Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · May 14, 2006, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Someone go run and tell SWG.

I guess you're posting with your blinders on then:

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I would agree with them. I think the motion control on the PS3 is stupid. Good thing it has lots of other stuff to offer.

goMac · May 14, 2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I guess you're posting with your blinders on then:

I was posting at the same time he was and didn't see his post until after I posted. Apologies.

Dark Helmet · May 14, 2006, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I was posting at the same time he was and didn't see his post until after I posted. Apologies.

It wasn't the first time I said that either which is what makes it sadder.

Millennium · May 14, 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I would agree with them. I think the motion control on the PS3 is stupid. Good thing it has lots of other stuff to offer.

Such as... what? More graphics? That's about it, you know. Nothing that would in any way contribute to better games.

goMac · May 14, 2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Such as... what? More graphics? That's about it, you know. Nothing that would in any way contribute to better games.

It can play ATRAC. Even my iPod can't do that.

Dark Helmet · May 14, 2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Such as... what? More graphics? That's about it, you know. Nothing that would in any way contribute to better games.

Blu-ray.

Better AI (with the extra CPU power)

Better effects

Better sound (that equals better play if it is more realistic)

Better graphics (the more real it looks the greater the suspension of dis-belief)

HDMI output

Better 3rd party support.

The list goes on.

angelmb · May 14, 2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

whatever console James Bond uses I will get

in comparison with real geniuses…

Hal06 · May 14, 2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Blu-ray.

Better AI (with the extra CPU power)

Better effects

Better sound (that equals better play if it is more realistic)

Better graphics (the more real it looks the greater the suspension of dis-belief)

HDMI output

Better 3rd party support.

The list goes on.

Yeah… too much for the guy behind this book, hence he leaves SONY…

Millennium · May 14, 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Blu-ray.

More space to put FMVs, you mean?

Better AI (with the extra CPU power)

AI is a tricky beast. Particularly with games, it doesn't often take nearly as much CPU power as you might think: it's about taking very simple patterns and combining them in ways that look complex. Most of the CPU power in "modern" games goes toward graphics and physics.

Better effects

Graphics, you mean.

Better sound (that equals better play if it is more realistic)

Not really. Sound hasn't changed much since the previous generation on any of the consoles.

Better graphics (the more real it looks the greater the suspension of dis-belief)

Only if the graphics engine focuses on realism. That's not the only way to make a good game, or even good graphics. Really, all it does is further enable the 3-G formulaic focus on hyper-realism, while doing nothing to improve any other aspect of gaming.

HDMI output

Nifty, but necessary? Not really.

Better 3rd party support.

True, but this isn't an aspect of the console itself; it's an aspect of the company that makes it.

The list goes on.

Not really.

Hawkeye_a · May 14, 2006, 03:04 PM

Immersion is the objective, not realism. relaism is just a stylistic option, nothing more.... a single shade of color in the vast spectrum of possibilities. it would be unbeleivably boring if all games just looked "real".

People dont goto movies to see what they see everyday in their lives, they go to be immersed in a different world.....different characters, different colors, different logic. The games i love not only play different, they look different...different styles, effects, shaders, logic, etc... if games look realistic on the GCN today, they'll look realistic on all the 3 next generation. if someone's arguing "more" realistic than the rest......maybe u aught to take a step back and define what less/more realistic means. either a thing looks realistic or it doesnt, there's no sliding scale imo.

So despite which one wins, or has more support, or more games...i hope they embrace the entire spectrum of interactive media, and not just limit themselves to "realism".

Cheers

Dark Helmet · May 14, 2006, 04:11 PM

I think it is funny how up until Nintendo decided they couldn't compete against the others how they bragged about graphics abilities.

Now they convinced all the fanboys that graphics are not important

goMac · May 14, 2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Blu-ray.

Better AI (with the extra CPU power)

Better effects

Better sound (that equals better play if it is more realistic)

Better graphics (the more real it looks the greater the suspension of dis-belief)

HDMI output

Better 3rd party support.

The list goes on.

From all reports, the PS3 is barely more powerful than the 360 but more complicated to program for.

And honestly, so far the PS3 third party game list sucks.

goMac · May 14, 2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I think it is funny how up until Nintendo decided they couldn't compete against the others how they bragged about graphics abilities.

Now they convinced all the fanboys that graphics are not important

What? If Nintendo wanted to, they could build a system more powerful than the PS3. It's not hard, all it requires is throwing a bunch of parts in a box. They could build a Cell based console if they want. But they aren't. They made a conscious decision not to go for the graphics crown.

I don't get where you get this idea that they couldn't build a system that could cream the PS3 in graphics if they wanted to.

Lateralus · May 14, 2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I think it is funny how up until Nintendo decided they couldn't compete against the others how they bragged about graphics abilities.

Now they convinced all the fanboys that graphics are not important

Please tell me you're not dense enough to believe that cramming more horsepower into a box (Especially when you're not even the one doing the development of those horsepower providing components) takes more talent than innovating a different way of playing games.

Kerrigan · May 14, 2006, 06:23 PM

So if putting more horsepower into a console requires little talent, then why isn't Nintendo doing it, especially in a business where the product must become more technologically advanced with each generational release?

goMac · May 14, 2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So if putting more horsepower into a console requires little talent, then why isn't Nintendo doing it, especially in a business where the product must become more technologically advanced with each generational release?

Because it makes the console cost more and makes the case bigger?

This is as idiotic as asking why Apple doesn't make a Powerbook G5.

TETENAL · May 14, 2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So if putting more horsepower into a console requires little talent, then why isn't Nintendo doing it?

I guess it's not a matter of talent, it's a matter of how much you want the thing to cost.

They could not have used the Cell, because I think that's a Sony development. So which processor is in the Wii anyway? The Wii controller will cause extreme stress on the wrist.

Kerrigan · May 14, 2006, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Because it makes the console cost more and makes the case bigger?

This is as idiotic as asking why Apple doesn't make a Powerbook G5.

Apparently the two dominant companies, Microsoft and Sony, would beg to differ.