My PS3 is now unplugged and collecting dust in the corner of my room because after heading up the Blockbuster and renting Haze, R:FOM, Ratchet and Clank Future, and Uncharted, I found that all of them except Ratchet and Clank suck.

R:FOM and Haze both play like generic shooters (except in Haze if you get a decent kill combo going in Multiplayer, it'll start playing gangster rap! OH JOY!), while uncharted is literally Tomb Raider without the ingenious puzzles, intriguing storyline, and good controls. Completely boring, I turned it off 10 minutes in, in bored me to tears.

Ratchet and Clank Future was actually pretty decent, a good surprise after the failure that was Ratchet:Deadlocked for PS2. However it was short, took me but a single day to beat.

I'm not a fan of Battlefield-esque shooters, so I'll pass on Warhawk.

So now, with my PS3 pretty much being useless (Oh lawd I was shocked), I'm now using the Sixaxis controller to play a pirated copy of MGS:Integral for PC. That is all.

Also, this:

sooo.. in other words you think the PS3 is not fun nemore? :'(

In others words as he predicted, the PS3 is worthless for good quality games because it doesn't have any.
And I like the video, I hated those ferbies the day they came out.

You're not a fan of Battlefield-esque shooters...didn't you buy Battlefield: Bad company?

isn't that a Battlefield-esque shooter?

I don't know if Snake refers to battlefield games in the same manner that I do. But my idea of what a battlefield game is, is one that's only good with large amounts of players and/or bots in multiplayer.. And that's precisely what Warhawk is...

Warhawk is ONLY a multiplayer shooter, and a 3rd person shooter to boot. Sure there are some good 3rd person shooters out there, but majority are on the 360 console or PC. and they're both pretty much designed to handle shooters IMO. PS3, not so much.. Anyhow, here's the source. It's 4am, I'm tired, and couldn't be bothered to iterate from the wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhawk_(Pl...on_3_game)

DeathNoteL Wrote:You're not a fan of Battlefield-esque shooters...didn't you buy Battlefield: Bad company?

isn't that a Battlefield-esque shooter?

It shares the "Battlefield" moniker, but it plays more like Call of Duty.

When I say Battlefield-esque shooters, I mean games like Frontlines, or Battlefield 2. The ones that depend on 32-64 players to even be fun.

That is the only battle games worth playing. If there is not a lot of violence, blood, guts, and dying, it is not war.

Deadpool Wrote:That is the only battle games worth playing. If there is not a lot of violence, blood, guts, and dying, it is not war.

True, but in real war you're rarely ever right up in someones face enough to see the blood. More like a kilometer out calling in air support, waiting, then moving up.

It's not World War 2 anymore. Besides urban warfare/asymmetrical warfare, where luring your enemy into an ambush is the best route, most combat takes place between two combatants a fair distance apart, hoping the other has lousy air support/artillery support. Not that Rambo jumping into a hole, spraying an M249 everywhere, killing everything, doom style.

Only games to capture that so far are the Project Reality BF2 Mod, and ARMA: Combat Operations.

You know what I mean. It isn't very bloody today, but it made a good show years back.

HAZE simply sucks. Don't even know why you rented it. Should've downloaded the demo first.

I STILL haven't played MGS4 a second time around. I want to give other games a chance. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is a good game to rent. I'm almost done with it after like 3 weeks with it.