Anyone else... underwhelmed?

[AtmaWeapon]

I'm kind of passively watching E3, and maybe something slipped in since I last checked this afternoon, but I'm pretty much underwhelmed by Nintendo's show so far.

AC Wii and Wii Music look fun, but seriously the offering today was pretty crappy. It seemed to consist of, "Hey guys we're making truckloads of money! Thanks! Last year people said we'd reached our peak but we're up by double-digit percents! I just want to say thanks, and here's what you'll be spending money on. There's a lot to talk about, so I'll just pick a tiny bit."

I'm kind of hoping they're delaying some kind of something more exciting for some later announcements, but it just doesn't seem like they're up to much so far.

[MottZilla]

I think alot of people feel that way about Nintendo's showing so far. I don't think even Nintendo fanboys can be that happy with it.

Atleast M$ and Sony had some stuff to show off.

[AtmaWeapon]

MS kind of stole the show compared to Sony; Sony had a lot of neat stuff to show but was sparse on release dates and playable stuff. It's kind of hard for it to be the year of the PS3 when they didn't really announce when most of that stuff was coming out.

It's interesting that Sony execs are still claiming that the Wii is expensive (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19394) and will fall to the PS3's superior price point.

[rock_nog]

I don't really blame them, it's just that they've basically run out of ammo for the moment - pretty much all of their major franchises have seen a Wii release recently. Granted, some would argue that's Nintendo's fault for relying too heavily on franchises, and they might have a point.

Well, I will admit, I'm shocked by the lack of Kid Icarus - considering Nintendo's current lack of major bombs to drop, I'd think they'd want to throw that in there, but other than that, I honestly just wasn't expecting much this year - you know, it just wasn't one of those years where you were like "We haven't seen a new Zelda title in a while," or "It's about time they announced the new Mario game."

[The_Amaster]

I was underwhelmed by Nintendo because I didn't really see anything that got me excited, which is the whole point of E3. I mean the new controller add-on is pretty sweet, but aside from the new Sports, I dunno what they're going to do with it.

But I'm also rather dissapointed in Microsoft's conference. I mean, the first half was "Here are the new games in which you shoot your way through armies of robots/henchmen among drab, gray, 'realistic' levels", and the latter half was basicly "heres how we're going to rip of Nintendo and Sony"

EDIT: Okay, after reading IGN's interview excerpts with Miyamoto, I'm significantly more excited for Nintendo. It seems like they think that the press conference was for the more mainstream media, and so they have all the "family friendly" stuff, and then Miyamoto drops veiled hints about new Zelda and Mario games for both Wii and DS, and a few nods to Pikmin and Kid Icarus for the more traditional fans.

[Warlock]

I think this happened last year too. Nintendo kind of forgot how to put on a really kick-ass keynote I think. I am hoping we'll see more from them later in the week, but who knows.

I think Microsoft definately stole the show with the FFXIII announcement alone. But overall they had the most interesting announcements I thought. Almost all of Sony's were "Look! __insert obvious sequel to popular PS3 game__". I mean, was anyone surprised by Resistance 2, another Ratchet and Clank, or God of War 3?

[Zank_Tripper]

I thought the new Animal Crossing looked pretty cool. I never have played Animal Crossing, but I think I might start with the Wii version. Other than that everything else looked kind of crappy, I would agree. New Wii sports is not something I would spend my money on, and the Wii music looks like a travesty. I grew up in a family where everyone played an instrument, so that kind of racket and fake playing looks horrible to me.

[Pineconn]

Zelda. (http://www.zentendo.com/forums/index.php?topic=14982) Kid Icarus. (http://www.zentendo.com/forums/index.php?topic=14986)

We're good. So we haven't seen screens or a trailer, but both are obviously in development. Like I said before, E for All Expo.

[ZTC]

Haven't had the chance to watch any coverage; maybe I'll catch part of it being re-ran. (though, it seems like I really didn't miss anything :shrug: )

[MottZilla]

But I'm also rather dissapointed in Microsoft's conference. I mean, the first half was "Here are the new games in which you shoot your way through armies of robots/henchmen among drab, gray, 'realistic' levels", and the latter half was basicly "heres how we're going to rip of Nintendo and Sony"

I'm guessing you must have watched a completely different conference or you are a fanboy of some kind. M$ had alot more to say than what you said. And clearly you haven't played or seen the games by generalizing they are all gray and drab. And your fanboyism or just hatred of M$ is reinforced by saying they "rip off" Nintendo and Sony. It's funny you act as though Nintendo has any good ideas to rip off.

[The_Amaster]

Yes, of course, I'm a Nintendo fanboy. That's why I think their Press Conference sucked as well. Well, geez, I must just be in love with them than, musn't I?

As for the drab comment, I do apologize for letting Fable 2 slip my mind. It does in fact look frickin' awesome.
But Fallout 3 (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/882/882301/imgs_1.html)? Or Gears of War 2 (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/142/14232680/imgs_3.html)? The former seems to be like exploring a construction zone, which I find sooo much fun, and the latter, with a few exceptions (yes, I acknowledge the few) seems to be contstructed entirely of sheet metal and trash, or else sets you into a post-apocolyptic city, which, yes I'll say it, looks drab! (http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14232680/gears-of-war-2/images/gears-of-war-2-20080625074326627.html) The last time I checked, the real world wasn't entirely a kind of a greenish brownish grayish mechk.

And if you think Avatars arn't a rip-off of Miis, or Lips isn't a rip off of SingStar, then you must be honest to goodness blind.

And now, to show how evenhanded I'm trying to be, I'll also say that Nintendo seems to have missed much of the point of E3. Yes we get it, your family friendly, your casual oriented, we've known all of that for a few years now. Now show us some cool stuff!

[AtmaWeapon]

Oh man, they're just versions of Twilight Princess, which was constructed of wood and stone, in the future!

People have been looking forward to Fallout 3 since the 90s I think. It's holy and exempt from complaint by the same rules that let Nintendo try experimental Zelda games and still sell a million copies. Not liking a game doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game. Starcraft 2 looks like the same kind of gameplay I find relentlessly punishing and boring, but I acknowledge the fact that Blizzard makes exceptionally good games and some people would rather play Starcraft than masturbate. Fallout's in the same category, so is Gears of War.

I want nothing more than to return to the days when it was Nintendo vs. Sega but MS mopped the floor with Nintendo at the conference. Whether they want to believe it or not, the E3 keynote is one of the things used by the public to judge how strong a company's plans for the year are. Last year was one of Nintendo's most successful years, and I seem to remember many people felt that they won E3 last year; wasn't that when they announced a new Mario, Smash Bros., and Mario Kart, along with a ton of cool DS stuff?. This year's keynote revealed 1 low-volume franchise game, 1 game that a bunch of junior high students will rent, 1 casual game that will sell a lot but generate no buzz (and with its peripheral pushes the cost of controllers even higher), and honestly it leaves me with nothing to shoot back at the, "Ha ha your system is for kids and doesn't have good games" crowd. They said a lot of stuff that will make their investors get a boner, but it's all stuff they already told the stockholders in meetings; I'm an investor in Nintendo too and this conference is convincing me that devoting my attention to Microsoft this year might provide me more entertainment for my dollar.

Compare announcing a few casual games and 1 franchise sequel to announcing 1 sequel that's answering a decade of constant demand and 2 sequels to popular franchises, along with the ability to shorten load times by putting games on the system memory. They closed with the bombshell that what will likely be the highest-selling game of the year will not be exclusive to PS3 but also be sold on the 360. For Nintendo to even compare to MS, there would have had to have been a Kid Icarus on display, any two of the Mario/Zelda/Star Fox/Metroid franchises, a Wii hard drive, and the announcement that Street Fighter 4 is going to have a Wii version with a bundled fighting stick.

Microsoft won, man.

[The_Amaster]

Well, yeah, I never said that they were just bad games. I just said that they didn't impress me, and so Mircrosoft's conference was a disapointment to me as well. Now, some information on Bioshock 2, that I would have eaten right up.

I just wish that Microsoft could have had something original, rather than three sequals, a series of rip-offs, and a port. And like I said, I didn't like Nintendo's conference either. WiiMusic is about all that was new.

[rock_nog]

I think Penny Arcade best summed it up.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080716.jpg

[SpacemanDan]

I didn't get to watch the other two, but that comic sure as hell sums up Nintendo's presentation. I was sitting there, bored because I don't give a damn about how much money their making.
Then, when they actually showed the games, it was like this:
"I went through that whole damn speech just to see some dissapointing stuff?!" I was really expecting more than that.

[MottZilla]

Yes, of course, I'm a Nintendo fanboy. That's why I think their Press Conference sucked as well. Well, geez, I must just be in love with them than, musn't I?

You can still be a fanboy and be disappointed with Nintendo while still being bias against M$.



As for the drab comment, I do apologize for letting Fable 2 slip my mind. It does in fact look frickin' awesome.
But Fallout 3 (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/882/882301/imgs_1.html)? Or Gears of War 2 (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/142/14232680/imgs_3.html)? The former seems to be like exploring a construction zone, which I find sooo much fun, and the latter, with a few exceptions (yes, I acknowledge the few) seems to be contstructed entirely of sheet metal and trash, or else sets you into a post-apocolyptic city, which, yes I'll say it, looks drab! (http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14232680/gears-of-war-2/images/gears-of-war-2-20080625074326627.html) The last time I checked, the real world wasn't entirely a kind of a greenish brownish grayish mechk.

Oh you're right, Gears of War, a game on a planet ravaged by war, should have levels that look like Las Vegas, with big bright neon signs! Clearly you just don't get it and never played the game. All the levels do not look the same, they are not all gray and brown. If you're complaining about it being dark, again it's a game with a DARK THEME.



And if you think Avatars arn't a rip-off of Miis, or Lips isn't a rip off of SingStar, then you must be honest to goodness blind.

You're totally right. That means that Halo is totally a rip off of Wolfenstien 3D or whatever the first FPS was. And Mega Man is totally a rip off of Super Mario Bros. Maybe you should rethink what a rip-off means. That implys something dishonest, like a bootleg. Miis weren't an original idea from the start, and neither was SingStar.

Reguardless of your opinion, thinking that Gears of War 2 is nothing shows foolishness as the original game sold millions and dominated Xbox Live. It is a big deal and one of if not the biggest game coming out in the last half of the year.

[The_Amaster]

I am not a Microsoft Hater. Bioshock is in my opinion one of the best games ever made, and I think the 360 is possibly the best console on the market now. I may personally prefer the Wii, but the 360 certainly has the goods.

One of these is from Gears 2. One is from Fallout. Can you tell me from glancing at them which is which?
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/878/878271/fallout-3-screens-20080602094231600_640w.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/884/884307/gears-of-war-2-20080625114136630_640w.jpg

[MottZilla]

The second is GoW. Why do you ask?

[The_Amaster]

*looks again* *shrugs*
Well, maybe I'm just not enough of a conniseur to see the difference, but I sure as hell couldn't have told.

Eh, I'm done with this argument. I'm going to start getting angry soon, and I'd rather not...

[Pineconn]

Microsoft won, man.

And that means... what?

I'm sorry, but I find it hilarious when people argue about who had a better E3 conference. I personally think it makes no difference at all. The only thing I care about is if *insert company here* has succeeded in explaining next year's lineup and pleasing their fan base with sufficient information to hold them over until the next major event, and I feel Nintendo hasn't done that. Yes, I'm an all-Nintendo guy, but I still think they could have had a better conference.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just saying that no company can "win" or "lose" when it comes to delivering a conference. A company can just succeed or fail in hyping up everyone.

[Beldaran]

If Microsoft "won", then Nintendo is crying it's way to the bank. Meanwhile, Microsoft is shelling out a billion dollars to repair its broken console. It's a Pyrrhic victory at best, if you ask me.

I actually agree with Amaster a bit. Yes Gears of War is insanely popular, but so is Justin Timberlake, who, for the record, sucks. It doesn't say anything about quality. I'm sure Gears of War is fun, but I am so tired of post apocalyptic war ravaged landscapes. They have been beaten to death. Officially.

I actually refuse to buy on principle post-apocalyptic games. Dark visions of the future are how boring people pretend to be interesting by fantasizing about the end of civilization. I'm more interested in what game companies can create, not what they can fantasize about destroying. Oooh, a beautifully rendered world full of burnt garbage. How profound of you! You must be the deepest person ever.

It's true that Nintendo needs to come out with some sweet games. They are being very masturbatory with the constant flogging of the peripheral horse. We get it, you like to make interesting controllers. Now make some fucking games for me to use them with, please and thank you.

[Archibaldo]

Microsoft did get a hype boost for the mere fact of holding their press release a day earlier than the other two.

But yeah there are a lot of sequels. But I think that's pretty much the norm now. Even in movies sequels are abundant. And it's not like Microsoft is the only one who deals in sequels and franchise expansions. Nintendo has been releasing new Mario games since the beginning and Sony has what 13 Final Fantasy games, plus like 2 or 3 tactics games. So really franchise expansion is nothing to cry about. You like something, it's only natural to want more of it.

[Warlock]

You're totally right. That means that Halo is totally a rip off of Wolfenstien 3D or whatever the first FPS was. And Mega Man is totally a rip off of Super Mario Bros. Maybe you should rethink what a rip-off means. That implys something dishonest, like a bootleg. Miis weren't an original idea from the start, and neither was SingStar.

The new 360 Avatars are a ripoff of Miis because it's purely a response to how popular Miis have become. As in, they are doing this only because Nintendo did it and it worked.

Not that I have any real *problem* with that, I don't care. But no sense in pretending like that isn't the truth.

I watched a video of the new 360 interface though - I'm not sure that I like it :( And what does this mean for the themes and gamerpics I've already purchased?

[MottZilla]

Warlock, just because someone does something similar does not mean it's a "rip-off". And you know you wouldn't appreciate it if you were the one that did all the work on their avatars and heard a bunch of people bitching at them that it was a rip-off. It implys dishonest conduct.

To the rest, you should know that "winning" the press conference is all about coming away with the most/best hype and outlook. No one is saying anything different.

[AtmaWeapon]

To the rest, you should know that "winning" the press conference is all about coming away with the most/best hype and outlook. No one is saying anything different.That's basically what I meant by "Microsoft won"; out of the three companies I feel like they had the most impressive offering. Nintendo looks like they're basically going to tow the line and continue milking the "non-mainstream" gamers, which is aggravating to me because remember that rant I made a long time ago about how I hated Sony for changing what "mainstream" meant? Basically now there's three groups of gamers and I'm in the minority :/. Sony I don't know; I didn't pay any attention to their offerings but from what I've read it seems like they're still struggling to get the PS3 the credit it actually deserves; it's hard to do that without games and release dates.

I was pleased to hear rumors of a Dead Rising for the Wii, but I was hoping to hear of a Kid Icarus or something else really awesome for the classic Nintendo crowd.

[MottZilla]

Well Dead Rising Wii isn't a rumor, it's confirmed. Looks decent too.

What I heard latest is that Nintendo was saying they don't believe E3 is the place to show off their games for "core" gamers. It is possible they are waiting for something like TGS.

But definitely with E3 behind us, I see things pretty much the same as I did before. M$ has the most going for it, Sony is starting to get some traction, and Wii is still doing it's Wii thing. And that would be my order of interest, 360, PS3, Wii. I have a strong feeling I will pickup a PS3 before I pickup another Wii.

[Revfan9]

All of it really just said to me "Hey look, a bunch of games I'm not going to buy!"

I may get the new AC game when it comes out simply because I'm an addict to the series, but nothing else really jumps out and screams "PLAY ME". Therefore, everything else I really don't care about.

[Cloral]

Sony I don't know; I didn't pay any attention to their offerings but from what I've read it seems like they're still struggling to get the PS3 the credit it actually deserves; it's hard to do that without games and release dates.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind why does the PS3 deserve credit?

Warlock, MS has already said that your themes will still work. I saw somewhere a mockup of what it might look like. As for gamerpics, remember that some older games used them in the game (Bomberman Live comes to mind), so this means that they will have to still be around (otherwise it would break those games).

[rock_nog]

Holy hell, Dead Rising for the Wii? That's freakin' sweet news.

[AlexMax]

I enjoyed watching Nintendo's keynote. Then again, I sold my Wii and it's a lot more worthwhile to watch when you know that the joke isn't on you.


Holy hell, Dead Rising for the Wii? That's freakin' sweet news.

I own dead rising and I can't remember the last time I tried to play it. The controls were awkward as hell and the saving system was beyond atrocious. Also it was unreadable ass unless you were playing it on a monitor/high definition monitor.

[MottZilla]

Well, awkward controls, that's a fit for the Wii. And the Wii is Shitty Definition only, so the text will be plenty readable on poor people's TVs. Sounds like an improvement to me.

I liked Dead Rising on 360 as it came out during a truly dry summer with nothing else to play. The game had impressive graphics with huge hordes of zombies. It was a fun game but it's true it didn't have staying power or much replay value.

[AtmaWeapon]

Just out of curiosity, in your mind why does the PS3 deserve credit?It's at least as powerful as the XBox 360 and it doubles as a high-definition DVD player. No other console can boast a combination of these two things. I feel like if they could get a solid stream of interesting games, they could really cause an upset. So far, that's not happening.

[rock_nog]

Well, if we're working from the assumption that the 360 and the PS3 are technological equals, then the only thing we can compare is libraries, and clearly the 360 has the superior library.

[MasterSwordUltima]

I laughed when they showed footage of Resident Evil 5, and its all quiet, and everyone is basically wondering why its taking so long to change the textures and level layouts of Resident Evil 4.

Oh, and the whole Resistance thing, wtf? All I saw was another fps, yet they made such a big deal about it. And why did the monster make the same exact sounds that the Gurlukovich/Genola monster from MGS2:Substance/MGS:I make?



Only thing that got me interested was Fallout 3, ONLY because I recently started playing Oblivion, and since its basically that with zombies or whatever, I'll give it a try. And considering how vast Oblivion is, and how you can pick up everything and all that, I'm excited.

[ShadowTiger]

Only thing that got me interested was Fallout 3, ONLY because I recently started playing Oblivion, and since its basically that with zombies or whatever, I'll give it a try. And considering how vast Oblivion is, and how you can pick up everything and all that, I'm excited.Ick. Before you go any further, I can almost recommend playing the first two Fallouts. You'll see how different they are. I can see two things happening with that.

1) You'll see that the style is so different, that you'll find yourself preferring one to the other.
2) You'll treat it like Oblivion and go everywhere and do everything. But things don't work like that in the world of Fallout. At least I hope not.

[Anthus]

I love the way MotZilla uses his mod position to blatantly flame Nintendo fans, and "poor" people. For the record, HD isn't all that. Hell, most things aren't even true HD anyway, and it ends up looking like a Youtube video after it is scaled by you HD tuner. I'm talking about Television, btw, and not games.

So, E3, right, it kinda sucked. It was "Look at our money and gimmicks, shit, we don't need to make games anymore... What is a fan..base?" from Nintendo, and "SPLOODGE ALL OVER YOUR HDTV WHILE YOU PLAY RESIST-FALLOUT-ADVENTURE IN HIGH-RES GRAY LAND!"

[MottZilla]

So wait, we're here talking about games, and you're going to take a stab at HD why? Furthermore for those of us that have actually seen the difference between SD and HD, we know it is quite a nice improvement. You're clearly being dramatic by saying it looks like a Youtube video, as youtube videos are 320x240 generally.

And I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't flame anyone. You are aware that on a forum you don't all have to be cookie cutter Nintendo fanboys right?

[Anthus]

So wait, we're here talking about games, and you're going to take a stab at HD why? Furthermore for those of us that have actually seen the difference between SD and HD, we know it is quite a nice improvement. You're clearly being dramatic by saying it looks like a Youtube video, as youtube videos are 320x240 generally.



Let's talk about how great HD is. Maybe it is a matter of preference, but to me, it looks grainy, blurry and generally shitty. My friend owns a PS3. He has a 60in HDTV, and HD cables. I have seen him play GTA4, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance. Granted, there is a higher resolution, it only makes the motion blur, and blotchyness that much more noticeable. I also noticed a certain choppyness that comes along with a system pressing such a high resolution.

I'd take the Wii's lower poly-count and resolution but steady frame rate and crispness over washed out blurry HD stuff any day of the week, buddy. IMO, Mario Galaxy looks better than Resistance, and GTA4. Have you seen that lava shine and glow?

However, I will say objectively that GTS4 is not a top notch game graphically on either platform. Also, the 360, and PS3 handle things differently. The PS3 is washed-out and grainy, and the 360 is brighter, and a bit less grainy, and anything beats the massive load times that come from reading massive games on massive disks.

Even the PS2 had the worst load times out of the last generation. GCN had virtually no load times, and the X-Box didn't seem too intrusive either. Nintendo may make weaker hardware, but I think it is generally more efficient.

So, until they truly make amazingly amazing smooth HD products, and make them cost less that $400, I'll gladly by them. This is more or less an experimental time for systems, I think. Fun Fact: Hideo Kojima cited the PS3 as technologically inefficient to truly realize his visions for MGS4.


And I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't flame anyone. You are aware that on a forum you don't all have to be cookie cutter Nintendo fanboys right?



So, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying cookie-cutter Sony fanboys are better?

I have to admit though, you have something so little Sony fanboys have: a reasonably valid point... some of the time.

Well anyway, I'm out since this is no longer on topic.


EDIT: I think CRTs are better for making things look soft. This is good in video games... Developer's try hard enough to make thing smooth and sexy. Now, you wanna take a super high resolution, and try to make things smooth? It' doesn't always work out.

[rock_nog]

ANYWAY... Um, back to the whole point of the thread, I seriously think this year's E3, while a flop for the Big Three, was great for 3rd-party developers. Sure, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo let us down, but on the other hand, personally for me, it was great to see extended demonstrations of The Force Unleashed and Spore.

[Archibaldo]

If your friend's PS3 HD didn't look that great he probably didn't even set it up properly.

[MottZilla]

Let's talk about how great HD is. Maybe it is a matter of preference, but to me, it looks grainy, blurry and generally shitty. My friend owns a PS3. He has a 60in HDTV, and HD cables. I have seen him play GTA4, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance. Granted, there is a higher resolution, it only makes the motion blur, and blotchyness that much more noticeable. I also noticed a certain choppyness that comes along with a system pressing such a high resolution.

While the PS3 doesn't have this, the Xbox 360 has a built-in hardware scaler chip. So no matter the resolution you are playing your game in, the game is being rendered in a native resolution most likely of 720p. This doesn't make a game choppy either. When games have poor choppy framerates, that is the game developer's fault or choice to let that happen. It has little to do with the resolution. It has more to do with the game engine and just how well it performs. Many games run very smooth all or most of the time. You should bear in mind that in the N64 days we put up with some incredibly bad frame rates with games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. And if your arguement is against the importance of graphics how can you argue about the framerate of the graphics?

Honestly I think Archibaldo is probably correct in that your friend did not have his PS3 setup correctly. I believe your experience with the PS3 may have just been bad due to that. HD just plain can't be grainy and blurry at the same time. If it's grainy, then you are seeing pixels aren't you? But if it's blurring, then the detailing is blurred and you don't. Again, are you really sure TV and PS3 were running in a HD resolution? It shouldn't look bad.



I'd take the Wii's lower poly-count and resolution but steady frame rate and crispness over washed out blurry HD stuff any day of the week, buddy. IMO, Mario Galaxy looks better than Resistance, and GTA4. Have you seen that lava shine and glow?

Well the Wii doesn't have a "steady frame rate". That's dependent on the game being played. Games like Gears of War have a steady frame rate, high polygon count, high resolution (720p) and are crisply detailed with I believe 4xAA. I have not seen Mario Galaxy in person. But I respect if you prefer its art style over other games.



However, I will say objectively that GTS4 is not a top notch game graphically on either platform. Also, the 360, and PS3 handle things differently. The PS3 is washed-out and grainy, and the 360 is brighter, and a bit less grainy, and anything beats the massive load times that come from reading massive games on massive disks.

Well, the PS3 has the Blu-ray, but both 360 and Wii are DVD so I don't get it. Also the PS3 tends to require games be installed to the harddrive so load times are not that long then. And the disc being massive doesn't have anything to do with the load times. PS3's longer load times than Xbox 360 with disc access is because the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 has a lower transfer rate than the 16X DVD-ROM drive in the Xbox 360. Both drives are probably faster than what is in the Wii.



Even the PS2 had the worst load times out of the last generation. GCN had virtually no load times, and the X-Box didn't seem too intrusive either. Nintendo may make weaker hardware, but I think it is generally more efficient.


The GameCube probably had a faster DVD drive than the PS2, but I'm not sure. The GC also had smaller discs so in general you couldn't fit so much data to be loaded so developers may have had to be more efficant in general. I'm not sure though. Alot of Xbox games had some lengthy loading times. Really this depends on the game though.



So, until they truly make amazingly amazing smooth HD products, and make them cost less that $400, I'll gladly by them. This is more or less an experimental time for systems, I think. Fun Fact: Hideo Kojima cited the PS3 as technologically inefficient to truly realize his visions for MGS4.

I have good news, Xbox 360 is amazingly smooth and HD. It also already costs under 400$. This is not an experimental time anymore than any other generation.



So, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying cookie-cutter Sony fanboys are better?

I have to admit though, you have something so little Sony fanboys have: a reasonably valid point... some of the time.


Well you missed the mark as I'm not a Sony fanboy. You might have been more accurate calling me a Xbox fanboy as I actually own a 360. But I'm a fanboy of no system, I go where the games are.



Well anyway, I'm out since this is no longer on topic.

EDIT: I think CRTs are better for making things look soft. This is good in video games... Developer's try hard enough to make thing smooth and sexy. Now, you wanna take a super high resolution, and try to make things smooth? It' doesn't always work out.

CRTs do indeed have a natural blurring effect. This combined with shitty Composite video gives you a bit of a free anti-aliasing effect. However, I have a professional grade CRT monitor, that has RGB input. And everything looks very crisp and crystal clear on it. It's very nice. I would agree if you were saying that older game systems like PS2 and back look better on a quality standard definition CRT. But HD systems like PS3 and Xbox 360 really do look nice on a HD monitor.


Back to E3, I disagree with you rock_nog. I think Microsoft put on a strong showing. And I think Sony did decently enough showing that they are gaining some traction. Nintendo I don't think did much at all. But I suspect you'll see more from them around TGS.

[Revfan9]

And I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't flame anyone. You are aware that on a forum you don't all have to be cookie cutter Nintendo fanboys right?

...I'm probably going to get flammed/banned for saying this, but since when does having an opinion that conflicts with yours make you a "fanboy"?

[Warlock]

I cannot stand CRT anymore. Flatscreen just blows it away.

[AtmaWeapon]

Honestly Tobias_Daboi I like some of your points but it's hard to stand behind someone so inflammatory. You should probably help your poor friend out because I've seen 360s, Wiis, and PS3s set up properly and that's part of the reason why I'm trying to figure out where the $1k for a nice 1080whatever TV is going to come from. Blurry? Grainy? These are things I see at Office Depot where they have some craptastic machine running 1024x768 powering every LCD in the house, despite the fact that most of their native resolutions could just about fit 2 1024x768 images side-by-side. It's not Sony's fault your friend can't handle configuring his TV properly.

To further reinforce my point, I'll use more anecdotal evidence. There's this sweet pizza chain here that puts a TV in each booth, and the one we ate at Saturday had a 24" HDTV at each booth. I noticed that our picture was pretty grainy and looked kind of like someone was running the "stained glass" effect from photoshop on it. Funny thing is, everyone else in the place was watching HD shows with magnificent pictures. Should I blame HD, or assume I just got the TV with a crappy cable?

The only alternative explanation I can come up with is if you sit really close to a big screen it looks stupid; you can always see nastiness. The pizza place has a big 60" set up over the bar and it looks worse than SD from the bar but awesome from the other side of the restaurant. Odds are you're sitting too close and a 42" would have been a better choice for the room.

*edit* Also I noticed a lot of the cheap "HDTV" sets at Best Buy this weekend were 720p instead of 1080p or 1080i; it could be he decided to "save" some money and picked the wrong setting for his TV. Honestly I know practically nothing about how HD content works because I play Nintendo systems so it may have nothing to do with it.

[MottZilla]

...I'm probably going to get flammed/banned for saying this, but since when does having an opinion that conflicts with yours make you a "fanboy"?

What makes you think that's why I suggest anyone is a fanboy? And why do you assume I mean fanboy in a negative sense. Furthermore why would you get banned? You should realize is a gaming forum where you are encouraged to voice your opinion. But we don't all have to agree.

Atma, 720p and 1080i still look fantastic. They are both a huge improvement over 480i & 480p. One reason the PS3 may have looked shitty could have been if he had the system hooked up by Component or HDMI cable, but he didn't goto the system configuration and actually choose a resolution. By default it will assume 480i, which yes will be shitty.

[Anthus]

Well, hey, you have some good points. All in all, it comes down to preference. I'm getting ready to see Dark Knight, so I can't give you a full rebuttal just yet. I'm surprised no one told me to cite the Hideo Kojima thing.

I guess I don't have as much experience with a properly equipped HD system :/

Oh well.

At any rate, this was a rather unimpressive E3 for the most part, and I think we can all agree on that.

[AlexMax]

I guess I don't have as much exprience with a properly equipped HD system :/

If you've ever played a computer game at a higher resolution than 640x480, you've gotten a "HD" experience. I've got VGA cables for my 360, and whenever I feel like playing it I switch the input on my monitor from DVI to VGA, hook my speakers up, and play. Visually, it looks like what you would see on a year-old midrange gaming PC at maybe half the potential resolution.

More pixels is always a good thing.

[Cloral]

It's at least as powerful as the XBox 360 and it doubles as a high-definition DVD player. No other console can boast a combination of these two things. I feel like if they could get a solid stream of interesting games, they could really cause an upset. So far, that's not happening.

Sorry, I know this is a bit off-topic again and kinda late, but I have to set something straight. The PS3 is not the equal of the 360 in several key areas:

* The GPU on the PS3 is slower than the GPU on the 360. Remember when GTA came out and people realized that the 360 version ran at a higher resolution than the PS3? That's why.
* Both the 360 and the PS3 have the same amount of RAM. However, the PS3's system processes use a lot more ram than the ones on the 360, meaning you effectively have something like 40mb less memory on the PS3.

The fact of the matter is, every cross-platform game I have worked on runs much better on the 360 than the PS3. Yes, the PS3 has the cell processor and Blu-ray, but neither of these things make it a more capable gaming platform.

[AtmaWeapon]

Hahahaha Iwata apologized (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/23/iwata-sorry-for-nintendo-e3-briefing-wii-supplies-may-still-b/)!

[Beldaran]

Interesting. Personally, I do not believe "Nintendo is doing everything in its power" to put lots of consoles in the USA over the holiday. Nintendo is making a lot more money in Europe because of the falling value of the dollar. Every month that goes by, the USA Wii makes less and less money.

However, they should be patently embarrassed that for the third Christmas in a row, they could not make enough Wiis for everyone. Yes the Wii is popular, but it's not "so popular" that you couldn't make enough after three years. I smell the wafting aroma of bullshit.

[MottZilla]

How do you know Beldaran? Only Nintendo of Japan knows their situation with production. It may not be possible or reasonable to increase production further than it is at now. They can't just throw enough money at it so everyone can buy a Wii next Tuesday. It is silly that it's been 3 years, but that's the market's fault too. Too many people paying too much money for old technology.