If Nintendo was really smart, it would lower the cost of a Wii down to 149 at the exact time as Natal. Who the hell knows whether or not Natal or Move will do well, however why not start crushing the competition at your own game? Let it be known that when the current gen ends in 5 years, you dominated even more so than right now.

Wait until E3. It's like 3 weeks away and that's where Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft all get together to talk about the future in hardware and games. If Sony doesn't announce a price drop then, there probobably won't be one for awhile. And if they don't, they might announce a bundle w/ a PS3 and a game you might like for the same price of $300.

Other words if you get one right now, you might make the same mistake as you did getting that Xbox.

Kingdom Hearts 3

Final Fantasy Versus XIII

Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy XV

Jak 4

- FFX-0

- Kingdom Hearts 3

- .hack//The World (An actual MMORPG)

- Sonic Adventure 3

Released now? I'd hate to say it, but World of Warcraft.

There's no doubt in my mind that they will keep releasing updates for this monolith of a game for years and years to come. Whereas any other game, they might introduce a few updates but if they make a sequel or the company works on a new project, their first one will be forgotten. This is where MMORPGS shine because of all the variety that comes into play and how long it'll take. There will always be something new to accomplish and because this is the biggest game due to the biggest fanbase, it'll continue to be updated.

Released later? FFXIV.

So moral of the story: Only 1 game for a lifetime? An MMORPG that will be updated for a lifetime.

Kingdom Hearts

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

KingsMessenger

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

The way you're going about this is wrong. You care more about your image then actually proving whether or not the data is accurate. Even if God himself stated there was no bias, you'd fight it to your grave. Prove me wrong.

[QUOTE="Cevesun"]

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Chemical_Viking

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.

There is always a percieved bias in almost everything and it's very rarely true. I've never noticed a particular bias in Edge and I've been reading it for years. If there was, I wouldn't buy it.

You can't say that. "Very rarely true," unless you can prove it which no one can. Yes there will always be percieved bias and whether it's true or not, however we need results written down in a timely fashion in order to progress as human beings. If all we did was argue about who was right and wrong, nothing would get done. Humanity isn't perfect, and so we can't be perfect in anything we do. The best we can do is provide statistical data. Then we go from there.

EDGE idenitifes as unique in the aspect that it rates games on the 1-10 scale. In that, it can hide any bias it wishes to display without it being obvious. With as much proof as we can use, the data shows what system they lean towards on average.

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Chemical_Viking

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.