my bad, it seemed like you were saying resistance was like "gears of war but with more gameplay, weapons, options". Welll, thinking of it, I don't see where all the extra weapons would make much of a difference given that the weapons are pretty well balanced now, nor do I know if 4-5 more hours is even realistically achievable regardless of disc space - unless one was willing to wait for a fall 2008 release (unless the levels are simply repetitive and tacked on).
You are making my point for me. I disagree with your first point and agree with your second. You are pointing to game length, then turning around and saying that the content 'doesn't really have anything to do with' the quality of the game. If the quality isn't going to be raised by all that extra content, it is useless. Again, going by what you guys have been telling me; Resistance gets 'really good' in the later part of the game. A longer game that gets 'really good' later on as opposed to a short game that is pretty much 'really good' throughout gets very close to cancelling each other out IMO. So I have to disagree with you there.
Considering Sony didn't even meet its SHIPPING targets, its actual sales numbers should suck. If the reports of PS3's sitting on shelves while 360's & Wii's fly off of them are true, Sony seriously screwed up.
Considering Sony didn't even meet its SHIPPING targets, its actual sales numbers should suck. If the reports of PS3's sitting on shelves while 360's & Wii's fly off of them are true, Sony seriously screwed up.
reports are pretty much true. I've been looking for a wii...never can find one, but 90% of the time they have ps3's in stock. check ebay and both 20gb and 60gb's are going for under msrp. I don't watch too many dvd's nor do I care how clear the same scene from a bad movie is. I'm waiting for Sony to drop the price and release some decent games
LOL...nope, I wasn't trying to say anything approaching that. Although...I still don't think I'd need to play either game to know that this isn't the case. Extra weapons wouldn't necessarily have to be added just for balance. IIRC, the extra weapons in Resistance are not obtainable until you played through the game at least once. I'm not even sure if they try to balance the game since I haven't played it. Since you have to play through it once, I wouldn't doubt it if they were over-powered...probably just added to make the game more fun (crazy weapons are Insomniac's specialty). By itself, it probably isn't worth much, but I'd guess it would add a little incentive to replay the game on a harder difficulty level or something. Good point about having to wait longer for the game had it offered a longer campaign. This wouldn't necessarily be the case though, depending on the development cycle for the game. GOW has been in development for a long time AFAIK. The first UE3.0 demo from like 3 years ago showed off enemies from the game. I don't know if Cliffy B ever wanted GOW to offer a 10+ hour experience in the single-player campaign, but if so, it wouldn't be too difficult to make that happen assuming they knew about it then (depending on how development went I guess). Perhaps that was even the plan the whole time, but things got cut during development, possibly due to disc space. Or maybe not. If they did add levels (that might not have been possible due to disc space), they shouldn't be repetitive, at least in terms of the environment and stuff like that. If they were just reusing stuff from previous levels, Epic could have made the game longer w/o more disc space. I didn't say the extra content wouldn't raise the overall quality of a game. I was saying that the overall quality of games doesn't illustrate the benefits of having the additional content. Let's put it this way. Resistance without much of that additional content would result in worse game. But Resistance with that extra content does not automatically make it great, or even better than games with lesser content. There's no reason to cancel anything out, unless you're just trying to say GOW is better than Resistance overall (which I don't disagree with...not that I could agree or disagree anyway). The reason why Resistance doesn't get "really good" until later has nothing to do with disc space, but because of some design decisions made by Resistance. As I said earlier, the game could have sucked the whole 15 hours (due to reasons other than disc space), but that doesn't mean the additional content didn't improve the quality of the game. Bottom line is that Resistance has more content (not better, but more) than GOW, seemingly due to the extra disc space (the game assets alone in Resistance take up close to a full DVD).
wow i didnt think this thread would stir up so much debate, although the title does have WARS in it. but at any rate, ive been playing gears of war, im on act 4 of 5. it feels relatively short, but the level of detail is amazing in every nook and cranny is really amazing. sometimes ill run around the city and just stop for a bit to look around. its really amazing. i like the strategy involved of ducking and hiding and being scared of getting killed the moment i stand up. when i played resistence, it felt very similar to killzone, and other standard fps's. it just didnt really bring anything new to the table. i see ps3's on ebay for below retail, and if thats the case and they get a bit cheaper i might just purchase one for blue ray, which is really saying something about sony losing focus. i just wish sony would realize that having one product doing something very well is better than doing many things mediocre. no one buys a cell phone for its camera or games, and its starting to seem like the ps3 is a blue ray player that does other things you know what i mean?
The PS3 is the cheapest and the best Blu-ray player available, so that feature is getting a lot of attention over some of the other things the PS3 does (especially since it is probably the best reason at the moment to get one). Kind of similar to the PS2 when it launched I guess, although there was probably more reason to buy it for the gaming aspect instead of the movie-playing aspect (Madden was exclusive to it for example...plus the PS2 wasn't the best DVD player at the time IIRC). Gaming-wise, the PS3 doesn't really set itself apart from the 360 at this point (maybe later when more games get released, but not now). That would have been true regardless of whether the PS3 was a Blu-ray player or not though. If Blu-ray movie playback continues to be the only reason for getting a PS3, then that would be a big problem for Sony I would imagine. I doubt that will be the case though...especially in the next few months.
