I will not be posting again in this thread following this post. Apparently being a video game programmer, Microsoft certified technician, and being well informed and willing to admit the flaws in all of the current-gen systems and the companies buisness practices and/or past history is not welcome.
I see post making sure to point out the flaws of the Playstation 3 while at the same time neglecting to mention the flaws of their favorite system. I can not and will not waste my energy discussing systems with people who have already decided which system they bleave is better.
Why is thread even named "PS3 vs Xbox360"? It should be named something like "Xbox360 = best console" with the type of mentality from some of the post I see in this thread...
The point is, the Xbox 360 is more liked. This forum is abnormal. They like Coke better than Pepsi and the PS3 better than the Xbox 360. That's ass backwards.
I will not be posting again in this thread following this post. Apparently being a video game programmer, Microsoft certified technician, and being well informed and willing to admit the flaws in all of the current-gen systems and the companies buisness practices and/or past history is not welcome.
I see post making sure to point out the flaws of the Playstation 3 while at the same time neglecting to mention the flaws of their favorite system. I can not and will not waste my energy discussing systems with people who have already decided which system they bleave is better.
Why is thread even named "PS3 vs Xbox360"? It should be named something like "Xbox360 = best console" with the type of mentality from some of the post I see in this thread...
Regardless... I am done here, Good day sir.
What games are you a member of the team for? I'm also a certified tech and that has nothing to do with the company's consoles. Don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're a shit ton smarter than the people here because you aren't. Far from actually.
You mention nothing of the PS3's flaws. Only about how superior it is.
Flaws of the Xbox 360 include heat (not as much as the PS3), noise and no internal hi-def disc player.
They make up for noise and internal hi-def disc player by releasing an releasing newer quiter drives and an external hi-def disc player respectively.
I've simply never played on a PS3. I was barely able to afford the 360 as it was. And I even had to gradually upgrade later with a harddrive for it, then a headset. So far, I just really enjoy specific games on the 360, some of which are original Xbox games such as Doom 3. Then I also really got into Oblivion (yes, I know it's on the PS3 now) and Star Trek Legacy.
So since I've never played the PS3, I will say I'm more or less indifferent to which is better. Sometimes, whichever one is better isn't even the issue, but which games each one supports. And you just gotta go for what has your favorite games I suppose.
1. Games that are ported do not suffer from graphical disadvantages. Take Oblivion for instance. Some graphics were improved (distance landscapes) while others were not nearly as good as the 360 (lighting and textures).
That's a coding issue. Not a graphics processing issue. In terms of power, the PS3 has the 360 beat by a mile. The cell processor is ridiculously powerful. Not only that, but there are 7 cell processors in the PS3. The porting of Oblivion was done very half-assedly.
2.) PS3 will never have a greater game library. As fast as Sony announces their "system sellers" (what are they?), Microsoft announces their own or buys Sony's.
Prove it. What does the 360 have exclusively? Gears of War is basically it. And Halo 3 has a big amount of buzz. Without those two, the 360 would be in basically the same pickle as Sony. And the exclusives for PS3 have a fanbase that stretch over a decade. Final Fantasy XIII & Versus XIII(cross-platforming isn't official. Only considered a possibility for Sony) Metal Gear Solid 3. Given that the 360 had a headstart, it is understandable why they have a larger selection. But to say that it has a better selection is an overstatement, as the PS3 hasn't even been out for a year to develop much of a library.
You clearly have no hardware knowledge whatsoever if you think the PS3 has huge hardware advantages. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The "cell" processor was ill-advised as it has extremely slow memory access times. The core OS for PS3 uses a much greater amount of the system's already small amount of RAM compared to the 360's. You're clearly either a fan boy or seriously misinformed.
Now, if the Xbox 360's nVidia graphics processors were anywhere near the level of the Cell processor, then nVidia would be used for military operations, broadband-connected servers, etc. But it's the other way around. I must concede that game developers prefer the regular nVidia because it is easier to develop for, as it is more conventional. But the Cell processor is by far the most revolutionary thing to come out of this console competition.
4.) The HD-DVD player can be found for much cheaper than $200, as low as $100 and will continue to get cheaper.
(Tests on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray show that both the video quality and extra features are better on HD-DVD.)
For those of you who don't want to read the story, I'll summarize. The Blu-ray can hold over twice as much data as the HD-DVD. The costliness of the BR disc is because of the coating on the disc. They have to use a stronger material to protect the disc, as it is 0.1mm thick. The HD-DVD is .6mm thick. And the capacity of the BR does not even include the possibility of dual layer. Not only that, but the BR has more endorsements by movie/game studios (including Vivendi, which owns the rights to all Blizzard games), has more contributors and businesses participating in its board.
6.) While Xbox Live support is better now than before, Xbox Live support at launch was still stable and functional. Sony has yet to achieve either of these.
Playstation 3 online support was brand new. Xbox Live was the same exact way when it came out. But PS3 online is free. Live is not. A committed PS3 player would save more money than an xbox 360 player, given that they use the online function.
They make up for noise and internal hi-def disc player by releasing an releasing newer quiter drives and an external hi-def disc player respectively.
And that makes the 360 cheaper than the PS3? That's ironic. Hmm, I'll have to buy a replacement drive, as well as purchase an HD-DVD player in order to use it. That would put that set-up at a markup of 800 dollars at least.
And don't bother labelling me as a PS3 fanboy. I own a 360. I haven't bought a PS3 because, other than Resistance, there are no good exclusive games for the PS3 that would make me willing to lay down the 600 to get it. Not to mention, Blu-ray diodes will be going into mass-production in the near future, which will cause a 100 dollar decrease in the PS3, which will allow it to contend more with the 360 on the average gamer market.
I must concede that Microsoft beat Sony this round. But Sony is setting the stage for the next round, as they're holding the keys to the future. They've put out two revolutionary things, given that developers begin to fully utilize it, that will leave Microsoft in the dust.
On a side note, I would like to address this:
The point is, the Xbox 360 is more liked. This forum is abnormal. They like Coke better than Pepsi and the PS3 better than the Xbox 360. That's ass backwards.
Nothing abnormal about it. It's coincidence that several PS3 fanboys have gathered in a D3 forum moreso than 360 fans. And if you like Pepsi more than Coke, I'll be seeing you in that thread, as we have another thing to fight about XD
There is so much wrong with what you posted it's not even funny.
I read digg, engadget, gizmodo and slashdot everyday.
You wrote a lot of nonsense so I'm not going to read all of it or reply to all of it but I'll cover some key problems.
1. There is a single cell processor. It's called a cell processor because it is made up of multiple cells.
2. The cell processor doesn't process the graphics. You can't compare a CPU to a GPU. Rookie move biatch. Also, the PS3 HAS a nVidia chip in it. The Xbox 360 doesn't.
You referenced folding which was a bad move as it is strictly number crunching which makes little use of memory. Gaming and multimedia do require lots of memory which the cell processor can't access nearly as fast as the Xbox's chip. That's why you see more studdering on the PS3 than you do on the 360.
$100 drop in PS3 prices is all speculation as well.
Also, if by two revolutionary things up you mean blu-ray and the cell processor, then you are no smarter than anyone else here.
I'm going to go ahead and go out on a line and call you dumb.
2. The cell processor doesn't process the graphics. You can't compare a CPU to a GPU. Rookie move biatch. Also, the PS3 HAS a nVidia chip in it. The Xbox 360 doesn't.
Whoopsie. My mistake. I'll make no excuse for it. But I shouldn't have made that mistake as I did build my own computer.
$100 drop in PS3 prices is all speculation as well.
You wrote a lot of nonsense so I'm not going to read all of it or reply to all of it but I'll cover some key problems.
By key problems, you mean issues that you can prove wrong?
You referenced folding which was a bad move as it is strictly number crunching which makes little use of memory. Gaming and multimedia do require lots of memory which the cell processor can't access nearly as fast as the Xbox's chip. That's why you see more studdering on the PS3 than you do on the 360.
If you'd take a closer look at what I said, you'd notice that I conceded that the Cell processor was not as good as gaming CPU. There's nothing to contradict there, other than the issue of CPU memory, which I'll admit I have a mediocre knowledge of.
Also, if by two revolutionary things up you mean blu-ray and the cell processor, then you are no smarter than anyone else here.
Are you saying that they're not revolutionary? They're not pioneering new technology? Proof. Proof. You were doing so well, but you fell short. The Blu-ray disc has better capabilities and more possible uses. But, as it is an entirely new format, kinks are involved. But Blu-ray has the HD-DVD beat. And the Cell processor is doing a huge technical part to help cure diseases. Forgive me if I consider curing diseases more important that simply picking my belly button and shooting up Covenant.
I'm going to go ahead and go out on a line and call you dumb.
And I'm going to go out on a well-defined line and call you a presumptuous prick.
im sure there are A LOT more computers than there are ps3s.
But few of them have the processing power of a PS3.
and im sure people leave their pcs on longer [with intrenet on] than with ps3s. ps3s are for gaming. not use during the entire day
That's hardly the issue. And no shit the PS3 is for gaming. That's why they offer folding@home as a program which runs as a background process while you're using your system. It does not interfere with gaming, thus making that point invalid.
we leave pcs on LONGER!! L-O-N-G-E-R more folding. i never said anything about "ps3 is for gaming, it doesnt fold" i didnt say that. i said people dont leave it on long because their concerns arent for folding, its for playing. so YOUR points is invalid.
And no shit the PS3 is for gaming.
u dont have to be such a douchebag about it.
10 ps3 = 20 pcs... [in one day] (just an estimate, not exact or anything)
ps3 proably wont be on as long [folding@home needs it to be on]
ps3 IS more powerful, im not denying that
its just that even if it takes a pc longer to do one calculation of a piece of the study, it has ample time to do it.
we leave pcs on LONGER!! L-O-N-G-E-R more folding.
That's a sweeping generalization. I'll have you know that I turn off my computer after I'm done using it. And I am just one among the many who do the same thing. You can't just pull ideas out of your ass like every person who uses the program leaves their computer on 24/7. It's unrealistic and unfounded.
Not to mention that there are probably people who keep their PS3s on for long periods of time.
10 ps3 = 20 pcs... [in one day] (just an estimate, not exact or anything)
Notice that in one of the questions, it says that the PS3 has 10x faster processing speeds as the average desktop PC. Taking that into account, for every 10 PCs that run the program, there is one PS3 that can match it.
its just that even if it takes a pc longer to do one calculation of a piece of the study, it has ample time to do it.
Since you can't prove that, I'll disregard it.
But now back to the larger issue at hand. The Xbox 360 has the PS3 beat on many issues. The 360 can render and process games better, since its hardware is more conventional, thus making it more developer-friendly. It's initial cost is cheaper. And at the moment, since the 360 has a year's head start, it has more sales and a larger selection of games.
The PS3 has the Blu-ray disc, which will may very likely win out in the end as the superior format. It has certain exclusive titles left that would attract more consumers. It's Cell processor has huge potential in the future, if given the necessary memory required, as goodguy said. And the folding@home program gives a greater purpose to gaming, don't you think?
Are you saying that they're not revolutionary? They're not pioneering new technology? Proof. Proof. You were doing so well, but you fell short. The Blu-ray disc has better capabilities and more possible uses. But, as it is an entirely new format, kinks are involved. But Blu-ray has the HD-DVD beat. And the Cell processor is doing a huge technical part to help cure diseases. Forgive me if I consider curing diseases more important that simply picking my belly button and shooting up Covenant.
Blu-Ray doesn't have anything beat. Sony didn't pioneer anything. Sony didn't invent blu-ray or the cell processor. You know who is pioneering shit? IBM is.
Also, I'll let you assume that the PS3 is responsible for curing diseases but that would be incorrect. With or without the PS3, those diseases would have been cured. It may have taken a couple extra days but cured is cured. Also, which diseases exactly are you talking about?
And for everyone's information. I despise the Halo series.
[QUOTE]we leave pcs on LONGER!! L-O-N-G-E-R more folding.
That's a sweeping generalization. I'll have you know that I turn off my computer after I'm done using it. And I am just one among the many who do the same thing. You can't just pull ideas out of your ass like every person who uses the program leaves their computer on 24/7. It's unrealistic and unfounded.
Not to mention that there are probably people who keep their PS3s on for long periods of time.
10 ps3 = 20 pcs... [in one day] (just an estimate, not exact or anything)
Notice that in one of the questions, it says that the PS3 has 10x faster processing speeds as the average desktop PC. Taking that into account, for every 10 PCs that run the program, there is one PS3 that can match it.
its just that even if it takes a pc longer to do one calculation of a piece of the study, it has ample time to do it.
According to this chart, the PS3 accounts for a little over half of the processes that occur in the folding@home program. It's about 2 months old however. But a 100 TFLOP shift from PS3 to PC would be beyond unprecendented. It would take months, if not years, to compensate for the absence of processing power. But the amount of time that would be lost depends on exactly how many TFLOPS is takes to help cure a disease.
Blu-Ray doesn't have anything beat. Sony didn't pioneer anything. Sony didn't invent blu-ray or the cell processor. You know who is pioneering shit? IBM is.
No shit. But who is putting it on the market. Who is putting that proverbial shit in the hands of the consumers? Besides, Sony and Toshiba are the ones who made the contract with IBM to develop the hardware, if I am not mistaken. So that makes them a great influence in this pioneering process.
Also, I'll let you assume that the PS3 is responsible for curing diseases but that would be incorrect.
Shoulda chosen your words more carefully. I said they helped. Way to look like even more of a presumptuous prick.
With or without the PS3, those diseases would have been cured. It may have taken a couple extra days but cured is cured. Also, which diseases exactly are you talking about?
Alzheimers, Parkinsons and the like. Are you saying that in a few days time, without the PS3, the hundreds of trillions of TFLOPS necessary, could be processed? That's ridiculously stupid.
And for everyone's information. I despise the Halo series.
Meh, it's decent. But I hate Halo 2. Didn't add up to how decent Halo 1 was. However, I never owned an Xbox, so I have somewhat of a predisposition to not liking consoles and the games that I choose not to own.
who cares how powerfull the systems are. the most important thing when you are playing games is having fun. i dont really care how the game looks as long as i love the game. all of you can relate cough *diablo 2* cough.
so Wii>xbox>ps3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DIABLO = DEVIL its not supposed to be a nice game autostats are rediclous lack of pots is not welcome if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
Hell yes. But I am definitely considering getting FFXI for the Xbox 360. They've released a new keyboard peripheral that makes typing on a console so much easier. Plus, FFXI kicks ass.
I will not be posting again in this thread following this post. Apparently being a video game programmer, Microsoft certified technician, and being well informed and willing to admit the flaws in all of the current-gen systems and the companies buisness practices and/or past history is not welcome.
I see post making sure to point out the flaws of the Playstation 3 while at the same time neglecting to mention the flaws of their favorite system. I can not and will not waste my energy discussing systems with people who have already decided which system they bleave is better.
Why is thread even named "PS3 vs Xbox360"? It should be named something like "Xbox360 = best console" with the type of mentality from some of the post I see in this thread...
Regardless... I am done here, Good day sir.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
What games are you a member of the team for? I'm also a certified tech and that has nothing to do with the company's consoles. Don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're a shit ton smarter than the people here because you aren't. Far from actually.
You mention nothing of the PS3's flaws. Only about how superior it is.
Flaws of the Xbox 360 include heat (not as much as the PS3), noise and no internal hi-def disc player.
They make up for noise and internal hi-def disc player by releasing an releasing newer quiter drives and an external hi-def disc player respectively.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
So since I've never played the PS3, I will say I'm more or less indifferent to which is better. Sometimes, whichever one is better isn't even the issue, but which games each one supports. And you just gotta go for what has your favorite games I suppose.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
That's a coding issue. Not a graphics processing issue. In terms of power, the PS3 has the 360 beat by a mile. The cell processor is ridiculously powerful. Not only that, but there are 7 cell processors in the PS3. The porting of Oblivion was done very half-assedly.
Prove it. What does the 360 have exclusively? Gears of War is basically it. And Halo 3 has a big amount of buzz. Without those two, the 360 would be in basically the same pickle as Sony. And the exclusives for PS3 have a fanbase that stretch over a decade. Final Fantasy XIII & Versus XIII(cross-platforming isn't official. Only considered a possibility for Sony) Metal Gear Solid 3. Given that the 360 had a headstart, it is understandable why they have a larger selection. But to say that it has a better selection is an overstatement, as the PS3 hasn't even been out for a year to develop much of a library.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/05/ps3-beats-xbox-360-in-console-folding-war/
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan06/2609
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/22/cell_mecury_army/
Now, if the Xbox 360's nVidia graphics processors were anywhere near the level of the Cell processor, then nVidia would be used for military operations, broadband-connected servers, etc. But it's the other way around. I must concede that game developers prefer the regular nVidia because it is easier to develop for, as it is more conventional. But the Cell processor is by far the most revolutionary thing to come out of this console competition.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/
For those of you who don't want to read the story, I'll summarize. The Blu-ray can hold over twice as much data as the HD-DVD. The costliness of the BR disc is because of the coating on the disc. They have to use a stronger material to protect the disc, as it is 0.1mm thick. The HD-DVD is .6mm thick. And the capacity of the BR does not even include the possibility of dual layer. Not only that, but the BR has more endorsements by movie/game studios (including Vivendi, which owns the rights to all Blizzard games), has more contributors and businesses participating in its board.
Playstation 3 online support was brand new. Xbox Live was the same exact way when it came out. But PS3 online is free. Live is not. A committed PS3 player would save more money than an xbox 360 player, given that they use the online function.
And that makes the 360 cheaper than the PS3? That's ironic. Hmm, I'll have to buy a replacement drive, as well as purchase an HD-DVD player in order to use it. That would put that set-up at a markup of 800 dollars at least.
And don't bother labelling me as a PS3 fanboy. I own a 360. I haven't bought a PS3 because, other than Resistance, there are no good exclusive games for the PS3 that would make me willing to lay down the 600 to get it. Not to mention, Blu-ray diodes will be going into mass-production in the near future, which will cause a 100 dollar decrease in the PS3, which will allow it to contend more with the 360 on the average gamer market.
I must concede that Microsoft beat Sony this round. But Sony is setting the stage for the next round, as they're holding the keys to the future. They've put out two revolutionary things, given that developers begin to fully utilize it, that will leave Microsoft in the dust.
On a side note, I would like to address this:
Nothing abnormal about it. It's coincidence that several PS3 fanboys have gathered in a D3 forum moreso than 360 fans. And if you like Pepsi more than Coke, I'll be seeing you in that thread, as we have another thing to fight about XD
I read digg, engadget, gizmodo and slashdot everyday.
You wrote a lot of nonsense so I'm not going to read all of it or reply to all of it but I'll cover some key problems.
1. There is a single cell processor. It's called a cell processor because it is made up of multiple cells.
2. The cell processor doesn't process the graphics. You can't compare a CPU to a GPU. Rookie move biatch. Also, the PS3 HAS a nVidia chip in it. The Xbox 360 doesn't.
You referenced folding which was a bad move as it is strictly number crunching which makes little use of memory. Gaming and multimedia do require lots of memory which the cell processor can't access nearly as fast as the Xbox's chip. That's why you see more studdering on the PS3 than you do on the 360.
$100 drop in PS3 prices is all speculation as well.
Also, if by two revolutionary things up you mean blu-ray and the cell processor, then you are no smarter than anyone else here.
I'm going to go ahead and go out on a line and call you dumb.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Whoopsie. My mistake. I'll make no excuse for it. But I shouldn't have made that mistake as I did build my own computer.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/07/ps3-price-could-drop-100-due-to-blu-ray-diode-supply/
Not just by me.
By key problems, you mean issues that you can prove wrong?
If you'd take a closer look at what I said, you'd notice that I conceded that the Cell processor was not as good as gaming CPU. There's nothing to contradict there, other than the issue of CPU memory, which I'll admit I have a mediocre knowledge of.
Are you saying that they're not revolutionary? They're not pioneering new technology? Proof. Proof. You were doing so well, but you fell short. The Blu-ray disc has better capabilities and more possible uses. But, as it is an entirely new format, kinks are involved. But Blu-ray has the HD-DVD beat. And the Cell processor is doing a huge technical part to help cure diseases. Forgive me if I consider curing diseases more important that simply picking my belly button and shooting up Covenant.
And I'm going to go out on a well-defined line and call you a presumptuous prick.
im sure there are A LOT more computers than there are ps3s.
and im sure people leave their pcs on longer [with intrenet on] than with ps3s. ps3s are for gaming. not use during the entire day
But few of them have the processing power of a PS3.
That's hardly the issue. And no shit the PS3 is for gaming. That's why they offer folding@home as a program which runs as a background process while you're using your system. It does not interfere with gaming, thus making that point invalid.
we leave pcs on LONGER!! L-O-N-G-E-R more folding. i never said anything about "ps3 is for gaming, it doesnt fold" i didnt say that. i said people dont leave it on long because their concerns arent for folding, its for playing. so YOUR points is invalid.
u dont have to be such a douchebag about it.
10 ps3 = 20 pcs... [in one day] (just an estimate, not exact or anything)
ps3 proably wont be on as long [folding@home needs it to be on]
ps3 IS more powerful, im not denying that
its just that even if it takes a pc longer to do one calculation of a piece of the study, it has ample time to do it.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
That's a sweeping generalization. I'll have you know that I turn off my computer after I'm done using it. And I am just one among the many who do the same thing. You can't just pull ideas out of your ass like every person who uses the program leaves their computer on 24/7. It's unrealistic and unfounded.
Not to mention that there are probably people who keep their PS3s on for long periods of time.
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html
Notice that in one of the questions, it says that the PS3 has 10x faster processing speeds as the average desktop PC. Taking that into account, for every 10 PCs that run the program, there is one PS3 that can match it.
Since you can't prove that, I'll disregard it.
But now back to the larger issue at hand. The Xbox 360 has the PS3 beat on many issues. The 360 can render and process games better, since its hardware is more conventional, thus making it more developer-friendly. It's initial cost is cheaper. And at the moment, since the 360 has a year's head start, it has more sales and a larger selection of games.
The PS3 has the Blu-ray disc, which will may very likely win out in the end as the superior format. It has certain exclusive titles left that would attract more consumers. It's Cell processor has huge potential in the future, if given the necessary memory required, as goodguy said. And the folding@home program gives a greater purpose to gaming, don't you think?
Blu-Ray doesn't have anything beat. Sony didn't pioneer anything. Sony didn't invent blu-ray or the cell processor. You know who is pioneering shit? IBM is.
Also, I'll let you assume that the PS3 is responsible for curing diseases but that would be incorrect. With or without the PS3, those diseases would have been cured. It may have taken a couple extra days but cured is cured. Also, which diseases exactly are you talking about?
And for everyone's information. I despise the Halo series.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
That's a sweeping generalization. I'll have you know that I turn off my computer after I'm done using it. And I am just one among the many who do the same thing. You can't just pull ideas out of your ass like every person who uses the program leaves their computer on 24/7. It's unrealistic and unfounded.
Not to mention that there are probably people who keep their PS3s on for long periods of time.
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html
Notice that in one of the questions, it says that the PS3 has 10x faster processing speeds as the average desktop PC. Taking that into account, for every 10 PCs that run the program, there is one PS3 that can match it.
Since you can't prove that, I'll disregard it.
But since I can prove otherwise, I will.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/folding@home/ps3-dominates-foldinghome-246543.php
According to this chart, the PS3 accounts for a little over half of the processes that occur in the folding@home program. It's about 2 months old however. But a 100 TFLOP shift from PS3 to PC would be beyond unprecendented. It would take months, if not years, to compensate for the absence of processing power. But the amount of time that would be lost depends on exactly how many TFLOPS is takes to help cure a disease.
No shit. But who is putting it on the market. Who is putting that proverbial shit in the hands of the consumers? Besides, Sony and Toshiba are the ones who made the contract with IBM to develop the hardware, if I am not mistaken. So that makes them a great influence in this pioneering process.
Shoulda chosen your words more carefully. I said they helped. Way to look like even more of a presumptuous prick.
Alzheimers, Parkinsons and the like. Are you saying that in a few days time, without the PS3, the hundreds of trillions of TFLOPS necessary, could be processed? That's ridiculously stupid.
Meh, it's decent. But I hate Halo 2. Didn't add up to how decent Halo 1 was. However, I never owned an Xbox, so I have somewhat of a predisposition to not liking consoles and the games that I choose not to own.
so Wii>xbox>ps3
its not supposed to be a nice game
autostats are rediclous
lack of pots is not welcome
if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
And yes, FFXI is an MMORPG.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
And no, they didn't cure cancer. I have no idea who put that in your head, but whoever they were, they're retarded.