ermacness' forum posts

Avatar image for ermacness
#1 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@WESTBLADE:

The problem is that "user score" doesn't carry the same clout as an "official" score because of blatant biased views, and it's open for ANYONE to type a review, even to people who haven't played the game to people with other ulterior motives (if I spelled that correctly)

Avatar image for ermacness
#2 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

I don't think that this was largely debated. As a matter of fact, it's widely believed that's what is partially keeping Nintendo afloat. It's the multiplats support that Nintendo is lacking.

Avatar image for ermacness
#3 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@EG101:

I'm not saying that they didn't, but saying that devs spent the time and resources to fully optimize the ps3 versions of multiplats is asinine. That's part of the reason why multiplats ran look/ran better on the 360. Again easier =/= more powerful. Exclusives proved this to an extent.

Avatar image for ermacness
#4 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@Pedro:

Easier =/= More powerful. It was easier to develop on the 360 vs the ps3, and porting it over to the ps3 wasn't a great tactic. You say that real world applications didn't reflect this but I beg to differ. 1st of all, the ps3 exclusives looked MUCH better than 99% of the 360's exclusives, and while most multiplats looked better on the 360, not all of them did, one in particular was Burnout Paradise. They were relatively the same machine, however the 360 was easier to program for, but with the more talent/money, the ps3 could produce better results.

Avatar image for ermacness
#5 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@Pedro:

The ps3 was the stronger console at it's time (just barely though). The 360 had the stronger GPU, but the ps3 CPU not only trumped the 360's CPU, but also helped the GPU in the ps3 to get "slightly" better better results. It just took much more money and development time/talent to get the ps3 there.

Avatar image for ermacness
#6 Edited by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@cainetao11:

Umm actually, it depends on what do you mean by "BIG". If you're talking monetary value, you may be correct, if you're talking popularity, Sony is in fact VERY big in that aspect. Everyone in existence knows who\what Sony is.

Avatar image for ermacness
#7 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@SecretPolice:

Funny that as it sits right now from GS, MC, and other reviews it's more worth it to watch the ps4's movies than to play MS's games.

Avatar image for ermacness
#8 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@i_p_daily:

It's ok if it's an add-on to an aresenal of great ganes, however this isn't the case with the x1. With the only exception of the Forza series the x1 offerings are a slim picking, and at that price makes BC on the x1 just that much more laughable. If the ps5 follows the same trend next gen, I'll call them out on it too.

Avatar image for ermacness
#9 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@sealionact:

Shooters, I'll give you because of CoD and other games in that genre having a mass following and selling a ton, but big name racers & Xbox do not go well together. Now you can say that review wise Xbox have racers down to a "T", but popularity wise, not many touches the popularity of the GT series and the ones that might, isn't exclusive to Xbox in any way, shape, or form.

Avatar image for ermacness
#10 Posted by ermacness (8119 posts) -

@ghosts4ever:

Which probably means that they were mediocre.