im gldae you agree to.

  I don't think any pc or console sim has realistic crashes. Of course hitting a wall at 150 mph realistic means game over.

 When it comes to  serious racing sims, developers (like  Iracing) is spending more energy in producing more realistic tire models and physics than crashing physics. All you need in a sim is to discourage crashes by having some kind of bad after effect. It seems tire physics are extremely complex to model in sims.

I have to say my opinion of this thread is....drum roll please....Stupid... You're comparing sales of games from 2 completely different genres...

So...Lets say GT5 sells more then Halo Reach Life time sales...Which, by the way better be world Wide and not North American...Because there is nearly zero chance GT5 beats Halo Reach in NA market.

But, lets say WW GT5 ends up selling more......ummm...who cares??  Whats this prove?  GT5 outsells Halo Reach okay...they both sell Million and Millions of units. 

GT5 needs to sell a gizillion copies, because it's taken like 8 yrs. to come out.   All you PS3ers out there excited for 3-D gameplay while wearing those dorky glasses remember 1 thing.  In the year 1990 a racer called Rad Racer for the NES came out and believe it or not had a 3-D mode!!!! Holy crap so I wouldn't get too excited to put those dorky glasses on it's been done before for a racing game.

oh. and 3-D games are already out on both systems it's not done any better on either system it is the same.  3-D is not a big deal until you can see 3-D effects without Birth Control looking glasses, 3-D has to get mainstream and do it the way the 3DS does. 

Ohh and if this post is just put up to say...wow...PS3 games can sell more the 360 games....ummm...take a look at about 85-95% of the 3rd party games that come out for both systems and you will see that the 360 version sells more.

Yeah, don't enjoy the graphics of today's games.  In a few years, they're gonna be lots better.  You should wait until real true awesome graphics are there before jumping into this kind of entertainment!

¬_¬

Biased comment from biased poster is biased.

So whats not true?  the fact a great majority of 3rd party games sell better on 360?  Or that 3-D gaming is kind of goofy right now, and not a very big deal?  Hell I was just pointing out 3-D technology has been around since 1990.. A long time.  The 3-D ability is not going to be a system seller for either MS or Sony it's pretty irrelevent at this point.

I could really care less between the systems.  I don't get any kick backs from either company.  while I don't have a PS3 right now I certainly plan to get one probably this holiday season. 

Both systems have their advantages and flaws.  Both have great games and crappy games.  

It just so happens that 360 usually sells more copies of games...okay big deal and life goes on right??

Goofy or not, milions of movie goers seem to just not care about the looks.

If you care so much about what you look like when you're at home in front of your TV... I mean... do you spend a lot of time in front of the mirror to make sure you look your best when you play your games?

If you care more about this aspect than the actual impact the technology have on the actual experience, then I do wonder about your prioriries.  People always bring up the glasses.  Now, somehow people give the excuse that they wear glasses already and its just not comfortable to wear an extra pair over them and other similar lame excuses.  Me and my girl both wear glasses (in my case, I put them on only when I have to focus on stuff from far away for an extended period of time, like watching movies or driving, and never once did it bother us to have those over our regular glasses. 

But I digress, calling those glasses goofy when you basically don't wear them to go on beauty contests or just go clubing is a completely ridiculous assertion.  The glasses free technology isn't nearly mass market ready as far as big ass living room versions are concerned  And since there is a definite demand for 3D in the current age (just look at those box office numbers for 3D movies) it's only natural that they'd try to push it into our home.  The manufacturers (well, most of them) are doing their best to make those glasses look as good as possible, for superficial people who may be bothered by their looks. ¬_¬

You are argueing the most irrelevent point I made...Both systems can do 3-D.  Do you honestly think that 3-D tech is going to actually sell PS3 or xbox 360s? 

Hey, if to play a game you need to put on your snazzy set of 3-D glasses thats cool man...You watch your 3-D movies while playing your 3-D games...But, I doubt this generation you'll see most gamers sporting those glasses with you and 3-D abilities are not going to sell systems period. 

Your acting like this is a PS3 only feature...  Dude, relax 3-D may be the future, but for video games it's just not there yet.  The 3DS is going down the right path though.

Actually box office numbers are usually down...when you look at attendance...it cost more to go to 3-D movies... So you make more money while actually getting less viewers.... There are some notable exceptions though (Avatar and Toy Story 3)...But most 3-d movies actaully have smaller auidences.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bump up in sales price when looking at the prices of 3-D games too because of extra money spent in development.

Hey, if you like them then cool.... man you and your GF are the auidence they are gunning for...But I am not.

In my opinion. 

Halo: Reach is not Halo 4, but Gran Turismo 5 is Gran Turismo 5. It’s as simple as that. So everything possible =)

not all who bought MW2 were COD hardcore fans

alot of them just foolowed the hype of a big game.

and now after dissapointment alot of the hardcores are also turned off

not all who bought MW2 were COD hardcore fans

alot of them just foolowed the hype of a big game.

and now after dissapointment alot of the hardcores are also turned off