| BMaker11 said: May I ask why you think the PS3 versions of CoD were "way inferior"? The gameplay was identical across both platforms, no shitty network lag (which always confused me about people saying XBL >>>>> PSN. The online play was the same), etc. and if you just mean it was inferior because you wanted to chat with your friends then #1 your standards for "way inferior" are ridiculous and #2 you could chat with your friends....there was no party chat, but you could simply mute the other people. And TIL one company paying another makes can make a person feel second class. Not that one company decided to shun your group specifically and intentionally (like what many 3rd parties do to Nintendo, case in point, Advanced Warfare), but one company essentially bribed another = you feeling inferior. The ridiculous, vindictive, unfair and abhorrently long wait of.....ONE WHOLE MONTH (gasp!), must have made you feel like the scum of the earth. |
lol @ underlined. Do you really want permission to ask me why I felt the PS3 versions were way inferior or do you want to preemptively explain why I must be wrong? You did touch on a couple though, but was wrong anyway. Matchmaking was faster on Live for me, and voice quality in any game was/is shit on PSN. I played MW2 (about half and half), World at War (only a little, 10th prestige on XBL), Blops (again about half and half), MW3, and some Blops 2 on PS3. MW3 and Blops were especially shitty in regards to load times and image quality. The PS3 games were just darker. Ghost has this same problem on both last gen consoles. But yeah, shitty load times, dark and muddy image quality, slow matchmaking, and crap voice quality was enough for me to feel the games were way inferior, without even mentioning the DLC stuff.
And why do I care what Activision or MS did behind the scenes? Speaking purely on a personal level, they are irrelevant. And no one said scum of the Earth, calm down.
