Showing 21 to 28 of 28
21. Posted: Wed 10th Aug 2011 19:43 BST
(also @Oddy, the Wii U's graphics are infact better than the PS3 and Xbox 360. The Zelda Tech Demo couldn't be replicated on those other consoles)
As far as I've heard, none of that is confirmed (i.e. the Wii U's graphics being better than the PS3 and 360's). High-end PC graphics are better than consoles' anyway. Even if the Wii U end's up having better graphics, ports like Arkham City and Darksiders II probably won't take advantage of them.
Six word TV reviews
The Worst Firework Displays of all Time
22. Posted: Wed 10th Aug 2011 19:45 BST
Find a way to get more money. In all seriousness though, I don't know what to say. Both companies have amazing games: Nintendo has The Legend of Zelda, and Metroid. Valve has Half-Life, Counter-Strike, and Portal. Also, the answers you'll get will probably be one-sided as this website is full of Nintendo fanboys.
Edited on Wed 10th August, 2011 @ 19:49 by throwaway
23. Posted: Wed 10th Aug 2011 21:04 BST
I'm really pumped for the Wii U by the way.
Why? If you're not happy with Nintendo games on the Wii, you can expect to feel the same way about games on the Wii U.
I don't buy too many high end graphic games on Steam, because at my moms the computer isn't that great. My dad has a gaming computer, but I only go there once in awhile. I bought Battlefield Bad Company 2 and the Vietnam expansion for like $20 because it was so cheap but I can only play it like 1 day a week
That's sort of my deal too. I love the sales on STEAM but I'm considering buying an Xbox 360 Slim. You can get a lot of the best Xbox games on STEAM, but PC gaming is still problematic. For example nearly every EA game on STEAM has online activation, DRM, or SecuROM. I don't need that headache. Buying an Xbox 360 would also be cheaper and easier than upgrading your mom's PC.
Comparing PC gaming to console gaming = Apples and oranges
Help me make a decision! Should I buy apples or oranges? An apple a day does keep the doctor away, but I could always use more vitamin C...
...in my pants.
24. Posted: Thu 11th Aug 2011 06:08 BST
Well, I won't get a 360, (still don't have Xbox Live, when I get that much money I'd rather spend it on a new game than on a service thats free to use on my PS3 or computer, just saying. I hope Nintendo keeps the Wii U free also.) already have one at my dads, but it's either Nintendo or nothing. Minus the PC gaming, not to be biased. I just don't enjoy Halo and Gears of War and stuff, I've tried to but it has like no variety for me and the variety it does have seems to all be on different consoles or on the PC or a mediocre rip-off of Zelda or Mario and those genre's will never be replicated as good as they already are. @Oddy, how have you not? I've seen many articles on IGN and Kotaku already talking mainly about that, cold hard facts ones from developers and Nintendo themselves. I don't want to do the digging to find them, you can be my guest but yes. Iwata said in an interview that Zelda HD could not be replicated on the existing consoles.
Edited on Thu 11th August, 2011 @ 06:14 by Treverend
Proud black Wii U owner. :)
Favorite game series: The Legend of Zelda
Nintendo Network ID: Treverend
25. Posted: Thu 11th Aug 2011 20:10 BST
Well, I won't get a 360, (still don't have Xbox Live, when I get that much money I'd rather spend it on a new game than on a service thats free to use on my PS3 or computer, just saying. I hope Nintendo keeps the Wii U free also.)
I can understand not wanting to pay monthly fees. Since Microsoft sells the Xbox at cost, Xbox Live's monthly fees are where they make their profits (even Sony is trying to get in on the action with Playstation Plus lol). I don't have any reason to become a gold member though, so it doesn't bother me. I only want DLC and local multiplayer when I'm console gaming.
it's either Nintendo or nothing. Minus the PC gaming
Nintendo or nothing? Considering your dissatisfaction with the Wii and with what little information is available about the Wii U's online service, your choice should be nothing until Nintendo reveals more.
26. Posted: Fri 12th Aug 2011 07:00 BST
No. That is not how it works. Microsoft sells the Xbox at cost, because the margin comes from licensing. The reason Microsoft charges for the online service is that, in theory, it invests in making it more robust and full-featured than Sony or Nintendo's online offering.
Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)
27. Posted: Fri 12th Aug 2011 07:22 BST
Yeah, the $50 a year is a small price to pay for the quality of Xbox Live. It's leaps and bounds above both Sony and Nintendo's online services.
Plain old gamer :)
28. Posted: Sat 13th Aug 2011 05:54 BST
Nintendo doesn't even have an online service per say. We'll just wait and see when the Wii U and PS4 comes out to see their new internet networks and then see Microsoft's excuses for charging. Which are inexcusable because Steam on the PC is leaps and bounds over Xbox Live (IMO) but that is free yet. I owned a PS3 (sold it like 2 weeks ago actually) and I have 2 Xbox 360's. I'll agree that Xbox Live is a LITTLE better, but I think I lot of people just buy Microsoft's word on it. PSN is really no worse than Xbox Live minus the cross game voice chat and the more community friendly avatar things. I can't think of any reason why those 2 little things warrant a 60$ dollar service. ($60 bucks is the new price, they raised it $10 a few months ago.) When I buy a $50-$60 dollar game I expect all its features to be free like on all other gaming medium alternative you could play that certain game on. I realize it's not a big deal, $60 divided over a year isn't much at all, but my point is, it shouldn't cost a thing. And @Gamesake, atleast Playstation Plus gives you a lot of discounts, my friends payed for his subscription in money he saved in discounts in like 2 weeks, and that's not to enable a feature on a game you payed $60 dollars for.
Edited on Sat 13th August, 2011 @ 05:55 by Treverend