The Playstation 3 discussion thread. [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : The Playstation 3 discussion thread.

Iguana
8 Aug 2006, 22:52
Since every next gen thread here turns into a console war, I thought of starting these. Only discuss the PS3 and its games, hardware and everything without comparing it to other consoles, therefore starting pointless flame wars over pieces of hardware that make bumfights seem smart.

vmanc
8 Aug 2006, 22:58
So. Anyone gonna be able to afford one of these? I sure as hell won't, unfortunately :(

Akuryou13
8 Aug 2006, 23:55
personally, I don't know hardly anything about this system, I've not really looked up anything about it since they put the price so friggin high.....well, that and the fact that it seems to me like it'll be another PS2 with better graphics kinda like the PS2 was a PS1 with better graphics. sure, it's got the gyro thing this time around, but come on...who thinks that'll get more than maybe 10 games that feature use for it? not I.

Xinos
9 Aug 2006, 01:07
Well, I am getting a PS3, but not instantly. I am going to lay back and wait for when the time is right. I am foolishly hoping for BlueRay to get popular and bring down the price of the PS3. I will probably give up hope after not too long.
That, and I'm saving money for upgrading my computer later on to a DX10 machine. My Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card is 4 years old now. Poor thing. Been really faithfull (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6154/screenshot4up7.jpg) though. *drifts off into flashbacks of good times together*
Anyway. Computer first, PS3 when I can afford it.

Pigbuster
9 Aug 2006, 05:46
I'm not sure if I'd ever be able to get it. I normally get consoles for Chistmas (Read: my parents buy them) but I know that I don't want to ask my parents to buy something that costs that much.
If the price goes down, maybe, but I'm not sure it's going to get down too much.
I'm sure they'll get some pretty good games, though. Question is, they'll be using Blu-Ray, and would that push the price up too high? I'm not thinking $100 like some people, but I hope they don't go above $60 max.
And I'm also hoping that that whole "protection" thing that encodes a game to your system so you can't borrow a game from a friend was dropped.

Akuryou13
9 Aug 2006, 05:55
And I'm also hoping that that whole "protection" thing that encodes a game to your system so you can't borrow a game from a friend was dropped.O_o that sounds more like someting M$ would do to make money....that is absurd!

Me!!!
9 Aug 2006, 09:29
I'm not getting it either...I *must* upgrade my computer thanks to that stupid Vista...soon none of the new games support ol' good WinXP just because MS wants money and didn't put DX10 support for XP.
Another reason is that the games for PS3 cost really much (70€ for each here in Finland). I wish they'd choose prices for games depending on how good they are. I'd gladly pay 70€ for a good game that lasts 30 hours and has good gameplay, but not for a game that lasts 7 hours and has crappy gameplay. :p
I've kind of "lost" my interest on Sony anyway...PS2 and PSP were alright but now they really messed up with PS3...it's a good console, sure, but why so high price tag for a console that is in all ways similiar to PS2 but has just prettier graphics?
And I'm also hoping that that whole "protection" thing that encodes a game to your system so you can't borrow a game from a friend was dropped.
Agreed, if they drop it, I might even buy PS3.

vmanc
9 Aug 2006, 10:23
I wish they'd choose prices for games depending on how good they are.
That would never work, since everyone thinks different games are good.

Iguana
9 Aug 2006, 10:32
Also, why would anyone want to market something as a "bad" game?

SuperBlob
9 Aug 2006, 10:49
For me it would probably turn out to be a waste of money, as I can only think of one game that I'd like so far, and it'll probably come out on PC a few months after. (Yes, GTA)

KRD
9 Aug 2006, 10:52
I'd gladly pay 70€ for a good game that lasts 30 hours and has good gameplay, but not for a game that lasts 7 hours and has crappy gameplay.
Then by God vote with your wallet. Only buy the 30-hour-good-gameplay games and either don't touch the crappy ones at all or return them after you see through the shiny graphics and realise they're donkey poop.
Alternatively, you could start reading a non-corrupted computer magazine that does the seperation for you.

Me!!!
9 Aug 2006, 12:42
No, I've never bought any crappy games for 70€, I was just wondering why they don't reduce the prices if the game doesn't get any good reviews or something.

Plasma
9 Aug 2006, 12:43
Myself, I wont be getting a PS3, or any console for that matter. Instead, I ordered myself a €1,000 Dell laptop. (yes, with my own money)
I wish they'd choose prices for games depending on how good they are.
I bought Mashed for €5, because it was about half a year old and was also a best seller. I wouldn't like to have paid €50 for it.
O_o that sounds more like someting M$ would do to make money....that is absurd!
Microsoft never did that.
In fact, the only time I ever remember seeing something like that was by Steam.

SuperBlob
9 Aug 2006, 12:59
In fact, the only time I ever remember seeing something like that was by Steam.
Didn't quite work though, as I just use me friends username/password :p

Akuryou13
9 Aug 2006, 14:57
Microsoft never did that.didn't say they did, just that it sounds like something they would do :p

Pigbuster
9 Aug 2006, 17:15
The prices for games DO change depending on how popular it is.
If it's a new, first-party game, it's probably going to be full price. ($50)
Less known games sell for less on release. ($40)

SupSuper
9 Aug 2006, 23:50
And unpopular games quickly hit the bargain bin, where you can buy them for $20 or less.

Pigbuster
10 Aug 2006, 00:16
Or REALLY popular games, which become greatest hits and go down to $20.
I love that... so much.

Xinos
10 Aug 2006, 01:35
Agreed, if they drop it, I might even buy PS3.
I'm pretty sure that was only a bogus rumor..

AndrewTaylor
10 Aug 2006, 10:16
I'm pretty sure that was only a bogus rumor..
I'm pretty sure US law forbids it. You aren't allowed to stop people reselling a game/book/video/CD. I think Steam is alright, as you haven't actually bought a physical object then. If you do buy a Steam game on CD/DVD I expect you probably can pass it on somehow, but I don't know.

MtlAngelus
10 Aug 2006, 10:47
They should work like cellphones, like just deactivate the game on the account so it can be activated in another account.

Xinos
10 Aug 2006, 11:43
Well, I suppose you could sell your Steam account..

Akuryou13
10 Aug 2006, 14:28
Well, I suppose you could sell your Steam account..exactly. you can always sell it off to someone else. keep in mind that the companies just want to make sure you're paying for the use of it. if you know someone with a steam account or other such things you can play said games on any computer as long as you know the account and pass.
now, that thing about stopping anyone else on any other system other than your own from playing the game after you play it on your system is just ridiculous. I mean, what happens if your console breaks? there's no way it'll stay like that.

AndrewTaylor
10 Aug 2006, 19:01
I mean, what happens if your console breaks?
...which, if Sony's previous consoles are anything to go by, it inevitably will.
Well, I suppose you could sell your Steam account..
That won't work. You might have more than one game on that account.

BuffaloKid
10 Aug 2006, 22:10
...which, if Sony's previous consoles are anything to go by, it inevitably will.
My original playstation never broke.

wormies
10 Aug 2006, 22:26
My original playstation never broke.
yeah, they're consoles are really good if you know how to take care of em.
my PSone is still alive! :D
although since it's from a different country, i can only play it in black and white in canada, cuz of the voltage or something....
anyway my fat PS2 fell off my table :p and now it can't play discs that have the blue stuff, not the regular discs....like worms forst for example.
So i got a new Slim PS2 with a network adapter and I can play battlefield modern combat online! :D and it's freeeeeee!
and i'm not planning on buying a PS3...

vmanc
10 Aug 2006, 22:35
Pah! My PSP broke the day I got it....
... and then again a week later.

wormies
10 Aug 2006, 23:31
Pah! My PSP broke the day I got it....
... and then again a week later.
how exactly did it brake?

Plasma
10 Aug 2006, 23:40
how exactly did it brake?
Considering that a PSP has no wheels, that's a good question.

Johnnynet
11 Aug 2006, 00:03
[Begins rant] Sony is a Sell-out I mean come on Using the movable control from Wii? How low can you get!!!! and plus those graphics? HA let me not get started with those graphics XBox 360 Has AMAZING HIGH DEF Graphics, DEAD OR ALIVE 4 ANYONE?!?!?!?!?!?!? stupid PS3 with their 16-bit graphics I Swear N64 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS!!! (im just kidding about that) [/ends rant]
Thats what i gotta say =p

Star Worms
11 Aug 2006, 01:11
Around 1% of all PSPs are faulty anyway. Can't remember where the information was from but apparently on average you'd just have to buy 116 of them to find a fault one. Doesn't really say much for Sony does it?

Pigbuster
11 Aug 2006, 03:58
[Begins rant] Sony is a Sell-out I mean come on Using the movable control from Wii? How low can you get!!!! and plus those graphics? HA let me not get started with those graphics XBox 360 Has AMAZING HIGH DEF Graphics, DEAD OR ALIVE 4 ANYONE?!?!?!?!?!?!? stupid PS3 with their 16-bit graphics I Swear N64 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS!!! (im just kidding about that) [/ends rant]
Thats what i gotta say =p
The graphics may both be good, but, and I'm talking out of my bass-fisherman here, but I think that it's more powerful. ie, able to have more things doing more complex code at the same time.
My original playstation never broke.
What version was it?
Sony systems tend to have a plentora of problems on initial launch. Though I'm sure you could get lucky and get one without any defaults.

AndrewTaylor
11 Aug 2006, 09:33
yeah, they're consoles are really good if you know how to take care of em.
my PSone is still alive! :D
Well, yes, but should you really have to take that good care of something like that? Seriously, if I'm paying hundreds of pounds for somewthing I expect it to be pretty well built, and that means it should survive the odd bump or fall. Particularly the portable model.

BuffaloKid
11 Aug 2006, 11:41
What version was it?
Original 1995 Sony PAL format Playstation.

Akuryou13
11 Aug 2006, 14:28
yeah, they're consoles are really good if you know how to take care of em.
my PSone is still alive! :D that's kinda the point. you have to take care of them. I've heard stories from friends who've dropped their gameboys out of hotel windows and went to the ground to pick it up and find it still working (though banged up) or others who accidentally (don't ask how you accidentally do this, I never figured it out) run over their gameboys in their driveways and it still work.
if you bump a PS2 and it falls 2 feet the thing breaks in some way shape or form. it's hardly well built, and it's a rather commonly known fact. hell, the slim ones are known to break if you open and close them without having a prayer shrine and the written consent of 4 dieties of good alignment (trust me, I worked at EB games when the slim PS2s came out, I heard all the complaints and some of the stories were just ridiculous to think that it would break from such a small thing).
and johnnynet, arguing like that makes you look worse than it makes your point look good. where as I agree with some of your points, making your statements like that just completely void out any and all point you may have had. and for the record, the playstations have never been known for good graphics, so you can't really expect any more than you've gotten from the last two (despite the amount of power present in the PS2 and 3). I think sony wants to make the games run smoother rather than look smoother, and I don't know about you, but I think I'd prefer the same.

Johnnynet
11 Aug 2006, 14:34
on another note my original grey PS never broke but boy do those cd's get scratched up easily....

Akuryou13
11 Aug 2006, 15:00
on another note my original grey PS never broke but boy do those cd's get scratched up easily....D_Skins FTW!!

Johnnynet
11 Aug 2006, 15:11
Don't think they had those back in 96

Akuryou13
11 Aug 2006, 15:21
Don't think they had those back in 96probably not, but you should master time travel already and give yourself some.

wormies
11 Aug 2006, 16:38
hah, yeah, looks like you could just take that slim PS2 and snap it in half :p
but about my big fat PS2 falling off the table, that was the 5th time, you see when my brother play versus me and he loses he gets all ****ed off, usually he hits me but on that ocasion he pulled the crap out of the controller which for some reason didn't unplug and took the whole PS2 down...that happened several times, and it only broke on the 5th time. and about my PSone, i also have a Pal which had some chip installed so i can play Ntcs u/c games on it, so on they sell them cheap at a certain place......
oh yeah my gameboy advance fell like 500 billion times and it works like it's new! :D also my MP3 player, it fell and I stepped on it, but now sometimes when i'm browsing through my songs it mixes them up...

wigwam the
12 Aug 2006, 09:47
[Begins rant] Sony is a Sell-out I mean come on Using the movable control from Wii? How low can you get!!!! and plus those graphics? HA let me not get started with those graphics XBox 360 Has AMAZING HIGH DEF Graphics, DEAD OR ALIVE 4 ANYONE?!?!?!?!?!?!? stupid PS3 with their 16-bit graphics I Swear N64 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS!!! (im just kidding about that) [/ends rant]
Thats what i gotta say =p
console wars are pointless. I mean, does it matter what console you have? they're mostly the same anyway.

Slick
12 Aug 2006, 10:58
I say that NOONE in the whole WORLD buys a PS3. Then when sony gets scared, they lower the price...and then everyone buys one. Thus buying it for cheaper and screwing sony. :(

SuperBlob
12 Aug 2006, 10:59
console wars are pointless. I mean, does it matter what console you have? they're mostly the same anyway.
...that is the most sensible comment I've read for a long time

Akuryou13
12 Aug 2006, 13:32
console wars are pointless. I mean, does it matter what console you have? they're mostly the same anyway.this is very true with the exception of teh wii this time around....although even then your point still holds a lot of weight. I think the console wars are mostly based on the companies rather than teh consoles. yes, large parts are based on the consoles themselves, but the thin that effects console wars teh most are teh actions of the developers rather than teh merits of the system itsself.

philby4000
12 Aug 2006, 15:21
I'm planning to buy a Wii and then a PS3 when the price drops to something reasonable.
As much as Sony seem to be sabotaging their chances this time around I'll still want to play ratchet and clank 5 and the like.
Whatever hapens in the upcoming format wars I'm going to end up with a redundant HD-DVD player or Blue-ray player.:p

Pigbuster
13 Aug 2006, 06:35
console wars are pointless. I mean, does it matter what console you have? they're mostly the same anyway.
I dunno. They seem to be rather different this time around.
Wii has the innovation for it and PS3 has the whole entire-home-entertainment-center thing.
That said, flame wars are stupid no matter what the subject is.

Paul.Power
13 Aug 2006, 14:13
As much as Sony seem to be sabotaging their chances this time around I'll still want to play ratchet and clank 5 and the like.pShame that's a Sony exclusive. I've played the original on a friend's PS2 and it's awesome.

philby4000
13 Aug 2006, 15:52
The second game is even beter, with added RPG elements.The third game is pointless if you can't play online and I'm not sure what they were thinking when they made Ratchet: Deadlocked.
Still, from what I've seen so far (a brief teaser of a city enviroment), it looks as if the 5th game will be a step in the right direction.

The_Reapr
20 Aug 2006, 03:30
I won't be getting a PS3. After all, they have lost the short-term-exclusivity deal of (arguably) their biggest franchise (I refer of course to the GTA), and the only one left that I'm particularly interested in is Final Fantasy (And Metal Gear Solid, I suppose, but they repackage it anyway). No idea what I'm going to do about that, but here's hoping Square Enix resume producing the games for the PC, too.
I'll be picking up a Wii instead, to go along with my 360. I personally feel I have the best of both worlds there. In all honesty, I think Sony have well and truly priced themselves out of the market this time.

Xinos
20 Aug 2006, 10:05
Wow, what a great anti-ps3 argument you guys have.
"You might break it". Damn, I gotta avoid getting one now!

AndrewTaylor
20 Aug 2006, 12:02
Wow, what a great anti-ps3 argument you guys have.
"You might break it". Damn, I gotta avoid getting one now!
It's a perfectly good argument. PlayStation products are historically flimsy -- I knew people who got through three PlayStations before the PS2 was announced, and the PSP was all too often broken before you even opened the box. That's no good. A PS3 is expensive as it is; if there's a decent chance you'll have to buy three of them that's a gamble that just isn't worth taking to a lot of people. Not when there are two far sturdier machines available taht do the same job (often better).

MtlAngelus
20 Aug 2006, 12:14
Surely if it comes broken it's under warranty?
About fearing it will break, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm confident I can take care of it enough to avoid it being damaged no matter how fragile it might be. My NES never fell, my SNES never fell, my computer never fell, my guitars have never fell(well just the acoustic, but it's so crappy it might have been intentional), etc. I've also never kicked any of them, or put them trough anything that could have damaged them.

UnKnown X
20 Aug 2006, 12:18
The PS3's price tag is the only thing that drags it down, if you ask me. Had they not gone overboard with the technology in there, I'd be perfectly willing to buy one. They could easily lower most of the numbers and still have it more powerful than the 360.
I'll wait for their third mass production (somewhere around March 2007) before I consider whether or not to the price has dropped enough for me to buy it.
this is very true with the exception of teh wii this time around....although even then your point still holds a lot of weight. I think the console wars are mostly based on the companies rather than teh consoles. yes, large parts are based on the consoles themselves, but the thin that effects console wars teh most are teh actions of the developers rather than teh merits of the system itsself.
Might want to work on your spelling of the word "the" there... :p

AndrewTaylor
20 Aug 2006, 12:39
Surely if it comes broken it's under warranty?
Well yes, but it's hardly encouraging either, is it?

Akuryou13
20 Aug 2006, 13:59
Might want to work on your spelling of the word "the" there... :pbut teh word teh SCREAMS to be spelled inccorectly!
or in reality, I just didn't bother backspacing before posting like I normally do. my fingers disagree about who wants to hit the letters in 'the' first.

Pigbuster
21 Aug 2006, 01:37
The PS3's price tag is the only thing that drags it down, if you ask me. Had they not gone overboard with the technology in there, I'd be perfectly willing to buy one. They could easily lower most of the numbers and still have it more powerful than the 360.
I'll wait for their third mass production (somewhere around March 2007) before I consider whether or not to the price has dropped enough for me to buy it.
Might want to work on your spelling of the word "the" there... :p
I think that they are set on popularizing blu-ray, and so, it has to be expensive.
I'm not entirely sure if the games are blu-ray, but I think they are. Whether they HAVE to be blu-ray I don't know.
Nevertheless, I think Sony has screwed themselves over. The only commercial I've seen so far for a blu-ray disc movie is RV, and the format has been available for months.
And I really doubt people other than the tech junkies are willing to buy the equipment for it. I think BR might go the way of the UMD.
But I guess it's too early to predict these things.
And about the breaking-Sony-products thing, I heard that Nintendo was willing to give anyone who had a dead-pixel DS a replacement (I had one, but I didn't bother to ask them), while Sony pretty much ignored them.
No idea if that's true or not.

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2006, 02:51
And about the breaking-Sony-products thing, I heard that Nintendo was willing to give anyone who had a dead-pixel DS a replacement (I had one, but I didn't bother to ask them), while Sony pretty much ignored them.
No idea if that's true or not.oh? I've not heard that one before. maybe I should suggest that to my fiancee since her's has a dead pixel right in the middle of the friggin screen.

SupSuper
21 Aug 2006, 03:14
What's a dead pixel anyways? I never quite got that.

Iguana
21 Aug 2006, 04:19
What's a dead pixel anyways? I never quite got that.
Just what it sounds like: One or more pixels of a certain color stuck across the screen. It's more annoying than it sounds.

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2006, 13:21
What's a dead pixel anyways? I never quite got that. basically, it's a single pixel in the middle of your screen that remains the same color no matter what you're looking at in the game. such as on my fiancee's DS, there's a little white dot directly in the center of the top screen, so that if you look at the screen for any reason there's a REALLY noticable spot in the middle that's always white...

Xinos
21 Aug 2006, 15:00
It's a perfectly good argument. PlayStation products are historically flimsy -- I knew people who got through three PlayStations before the PS2 was announced, and the PSP was all too often broken before you even opened the box. That's no good. A PS3 is expensive as it is; if there's a decent chance you'll have to buy three of them that's a gamble that just isn't worth taking to a lot of people. Not when there are two far sturdier machines available taht do the same job (often better).
Wow, you sure know allot. Can we please have some sources or proof that Sony's consoles break more often than Nintendo, Microsoft or Sega consoles?
I've seen plenty of DS's screens turn dull and dark. I even had mine replaced when I started getting white scanlines over my two screens. A friend of mine bought some DS's for classmates when he wen't to Japan, before the colors where available here. One of them had a crappy screen from start. Luckilly the PSP is more robust.. I mean, dual screens spell doom. And didn't many new DS lite machines have cracks in the hinges? Nintendo 64 game controllers all have their analog sticks get very uncontrollable after a while, proven unstable and timeconsuming to aim or move accurately. And my GameCube had so much dust fall into the spaces between the buttons that the Open button kept the lid from being shuttable and the reset button got stuck. Nothing like that has happened to my PS2 yet, since it's buttons are small and don't move.

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2006, 15:32
Wow, you sure know allot. Can we please have some sources or proof that Sony's consoles break more often than Nintendo, Microsoft or Sega consoles?
I've seen plenty of DS's screens turn dull and dark. I even had mine replaced when I started getting white scanlines over my two screens. A friend of mine bought some DS's for classmates when he wen't to Japan, before the colors where available here. One of them had a crappy screen from start. Luckilly the PSP is more robust.. I mean, dual screens spell doom. And didn't many new DS lite machines have cracks in the hinges? Nintendo 64 game controllers all have their analog sticks get very uncontrollable after a while, proven unstable and timeconsuming to aim or move accurately. And my GameCube had so much dust fall into the spaces between the buttons that the Open button kept the lid from being shuttable and the reset button got stuck. Nothing like that has happened to my PS2 yet, since it's buttons are small and don't move.there's no proof, it's just commonly known that nintendo products can take abuse ridiculously well (10,000 lbs of force on the wiimote, anyone?). nintendo products still break and that's not denied, it's just that they handle abuse much better than other brands for whatever reason.
btw, the playstation didn't have joysticks when the N64 did. the N64 was sort of the joystick beta test of sorts, and after that systems problems the technique was perfected.
never heard of anyone having dust fall into their GCs like you seem to have had happen, but as I said, nintendo is known for handelling abuse, not being infallable :p

AndrewTaylor
21 Aug 2006, 15:37
Wow, you sure know allot. Can we please have some sources or proof that Sony's consoles break more often than Nintendo, Microsoft or Sega consoles?
No. It's unreasonable to expect me to cite sources as if I'm writing a scientific paper. It's a forum post. If you want to prove it either way, do so yourself. My expeience, both first and second hand, is that Nintendo products are, in the main, nigh-on invincible, and Sony's are less sturdy.
it's buttons are small and don't move.
I'm impressed that you managed to work that around into an advantage.

Splapp
21 Aug 2006, 15:48
Nintendo handhelds always feel light and poorly made to me. The PSP however feels like a right hefty beeftub of strength. The reason you can chuck a DS/GBA at a concrete slab with it still working is probably due to the fact that there's barely anything to break internally compared with a PSP. The PSP has a plethora of gubbins and moving parts crammed into a small space. And an analogue nipple. So it's easy to see why there's more chance of something getting damaged.
And while i'm here, my GBA has a huge gash on the screen caused by my watch. :( My PSP however, doesn't. :)

Iguana
21 Aug 2006, 16:41
Nintendo handhelds always feel light and poorly made to me. The PSP however feels like a right hefty beeftub of strength. The reason you can chuck a DS/GBA at a concrete slab with it still working is probably due to the fact that there's barely anything to break internally compared with a PSP. The PSP has a plethora of gubbins and moving parts crammed into a small space. And an analogue nipple. So it's easy to see why there's more chance of something getting damaged.
And while i'm here, my GBA has a huge gash on the screen caused by my watch. :( My PSP however, doesn't. :)
Still doesn't excuse the crappy design of the very first ones. :p The current ones are fine though, apparently. Plus, I don't see how being "light" is bad in any way. It's a portable system, isn't it supposed to be light? How does lightness and better resistance make a portable "poorly made"? Though I agree that the first DS didn't look that good, it had a nice design and definetely worked. Plus, it would be nice to keep console comparisons to other threads. :p

AndrewTaylor
21 Aug 2006, 21:32
The reason you can chuck a DS/GBA at a concrete slab with it still working is probably due to the fact that there's barely anything to break internally compared with a PSP. The PSP has a plethora of gubbins and moving parts crammed into a small space.
Exactly correct. Moving parts are bad. They're slow and fragile and wear out. They're not an excuse; they are themselves the problem.

Pigbuster
22 Aug 2006, 03:31
Being lighter, stronger and having fewer moving parts is a GOOD thing, really.
After all, the computers of today are a lot smaller and they're still better than the first couple computers that were as large as shipping crates.
Though the PSP is more technologically advanced than the DS...
My analogy still STANDS, though.

Paul.Power
23 Aug 2006, 18:28
The GBA does have one advantage over the DS, mind: the shoulder buttons are a bit more ergonomically designed and feel sturdier.
Well, and it can play GB and GBC games. But then it can't play DS games, so hey...

UnKnown X
24 Aug 2006, 06:24
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=667429&page=1&pp=15
Several of those rumours were confirmed a few days after he posted that, so I'm fairly sure he got to try the PS3 and interview people, as he implies, and is not just speculating.

Pigbuster
24 Aug 2006, 07:00
Well, he's probably biased (he even says so), but that doesn't mean that he's lying about any of that. More fanboys should be like this...
The PS3 sounds a fair bit better than it was.
But I'm waiting on info about that No-share thing, even though I'm not even sure if that's true or just a Nintendo fanboy rumor.
I'm still not going to get one, though. And I remain unconvinced that Blu-ray will become the HD standard.

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2006, 07:09
Blue-Ray is cooler, I mean, it's blue!
hd-dvd soounds like, boring.
I most certainly want a PS3.

Pigbuster
24 Aug 2006, 08:08
I do like it's blue-ness, but I'm not so sure that many people would be willing to pay that much ($1000) for a BR player.
I just doubt that it'll sell as well as people say it will (The "BR has won the war already" people). Though I think that Sony is going to try as hard as they can. They REEEEAALLY want to win the format war, because then they'd dominate the movie market.
Also, the blu-ray laser lens apparently has to be really close to the BD, like, bump-a-bit-and-you-get-a-scratch close.

Iguana
24 Aug 2006, 08:55
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=667429&page=1&pp=15
Several of those rumours were confirmed a few days after he posted that, so I'm fairly sure he got to try the PS3 and interview people, as he implies, and is not just speculating.
I like the PS3, I'm looking forward to the PS3, and I plan on buying a PS3.
But the complete lack of objectivity in the OP makes him just sound like a douche, even to a Sony fanboy like myself. I mean - you go to a press conference held by Sony, dedicated to nothing but Sony products, with no other presenters except Sony. Sony tells you a whole bunch of stuff about how great their products are, how great they have been, and how great they're going to be then you come back here and basically just spout off what you heard Sony tell you with basically just a few "ube****ingleivable"s thrown in. It just makes you sound like a marketing puppet with a broken volume control.
Here's a challenge - how about trying to say something negative about Sony? How about something positive about the 360? I'm not sure what your goals in life are, but if you're going to press conferences like these I'm guessing they have something to do with reporting and the gaming industry. If that's true then you really need to work on your objectivity. Fact is people aren't going to give what you say much credit if you're just a loudspeaker for a company's PR department.
That pretty much sums that forum post up. The completely unfounded claims of PSP outselling DS also amused me. So it's sort of hard to trust some random guy as opposed to all well known gaming critics. But still, there's some interesting info here and there.

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2006, 09:51
I agree that the only things that can be salvegeable from the post are the bits of info, and that's really all I care for. I don't let myself influence by reports like "It's outsold the competition" or "This format is going to win the format war", but I like things like " Resistance has fully simulated sound waves" and "BD holds a lot more data".
And some other report that may or may not be fake, but will still be proven true or false before the console comes out, like " Seriously, [graphics on Heavinly Sword] will blow your mother****ing mind". :p

wormthingy
24 Aug 2006, 10:26
that's kinda the point. you have to take care of them. I've heard stories from friends who've dropped their gameboys out of hotel windows and went to the ground to pick it up and find it still working (though banged up) or others who accidentally (don't ask how you accidentally do this, I never figured it out) run over their gameboys in their driveways and it still work.
if you bump a PS2 and it falls 2 feet the thing breaks in some way shape or form. it's hardly well built, and it's a rather commonly known fact. hell, the slim ones are known to break if you open and close them without having a prayer shrine and the written consent of 4 dieties of good alignment (trust me, I worked at EB games when the slim PS2s came out, I heard all the complaints and some of the stories were just ridiculous to think that it would break from such a small thing).
gameboy = handheld that is upposed to handle scratches since a lot of kids play on em and drop em 10 times a day
ps2 = a console thats supposed to be lying on the floor or on a shelf.. not for little kiddos that drop 10 times a day

Paul.Power
24 Aug 2006, 11:02
"Seriously, [graphics on Heavinly Sword] will blow your mother****ing mind". :pBut if I want a game with good graphics I can go outside and play Rounders...
And Rounders doesn't blow my motherblankblankblankblanking mind, so why should Heavenly Sword?

AndrewTaylor
24 Aug 2006, 13:06
ps2 = a console thats supposed to be lying on the floor or on a shelf.. not for little kiddos that drop 10 times a day
Be that as it may, a decent bit of hardwareought to be able to withstand being dropped once or twice, because it is going to happen to most of them at some stage. Say, while moving them or rearranging a shelf. Or maybe something will be dropped onto it. Or someone might trip over a wire and pull if off the shelf. These things do happen, and if you're paying hundreds of pounds for something you can reasonably expect it to withstand them.

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2006, 18:52
But if I want a game with good graphics I can go outside and play Rounders...
And Rounders doesn't blow my motherblankblankblankblanking mind, so why should Heavenly Sword?
Do you get around to killing stuff in rounders? With swords and stuff?
Proably not your thing, but most definitely mine :p

AndrewTaylor
24 Aug 2006, 19:02
Do you get around to killing stuff in rounders? With swords and stuff?
Proably not your thing, but most definitely mine :p
The point is, I think, that real life looks exactly like real life and doesn't cause people's motherstarring mind to explode (in most cases), so logically something that looks slightly less like real life ought have less effect.
Personally, I suspect we're soon going to hit what I call the Shrek Peak -- where graphics are literally as good as they can be. If they looked absolutely real, that would probably be somehow less impressive than if they looked a little off. There's a similar effect in AI -- if you make a computer too human seeming people start distrusting it, but if it's too artificial people don't like it. I reckon there'll be a similar point, just short of photorealism, that people will be most comfortable with and most impressed by.
(I call it the Shrek Peak because apparently the female lead in Shrek had to be made less realistic because it looked ridiculous otherwise. And yes, I mean the human version of her.)
Edit: Mind you, the PS3 isn't going to hit it. Not by a long way.

farazparsa
24 Aug 2006, 19:26
Hehehe, the non-human version of Fiona was fat and ugly. :p

Paul.Power
24 Aug 2006, 23:25
Hehehe, the non-human version of Fiona was fat and ugly. :pThank you for your considered opinion on the subject, Derek.
(Pot calling the kettle black, I know, but at least I give a considered opinion, even if it isn't actually on the subject)
Do you get around to killing stuff in rounders? With swords and stuff?
Proably not your thing, but most definitely mine No, but there's a flaw in my hitting technique (i.e., if I try anything more complex than a dead-bat block and scamper to first base) which means that sometimes I throw the bat straight at my teammates who are waiting in line to bat, which can have painful results. And I'm a very competitive pitcher (well, by the standards of the Random Sports bunch, anyway).

Akuryou13
25 Aug 2006, 01:50
interesting info on that thread. I had discounted the BR discs for useless, but if they get the games to bump up graphics they may be something interesting after all. granted, from what I've seen the main point of the PS3 is power over gameplay, and as such it's not my thing, but at least the system seems to be more than merely a PS2 with better graphics (well, it still is just that, but the graphics are likely a good portion better enough to make it interesting).
granted, I still think it's WAY too expensive, but maybe after the price drops it'll be worth it to the type of gamer who wants visually stunning graphics.....personally, I have a computer for that.

Pigbuster
25 Aug 2006, 04:21
Well, power can give some pretty great gameplay options, such as an entire city of independently intelligent citizens going about their own virtual lives. Power is good.
And I do think that BD will be great for data, such as for computers and games.
Movies? That might be difficult, as HD-DVDs have the movie and all of the features. It doesn't need all of the Blu-ray space.
About the good graphics thing, in real life you don't see dragons or giant glowing balls of energy or any of the tons of things that you can see in video games. Good graphics allows a game to show cool things realistically, that you wouldn't see in real life. I doubt good graphics would get boring like some of you are saying, that would need the game to be about nothing more than real life, which isn't all that exciting (By comparison to video games. Real Life is actually exciting if people make it so).

Paul.Power
25 Aug 2006, 08:52
About the good graphics thing, in real life you don't see dragons or giant glowing balls of energy or any of the tons of things that you can see in video games...
True, I appreciate that this is a flaw in my argument (Although you do see giant glowing balls of energy. They're called stars...).
However, I still refuse to believe that any level of graphical complexity could be mindblowing, by argument that my mind isn't blown when I look out the window (some might argue that this is a fault, but there y'go).
Well, power can give some pretty great gameplay options, such as an entire city of independently intelligent citizens going about their own virtual lives. Power is good.Fair do's, although most games like that play better on PC anyway, because they typically require mouse control.

wormthingy
25 Aug 2006, 11:20
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_vs_hddvd_comparison
and What benefits does Blu-ray offer compared to HD-DVD?
Although both Blu-ray and HD-DVD are similar in many aspects, there are some important differences between them.
The first is capacity. Because Blu-ray utilizes a lens with a greater numerical aperture (NA) than HD-DVD, the laser spot can be focused with greater precision to fit more data on the same size disc. This allows Blu-ray to hold 25GB per layer (50GB on a dual-layer disc), whereas HD-DVD can only hold 15GB per layer (30GB on a dual-layer disc). Blu-ray has also adopted a higher data transfer rate for video and audio (54Mbps vs 36.55Mbps). The greater capacity and data transfer rates for Blu-ray will allow the movie studios to release their movies with higher quality video and audio than the HD-DVD format.
The second is content. The Blu-ray format has received broad support from the major movie studios as a successor to today's DVD format. Seven of the eight major movie studios (Warner, Paramount, Fox, Disney, Sony, MGM and Lionsgate) have already announced titles for Blu-ray, whereas HD-DVD only has support from three major movie studios (Warner, Paramount and Universal). This is an important difference because some of the studios might only support one of the formats, so you won't be able to get your favorite movies in the other format. Choosing the format with the most content support minimizes this risk.
The third is hardware support. The Blu-ray format has broad support from the world's leading consumer electronics, personal computer and media manufacturers, including Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Pioneer, Sharp, JVC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, TDK, Thomson, LG, Apple, HP and Dell. The Blu-ray format will also be supported in the next-generation PlayStation 3 (PS3) video game console. This means that you will have a lot of choice when it comes to players and hardware. The HD-DVD format has far less supporters, so the amount of players and hardware will be very limited. So far, Toshiba is the only company to officially announce a HD-DVD player and it will only support 1080i output, while the announced Blu-ray players will support 1080p.
and
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/bluray-has-already-won-023974.php
Panasonic announced back in March of this year that production of Blu-Ray discs could have the same cost-per-disc price as current DVDs. Perhaps lower, even - remember that announcement about Blu-Ray discs made of paper from earlier this year? "The combination of paper material and printing technology is also expected to lead to a reduction in cost per disc and will expand usage,"
so, i'd say "yay for BR.. HD-DVD no wai

Akuryou13
25 Aug 2006, 13:30
Well, power can give some pretty great gameplay options, such as an entire city of independently intelligent citizens going about their own virtual lives. Power is good.this is true, I guess. though I still don't like the PS3 for various reasons at least they've given it enough power to make it interesting, rather than just making it a good bit more powerful and not adding much anywhere else.
edit: and as far as paul's argument on real life not being as interesting as far as visuals are concerned and that as such video games will never be perfectly realistic, I'd like to point out games like F.E.A.R. for an example. the game wouldn't be nearly as interesting if the lighting was realistic. sure, we have the capability, but the game works better with huge contrasts rather than realism. the same will go for any and all other games. the lighting, at least, will remain unrealistic because it's more interesting and pretty that way. sure, we COULD make games look perfectly real, since we'll have the technology, but why bother making it less interesting by making the lighting effects less shiny and pretty just to make the game look like the reality people play games to get away from anyway?

wormthingy
25 Aug 2006, 23:09
i think that games shouldnt be more realistic than they are now.. there are a few games that can 'simulate' a second life (e.g. second life).. anow its still fun, but if it would be more realistc, it would become less fun..
gmaes are made to entertainpeople..it allows people to forget about their problems and other real life stuff and become someone/somewhat wthat theyre not, soemone/something that has an -to their opinion- a more exciting life (like in RPG's or FPS's...) if games are made to realistic people would might as well put down the controller and have a real sandwich instead of fake.. the games would be most likely bugging them since they have trouble ingames and trouble int the real world.. and with trouble i mean stuff like having a bad day at work, not stuff that can be hit with a crowbar...
games need to be entertainig, and should be able to transport your mind into this universe... let people forget about other stuff and relax
ill continue this post tommorrow.. my spellings gone real bad now :p

Akuryou13
26 Aug 2006, 00:30
i think that games shouldnt be more realistic than they are now.. there are a few games that can 'simulate' a second life (e.g. second life).. anow its still fun, but if it would be more realistc, it would become less fun..
gmaes are made to entertainpeople..it allows people to forget about their problems and other real life stuff and become someone/somewhat wthat theyre not, soemone/something that has an -to their opinion- a more exciting life (like in RPG's or FPS's...) if games are made to realistic people would might as well put down the controller and have a real sandwich instead of fake.. the games would be most likely bugging them since they have trouble ingames and trouble int the real world.. and with trouble i mean stuff like having a bad day at work, not stuff that can be hit with a crowbar...
games need to be entertainig, and should be able to transport your mind into this universe... let people forget about other stuff and relax
ill continue this post tommorrow.. my spellings gone real bad now :pI think you missed the point of the conversation. we're not saying to make games emulate real life, that would be boring. even games like The Sims are entertaining because they're different from real life, and that will never change less it defeat the purpose of gaming entirely. what we're talking about are the visual aspects of the game, and the physical interactions within the games and their effects and boundaries.

MtlAngelus
26 Aug 2006, 07:12
i think that games shouldnt be more realistic than they are now.. there are a few games that can 'simulate' a second life (e.g. second life).. anow its still fun, but if it would be more realistc, it would become less fun..
gmaes are made to entertainpeople..it allows people to forget about their problems and other real life stuff and become someone/somewhat wthat theyre not, soemone/something that has an -to their opinion- a more exciting life (like in RPG's or FPS's...) if games are made to realistic people would might as well put down the controller and have a real sandwich instead of fake.. the games would be most likely bugging them since they have trouble ingames and trouble int the real world.. and with trouble i mean stuff like having a bad day at work, not stuff that can be hit with a crowbar...
games need to be entertainig, and should be able to transport your mind into this universe... let people forget about other stuff and relax
ill continue this post tommorrow.. my spellings gone real bad now :p
I disagree, there's still lots that is missing, I'll only say it's enough when I can have a really large, fully destructable great looking terrain with lots of details.
When I say large, I mean large enough for you to get lost and have to ask for directions. That's something you don't get now.

Pigbuster
26 Aug 2006, 07:52
sure, we COULD make games look perfectly real, since we'll have the technology, but why bother making it less interesting by making the lighting effects less shiny and pretty just to make the game look like the reality people play games to get away from anyway?
I heard a quote somewhere that was "Do you really want to see a realistic Mario?"
I do, but not seriously. :p
I actually appreciate style and interesting visuals a lot more than realism. I think a game like Rayman or Psychonauts has better graphics than Halo for this reason (Though I also think Halo's graphics are bad because the game doesn't have a good framerate from what I've seen of it. I like smoothness).
Also, I really need to play FEAR sometime.

MtlAngelus
26 Aug 2006, 08:56
I heard a quote somewhere that was "Do you really want to see a realistic Mario?"
I do, but not seriously. :p
I actually appreciate style and interesting visuals a lot more than realism. I think a game like Rayman or Psychonauts has better graphics than Halo for this reason (Though I also think Halo's graphics are bad because the game doesn't have a good framerate from what I've seen of it. I like smoothness).
Also, I really need to play FEAR sometime.
Ah yes, thus why Team Fortress 2 kicks so much ass graphically. But still, there's 2 types of realism here, one is life-like realism, and another one is the type of realism that makes something look like it's real withouth having to be life-like accurate.
Mario Galaxy for instance will look more real than Mario 64, but it's not life-like real.
I'm not quite sure I make sense.

wormthingy
26 Aug 2006, 11:03
I think you missed the point of the conversation. we're not saying to make games emulate real life, that would be boring. even games like The Sims are entertaining because they're different from real life, and that will never change less it defeat the purpose of gaming entirely. what we're talking about are the visual aspects of the game, and the physical interactions within the games and their effects and boundaries.
ah, ok.. i agree that games still need better graphics and stuff, but shouldnt simulate an actual life, as i said "gmaes are made to entertainpeople" "if games are made to realistic people would might as well put down the controller and have a real sandwich instead of fake" wich isnt fun..
I disagree, there's still lots that is missing, I'll only say it's enough when I can have a really large, fully destructable great looking terrain with lots of details.
When I say large, I mean large enough for you to get lost and have to ask for directions. That's something you don't get now.
ok, games still need to get better graphics, interaction with the player and humongous land in wich you can get lost... as i said:
"gmaes are made to entertainpeople..it allows people to forget about their problems and other real life stuff and become someone/somewhat wthat theyre not, soemone/something that has an -to their opinion- a more exciting life (like in RPG's or FPS's...)" e.g. someone that looks life like but doesnt have to do everday stuff, someone that lives in a life like world but still full of action.

SupSuper
26 Aug 2006, 18:37
I disagree, there's still lots that is missing, I'll only say it's enough when I can have a really large, fully destructable great looking terrain with lots of details.
When I say large, I mean large enough for you to get lost and have to ask for directions. That's something you don't get now.Personally, I hate getting lost in games, because not even a walkthrough will get you out of there if you have no idea where you've gotten yourself into. At least have the decency to provide a map where I can see where I have and haven't been, because I don't want real-life frustrations to also become virtual frustrations.
Then again I even got lost (or going in circles) on old FPS like Wolfenstein 3D. :o

Xinos
26 Aug 2006, 19:11
Personally, I hate getting lost in games, because not even a walkthrough will get you out of there if you have no idea where you've gotten yourself into. At least have the decency to provide a map where I can see where I have and haven't been, because I don't want real-life frustrations to also become virtual frustrations.
Then again I even got lost (or going in circles) on old FPS like Wolfenstein 3D. :o
I could never orient in Wolfienstein 3D since it all looked the same. Few games really allow you to get lost, and that's probably good. But getting lost every now and then in a game is better than having all games super linear =)

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.