By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - MOst overrated "thing" this gen???

 

MOst overrated "thing" this gen???

PS3 power (game graphics, cell etc) 151 27.06%
 
Xbox Live 144 25.81%
 
Wii (console) 114 20.43%
 
Other 115 20.61%
 
#1 and #3 11 1.97%
 
#1 and #2 22 3.94%
 
Total:557
Adobo on 27 March 2011
babuks said:

Halo, Halo and Halo


you meant Halo 3 Halo reach right?  so you bought and played both games?



Around the Network
assasist on 27 March 2011

I don't think the PS3 graphicall powers are overrated. I just think we haven't seen what the ps3 has in store yet.



Chris Hu on 27 March 2011
fps_d0minat0r said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:

XBOX LIVE

one of the biggest scams ever (for gaming)

people pay $60 for what?

hardly any dedicated server games (playstation has wa more)

small multiplayer counts, i think the most so far is 24. (psn has 30, 32, 60, and i believe 256)

no internet browser.

very closed network (cant get games with features like LBP and Portal)

it started the paid DLC

psn has netflix, vudoo, mlb.tv, nhl network, hulu, and even espn3 through the browser (all of these at no extra charge)

the only thing it has the psn doesnt (though the free steam does) is cross game chat.

so they are paying $60 to use their own internet connection and are happy about it.

theres a reason paid for window live failed. people new that werent paying for anything, they were getting scammed

1)Their are deals on X Box live almost every other week so I highly doubt that the majority of users actual pay $60.2)  Also if you buy a lot of X Box live Arcade games you can recoup the cost of a membership very easily with the deals of the week.  3)Actually smaller multi player count is a good think for the most part because its very hard to find 30 people to play one game once it is no longer very popular unless you want to spend more time waiting to find a game then actualy playing the game. 4)Also as long as you are restricted to one browers on a console being able to suft the web on a console is a bad idea their are cell phones out their that can browse the web better then the PS3 and the Wii.

1st: still costs money

2nd: your spending money, your not recouping anything. thats like saying retaining tax rates, creates a defecit. guess what you cant be in debt if you dont spend money

3rd: depends on who you ask, at least on psn you still have the choice. there are small games (UNcharted and then therees MAG). with Live you dont have choice

4th: its better than not having one and its still free. i would rather have it than not. and it performs adequately

Sure LIve still costs money but if its a rip off or not depends on how much you use it or how much you paid for it.  How are you not recouping money on deals of the week if you are spending less money.  The perfect way to implement online play is to start out with 16 player matches and increase it through updates once the game gets more users and once it becomes less popular decrease the number of players again.  Browsers on a home console for the most part are still a bad idea.  If people really wanted to browse the web on their home cosole that badly then last gen more consoles would already have had browsers besides the Dreamcast (which also had a web browser that perfomed adequately for its time but still was crab compared to a real browser).

so if i want to play gears of war online, i have to pay for XBL but to "recoup my money" i have to buy games on deals of the week even if i dont want them? thats the most BS excuse for charging gamers to play a game online when it has been completely free before microsoft entered the market with XBL. psn is free but theres an option to recoup money on the OPTIONAL PSN if you think it will advantage you.

and i have internet on my pc and ps3, i still prefer going on many websites and apps like iplayer on the ps3 so i can watch it on the bigger higher quality tv rather than the monitor my pc is connected to. XBL costs a fee and still doenst offer that variety.

the point of the server debate is to prove XBL is not technically better so its not a reason to charge a premium, its not about if someone prefers it or not. and anyway resistance has options to select small medium or large games.


It wasn't completly free before Micosoft entered the market I guess you never heard of SegaNet.  Also it really isn't free for the PS3 or Wii either because you still have to have high speed internet to begin with and that isn't free.



Conegamer on 27 March 2011
pezus said:
Conegamer said:
pezus said:
Conegamer said:

Probably COD and GTAIV. They're average at best, why do they sell 10million copies AND also some of the highest rated games of all time? How? They don't deserve to be up there with Zelda and Mario Galaxy, no way

Yes, they do. That's my opinion anyway :P and you can keep yours.

No, GTA IV was a complete backtrack for the series.

  • Smaller area than San Andreas
  • FAR fewer sidequests than any other GTA game since III
  • Less compelling city area
  • Poorer controls than the PS2 versions
  • Too realistic

All of those things are what's wrong with GTA IV, because instead of focusing on the game, they focused on the graphics. I LOVE GTA, and have every one (Bar II), and GTA IV is certainly the weakest. IF a game can look good and play good, and follow in the series' landmark traits, whilst improving in weaker areas (i.e. Mario Galaxy 2), then yes, it should be heralded as one of the best games of all time. San Andreas is my 3rd favourite game of all time, GTA IV isn't in the top 100...

Same goes for FFXIII and Resi 5 IMO. Focus was on the graphics, not the gameplay. Lots of great games run into the ground because of this. It's almost sad...

Really, I enjoyed the realism of GTAIV and the physics engine was sooo good.

YEs, but that's not the type of game it is.

Just like Resident Evil is a Survival-Horror franchise (unlike 5) and Final Fantasy is an open world quests game (unilke XIII). IF they were new IPs then I'd love them, but simply slapping the name on them to garner more sales doesn't cut it for me.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

kingofwale on 27 March 2011

nobody brought up Pokemon games?

 

yes, there is finally color now and some sort of 3D affect, but COME ON!



Soriku (Feb 10/08): In 5 years the PS3/360 will be dead.

KH3 bet: "If KH3 comes to Wii exclusive, I will take a 1 month of sig/avatar by otheres open a thread apologize and praise you guys' brilliance." http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?start=50&id=18379
Original cast: Badonkadonkhr, sc94597 allaboutthegames885, kingofwale, Soriku, ctk495, skeezer, RDBRaptor, Mirson,

Episode 1: OOPSY!
selnor: Too Human I even expect 3-4 mill entire life and 500,000 first day. GoW2 ( expect 7 - 9 million entire life and over 2 mill first day), Fable 2 (expect 5-6 million entire life and 1.5 mill fist day) BK3 (expect 4 - 5 mill sales entire life and 1 mill first day).. Tales/IU/TLR should get to 2 or 3 million! post id: 868878
Episode 2:
Letsdance: FFXIII (PS3+360) first week in NA = 286K
According to pre-order rate in week 13 (post id: 2902544)
Around the Network
Sheeplord on 27 March 2011

Where's an "everything" button? Fanboys have always claimed their [console of choice here] is God's gift to Earth and the magnum opus of humanity's efforts...despite PC superiority (I can see the hypocrisy (It's called humour)). Honestly though? Everything is. Motion sensors are spoken of like the could cure cancer while making the best mug of Tea, online gaming is, again, spoken of like it's a real innovation (It isn't 360 users, the PC beat you by over a decade), graphics seem to be used to give the entire FPS community one collective arousal despite the facts that: 1) People game for escapism, does anyone really want to kill a realistic human, seems psychopathic to me. 2) Graphics have a limit, reality; gaming quality doesn't. WRPGs are overrated because people claim they are well written...same applies to JRPGs actually. Oh, and all other arguments against it notwithstanding, the CoD franchise is overrated because my friend honestly believes that they have a good storyline. I'd rather read twilight, and I'd rather gouge my eyes out than read twilight.

Consumers are just generally terrible. We should all slap ourselves for it.



The true test of any scholar's work is not what his contemporaries say, but what happens to his work in the next 25 or 50 years. - Milton Friedman.

fps_d0minat0r on 27 March 2011
Chris Hu said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:

XBOX LIVE

one of the biggest scams ever (for gaming)

people pay $60 for what?

hardly any dedicated server games (playstation has wa more)

small multiplayer counts, i think the most so far is 24. (psn has 30, 32, 60, and i believe 256)

no internet browser.

very closed network (cant get games with features like LBP and Portal)

it started the paid DLC

psn has netflix, vudoo, mlb.tv, nhl network, hulu, and even espn3 through the browser (all of these at no extra charge)

the only thing it has the psn doesnt (though the free steam does) is cross game chat.

so they are paying $60 to use their own internet connection and are happy about it.

theres a reason paid for window live failed. people new that werent paying for anything, they were getting scammed

1)Their are deals on X Box live almost every other week so I highly doubt that the majority of users actual pay $60.2)  Also if you buy a lot of X Box live Arcade games you can recoup the cost of a membership very easily with the deals of the week.  3)Actually smaller multi player count is a good think for the most part because its very hard to find 30 people to play one game once it is no longer very popular unless you want to spend more time waiting to find a game then actualy playing the game. 4)Also as long as you are restricted to one browers on a console being able to suft the web on a console is a bad idea their are cell phones out their that can browse the web better then the PS3 and the Wii.

1st: still costs money

2nd: your spending money, your not recouping anything. thats like saying retaining tax rates, creates a defecit. guess what you cant be in debt if you dont spend money

3rd: depends on who you ask, at least on psn you still have the choice. there are small games (UNcharted and then therees MAG). with Live you dont have choice

4th: its better than not having one and its still free. i would rather have it than not. and it performs adequately

Sure LIve still costs money but if its a rip off or not depends on how much you use it or how much you paid for it.  How are you not recouping money on deals of the week if you are spending less money.  The perfect way to implement online play is to start out with 16 player matches and increase it through updates once the game gets more users and once it becomes less popular decrease the number of players again.  Browsers on a home console for the most part are still a bad idea.  If people really wanted to browse the web on their home cosole that badly then last gen more consoles would already have had browsers besides the Dreamcast (which also had a web browser that perfomed adequately for its time but still was crab compared to a real browser).

so if i want to play gears of war online, i have to pay for XBL but to "recoup my money" i have to buy games on deals of the week even if i dont want them? thats the most BS excuse for charging gamers to play a game online when it has been completely free before microsoft entered the market with XBL. psn is free but theres an option to recoup money on the OPTIONAL PSN if you think it will advantage you.

and i have internet on my pc and ps3, i still prefer going on many websites and apps like iplayer on the ps3 so i can watch it on the bigger higher quality tv rather than the monitor my pc is connected to. XBL costs a fee and still doenst offer that variety.

the point of the server debate is to prove XBL is not technically better so its not a reason to charge a premium, its not about if someone prefers it or not. and anyway resistance has options to select small medium or large games.


It wasn't completly free before Micosoft entered the market I guess you never heard of SegaNet.  Also it really isn't free for the PS3 or Wii either because you still have to have high speed internet to begin with and that isn't free.

obvisouly you need an internet connection to play online. the point is why do M$ charge you EXTRA to enable that internet on xbox when its free on wii, ps3 and pc?

seganet hardly lasted a year. im really not surprised we have come to the point where XBL is being compared to a failure.



Chris Hu on 27 March 2011
fps_d0minat0r said:
Chris Hu said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:
Chris Hu said:
osamanobama said:

XBOX LIVE

one of the biggest scams ever (for gaming)

people pay $60 for what?

hardly any dedicated server games (playstation has wa more)

small multiplayer counts, i think the most so far is 24. (psn has 30, 32, 60, and i believe 256)

no internet browser.

very closed network (cant get games with features like LBP and Portal)

it started the paid DLC

psn has netflix, vudoo, mlb.tv, nhl network, hulu, and even espn3 through the browser (all of these at no extra charge)

the only thing it has the psn doesnt (though the free steam does) is cross game chat.

so they are paying $60 to use their own internet connection and are happy about it.

theres a reason paid for window live failed. people new that werent paying for anything, they were getting scammed

1)Their are deals on X Box live almost every other week so I highly doubt that the majority of users actual pay $60.2)  Also if you buy a lot of X Box live Arcade games you can recoup the cost of a membership very easily with the deals of the week.  3)Actually smaller multi player count is a good think for the most part because its very hard to find 30 people to play one game once it is no longer very popular unless you want to spend more time waiting to find a game then actualy playing the game. 4)Also as long as you are restricted to one browers on a console being able to suft the web on a console is a bad idea their are cell phones out their that can browse the web better then the PS3 and the Wii.

1st: still costs money

2nd: your spending money, your not recouping anything. thats like saying retaining tax rates, creates a defecit. guess what you cant be in debt if you dont spend money

3rd: depends on who you ask, at least on psn you still have the choice. there are small games (UNcharted and then therees MAG). with Live you dont have choice

4th: its better than not having one and its still free. i would rather have it than not. and it performs adequately

Sure LIve still costs money but if its a rip off or not depends on how much you use it or how much you paid for it.  How are you not recouping money on deals of the week if you are spending less money.  The perfect way to implement online play is to start out with 16 player matches and increase it through updates once the game gets more users and once it becomes less popular decrease the number of players again.  Browsers on a home console for the most part are still a bad idea.  If people really wanted to browse the web on their home cosole that badly then last gen more consoles would already have had browsers besides the Dreamcast (which also had a web browser that perfomed adequately for its time but still was crab compared to a real browser).

so if i want to play gears of war online, i have to pay for XBL but to "recoup my money" i have to buy games on deals of the week even if i dont want them? thats the most BS excuse for charging gamers to play a game online when it has been completely free before microsoft entered the market with XBL. psn is free but theres an option to recoup money on the OPTIONAL PSN if you think it will advantage you.

and i have internet on my pc and ps3, i still prefer going on many websites and apps like iplayer on the ps3 so i can watch it on the bigger higher quality tv rather than the monitor my pc is connected to. XBL costs a fee and still doenst offer that variety.

the point of the server debate is to prove XBL is not technically better so its not a reason to charge a premium, its not about if someone prefers it or not. and anyway resistance has options to select small medium or large games.


It wasn't completly free before Micosoft entered the market I guess you never heard of SegaNet.  Also it really isn't free for the PS3 or Wii either because you still have to have high speed internet to begin with and that isn't free.

obvisouly you need an internet connection to play online. the point is why do M$ charge you EXTRA to enable that internet on xbox when its free on wii, ps3 and pc?

seganet hardly lasted a year. im really not surprised we have come to the point where XBL is being compared to a failure.

You need to do more research SegaNet lasted for more then a year it goes back to the Saturn.  Also you still have internet on the 360 even if you don't pay for X-Box live again you need to do more research.



oniyide on 27 March 2011

^^^ but you still cant play the games online and IMO thats the big difference between Live and everyone else



dsister on 27 March 2011

Badgenome! 

 

There... I said it 



Sig thanks to Saber! :D