The original XBox had some extreme limitations in the realm where MS was beating the pants off Sony, so I kind of forgive them for that. Also, they did keep better backward compat around which is extremely nice.

I'm not sure it was so much MS that dumped XBox like a hot rock as developers, the marketability of those games wasn't going to be very good on the XBox.

I will say, I still play some PS2 games to this day and I haven't fired up many old XBox games in a long time, so there's no doubt which one had better games overall. I can't say I feel like I missed out on too much with Sony this gen, especially given my unplayed pile of XBox 360 games. I just don't have the time, especially when you factor in DLC and indie stuff (especially indie bundles) that got so big this gen.

I'm sick and tired of all these action games . Where are the " true " adventure games ? Where are the strategy genre ?
One thing is sure : Back to the classics . I will not purchase new PC games ( except from CD Projekt RED ) .

edit : Not another fucking Star Wars game . :(

Both Sony and Microsoft had a terrible approach to backwards compability. Sony started well offering full PS2 and PS1 compability on the first 60GB and 20GB models by getting both the GPU and CPU from the PS2 into the PS3. It was full hardware backwards compability, not emulation as seen on the Xbox 360.

However, to make productions costs lower (the PS3 had a HUGE initial production cost) they decided to cut the Emotion Engine off when they released new 80GB models. There was still backwards compability through emulation, and its MUCH better than on Xbox 360, since most of the games work well, there are very rare examples of games that dont work well on these PS3 models. Still, backwards compability through emulation isnt as good as the full backwards compability found on the first models. There are problems with a few games every now and then, such as lower performance than on the PS2 for some games and videos not playing correctly (SOCOM 1). The Ratchet and Clank series are famous for not working well on these 80GB models with software compability due to the terrible performance issues that make the game unplayable.

Then, on the slim model Sony decided to cut PS2 backwards compability off entirely. If i recall correctly, even newer 80GB models already had that feature taken out.

The Xbox 360 backwards compability wasnt any better. It uses emulation too, which is far from being good. To start with, the only compatible games are the ones officially supported on the compatibilitys list, which is rather short. And even the games that are on the list show minor issues sometimes, such as slow framerates and textures/effects not showing up correctly (such as Conker Live and Reloaded). Microsoft promised to keep improving their backwards compability software but they didnt. The last time they updated it was 6 years ago. Not really yhe kind of support they promised.

But hey, this was even better for Sony and Microsoft, so they can resell their old games for insane prices or make HD collections so everyone can rebuy the games again.

Well there are several games I hadn't heard about before that caught my eye so I'm happy.
Well, assuming they don't all turn out to either suck or get cancelled.

AC3 - so everybody has muskets but nobody's shooting at him. SEEMS LEGIT

Didn't muskets back then kill more users than enemies ;-)?

The three musketeers aren't famous for their shooting ...

Yeah, try to excuse them how much they fucked this up.

Having enemies armed with pistols and muskets and nobody's taking a shot, and they all gently let themselves to be killed with axe - bullshit of the year.

Second: Three Musketeers took place over one hundred years before Assassin's Creed 3. In the times of American Revolution weapons were pretty upgraded, I would say.

For those who missed the conference, here the full video LINK

I haven't seen the vid, but considering that this game is made by those who did ACII, I'm not watching any videos about this game, or read/watch anything that could spoil it for me. I will simply buy it.

I just think when they announced change of the theme to more modern, to a world with guns, they will adjust the gameplay a bit.

And they just didn't.

AC4: Future Assassin: everybody has blasters but they still prefer to fight hand to hand with trained assassin.

But hell, this is Ubisoft. This is how they roll - copy&paste everything, change some textures, voila, 60 bucks please.

Yea, they're trained musketeers in group armed with the musket but still prefer to fight with bayonet in circle, look scripted. I can assume it's pretty much have no AI improvement.

They're just waiting to be killed and be free to leave this stupid game :P

Thanks for bringing that up. Musketeers were trained to fight in line, to shoot first and then to melee.

But they behave just as every other dumb fuck from previous AC games.

AC:R was the third version of AC II and the worst one imo. Yet it was an awesome game still worth the money. And the MP was really, really good. But it on release, haven't regretted it a bit. (But I payed 50$ not 50€, otherwise I wouldn't go for it on release)

The core gameplay is brilliant, I don't really need any changes.

Ubisoft is in a lose-lose fix. They change it to much "They changed it now it suckz", they don't change it at all, "lazy fscks just extort our money". Considering the millions this game probably cost in the making, I don't really blame them for going the safe route.

And again, the core gameplay is so good, it simply works.

I don't know if it was E3 but I saw yesterday gameplay from new splinter cell. I hoped that I would go back carrying bodies but it doesn't seem so. Conviction wasn't so bad but others were better.

If you actually you know watch it they do fire their 1 shot before going into melee...
Xbox was dropped due to NV price gouging, NV refused to liscence their design so MS had to rely on them for chips which NV refused to shrink because "it's an out of date chip" wanting them to pay the same price despite there having been 3 process shrinks in 2 years... If NV had allowed MS to manufacture and shrink their own chip (like AMD does) Xbox support would have lasted. Sony has the same problem now apart from fixing a few early bugs NV has refused process shrinks for it's PS3 chips.
Actually it was removed entirely WAY before that, PS3 hasn't had PS2 support since it's EU release.