@meedokicky You basically have unlimited money and it doesn't cost you to get a car delivered once you have already 'purchased' it.
Plus, if you have a sports car you always wanted and it's not on the road, then it's best that you call and it will 'spawn' on the nearest parking space.
PC Version... After abstaining the whole seventh generation of game consoles (the last console I played was PS1) for a PC, we're finally getting a Metal Gear game on PC.
@rarson About your comment about DX11... I don't see much difference between a DX9 and a DX11 version in Crysis 2 and LA Noire except it has slightly sharper textures, laggier performance, exclusion of Windows XP. Console performance would just be sufficient enough, but definitely, it won't satisfy the most particular of gamers. The gap between console and PC performance isn't that much so that's why game companies can port consoles to PC and vice versa. PCs get a few plus's in graphics that can just be removed when ported back to console
Regarding processors, did you know that in terms of computation power, the x86 architecture is significantly more inferior than the PowerPC architecture. Intel wanted to phase out the x86 architecture by releasing the IA-64 (Itanium) architecture, however AMD responded by releasing a 64-bit extension of the original x86 and dubbed it as the AMD64(x86-64). Since people were afraid of change, AMD's solution became more popular and turned Intel's real solution to a better architecture into dust. Eventually the x86-64 became so mainstream that even Apple abandoned IBM's PowerPC in favor of Intel's because it evolved much faster than IBM's processor. However, during the peak of the Mac vs PC war, where efficiency was more important than anything else, a lot of experts say that the x86 has less power per clock compared to PPC computer (ref: http://www.osnews.com/story/3997). Eventually the x86 won just because the PPC was a closed market and has no competition.
The Xbox 360 and the Wii is run by PowerPC and the PS3 is run by a variant of PPC called the 'Cell Broadband Engine'. However, the GPU is just run by mid-range GPU (during its time). My point is, the processors of the consoles aren't as weak as you think they are. Sure the GPU are not as powerful as the those those GPUs that cost twice as much as a console, they can pretty much stand out on their own. They can produce good quality graphics if the programmers utilize the available resources properly.
Regarding the RAM, Microsoft and Sony gave their units only 512MB shared/256MB Main; 256MB GPU of RAM. It was small compared the standard when Xbox 360 was released. With more RAM, there would be significantly more draw distance, more objects, more textures, and better games. Should those consoles have 1GB from the start, it would be powerful enough to put Wii U's specs to shame. Of course too much RAM would be more of a burden than a benefit, but I think 1GB can make a significant performance improvement of the current generation consoles
@brok You really are ignorant. You have to admit that before there was BFBC2 and the frostbite engine, CoD 4 was the best DURING ITS TIME (because all other games were sh!t) Can you give me one good game that was released during and before 2007 that has both good singleplayer and multiplayer? Everyone's tired of CS:S and BF2's graphics are already stale at that time.
@brokenleglad just to ensure that what we have the same idea on what we are arguing about, lens flare is also known as the 'dirty lens effect' and not the reflection caused by the sniper scope. I'd say, for the sake of realism, lens flare must go since the visuals kinda looks like it was taken from a cheap videocam. If you insist on retaining the 'dirty lens', it should be localized to only when you're looking through a scope or through a camera because you won't really see lens flare with your naked eye unless you have lived your whole life wearing glasses.
@brok no game is ever truly realistic. at least CoD4 was the best blend between realism and hollywood effects during it's time. After that, they went to total fantasy as if the Matrix world was real.
-As for capacitive touchscreens driving up the cost of hardware, I'd say it's worth it as I've used a resistive touchscreen device before and it's terrible and not suitable for games. Plus, there's not much difference between resistive and capacitive touchscreen prices nowadays. I'd be happy to see resistive touchscreen go obsolete. I'd buy the Wii U IFF they would opt for a capacitive touchscreen instead of a resistive one.
-About the RAM. Current generation consoles are powerful enough as there's not much evolution happened for the last 5-7 years ever since the first console was released. Sure technology improved and processors are somewhat faster than before but the improvement is only incremental, and not revolutionary. The only revolutionary thing that happened to processors is the shift from single core to multi core and the current generation of consoles are a product of that revolution. The only thing holding back is the RAM. If you're talking about crisp resolution, high anti-aliasing and all those graphics jargon a common gamer could not understand, definitely the current generation consoles would be insufficient to handle the 'extra power'. But if the current generation consoles have larger RAM, they might be able to support 64 players in BF3.
triadwarfare's comments