Justin258

@ABK_92 said:

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

Too bad it's the worst of those three.

As far as the multiplayer goes? Not in my opinion. I've been having more fun with it than either 1 or 2.

@DarthOrange said:

@Jay444111 said:

I think if a console is going to keep alive, it needs to have a physical media IMO.

Your opinion is wrong.

Your opinion is wrong because many, many people are still not connected to the internet. The number of people that cannot fathom the vast number of console gamers who still have subpar or no internet connection baffles me.

The PSPGo really isn't a good counterexample, though, because it was far more expensive than an equivalent counterpart and it didn't support physical games that many people already had, something that said counterpart did.

@Kyle said:

@believer258 said:

@nohthink said:

With that said, yeah, it is a half decade old console. And like other comments said, most developers don't use 1080p despite the fact PS3 supports it(360 doesn't).

Misconception. The 360 does support 1080P and can display games in 1080P, though most games op for 720P and then uprez to 1080P.

No, the 360 renders all games in 720 and uprezes to 1080 where as the PS3 can display "true" 1080, but lacks the ability to natively uprez the way the 360 can. This is why every 360 game supports 1080 display, but almost all PS3 games can only be displayed in 720. However, if you compare a game running in 1080 on the 360 to a game running in 1080 on the PS3, the difference is very clear.

I know this, I said as much in my post.

But the 360 still has the ability to natively play games in 1080P, it just doesn't happen often. The PS3 can as well, it just doesn't happen often either. In fact, the PS3 always displays in the native resolution of whatever game is in question, which is usually 720P.

Keep in mind the phrase "can happen", not "does happen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p#Video_game_consoles

NBA Street Homecourt on 360 does display in native 1080P, if you need proof of a game that does it.

I never felt like Dead Space was that scary. It was tense and atmospheric, and kept me on my toes, but it didn't keep me awake at night.

Then again, my own imagination can scare me if I let it so I don't play many things with the words "survival horror" attached to them. It's still sad to see the genre go.

I wonder if part of the reason why they never sold that well was because of control issues? I've never heard anyone really praise the controls of a survival horror game.

@nohthink said:

With that said, yeah, it is a half decade old console. And like other comments said, most developers don't use 1080p despite the fact PS3 supports it(360 doesn't).

Misconception. The 360 does support 1080P and can display games in 1080P, though most games op for 720P and then uprez to 1080P.

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

@Mikemcn said:

@bwmcmaste said:

I believe that it was a colour game

Uncalled for...

I caught that too. I believe it was unintentional but still...

Yeah, but I don't really associate most video game music with real life situations. Something like that has never really happened to me.

I don't listen to gaming music much, anyway.

I remember eating a brown sugar and cinnamon one once, but I don't remember what it tasted like and I bet it was really good.

I voted S'Mores, by the way. I freaking love Pop-Tarts.

@HeartbreakRidge said:

but after they dropped the coop I lost interest and never picked it up.

3 does have co-op. Four players online, two local, the entire campaign. OK, so it isn't a separate thing, but it's still good.

@Shaka999 said:

Now that I have a PS3, I feel like I should try the first and third resistances. Skip the second.

Would that be right, fellow GBers?

2 isn't complete shit, it's just... shallow. It's a middle child in a series that was desperately trying to break its head into mainstream territory, and the second one is where it showed most. I wouldn't call it "bad", but it definitely isn't essential. All you need to know is that

Anyway, all I can say is "oh well". The series finally had a noteworthy installment and its creators just left it by the wayside.