Meteora's forum posts

#1 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
Kamasama said:
"Meteora said:
"Also I believe that technically every console game is a port; because they are first developed on the computers first. Technically there shouldn't be much problem when it comes to porting to the consoles aside from technical and graphical differences, though there are some ports that seem to be worse off than others for some reason. Guess its not as simple as it sounds."
They may be written using a computer, but that has nothing to do with how it's coded. If they are using the native APIs and programming for that specific hardware platform, then that is not porting.
Alright, thanks for the clarification.

Jayzilla said:
"Seeing as it is easier to develop for the 360, I will get that version. For some reason (I'm no expert) games seem more polished and run more smoothly on the 360 than the PS3 imo. The load times are always less too. Maybe I will wait though and see which one actually plays better or if there is, if any, bonus content for the PS3 version. if there is bonus content on one or the other, I will go with that version no matter how it runs."

I'm not sure but a lot of reports from gaming sites tell me that as well. I think its got to do something with the hardware, being different or too new for the PS3. The two key words I keep on hearing is something about a processor cell or something and maybe Blu-ray discs; but I doubt the latter since all it does is have more storage space and has tight security codings. From a technical point of thing most of the reports show that the Xbox 360 always has better anti-aliasing and the PS3 has better textures. I prefer anti-alising over textures since I get really annoyed by sharp edges not blending into the game, but that's my opinion.

It will also boil down to how well Square ports over to the Xbox 360 and how they will optimize for it. There maybe a graphical downgrade, but we don't know how much. If it bugs you out that one version is better than the other then you might as well get a new console if you really wanted to play it that badly. Hopefully both versions will be just as good. Disc swapping isn't a problem for me. The argument that nobody wants more discs for retailers is pretty much invalid. It isn't nearly as big of a problem as it is stacking up those Guitar Hero and Rock Band kits which take up a shitload of room.
#2 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Yeah, I've got the MHC achievement. 1000/1000 GS. Well worth the 4 hours I've spent and probably more than 1,000 attempts. Months after it has become my routine to complete MHC on Veteran before going on Multiplayer as a little warmup. Granted its still hard to pull off but it doesn't take as much time. I can do it in about ten minutes or half an hour. Its one of my favourite mission due to the intensity and sheer badassery coming from your SAS operatives.

#3 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@Karmum: Fuck, I messed up there. I meant Brad not Jeff.

Also I believe that technically every console game is a port; because they are first developed on the computers first. Technically there shouldn't be much problem when it comes to porting to the consoles aside from technical and graphical differences, though there are some ports that seem to be worse off than others for some reason. Guess its not as simple as it sounds.
#4 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

I've been meaning to find the official FFXIII site but couldn't find it. Thanks for the news Jeff, but I'll wait until there's an English version or something.

#5 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

This is epic.

#6 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Damn, that stat is impressive. I'm just shocked at how many people haven't finished the game yet; they are missing out on the other half of what makes COD4 great.

#7 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -

@Hexpane: The manner you responded doesn't seem anything like a adult according to maturity, so I'll largely ignore your response.

#8 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Eh, I can't really tell a difference aside from looking up on my friendslist. Haven't touched my console for a while now.

Also Hexpane, please, don't go around bitching about XBL. Honestly $60 a month isn't expensive, and if you do consider it expensive then you must be one of those who don't have a job, get your parent to pay for your stuff or just in general or have a limited budget. WoW fees is $15 each month and adds up to $180 annually, which is 3 times the cost of XBL. Yet there are 11 million subscribers there. Also XBL is a centralized network; it's nothing like PSN's inability to look up at your friends as far as I know of it, and we've got headsets added in too (not everybody has mics on Computers or PS3). There's more to it than that as well. Either way go back to your computer gaming or PS3 if you don't like it, no need to cry about it.

#9 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -
  • Inherit a few new features in COD:WAW such as co-op, class slots that can be unlocked and perhaps vehicles. Though I would prefer not having vehicles. If they were to have them then make them feel appropriately well done (as in it doesn't take too much away from the traditional heavy infantry combat in COD4).
  • Make the weapons as balanced as possible. The weapons were fairly balanced except for the M16 and P90.
  • More different sights aside from iron sights, RDS and ACOG. Add in sights such as the Aimpoint CompM2 (, ITL MARS ( and EOTech ( I believe both Aimpoint CompM2 and EOTech were both present in the single player, or of similar variants. Adding a bit more just gives the player a bit more variety and preference. They don't have to have any distinctive difference between each other, other than appearance.
  • Speaking of sights on guns, let us add on two attachments. I always felt like I had to either have RDS or ACOG because I couldn't use the iron sights for shit. Though this might be a bit more overpower if everyone uses n00b tubes or other accessories.
  • Moar new guns. Get most of the guns back from COD4 and add in newer modern guns such as the FN F2000, MP7, HK416 and the Barrett REC7/M468.
  • Let us customize our character's appearance. Seriously. I don't want to wear a red beret everytime I'm a OpFor sniper, it's like its saying "hey, please aim here" to the other snipers. Plus I'd put on a ghillie suit all the time.
  • Make the game a bit more Ghost Recon Advance Warfighter. Not quite the gameplay mechanics, but maybe the settings. More advanced shit, a few years into the future with more advanced technology. GRAW had like all of those built in HUD on your elite soldiers, so I thought it might be cool if Infinity Ward did it.
  • I demand another "All Ghillied Up" and Captain MacMillan and Price to make a appearance.
  • Oh and maybe this time we know how the player we play looks like. Add more of a personal story to it.
#10 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Final Fantasy XIII (original one; not that versus version) and Operation Flashpoint 2 are on my list. Yes it becomes tiresome to have a COD be released each year; I hope Activision Blizzard realises that its more harmful to milk a franchise than not. You might as well want to skip out on the COD games that are made by Treyarch, depending on if you do not like their standard of quality compare to Infinity Ward.

And I suppose I can throw in StarCraft 2 in there. I want my mind to be blown with StarCraft: Ghost being developed by Infinity Ward, by the way (Brad brought this idea to begin with). Blizzard and Infinity Ward are both subsidary under the same company, after all. It wouldn't be very hard to get this project going; aside from manpower issue.