By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 03 May 2014
Edit Thread
J_Allard said:
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.

Maybe for you but having played CoD4, WaW, and MW2 on both (didn't play BLOP/2 or MW3 on both so I won't comment on that), the gameplay, connection speed, and sound quality were comparable to me. They were bluetooth mics, so they weren't standardized....but they weren't "shit". And you just completely made up the load times being "especially shitty". Only less than 3 seconds behind, on average? Well, I guess also, TIL "the PS3 DID NOT have a mandatory install for this game and still managed to do well with quick load times" = "especially shitty". To each his own, I guess. But funny you should mention image quality. Because when comparing XBone to PS4, things like resolution, textures, etc. don't matter to you because it's beating a dead horse, I guess, and it doesn't affect gameplay/isn't game breaking. But last gen, it made the games "way inferior"? Ok.

And you should care because if it affects you on a personal level, you should understand that it wasn't targeted against you personally (your group personally). Nintendo being completely shunned for not being a "good enough" console, while 4 other platforms get Advanced Warfare (two of which the WiiU has better specs) should make a Nintendo gamer feel "second class" because Activision is expressly ignoring them. But feeling second class because the company intends to give you the content, but they're still a business so they take money and you wait a littler longer because of it? That's like me feeling "second class" because Foot Locker sometimes has 1-week exclusive deals on particular shoes....but I only have a Finish Line gift card. I mean, I'll still get the shoes.....

Do timed exclusives make you feel "second class"? I mean, you'll still get the content eventually, but you had to wait. Probably not, because "it's not really exclusive. I'll get the content anyway". But hey, that doesn't fit well into the anti-PS narrative.