Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
17th May, 2005 at 06:40:59 -
Both have been announced now and we know the specs - www.gamespot.com - so which one will you be getting, if any (or the Nintendo Revolution)? Personally I think the PS3 looks tastier with that Cell processor, but I guess the ultimate judgement is the games they play, and there's not a lot of info on those yet.
[quote="Jay"]an RPG is in the works which, again the mole says "Imagine that you can be in a room chat with all people who you know...imagine that you are plaging online...in real time...in aRPG...called...Z...a Imagine that you can choose and you've the chance to create a world...to choose a world...WHERE YOU'LL be inside..."... again leading the path down the still shrouded virtual reality headset route.[/quote]
and that is planned for the rpg, pretty vague, but that alone would keep me busy for a long time, and i don't see how people find the new PS3 design any good, i personally think it's ugly
In my opinion Playstation always had the better games, so I'd stick with the PS3. However, they've gone and changed the popular controller shape, which is a mistake, the new one's like a bloody boomerang.
I very much doubt I'd buy one though, I mainly play games on the PC and I have my PS2 for stuff like Tekken, I need my Tekken. I can't stand first-person shooters or other stuff with free-aiming on a control pad, they just don't work without a mouse.
but you could buy the mouse and keyboard for consoles trevor, i find fps are much better on consoles, simply because they are made for pure gaming, and nothing else
however rpg games last longer in my hands, and even longer with the development addition, where i can not only PLAY in my OWN world, but CREATE it as well, whcih is why i'm probably going for the rs, plus it has the gyroscope technology planned to be built into it's controllers, not only that the rs is the only system that's planning new forms of gameplay, which we haven't had much of lately, rather than just improved gameplay, whcih i believe we've had enough of
I've always prefered playing stuff on the PC unless it's games that were truly designed for control-pads, such as beat em ups and sports games and stuff. Plus PC games usually can afford to push the envelope in terms of graphics and features and there's always the mod scene keeping games alive.
Anyway, the PS3 seems the better console, specs wise. The PS3 design is better than the PS2, I always hated the way that looked. The XBox 360 looks like Bill Gates let his kids make it after watching Blue Peter. And 360 is a stupid name.
Sony usually get the best games, such as the first dibs on Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto and Tekken, Microsoft is famous for having Halo, a sub-standard console FPS that cannot touch the majority of PC FPS.
In terms of power, I think Microsoft and Sony have gone completely overboard with all this multiple-core CPU mine can do 2 teraflops blah blah shindig. The graphics in the screenshots ive seen on both formats dont look much better than the graphics produced by my PC and I only have an old Radeon 9600XT.
I've gotten to the stage where I am getting bored of playing videogames, they don't make me feel excited about playing them any more. The only commercially viable games for publishers now are Generic Shooter 6 TM and Crime Game 7 TM, this new generation of consoles is only going to make things worse with spiralling development costs, and small independant developers going under.
Hopefully the "Revolution" will be a Revolution in terms of gameplay.
I already have $50 down on an XBox360 (the last preorder open in my area -- it's already selling like hotcakes 6 months before launch). I've always felt like the XBox has the best first and second party game lineup (and now with the addition of SquareEnix and Mistwalker, and continued Bioware support it has great RPGs on the way too).
Sony's conference was literally nothing but vaporware, showing nothing but cinematic sequences. Even if some of them were rendered in real-time, such as the boner-inducing Final Fantasy VII tech demo, it still showed nothing of actual gameplay. Microsoft isn't even messing around with tech-demos this year. They're just jumping right into gameplay. You can show me movies of Killzone 2 all day, but I'm going to be a hell of a lot more excited about seeing actual gameplay of Perfect Dark Zero and Gears of War.
In terms of power, the two consoles seem very evenly matched. The PS3 has a little more power under the hood in terms of the main processor, but the XBox360's GPU is nicer, and it has a much more efficient memory setup. In terms of power, I see the XBox360 being like a Dreamcast, and the PS3 being like it's predecessor. XBox360 games are going to look frickin' amazing right out of the gate, while developers are going to have a hard time tapping into the power of the PS3 (7 processor cores is worthy of a Saturn). It'll take at least a year or two before the majority of PS3 games catch up and eventually surpass XBox360 titles in terms of graphics. And, honestly, even when that happens, the graphics of both systems are so mind-blowingly awesome that I doubt we'll even notice. This generation the technology is nearly limitless, so it's just up to the artists to deliver. It's kind of like the 16-bit era for 2D. It wasn't about how many pixels you could draw, it was about how well you could draw them.
Now, there is also the factor of the systems design. The PS3 is quite possible the ugliest George-Forman grill of a console I've ever laid eyes on. The boomerang shaped dildo of a controller doesn't help its case much either. I just can't imagine that thing being comfortable to use at all. Sony's insistance on keeping the d-pad as the main focus, and refusal to include analog triggers is going to hurt them. 3D control is what this generation is all about, not some archaic 4-way d-pad (that works perfectly well in the #2 position I might add, as has been proven by Dreamcast, Gamecube, and XBox). The PS3 looks big and bulky (indeed it is even bigger than the first XBox), and just doesn't seem like something I'd want to proudly display in my living room. It's like a 1970's sci-fi attempt at futuristic design and it ends up looking like ass.
XBox 360 on the other hand, is one sexy console. Sleek design, small-compact, customizable, with controllers that look comfortable and very functional. Microsoft seems to be the only company that is really focusing on giving the consumers what they want, and giving them options. The XBox Live structure is already in place, and they're going to expand upon it. Spectator mode has me intrigued. They talked about how you could start the race season in PGR 3, pay $10 to compete, and then have the tournament go on for months, finally climaxing in a 16-player race for $1,000,000 that every XBoxLive user to tune into and watch in real-time. There's also the idea of being able to watch others play in order to pick up on techniques. Another possibility of this is how well it could be used for things like movie direction. I'm sure you've all seen Red vs. Blue. Imagine being able to set up a 16-player custom game, and then have multiple guys running around in spectator mode serving as cameras w/o worrying about having to edit out UI or having your other "cameras" be visible.
Finally, Microsoft has one MAJOR advantage over the PS3. It's coming out in time for Christmas this year, in all 3 regions (North America, Japan, and Europe). PS3 doesn't have a set date beyond simply 2006. If I have to choose between a console that's coming out soon, or holding out for one that might be just a teensy bit more powerful that comes out next year, I think the choice is obvious. I want the next-generation to start now, and Microsoft is the only company that's delivering.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
17th May, 2005 at 13:23:00 -
"If I have to choose between a console that's coming out soon, or holding out for one that might be just a teensy bit more powerful that comes out next year, I think the choice is obvious."
People who were thinking that about the Dreamcast are kicking themselves now. Also, I've watched the Killzone video, and there's nothing to suggest it's not ingame and real time.
I'm not sure I agree about the analogue and digital on the PS3, on the PS2 control pad it's incredibly easy and confortable as it is, and believe it or not there are still a lot of people who prefer to use the D-pad, myself being one of them (until my finger starts to hurt, which is when I relocate to analogue). If D-pad works fine where it is on XBox and Dreamcast etc, why can't analogue work fine where it is on Playstation? I was playing Tony Hawks Underground 2 earlier on, which I'm a master of by the way (modest as always), and you need the accuracy of absolute directions you get with the D-pad to pull off the correct tricks etc. Same with beat em ups and stuff. I think the PS2 pad is fine as it is and they should change the stupid shape of the PS3 pad and revert it back to classic Playstation shape.
I don't think the chasis of the PS3 is as bad as everyone makes out, although it's nothing special it's miles ahead of the simple black box of the PS2 which I hated. To be honest I don't think any of the new three consoles look all that, but it's what's inside that counts, and more so the games that are released (which I'm sure the PS3 will have better ones). Sony seem to get the marketing right also, the Playstations have always been something nobody needs to be ashamed of, like you don't have to be a geek to have a PS, it has a more 'cool' factor which I think is a lot to do with the cool games. The XBox's flagship title was pretty much Halo, which wasn't really pushing coolness out there, and Nintendo tend to market to children with the odd exception.
Oh yeah, and I hope the PS3 retains the ability to stand horizontal or vertical. I don't think I beat Kirby Smith's word count but that's my rant over.
"People who were thinking that about the Dreamcast are kicking themselves now."
I'd keep my Dreamcast in an instant over the PS2. At the time the Dreamcast was discontinued (early 2001), it had better looking games, was the only console that had good online games, and had a much stronger software library. I'd give up Sony's exclusives in an instant before I'd part with Jet Grind Radio, Shenmue, Powerstone, Crazy Taxi, Phantasy Star Online, Soul Calibur, Sonic Adventure, or Skies of Arcadia (among others).
My brother is getting an X360, and Im getting a PS3, so Im pretty happy, as I loved both systems, though partially biased towards PS3.
But the ideals, fanboys, and false information make the N:rev look terrible, and unapealling.
I'm no psychic but the way its going now, the Nrev might do even worse then the gamecube did.
From what I've pieced together, the Revolution is looking to be one good system. In terms of support, I don't know, but here's some info about Rev.
Backwards compatible with all GC software (not sure if connectivity between rev/GBA will work though, so all those extras you could previously get may not be accesible, or you may need to use the DS in place of the gba, but using the same games[in the gba slot, of course] this would make sense, as both technologies are wireless, and I expect Big-N planned on this from the start.)
Very simple programming (Easier than GC even)
Simple "tagging" on of special effects and such heard it's almost point click effect, if you want it that way, you would, of course, be able to make your own.
Nintendo's crazy online plan, the Rev will be online, but noone's particularly sure how they are going to pull of their plans to make a hue wireless network.
Now, in the tech specs department, you'll notice that the system doesn't appear to be as powerful as the PS3/Xbox360 (I agree, stupid name), but don't count it out yet. Noone expected the gamecube to be able to keep up with even the PS2 in terms of GFX, and has only recently been outpaced in the latest generation of 3D engines (Chronicles of Riddick, Doom 3), blowing past the PS2 and Keeping steady with the box in terms of GFX ability.
I do sincerly hope that they have preprogrammed some "special" things into the console that have been missing since the SNES days. Basically, one day N will call, and tell you how to access some special graphical modes/other prog. goodies that wre hidden in the console from the start. (Ex. for you programmer types, the hidden modes in the Nintendo/GB that allowed for more than the 8 sprites per verticle/horizontal line normal max and the "hi color" mode on the NES)
--------
The potential problem - Third Part Support, this will make or break nintendo this generation. I hope they realize this.
I'm going to ignore all past history of ridiculous promises made by marketing guys pushing new consoles. You say your machine thinks? Sure, I'll buy that. Totally immersive worlds where you can literally go anywhere and do anything? Well, I won't let the fact that no one's come close to providing that before keep me from believing it. How about a console that shines my shoes and does my laundry, then gives me a hummer? Wait and see? I don't think so! Here's my pre-order! I'll be back again in three years so we can do the same exact thing all over again! Wee! Please, God, somebody take my money away from me and kick me in the nuts, I'm an insatiable impulse buyer and a marketing guy's wet dream!
For me, Nintendo Revolution, then PS3, and I'll avoid X-Box 360 like the plague. I find nothing appealing about the xbox, they seem to target uneducated gamers with their marketing (they launch it with a bunch of celebrities that have no idea whats going on.) And I dont really see any exclusive xbox games that are really worth it.
By the way Sensation, your quote " i find fps are much better on consoles, simply because they are made for pure gaming, and nothing else " sent me into such a deep confusion, I ..... I just dont know how to respond to such a thing. Have you ever even played a fps for the PC? ..... just.... wow.
oh yeah, because the gamecube was a breeze to develop on in the first place. lets take a look at this:
Brett Evan Russell (Terminal Reality): Hmmm... I know my responses have been very pro-Microsoft, but honestly Microsoft has been very supportive in regards to the XNA and helping us learn the tools for Xbox 360. Gamecube and PS2 are always a much more difficult platform to develop on, Microsoft knows that, so it seems that they have gone out of their way to make sure that developers not only feel comfortable with the XNA and developing for 360, but fostering a desire for developers to develop for Xbox 360 over other platforms by making it the path of least resistance. I know for Demonik I was very happy to hear that we had been approved to develop the title on Xbox 360 because I knew that a good portion of our time would be spent focusing on actually making the game rather than on technology issues.
easier than PS2/N64 (Programming on the 64 was like trying to make a true 3d engine in tgf, I coulden't even get my loaders to run properly)
Yeah, but XB programming is basically Direct X programming, so naturally it would be more widely used, and DX is ungodly easy (on a base level anyway).
Besides, all I said was it was easier than Gamecube programming, which is already damned easy (again, base level).
But you're not poor enough to not have unlimited bandwidth webhosting? No, I'm not even going to ask...
Revolution looks most exciting, and coming from Nintendo there's going to be at least some truth in those revolutionary statements. My money's on gyroscopic controllers; the DS should've had them, it would've given girls an edge when playing platform games and throwing the console to the side whenever they try jumping on a platform...
Tech specs don't mean much - frequently using different technology from previous generations and indeed other consoles, it's how you use it that counts. (Otherwise P4s would be 1.5x faster than A64s; although they are 1.5x as hot...) It's all about the games. Wait a day 'till E3 and then make a judgement.
i dont know about zelda looking better then all of PS3 and 360 games-although it looks sweet(except for that wolf thingy with link-im a little skepticle). its not known whether the killzone 2 clip was CG or not-its pretty hard to decide for me-but if its actual footage that is no doubt the best looking game at E305. also the revolutions "Online" is so far only the capability of downloading the past generations-the last 20 years-of nintendos games. that seems nice(but can we really trust nintendo on the online factor-see broadband adapter). 360 just downright sucks compared to PS3. So yah PS3 takes about 95 percent of the videogame cake. just watch G4's E305 footage.
how in gods name do you even begin to say that the xbox360 sucks in comparasin to the ps3? you refering to the cell processor? the 3.2 ghz cell? oh, cause i seem to remember a small bit of info somewhere, rather unimportant really, but a small detail nonetheless. oh yeah, the fact that xbox360 has three 3.2 ghz processors working together, and the first system with a processor dedicated to physics, yeah, 360 sucks compared to the ps3. go to hell legendkpr
oh and "also the revolutions "Online" is so far only the capability of downloading the past generations-the last 20 years-of nintendos games."
yeah, nice info gathering there, jackass. i suppose the fact that nintendo has been quoted saying the super smash brothers launch title will be wifi online doesnt mean shit to you, or did you happen to not catch that part? quit being a little sony fanboy and get cancer.
ps, killzone clips: not ingame, so shut the fuck up
Noone expected the gamecube to be able to keep up with even the PS2 in terms of GF
Um... I did. The GCN was always going to be more advanced than the PS2.
As for which of the next three, I imagine I'll stick with Nintendo simply because I don't like the marketing for the other two. Gaming isn't supposed to be cool, it's something I do instead of going outside in any particular month.
As far as comparison goes I'll reserve judgement until they actually come out. Arguing on the basis of a company's marketing announcements is pretty stupid.
Has anyone noticed that all these prototypes are silver? That really turns me off. Silver isn't a good colour for plastic.
specs are there to argue too radix, but i agree, its still stupid to argue
on that note, things have changed since earlier today, im actually *considering* getting the revolution now that i have discovered that super smash brothers will be a launch title AND online. and because it is going to be less powerful than the other two systems, it will be cheaper. so who knows, i might end up with all 3 this time around
I meant that we don't know anything about the systems other than what's been announced. Not knowing the architecture or seeing it in action makes the specs pretty useless, and the companies will always try to put their on spin on things anyway. Remember all those stupid fucks runnning around saying the Apple G4 was going to be faster than a Cray? Those are the ones that listen to marketing.
For the record, the XBox360 does not have a dedicated physics co-processor. A crafty programmer, however, could designate one of the three processing cores to handling physics and nothing else -- although the chip is not specificly optomized for such a task.
Did you watch the Microsoft E3 Press Conference?
Did you watch the OurColony unveiling video?
Have you read the official specs on the Xbox website?
Have you been living under a proverbial gaming-related rock for the last week?
I have a feeling you can only answer yes to one of those questions. Trust me, I know my shit.
no need to get defensive, my misunderstanding was completely legitimate, there was no sarcasm behind my last post, i was *asking* if i misunderstood something, and i guess i did
ps3 isn't only silver, they have white and black. microsoft did a survey for their design and found that people like silver, shiney glass, and organic shapes.
i'ma wait and see until they are all out to decide, but I think xbox360 will do a shitload better than the first one.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Oh and "also the revolutions "Online" is so far only the capability of downloading the past generations-the last 20 years-of nintendos games."
check yo self, before you wreck yo self!
Nintendo's online service will not only include the ability to download NES, SNES and NG4 games but its also confirmed to be able to download additions for REV games such as levels, characters e.t.c ala XBOX 360.
ALSO online gaming with the Revolution is to be FREE, no monthly payments like the XBOX live subscription . but for third-party games 3rd party developers have the choice to make there games to be payed for online or not but as said so far the first-party games online will be FREE. Also it has built-in WIFI straight out of the box and will act as a modem from what i understand.
Two confirmed launch games for the Rev are none other then Metroid Prime 3! and also the new Super Smash Bros. which will have ONLINE play, now thatll be damn cool.
Revolution pictures: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/e3_2005/revo/large_img/revo_7l.jpg http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/e3_2005/revo/large_img/revo_6l.jpg http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/e3_2005/revo/large_img/revo_8l.jpg http://www.1up.com/media?id=1897379&type=lg
(these are prototypes but the final one has been confirmed to be even SMALLER)
Also confirmed the REV will play DVD's and have compaitability with GCN games aswell as 4 GCN controller ports, although the REV's controllers have confirmed to be wireless and there is rumours going around that there will be "gyro" controls where youll actually be able to feel things, say if link is trying to pull a lever down in the game there will be force acting against the joystick as if you actually are pulling the lever down, this is one of many rumours.
Nintendo have chosen not to show off the controller yet and they do have something planned for the controller.
Also SD memory cards are compaitable, and theres a built-in 512MB flash drive.
the CPU is nowhere near as powerful as XBOX 360 and PS3 but i dont think thatll be a decider at all.
Square have said that theyll be supporting REV online, and FF:CC will be released on REV from what i understand.
With SSB and Metroid Prime 3 being launch titles, aswell as FREE online play (so far stated), downloadable 20 years worth of nintendo content of NES/SNES/N64 (a price hasnt been said but i doubt ittl be free), bacwards compaitability with GCN games and controllers, plays DVD's and the big yet to be revealed thing that is said to "Revolutionise the way we play games" plus more.
Overall ill definatly be getting a Nintendo Revolution, my next choice would be a PS3. Im really anticipating what Nintendo has in store for this big secret that will give the REV a leg-up on the competition, and the REV's design is super sexy and sleek
Also talking about the new zelda there bringing back cuccos, fishing and lots of other stuff. link will be able to turn into a wolf from what i understand and itll be based around interacting with animals, ive seen many new screenies ones such as link getting helped by.............MONKEYS!!! oohhh yeah.
None of the other consoles' games can even competite with the zelda series. Nintendo simply owns the better games. sony and microsoft just takes all the ea games that all other consoles have anyway.
uh Crystal Clear (H.E.S)... you just quoted my quote from another person, it was that legendkpr guy who said "also the revolutions "Online" is so far only the capability of downloading the past generations-the last 20 years-of nintendos games." i proved him wrong in the paragraph under that quote. so please, direct your generic urban slang elsewhere
oh and aggggge = resident daily click dumbfuck. i dont even think i need to explain why, its pretty apparent
Lol sorries chicken, i just skimmed through the forum topic and didnt even realise.
Finally got that bitch of a Zelda-trailer downloaded (why does Quicktime with .MOV have to be so cruel and make movie sizes crap for 56kers) and DAMN some of that was really unexpected, it showed a part of the story id never seen before. Link turning into a wolf is damn cool, the rowing looks sweet, like the idea of the animals helping him out, and best of all that big charge down at the end.
But yeah back on topic, Nintendo really seems to be stepping up this upcoming-gen, hope theyll continue to bring out some more solid software after the release of some of their big release titles, some more thrid-party support hopefully might come in this gen.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
18th May, 2005 at 07:57:36 -
I'm surprised people are worried about the appearance of the new consoles. What a console looks like isn't something I'd even vaguely consider when buying it.
From what I've seen the PS3 looks like a technically superior machine to the X360. The seven core cell processor is truly a revolutionary piece of hardware, making it a true multitasking machine. The PS3 will be able to handle a LOT of stuff going on at once.
Additionally, according to Microsoft, the X360 has about a teraflop of overall performance. According to Sony the PS3 has over two teraflops of overall performance. I don't know how much of that is statistics bending though.
My apologies Chicken. I misinterpreted your post. Now, back to the topic at hand...
The processor in the PS3 may be more powerful than the XBox360's, but with 7 cores and less than stellar development support from Sony, it's going to take the average developer a long time to tap into the power of the system. Sure, you'll see MGS4, DMC4, FF, GT, and Killzone look amazing, but look at how long it took the non-AAA development teams to get used to the PS2. The PS3 is even more complex from a programming standpoint. 360 on the other hand has a much more streamlined design, uses DirectX, and has Microsoft behind it giving rediculous support to developers through XNA.
Then there's the topic of the GPU and Ram. PS3 has a couple of bottlenecks that the 360 isn't hampered by. For one, ATI has opted to go with a unified shader model in the XBox360, which means that the 48 shader units can be used for either pixel-shading or vertex-shading depending on the situation. PS3 on the other hand, is going with the standard model where they split the shaders between pixel and vertex in hardware. While they haven't confirmed a number of shading units yet, the GPU in the PS3 is essentially a souped up 6800 (meaning 24 shader units total are likely -- 12 for pixel and 12 for vertex). Even under the best-case scenario, which sees nVidea upping the number of shader units to match ATI's chip in the XBox, you're looking at 48 units total, with 24 dedicated to pixel-shading and 24 dedicated to vertex-shading. If a game needs heavy pixel shading but no vertex shading, you're looking at 50% of the performance of the X360.
There's also the issue of memory. The PS3 uses 256MB of R system ram @ 3.2ghz and 256MB of GDDR3 video ram @ 700MHz. The XBox 360 uses a unified memory architecture which features 512MB of ram that can be allocated to system memory and video memory as needed (meaning if a game uses less than 256MB of Ram for the world, AI, etc... it has more memory than the PS3 to dedicate to graphics). Now, some would look at the PS3 and say it has significantly faster Ram because half of it runs at 3.2Ghz as opposed to the 700MHz Ram in the X360, but the difference isn't as great as it appears.
R Ram uses a 64-bit bus, as opposed to GDDR3 ram which uses a 256-bit bus. If you calculate the speed of the memory with this in mind and look at in terms of bandwidth instead, the difference is marginal.
There's also the extra 10MB of embedded DRAM at 256GB/sec. bandwidth right on the XBox360's GPU which serves as a rediculously fast frame buffer, allowing hi-definition resolutions with virtually not hit on game performance.
The systems are more equally matched than Sony's numbers and CG "game demos" would lead you to believe. It should also be noted that most XBox360 games at E3 are actually running in real-time with actual code and AI on dev-kits that are running at roughly 1/3 of the systems total power. Of course they aren't going to look as good as CG representations of what Sony speculates its hardware can produce.
[edit] On a side-note, I fucking hate automatic smiles.
Hooray, I just saw pictures of all the new consoles side-by-side. The revolution is the only one that isn't completely ugly--and it's not fucking silver.
I've been doing some more reading, and I think I'll definitely stick with Nintendo. Maybe once there's a way to bypass copy protection I'll grab a PS3. There's no way I'm ever touching the X360 with my bare hands.
-has a killer of a backwards compatibility list (legal, of course)
-they're being honest. think about it, PS3 46 times faster than the PS2? what?! lol
before you judge the revolution, all we have been officially told is that its small, its called the revolution and will be using HD-DVDs and will go online. the revolutionary new feature(s) have yet to be announced. so... relax nintendo-slaters.
its also the prettiest of the bunch.
nice to see them all using PPC processors too, just like the Cube. at least these console makers know where the power is. anybody know what the Xbox 360's (lol, what a name) development kit is? google it and drown in oceans of irony
one last thing; specs mean shit all to me. i dont care what speed the thing runs at, im after innovative new games. not a controller that looks the same as last time with pretty much nothing new except for numbers. cant believe im one of the few clickers who cares for innovation.
I have pretty much lost all interest in modern games and consoles. I doubt i will buying the PS3 and definately not 360. I might consider the revolution but it depends.
I find myself playing on my NES lately more than anything esle (with its 'RIPSPEED' ~1.5 Mhz Processor)so i doubt i will buy any of them to be honest.
Chicken14528: well as for 360 sucking compared to PS3. it does. PS3 actually has tech demos that look good. and what 360 had none, only game trailers that were only a portin better than the last gen. so theyve got the 3 processors but it doesnt seem theryre doin much with em. as for the rev part, yah i missed that stuff. and watch who your calling a sony fanboy. ive got a ps1 and 2 games compared to a gamecube and about 20 games. and i also remember saying if killzone was ingame. getsome glasses and quit being such a bitch.
one of the best ingame things they had was the unreal engine, and guess what? gears of war for the 360 uses the unreal engine, so i fail to see your logic
and pete, its pretty obvious that killzone was just prettied up to make people drool, its not a correct representation, compare the unreal engine, which was actual ingame, to killzone, and youll see what i mean
Jay, you might wanna read that. Revolution will play standard DVDs, not HD-DVDs. As for the revolutionary new features; their last "innovation" was a stylus that left 10% of their market (those of us who are left handed) unable to use the system properly. If they're too innovative with the Revolution, they'll alienate developers and get even less 3rd party support this generation. I love Nintendo's first-party games, but if they intend to survive the next-gen they're going to have to compete. Releasing a system that they've gone on record to say is significantly less powerful than the other 2, but contains revolutionary features that could cost them 3rd party support in the name of innovation (their words, not mine. i'll find a link if you'd like), is just asking for commercial failure. Zelda, Mario, and Metroid can't support them forever, as much as I love them.
I will agree that the Revolution has the sexiest system design of the new systems tho. You're also probably right about the PS3 numbers being inflated, but I don't think it's quite as rediculous as you think.
The jump from XBox to XBox 360 is roughly an increase in power 15-fold, which is a pretty reasonable assessment if you look at processor speed, bandwidth, flops, graphics performance, etc. The PS2 is significantly less powerful than the XBox, and the PS3 (at least on paper) is slightly more powerful than the XBox 360. 46 times is a stretch, yes, but not much of one.
well i dont want to argue about something so insignificant. im probably not going to buy any of them. it was just an opinion which is exactly what the post was asking for. im sorry that you find everyone so annoying and that people make mistakes. but keep it to yourself.
oh right Kirby so making numbers bigger is innovation is it? id rather play something new and interesting that something dull.
and about the DS leaving out the left handed folk; have you go three hands? if your left hand is on the screen and your right hand is on the buttons (instead of the Dpad, yea?), all games i've seen so far for the DS can flip the D-Pad for the Buttons (noticed each side of the DS effectively has 4 buttons). so in Mario you can run by pressing left on the D-pad instead of X. simple? no? it caters for any handedness quite easily.
also that article on the Rev was on the 13th wasn't it? even though they announced that plain DVD's will require an accessory? Nintendo also signed up to the HD-DVD 'treaty' months back. so yea...
Sony supporters shouldnt worry though. they'll probably steal a few ideas off the Rev for its next console. nothing to worry about!
its a teeny tiny GB just a hairline bigger than an iPod mini. the screen isn't as wide as a GBA cart either, but its to use an LCD screen that puts the PSP to shame, and a 10 hour battery life with backlight!
i reckon that was made as a cheap alternative to the GBA SP, and a good idea too. saves me damaging my SP for one!
the new GBA is the GB Pocket of the advance generation. I'd imagine that manufac. costs hav gone way down, which would mean parts are smaller, cheaper. Phasing out the old less profit margin GBA makes complete sense. And yes, GB/GBA's are still the only console out there to be sold at a profit (not sure about DS, but I doubt it). So it's only logical to redesign and use the cheaper compenents, while making the system better/attracting a new Demographic.
Anyone else think that Reggie, the pres. of NOA, is probably the only reason for a lot of the recent changes to N's policy? I think he'd probably be a good choice for president of the whole company.
I didn't say an "increase is numbers is innovation." I simply pointed out that Nintendo's last innovative idea wasn't exactly Earth-shattering. And I was referring to having to control the game with the d-pad while trying to manipulate the screen with the stylus in my right hand. Using A, B, X, and Y in place of a d-pad hardly offers an equal experience. Also, the lack of an analog stick on the DS was stupid when they're touting the system as being able to play 3D games. I've tried Mario 64DS and Rayman both, and couldn't get the hang of either using the thumb-strap. The lack of resistance and knowing exactly where you are on the controller makes subtle analoge manipulation excruciatingly difficult when it shouldn't be.
As for the Gameboy Mini, it's just Nintendo repackaging the same hardware AGAIN. That's hardly innovation. Oh look... it's small now. I've always laughed at people who buy revisions of products. It's just Nintendo's way of bending over their millions of loyal but blind fans and shafting them up the ass. The same way Nintendo hasn't come up with an original IP in forever (for that matter, the way they haven't made a NEW Mario game for a handheld since... the original Gameboy?). Tell me how innovative it is to port your entire library of NES and SNES titles to a handheld, spend no money or effort on it, and then sell your consumer base products they've already bought for $30?
For that matter tell me how innovative it is to be the only console out of the 32/64-bit generation to stick to low-capacity carts over CDs even though they were the last to launch. Tell me how innovative it is to be the only console out of the 4 systems in the current generation NOT to support online gaming despite launching second to last (by 3 days). Explain to me how innovative it is to have a system with two-screens and a stylus while your competitor's machine can play mp3s, movies, eventually download game demos for free, and serve as a photo-album, all while supporting game media that provides developers with a canvas roughly 15 times larger and gives them more and better paint (1.8GB vs 128MB media size; system specs). Explain why innovative Nintendo's killer app is a 10 year old port. I rest my case . . . for now.
hey, at least my n64/gc never broke down. There are pieces to no less than 5 ps2's and a couple of PS lying around.
As for the CD/Carts point, they knew what they were doing, they chose carts acuse they were faster/more reliable at the time.
How innovative is providing a large scale wireless online solution for free coutry wide?
GC had online support, noone used it cause N decided to further persue other means of online. PSO 1 and 2 anyone? I've already explained my position on the new GB/ but hey, why buy the old if your old one breaks (I break gameboys alot) when you can get the new more capable one?
Keep in mind that nintendo is still a business, it may not be new, but the NES classics have sold extremely well, so I'm sure N is laughing all the way to the bank; the new gameboy will sell well, the DS sales are still growing (now if we could only get some more software), and if this new online network works out, they will be making even more money.
PS2 - Another sytem that gains marketing by making teenage boys feel like a rebel because they got the 'p - s - 2'(what a ring) with shooting and violence AND SOMETIMES EVEN a little nudity.
GC - Tries things that no other company tries as they're (other companies) scared it will lose them money. In a LOT of cases it does cost nintendo a bunch, but they've always been the pioneer. I mean of course a system with DVD capability (ps2, xbox)is going to sell but I would figure most people have a dvd player that handles the decompression a LOT better.
Xbox - Does a little dance with the ps2 in terms of 'violence sells' so lets keep pushing that envelope. I really like my Xbox and GC, I would like ps2 also but since I have an xbox with better graphics, many ports of ps2 and xbl. ps2 can go fuck itself.
I own all three, and so far, nintendo is the only one that makes games about fun and not just graphic ability. Also, I think it's more impressive to make a great game with less power.
sorry for long post
thinking is like pong, it's easy, but you miss sometimes.
Actually Nintendo claims that the REV will be very easy to develop for, and they seem to be gaining more support this GEN, Square are going to help them out and im sure more companies will follow, GC wasnt very promising up against PS2, REV is looking promising, Third Party Developers would be silly not to join Nintendo this time around.
If they really wanted to garner some attention from developers, they'd just give the dev kits for free. Or give em like 5 extras just cause. (That was pure brilliance on Microsofts part for the first box)
Craps, I'm an old man!
Assault Andy Administrator
I make other people create vaporware
I'm gonna wait a while before I make a decision. Gaming isn't a huge part of my life now, so I may well not get any of the new consoles.
I'm rather partial to the Revolution, because I'd love to see what it could do to a Zelda game (the new one looks gorgeous enough as it is!). However, I'm fully aware of Nintendo's ability to leave crucial make-or-break decisions to a panel of untrained monkeys and a teapot. If the teapot gets thrown against the left wall, they make a really cool game. If it gets thrown against the right wall, they make a game so weird that it just freaks people out and flunks.
[klunk-splash]
"...Right wall it is! "
So far I've found the onuss with all NextGens to be on graphics and power, rather than something people actually find entertaining. Yeah, they have some great games - but nothing I would buy an entire console for. I find myself playing all consoles and still longing to get back to the SNES.
With the old N64, it lasted a long time, and there was always some game that could excite, and those games you had would last. These days you shell out a couple of hundred for a console that will be half price in four months time, and after a year or two they've announced the sequel and you have to shell out again. It's got to the stage where sequels to consoles are coming out even faster than the sequels to the actual games!
All these companies already have huge franchises behind them, but they're being squandered - especially in the case of Nintendo. Mario removing graffiti? The illegitimate lovechild of Zelda and Hey-Arnold? A sequel to Nintendo's best beat-em-up ever... which is almost identical to the first one?
I love the Zelda titles, I enjoyed the old Mario titles, and I've loyally despised the Playstation for years. But if Nintendo continue to prostitute their greatest titles in this way, sooner or later even the little three year olds that run their shoddy company will realise their games suck. I can only cope with their adultery for so long.
Someone please release the new Zelda game and give me back my faith in Nintendo!
Specs are the least importance to me. I'm probably going to lean over to the Rev, Super Smash Brothers Online can't be wrong! (I forget where the source is from but you go look for it) Even though we have not seen the controller, (because Nintendo doesn't want M$ or Sony stealing the ideas) I'm sure we can trust Nintendo to invest gameplay in their games and drag more third parties into thier system.
I had a Playstation 2 for abit (borrowed from my friend) and when I was renting some games I noticed there were very few games I was interested in. GTA:SA was way overated, Katamari Damacy had little vaule, I hate turn based RPGs, racing games, and fighting games. But MGS3 was the only game that apealed to me, mainly because of its story. So basicly, even if the PS2 has great thrid party support, I dislike most of the games.
I had an Xbox for a few days, played Halo 2, found it extremely boring. I think I know what to expect from Xbox 360.
I don't really need to input my comments on GC considering Rev isn't going to be the same as but stronger.
It's pretty ironic that the fact Xbox fans used to bash the ps2 for its crappy graphics and the ps2 fans said "graphics don't matter," Well now the next gens are reversed! =P
"It's pretty ironic that the fact Xbox fans used to bash the ps2 for its crappy graphics and the ps2 fans said graphics don't matter," Well now the next gens are reversed! =P"
I was aware of that article, but wasn't sure if it was 100% true because it is written up by M$ afterall. Oh well, to satisfy you I'll just re-input the following:
"It's pretty ironic that the fact Xbox fans used to bash the ps2 for its crappy graphics and the ps2 fans said "Graphics don't matter." Then when it seems the ps3 beats the xbox 360 in graphics the oppinions were reversed! =P"
And that is/was true if you looked in the ps3 vs xbox360 topics in the forums.
so basically cow, you like the good storied stealth action games. those are good. i agree about there not being many appealing games though. but fighting games racing games and rpgs etc. are on all the systems. ps2 just has a lot more. (MGS4 is coming too.)
ive grown away from them a bit and theyve grown tiresome a little too but does anyone remember the armored core games. if nexus was their last game, its sad too see all the possabilities with the next gen. that could be done to games like that go to waste. just a thought.
Back to topic, concerning the link you gave me, I took another look at the article. Here are some things I found out.
1. The source is from Microsoft not IGN.
2. http://img279.echo.cx/img279/2450/majornelson1gu.jpg
3. Even if Xbox360 was stronger it's going to be released in the fall, Sony has one full year to pump the PS3 higher up again if they wanted.
Nintendo is the best, they always make the coolest games, they have Smash Bros. and Zelda, they are the coolest company ever. I'm getting a Revolution, but I always go with Nintendo because I'm totally hot for them.
Nintendo actually cares about fun and innovation instead of lying about system specs and creating games that appeal to the mass audience and FUCKING STEALING PERFECT DARK and stuff. Mario jumps on Sony and Microsoft's heads with extreme force.
You sound like a fanboy, people dont listen to fanboys.
"Nintendo actually cares about fun and innovation instead of lying about system specs and creating games that appeal to the mass audience and FUCKING STEALING PERFECT DARK and stuff"
maybe that shows microsoft care? why would they buy out rare otherwise?
Anyway all three companies care about money just as much, Nintendo needed to make good games because the Nes and gameboy were underpowered compared with most competition. It worked well for them so they've stuck with that plan.
Neither the NES nor the gameboy had all that much competition at launch dude, given the gaming market at the time. The Nintendo Seal of Quality came in after the 1983 game crash, which is why N has a reputation for tastyness.
I know that they basically inherited the market when everyone else pulled out, but over the years the nes beat all other consoles until the Megadrive/gensesis came along.
Although i think part of that was the restrictions on game companies.
Its more free nowadays so Sony, microsoft or nintendo could end up the major leaders, i bet sony have a better chance with the platstation name though.
Jon - That article isn't a blow to Nintendo fans as you seem to think it is. I think Nintendo did a good job, they didn't show any Rev content, except for the short clips from MP3, (Wow, the only ACTUAL vids from a next gen system). Yet sony was showing "PS3 games" which were, well, Not. And the same thing goes for microsoft with the X360.
Sure it's "only" 3 times more powerful than a Cube, but that's what Nintendo says, ever notice how they tend to low ball their performance? I'd readily believe that as opposed to sony's claim that the PS3 is 35 times the power of the PS2. Yeah, and the PS2 was 100 times more powerful than the PS1. (fft, blow it out your lying hole sony). I can't speak for the box, but that doc M$ wrote up is full of BS
And Nintendo is STILL laughing about making more profits off the new GBA.
Oh yes, they didn't show the controller; I'd bet twenty bucks it's better than that Boomerang that sony's passing off as a controller.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
but on specs, from what I've heard the ps3 wins over xbox 360.
