[Eug Wanker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

whatever console James Bond uses I will get

in comparison with real geniuses…

[Hal06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

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

Ya, that's the most likely reason. I actually think there's a good chance that the Wii will do better than the PS3, simply because the latter is too expensive for a typical customer. But it could backfire, and the lower price could make the Wii look inferior and therefor hurt sales.

[Teronzhul]

There comes a point when cramming too much hardware into a system becomes cost prohibitive for the consumer. Nintendo doesn't wish to compete with microsoft and sony for who can make the most expensive box. They want to make a gaming platform that remains affordable while still presenting graphics performance suitable to what they need.

They tried this with the gamecube, but the cost differential between the cube and the ps2/xbox was insufficient to matter with it being behind in the graphics department anyway. The Wii is likely to fare far better, it is a moderate step in performance but is probably going to debut at 1/2 the cost of the 360 and 1/3 the cost of the ps3. The innovative control scheme is just icing on the cake.

Nintendo is marketing primarily to a demographic that doesn't have $600 to spend on a console. Why should they compete with the other guys when their younger target audience doesn't have the cash to throw at hdtvs and the other irrelevant features that sony is using for bragging rights?

[Eug Wanker]

For AI type code, my understanding that the 360 should have the strongest CPU performance. The PS3 would come in a distant second for AI type code. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Even if I'm right though, I don't think the differences would have much significance in actual games.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

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

Dell would also agree. That doesn't make their solution better.

[goMac]

Sony has recommended the Wii as a second console:

http://www.thewiire.com/news/312/1/S...Second_Console

Seems Nintendo's move to let Microsoft and Sony duke it out, while both use Nintendo to keep people from buying the other's console.

[Millennium]

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?

No one said it requires "little" talent. But the problem is basically a solved one. If you made a game console the size of a standard stereo component, you could cram truly staggering amount of power into the console while leaving lots of room for airflow. Such a console would be very large, of course, but you could slip it seamlessly into almost any entertainment center, with the advantage that such a system need not look even remotely like a toy. To be frank, I'm not sure why the console makers haven't tried this already. It seems like a no-brainer: the form factor has lots of space for hardware, it's standardized to the point that many companies actually build furniture around it, it doesn't look "kiddie" for the kiddies who care about such things, the packaging is more or less standardized, and so on.

But that's evolution, not innovation. What would this do to improve the state of gaming? Nothing, really, and games are an area which sorely need innovation these days. Incrementally improving an existing design is quite different from truly creating something new. I believe that it's a matter of different kinds of talent, which makes it impossible to really say which requires more; it's tough to draw comparisons of degree with things like that. But I don't think it's too controversial to say that true creative talent is much rarer than a thorough understanding of existing technology.

[goMac]

According to this site, the Wii hardware isn't finalized, and the final Wii hardware will be on par with the 360:

http://duggmirror.com/gaming/Nintend...ith_Xbox_360_/

Interesting if it's true. It would explain the lack of solid specs and release date.

[Kerrigan]

This reminds me a lot of when the Mac's marketshare took a nosedive in the 90s. Lots of people, myself included, spoke in nearly philosophic terms about the advantages of a "computer for the rest of us".

It sounds eerily familiar when those Nintendo execs get up and start talking about the need to have a console which your grandmother could learn how to play. Just because a product is (ostensibly) elegant, simple, and unique, does not mean it will have universal appeal, especially in a market where people want flashy and sophisticated "BFG" type of games.

For the record, I'll probably end up with a Wii as my sole console, but I am a very casual gamer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

This reminds me a lot of when the Mac's marketshare took a nosedive in the 90s. Lots of people, myself included, spoke in nearly philosophic terms about the advantages of a "computer for the rest of us".

Apple's trouble wasn't building the "computer for the rest of us". Apple's marketshare dipped because they built computers assuming everyone wanted a expensive system with more power than people needed.

Sound familiar?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

According to this site, the Wii hardware isn't finalized, and the final Wii hardware will be on par with the 360:

http://duggmirror.com/gaming/Nintend...ith_Xbox_360_/

Interesting if it's true. It would explain the lack of solid specs and release date.

I've got to doubt that one, to be honest. There are way too many games in development right now, and many of them seem to be relatively late in the development cycle. They can't afford to have the hardware changing out from under them too much anymore: part of the point of console development is that you have a stable hardware platform.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've got to doubt that one, to be honest. There are way too many games in development right now, and many of them seem to be relatively late in the development cycle. They can't afford to have the hardware changing out from under them too much anymore: part of the point of console development is that you have a stable hardware platform.

I have my doubts too, but as long as they stick with a PPC, changing the hardware wouldn't break any software currently in production.

[Velocity211]

Originally Posted by Millennium

More space to put FMVs, you mean?

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.

Graphics, you mean.

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

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.

Nifty, but necessary? Not really.

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

Not really.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of the PS3.
You know it, just admit my Atari 5200 is better than all of the consoles.

[Hal06]

Now they convinced all the fanboys that graphics are not important

Wrong, games did it. Games proved graphics are not whom deliver fun.

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

If true, those are the worst news from SONY, Nintendo can rely on their incredible talent as it was proved once and again. SONY can't.

…especially in a business where the product must become more technologically advanced with each generational release?…

What is more tech advanced for you?, you are still looking for the same old motto 'better graphics make a better game'… how long has it to last?, what is going to offer next ps & xbox consoles… more fancy graphics?… depressing…

Why don't you look for innovation instead?, if you tell me that more colors, more sound channels are real innovation, then I fear you are still looking for innovation in the old -wrong- places.

Time will came where those things don't matter anymore. Such time is now. Innovation is certainly happening in the gaming industry, we all saw it @ e3… it's just happening in a whole different place some people doesn't care to look at…

Anyway, don't feel guilty, those yelling that all what really cares are better graphics, better sound, those are the culprit ones.

So which processor is in the Wii anyway?

PowerPC, but who freaking cares?, are you going really to the store with a 'to do list' to get your console?

to do list:
- has to be multi core, the more the better…
- has to be able to reproduce Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies, yes, BOTH formats, cause I have no freaking idea which format is going to win this time…
- has to be HD friendly mode, but it has to be the highest possible, I couldn't care less about those suckers running games with 480, 720 HD wannabe tv sets…
- has to have storage, infinite storage, I have to be able to attach it to the SGI four GB fibre channel raid system I can borrow from work… talk about downloading stuff from the internet !!
- has to be compatible with my MP3 player, just in case of it dies…
- whatever floats your boat…

The Wii controller will cause extreme stress on the wrist.

More freedom gives you more pain?, weird enough…

Sony has recommended the Wii as a second console…

Like MS told us… Funny enough this macnn current poll shows a likely scenario.

Nevertheless, SONY and MS agree about how cool and fun Nintendo is… maybe they are realizing where the innovation is, but they are just afraid of their tech savvy user base dealing with it.

According to this site, the Wii hardware isn't finalized…

Could be, easily. It seems several e3 Nintendo Wii demos were delivered with GAMECUBE hardware.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Inside Man

More freedom gives you more pain?, weird enough…

Not weird. With the Wii-controller you have to constantly bend your wrist forward. For hours. That's not ergonomic at all!

[Busemann]

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.

Of course it will. Games like Rez, Ico or Resident Evil 4 wouldn't have been possible on the PSone, just like there will be great PS3 games that wouldn't be conceivable on the PS2 because of technical limitations alone.

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple's trouble wasn't building the "computer for the rest of us". Apple's marketshare dipped because they built computers assuming everyone wanted a expensive system with more power than people needed.

Sound familiar?

Are you kidding? Apple's problem is/was that their hardware was underspecced and overpriced. I don't think I can remember anyone complaining his Mac is "too fast" for what they want to use it for.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Are you kidding? Apple's problem is/was that their hardware was underspecced and overpriced. I don't think I can remember anyone complaining his Mac is "too fast" for what they want to use it for.

Apple was selling it's software. the hardware was merely the packaging.

Underspeced....probably. overpriced.....definately ( i blame Sculley). More powerful (get you from A to B quicker) definately.

If someone goes into a store to buy a computer...they'll get a computer. if someone goes into a store to buy a solution, they'll get a Mac. computers cost less than solutions.

If you want a cell processor, ull get a cell processor and all the other jazz along with it. if you want innovative, varied games as well as access to a 20 year back catalogue...ull get a Wii.

7 cores will cost you more than great games. know where you're spending your money.

The PS1<N64, PS2<GCN<XBox, NDS<PSP, Wii<XB360<PS3. PS1 won because of games, PS2 won because of games, NDS won because of games. see a trend here ? Specs is no indication of quality or success. get over it.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Apple was selling it's software. the hardware was merely the packaging.

Underspeced....probably. overpriced.....definately ( i blame Sculley). More powerful (get you from A to B quicker) definately.

If someone goes into a store to buy a computer...they'll get a computer. if someone goes into a store to buy a solution, they'll get a Mac. computers cost less than solutions.

If you want a cell processor, ull get a cell processor and all the other jazz along with it. if you want innovative, varied games as well as access to a 20 year back catalogue...ull get a Wii.fa
7 cores will cost you more than great games. know where you're spending your money.

The PS1<N64, PS2<GCN<XBox, NDS<PSP, Wii<XB360<PS3. PS1 won because of games, PS2 won because of games, NDS won because of games. see a trend here ? Specs is no indication of quality or success. get over it.

Neither have I said as much. What's worrying is that everyone *thinks* Nintendo are so innovative, when they really haven't been. Or they might have, but just not been able to turn their innovations into great titles since the N64 days (The N64 was quite simply host to the best games ever made imo). Everyone then said that "people who want innovation should get a GameCube while those who simply are interested in tired franchises and sequels should get a PS2" just like people are raving about the Wii today. Now six years later, even the most rabid Nintendo-zealot would agree that it turned out the direct opposite--the PS2 was actually the console with the most innovative and original titles in one way or another (Rez, Ico, Singstar, EyeToy, GoW etc) while the GC turned out to be a failure both in terms of the quality of the titles, let alone the quantity. As for the DS vs the PSP, those are still in the early days so there's tremendous untapped potential in both I think. I personally think that the PSP has a better lineup of quality games than the DS, but that might change in the future.

So that the Wii has a brand new approach to the controller doesn't mean that it will necessarily host quality games, and that the PS3 is about 50 times more powerful doesn't mean that its games will suck.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple's trouble wasn't building the "computer for the rest of us". Apple's marketshare dipped because they built computers assuming everyone wanted a expensive system with more power than people needed.

Sound familiar?

Not really since the PS2 did rather well, as is the 360 doing now. Poor Nintendo.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

The PS1<N64, PS2<GCN<XBox, NDS<PSP, Wii<XB360<PS3. PS1 won because of games, PS2 won because of games, NDS won because of games. see a trend here ? Specs is no indication of quality or success. get over it.

But I thought Nintendo made the best games. They're all about the games. What happened?

Answer: you're talking out of your ass and making stuff up again.

PS1<N64? IN YOUR DREAMS.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Neither have I said as much. What's worrying is that everyone *thinks* Nintendo are so innovative, when they really haven't been. Or they might have, but just not been able to turn their innovations into great titles since the N64 days (The N64 was quite simply host to the best games ever made imo). Everyone then said that "people who want innovation should get a GameCube while those who simply are interested in tired franchises and sequels should get a PS2" just like people are raving about the Wii today. Now six years later, even the most rabid Nintendo-zealot would agree that it turned out the direct opposite--the PS2 was actually the console with the most innovative and original titles in one way or another (Rez, Ico, Singstar, EyeToy, GoW etc) while the GC turned out to be a failure both in terms of the quality of the titles, let alone the quantity. As for the DS vs the PSP, those are still in the early days so there's tremendous untapped potential in both I think. I personally think that the PSP has a better lineup of quality games than the DS, but that might change in the future.

So that the Wii has a brand new approach to the controller doesn't mean that it will necessarily host quality games, and that the PS3 is about 50 times more powerful doesn't mean that its games will suck.

PS2 had more games. definately had some good games. GCN had fewer games, with a lot of great games. quality is subjective.

PSP had very few games, and absolutely none that make any top lists. the NDS however is the opposite.

Wii, PS3 and XB360 have yet to be seen. development costs will major factor into the number of games, and probably into the quality and calibre of games.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

PS2 had more games. definately had some good games. GCN had fewer games, with a lot of great games. quality is subjective.

Well, the list of great PS2 games is significantly longer than that of the GameCube.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

PSP had very few games, and absolutely none that make any top lists. the NDS however is the opposite.

Had? It's about one year old and you're talking in past tense.. Well, to list some great PSP games from the top of my head:

Ridge Racer
Wipeout Pure
Lumines
OutRun 2006: Coast to Coast
GTA
Burnout
SSX
Exit
Virtua Tennis
Mercury
Fight Night: Round 3

It's actually a significantly better lineup than what the PS2 had after its first year.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Well, the list of great PS2 games is significantly longer than that of the GameCube.




Had? It's about one year old and you're talking in past tense.. Well, to list some great PSP games from the top of my head:

Ridge Racer
Wipeout Pure
Lumines
OutRun 2006: Coast to Coast
GTA
Burnout
SSX
Exit
Virtua Tennis
Mercury
Fight Night: Round 3

It's actually a significantly better lineup than what the PS2 had after its first year.

I noticed the 'had' also. He's a Nintendo fanboy, would you expect anything less from him?

[Eug Wanker]

This looks like an error, and that it's actually a component cable, but nonetheless this is making the rounds... Xbox 360 HDMI cable:

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by starman

But I thought Nintendo made the best games. They're all about the games. What happened?

Four words. "Final Fantasy" and "Dragon Quest". Whichever console has these two series on it will always win.

[mdc]

Do you think just adding HDMI on one side of the cable would enable HDMI? The audio/video plug on the xbox is huge, maybe they had this idea from day one?

Make a quick $30 off everyone by charging them for the HDMI cable later on.

I doubt I'd buy it since it looks great through component on my TV and my HDMI port is being used by my DVD player.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by starman

PS1<N64? IN YOUR DREAMS.

I think he's talking in terms of raw power.

[ort888]

I thought it has been established that the 360 does support HDMI and that M$ will eventually sell an HDMI cable?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

Not really since the PS2 did rather well, as is the 360 doing now. Poor Nintendo.

Think about it again. The console I'm talking about isn't the PS2. I thought it was pretty obvious. Apparently not.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Are you kidding? Apple's problem is/was that their hardware was underspecced and overpriced. I don't think I can remember anyone complaining his Mac is "too fast" for what they want to use it for.

Huh? In the early PPC days, the Mac was owning the PC in raw speed. The Mac was often ahead in mhz too. You'll note we were talking about 90's Apple. Apple didn't start hitting speed problems until the G4.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Not weird. With the Wii-controller you have to constantly bend your wrist forward. For hours. That's not ergonomic at all!

Right. Because doing a real activity such as really playing Tenis doesn't require you to bend your wrist.

The reason you end up bending your wrist on the Wii is because you're mimicking a real life activity that requires you to bend your wrist.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ort888

I thought it has been established that the 360 does support HDMI and that M$ will eventually sell an HDMI cable?

MS has hinted that it can support HDMI, but doesn't say exactly how, if it's just through a dongle with a firmware update or it means a new model.

Whatever the case, it was interesting omission NOT to mention that HDMI cable when they announced the HD DVD drive.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac

Right. Because doing a real activity such as really playing Tenis doesn't require you to bend your wrist.

The reason you end up bending your wrist on the Wii is because you're mimicking a real life activity that requires you to bend your wrist.

And tennis does lead to tenosynovitis. And so does sword fighting I guess. That is something that should not be reproduced in games that are played for many hours by children.

And real-life holding a hand gun or rifle does not require any wrist bending, but the Wii-controller does in the duck-hunting and first person shooter games. It is very bad design.