And on top of that, Minors (18 and under?) cannot enter into a contract of any kind without a co signature of a parent or gaurdian. Since a large percentage of the end users are kids - most of these click-throughs are void and non-contractible.

>> ^Duckman33:

How do they know the actual owner of the PS3 accepted the EULA? Maybe their kid or their kid's friend, or a neighbor that came over to play some football accepted without asking the PS3's owner first. Sony is going to have a fun time proving THAT in court!

How do they know the actual owner of the PS3 accepted the EULA? Maybe their kid or their kid's friend, or a neighbor that came over to play some football accepted without asking the PS3's owner first. Sony is going to have a fun time proving THAT in court!

>> ^shagen454:

Funny how PC love is coming back. PC will ALWAYS be the best people, never, EVAR! forget that. I only wish I could play Red Dead Redemption...


Shooters and consoles fit together as good as keyboards and FIFA, or RTS with a joystick, or driving games with a mouse.

The PS3 footage is simply amazing! It's like 5 games in 1. Well I know which version I'm getting.

Despite your evil and hardheaded nature, you can be funny sometimes. Cheers!

>> ^quantumushroom:

The one on the right is ACTUAL GAMEPLAY!

I need to ditch my PC for a PS3 and get the nice retro graphics

Your video, Battlefield 3 PC Vs PS3, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm on the other side of the issue. I like the streaming service, that I can use it from any of my PCs and also my PS3s. I was rarely using the DVD service anyway, so I dropped that down to 1 DVD/month (instead of 3) and now I'm saving money.

I'm just not that bothered by it all.

Meh, you guys are missing a sunny spot in all of this, being that the game actually came out. I understand some history has to go with it, all I'm arguing is that it shouldnt carry so much weight and that we should (try to) be objective.

To be fair, I feel it should go both ways, in the same way that the history of this game shouldn't drag it down quite so much, I don't feel that Bioshock 2 deserved half of the praise it got (88 on metascore, really?). That game was mediocre, as ZP aptly points out, yet when you round out all the reviews available it gets a 9 out of 10.

@rottenseed would you say a 9 out of 10 from the average reviewer was good guidance towards purchasing a half-assed Bioshock 2?

So they should give the game a better review because of the hardships in making it? That's just silly...at the end of the day this is a product and reviews are meant to be a guide to what a consumer may or may not deem worthy of his or her money.>> ^JiggaJonson:

So many reviewers, ZP included, have been too hard on this game. While the game was conceived 12 years ago, it was redone a number of times on different engines. Those engines, starting as early as Quake II and the original Unreal engine, also frequently meant that the game changed hands a number of times.
Considering what the game started as in 1999 and what it turned out to be, I don't think it's fair to put all kinds of blame on the publishers of today and the final product they turned out.
I would say that the game turned out like an episode of "Chopped" where chefs are given a metaphorical ingredient set of "Duck heart, Watermelon, and Tortillas" and are expected to whip a good game out of it in a timely fashion.
Taking that into consideration I think they put out a decent game that I had fun playing. Saying over and over again that the game took twelve years to make doesn't tell the whole story and we should expect better from our game reviewers.

So many reviewers, ZP included, have been too hard on this game. While the game was conceived 12 years ago, it was redone a number of times on different engines. Those engines, starting as early as Quake II and the original Unreal engine, also frequently meant that the game changed hands a number of times.

Considering what the game started as in 1999 and what it turned out to be, I don't think it's fair to put all kinds of blame on the publishers of today and the final product they turned out.

I would say that the game turned out like an episode of "Chopped" where chefs are given a metaphorical ingredient set of "Duck heart, Watermelon, and Tortillas" and are expected to whip a good game out of it in a timely fashion.

Taking that into consideration I think they put out a decent game that I had fun playing. Saying over and over again that the game took twelve years to make doesn't tell the whole story and we should expect better from our game reviewers.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I have the game, and finished it already.
It's not exactly a great game, but it's also not terrible. It's ok. BUT... it is duke, after 14 years, which makes it better. Gearbox took a huge gamble with this. They essentially had to tie up all the loose ends and present a game. They did that. I have no regrets over buying this game.
and hopefully if it sells well, it means gearbox will be able to make a new duke nukem game from scratch in the near future.
And anyone playing this on a 360 or PS3 is an idiot. There I said it. The game was made for PC. If it's not a great game, it's even worse on the consoles. Gearbox simply took what 3D Realms left behind and ported it. That's why loading times and texture pop-in is so bad on the console versions.
But I guess they had to maximize the profit on this.
Any professional gaming site/magazine/blog reviewing this not on a PC are completely stupid, and should know better.
Edit: and WTF??? The guy playing HAS to be the worst gamer ever... for crying out loud. How he managed to finish the game in the first place is beyond me, because I seriously don't understand how the person playing isn't playing a game for the first time in his life.

I'm playing this on PC in eyefinity (6088x1200 rez) and everything they talk about is bang on the money even across platforms. Still looks dated, effects are meh, game is boring.

Yep. And despite the decade (and more) of development time as a PC exclusive, it still manages to feel like a half-assed console port, bafflingly enough.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I have the game, and finished it already.
It's not exactly a great game, but it's also not terrible. It's ok. BUT... it is duke, after 14 years, which makes it better. Gearbox took a huge gamble with this. They essentially had to tie up all the loose ends and present a game. They did that. I have no regrets over buying this game.
and hopefully if it sells well, it means gearbox will be able to make a new duke nukem game from scratch in the near future.
And anyone playing this on a 360 or PS3 is an idiot. There I said it. The game was made for PC. If it's not a great game, it's even worse on the consoles. Gearbox simply took what 3D Realms left behind and ported it. That's why loading times and texture pop-in is so bad on the console versions.
But I guess they had to maximize the profit on this.
Any professional gaming site/magazine/blog reviewing this not on a PC are completely stupid, and should know better.
Edit: and WTF??? The guy playing HAS to be the worst gamer ever... for crying out loud. How he managed to finish the game in the first place is beyond me, because I seriously don't understand how the person playing isn't playing a game for the first time in his life.


I'm playing this on PC in eyefinity (6088x1200 rez) and everything they talk about is bang on the money even across platforms. Still looks dated, effects are meh, game is boring.

I have the game, and finished it already.

It's not exactly a great game, but it's also not terrible. It's ok. BUT... it is duke, after 14 years, which makes it better. Gearbox took a huge gamble with this. They essentially had to tie up all the loose ends and present a game. They did that. I have no regrets over buying this game.

and hopefully if it sells well, it means gearbox will be able to make a new duke nukem game from scratch in the near future.

And anyone playing this on a 360 or PS3 is an idiot. There I said it. The game was made for PC. If it's not a great game, it's even worse on the consoles. Gearbox simply took what 3D Realms left behind and ported it. That's why loading times and texture pop-in is so bad on the console versions.
But I guess they had to maximize the profit on this.

Any professional gaming site/magazine/blog reviewing this not on a PC are completely stupid, and should know better.

Edit: and WTF??? The guy playing HAS to be the worst gamer ever... for crying out loud. How he managed to finish the game in the first place is beyond me, because I seriously don't understand how the person playing isn't playing a game for the first time in his life.