All of this was about CPU, as far as I'm seeing in this article, he didn't mention the GPU at all.

I'm just not sure I get how HL2 did that more than other games. It's not like FPS was a small genre at the time. The CoD games were already fairly big and you have huge games like Halo already as well. The original counter-strike was already huge.

I may have misplaced my "/sarcasm" tag(my comment was a response to this: "Also worth noting: just last week, one of the developers behind Metro: Last Light said the Wii U has a 'horrible, slow CPU.' Martin's discoveries seem to match that theory")

"Again, just speculating, but wouldn't this mean that you could do more per frame with that reduced latency GPU wise? That would have a slight(hopefully dramatic) effect on things like shaders and resolution of the image, wouldn't it?"

"So yes, the Wii U CPU is nothing to write home about, but don't compare it clock per clock with a 360 and claim it's much worse. It isn't."

It could be. I wouldn't count on it without a major price drop and a rush of high-quality games. The latter of which may be a catch-22, with development studios unwilling to pour those kind of assets into a system that isn't selling. But, as always, it's possible for things to turn around. Hopefully for Sony they do.

Actually, ya, it kinda was. The whole article is about comparing Sony system sales with sales of other systems. Comparing sales of the Vita with sales of the DS is directly relevant. Acknowledging that that's a problem is also relevant.

"it is easily one of the biggest and most influential video games of this generation."

Bioshock wouldn't exist without Half Life 2? I'm.... not really sure about that.

HA HA! SEE! MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOURS! SUCKERRRRRR

A big (and surprising) gem for me was Paper Mario for the Wii. Would have liked to see that here, but I don't thing it really got much attention from a lot of other people.

If what he was making wasn't worth watching, nobody would watch it and he wouldn't make anything. Apparently some people find value in what he says over that gameplay, and the specific gameplay segments he shows.

Sales of the Vita are the responsibility of exactly one party: Sony.

And yet, video games are purely both art and entertainment. They neither feed nor clothe anyone. They provide no service necessary for survival. They're every bit as worthless as making youtube videos(or music, or movies, or any other form of art)

Not one of those professions feeds or clothes anybody(well, I suppose the president can be said to indirectly have an effect on that, but then so does everything else, including making youtube videos which supply ads encouraging purchases of goods which gives money to the company which pays its workers allowing them…

Since the earliest human(and pre-human) societies existed.

Reading through this and your responses to others, holy hell you're nihilistic. There's WAY the hell more to life than being fed or clothed.

I've been making video games since high school, most of which were made just for fun and never released. Making video games is a hobby. It is also a profession.

See, the thing is: it really *was* a problem that the 3DS was selling so few units(to the point where nintendo had to drop the price by so much so quickly that they had to throw in the ambassador program for people who bought it before). And it really is a problem for Sony that they're selling so few Vita's.

Is being behind the competition by about 56% that much better?