Crysis is by the guys that did FarCry right? I gotta remember to keep an eye out for that.
About PS3, I'm certain the games will improve as time goes on. They haven't really had finalized systems to work with very long or probably much time in general to really get very good performance outta it. But ya, I really don't expect PS3 to be all that much better (if any) than the Xbox 360. It's really starting to look like Xbox 360's lead time hasn't back fired on them at all. Atleast not so far. I saw a couple titles I found impressive looking like Gears of War I believe it was called.
played racing car game on x-box 360 at a EB store and it just seems like crap compairing it to NFSMW on pc...
i also run NFSMW at the lowest res with most options nearly maxed.
Mottzilla wrote:They haven't really had finalized systems to work with very long or probably much time in general to really get very good performance outta it.
I was thinking the same thing with all the last-minute adjustments they've been doing. I played this Gundam game where the robots looked alright, but the terrain was the most boring brown desert canyon I have ever seen. And not one of the playable games took advantage of the gyro feature of the controller, as that was obviously sprung on everyone at the last minute.
Well it certainly sounds like Sony hasn't really gotten their shit together yet or until recently, so they'd explain the weak games. I imagine it's pretty hard to design a game for a system that doesn't exist quite yet. You don't truely know how well it will perform or how to optimize anything, generally how to get the most out of the system. Meanwhile Xbox 360 seems to be getting better, and Wii seems to be not far behind.
To think it'll be probably another 7 months before we really start to see how things will be taking shape.
You're all panicing. The new price tag for the PS3 may sound steep, but Sony already has a rock-solid plan in place to compensate. In exchange for the huge cost of their new console, the price of their stock will be bargain basement! 😛
And for those of you who think that the price is justifiable if the gaming experience delivers, that may be true to an extent, but you're forgetting all the talk Sony has done in recent months and years about the price of games going up. The initial hump of the PS3 purchase is not the end, my fellow gamers, unless you consider paying $70 for a game smooth sailing.
To add to that, the PS3 may be worth $600, but do I have $600, or even $500? No. Will it still be no in November? Probably so
Maybe the point i'm trying to make is that the price alone isn't why Sony could fail. They have to back that up with less than amazing games and hardware quality. And if anyone can do that, it's Sony! But look what happened last time.. Horrible hardware that was expensive beat out 3 other systems (DC, GC, Xbox). But you could look at why more closely, DC - Sega was already going under from past mistakes, GC - Retarded Company President possibly related to poor choices on GameCube, Xbox - MS was a noob, they were late to the party.
All this has changed now so perhaps Sony's only advantage is their big name and success in the last generation. Ofcourse since they aren't the only one with backwards compatibility this time that doesn't mean as much.
I can't wait to see what things look like on January 1st 2007.
I think that Nitnendo's strategy with not announcing release dates has to do with the Wii slipping out a few weeks before the PS3. If Nintendo can get the advertising right, and slip it into the Christmas market just at the right time, the PS3 will not sell well at all. Even MS' Peter Moore said the PS3 is going to get killed by the Wii. I agree with him.
I also saw a poll running on GameFAQs.
All three 6.37% 4213
PS3 and Wii 16.67% 11024
PS3 and 360 4.99% 3299
Wii and 360 13.49% 8922
Just a 360 5.08% 3361
Just a PS3 16.51% 10914
Just a Wii 28.64% 18936
None of them 8.24% 5447
TOTAL VOTES 66116
Note how after E3 impressions, more people are interested in a Wii than a PS3, also the number of XBOX360 owners who plan on getting a PS3.
SCE president Kutaragi has stated that the PS3 is "too cheap." He continued, "Is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."
Apparently he hasn't bothered to use his eyes and take note of how similar the PS3 and 360 look in terms of quality.
I don't really care much if the PS3 fails or not (I only have one game for the PS2, but that's only because the game came out only on that system). The only thing I really care about is whether it beats Nintendo's systems enough to make it go out of business. I've had years of joy from my GameCube (I've had it almost... 2 or 3 years, I think), and I'm actually tired of most people here saying that the Gamecube is terrible. I think the opposite of that, actually. And as long as Nintendo beats Sony, who obviously copies Nintendo's awesome ideas, I'm happy. $600 is really steep, even for Sony. I mean, what are they thinking?! That's crazy! With that price, I really hope they go out of business one day. But that's just me. Call me crazy, but I'll always be a Nintendo fanatic.
I think that the reason the GameCube has fared poorly has a lot to do with a stupid decision in design. The GameCube needed to be large enough to play a full-sized DVD. The GCN's discs are way too small. All of its games have a feeling of smaller scope as a result of this. The thing that angers me the most is WHY those discs are small. Someone in Nintendo has been pushing gimmicks as a substitute for content.
What is the first thing reviewers had to say about the GCN when it first hit the market?
"Wow! Look how small it is!!!!!!"
Nintendo made the retarded decision of gimping any game made for the system just so that they could elicit the demonstrated shock value on consumers.
Glenn the Great wrote:I think that the reason the GameCube has fared poorly has a lot to do with a stupid decision in design. The GameCube needed to be large enough to play a full-sized DVD. The GCN's discs are way too small. All of its games have a feeling of smaller scope as a result of this. The thing that angers me the most is WHY those discs are small. Someone in Nintendo has been pushing gimmicks as a substitute for content. What is the first thing reviewers had to say about the GCN when it first hit the market?
"Wow! Look how small it is!!!!!!"
Nintendo made the retarded decision of gimping any game made for the system just so that they could elicit the demonstrated shock value on consumers.
I'm not complaining about the size of the Gamecube's discs. I could care less about the suze. I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of something small (no pun intended there).
Glenn the Great wrote:The GameCube needed to be large enough to play a full-sized DVD. The GCN's discs are way too small. All of its games have a feeling of smaller scope as a result of this. The thing that angers me the most is WHY those discs are small. Someone in Nintendo has been pushing gimmicks as a substitute for content.
The disc size is not a gimmick - Nintendo used the small proprietary optical discs to prevent piracy, which is rampant on the PS2 and X-Box scene. However, the size of the console was most likely chosen because Japanese tend to favor small quiet machines. They don't want huge ones, hence one of the reasons X-Box has had trouble gaining acceptance in Japan.
pikaguy900 wrote:I'm not complaining about the size of the Gamecube's discs. I could care less about the suze. I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of something small (no pun intended there).
A bigger disk has a larger surface area to write data on. PS2 and XBox discs are capable of storing a tremendous amount more data than a GCN disc. Games on a larger disc have potential to be much larger content-wise.
Vegeta, what you tell me only serves to further my belief that Nintendo was retarded with the GCN. Nintendo blundered bigtime by drastically reducing game content in a (failed) attempt at stopping piracy. It was an extremely unwise move, and maybe if the discs were full-size, GCN would have been more successful, filling the loss caused by piracy.
I also think that the notion that Japanese gamers have a higher priority on system size over game quality is ridiculous. I'd construe that as an insult were I Japanese. The reason the X-Box didn't do so well in Japan was because it was an American console. Not because it was too big. The purported desire of the Japanese for a smaller console does not stand to justify the small disc size.
I never said size was the ONLY reason the X-Box failed in Japan. Being an American console was ALSO one of the (MANY) reasons.
Oh, and more content doesn't necessarily mean higher game quality.
Vegeta, contrary to what you believe, the GameCube discs are merely 8cm mini dvds. They are not special in any way. Modchips and piracy exist for GameCube despite anything you may have heard. Infact you don't even require a modchip for running DVD-Rs on GameCube.
Nintendo's decision to use 8cm discs was completely RETARDED. There was maybe, just maybe one benifit to the smaller disc which might be somewhat better disc access times. But nothing to warrant losing that much disc memory, esspecially since the discs were single layer rather than dual layer which was part of the original DVD disc standard.
So no, there is no defense what so ever about the 8cm mini DVDs gamecube uses. It's a cutesy gimmik and that is all there is to say. For absolutely no good reason GameCube suffered because of the lack of sufficant disc memory turning away even more 3rd party developers.
The GameCube had a lot more problems than disc size, i'll clue you...
The GC disc size was done to prevent piracy and decrease load times. And because of the size, I've also got this nice pouch that I can store the discs in and put in my pocket when I'm on the go!
The PS3 isn't worth the $600 for me. I don't think I'd pay that much for a Nintendo console.
Apparently, Gamecube is the first console that Nintendo has had a loss on
http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html
""We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you're right that it hasn't been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year.""
I prefer consoles over PCs. Minimal setup, turn the power on and go, play, have fun. No upgrading a new video card ever few years for the latest stuff, no system configuration hassles, installing, patching. That and I tend to like Japanese developed games, and prefer a controller to a keyboard and mouse.
Speaking of LAN and internet gaming, that's something they really underutilized on the GC, the broadband adapter and LAN multiplayer. F-Zero GX is just perfect for it!
Hey, I just want to add a small little observation I had today. I was at Gamestop, and I really tried out X-Box 360 for the first time. The thing I noticed was, the graphics were nice, and really cool things were happening, but honestly, I really didn't have much of a chance to admire them, and it all seemed rather pointless. Like, I can understand if you're using the added power to create a larger game world or something, but if you're just playing some racing game and the power is devoted to detail, either (a) you're not gonna be able to notice, or (b) you do notice and plow into the first obstacle in your path.
Just a thought I had... Doesn't directly relate, but it makes me wonder why we're bothering with a $500 game console which, overpowered as it may be, it just seems that the power is wasted on graphics. Not that I'm saying graphics don't matter, but in terms of making the games more fun, it's not something you always notice.
Well, whatever the reason was for using the mini DVDs, it hasn't prevented me from enjoying my Gamecube. Also, F-Zero GX is awesome.
While there is (was?) piracy on the Gamecube, I doubt it was as widespread as it was on the PS2 and XBox. Also, it really wasn't that costly to put games onto two discs if need be - I can think of four games that did that off the top of my head (Tales of Symphonia, Resident Evil 0, Resident Evil Code Veronica X, Enter The Matrix). Plus the load times were miniscule, so that was another plus.
I'm not saying the Gamecube didn't have flaws - a limited number of multi-console games were only released for the PS2 & XBox, leaving Gamecube owners feeling shafted, for example, or that 'games for kiddies' feel - but it was, and still is, a good console that I feel should have done a little better then it did. Hopefully the Wii will do much better and remind people that games shouldn't be about how flashy the graphics are, but about how much fun they should be.
Xbox really didn't have the lineup to be sucessful in Japan. About 80% of the titles were FPS or Sports. Both genres the Japanese dislike. And yeah, the fact that it was an American console hurt it too. And the price (coupled with the lineup) made it not really worth it for most over there (though it's funny that $400 is suddenly seeming rather cheap 😃)
Orion wrote:The GameCube had a lot more problems than disc size, i'll clue you...
Like a retarded architecture and less RAM than even the lowly PS2. Believe me, it was not fun to develop for the GCN.
I'd like to have the best of both worlds with cutting edge graphics as well as a high fun factor. I think the only way to realize this is for Nintendo to go the way of Sega and just focus on making games, letting other people like Sony take care of the hardware part of the equation.
Given the reaction to the Wii at E3, I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their hardware dept. If it were all up to Sony, again, we'd have to pay for at least $600 to play Mario Bros, Zelda, etc.
Mak-X wrote:The GC disc size was done to prevent piracy and decrease load times.
Load times yes, piracy, no. Piracy is just as popular as on either Xbox or PS2 when scaled to the ratio of how popular the actual systems are. Obviously less GC games are pirated because well, there are less games to pirate. FYI, you can pirate GC games with Phantasy Star Online and a BroadBand adapter, Action Replay, or ofcourse a modchip. That's 3 nice options. You burn them on regular DVD recordables, mini or fullsize. For full size you must replace the top cover piece of the GC with one suited for full size discs.
Cloral, what kind of retarded architecture are you refering to? I definitely can agree with the horrifying low amount of RAM. I also seem to recall the memory space being divided so that while there is 24MB of RAM it's not all the same. Seems very tedious and annoying esspecially when there is so little memory to go around.
Orion wrote:Given the reaction to the Wii at E3, I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their hardware dept.
Nintendo got good reaction at E3 because they showed off some innovation (I'll restrain from calling it gimmicks). It won't be long after the system is actually released that people will begin to realize for themselves the limitations of the Wii's hardware. People are going to be wishing their Wii games looked as good as what is on their friend's XBox 360. New playstyle innovation has had the effect of letting Nintendo's booth stick out like a sore thumb, thus drawing the crowds, but I think it will be interesting to see how long it's going to actually hold up when the thing is released. It may have been great fun for people at E3 to spend 30 minutes or so using their controller like a hula hoop or swinging a tennis racket, but are people really going to want to do that for hours on end in hardcore fashion?
No offense Glenn, but I find it odd that you have such strong opinions about consoles when you recently made it clear that you dislike them (in favor of PC games). Do you own any of the consoles we've been talking about?
Yeah, I have a GCN and a PS2. I played them for while but grew disinterested, and found myself spending more time with PC games. I can still have opinions on consoles since I've been using them the majority of my life. I just don't think they are living up to the PC anymore.
Mottzilla wrote:Cloral, what kind of retarded architecture are you refering to? I definitely can agree with the horrifying low amount of RAM. I also seem to recall the memory space being divided so that while there is 24MB of RAM it's not all the same. Seems very tedious and annoying esspecially when there is so little memory to go around.
I guess what I was mostly refering to was the low memory and disk space. I mean, they have a more powerful GPU in there than the PS2 has, but then they don't give you enough memory to load the graphics you'd want to display with it! The dev kits also don't have as much expanded development memory as the PS2 and XBox have, which makes debugging stuff harder. And of course the GCN controller has 4 fewer buttons than the other systems - which makes porting harder. Basically, all the little decisions they made across the system add up to make everything harder. And if you want developers to develop for your system, you really should make the development process as easy as possible. The truth of the matter is, after developing for the XBox/360, everything else feels clunky and unwieldy to develop for. Like them or not, MS has created a development suite that works really well.