PS3 for Unique Japanese Games, 360 for Shooters

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

If through owning a ps3 i can't play these games then i'd need either a 360 or pc to play them. I believe this was about ps3s and 360s libraries, not pcs... So I don't see the relevance of pc in this discussion.

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

If through owning a ps3 i can't play these games then i'd need either a 360 or pc to play them. I believe this was about ps3s and 360s libraries, not pcs... So I don't see the relevance of pc in this discussion.

PC is absolutely relevant. "Not on PS3" does not equal "only on 360".

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

If through owning a ps3 i can't play these games then i'd need either a 360 or pc to play them. I believe this was about ps3s and 360s libraries, not pcs... So I don't see the relevance of pc in this discussion.

PC is absolutely relevant. "Not on PS3" does not equal "only on 360".

On pc does not equal on ps3.

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

If through owning a ps3 i can't play these games then i'd need either a 360 or pc to play them. I believe this was about ps3s and 360s libraries, not pcs... So I don't see the relevance of pc in this discussion.

PC is absolutely relevant. "Not on PS3" does not equal "only on 360".

On pc does not equal on ps3.

I know . . . but that doesn't mean anything. Look, we should probably just stop debating this now since we're not getting anywhere.

Well in the consoel war you cant use PC as an excuse.Because PC isnt a console but a gaming platform.

That being said, PC/360 games arent exclusive.but they can be considered exclusive in the console war

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

And?
Kendo started this by saying ps3 has more/more better Japanese Rpgs and 360 has more/more better shooters.
Franchises? Irrelevant.
Exclusive? Irrelevant.
Or are you making up your own rules here?

No, it seems like you're trying to include everything you can to boost the 360's shooter count.

It seems like you're trying to pretend these games don't exist to downplay 360's shooter count.

If I don't NEED to buy a 360 to play the game, it's not exclusive. That is perfectly relevant when counting game library. I include franchises because the console receives constant support from them. Playstation gets consistent Killzone and Resistance titles. Xbox gets consistent Gears of War and Halo titles. It's ridiculous to think that these little titles you bring up will sway anybody towards a certain console.

If through owning a ps3 i can't play these games then i'd need either a 360 or pc to play them. I believe this was about ps3s and 360s libraries, not pcs... So I don't see the relevance of pc in this discussion.

PC is absolutely relevant. "Not on PS3" does not equal "only on 360".

On pc does not equal on ps3.

I know . . . but that doesn't mean anything. Look, we should probably just stop debating this now since we're not getting anywhere.

Why? Can't take the heat?

lol jk I agree. Let's just stop and smile

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

It's an amazing shooter. Who cares about slightly sloppy control? You're going to let one tiny flaw ruin the entire game?
And Resistance 1 was the best of them all apparently.
I don't see what you're getting at.

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

you can change the controls,not only that,the story is epic and the set pieces are awesome,online is mediocre but fun for some few hours..

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

The controls suck? You can change the layout and they patched "heavy feel" ages ago. The gameplay is great, and the online is absolutely brilliant.

NobleSix wrote:

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

you can change the controls,not only that,the story is epic and the set pieces are awesome,online is mediocre but fun for some few hours..

No, he means the responsiveness. The delay between moving and seeing the action occur.

NobleSix wrote:

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Why does everyone praise Killzone 2? I admit that it hass great graphics. But the controls suck, believe me I have played it. As for Resistance well I despised the first one. But not to mention most of the button layouts for these shooters on PS3 (unless they are multiplat) make the games inferior to an Xbox 360 shooter. I just don't see myself playing any shooter online on PS3, with the exception of Bioshock 2.

you can change the controls,not only that,the story is epic and the set pieces are awesome,online is mediocre but fun for some few hours..

KZ 2 has no where near an epic story, but the game itself is epic.The characters suck(other than Visari, Radec and Templar who all 3 get killed...) and Rico is horrible.Still, Guerilla said that they are aiming for a much better story with Kz 3 which pleases me

Arbiteris wrote:

who all 3 get killed...)

Thank you. You've just killed my motivation to ever get a ps3.