CGI-Quality said:
Rainbird said:
CGI-Quality said:
Rainbird said:
CGI-Quality said:
Xen said:
Rainbird said: Ooohhh the disappointment... Never was interested in a Gears-ripoff in the first place... |
Too bad. On its E3 trailer, it looks much better than GoW.
Still buying here.
|
I think the art looked better than Gears as well. I will still be buying it on the PS3, as that's where they've put much of the work.
|
Honest question, will you be buying the PS3 version because they have been putting more work into it and thus it will be the better version, or because they have put more work into the PS3 version, so that version needs to make more money?
|
The money part isn't my concern, remember my motto is: "innovate, it works better", but I'm picking it up on PS3 because that's where it was initially intended to go. Unless that version is terrible, that's where I'm getting it.
|
Strange logic, but whatever suits you I guess.
Oh, and just to add to my previous post, better graphics are not innovation. It's evolution.
|
Well, I can't concern myself, as the consumer, with whether or not the game profits, but if the game is worth my money and keeps me entertained. Innovating just happens to be my main desire when picking up a new game, particularly a new IP, which this is. It's also another reason the game won't be seen as such, as it's currently dubbed a "Gears Clone" which Tecmo themselves, not the observers, are to blame for that.
|
Of course not, but the consumer shouldn't worry about whether or not only their platform of choice has the game. Gameplay is the king after all, and if the gameplay remains unaffected by a port being made, then the small drop in graphics that might occur as a cause of the port being made, should not have an effect.
Again, graphics =/= innovation.