Brewology

Well you see that's just it, I don't think it feels realistic but it does look amazing when compared to the clunky-ness that is Halo 3.

Apparently Halo: Reach has a motion blur that makes it not feel as clunky, but I hope they don't heavily rely on that as I can get headaches quite easily, and to be honest I don't see it helping much

I've also read somewhere that halo's FPS works differently and only changes the pixels that need to be changed instead of refreshing the whole image (I think it was Halo, It might've been a type of Television) or I could have been misinformed.

well...you have to take into consideration that halo 3 was released 2 years before mw2...obvioustly mw2 is going to be smoother.

Right obviously.

I'm just saying, not to mention the differences in art style, one being realistic and the other being futuristic.

I'd rather have splitscreen than 60 fps, I wish more games had splitscreen but it is a dieing feature in most ps3 games .

This is the bane of the generation of gaming that we're currently in, if you ask me. When I heard the technical specifications of the newer consoles I was flabbergasted by the Wii... I couldn't believe it was so much weaker than the PS3 and the 360, but the more surprising thing was that the "flagship" consoles only had 256mb of GDDR3 graphics.

At the time I had a graphics card in my PC that was 512mb GDDR3 and it was almost a year old. The disappointing thing was that I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied with graphics from the newer game systems. The problem that comes along with that is that the systems aren't even powerful enough to run some of the games that are made for them (Halo 3 reduced FPS to 30) and that two player split screen is a physical impossibility in a majority of the "better" games.

What ever happened to the "Zombies Ate My Neighbors" type of 2-player gameplay? It's all but lost on newer consoles.

-DarkPacMan77-

Yeah, I wish games like Uncharted, Resistance 2, Killzone, Dragon Age, had split screen. That would be awesome

ZA was a HORRIBLE game... plus they took the fallout 3 TV screen. look.

Agreed!

ZA seemed like Killzone Liberation on PSP meets Zombies Ate My Neighbors, and the clash didn't work well enough for me to compare it to my favorite Genesis/ SNES zombie classic.

Now, they didn't really "take" the "Fallout 3 TV screen" from anyone. That was a broadcast signal for nuclear tests and what-not in the early days of television. It's an emergency broadcast screen that was used in the United States, so it's pretty much fair game for anyone to use.

-DarkPacMan77-

ahh. thats still where i see it from.


that game is a horrid response to the L4D games. sony had to make one in the zombie craze and they failed so freakin hard..

It was made by Nihilistic Software and published by Konami, not by Sony. That's why it's on both consoles... :O
I actually liked it. Reminded me of Boxhead.

Except boxhead had weird controls haha

ZA is a good game in its own right, but I don't think a single "zombie game" can compare to the comic mischief and amazing gameplay as ZAMN.

-DarkPacMan77-

The camera I'm getting can record at 30 fps... is that good? Well I'm not much into graphics and stuff, and I'm 13 so don't blame if that was the worst question on earth...

30 is acceptable quality but anything with 60 will be noticeably better, obviously, and more versatile.

-DarkPacMan77-