Johnny

@Frosted: I think it's a bad sign if they don't even trust the "early review copies to people who we know will score the game high" tactic

Sorry, but you're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not saying that buying the earlier version because you want it now is bending over and taking it, but I'm suggesting that doing so simply because of sympathy with the publishers is.

If a publisher is getting punished by people waiting for the ultimate version, it's their own fault for making the ultimate version so much better that a sizable amount of people find it worth waiting for. That a consumer would go out of their way to pick up a worse deal just for the sake of the publisher feels like bending over and volunteering to get fucked over.

Profit for Sony comes where it's always come from on non-nintendo consoles: games. For that matter, the Vita IS amazingly priced. It's launching at a price point comparable to what the 3DS was at launch. The only reason the 3DS is much cheaper now is that they felt that they had to lower the price in response to the Vita.

You're acting less like it's some people and more like it's most reviewers though.

I think GTA IV is an example of a franchise finally living up to it's name, myself. Taste is subjective. I love TP and I love GTA 4. I don't like GTA 3 or San Andreas, nor do I think Ocarina of Time is that great.

I don't see any difficulty in finding new things it's done for the franchise. For one, the focus on character development and story is pretty much unprecedented for the franchise. Other than that, the wolf sections or the motion controls, or any of the new items. Sure, nothing revolutionary, but changes compared to it's predecessors none the less.

It will help if they don't decide to develop wildly original CPU hardware this time around as well. If I recall correctly, it was the cost of all the completely new stuff that pulled up the ps3 price so high.

Oh christ, Yantelope. There will be discrepancies between consoles in the future, as there was in the past. You can't exclude ones that doesn't fit your picture.

If the Wii doesn't count because it's an anomaly, shouldn't you also say the same about the ps3, which was far more expensive than was reasonable because of how much money they spent on developing new technology (like that fabled Cell processor) for it? Both count. Otherwise you're leaving the door open to discriminating about the rest of the generations as well, and we'd lose any sort of solid base to speculate from.

That's fair. Although a lot of people - not just the common fanboy on kotaku or GT - seem to focus on the scores far beyond what you're explaining. Often more than what is actually said in the review. I think it's highly counter-productive to do so. It's not interesting discussion, and it moves focus away from the informative and useful parts of the reviews. It saddens me as a gamer and as a wannabe reviewer. If I was one of the people paid to do reviews for the big sites, I'd hate to have my words marginalized in favor of discussion about how the score should have been .2 lower or higher.

I'm sorry that you lack the ability to tell from context clues that I was talking about the people giving a shit wether GT gives the next Modern Warfare an 8 or a 9.7. I wasn't talking about a rotten tomatoes score (how many critics like or dislike a title.) Considering rotten tomatoes doesn't even exist for gaming, I thought this would be pretty obvious. I made the mistake of assuming that because everyone else I linked that post to got it, you would understand as well. I'm sorry for that. I'll try to compensate for your deficiency in this area in the future.

Are you missing my point on purpouse? I was talking about people bickering about details surrounding how one should score a game. Roger Ebert is saying he doesn't understand why most critics liked Thor. It is not the same thing.

Advanced graphics cards have always been over 200 dollars in price. The further you go back, the more expensive they would become. Your colour pictures showing how graphics cards now have sleek-looking casings do not change this. You're full of shit. Most other people here agree by now, but they are just a bit too polite to say it.

Rotten Tomatoes works differently from say Metacritic and is actually useful in that it very simply measures how many people liked it, gives a short description of the film, and quick access to a myriad of reviews. The tomatometer has nothing to do with what wether people score Modern Warfare 3 a 8 or 9 on the scale of arbitraryness. Unlike, say, metacritic. When Roger Ebert says that Thor has a 79% score on rotten tomatoes, in essence what he is saying is that "79% of critics liked it". Not that "they should have scored it slightly differently."

Förbannade jävla rövhatt! Nowhere in any of your posts did you point out what I said was wrong or why. Instead you just insult me. I don't think I've spoken to anyone more infuriating than you since the proud-to-be-racists in my high school class. Fuck off and have a terrible life.

What are you talking about? Hardware is getting cheaper, not more expensive. What are you talking about? Also, as shown in the video I posted earlier, graphical enhancements will be more than simple textures and AA. Bokeh depth of field, tessellation, Ambient occlusion, real-time local reflections, parallax occlusion mapping advanced AA hardware techniques and a lot of other hardware effects which are unavailable right now. Also, I don't know if consoles will ever do 60fps at 1080p with 4xAA on all games. Games are about tradeoffs and they could run games at 1080p 60fps 4xAA right now but they choose not to in favor of using the processing power on other things. I don't know why the next gen would necessarily change that. ... This is in no way relevant to anything I said. I didn't make any prediction that I think console games will go 60fps. I merely said I hoped it would go that way. Bonus points for not responding to my remark on hardware pricing. You know, the one you quoted.

If Chrome didn't start performing oddly on a high amount of tabs, it'd surely be my permanent browser. I'm currently back on FF, although I have to reboot it once in a while to avoid it eating CPU...

I'm not sure I care how it's made to look good, gerbil. Everything is smoke and mirrors anyway. =) Purely graphically, the most significant improvements will probably be in texture fidelity and anti-aliasing.

What are you talking about? Hardware is getting cheaper, not more expensive. All of this. In particular, I really hope devs will shoot for the 60fps mark in the next generation. 30fps rarely feels comparatively smooth. Slightly off-topic, but all of the people complaining that Rage's graphics aren't entirely flawless (what game's is?) seem to be overlooking that it's 60fps plus features fantasticanimations and AI. It's quite the achievement.