They don't even need to make a different ending in regards to story. I'm fine with the 3 options we were given (even if incredibly derivative to the entire ME plot) It's after those options have been made that the fans want to see. Fans simply want to see how the characters and universe ended up based on the players decisions. The very foundation of the games have been built on that concept. We want to know how the races survived and continued after the relays have been destroyed. We want to know why Joker took off, what planet they crashed on, and what happens to him and the crews life thereafter. It's very hard to believe that DLC, most likely titled "closure", wasn't planned for this all along. How could BW be so unaware of the fact that the characters actually mattered to the players? And to those who continue to cry about artistic integrity. Are you okay with Hideo Kojima releasing improved versions of his Metal Gear games? Are the new versions with HD graphics and a rotating camera any different than this? What is the distinction between an artistic choice and poor mechanics?

I'll say it again because I feel it's worth repeating. (Yes, I'm that narcissistic) Every negative review GS gives should be re-written as "Although (said) problems exist, they were artistic choices. Therefor the developers cannot be held responsible. It is, in fact, MINE & YOUR problem for not conforming to these poor design choices." What next, Resident Evil should never update the outdated controls? Perhaps Metal Gear Solid should never have updated the fixed camera view? Snake Eater Redux be damned!

BW left out (but kept it on the disc) an important character and plot line in order to charge fans $10 for first day DLC. Fans can demand whatever the heck they want as far as I'm concerned. Anyone standing up for "artistic integrity" on behalf of BW is simply being a hypocrite, because as soon as they want more money from the fans, that integrity flies out the window. Have you ever seen a bad movie? A directors cut? A bad TV show? A bad finale? Have you ever had a negative opinion? Perhaps every negative review GS writes should be re-written as "though problematic, these are artistic choices, therefor they're acceptable." That's not how opinions work. Things like bad reviews exist. It's not that we didn't "get" ME3 ending. It's not that we're sad by what happened to Shepard. It's simply that it was poorly made in every way. A Deus Ex Machina is not artistic. It means you're artistically void.

This is simply throwing gasoline on the fire. "a potential lifetime of trouble", are guys serious with your hyperbole? You're simply using fear to garner hits for the website. Anyone with a brain who used their credit card with PSN did exactly this the moment they read the news; Called their credit card provider and said "it may have been compromised." Within 5 days they had a new card and number. It's quite simple. There is no life time of trouble GS. If people are worried about their name, address, info being known and used for identity theft, try googling yourself. If you use any sort of social media, than your info is already online to anyone with typing skills. You'll get even more info by simply stealing someones mail. I've been doing business online for nearly ten years. This type of compromise has already happened twice to me. So far the PSN fiasco has been the least problematic because all I needed was a new card. Sony may not know what they're doing, but credit card companies do. If you use you credit card online, there's always a risk. But putting more fear into peoples heads does not help the problem GS. EDIT: Just want to add that Sony deserves their trashing. I'm not defending them. But this article implies a lifetime of possible fraudulent problems to those who used PSN. And that is simply ludicrous and false.

I had got the game 3 days early and told everyone here in the hype thread that the graphics just weren't that better. Sure enough all the fanboys called me a troll. Ign said in their review that graphics weren't up to snuff, and now gs has made a comparison to show it. I enjoy Halo as much as the next guy but damn if it isn't hype over quality. It's always interesting to play a game before it's released and before the reviews have rolled out. Makes it easier to tell which ones are full of it and which ones aren't.

With perhaps the exception of Fallout 3, the differences are so minimal (Unlike the differences between the console versions and PC versions) that I feel sorry for people who actually base their decisions around these small details. As usual, the PS3 version seems to be slightly (And I mean very slightly) washed out compared to the 360 version. If this is truly someones priority for choosing a version, then they must be ripping their hair out for not owning a gaming PC. On a side note. Where's the Mirrors Edge comparison? One of the few multiplats that looks better on PS3 appears to have got left out...

Halo 2 still looks great for it's time. Even now compared to Wii games. I think Metroid is the only game that looks better then it. Halo 3's graphics are indeed good. But IMO they're nothing to brag about. I will say though, the lighting In Halo 3 looks really good. Easily some of the best, if not the best I've seen. But I think thats where the "best" ends as far as technical stuff. I'm still dissapointed in the game because I don't really play inline. I like playing the campain with a friend (or friends) on the couche.

I had to keep my old PS2 on for over thirty hours because I didn't have a memory card to save. I got to the second island and there was no way I was restarting. Luckely I bought one a day later.