@BrianK

Sure it adds value for many people. But it's fully optional and non-essential. For example Killzone 3 will add value to the PS3 without being essential if you're not into the series, you can replace Killzone 3 with other examples such as Twisted Metal, LittleBigPlanet 2, The last guardian, Playstation Move, etc, etc. All add value to the PS3 without being critical or non-optional.

@MikeB

Quote:

Sure it adds value for many people. But it's fully optional and non-essential. For example Killzone 3 will add value to the PS3 without being essential if you're not into the series, you can replace Killzone 3 with other examples such as Twisted Metal, LittleBigPlanet 2, The last guardian, Playstation Move, etc, etc. All add value to the PS3 without being critical or non-optional.

Here's the problem with the discussion. I indicate the PS3 now has a pay service. MikeB defends this by claiming it as not necessary. When held to Sony's standard that the service adds more value, MikeB admits it was his personal bias.

Isn't this all personally biased? Certainly I know people that have a PS3 and the only online use is that of Blu-Rays. Gaming online may be free but gaming online is clearly optional for this person. The same goes for 360 users. They are individuals and have their own standard of what they accept as a gaming experience. The free service provides many useful things, though not online gaming. For a good number online play is simply not a priority. This goes for the Wii too. My Dad has one and it has never had a network connection. Online gaming unimportant.

Thus, to summarize what we're seeing is MikeB's personal bias of what is 'non-essential'. To each their own it's their console.

My personal bias -- cost aside Xbox Live plays beyond the PSN. The PSN was not as ready as Live was at launch. It's come a long way and it still has a way to go. Luckily one can ignore PSN Home else I'd rank the PSN lower for the worthless POS environment. When the experience is superior, and it is, it's easier to justify skipping 2 McDonald's happy meals every 3 months to pay for Live.

In the end if one wants to compare the full features then one must include the online pay options for each console.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Sep-2010 at 02:33 AM.

@BrianK

Why is it any difference as paying extra for movies or similar? It's not like Microsoft provides a similar service where people get free games and a lot of other stuff.

Quote:

The PSN was not as ready as Live was at launch

My personal bias is that even at launch the PSN was superior. Free online gaming, nowadays it ensures me all my PS3 gaming friends are able to play online similar as to it was and is on the PC.

One month free XBox Live came with Gears of War for me, it lagged as hell for me even with its very limited size battles. So I hadn't made much use of this and deemed it a waste of money for me personally to continue. With my launch games Motorstorm and Resistance: Fall of Man the online gaming was lag free and on a bigger scale in Resistance.

Online gaming is for me the by far most critical feature of the PSN and XBox Live (and with the PSN there is no handicap for me and my gaming friends).

@MikeB

Quote:

It's not like Microsoft provides a similar service where people get free games and a lot of other stuff.

The two services have their differences and their similarities. Xbox Gold may not provide free games. It has provided the first opportunity at game on-adds and demos. And if one is a sports fan the thousands of sporting events from ESPN makes Gold a nice option, at least in the US.

Quote:

My personal bias is that even at launch the PSN was superior

Strange... Perhaps Europe didn't have the lags of the US PSN network. There were clearly other issues with the launch PSN. Friends lists were inconsistent and flaky. It allowed users to have different IDs in different games. IM wasn't as refined (did it even exist?) Voice communication couldn't happen unless users were in the same game. The online store was not well organized and difficult to use. Then quite often that cool new demo was in stereo sound only. At launch the PSN didn't have the integrated feel of Live. It felt like the rules were being made up as companies went along. Which, I'm guessing, is likely the truth. Having both the PSN has been reaching towards a more consistent experience. LIVE, IMO, showed Sony where to head.

Quote:

Free online gaming, nowadays it ensures me all my PS3 gaming friends

There's where I see things changing in the coming years. The PS3 is limited to a smaller user base of online. Microsoft has shown seemless play across multiple platforms - console, phone, and desktop. It'll be nice the more friends Live enables without forcing them into the console purchase. Afterall not everyone wants a console. Nor can they have their console with them at the coffee shop. But, a laptop or phone that can game can easily be brought along. It'll be interesting to see Sony's rumored gaming phone. Personally, I want to carry the least amount of devices possible. If my phone can browse, play video, and game I have no need for a PSP, DS, or laptop.


Did you see the Sony PS3 Homebrewed hack is now available. It's open source and one installs it on their own thumbdrive. Removing Linux 'for security measures' appears to have opened a market to jailbreak the PS3. It's seems that Sony's attempt to secure the PS3 actually baited hackers into jailbreaking the console. In the end this made it even less secure.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Sep-2010 at 07:47 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Sep-2010 at 07:40 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

The PS3 is limited to a smaller user base of online.

According to The Diffusion group relatively more PS3 users are online than XBox 360 users in the US. I think here in Europe this is even more to the advantage of the PS3, people here seem overall more reluctant to pay the "Microsoft tax" to play online, most people I spoken to say they think like me, that online gaming should be free on the XBox like on all the other major gaming systems.

So when the PS3 userbase overtakes the XBox 360 install base it should become considerably larger.

Quote:

Perhaps Europe didn't have the lags of the US PSN network.

I read about super solid Motorstorm / Resistance online performance from PS3 users from the US at the time as well. These were by far the biggest PS3 launch titles at the time, both sold near 4 million copies.

Quote:

It's seems that Sony's attempt to secure the PS3 actually baited hackers into jailbreaking the console.

I think that's funny reasoning. So the XBox, PS2, Nitendo Wii, etc, etc weren't hacked in any way? I think there will always be a programmer somewhere who will give it a try to breach security, nomatter how good or bad.

If the Mona Lisa was not protected from thievery nobody would try to steal it? Amigans know the demoscene and its origins for a large part, I think most here aren't that naive.

@BrianK

Quote:

Did you see the Sony PS3 Homebrewed hack is now available. It's open source and one installs it on their own thumbdrive. Removing Linux 'for security measures' appears to have opened a market to jailbreak the PS3. It's seems that Sony's attempt to secure the PS3 actually baited hackers into jailbreaking the console. In the end this made it even less secure.

I agree. They ####ed off alot of people removing linux and quite possibly shot themselves in the foot on 2 fronts. The legal front and the homebrew front.

Got a link?

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: The PS3 is limited to a smaller user base of online. According to The Diffusion group relatively more PS3 users are online than XBox 360 users in the US.

You quoted out of context. Thusly, you are again seen constructing a strawman as you defend against something that wasn't said.

The response was to all your PS3 friends. The response was 'There's where I see things changing in the coming years. The PS3 is limited to a smaller user base of online. Microsoft has shown seemless play across multiple platforms - console, phone, and desktop.' -- So even if the 360 has less users online in the future there are clearly more targets for cooperative gaming on the Live network.

Quote:

think here in Europe this is even more to the advantage of the PS3, people here seem overall more reluctant to pay the "Microsoft tax" to play online

In the USA NPD reported last year the 360 had the greatest % of users online, followed by the Wii then the PS3. Certainly this could have changed in a year. More so as 'reluctant' we saw the Microsoft this spring state 23 Million users on line. That was nearly 60% of the consoles sold. Microsoft stated the most revenue, over $1B/year, in online sales. Clearly those numbers speak to the popularity of the service. The question is would Microsoft gain the $1B back if it dropped online fees? Somehow I doubt the new user count would off-set the loss of changing to free.

Quote:

So when the PS3 userbase overtakes the XBox 360 install base it should become considerably larger

I question online activity between the two bases. Typically if there's a commitment to something, a bit of money, the user is more compelled to use the service. If it's free people tend to be more willing to ignore it. If typical human behavior cooresponds to gaming I suspect when/if that day comes as a whole more hours online would be spent on the 360.

Quote:

Quote: It's seems that Sony's attempt to secure the PS3 actually baited hackers into jailbreaking the console. I think that's funny reasoning.

Sony initally sold the PS3 as the console for the DIY community. When Linux was included there was little to compell the hackerish nature of Linux to be pushed to the PS3. Sony then took the rug out from under this userbase claiming the need for security. The response soon after was a hacked console so Linux could be run again. And to add to this games could be copied and played from backups, so therefore less secure than before. All this is fact. Did Sony mean to bait the hackers? Unlike. However, in the end that was the result.

@Lou
I have a link for the homebrew hack from news sources. If I had an actual hacking site the Amigaworld rules would prevent me from confirming.

Playstation Move review . It appears, contary to posting here, there is noticeable lag in every game. Probably not a good option for FPS gaming.

Summary -- Move is more accurate than the default Wii controllers. One no longer has to suffer SD resolutions for motion controling games. (Yes the PS3 is now the WiiHD) Though there is no killer app that demands use of motion controls. Expect shovelware ports from the Wii to the PS3.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Playstation Move review . It appears, contary to posting here, there is noticeable lag in every game. Probably not a good option for FPS gaming. Summary -- Move is more accurate than the default Wii controllers. One no longer has to suffer SD resolutions for motion controling games. (Yes the PS3 is now the WiiHD) Though there is no killer app that demands use of motion controls. Expect shovelware ports from the Wii to the PS3.

Some key points:
Quote:

The table tennis game feels very accurate, but again, this is something the Wii has been doing for a very long time, and nothing here will make you think the Move is going to blow away Nintendo's offerings.

MikeB will tell you that it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Nintendo's WM+ though...released over a year ago I might add.

Quote:

You'll also need to stand in a particular spot; when calibrating your controller, you're given a rectangular area to stand in, and then you hit the button with the controller at your shoulder, hip, and then belt to lock in the positioning. If you move out of that rectangle, expect the controls to lose their accuracy.

Lame!

Quote:

This is a straight-up light gun game, but it seems to have a major flaw: when you move the controller quickly, the crosshair begins to edge to the left. You can hit the circle button on the Move controller to re-center the crosshair, but I found myself doing this constantly as I whipped the controller around the screen to aim at the cardboard targets. I'm not sure why the crosshair would creep away from where it was supposed to be, but this is an issue that needs to be fixed before the game is released; it made the title basically unplayable.

Rotflmao! Looks like they can't do direct screen pointing like I claimed so these approximation errors will always happen in some titles.

Quote:

Echochrome 2 demo This game needs you to be in a very specific place to calibrate your Move controller. You're shown a crosshair in the middle of the screen, and you have to place the glowing ball in the middle and then hit the button to lock in the position and make sure you can aim effectively. If you'd like to sit down or adjust your position, it's actually better to adjust the camera in this case, not the remote.

Lame that you have to do acrobatics to calibrate this thing. With WM+ you lay the controller on a flat surface and you are done.

Tiger Woods 11
Quote:

this has vastly superior graphics to the Wii version, so there's that as well. It may be disappointing that this isn't better than the Wii, but what can really be done with a golf game? EA simply took what it learned creating the wonderful Wii version of the game and brought it to the PS3. There are worse development strategies.

Omg Wii+HD! In the end, that's alot of cash to make a Wii hi def... I don't think anyone owning a Wii will be spending $400 to get HD versions of Wii games they already own.

There's enough rough edges around Move right now to make people hesitant.
The calibration that is required to make "direct screen pointing" seem accurate can be annoying.

Perhaps Nintendo's next-gen "Sensor Bar" will include cameras. Funnier still would be if the next-gen WiiRemotes also included full/multi spectrum cameras. Seems Nintendo is poised to 1-up everyone in 2012...

@Lou

Quote:

Omg Wii+HD! In the end, that's alot of cash to make a Wii hi def

This isn't the only review that's solidified my fear about the Move. That was it's too much like the Wii for any fresh players or fresh games. I saw this called the WiiMote+Clown nose -- it seems a fairly good description. The reviews have indicated gameplay isn't anything the Wii can't do. Perhaps that was Sony's logic, copy the leader and hope to convince users to switch.

IMO, a Nintendo 2012 console will kill the Move. If Nintendo announced the console at E3 in 2011 this would result in the Move being 'popular' for a year at best. Why? Wii users who hadn't converted yet will wait another year without complaint. Afterall, they do what the Move does today.

@BrianK

Quote:

Microsoft has shown seemless play across multiple platforms - console, phone, and desktop.

What do you mean? Play XBox 360 games on your PC or Phone, like you can play PS3 games on the PSP and on Mac, Linux and Windows PCs? Cell phone PS3 support on seems to be limited to music, video and photo streaming.

Quote:

In the USA NPD reported last year the 360 had the greatest % of users online

According to the study I talked about this is not true. If you mean there are more XBox 360s sold in the US then that's nothing new. In the rest of the world the PS3 is already leading over the XBox 360.

Quote:

Clearly those numbers speak to the popularity of the service.

I would say without it the system is handicapped for many gamers.

Quote:

If it's free people tend to be more willing to ignore it. If typical human behavior

I consider that to be more comfortable and relaxing actually. I imagine someone who pays extra to play online may worry in the back of his/her head if the person is getting his or hers money worth and may feel more compelled to play an online game to justify to him- or herself the person isn't being screwed.

@Lou

Of course we know the core of Playstation Move's technology predates the Wii by about half a decade.

From another review posted yesterday:

"the PlayStation Move technology is a step above the Wii""

" I like the PlayStation Move's spin on navigation and menu selection better than the Wii's, as it's far easier to see that you've moused over the right option."

"not once in my hours of gameplay did the PlayStation Move drop its wireless connection, which is something that has happened to me while playing the Wii. "

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368365,00.asp

Of course some software must still become better optimised, Uncharted 2 wasn't built in day and neither was Rome. Uncharted 3 will technically be well superior still as technically the PS3 is really that powerful and then some.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-Sep-2010 at 10:50 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

What do you mean?

Live is planned to have real time console to phone gaming. AFAIK there's no PS3 game to Linux game on the same network.

Quote:

According to the study I talked about this is not true.

That isn't necessarily correct. The NPD I cited and included was last year, 2009. If the study you cited was later, say now in 2010, it very well could have changed.

What we do know from a vendor, not a study, is the Microsoft released a headcount of 23M on Live as of spring of 2010 along with the largest revenue out of any of the 3 consoles related to online. One wouldn't have either a majority of users online nor the largest online revenues nor the #2 console if people were so unwilling to pay the 'Microsoft Tax'. There are two questions which there is no answer for... Would no Microsoft Tax mean more users and would that change be more profitable. It's anyone's guess.

In the end it all depends on what the user compares it to and the value they see. Take a World of Warcraft user. Live is cheaper per year. Live allows thousands of games online, not just 1. To this person the fee is a fairly good deal.

Quote:

I would say without it the system is handicapped for many gamers.

Again I would say this is your personal judgement and bias. Instead of being presumptious I let the person make the decision for themselves. Certainly the history of consoles is not being online. Not everyone wants to play against MikeB. Many people don't want to get online. Though in the case of the 360 we know that a good number of people are willing to hand over the 'Microsoft Tax'. Looking at July and August numbers it seems to me the console still has spunk, tax or no tax.

@BrianK

Quote:

AFAIK there's no PS3 game to Linux game on the same network.

Of course if you play PS3 games through remote play via Linux the game should connect to the PSN for online gaming, but not that I tried this. For example if you use Life with Playstation, the PSN store, PlayTV recording/broadcasts or VidZone music video streaming through remote play, as supported, it has to connect to the PSN. So we can assume developers have this option (although this probably eats more bandwidth).

Quote:

Certainly the history of consoles is not being online.

Well, in the past we didn't have many games with short repetitive single player campaigns, but with solid online capabilities which received top rankings. If the online component isn't available this greatly reduces the value of such a game. That's why I consider online capabilities essential and a significantt handicap if you're not subscribed to XBox Live.

Grand Theft Auto IV or Metal Gear Solid 4 however do have solid and lenghty single player campaigns, so without online capabilities such games still provide as good as full value like these series provided on the PS2.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Sep-2010 at 08:40 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-Sep-2010 at 08:38 AM.

The Blu-Ray 3D update for the PS3 will become available in October according to Sony.

@MikeB

Quote:

if you play PS3 games through remote play via Linux the game should connect to the PSN for online gaming, but not that I tried this

These are two different things. What you describe is retargeting the output/input of the PS3. The game isn't running on Linux. The controls and screen are being output to your PC. This is more costly in bandwidth and overall.

360-Live-PC or 360-Live-Phone is the scenario in the future. Real time gaming from the console to the phone. Only 1 user would need a 360. What you describe is PC-PS3-PSN-PS3. Or PSP-PS3-PSN-PS3. Either way the game is not targeting the PSP or PC. The game is still targeting the PS3.

The PSN scenario you describe is more bandwidth costly, which you noted. Though I would like to note in the video discussions you continually point out the expense and size limitations. The same are at play here. The PC owner must now buy a PS3, a 360 isn't needed. That's roughly 6 years of LIVE payments right there. You said you didn't want to see additional costs in your gaming, this introduces more costs. And this assumes that no one at home is using your PS3 so you can actually do this. One might want 2 PS3s, so 12 years of LIVE. And for a more extreme example: A friend of mine has 6 kids what are the chances he might need even more than 2 PS3s to ensure he has 1 console available to him? 8 people at home, 8 consoles so 48 years of Live? OUCHY!

Quote:

Well, in the past we didn't have many games with short repetitive single player campaigns, but with solid online capabilities which received top rankings

Don't know what past you are talking about. My past is the Atari 2600 and Colecovision. These games are the very definition of short repetitive gaming. Take Pac-Man after the first 5 seconds everything else is repetitive. There was no 'solid online' heck there was no online. I had an SNES and Super Mario. As for short it takes people about 5 minutes to get to the end of the game. I'd argue the opposite in the past we had many games that were short and reptitive and they didn't have any online capabilities. If you don't know these I recommend you run MAME and learn about gaming in the 1980s.

Quote:

That's why I consider online capabilities essential and a significantt handicap if you're not subscribed to XBox Live.

Again you're still judging the world through your rose tinted glasses. Users do buy games and do enjoy them without getting online. In many cases online is simply lengthening the reptitiveness. Killzone you do what online? Kill more people in the same ways you killed them in the game -- reptitious. I don't consider a pretty new map to mean non-reptitiveness when you do exactly the same thing on the new map. Now this isn't to say repetitiveness can't be enjoyable.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Sep-2010 at 02:57 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 03-Sep-2010 at 02:54 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 03-Sep-2010 at 01:14 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

The controls and screen are being output to your PC.

Yes, I explained how it works in these threads.

Quote:

The PC owner must now buy a PS3

Of course, to play PS3 games you need a PS3. I thought that was obvious, but you buy the game with remote play support only once and you can then play the same game from a remote PC or PSP.

Quote:

That's roughly 6 years of LIVE payments right there

After 4 or 5 years, or maybe 3 if you get a family account with XBox Live subscription you are left with nothing! Buying a PS3 means after 3 to 5 years you still have a PS3 and can play games online as much you want or watch Blu-Ray movies, etc. You can setup as many accounts you want for free (even fake ones....).

Quote:

I'd argue the opposite in the past we had many games that were short and reptitive and they didn't have any online capabilities.

After finishing I wouldn't want to play a game like Halo 3 again. The campaign doesn't involve skill and the story is IMO rather boring to go through again.

I have nothing against simple quick games, but they usually cost 5 bucks or less online nowadays. It's not the 70s/80s anymore, you don't pay 60 bucks for some Pacman clone.

Quote:

Killzone you do what online? Kill more people in the same ways you killed them in the game -- reptitious.

Every online game is different because you are competing with different people
(for example Halo 3's campaign AI is extremely predictable). You can start a clan with friends and try to up your worldwide ranking. I consider online gaming a key feature nowadays. But Killzone 2 has a very good thrilling single player campaign as well.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Sep-2010 at 07:01 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course, to play PS3 games you need a PS3

Exactly the point I was making. Gaming on the PS3 is restricted to the PS3. LIVE as described to be in the works by Microsoft is enabling PC gamers and Phone gamers to get into the action. Definitely a different direction, or at least one that Sony has yet to publically commit to. If you see the key value of gaming as online wouldn't more users getting online to play provide you even more value?

Quote:

or maybe 3 if you get a family account with XBox Live subscription you are left with nothing

It's time to give up the notion that money is only usable if you have a physical object. Welcome to the Tech Enthusiast realization that bits, not just atoms, do have value.

Quote:

Quote: I'd argue the opposite in the past we had many games that were short and reptitive and they didn't have any online capabilities. After finishing I wouldn't want to play a game like Halo 3 again. The campaign doesn't involve skill and the story is IMO rather boring to go through again. I have nothing against simple quick games, but they usually cost 5 bucks or less online nowadays. It's not the 70s/80s anymore, you don't pay 60 bucks for some Pacman clone

I hope you recognize that neither of the above points in no way are a defense that your suggestion that older games weren't as short and reptitive as today is true.

Outside of the failure to support your assertion if you want to compare these against older games we can do that. First, off no one game is loved by all. People are diverse some will love what you hate and hate what you love. If your standard is skill Halo3 requires far more than the old Pac-Man game. And if it's story you're looking for there is none in Pac-Man. (Though I contend the notion of demanding any FPS to have a gripping story is a failed endeavor. I find the best stories in books. )

As for cost -- Atari 2600 was released in 1977 and cost $199. Games were $20-$25. If we consider inflation in the US it's been 252% since 1977. Today's consoles should cost about $499. Games should cost $50-$65. Today, consoles are cheaper than expected and game cost close enough to be about the same. Today's games provide more story and more skill then games from the 70s/80s. Games today are also less reptitive and longer, unlike your unsupported contention.

Quote:

Every online game is different because you are competing with different people

A small change of skill on the other side means non-repetitiveness? I'd disagree, in the end I'm doing the same reptitive actions, simply in a different order. Adding to this statement you previously commented story was important. How does that team vs team firefight online add to story? I'll help you here -- it doesn't!

Quote:

I consider online gaming a key feature nowadays.

Which is just fine. What you haven't admitted to is accepting that not everyone lives to the MikeB standards. That people can use a console and not use what you dictate as a key feature and yet still feel they obtained a good value for their money.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Of course we know the core of Playstation Move's technology predates the Wii by about half a decade.

Gyro's have been around a long time, even MS released a PC controller in the 90's ... way before Sony. Nintendo makes things mainstream...everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. We discussed this during the invention vs. innovation discussion.

Quote:

From another review posted yesterday: "the PlayStation Move technology is a step above the Wii""

yes, we know it's better than the basic WiiRemote but not WiiMotion Plus...which I will once again remind you was released 16 months ago.... Allow me to welcome the PS3 to the motion contoller party...better late than never, right?

Quote:

" I like the PlayStation Move's spin on navigation and menu selection better than the Wii's, as it's far easier to see that you've moused over the right option."

Yes, those tinier HD pixels must be easier to see...
Why post biased opinion BS?

Quote:

"not once in my hours of gameplay did the PlayStation Move drop its wireless connection, which is something that has happened to me while playing the Wii. "

So blame the Wii and not external influences? Well, there's scientific fact right there folks...
I watch Netflix for hours on my Wii without interruption. Not that there never has been any, but I am jumping off the neighbors' hotspot so... The PS3 downstair hasn't been any better at maintaining a wireless connection. Keep posting biased poop, you wouldn't be you if you didn't.

Quote:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368365,00.asp Quote: Of course some software must still become better optimised, Uncharted 2 wasn't built in day and neither was Rome. Uncharted 3 will technically be well superior still as technically the PS3 is really that powerful and then some.

Yes, the PS3 is as powerful as my 3 year old PC. Luckily, I've since upgraded to an Athlon 64X2 6000+ with 8x the RAM of the PS3 (note that the socket can house an x4 cpu). Let's not even talk about the graphics card... /yawn
Did I mention it still cost less than a PS3? I did splurge on a BluRay reader/DVD-multi-R/W drive recently...

I play WoW at 1920x1080p at 24-30 fps. Not the best I've seen by far, but it's no joke either. Unlike most PS3 games, it isn't scaled to fit a 1080p screen in-game.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK [quote]After finishing I wouldn't want to play a game like Halo 3 again. The campaign doesn't involve skill and the story is IMO rather boring to go through again. ...blah blah blah... Every online game is different because you are competing with different people (for example Halo 3's campaign AI is extremely predictable). You can start a clan with friends and try to up your worldwide ranking. I consider online gaming a key feature nowadays. But Killzone 2 has a very good thrilling single player campaign as well.

Every FPS is the same. Period. In earlier threads I documents how Resistence:FoM was so scripted and predictable that I could lob a grenade high, move forward to activate the scripted spawning of "bad guys" then have the grenade land in their midst and continue on without firing a bullet. Even 3rd person adventures are scripted heavily to the point that skill doesn't matter, just "time" **cough**Uncharted2**cough**!

Only the original Deus Ex was truly dynamic. The story adjusted itself if you killed certain NPC's that would otherwise be required to be alive. Advancements could be made via stealth ops or run & gun or combinations. Nothing seemingly spawned, everything seemed there when the level was loaded...noise or alarms could alert/divert guards to one location so they wouldn't be in another. It just felt more real and compelling than any such game I've played to date.

All that I've seen lately are games with lots of cannon fodder. You can sugar-coat it with HD visuals, but it's those HD visuals that have made the budgets move away from the programmers and to the artists instead. We need more programmers like Warren Spector...and we need to pay them more.