This thread doesn't deliver at all therefore...

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm

http://www.hardcoreware.net/playstation-3-vs-xbox-360-one-year-later/

Please, do feed your brain with this. Not just the one who created this thread, but everyone here.

PS3 will only be comparable to Xbox 360 ONCE there are games for it. Too bad there aren't so far.

Also, graphic is only comparable with multiplatform games. Try feeding your brain a bit with those links.

And no I don't own any consoles, I just happened to pass by.

I hope you all here realize making your own list of best games is only going to contradict yourself.

Everyone has their own taste, I can grab any of your own list and say that's the worst list ever as well.

As for Halo 3, I assume they put it there because technologically I believe they are the first game to render all surrounding real time. Crysis does it as well, but Halo 3 came first. Other than that I'm not quite sure if it is really a technological achievement. But then when you think about it technological achievement isn't just all shiny graphics.

In that sense, I think Crysis is the major breakthrough in technological achievement, but who am I to judge. I like to play games that I think it's fun to play and that's all there is to it.

UT3 - It's true UT was never really about innovation. Their "innovation" has been over since UT first began, and the only real upgrade is their engine with new maps and characters. But that doesn't mean we should give them a good score just because they don't focus on innovating. Some people will love UT as it is, some people will want innovation, others may not even care. The important thing to always remember is standards of the game review rating. There can't be any personal view points about the game. In that sense, UT lacks in innovation compared to other game and must be noted.

World in Conflict - I also never understood why GS gave this game 9.5. It's not a bad game, it has pretty graphics and game is fun overall, but it wasn't enough for me to keep playing the game after single player was over as the bombing/capturing points at every mission got very repetitive. I believe GS should've taken note on this but didn't for some reason(probably trying to rush in the review without giving it few more days). However, that's just my personal opinion. Some people write review on GS after 10min of playing and gives it a 10 if their first 10min of experience is great.

Crysis - Surely innovative, all worlds interacting, it's massive, and it requires a big bucks computer to see all the candies. There are quite loads of bugs I found while playing it(mostly just graphic glitches), but those should be fixed soon with the patch. Their AI is impressive overall, but scripted AI such as COD4 still proves that scripted AI still provide good experience. Crysis AI however, is well done and it's first approach to seeing the game as a living world instead of scripted world.

Using laptop

- Intel Core Duo 2 2.20GHZ

- 2GB Ram

- Geforce 8700M GT 512MB

- 7200RPM hard drive

With this, I could play with everything on high except shader. Putting shader on high would make the game not too smooth(for fps game that is). However, to get most out of performance and graphics, putting some settings on medium helped. As far as I'm concerned, for me fps game is not playable unless you get at least 40fps for precision.

doom is a father, doom is a legend - doom is god

doom created an entire generation of gamers, it is one of the most influential and important games of all time, and an enormous number of people utterly love it

and with doom 3, the game had a lot to live up to, it was continuing a legacy of genre-spawning weight, and so people had extremely, extremely high expectations for it

and the funny thing with people when their expectations aren't met is instead of rationally acknowledging the quality as it is (be it good or mediocre or bad), they throw out a knee-jerk reaction that it must be utterly terrible, because it's not as good as they were expecting - that's really the reason why it's so loathed, people won't give it an honest chance - it'schildish elitism and nothing more

but those people who did give it an honest chance will find that it's a fairly straightforward run n gun with a fairly contrived and increasingly predictable horror mechanic with nothing besides the spectacular visuals to make the game stand out - it's nothing at all like the original doom games (which i still play today, and love) - the original doom games were fast paced hard action shooters with massive swarms of demon horde to destroy, doom 3 is a one-enemy-at-a-time a to b corridor shooter with a focus on boo! horror scares

it's not a bad game at all - it's hardly great, but definitely better than most people acknowledge, it's just that it highlights perfectly an ever-increasing problem with gaming - great visuals, naff gameplay... that's why it's already faded into relative obscurity of the gaming annals while doom 1 and 2 will forever be remembered, not just for being revolutional, but for being utterly great too - even by today's standards

A-S_FM

Great post. Looks like there still are people on the internet that gives intelligent opinions.