Anyone else... underwhelmed?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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?

MottZilla wrote: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.

MottZilla wrote: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.

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.

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

Tobias_Daboi wrote: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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote:
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.

MottZilla wrote: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"?

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

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.

Revfan9 wrote:...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.

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.

Tobias_Daboi wrote: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.

AtmaWeapon wrote: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.

Hahahaha Iwata apologized!

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.

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.