log in to comment