No you see, a classic troll move is condescending toward other users and implying that they didn't understand your post. Therefore "nullifying" any arguments you have.

All I said was I think he misunderstood my post, because of how he responded to my post. Maybe I misunderstood his post.

I suppose I owe you an apology. Your humility proves you are not a troll and I am sorry.

Wow there are really ppl who cant sleep at night till evry one accepts that their beloved console of choice runs the game better even if the differences are so small that only a obsesed fanboy will care and Im talking about both ps3/360 fans here.

I'm skeptical that they actually cut enough content to make a whole 'nother game. So what, this game was planned to be between 80-100 hours? Sorry, I don't believe that for one minute.

If anything got cut out from the game, it's Square Enix's fault (and perhaps they might've cut it for good reason? nah, of course not, it was the best part of the game!). I don't see any reason to be blaming the 360 here, especially considering how Lost Odyssey went over three discs, this game could've as well.

I agree it seems unlikey SE had to cut material for 360.  I'm sure MS would allow them 5 DVDs if that's what it took to get FF on the 360, and I'm also sure MS would waive any normal charges for additional DVDs (if such charges exist) if that's what it took to get FF on the 360 as well.

If SE cut stuff (which I assume they did because they say the have) then I'm more inclined to belive it was cut either because they felt the game was better without it, they wanted to keep it and refine it for later DLC (bastards if that's the case!) or to use it for some for of special edition at a latter stage for a 'double dip' (also bastards if that's the case!).

The only way I see supporting the 360 changing the game is something similar to what Id has shared about Rage, that the design of the gameworld was changed a bit to accomodate easier splitting across disks and reduce disk changes.  Maybe I'm being too reasonable (pardon the pun)- but I don't believe that would massively affect gameplay if that was the impact of going multiplatform (which is just a guess of mine based on Rage, nothing concrete you understand).

There are games available on the 360 that have more enemies on screen , far more higher res textures and more cutscenes than resistance 1.....if you dont believe resistance couldnt be done on the 360 there is no point in talking to you.

Resistence is a first gen game which used duplicate files to cut down on loading, something that would not be required on 360.

Resistance was probably better looking than most of the 360 launch games so it deserves kudos for that at least IMHO

So, does this mean that those 4 out of 5 games (or at least the majority) that run better on the 360 shouldn't be released on the PS3? I mean, if those games run only slightly better on the 360, that must mean that they were limited by the capabilities of the PS3. Or is this argument only valid when the 360 is the limiting factor?


Or is this just another discussion triggered and fueled by that SE statement saying that FFXIII had a lot of content left out of the final version? The one that was widely interpreted in the internet as "ZOMG TEH XBAWX CUT FFXIII IN HAWLF!!1!11!!!one!". Well... they didn't say that and I could easly find half a dozen reasons why they cut that content.