What PS3 Game Should I Buy?

[Evan]

by the way...if you get bored less of games fast like I do I suggest getting gamefly.com. Great service but shipping times suck.

[z0sa]

Or they have differing opinions. Like those found here:

http://cod4source.com/call-of-duty-4...rd-or-treyarch

This is one person's opinion, and it's more like a rambling blog than an actual review. I disagree with just about all of his views.

or the votes here:

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/13...ults&msg=voted

This is such a small sample of votes it honestly means very little. Of the hundreds of thousands of copies sold of either game, I think its more asinine to say a poll of 400 random people who may not even own or have played extensively either game anywhere near represents what the real numbers might be.

Or the various review sites that state that WaW is awesome, but not quite at the level of CoD4.

Anyone game review is going to score WaW low on originality points, otherwise generally the game is scored very high. Game Informer, the most popular game magazine in the USA, scored it 8.75/10, while CoD 4 was a 10/10. To me, the difference is CoD 4 is very original, WaW takes the same formula and engine and applies it to a different era. I actually covered this in a previous post, dunno why I'm repeating myself.

In fact, if you can find a single poll or review that states that WaW is clearly better than 4, I would be very surprised and stand corrected.

Who needs a poll or review? If I was home, I could login and tell you the 5x or more players playing WaW compared to CoD4. Log on yourself. The people are speaking right now to you, and their answer is clear: WaW is a better game.

Also, you've got it backwards. World War 2 is the "usual ". Modern Warfare is actually a new take on the FPS genre.

Modern warfare has been done for 20 years, and just citing Counter-Strike as an easy example: ground-breaking old school modern warfare FPS that's 10 years old and was extremely popular in its day.

[balli]

Who needs a poll or review? If I was home, I could login and tell you the 5x or more players playing WaW compared to CoD4. Log on yourself. The people are speaking right now to you, and their answer is clear: WaW is a better game.

I have about 4 friends who are all playing WaW these days over 4. I doubt a single one of them would say WaW is the better game. They play it, because they each have about a million hours invested into 4, so that's a pretty vanilla argument as to why one's better.

And there's not 5 times as many people playing. On any given day WaW has moderately more people playing it over cod 4, but the differences in the amount of unique user's are small. Furthermore, I think xbox anyway, said that most of the WaW traffic is coming from Britain, as they're obsessed with WW2 still. And we all know how ty it can be playing with Brits.


And I'll just end with what I said yesterday-

Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

[z0sa]

Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

The clear majority prefer 4? Care to back that up with some hard numbers? You can't. I know because I own both games and play both, and the little "xxxx users online" has alerted me to which game the people prefer.

[z0sa]

I have about 4 friends who are all playing WaW these days over 4. I doubt a single one of them would say WaW is the better game. They play it, because they each have about a million hours invested into 4, so that's a pretty vanilla argument as to why one's better.

And there's not 5 times as many people playing. On any given day WaW has moderately more people playing it over cod 4, but the differences in the amount of unique user's are small. Furthermore, I think xbox anyway, said that most of the WaW traffic is coming from Britain, as they're obsessed with WW2 still. And we all know how ty it can be playing with Brits.


And I'll just end with what I said yesterday-

I have 10+ friends who all say WaW is better, 10 > 4 so thats a moot point. Your brit claim needs some backup before I use it as proof more people like WaW. And I will gladly go on at 7pm tonight on either game and compare the amount of users in each. It will be more than a "moderate" difference, it will be at least double and perhaps much more than that.

You shouldn't state your opinions as fact to other people, it annoys them. Reviews of games are meant to influence people on what to buy, not as a tool to compare games. Small scale polls, which may only reach a very small percentage of the people playing, mean absolutely nothing to an objective perspective. The only meaningful way to judge a game's popularity is by sales and people playing it online - in which case, WaW is the victor in at least half that positively. If WaW sucked worse than 4, people wouldn't be playing it online in massive numbers much larger than 4. People would have stuck with 4 til MW2 came out, or something better.

[balli]

More people saw Beverly Hills Chihuahua in theaters this year, than saw The Wrestler. Therefore Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a much better movie and Mickey Rourke sucks.

You shouldn't state your opinions as fact to other people, it annoys them.

What have you been doing?
Again I'll say,
Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

[balli]

Or the better movie analogy. In 1998 more people watched Star Wars the Phantom Menace than watched Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Therefore the Phantom Menace is an infinitely better film.

[z0sa]

More people saw Beverly Hills Chihuahua in theaters this year, than saw The Wrestler. Therefore Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a much better movie and Mickey Rourke sucks.

Apples to oranges.

Yeah, the general consensus is that 4 is the better game. If you like WaW more, cool, but to suggest there's something wrong with the clear majority who prefer 4, is asinine.

No, the general consensus is that WaW is a better game. I've got numbers backing me up, you have...?

[z0sa]

Or the better movie analogy. In 1998 more people watched Star Wars the Phantom Menace than watched Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Therefore the Phantom Menace is an infinitely better film.

Both blow hard chunks equally

[balli]

Both blow hard chunks equally

Nothing to say about the logic involved huh.

I've got numbers backing me up

Weak and illogical ones, predicated on which is more popular right now. i.e. The year and a half newer one. Do you think every flavor of the month is the best game ever?

you have...?

An objective critical sense.

[z0sa]

What have you been doing?

I made it very clear, in each of my posts, when my opinion was exercised, especially the initial one which was intended to derail any msigivings Thunder Dan had about WaW.

[z0sa]

Weak ones, predicated on which is more popular right now. i.e. The year and a half newer one.

Then why the sudden dropoff in CoD 4 players? you're building a straw man. First off, if the game sucks, there's not still 200,000 players on during primetime months after the game has been released. People would go back to playing CoD 4 or just not play CoD at all if they were bored with 4. Instead, CoD 4 continues to lose players and WaW continues to field 200,000+ on any given night.

An objective critical sense.

A malfunctioning one, perhaps, considering you cannot understand why you must base a very wide statement like "general consensus" in hard numbers, hard numbers which are easily obtained even.

[z0sa]

Nothing to say about the logic involved huh.

Apples to oranges. I could have sworn I already said this ...

[balli]

Apples to oranges.

No it's not. You're basing which game is better on how many people are playing the newly released sequel as opposed to the two year old original.

Oh and how come cod 4 won game of the year while WaW wasn't even in the discussion?

[z0sa]

No it's not. You're basing which game is better on how many people are playing the newly released sequel as opposed to the two year old original.

Movies = apples
Games = oranges

People go see a movie once, that is how you base how popular it is. Games can be played infinitely, more players online = more popular game. People could still play CoD 4 however long they want, and some do. The majority have moved on to a better game and the numbers prove it.

Therefore, general consensus opinion = WaW. Far too many people bought it and play it every day when they could just go back to or buy CoD 4 instead.

Oh and how come cod 4 won game of the year while WaW wasn't even in the discussion?

Do you have any clue how many different media en ies field Game of the Year awards? Just you saying it like there's only one lends me to believe you're not as informed as you'd like to admit.

[balli]

Do you have any clue how many different media en ies field Game of the Year awards? Just you saying it like there's only one lends me to believe you're not as informed as you'd like to admit.

Yeah, lots of websites choose their own game of the year (they all chose cod 4, not one chose WaW) but only one gets it written on the box. Y'know, that why when you buy CoD 4 these days, it's sold as the game of the ing year edition. On both platforms. Who's misinformed?

[z0sa]

Yeah, lots of websites choose their own game of the year (they all chose cod 4) but only one gets it written on the box. Y'know, that why when you buy CoD 4 these days, it's sold as the game of the ing year edition.

just because you own the Game of the Year version, doesn't mean every website and magazine voted it there. I'm almost positive GI didn't, and they are absolutely huge.

[hater]

which is the best multiplayer PS3 game?

[balli]

From Game Informer:

IDK what they chose, probably CoD 4, but

When Call of Duty 4 debuted on our cover six months ago, the feeling around the office was that the game had an excellent shot at Game of the Year honors. After playing through the final build, it’s clear in my personal opinion that this is the favorite moving into the last days of 2007.

Simply put, Call of Duty 4 is one of the absolute best games to grace any platform to date.

Infinity Ward has delivered on every front, and there is no question in my mind that this is the best action shooter that I have ever played.

And then wait for it, since GI is huge and all:

Following a le as massively successful as Call of Duty 4 is no short order. World at War finally gives us a reason to visit the Pacific Theater with its fun cooperative and multiplayer modes. But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.

http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exere...?CS_pid=200529

[z0sa]

I own a game of the year version, the problem is, it has literally nothing to do with our discussion. If game of the year is a big deal to you, fine, but I'm just generalizing here, no one really gives a damn as long as the game is fun.

Besides, CoD being Game of the Year twice when WaW is a carbon copy is stupid, and separate completely from our debate. It's just like "4 rings " from a spurs fan, does nothing for the conversation about now.

[z0sa]

From Game Informer

Yet it still got an 8.75, which is the 5th highest rating any game may receive and only because they count by .25 - otherwise it's about the second highest ranking receivable. I've already mentioned its not an original game, which more than makes up for that extra 1.25. The fact its still rated so high says a lot about how fun the game truly is. If anything, I think the GI review and rating prove my points.

[balli]

GI proves your point, though it specifically goes out of it's way to say WaW is not as good as CoD 4, which they labeled as the best FPS ever?

LMAO, GMAFB. I'll see you later man. You're hopeless.

[z0sa]

But the “been there, done that” single-player missions and overall derivative tone keep this very good game from achieving the greatness of its predecessor.

Derived from CoD 4, still a very good game. Like I said, anyone who says CoD 4 is way better is on crack.

[z0sa]

GI proves your point, though it specifically goes out of it's way to say WaW is not as good as CoD 4, which they labeled as the best FPS ever?

LMAO, GMAFB. I'll see you later man. You're hopeless.

They go out of their way to state its "been there, done that" missions (because ww2 has been done over and over and doesnt have new ideas coming to the fray every new game) and its overall derivative tone (meaning its similarity to CoD 4), not the gameplay itself, which is a step forward and more entertaining than ever. This is proven by the still high 8.75 rating.

Again, the article proves my points. I never said WaW is original. I said the main thing I'm worried about is fun factor, and WaW has more of it - which only makes sense, its a newer better version.

The general consensus, based purely off the numbers and NOT my own opinion, points clearly to WaW. Again, if it was not a good game in its own right, people would not be playing it in hugely massive numbers months after its release.

[balli]

Oh and...
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...6803490&page=1

http://www.video-game-forums.com/pol...s-cod-waw.html