I preferred Far Cry 3. Gameplay wise, it's much more open ended, with more to do and I think the shooter stuff is better handled.

Bioshock: Infinite's story is better crafted, but I think Far Cry 3 is interesting because the gameplay does a better job of serving the story than Infinite (where all the shooting feels out of place). I also actually really liked Far Cry 3's story.

[QUOTE="gp19"][QUOTE="craige4u"]

ok i thought the same, but then i seen many guys selling their secondhand pc games, so i wonder what they are doing?

BTW, this game sucks.

II-Siamak-II

I don't know what you are talking about, first of all the game it self is great ( personally I give it 9/10) the gunplay, story, voice acting, etc... is well crafted, now back on PC, the PC version unlike GTA 4 was and is very well optimized, very smooth and consistant fram rate. I along with bunch of my PC friend beat that game several times so again I have no idea where you get your facts from.

Yeah I very rarely see people hate on Max Payne 3, and when they do it's for a whiny reason like "Remedy didn't make it" or "too many cutscenes".

Most people I know love it, and both critic and user reviews for the PC and console version are very high. 

I would go for both, but between the two I'd go for GTA IV.

But you already picked so whatever.

I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but yes, zombies has become far too complicated with very little payoff.

Too much of zombies now relies on taking increasingly impossible waves of zombies, to find silly easter eggs or get a chance at some randomized item or what-not, and by the time you get to see an easter egg, or new area, or cool new gun, you die.

In World at War, it was at it's best. Level design favored smaller maps with more of a focus on killing zombies and each area serving some purpose within the whole map, by Black Ops and Black Ops II, the new maps are just too massive with pointless additions that require way too much planning.

On a good toasted bun,

- Pepper Jack cheese (though I love all cheeses, especially combined)

- Lettuce

- Tomato

- Jalapenos

- Mushrooms

- Hot sauce

- Bacon

Good stuff

I saw some protesters the day after the George Zimmerman verdict, but otherwise it's been all calm.

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Oh please, the fact that Fallout 3 stuff is weirder and far less sensible does not at all imply that it is actually better.What kind of mentally impaired idiot writer thought up concepts like Little Lamplight, Three Dog, the entire main story, Megaton or that village populated by like five cannibals? Also, I'm not sure that you have noticed this (I wouldn't be surprised, you think New Vegas can be finished in two days, I have no idea how much content you missed :roll: ), but vaults also exist in New Vegas and their stories (especially Vault 11) beat out anything Fallout 3 has to offer.

Why the hell would anyone put a labyrinthine metro network in New Vegas? Aside from the fact that almost all the terminals and tunnels in Fallout 3 are almost identical in layout (making exploring them confusing them as hell), New Vegas is set in the Mojave Desert. You seem to think that Fallout 3 is better because it has more random sh!t lying around even if there's no reason for it to be there or that reason makes no sense. I'm sorry, I actually want to play an RPG, develop my character and actively change the world to fit my wants instead of wandering around cloned metro stations. In all of these aspects New Vegas is infinitely better.

 

Barbariser

While the Mojave has it's moments, as a location it is a massive downgrade compared to the DC ruins and Capital Wasteland.

All of the Capital Wasteland has this feeling of desperation, of being a ruined world that was once thriving. The world design is much more memorable, I remember places like the White House, the Metro tunnels, Andale, Big Town and Springvale more than most of the locations in the Mojave because they felt more well put together, more unique while they all had interesting unique stories to tell as well.

The Mojave feels like it's ALWAYS been a desert, without much of a story to tell outside of the vaults, and Las Vegas itself is this painfully tiny, walled off location that lacks the massive feel of DC. You could argue the Vegas is different since it was barely touched by the bombs, but that makes it worse when you consider how much more tiny it is, how unpopulated it feels and how dirty it still is. The actual settlements just feel normal and civilized, and New Vegas as a whole lacks the post apocalyptic feeling for more of a Sci-Fi Wild West feel now.

As far as world design goes, Fallout 3 did a much better job of making a more memorable, more well crafted location to explore.

Pc gaming is always dying. clyde46

And at this point, PC gamers are always the ones bringing it up again.

Some friend told me that it's been developed on the ps3, if they make a proper console game i wouldn't worry much about a pc version.alan_carter

I am slightly worried about it's performance on both console and PC.

Right now, we're at the very end of the current console cycle. Games will be pushed to their limit, and looking at GTA V, the size of the world, the incredible detail, etc. Well, that's one game that will certainly be pushing consoles to the limit.

With that, some people complained about GTA IV's framerates being in the 20's and such, which slightly worries me, especially when people point out that Far Cry 3's framerate is noticeably choppy on consoles, alongside other big games (and I remember late in the PS2 days, Bully had a bad performance on the PS2 as well).

But if the framerates are smooth and the game runs fine on PS3/360, I'll be glad. Right now it certainly looks like it's running fine, and journalists are saying it looks like it runs fine, so that's good.

On the PC side of things, GTA IV definitely came with a ton of issues in regards to optimization and working on anyything after Windows Vista, but Max Payne 3 ran amazingly on PC. Then again, Max Payne 3 wasn't a massive open world GTA game.

[QUOTE="robokill"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] I see so many mixed opinions with thise. some say exact the opposite

kozzy1234

In NV the biggest main area you spend a lot of time in is New Vegas and in F3 it's Washington. New Vegas is colorful and flat and Washington has intermingled tunnel systems and is much more complex so really pick what you like.

F3 having a better story? wut? :o

It has better pacing for sure, but saying one is definitively better is subjective.

I think that Fallout 3's story offers less options, but as a result has a stronger focus and a bigger sense of urgency, at least early on.

New Vegas has more well written characters, more moral ambiguity and more choices, but the world itself mostly lacks the little stories to be found in the wasteland of DC, along with less exciting moments to remember and a more aimless early section.