Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 07:10:05 PM
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on June 27, 2006, 07:12:16 PM
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 07:18:00 PM
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 27, 2006, 07:20:12 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 07:28:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
Does it need that for gaming experience? No.
No.
Did the PS2 need a dvd drive for gaming experiance. No
Did the gamecube need disks for gaming experiance. No
Did the psx need a cd drive for gaming experaince. No
Do next generation games need HD support. No
Does the wii need a motion sensor in its controller for gaming experiance. No
Did the snes need the 256 color support for gaming experiance. No
Did/does all the above help, hell yeah.
If you're content just playing old retro style games, thats fine. Theres nothing wrong with it, but once and a while, I like to play the newer games. Blue ray disks can hold a ton more data on a disk than a dvd could, just like a dvd could hold a ton mroe data than a cd could, just like a cd could hold more than a cartrage could. Blue ray disks are the next step, they allow games to hold more data, have higher quality stuff, and give game develpers the freedom to put more on a disk. This alone may not be worth the $600, but if you want to play blue ray movie disks, you might as well just buy a ps3 instead of a blue ray player because for the little extra money, you get a whole gaming system.
And for videos and such that are in high definition, you'll need that much space to fit the whole thing on a disk.
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 27, 2006, 07:33:02 PM
"The PS3 is so superior, It is inferior"
The tech doesn't make the game.. go outside and you would learn that.
Post by: Smokey_locs2006 on June 27, 2006, 07:39:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
Does it need that for gaming experience? No.
No.
Did the PS2 need a dvd drive for gaming experiance. No
Did the gamecube need disks for gaming experiance. No
Did the psx need a cd drive for gaming experaince. No
Do next generation games need HD support. No
Does the wii need a motion sensor in its controller for gaming experiance. No
Did the snes need the 256 color support for gaming experiance. No
Did/does all the above help, hell yeah.
If you're content just playing old retro style games, thats fine. Theres nothing wrong with it, but once and a while, I like to play the newer games. Blue ray disks can hold a ton more data on a disk than a dvd could, just like a dvd could hold a ton mroe data than a cd could, just like a cd could hold more than a cartrage could. Blue ray disks are the next step, they allow games to hold more data, have higher quality stuff, and give game develpers the freedom to put more on a disk. This alone may not be worth the $600, but if you want to play blue ray movie disks, you might as well just buy a ps3 instead of a blue ray player because for the little extra money, you get a whole gaming system.
And for videos and such that are in high definition, you'll need that much space to fit the whole thing on a disk.
Man..me and you are like on the same wave think frequency thingy.
I found out the price of a blue ray a while back when they were talking about blue ray on tech tv and I arrived at the same conclusion that it would be cheaper if I just bought a PS3. I was going to buy a Blue Ray anyways.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 07:42:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
The tech doesn't make the game.. go outside and you would learn that.
When did I ever say that the tech along makes the game? Either way, you can't deny that it does help. An average playstaion game was 600 mbs, some such as ff9 were 4 disks, I don't know the exact size, but at the most it could be 2.8 gbs. The average ps2 game on the other hand is 6 gbs. Some, such as Star Ocean, needed two dvds. Then, if you look back at snes games, they were maybe 1 or 2 megabytes. With every passing system, games require far more space for the enhanced graphics and whatnot. The PS3 is just following that trend.
My whole point in this topic was that the ps3 isn't that expensive for what you get. If you saw a blue ray player at a store right now for $600, that would be an insane deal.
Post by: Almeidaboo on June 27, 2006, 07:51:32 PM
Itīs gonna be great.
Post by: Tomi on June 27, 2006, 07:54:21 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 08:01:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tomi
Meh, I can live without a PS3. I currently still play my PS1 and I'm perfectly happy with it. But yes, Blu-ray looks pretty cool. I mean, its Blue...
I used to be happy with my PS1, but then I played pretty much ever game I heard of that I thought I'd like :(, so now I'm playing my ps2 instead.
I'm not going to get a ps3 until I get my full satisfaction out of my ps2, by then the ps3 will have gone down in price, and I'll be able to experiance the glory of the blue ray disks at an affordable price :p
Now I just need to get a monitor and a TV tuner that support HDTV...
Post by: oooog on June 27, 2006, 08:06:16 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 08:11:37 PM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 27, 2006, 08:14:40 PM
Post by: Drace on June 27, 2006, 08:41:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
Heres something to wrap your mind around:
"The PS3 is so superior, It is inferior"
The tech doesn't make the game.. go outside and you would learn that.
No, but the games on it do. The same for the PS1 and 2. I loved the games, I'll love the PS3 games.
Post by: Razor on June 27, 2006, 08:41:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted on Wikipedia
Sony has stated that the PlayStation 3 will have backward compatibility with the PlayStation and PlayStation 2, and that every PS1 and PS2 game that observes its respective system's TRC (Technical Requirements Checklist) will be playable on PS3 at launch.[1]
At the 2006 PlayStation Business Briefing, SCE president Ken Kutaragi asked developers to adhere to the TRC to facilitate compatibility with future PlayStations, stating that the company was having some difficulty getting backward compatibility with games that had not followed the TRCs. "Either it's accidental or on purpose; there's actually a lot of games that don't follow the TRC."[16].
Contrary to previous reports that PlayStation 2 emulation would be accomplished through software,[citation needed] the July issue of Japanese magazine Ultra One reports that the current design of PlayStation 3 includes the core PS2 chipset.[17]
The PlayStation 3 does not include interfaces for legacy PlayStation devices such as the DualShock controller. It is not known at this time whether USB devices for PlayStation 2 will be compatible with PlayStation 3[1]
See, I do hope they get that fixed. Otherwise I might not get to play those 4 PS2 games I own! :p
Nah but seriously, I wouldn't mind being able to play EVERYTHING.
Post by: Raen Ryong on June 27, 2006, 09:08:05 PM
But yeah, I would definitely wait until the price drops. The Ps2, when it came out, was hideously expensive (comparatively speaking to other consoles), but did not come with any games which justified its price. Shortly thereafter, the price fell, and good games came out for it... I'm gonna stick with my Ps2 and upgrade to Ps3 only when the price falls.
Ps3 will rock :)
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on June 27, 2006, 09:17:23 PM
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 09:41:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX
:happy:
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 27, 2006, 09:47:47 PM
How much will the games themselves cost?
FF Fanboy rumor that there will be 2 simultaneous FF13s that will come out close to each other. I don't wanna blow my pockets (Cause I also want Assassin's Creed, the new MGS, and a FPS too.)
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 27, 2006, 09:57:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
at the most it could be 2.8 gbs. The average ps2 game on the other hand is 6 gbs. Some, such as Star Ocean, needed two dvds. Then, if you look back at snes games, they were maybe 1 or 2 megabytes. With every passing system, games require far more space for the enhanced graphics and whatnot. The PS3 is just following that trend.
You are forgetting that on those types of games, there were FMV sequences which eat up a HUGE amount of space(more than a .avi file to say the least). Not to mention that, given the very large size of the bluray disks, there isn't a necessity to upgrade. At most, I belive that the PS3 games would take up a max of 14GB, which can be better used with an HD DVD or Dual-Layer DVD. The large size of the games does not require such advanced (and barely invented) technologies.
Aside from the game issue, The PS3's cell processor is also barely worthwhile. For the small amount you pay for the 360's cheap tri-core processor, you can get as much power as a cell processor. This is most probably because, at it's current state, the cell processor can only get a 50% yield at best. Therefore the PS3, while it talks big, has lacking and inefficient hardware to back it up.
If Square and Namco leave Sony, it's all over.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 10:06:54 PM
Bug fixed.
Post by: MrMister on June 27, 2006, 10:15:12 PM
"PS3 is so superior, it's inferior"
I disagree with this, just because it has great hardware doesn't take away from the games :/ It doesn't cost mad stacks of cheddar to design games.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 10:18:11 PM
PS3 is stupid.
Your pick really.
Post by: Osmose on June 27, 2006, 10:30:00 PM
Blue Ray Movies + High Def TV + PS3 + PS3 games = Way more than I'd be willing to pay.
Granted, you could chop off the movies and TV, but then I'm still paying way more than I should for the PS3, when they could just stick with DVDs and knock down the price.
I can definately see the benefits of a Blue-Ray burner and reader for a computer, but for a gaming console? No.
PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 10:35:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?
Good things don't last long, or so some dude from the 17th cetury said. Of course you are gonna rgue that this now the 21st century, and I am gonna tell you I heard all before and that is not the case.
Post by: MrMister on June 27, 2006, 10:39:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?
Lack of support from Sega Japan in terms of localization
Rumors of them breaking discouraged people from buying
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 27, 2006, 10:40:58 PM
Damn, lol.
The US needs to make their own systems *with their own* exclusive games.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 11:27:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
quote: Originally posted by DragonBlaze
at the most it could be 2.8 gbs. The average ps2 game on the other hand is 6 gbs. Some, such as Star Ocean, needed two dvds. Then, if you look back at snes games, they were maybe 1 or 2 megabytes. With every passing system, games require far more space for the enhanced graphics and whatnot. The PS3 is just following that trend.
You are forgetting that on those types of games, there were FMV sequences which eat up a HUGE amount of space(more than a .avi file to say the least). Not to mention that, given the very large size of the bluray disks, there isn't a necessity to upgrade. At most, I belive that the PS3 games would take up a max of 14GB, which can be better used with an HD DVD or Dual-Layer DVD. The large size of the games does not require such advanced (and barely invented) technologies.
Aside from the game issue, The PS3's cell processor is also barely worthwhile. For the small amount you pay for the 360's cheap tri-core processor, you can get as much power as a cell processor. This is most probably because, at it's current state, the cell processor can only get a 50% yield at best. Therefore the PS3, while it talks big, has lacking and inefficient hardware to back it up.
If Square and Namco leave Sony, it's all over.
Those FMVs were at a resolution of 640 x 480 or whatever they are. High Definition FMV's will be a TON larger. Some PS1 games had as much FMVs as PS2 games, but the PS2 games were much larger than the ps1 games. Its not only the FMVs that take up space. With better hardware, games will use textures with higher resolutions, models with more polygons.
I've seen new xbox 360 games at 59.99, $10 more than new xbox games were. I doubt the ps3 will sell games for more than that. Right now, Blue Ray movies cost $10 more than normal ones. I don't think the price will be more because of the blue ray disks. If prices rise, it'll be because games cost more to make now since they require larger teams and more advanced technology, plus more time.
Yes, eventually blue ray technology will be obsolete. Just like beta tapes and VHSs are now. DVDs will soon be obsolete as well since they don't have the space to hold HD movies. So yeah, blue ray technology will be obsolete in the future, but dvd technology will be obsolete before blue ray technology is.
Post by: Blazingheart on June 27, 2006, 11:28:23 PM
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 27, 2006, 11:44:08 PM
Sony has claimed many things about their console:
1)They have claimed that their console is revolutionary
2)They have claimed that their console will completely destroy the competition
3)They have even claimed that since the ps1 came out before the 64, they say that they invented the 3d polygon and nintendo stole from them (contrary to the fact that Starfox for the Snes had 3d polygons and came out before the ps1)
Things Sony has stolen/ripped off:
1)Removeable Hard drive
2)Similar functions of the Wiimote (turn the controller and your character turns)
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 27, 2006, 11:56:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
You make a point, DB, however the PS3 is quite out of my price range and many others' that I know. Plus Sony's arrogant attitude with their machine causes me to dislike them. They are constantly thinking that their console will win this console war. Not to mention that they are planning the PS3 to last *TWO* console wars. Not only will this limit the innovation, but it will allow Microsoft and Nintendo to get a one-up on their rival.
Sony has claimed many things about their console:
1)They have claimed that their console is revolutionary
2)They have claimed that their console will completely destroy the competition
3)They have even claimed that since the ps1 came out before the 64, they say that they invented the 3d polygon and nintendo stole from them (contrary to the fact that Starfox for the Snes had 3d polygons and came out before the ps1)
Things Sony has stolen/ripped off:
1)Removeable Hard drive
2)Similar functions of the Wiimote (turn the controller and your character turns)
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It'll take me 2-3 weeks to save up for the ps3, and thats if I don't spend a dime those 3 weeks or save any money. So while technically it isn't out of my price range, there is no way I'd spend that much money to buy it new. However, systems never stay expensive forever, and the price will drop. When it does, we'll have a system with HD compatable disks, and more advanced hardware.
1. Every system claims its revolutionary :p. The wii was calling itself the nintendo revolution. You can't dislike the PS3 for saying the same thing about their system as everyone else does.
2. Their counsil IS superior, and you have to pay for that superiority. The games themselves may not be superior, but that actual system is. Now will this blow away the competition, probably not, however, thats what their goal is. That the goal of pretty much every buisness, to blow away their competition. And thus thats what they plan to do when they plan for a new system. They're just saying what every companies goal is.
3. I kinda agree with you there.
4. Every company rips off ideas from other companies. But its a good thing. Companies take good ideas from other companies and make them their own, overall, it improves the general quality of all products.
Most of the reasons why you dislike sony apply to every company, you can't dislike a single company for something that all companies do. :|
Post by: Archem on June 27, 2006, 11:58:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
More details, more playing time, more more more. More than 1 game in a disk...
Itīs gonna be great.
HAHAHA!!! HAHA-HAHAHA!!! :taunt: ROFLMAO LOL HAHAHA!!!
*wipes tear from eye*
Whoo... Sorry about that... Anywho, the only thing I can see happening is more detail. That's about it. And we can already have more than one game per disc (we've already seen it, but it's really not that common), but why would they package two or more together when they can sell each one individually? Frankly, that's only gonna happen in the case of "Midway Classics 4" or "Fight Nite: Round 4 + Retro Boxing for Fools, circa 1995 A.D.". Matter of fact, FN: Round 2 for the GameCube has Super Punch-Out! on it. I want that now...
Post by: Blazingheart on June 28, 2006, 12:05:08 AM
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 28, 2006, 12:08:33 AM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 28, 2006, 12:14:53 AM
But it'd be cool if they'd re-release some of the psx Final Fantasys (or any other multi-disk games), they could fit all 3 or 4 disks on one blue ray disk with lots of space to spare, then again, they could probably do that with a regular dvd too..
Post by: Osmose on June 28, 2006, 12:24:28 AM
I cannot think of one person I know, at least, with High Def. Maybe it's just me, but high-def doesn't seem common enough to constitute all the worry about having high-def content.
I've never actually seen high-def before, although if it's basically an LCD TV, then I have, and it doesn't really appeal to me as enough of a difference to make me want to buy a high-def TV.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 28, 2006, 12:40:48 AM
After playing games at 1280 x 1024 on my computer, the ps2 640 x 480 resolution just seems blurry compared to the sharpness I'm used to. When I watch a DVD on my regular TV and on my computer, I notice a huge diffearnce in clarity. And my monitor/computer/dvds aren't even at the HD level.
Theres a BIG differance between SD and HD.
Post by: Linkizcool on June 28, 2006, 12:50:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Tomi
Meh, I can live without a PS3. I currently still play my PS1 and I'm perfectly happy with it. But yes, Blu-ray looks pretty cool. I mean, its Blue...
It's blue because it uses a blue laser that has a shorter wavelength then the conventional red, thus allowing more, and smaller data pits in the disc. The discs are also over 50% paper.
I have a High-Def Television. It's awesome. It's got speakers, it's got sharpness, and it's got clarity. Man I could get some serious air off of that thing.
It also has 3 different RCA ports, so the plugs don't get broken after unplugging and replugging them constantly.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 28, 2006, 01:10:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Linkizcool
The discs are also over 50% paper.
Poor trees. XD
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 28, 2006, 01:41:12 AM
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on June 28, 2006, 01:45:07 AM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 28, 2006, 02:08:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX
Can you eat them? I can eat paper.
Well you could... but I don't know why you'd want to...
Then again, I don't know why people eat underware, but it still happens.
Post by: Darkfox on June 28, 2006, 03:16:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
So it was the japanese fault again?
Damn, lol.
The US needs to make their own systems *with their own* exclusive games.
Give America that kind of power? ARE YOU MAD!? O_o;;
Post by: Smokey_locs2006 on June 28, 2006, 03:19:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Darkfox
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
So it was the japanese fault again?
Damn, lol.
The US needs to make their own systems *with their own* exclusive games.
Give America that kind of power? ARE YOU MAD!? O_o;;
a bunch of fps games and warcraft clones *yawns*
Post by: Darkfox on June 28, 2006, 03:22:58 AM
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on June 28, 2006, 03:24:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Smokey_locs2006
quote: Originally posted by Darkfox
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
So it was the japanese fault again?
Damn, lol.
The US needs to make their own systems *with their own* exclusive games.
Give America that kind of power? ARE YOU MAD!? O_o;;
a bunch of fps games and warcraft clones *yawns*
Or good american games that get squeezed out by Japanese market in America.
Jimmy: "Hey, Bruce, I made this great RPG. The testers say its better than Final Fantasy!"
Okinawa-san:"Bruce isn't here right now..."
*Bruce dies and game is never seen again*
And thats how it happens.
Post by: Darkfox on June 28, 2006, 03:26:15 AM
That is, until Atlus started to translate games and ship them to US shores more and more these recent years.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 28, 2006, 03:29:12 AM
Yay.
Post by: Smokey_locs2006 on June 28, 2006, 03:31:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
Halo.
Yay.
That game owned so much I sold my Xbox and the game because it was just too much for my lilttle brain to handle it's intense story plot/s..
Off topic: Isn't my avatar sexy? He's so me.
Post by: MrMister on June 28, 2006, 04:12:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Darkfox
Not to mention gameshow related games... *shiver*
I have Wheel of Fortune for Sega. Why? I don't know. I think I took it from a family I stayed with in Calgary.
Post by: Darkfox on June 28, 2006, 04:23:00 AM
Quote
Off topic: Isn't my avatar sexy? He's so me.
I almost think if he hit his head on a rock, his head would shatter. O_o
Post by: Archem on June 28, 2006, 04:40:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Darkfox
quote: Off topic: Isn't my avatar sexy? He's so me.
I almost think if he hit his head on a rock, his head would shatter. O_o
Nah, I think the rock would shatter.
Post by: Razor on June 28, 2006, 04:54:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
One thing - you keep mentioning High Def over and over - how many people actually have high-def televisions?
I cannot think of one person I know, at least, with High Def. Maybe it's just me, but high-def doesn't seem common enough to constitute all the worry about having high-def content.
I've never actually seen high-def before, although if it's basically an LCD TV, then I have, and it doesn't really appeal to me as enough of a difference to make me want to buy a high-def TV.
Word.
Up until Christmas of 2004 or my 2005 birthday, I was using a television from 1984. No remote, just 8 channels. Now I'm using a 52 centimetre nonflat screen TV.
Post by: MrMister on June 28, 2006, 05:49:41 AM
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 28, 2006, 07:04:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
quote: Originally posted by Osmose
One thing - you keep mentioning High Def over and over - how many people actually have high-def televisions?
I cannot think of one person I know, at least, with High Def. Maybe it's just me, but high-def doesn't seem common enough to constitute all the worry about having high-def content.
I've never actually seen high-def before, although if it's basically an LCD TV, then I have, and it doesn't really appeal to me as enough of a difference to make me want to buy a high-def TV.
Word.
Up until Christmas of 2004 or my 2005 birthday, I was using a television from 1984. No remote, just 8 channels. Now I'm using a 52 centimetre nonflat screen TV.
LiEs.
You use a pocket tv; I've seen you.
Post by: Weregnome on June 28, 2006, 09:57:47 AM
To be honest, PS3 is the only coming up console I'd consider. Nintendo has one game i care about- SSBB. X Box 360 suxs.
Post by: drenrin2120 on June 28, 2006, 09:59:00 AM
I'm sure it is worth it, but I think video games will die due to lack of originality. I'm pretty much done buying video games and consoles. Too much money and not enough impressive games. My 2 cents.
Post by: Drace on June 28, 2006, 10:07:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Weregnome
I'll get a PS3... and probably a HD tv... when prices drop.
To be honest, PS3 is the only coming up console I'd consider. Nintendo has one game i care about- SSBB. X Box 360 suxs.
Agreed on all points.
Post by: Weregnome on June 28, 2006, 01:28:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
600 bucks... I think I'd rather go to driver's ed and get my license for that much >.<
I'm sure it is worth it, but I think video games will die due to lack of originality. I'm pretty much done buying video games and consoles. Too much money and not enough impressive games. My 2 cents.
Thats also true. I don't play often. In the end I may not get it... I'm unsure. For a minute I actually forgot about that factor XD. Been playing games at people's houses o late...
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 28, 2006, 04:04:19 PM
I'm a true Ninty, and I'll go Nintendo all the way, but sometimes I need to stand up for a certain console.
It is bullcrap to say that the full Blu-Ray size doesn't get used and that therefore it's a useless addition. Since the release of DVD, Sony was able to put more on one disc. Look Final Fantasy X, which wasn't completely filled (it was "only" 2 GB). However, they did it.
Without the DVD games support, would they even manage to put FFX on a disc at all? With multiple discs of 700 MB it wouldn't work, simply because of the many worlds she's returning to, and the re-occuring voices. Without DVD, they would need to use over four discs to do it, which is about less than 3 GB. And even then they needed to lessen the quality of stuff. Why? Because certain data needs to be duplicated on that new disc. This means that over a half is filled with every data used in all discs.
Okay, so now we obviously don't have multiple discs, right? Right.
If you don't take in consideration that PS3 can have a higher polygon-count than the PS2, not to mention bigger and more detailed textures. Oh, and how could I forget 5.1 sound? It could also be possible that Sony would add 7.1 sound, giving people with good sound cards and speaker sets an advantage at online games. Not to mention that the sound itself could be much more detailed.
This obviously wouldn't take up 120 GB, now does it? Most certainly not, but if you make the levels big enough, add enough models (where not every model looks the same) and have some more things which could enhance the experience (having more detailed environment, seeing as people are whoreing over graphics anyway), we could at least get to 25 or maybe even 50 GB, about as much as the regular Blu-Ray without extra layering.
Last but not least, did it ever occur to you that the HD-DVD support for XBox 360 DOES NOT APPLY ON GAMES?
Post by: Archem on June 28, 2006, 05:36:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJk
The more DarkFlood talks, the more I see him as a fanboy who can only blurt out bullcrap.
Hah! That ****er's not a fanboy! Hell, until I forced him to play my GameCube, he wouldn't even consider touching any current gen Nintendo stuff! I guess he's just got a heavy opinion.
Quote
600 bucks... I think I'd rather go to driver's ed and get my license for that much >.<
Holy hell! I can get driver's ed'd for half that! But alas, I really don't care to learn.
EDIT: I just remembered something. In response to this thread's title: Yes, it's still ****ing expensive. Even if you're getting more than your money's worth, the fact is it still costs $600.
Post by: drenrin2120 on June 28, 2006, 05:43:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Archem2
quote: Originally posted by GaryCXJk
The more DarkFlood talks, the more I see him as a fanboy who can only blurt out bullcrap.
Hah! That ******'s not a fanboy! Hell, until I forced him to play my GameCube, he wouldn't even consider touching any current gen Nintendo stuff! I guess he's just got a heavy opinion.
quote: 600 bucks... I think I'd rather go to driver's ed and get my license for that much >.<
Holy hell! I can get driver's ed'd for half that! But alas, I really don't care to learn.
EDIT: I just remembered something. In response to this thread's title: Yes, it's still ******* expensive. Even if you're getting more than your money's worth, the fact is it still costs $600.
Well, driver's ed is like 400 bucks. but that's close to 600. sorta
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 28, 2006, 06:23:44 PM
Back on topic, I have noticed that many people here are sony fanboy-ish. If you ever go to digg.com and type in PS3 or Sony, you'll get at least 100 articles on Sony's arrogance, and other stuff...etc.
While I may like the Wii, I am far from a fanboy, I just simply pull all the facts together and make a judgemental decision on what will succeed. Obviously, the Wii won over the other two consoles, given the facts I knew.
Post by: Drace on June 28, 2006, 06:39:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
Heh, I'll just wait until I'm 18 so I don't have to take Driver's Ed and can just take the test.
Back on topic, I have noticed that many people here are sony fanboy-ish. If you ever go to digg.com and type in PS3 or Sony, you'll get at least 100 articles on Sony's arrogance, and other stuff...etc.
While I may like the Wii, I am far from a fanboy, I just simply pull all the facts together and make a judgemental decision on what will succeed. Obviously, the Wii won over the other two consoles, given the facts I knew.
A wise man once said that you shouldn't look at the creators, but at the product. This applies to music, this applies to movies, this applies to games and consoles.
Post by: MrMister on June 28, 2006, 06:40:26 PM
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 28, 2006, 07:13:35 PM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 28, 2006, 08:08:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
Well, driver's ed is like 400 bucks. but that's close to 600. sorta
300 in michigan, which is close to half of 600.
Post by: Archem on June 28, 2006, 08:44:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
It has just been announced that there will be a separate "smaller" version of the PS3 for $500. It is black and it uses a controller similar to the PS2. It's missing a Wi-Fi adapter and a 60 GB hard drive. I think it's using a 20 GB. I have NO idea what this means but will it NOW be worth my money?
Prob'ly not.
Post by: Tomi on June 28, 2006, 08:56:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
It has just been announced that there will be a separate "smaller" version of the PS3 for $500. It is black and it uses a controller similar to the PS2. It's missing a Wi-Fi adapter and a 60 GB hard drive. I think it's using a 20 GB. I have NO idea what this means but will it NOW be worth my money?
Well, thats dumb.
Post by: Razor on June 28, 2006, 09:14:41 PM
It's $500 for the cardboard box it comes in.
Post by: Tomi on June 28, 2006, 09:16:56 PM
Post by: Razor on June 28, 2006, 09:17:43 PM
Post by: Bluhman on June 28, 2006, 09:19:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
300 in michigan, which is close to half of 600.
O RLY?
Er, sorry.
No doubt, I'm a cheap fool; I'm getting the WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! (Wii.)
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 28, 2006, 09:20:38 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 28, 2006, 09:31:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
I went to space in a cardboard box once.
Wow, and i thought I was the only one...
I got drivers ed for $120 I think, but the course was offered through my school :p
I'd take the smaller ps3 for 100 cheaper. I wouldn't use the wi-fi or whatever its called, and you really don't need a very big hard drive. I know if you have a modded xbox with a hard drive, you can store games and such on there, but I'd assume a built in ps3 hard drive wouldn't let you do that stuff. I don't think most people would use more than 20 gigs of hard drive space.
Post by: Revolution911 on June 28, 2006, 09:32:25 PM
Post by: Archem on June 28, 2006, 11:02:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Not me! :D
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 02:31:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
Post by: Drace on June 29, 2006, 04:19:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
Yeah. It might have Solid Snake, but it doesn't have a Hideo Kojima production!
Post by: Razor on June 29, 2006, 04:48:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
"any other"? Fanboy.
Post by: Osmose on June 29, 2006, 10:36:46 AM
Post by: Weregnome on June 29, 2006, 11:15:14 AM
EDIT: If this offends anyone then meh. I was in a snapping mood... ****ing KOF '02.
Post by: Revolution911 on June 29, 2006, 01:27:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
In the aspect of fun. The ENTIRE BASIS OF EVERY GAME EVER MADE. Fun. **** graphics. And I didnt even know what the hell blu ray was before E3. Nintendo always has some awesome innovation (controller) to make every game they make 10000000000 times more fun.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 29, 2006, 02:11:51 PM
Post by: Raen Ryong on June 29, 2006, 02:51:25 PM
To be honest, I don't really care about motion sensory. I think that it will just overcomplicate things... I mean, imagine you have to tilt a certain amount of degrees in order to survive an attack, for instance. If you miss that amount of degrees by a small amount, the controller will interpret it as a completely different attack, therefore you lose. Fun? I don't think so. I've used a motion-sensing controller before, and I much prefer ordinary controllers.
And yeah, I don't care about graphics either so long as the games are playable. I find the Playstations offer greater gameplay that way as well, as well as better music :D
The only reason I'm responding like this is you're categorically stating your views as if they were facts. Therefore, I feel inclined to respond. _veryangry_
Post by: Tomi on June 29, 2006, 03:20:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
Bah, that's your opinion. IMO, nintendo is screwing up all the controllers. Touch DS, move Wii, yippie yay.
*Touchs Wii* Ohh, erm..
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 04:18:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Revolution911
quote: Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
In the aspect of fun. The ENTIRE BASIS OF EVERY GAME EVER MADE. Fun. **** graphics. And I didnt even know what the hell blu ray was before E3. Nintendo always has some awesome innovation (controller) to make every game they make 10000000000 times more fun.
So the wii IS more fun than the ps3? How so? Games make a system fun, not the system itself. And what you find fun, is an opinion, not a fact. I think a lot of the games the ps3 will have will be much funner than the games the wii will have. The motion sensor crap idea is a bad idea. Its not bad to incorperate into a controller, but if you try to base a controller off of that, bad. Its not practical, and it will NOT work in most scenarios. Example, you like a sword fighting game, too bad, you cant use the wii motion sensor for that. It'll work in some games like a baseball game.
You're opinion on the wii being better because its funner is completely biast. There isn't even any games made for it, you've never played it, how can you determain that its going to be funner already?
Quote
"any other"? Fanboy.
I'm not a fanboy. If I was a playstation fanboy, I'd think the psp is better than the ds, but I don't. When I look at a system, I look at all the pros and cons of it, what the actual system has and what it doesn't have. The PS3 simply won that by a landslide ;)
Post by: Apex on June 29, 2006, 04:38:01 PM
Who gives a flying fick about specks!??
I am a huge fan of Metal Gear here, and I am not even concidering getting a ps3 for a very long *** time, because I really don't like Sony, everything I have bought from them, has stopped working right as the warrenty expiered, and I know I am not the only one who has had that problem.
I am sticking with Nintendo, because I can rely on them, they havn't let me down before. I can have fun with a Zelda game, a Mario game, a Super Smash Bros game and all thier other whacky, creative and fun titles, like Wario ware... Because believe me, you arn't truly having fun till you look like a retard doing it.
Ps3 is in no way 'better' then the Wii, it just looks nicer. It still delivers all the laser death problems, the slow loading times and all the stupidity that the PSX and the PS2 had. Not only do you have to put up with Sony's **** just to play Metal Gear Solid 4, you have to spend at least $700 to get it and one game. And there is only about 2 games that look even worth $40 bucks, Mgs4 and that stupid Final Fantasy Versus XIII game.
Sony will never have Mario, it will never have Link, it will never have SSB, it will never have all the golden games, that makes Nintendo what it is... You know why?
Because Sony is nothing but a Leech company. All it does, is throw a bunch of **** experimental products into a lame looking box, hope like hell each and everyone of them don't break down within 2 hours of gaming, and expect companies to make games for them.. They produce no sucessful games of thier own, and there fore, if all thier third party support left, they would fail misserably. Because not as many people are going to spend $600 for a system with one good game, compared to a $250 system with great games poping out everywhere. The less people that buy the ps3, the less 3rd party support they get, and the less games you get to chose from..
Now look who is more stupid, the guy flinging a remote around enjoying himself. Or the guy who spent six hundred dollars only to learn that the Playstation 3 lost all third party support, and wont be releasing any more games. Have fun with MG4, I hope it's the only fun you have with your ps3.
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 04:56:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Apex
Because believe me, you aren't truly having fun till you look like a retard doing it.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And to all of you naysayers to the Wiimote, how can you honestly say "It won't work" or "It's a failure". Have YOU actually tried it? The answer here is "no". Until you have actually USED the Wiimote and can make an honest, judgemental opinion about it, all you are saying is one-sided fanboyism (against the Wii).
Post by: Revolution911 on June 29, 2006, 05:03:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
quote: Originally posted by DragonBlaze
quote: Originally posted by Revolution911
Nintendo Wii is better. All of you just got your pride kicked in the nuts.
Better in what sence? If you're talking about the price, then yes, the wii has a better price. If you talk about any other aspect of it, the ps3 is 'better' :p
In the aspect of fun. The ENTIRE BASIS OF EVERY GAME EVER MADE. Fun. **** graphics. And I didnt even know what the hell blu ray was before E3. Nintendo always has some awesome innovation (controller) to make every game they make 10000000000 times more fun.
So the wii IS more fun than the ps3? How so? Games make a system fun, not the system itself. And what you find fun, is an opinion, not a fact. I think a lot of the games the ps3 will have will be much funner than the games the wii will have. The motion sensor crap idea is a bad idea. Its not bad to incorperate into a controller, but if you try to base a controller off of that, bad. Its not practical, and it will NOT work in most scenarios. Example, you like a sword fighting game, too bad, you cant use the wii motion sensor for that. It'll work in some games like a baseball game.
You're opinion on the wii being better because its funner is completely biast. There isn't even any games made for it, you've never played it, how can you determain that its going to be funner already?
quote: "any other"? Fanboy.
I'm not a fanboy. If I was a playstation fanboy, I'd think the psp is better than the ds, but I don't. When I look at a system, I look at all the pros and cons of it, what the actual system has and what it doesn't have. The PS3 simply won that by a landslide ;)
YOU sir, are wrong. :vict:
The only thing I see good about playstation is RPG's. And you can use a normal controllor if you dont like the wii one. The control opens an entire army of new gaming possibilities. Its pretty much impossible to not have atleast one of them be really fun.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT. I NEVER REALLY LIKED MGS THAT MUCH. I SAID IT. *Hides behind a rock*
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 29, 2006, 05:10:56 PM
I don't think so. Although I know Nintendo won't disappoint me, it is possible that Nintendo still screws up the games because of the gimmick-feel.
Sony's PS3 doesn't have this, at least not as much. They don't focus on the motion sensoring and EyeToy. It's still all about the games themselves. You still play them with your normal controller. With the Wii, you also can still play them with basically a GCN controller, but it's still all about the Wiimote.
I mean, how many DS games actually intergrated the touch screen without it making it feel like a gimmick? I bet you wouldn't name more than ten, or at least within a quarter of an hour without the use of the internet. I know I can't.
And sure, the DS was tonnes of fun, but didn't the PSP also have games with tonnes of fun? Are we ignoring that fact?
So yes, I do have the right here to call people here fanboys, simply because they jump to the conclusion. I myself am not certain of the PS3's future, but I do know that in the end it turns out allright. At least not as exhaggerated as most people think.
Post by: Revolution911 on June 29, 2006, 05:21:00 PM
I've actually never had a Nintendo product aside from a Gameboy. But I always kick myself in the head for buying a PSP instead of a DS. Same with PS2 and Gamecube. Honestly, I've never played a good game on my PSP besides Monster Hunter Freedom =/. I'm getting a Wii but square-enix will probably force me to save up for a ps3 afterwards. I still think Blu Ray sucks though.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 05:44:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
quote: Originally posted by Apex
Because believe me, you aren't truly having fun till you look like a retard doing it.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And to all of you naysayers to the Wiimote, how can you honestly say "It won't work" or "It's a failure". Have YOU actually tried it? The answer here is "no". Until you have actually USED the Wiimote and can make an honest, judgemental opinion about it, all you are saying is one-sided fanboyism (against the Wii).
I don't need to use the wiimote to know it won't work. Here, think about this. You're playing zelda, and you use the wiimote like a sword. You attack an anemy, the enemy blocks. Well now what, since the controller can't emulate any resistance, the wiimote possition would be where the attack would have been, but the in game sword would be halted where it was blocked. IT WON'T WORK, plain and simple.
Sure, the wii has the other controller, but then all you have is a system just like the other two, but with crappier specs. No, crappier specs don't ruin a game, but they don't help either. All the wii has that I like somewhat is zelda, and even that is repetetive cliche plotline.
Quote
YOU sir, are wrong.
The only thing I see good about playstation is RPG's. And you can use a normal controllor if you dont like the wii one. The control opens an entire army of new gaming possibilities. Its pretty much impossible to not have atleast one of them be really fun.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT. I NEVER REALLY LIKED MGS THAT MUCH. I SAID IT. *Hides behind a rock*
In what aspect was I wrong? The ps3 has more than just rpgs, in either case, rpgs are my favorite type of game, and thus I think they're the funnest overall. The actual system of the wii isn't better than the ps3. Look at the specs. Sure, specs don't make a game, but they don't condemn them either. There isn't any part of the wii system that is 'better' than the ps3 except how much it costs. But you do have to realize that the 600 price tag won't be there forever.
Its kinda funny, I keep hearing people don't like the ps3 because they don't like sony for something they said or something they did, but nothing about the actual system other than it has better specs and a higher cost :p
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 05:48:32 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5481335368476915030&q=red+steel
This could single-handedly push nintendo back into the fps market.
As far as I know, the PS2 is only good for RPGs where the glamour of having better graphics is actually worthwhile.
And in the Zelda game for the Wii/Gamecube, the Wiimote (for the Wii version obviously) is ONLY used for targeting. Sorta like the "z-targeting" for the 64 games.
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 05:55:39 PM
Anyway, if they made a wiimote in the shape of a gun, that'd be cool for fps games, but I'd find it annoying to point the actual remote, a remote isnt really the best way to aim something.
And yes, the majority of the good games on the ps3 are rpg games. But it was really the only system that had any good ones. Theres zelda, but thats more of an andventure game. There was morrowind and fable, but those too are more of adventure games, plus they're avalible for the computer as well.
There are many other good games for the playstation that aren't rpgs. Tekken games for example, grand turismo, grand theft auto, MGS, etc.
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 29, 2006, 06:01:46 PM
Quote
I don't need to use the wiimote to know it won't work. Here, think about this. You're playing zelda, and you use the wiimote like a sword. You attack an anemy, the enemy blocks. Well now what, since the controller can't emulate any resistance, the wiimote possition would be where the attack would have been, but the in game sword would be halted where it was blocked. IT WON'T WORK, plain and simple.
It's a little off topic, but the Wiimote is actually used for a spin attack. You actually SPIN AROUND YOURSELF and you do Link's special move. You still just press the A button to attack. Like DarkFlood2 said, you use it with bow and arrows.
I still didn't get my question answered. What is the hard drive for? Is is like a memory card? Does it store music and movies? Is is for internet access? I really don't need all that stuff.
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 06:07:32 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 06:09:52 PM
Quote
I still didn't get my question answered. What is the hard drive for? Is is like a memory card? Does it store music and movies? Is is for internet access? I really don't need all that stuff.
The hard drive is for storing save files mainly. Thus you won't need expensive memory cards. Think about it, for the price of a 1 gb flash drive, you can probably buy a big hard drive. Memory cards are more expensive than hard drives becuase they're more compact and stuff. If you were just going to use one memory card, it would probably be cheaper than the hard drive. But if you need multiple ones, the hard drive will save money, you don't have to worry about losing the cards, and it holds a lot more.
EDIT: This topic was originally about that the ps3 isn't that expensive for what you get. A blue ray player is $1000, the ps3 is $600, and you get the blue ray player, a hard drive, and a top notch gaming system. Then people started dissing the ps3 for other reasons, and now we're here :p
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 29, 2006, 06:26:32 PM
Back on the real topic, now that there is a smaller PS3, it doesn't seem expensive for what you get at all. You get awesome games if you're comforable just playing normal games, you have a great library of games, and a hard drive. I hope this blue ray player will let developers make better looking games.
Thanks for the answer. ::)
Post by: Tomi on June 29, 2006, 06:28:03 PM
Second nonpurpose of thread: Screw all the third gen consoles, I'm getting me some spore.
Post by: Apex on June 29, 2006, 06:29:45 PM
Not expensive my ***...
You do know how much save files take, don't you?
The playstation memory card was 30kb if I am not mistaken, and the playstation 2 was 8mb.
You don't need 60gb for saving... It's for game updates. Wii is doing it to, for games like Mario kart (Additional Tracks and Items) and games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Additional Levels, items and characters.)
If sony wanted to, they could get rid of the stupid 20 and 60 gig hardrives, and make them much smaller, but they make more money for jacking up the storage and jacking up the price, it's all about the larger numbers.
The Wii will have 512mb internal memmory for updates and saves, and I doubt it will need much more, even though they are going to have a port for upgrading it.. (aka an additional memory card.)
Sony thinks they can win, soley with larger numbers. That's it. That's all they have going for them. GTA isn't even showing them as much respect anymore, they are releasing for 360 initially as well now.
:taunt: Haha, at Sony Fan-boys. :taunt:
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 06:38:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Apex
That statement is laughable DB... So you don't have to spend alot of money on Expensive Memory cards, HAH, instead you pay an extra one hundred dollars for an extra 40gigs.
Not expensive my ***...
You do know how much save files take, don't you?
The playstation memory card was 30kb if I am not mistaken, and the playstation 2 was 8mb.
You don't need 60gb for saving... It's for game updates. Wii is doing it to, for games like Mario kart (Additional Tracks and Items) and games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Additional Levels, items and characters.)
If sony wanted to, they could get rid of the stupid 20 and 60 gig hardrives, and make them much smaller, but they make more money for jacking up the storage and jacking up the price, it's all about the larger numbers.
The Wii will have 512mb internal memmory for updates and saves, and I doubt it will need much more, even though they are going to have a port for upgrading it.. (aka an additional memory card.)
Sony thinks they can win, soley with larger numbers. That's it. That's all they have going for them. GTA isn't even showing them as much respect anymore, they are releasing for 360 initially as well now.
:taunt: Haha, at Sony Fan-boys. :taunt:
You do realize that a new memory card costs $50 right? Two memory cards = cost1 hard drive. And if you're smart like me, you wouldn't spend all the money for the large hard drive, you'd buy the cheaper version with the smaller one.
So because sony makes a system with better specs than the little wii, it sucks? You're a biast wii fanboy. Now i laught at you.
Quote
Originally posted by Tomi
First purpose of thread: Yes, it is a great deal, but I don't need bluray.
Second nonpurpose of thread: Screw all the third gen consoles, I'm getting me some spore.
Ah yes spore, that looks like a great game. Hopefully the creature generator will be able to generate creatures that I like :)
If you think about it though. The cost of a computer needed to play new games is more than any gaming counsil will cost new.
Post by: Tomi on June 29, 2006, 06:39:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
Ah yes spore, that looks like a great game. Hopefully the creature generator will be able to generate creatures that I like :)
If you think about it though. The cost of a computer needed to play new games is more than any gaming counsil will cost new.
But I already have a computer.... :p And I need a new video card anyway...
Post by: Apex on June 29, 2006, 06:44:05 PM
Post by: DragonBlaze on June 29, 2006, 06:51:37 PM
Right now, a 64 mb xbox 360 memory card is $40.
If you think about it, a ps1 memory card was 512 kb, a ps2 was 8 mb, meaning it increase 16x. If you increase the ps2 memory card by 16x you'll need 128 mbs.
I haven't cared to check the prices on a memory card cuz i really don't plan to use them if it has a hard drive, but they're goign to be pretty expensive.
Post by: SaiKar on June 29, 2006, 07:23:57 PM
I was a SNES fanboy. Best games ever made, right there! So I got a N64, which totally flopped in comparison to the PS1. It had about 10 games I actually liked, though the games I liked I REALLY LIKED A LOT. So when PS2 vs Gamecube came around, I thought, hell. I'll get a Gamecube.
I have about 6 games I like for the GC, and only two I really really like, and they're both RPGs anyway (Tales of Symphonia and Skies of Arcadia) So the system was a pretty expensive waste for me realy.
So we got Wii and PS3 now. Ugh.
I'm not giving Nintendo another chance after the Gamecube. They're just going too kiddy for me. They ruined Mario Kart already. Nintendo's whole "we want games that a parent can walk in on, say 'oh that looks like fun', and jump right in." WHY WOULD I WANT TO PLAY A GAME THAT REQUIRES NO SKILL WHATSOEVER TO PLAY! Where's the fun in playing anything that mind-blowingly easy? Go to hell, Nintendo! No third chance.
On the OTHER SIDE, we have PS3 and it's inevitable gazillion game lineup, it's huge amounts of detail, and it's acompanying pricetag. $600?! Man... if I'm paying that much for a system, it better be hand delivered to my house. In a helecopter. By the actual people that served as character models for the games. And to all of you people thinking that more memory = longer games with more graphics and detail, you're right. The only small concern is that someone has to actually PROGRAM all that stuff. Notice how some games these days are getting delayed months or an entire year? Game makers promise so much and it takes serious amount of manpower to deliver it. Expect longer and longer delays and more time between games with that kind of detail. It can barely be helped really.
Maybe I'm just getting too old for video games... I dunno. But these two options suck. I guess I'll stick with PC stuff.
Post by: Tomi on June 29, 2006, 07:36:46 PM
Post by: Raen Ryong on June 29, 2006, 07:46:10 PM
Wii
Pros
- Low price
- Large selection of popular characters
- Innovative ideas
Cons
- Venturing into using a new controller
- Games generally seen as "kiddish"
- Games lack originality (Zelda-esque cliché storylines, etc)
- Lower specs
Ps3
Pros
- Popular games, such as Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid
- Massive disc capacity
- Brilliant specs
- Retaining old, successful controller design
Cons
- Unrealistically high price for most people
- Very reliant on new technology
Despite the fact the Ps3 has less cons (in my opinion), that price one is a massive concern. I think the Wii's sales will fare much better to begin with, and then the Ps3 will be forced to lower its price in order to compete, THEN the sales will increase.
Also, you Wii-people accuse Sony of being arrogant (which is probably true, I'm sad to say), but you're the ones who are being arrogant and accusing all those who defend the Ps3 as fanboys. Hypocrisy?
Post by: Osmose on June 29, 2006, 07:55:29 PM
Word to Tomi. Spore negates the need for any new console. :D
Post by: coasterkrazy on June 29, 2006, 08:19:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raen Ryong
Cons
- Venturing into using a new controller
In case you didn't know, they made a regular controller as well for people who don't like the remote idea. I'd say it negates that con...
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 09:14:48 PM
Have you ever taken a look at all of the RE games on the GC (I think there are 6 or 7 including the remakes), Then you have the awesome Metroid Prime series, And let us not forget that most of the Metal Gear games came from nintendo or were ported to it. Kiddish? I think not. Plus there are others that I haven't mentioned.
Here is a link to one of the demos to show the Wii's innovation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4564724544164436570&q=Metroid+prime+corruption
(that boss fight at the end looks interesting..)
And here is a link to one of the trailers to show the PS3's graphical capabilities
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718009720752146055&q=PS3
(Sure it's pretty, but is it worth it?)
And lastly, here is a comparison of the graphics we have seen at E3 on the Wii (playable demo) and the PS3 (Pre-rendered movie)
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 29, 2006, 09:16:29 PM
Why does everyone keep saying $600 dollars?
Post by: Razor on June 29, 2006, 09:16:36 PM
Anyway, have any of you even looked at the E3 stats? IIRC the line for the Wii was like 6 hours long. That's a ****ing long wait, just to play a console.
Especially if the Xbo and the P3 are supposed to be better. ;)
But anyway, people who say the wiimote sucks clearly want to have a reason to bag the Wii, and they don't even consider the fact the controller probably won't even be used that much. Consider all the DS games that don't use the stylus for example.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 29, 2006, 09:22:14 PM
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 09:45:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
You are contrasting smash and mgs? WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL ARE YOU?!
A crafty one :p
Here is my consensus:
Nintendo's Wii: For people who don't care about maturity and just want to have fun (like me)
Sony's Playstation 3: For people who are rich, or graphics whores.
Microsoft's Xbox360: For people who want Halo 3 (also like me)
Post by: Razor on June 29, 2006, 09:47:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
Nintendo's Wii: For people who don't care about maturity and just want to have fun (like me)
Sony's Playstation 3: For people who are rich, or graphics whores.
Microsoft's Xbox360: For people who want Halo 3 (also like me)
I agree, end of thread. lol
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 29, 2006, 09:48:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
quote: Originally posted by DarkFlood2
Nintendo's Wii: For people who don't care about maturity and just want to have fun (like me)
Sony's Playstation 3: For people who are rich, or graphics whores.
Microsoft's Xbox360: For people who want Halo 3 (also like me)
I agree, end of thread. lol
I so "Word" You.
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 29, 2006, 09:55:27 PM
I don't need the Blu-Ray discs, they are completely utterly useless. Who needs the storage anyway?
First of all, the first type of Blu-Ray discs have "only" a storage capacity of 25 GB. This is when it only has one layer. However, the Blu-Ray can also have two layers, which makes a total of 50 GB. Only recently there is a six-layered Blu-Ray disc with 33 GB per layer, making a total of 200 GB.
So, if the developers want to stay cheap, they could cram their crap onto a 25 GB Blu-Ray. But surely the XBox 360 can match it with its HD-DVD support? No, not game-wise anyway. The thing is, the XBox 360 only has HD-DVD support for movies, not for games. This already has been stated. It currently just uses the normal DVD format and the dual layer version.
What's the advantage of Blu-Ray, even with 25 GB? You can easily cram a lot of high-res models on it, and instead of the now commonly used 256x256 or even 1024x1024 textures for one model, they can work with multiple 1024x1024 textures for one model,giving it more detail per polygon. More polygons mean better graphics, and seeing as everybody now is graphic-whore, this is a good thing.
Also, now we can go with even better sound formats, almost cinema-like. This might not seem usefull to you, but say that to professional gamers. A good sound system can make a difference between killing or getting killed during online matches. Also, to give you a more thrilling experience, better sounds can help in giving you the right vibes.
And to top that, we can finally have a world large enough we can get lost in. Quite more literally than most RPGs nowadays. Without the use of labyrinths and dungeons.
We don't need that mumbo jumbo. Good graphics don't make gameplay.
I'll tell you something. Most people say that but don't actually act that way. When Red Steel was first announced people weren't that impressed by the graphics, even Nintendo fans. And they don't often prefer graphics over gameplay, so that says enough.
Subconciously you do take graphics in account when buying new games. It's plain stupid to say graphics don't matter, because they do.
About the question if it's really worth it, yes! Of course it is! People always wanted realism, and now they moan about it, just because they have to pay more for that? What did they expect? Hollywood for ten bucks?
Nintendo Wii has better games.
Says who? I've never played a Wii game before. I bet most of you don't too. You can't judge something when you haven't experienced it yet. Sony did show they had good games, and I bet that if people just ignore the PS3, they would miss out on a big deal of good games, just because they heard that the Wii had better games.
It's too expensive, Sony will never sell the console.
Remember the price of the original NES? $300 dollars. It did great. Remember the price of the original Playstation 2? I think it was around $600-800. It did excelent. I bet even the original Playstation was expensive. But they all did great. So why moan about the PS3? Sure, it costs $600, but that doesn't mean it won't sell. That doesn't mean it will drop its price later on?
The light version shows the PS3 is bullcrap. For $100 extra you just get 40 GB extra.
For your information, you not only get 40 GB extra, but also WiFi automatically enabled. It will also not support HDMI, which is not upgradable. What this means is that you can't view HD-quality on the light version.
Also, Europe will only have the 60 GB version.
PS3 only showed pre-rendered movies.
Prove me wrong, but some are clearly in-game. Even better, there have been in-game footage. They might not seem as good as the trailer, but Sony has until November. That's a long time, and they could probably manage to get the graphics in. It's like the Wii, the graphics now are crap, but that was due to the fact that Nintendo didn't release the full dev-kit.
============================
But the Sony front can also expect some comments, although not so much, because it seems like the roles has been turned, and it's not Sony who acts fanboyish.
The Wiimote just won't work. The DS didn't, so the Wiimote won't either.
Like I stated earlier, it's too early to judge now. You've never played the Wiimote. And to debunk the argument, several gaming reporters have reported that the Wiimote plays really well, although you'll need to get used to it at first you will manage to get the feel very quickly.
Also, the DS didn't fail, it did work. There are a lot of gimmicky games for the DS, but the ones who aren't did play nice with the DS.
Also, a lot of DS games don't even use the touch screen, and the same would probably happen with the Wii anyway, so what's the bother?
Sources: WikiPedia.org (http://wikipedia.org)
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 29, 2006, 10:12:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJk
We don't need that mumbo jumbo. Good graphics don't make gameplay.
...When Red Steel was first announced people weren't that impressed by the graphics, even Nintendo fans. And they don't often prefer graphics over gameplay, so that says enough.
[/B]
Are you supporting the negated statement by saying that?..
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 29, 2006, 10:18:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_MagazakiWith that I meant that it is bullcrap if you say that you don't want the PS3, because it prefers graphics over gameplay. People DO care for graphics, it's actually the first thing they see.
Are you supporting the negated statement by saying that?..
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 29, 2006, 10:22:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
You are contrasting smash and mgs? WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL ARE YOU?!
A crafty one :p
Here is my consensus:
Nintendo's Wii: For people who don't care about maturity and just want to have fun (like me)
Sony's Playstation 3: For people who are rich, or graphics whores.
Microsoft's Xbox360: For people who want Halo 3 (also like me)
And you call me a ****ing fanboy.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 29, 2006, 10:23:25 PM
Meiscool, you are.
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 29, 2006, 10:52:31 PM
And even with the enhanced space, only about half will probably be used. Look at Halo2, amazing graphics, high quality sound, and somewhat long.. And it only took a mere 6 GB.
And I AM one of the people that doesn't care about graphics. I still play NES games and am happy with that so don't pull BS that graphics is everything. Gameplay is and always will be the most important aspect.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 29, 2006, 11:13:57 PM
XD that would be awesome XD
Post by: Apex on June 29, 2006, 11:20:15 PM
Wii has good graphics, just not the best.
I could care less if it looked as good as an xbox (It will look better though.) Because it has something new, and the new Super Smash bros is coming out for it. That's reason enough for me.
Post by: Spike21 on June 29, 2006, 11:22:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
smash on NES. HELL YEAH
XD that would be awesome XD
I have played a smash game one game maker 6 just like that it was fun but if there was an official one it would be awseme.
Post by: aboutasoandthis on June 29, 2006, 11:34:32 PM
Post by: Osmose on June 30, 2006, 12:05:43 AM
1.Wikipedia is a POINTLESS RESOURCE? Are you mad? It is exactly because of the cooperative editing of it that it is such a great resource. You may not know it, since you just dismiss it as full of false things by others, but there are HUGE debates just like the one were having now about the validity of what someone puts on there. People spend their entire day arguing over whether something is fact enough that it should be included, especially on popular subjects like videogame consoles. All facts that aren't readily apparent require citations to be considered valid, and anything that is post that is un-encyclopedic (AKA opinionated) is removed regularly.
Just because Gary used facts from Wikipedia to form his own OPINION doesn't mean the information taken from Wikipedia isn't any less fact. It does not state that the PS3 is better, it simply states facts that Gary mixed with his reasoning to make his conclusions. Hell, I don't even know if he settled on which is better. Really all he did was disprove accusations from both sides.
2. There has been NO playable demo of Brawl yet. Your shot was from what could've been a pre-rendered movie, and most likely was, considering that everyone was standing there and not fighting. The only thing shown to the public were screenshots of the new characters so far and that movie, which shows what APPEARS to be Gameplay, but is mixed in with non-gameplay scenes, meaning that it could've just been a mockup. Get your facts straight before trying to bash another console, otherwise you just look like a misguided fanboy.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 30, 2006, 12:23:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Spike21
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
smash on NES. HELL YEAH
XD that would be awesome XD
I have played a smash game one game maker 6 just like that it was fun but if there was an official one it would be awseme.
:O
PM me link.
Osmose you dont knw for sure if its game play or not, i suggest not to come back with un supported opinions at another unsupported opinion.
As far as I know they are using the same engine as the last smash game. What I looked at was beta gameplay with additation rendered movie.
And I love wiki, but its just darkflood; there's alot of people that believe is unrealiable BECAUSE its edited by a lot of random people.
And id ont get point number 2. Who said there was a demo so i can smack him in the back of the head.
Post by: DarkFlood2 on June 30, 2006, 01:09:18 AM
To answer DB's first post:
It might be a good deal, but Sony is losing money on it and it is far too expensive for me to want it.
--CASE CLOSED--
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 30, 2006, 01:21:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
Meiscool, you are.
To what company?
Post by: MrMister on June 30, 2006, 01:27:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
This is getting pointless..
To answer DB's first post:
It might be a good deal, but Sony is losing money on it and it is far too expensive for me to want it.
--CASE CLOSED--
You close no cases, jerkwater.
Embiggened CDs really just add to the graphics capacity, so I don't care about blu-ray. Jade Cocoon is a PS1 game, but has way more expansive gameplay than most PS2 games. And it's one disc. One extremely small disc.
About the whole 'PS3 is for graphics whores' statement, I disagree. I'm excited about plenty of PS3 games for their gameplay. Graphics whores grace every systems' fanbase. Metal Gear Solid 4, which is part of a fun, well-made series, is for PS3. >:P
Post by: Osmose on June 30, 2006, 01:31:13 AM
And that entire post was directed towards Darkflood, meaning he's the one you should be bonking for saying there was a demo.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on June 30, 2006, 01:32:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MrMister
About the whole 'PS3 is for graphics whores' statement, I disagree. I'm excited about plenty of PS3 games for their gameplay. Graphics whores grace every systems' fanbase. Metal Gear Solid 4, which is part of a fun, well-made series, is for PS3. >:P
Exactly. Just like nintendo, the PS has several series of their own that are liked. Most are RPGs, such as Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Shadow Hearts, DarkCloud, ect ect, just like how most Xbox games are first person shooters, and most Nintendo games are classics of previous games.
Post by: Drace on June 30, 2006, 05:27:09 AM
XBox and XBox 360.
I mean... come on. Saying the PS3 is for graphic whores and the two XBoxen not? That's like saying that you're gay and Elton John is not.
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 30, 2006, 08:13:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_MagazakiIt's called drawing the wrong conclusion.
So you are saying EVERYONE wants the ps3?
Meiscool, you are.
Quote
Originally posted by OsmoseInterdeed, although I don't agree with the pre-rendered thing, because the graphics did look crap at the moment. No anti-aliasing and such. It would be a shame if it in fact were pre-rendered without anti-aliasing it.
2. There has been NO playable demo of Brawl yet. Your shot was from what could've been a pre-rendered movie, and most likely was, considering that everyone was standing there and not fighting.[/B]
I would still love to say that DarkFlood2 is a fanboy without proper argumentation.
I don't like XBox 360, simply because of my biased opinion, and because I just don't like the games. Call me a fanboy, but it's my opinion, I'm not trying to force it on anybody.
You, on the other hand, do.
That fact alone makes you a fanboy.
Quote
Originally posted by Drace
I mean... come on. Saying the PS3 is for graphic whores and the two XBoxen not? That's like saying that you're gay and Elton John is not.
Wait, Elton John is gay?
:P
Post by: Osmose on June 30, 2006, 08:53:00 PM
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on June 30, 2006, 08:58:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJk
It's called drawing the wrong conclusion.
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJk
With that I meant that it is bullcrap if you say that you don't want the PS3, because it prefers graphics over gameplay.
No you are generalizing and calling people like me liars and BSers.
I dont want the PS3 pricisely because it prefers graphics over gameplay. I think I have made ethat clear enough through all out all these gaming arguments. I like nice graphics, who doesn't? But all I see from PS3 is that. That doesnt down right cut it for me... and the price.
Post by: Drace on June 30, 2006, 10:52:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
quote: Originally posted by GaryCXJk
It's called drawing the wrong conclusion.
quote: Originally posted by GaryCXJk
With that I meant that it is bullcrap if you say that you don't want the PS3, because it prefers graphics over gameplay.
No you are generalizing and calling people like me liars and BSers.
I dont want the PS3 pricisely because it prefers graphics over gameplay. I think I have made ethat clear enough through all out all these gaming arguments. I like nice graphics, who doesn't? But all I see from PS3 is that. That doesnt down right cut it for me... and the price.
Come on, you can't judge a whole system by a few games you might have seen. I mean, it does have MGS4. That's story AND graphics holding hands, kissing, making love and getting a baby called wowzors.
Post by: GaryCXJk on June 30, 2006, 10:59:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_MagazakiAgain, drawing wrong conclusions.
No you are generalizing and calling people like me liars and BSers.
I only said that it is bullcrap when people hate PS3 just because they say PS3 is focused more on graphics rather than gameplay, and that they prefer gameplay over graphics. That is not true. Not even I can ignore the graphics.
And Drace just showed you how you are BSing. I mean, have you ever PLAYED the PS3? No? Yes? NO.
Can you predict the future and say PS3 will only have graphically good games and crap gameplay? NO.
So, my conclusion from that: BULLCRAP.
Post by: aboutasoandthis on July 01, 2006, 01:23:29 AM
Post by: SaiKar on July 01, 2006, 01:25:38 AM
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 01, 2006, 01:48:23 AM
Post by: DarkFlood2 on July 01, 2006, 01:59:56 AM
Post by: drenrin2120 on July 01, 2006, 02:38:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DarkFlood2
If I wanted something that was 500-600 dollars, I would save that money and upgrade my computer.
If you don't want the PS3, then don't get it. If someone wants to spend 500-600 bucks on it, let thme. It's their money.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 03:49:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GaryCXJkAgain, drawing wrong conclusions.
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
No you are generalizing and calling people like me liars and BSers.
I only said that it is bullcrap when people hate PS3 just because they say PS3 is focused more on graphics rather than gameplay, and that they prefer gameplay over graphics. That is not true. Not even I can ignore the graphics.
And Drace just showed you how you are BSing. I mean, have you ever PLAYED the PS3? No? Yes? NO.
Can you predict the future and say PS3 will only have graphically good games and crap gameplay? NO.
So, my conclusion from that: BULLCRAP.
Yes I was drawing to conclusion based on your very vague 1st opinion and statement on this matter.
And no I dont want to play it? I dont WANT TO OWN ONE? Why? Cause its my freaking damn opinion? Doesnt matter if I can't or can judge regardless of how beautiful the graphics are in it. I DONT WANT TO OWN ONE. Period. I sh*t you not.
And dont put freaking words in my mouth. NOTE and I QUOTE MYSELF:
"
I dont want the PS3 pricisely because it prefers graphics over gameplay. I think I have made ethat clear enough through all out all these gaming arguments. I like nice graphics, who doesn't? But all ***I see*** from PS3 is that. That doesnt down right cut it for me... and the price."
I did NOT EVER, FREAKING EVER, said all the games where going to be like that. Do you think that I am as stupid to believe that? You failed at knowing and arguing with me if you did.
I stated thats how I SAW it, and that's how is all looking, FOR ME. Do not go on.
FREAKING AGAIN:
I dont want the PS3 pricisely because it prefers graphics over gameplay. I think I have made ethat clear enough through all out all these gaming arguments. I like nice graphics, who doesn't? Butall I see from PS3 is that. That doesnt down right cut it for me... and the price.
Note durrs, I am talking about the system not the games, there'll always be great gaes from every system who the HELL can eny that? Point being I dont like the PS3 because no matter how you paint it, they look like graphic pitches.
Point and made. I dont want it. If I get it, it'll be to tape its destruction and put it on the internet.
I judge the system by first impression. Oh it hasnt made a single good one for me at ALL.
And again before you say "drawing into conclusion"
Quote
I only said that it is bullcrap when people hate PS3 just because they say PS3 is focused more on graphics rather than gameplay, and that they prefer gameplay over graphics. That is not true. Not even I can ignore the graphics.What is not true? Liking gameplay over graphics? If you dont believe there's people like that you fail this arguement.
I am not still understand what you are calling as BS.
For me, and because the only thing I looked at AND EVEN heard from a ps3 system: graphics.
Like I said, I like graphics who doesnt? But I DO NOT prefer graphics over gameplay. And by this I dont mean games will be this way, oh no, i am not that naive as your ignorance proclaims. It's because thats all I see and hear from the PS3, the damn word "graphics". Its an over explotion thats drawing it a very bad image for some people, believe it or not. I am not the only with these thoughts, and it isnt because i love nintendo, but because thats the way it is.
I will buy a playstion 2 because i have good replay value games I'd like to play again, that arent really the best graphical ones around but that I effin love.
BUt the playstation 3. No, sorry, your are marketting to the effing wrong guy here.
Excuse the typos I am playing an MMO and had to post quick
Post by: Razor on July 01, 2006, 04:00:59 AM
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 01, 2006, 04:07:28 AM
A system plays no part in the gameplay of games, well actually it does it two ways. First, the controller, the ps3 controller is a controller type that most people like, so they're not doing anything bad there. The other way a system affects gameplay is simply its ability to run the game. The ps3 has that ability.
You can't say the ps3 prefers graphics over gameplay. The games themselves determain the gameplay, not the system. The ps3 is simply working on the areas that they can work on as a system, such as its ability to handle good graphics.
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on July 01, 2006, 04:20:41 AM
Post by: Drace on July 01, 2006, 06:07:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
The way I'm looking at it is if you want better graphics it's gonna cost more. I mean, the PS was at first a lot more expensive than the SNES, and then the PS2 was more expensive than the PS1. I'm really not too surprised the PS3 costs so much. If the graphics, music, sounds and w/e do prove to actually be as great as they're said to be, then I think people can't really complain for 600 bucks. The PS4 will probably be something like 800 bucks. But again, everything else will be uber awesoem compared to the PS3. Soon, I bet you anything, computers and game consoles will become as one. And then you'll have a TV, game console, and computer all as one. It's the only logical next step. As for me, I'm gonna wait till they invent holograms. :p
I want some Johnny Quest-like Virtual Reality.
Post by: Darkfox on July 01, 2006, 06:30:22 AM
As for Nintendo, they are making games too short and easy. Possibly the better running series they have is Zelda I suppose. Maybe SSB too.
Otherwise they've kinda dropped on playtime and challenge.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 08:10:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
I'm a little confuse, you say the ps3 prefers graphics over gameplay, and thats one of the reasons you don't like it.
A system plays no part in the gameplay of games, well actually it does it two ways. First, the controller, the ps3 controller is a controller type that most people like, so they're not doing anything bad there. The other way a system affects gameplay is simply its ability to run the game. The ps3 has that ability.
You can't say the ps3 prefers graphics over gameplay. The games themselves determain the gameplay, not the system. The ps3 is simply working on the areas that they can work on as a system, such as its ability to handle good graphics.
Gah?! I am not saying IT PREFERS GRAPHICS OVER GAMEPLAY.
I am saying that IT LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME.
there's a difference between that!
You guys so mispoint my words and twist them. I clearly emphasize the term ***I SEE***.
Post by: Weregnome on July 01, 2006, 08:55:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
For me, and because the only thing I looked at AND EVEN heard from a ps3 system: graphics.
The PS3 has the ability, due to the Cell Processor, to allow for mulitple calculations to made, instead fot he one calculation being done at a time. This allows for PROPER mulit tasking. The engine allows for the system to allow for alot of things to happen during a game, so instead of being in a fight where your meant to be fighting a 10000 soldiers and you only get like 50.. you actually can get something around 10000 soldiers. The system is built to allow alot more area, characters and events to actually go on in the game. With multi tasking, and the the fact that thje system can built a landscape on its own with only satellite imagines and height data. the engine is impressive. Either E3 2004-05 showed inofrmation on this
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 09:25:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Weregnome
quote: Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
For me, and because the only thing I looked at AND EVEN heard from a ps3 system: graphics.
The PS3 has the ability, due to the Cell Processor, to allow for mulitple calculations to made, instead fot he one calculation being done at a time. This allows for PROPER mulit tasking. The engine allows for the system to allow for alot of things to happen during a game, so instead of being in a fight where your meant to be fighting a 10000 soldiers and you only get like 50.. you actually can get something around 10000 soldiers. The system is built to allow alot more area, characters and events to actually go on in the game. With multi tasking, and the the fact that thje system can built a landscape on its own with only satellite imagines and height data. the engine is impressive. Either E3 2004-05 showed inofrmation on this
Oro o.O
Post by: Almeidaboo on July 01, 2006, 10:28:32 AM
What they gotta be careful is that they donīt make context empty games. There is absolutely no reason in making beautiful graphics for games that arenīt thrilling or interesting when it comes to the story.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 10:39:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
There is absolutely no reason in making beautiful graphics for games that arenīt thrilling or interesting when it comes to the story.
SOmeone who understands my plea.
Post by: Osmose on July 01, 2006, 11:44:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
Gah?! I am not saying IT PREFERS GRAPHICS OVER GAMEPLAY.
I am saying that IT LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME.
there's a difference between that!
You guys so mispoint my words and twist them. I clearly emphasize the term ***I SEE***.
This is a games debate. Your position right now is basically "Stop trying to support your side of the argument, because I've already said that I'm biased and I don't want anyone to continue talking about it." You don't HAVE to reply or read. You've already made your point, why can't others make theirs?
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 11:52:19 AM
Post by: Osmose on July 01, 2006, 02:13:44 PM
It looks like that to you, but they're trying to change how you see it.
Post by: DragonBlaze on July 01, 2006, 02:47:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
quote: Originally posted by DragonBlaze
I'm a little confuse, you say the ps3 prefers graphics over gameplay, and thats one of the reasons you don't like it.
A system plays no part in the gameplay of games, well actually it does it two ways. First, the controller, the ps3 controller is a controller type that most people like, so they're not doing anything bad there. The other way a system affects gameplay is simply its ability to run the game. The ps3 has that ability.
You can't say the ps3 prefers graphics over gameplay. The games themselves determain the gameplay, not the system. The ps3 is simply working on the areas that they can work on as a system, such as its ability to handle good graphics.
Gah?! I am not saying IT PREFERS GRAPHICS OVER GAMEPLAY.
I am saying that IT LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME.
there's a difference between that!
You guys so mispoint my words and twist them. I clearly emphasize the term ***I SEE***.
Quote
I dont want the PS3 pricisely because it prefers graphics over gameplay.
So... by saying that you said you SAW that was happening. You stated that as a fact, not as an opinion. Maybe its not the way you meant to say it, but thats what it looks like. And nowhere do I see the words "I see". I wasn't twisting your words, I was just taking them exactly how they were written.
I started saving up for my ps3! I'm taking $20 out of my paycheck every week and placing it in my ps3 savings box (my savings box is the inside of a breath of fire 4 psx case). At this rate, every 5 weeks I'll get $100, in 30 weeks, I'll have $600. When the system drops $100 and comes out with a good, game, and when I have enough money saved, I'll buy it. :D
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 06:54:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Osmose
They do. They understand that your opinion is that all you see frmo the PS3 is graphics. However, you're misinterpreting their attempts to show you otherwise as them accusing you of something.
It looks like that to you, but they're trying to change how you see it.
They can't. It's too late :P
Post by: aboutasoandthis on July 01, 2006, 08:59:13 PM
Maybe you'll like Assassin's Creed. It's very politically minded. It's supposed to have a lot of gameplay too.
BTW, I'm probably going to get a Wii first (I'M NOT A FANBOY TO EITHER) simply because of the price. I might get a PS3 if I can find a job before school starts.
Post by: MrMister on July 01, 2006, 09:18:12 PM
' You guys so mispoint my words and twist them.'
No, you're just contradicting yourself over and over. So, you are doing the twistage by yourself.
Also, If they make Jade Cocoon 3 for PS3 I will spooge all over the TV ninety four times.
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 01, 2006, 10:21:32 PM
I said that how I see it and I dont want to get it because that's how I see it.Yes it is opinion; dur. I think that's beyond fact. I am very judgemental toward playstaion three, what can I say. However just because of that i do not intend to say every game in the ps3 will suck, i am pretty sure there'll be people who claim good games at least. As for me I rely on what the media and gurus say, then compare to my own opinions.
And you say i am twisting my words when moose just said i am repeating myself. OMG CLASH OF THE SUP3RPOWRZ
Quote
No, you're just contradicting yourself over and over. So, you are doing the twistage by yourself.
I am bored and i am enjoying this; elaborate.
Post by: Drace on July 01, 2006, 11:24:37 PM
Post by: MrMister on July 02, 2006, 12:38:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kijuki_Magazaki
I am not contradicting myself.
I said that how I see it and I dont want to get it because that's how I see it.Yes it is opinion; dur. I think that's beyond fact. I am very judgemental toward playstaion three, what can I say. However just because of that i do not intend to say every game in the ps3 will suck, i am pretty sure there'll be people who claim good games at least. As for me I rely on what the media and gurus say, then compare to my own opinions.
And you say i am twisting my words when moose just said i am repeating myself. OMG CLASH OF THE SUP3RPOWRZ
quote: No, you're just contradicting yourself over and over. So, you are doing the twistage by yourself.
I am bored and i am enjoying this; elaborate.
wat
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on July 02, 2006, 01:03:16 AM
Post by: Almeidaboo on July 02, 2006, 01:29:20 AM