Agreed. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

You're a complete idiot and know absolutely nothing about PC gaming.

You don't know much about PC gaming. You can EASILY build a gaming PC for $300 (same price as consoles) which will WALLOP even next-gen consoles. No monitor price included - you can plug it into the TV (you don't include the TV price for consoles).

Well Anno 2070 has that nonsense 3-install limit.

I think EA is FAR better than Activision. Not that they're good either, but they certainly did a good job shedding much of their uber-evil image of the late '90s and early 2000s. Activision took the mantle instead.

I see nothing wrong with his comment or elitism. Fact of the matter is, the quality of games HAS been directly affected by the casualization of games to appeal to non-gamers. Hence the resounding success of the Wii and the nonsense Facebook "games." This is a trend that needs to stop - an art form's strengths are…

Sorry - Activision's reputation is well-deserved. This man is just blinded by what Activision is doing for him.

Aside from the PC version, obviously, as a few have stated. Even with a 1:1 port from console to PC, the PC version of games can be played at much higher resolutions, can force AA and AF, and can often force ambient occlusion.

I guess I kind of have the "go hardcore or don't at all" mentality with laptop GPUs. You're right though - it's not bad. But it's not as crazy powerful as necessary for a "true" gaming PC.

Yep! Running CM9 on my SGH-i777 (AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II). It's wonderful. Couldn't have asked for something better.

Yeah, that is true - higher resolutions require more horsepower.

1080p at minimum or bust...yes, even for a screen that small - I like my pixel density. Besides, ASUS is doing 1080p on 11-13 inch ultrabooks...

I have owned a GeForce 6800 GT, a GeForce 8600M GT, a GeForce 8600 GTS, a Radeon HD 4870 X2, a Radeon HD 4650, a Radeon HD 5870, and a GeForce GTX 680.

LOL, that's how I feel. I absolutely detest CoD and fast-paced FPS games, so I'm a huge BF fan. I tried out ArmA and simply did not have the patience to learn the keyboard controls (like every key is used, it's just absurd) or the game overall.

I see. Also, I have to wince at the complaint about running on a BF3 map - that's nothing (especially compared to ArmA). BF2/BF2142 maps were much larger. However, they had more vehicles too.

If you think BF3 is by any means slow...you must have been playing nothing more than CoD. BF3 is just the middle ground between whiplash-fast and pain-drying slow. Try out ArmA. WAY slower and more realistic than...anything.

Dear lord, I hope this is sarcasm. If not, you need to actually study history.

WND is not a legitimate or trustworthy source. This article is to be treated with the utmost skepticism.

It's coming like a week or two later. Remember, the PC version is ridiculously more intense, with DirectX 11 graphics and PhysX capabilities. Unfortunate that we must wait, but we always get the better product.

TFU is blasphemy. The Jedi Knight games, SWRC, and even the good old SWGB RTS games were easily the kings of Star Wars gaming.