Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

starman · May 15, 2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

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

'tis true. I'm ready to drop $600 on a console just for FF XIII, etc.

starman · May 15, 2006, 12:36 PM

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.

Great. A whole generation of virtual tennis elbow.

goMac · May 15, 2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

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.

As I understand it from my limited medical knowledge, the most dangerous wrist movements you can make are short, repetitive ones, i.e. ones you make in using your computer. The Wii wrist movements seem broad and often not quick.

I find it hard to believe everyone is ok with the wrist being used every day in life, but as soon as it comes to a video game console, everyone gets upset.

starman · May 15, 2006, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

As I understand it from my limited medical knowledge, the most dangerous wrist movements you can make are short, repetitive ones, i.e. ones you make in using your computer. The Wii wrist movements seem broad and often not quick.

I find it hard to believe everyone is ok with the wrist being used every day in life, but as soon as it comes to a video game console, everyone gets upset.

The reference should be a powerful example of what could go wrong with the Wii.

Eug Wanker · May 15, 2006, 12:38 PM

PS3 online not really free?

A closer look at Sony's Online service

As you can imagine, I look at an online gaming service with a pretty close eye. So imagine my surprise when I was reviewing Sony’s briefing from earlier this week where they announced more details of their online service, and noticed a glaring omission. Sony has said that their online service is free but on the slide they showed during the briefing, where they listed all of the free services, I did not see match-making or online play mentioned. Thus, it seems quite likely that Sony's free service is merely the equivalent of the Xbox Live Silver level of membership, which is also free. So, if I’m right then Sony’s cost advantage for their online service is non-existent. What do you guys think?

Here is the video where they show the slide of features that their ‘free’ online service will have

goMac · May 15, 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by starman

'tis true. I'm ready to drop $600 on a console just for FF XIII, etc.

Or you could drop $400 on a console just for FF XIII, etc...

goMac · May 15, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by starman

The reference should be a powerful example of what could go wrong with the Wii.

Right. It'll be a horrible shame when the Wii goes the way of the DS.

starman · May 15, 2006, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Right. It'll be a horrible shame when the Wii goes the way of the DS.

You've never watched "The Jerk", have you?

goMac · May 15, 2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by starman

You've never watched "The Jerk", have you?

I wasn't aware a documentary was done on you. Never seen it though. Your argument doesn't get any better just because you're famous though. Sorry.

starman · May 15, 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I wasn't aware a documentary was done on you. Never seen it though. Your argument doesn't get any better just because you're famous though. Sorry.

Oh, aren't we a snide little prick?

Go watch it.

Hal06 · May 15, 2006, 12:49 PM

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

You like racing games, huh? nevertheless, the only one I like from such list is SEGA's Virtua Tennis, of course this is all about personal tastes… but because of how touchy the PSP's analog stick is, it is a pain to play it, and the d-pad is not much better, I find my fingers jumping from here to there due to the lack of a 'one piece' d-pad design "a la Nintendo", hell, even the xbox has such one single piece d-pad, albeit SEGA alike. SONY's d-pad design is horrid.

Hal06 · May 15, 2006, 12:58 PM

(…) It is very bad design.

The voice of experience I guess… have [you] tried it yet?

I can't wait to stress my eyes to notice the detailed HD worlds and get my hears being shocked by twelve sound channels… same nonsense talk.

Dark Helmet · May 15, 2006, 03:49 PM

So it seems there was a PS3 in the showfloor that was actual hardware and you could USE. That shows that they are nicely on track as the wii had no actual playable final hardware.

Even the 360 had no final units out this soon before launch.

ajprice · May 15, 2006, 04:19 PM

Arstechnica article

We're beginning to wonder if Sony hasn't lost all of its senses when it comes to public relations. The company knows that the pricing on the forthcoming PlayStation 3 console has been met with some degree of anger, hostility, and/or disbelief, but to combat that by calling the console "probably too cheap" is unexpected, to say the least. Or is it?

Sony Computer Entertainment's Ken Kutaragi says that when one considers the price of the PS3, one must think of a fine dinner, not a cafeteria meal, according to comments translated from Japanese media site, IT Media.

So just as people are getting their head around a $600 games console, the guy in charge comments that its "probably too cheap". Hmm, like I said before, I'm undecided on whether I'm getting a PS3. I put a pre-order in to have my place in line while I think about it and find out more.

But saying that your game console costs what it does because its like eating at a fine restaurant is really going to appeal to the target audience... err, no.

Dark Helmet · May 15, 2006, 04:22 PM

I am guessing with all this negative reaction they will add the HDMI port to the low end model.

spectre · May 15, 2006, 05:17 PM

I haven't played games since the psx n64 days (haven't even touched any of the newer systems), but the Wii looks fun. I may end up getting one just for tennis and other party like games. I don't have time to play videogames for 5 hours a day so I don't think I need to worry about tennis elbow

Honestly, fanboyism is just ludicrous. These systems are quite complimentary. If you want HD ultrarealistic badass graphics go with ps or xbox, if you want casual fun without spending lots of money go with the wii. Or.. just get all three. If you're worried about getting tennis elbow from playing tennis on the wii, I think you're spending too much time playing videogames

Hawkeye_a · May 15, 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Busemann

Had? It's about one year old and you're talking in past tense..

Hmm i haadnt noticed that. but anyway.... from the looks of the number of games being developed, the number of developers developing for it, the number of movie studios supporting it, the number of companies trying to imitate it and the number of people buying it..... it becomes apparent that the PSP is a has-been and can join the ranks of ever portable gaming console that tried to compete with Nintendo. it does have significantly better graphics though lol.

Cheers

Jawbone54 · May 15, 2006, 05:31 PM

People rushing to play the Wii on Day 3...Wii Rush

Jawbone54 · May 15, 2006, 05:35 PM

Wii Road...the wait to play with a Wii

Eug Wanker · May 15, 2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

So it seems there was a PS3 in the showfloor that was actual hardware and you could USE.

Where did you see that?

Jawbone54 · May 15, 2006, 05:44 PM

I've swayed from undecided, to skeptical, to excited, back to skeptical, and all the way around all over again several times. E3 has helped bring some clarity to my decision-making process. My personal ratings...

XBox 360 - 7/10
Better graphics, $400 price tag (for the setup I want), Halo 3, good third-party support. In the U.S., XBox has become a respectable name thanks to first-person games (especially Halo) and great online play. Big jump in release date and second-generation games by the time the other two systems come out.

PS3 - 5/10
Spectacular graphics, $500/600 price tag (ludicrous), and typical Playstation games (big in quantity and range, low in originality). You simply cannot market a $600 machine to the general public. Sony is out of its mind.

Wii - 9/10
Innovative and EXCITING remote, Virtual Console (which everyone over the age of 18 is getting excited about), franchises that are always great, and a sure-to-be CHEAPER price tag. Nintendo is going to pick up market share with the Wii...I'm sure of it. The graphics aren't as good, and the lack of HD is noticeable, but are graphics the reason you play games?

It looks like I'm getting a Wii, and possibly an XBox 360 when the price drops a tad.

ort888 · May 15, 2006, 05:45 PM

I was told that without any special credentials, that you had to wait in line for 4 hours to play the Wii for 5 minutes.

ajprice · May 15, 2006, 06:24 PM

jawbone, I'm thinking the same thing as what you said. 360 is good and I'm waiting for a price drop. Wii looks fun and should be cheap. PS3 is expensive, no matter how powerful it is.

Busemann · May 15, 2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Hmm i haadnt noticed that. but anyway.... from the looks of the number of games being developed, the number of developers developing for it, the number of movie studios supporting it, the number of companies trying to imitate it and the number of people buying it..... it becomes apparent that the PSP is a has-been and can join the ranks of ever portable gaming console that tried to compete with Nintendo. it does have significantly better graphics though lol.

Cheers

Man, why do I even bother!?

Chuckit · May 15, 2006, 07:14 PM

PS3's price is completely batshit insane. I could buy a full-fledged computer for that kind of money. That said, if Incognito creates a new Twisted Metal, I think I'm going to be forced to buy one. I wish they'd move to Wii, though. Wii's controller seems like it would be awesome for Twisted Metal.

goMac · May 15, 2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

I was told that without any special credentials, that you had to wait in line for 4 hours to play the Wii for 5 minutes.

It was actually 15 minutes, but yeah, the wait to play is just about right.

I don't think the PSP is a has been yet. It is certainly headed down that road, but it's not there yet. Instead, I think the PSP is the modern day Gamegear.

When the Gamegear came out I was already a Sega guy. I had a Genesis, but I had a Gameboy in since Sega had no previous attempts at the handheld space. Overall, the Game Gear looked good. It had color graphics, franchises on the system such as Sonic and Echo. Plus is was by Sega. What could go wrong? Technically the system was bounds better than the Game Boy.

I owned one game for Game Gear that I also owned for Game Boy, Star Trek. It played the same on both systems, except Star Trek for Game Gear looked significantly better. That said, overall the system sucked. Sure, the graphics were great. But the franchises never translated right. It was obvious that Sega didn't understand handheld games, instead thinking they could win against the Game Boy simply by building a more powerful console with games that were good in name only. I ended up simply switching back to Game Boy before Sega killed the Game Gear (although I continued to be happy with my Genesis.)

In the same way, it will be a while before the PSP dies. But it will enter into a nice slow decline while the DS chews away at it's market share. Movies are pretty much dead on the PSP, at least as far as UMD goes.

I think in many ways Sony is the next Sega. The PS3 reminds me a lot of the Saturn, which ironically was killed by Sony by offering the PS1 at a reasonable price point compared to the Saturn. In the same way, I think Microsoft really is the next Sony, exploiting every of Sony's missteps.

It's not that I'm a Nintendo fanboy, it's that I'm very anti-Sony. Originally when I moved from the Genesis I was thinking about a PS1. Crash Bandicoot was pretty awesome (I got to beta test it too), but the rest of the PS1 games simply sucked. A lot of them were re-hashed PC ports with FMV gimmicks (Rebel Assault II anyone?). That, and I didn't like the idea of my games getting scratched, so for me the n64 cartridges were a good thing. Plus, while Crash was fun, almost all the n64 games seems plain fun, and the controller was awesome. Hence, I went with the n64. The Playstation just seemed low quality to me.

I almost went for the XBox over the Gamecube. The problem was I had already received a few Gamecube games as gifts, so I bought the cube. In the end, it wasn't a bad choice. Both the XBox and Cube would have been equally good choices.

Kerrigan · May 15, 2006, 07:40 PM

Do you think the blu-ray by itself is responsible for driving the cost up? If that's the case, I don't understand why they decided it was necessary.

ink · May 15, 2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by ajprice

So just as people are getting their head around a $600 games console, the guy in charge comments that its "probably too cheap". Hmm, like I said before, I'm undecided on whether I'm getting a PS3. I put a pre-order in to have my place in line while I think about it and find out more.

It's sad that the corporation Sony has stolen the PlayStation away from their gaming division. Remember, this is the company that charged $1800 for something that's inferior to the Mac Mini. The reason the PS3 is "too cheap" is because of the silly Blue-Ray technology in it; something that is only marginally needed for gaming.

I had a PSX on the day it came out and a PS2 on the day it came out. I'm not buying a PS3 for that much money to play Warhawk and Madden all over again.

And REMEMBER: Final Fantasy 12 is for the PS2, not the PS3; any FF game on the PS3 is YEARS away.

goMac · May 15, 2006, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by ink

And REMEMBER: Final Fantasy 12 is for the PS2, not the PS3; any FF game on the PS3 is YEARS away.

Square has already confirmed FF13 is coming for the XB360 anyway. At this point an XBox 360 is a much better investment.

ink · May 15, 2006, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

The Playstation just seemed low quality to me.

Sorry, but the PS1 kicked the N64's ass all over the place. I owned both, and I still play PSX games on my PS2, but very rarely hook up the N64 (although the Wii will make playing OoT and M64 much easier). If you need some games for the PSX, pick up Unholy War, Final Fantasy 7&9/Tactics, Resident Evil, Wipeout XL (doesn't work with PS2 emulation

), Xenosaga, Vagrant Story, Tony Hawk, Gran Turismo 2, Castlevania, and of course Metal Gear Solid.

We'll see how the PS3 does; a month ago I was all gung-ho for it, but with that price-point I think that it will be very easy for Nintendo and Microsoft to eat the market up.

ink · May 15, 2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Square has already confirmed FF13 is coming for the XB360 anyway. At this point an XBox 360 is a much better investment.

Wow. Do you have a source on that??

fibroptikl · May 15, 2006, 08:07 PM

I'll probably have a Wii in my little home theater / entertainment room.

I've never been to up and up on getting consoles when they are released (I did get a Nintendo 64 back in Decemer of 1996 for Christmas, that I wasn't epxecting). GameCube was OK, but the games then didn't interest me (or did any games for that matter). I bought one in November of 2003 when Mario Kart was released.

But I think I might get a Wii for Christmas. (I'm not one to ask for stuff)

mdc · May 15, 2006, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Do you think the blu-ray by itself is responsible for driving the cost up? If that's the case, I don't understand why they decided it was necessary.

I am not sure if the Blu-Ray drive is the reason for the high price, but my opinion of why it is in there is because Sony "knows" that the PS3 sell millions and thus the console becomes a trojan horse for a Blu-Ray player in your house.

goMac · May 15, 2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by ink

Wow. Do you have a source on that??

Whoops, it was a mistranslation.

http://digg.com/gaming/_Final_Fantas..._360_announced.

Apparently Square as of E3 has said they are planing to be multi platform, but haven't said anything specific.

: stands in the mistranslation corner of shame :

goMac · May 15, 2006, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by ink

Sorry, but the PS1 kicked the N64's ass all over the place. I owned both, and I still play PSX games on my PS2, but very rarely hook up the N64 (although the Wii will make playing OoT and M64 much easier). If you need some games for the PSX, pick up Unholy War, Final Fantasy 7&9/Tactics, Resident Evil, Wipeout XL (doesn't work with PS2 emulation

), Xenosaga, Vagrant Story, Tony Hawk, Gran Turismo 2, Castlevania, and of course Metal Gear Solid.

We'll see how the PS3 does; a month ago I was all gung-ho for it, but with that price-point I think that it will be very easy for Nintendo and Microsoft to eat the market up.

I played FF on the PS1. Never impressed me. And most of those games weren't available at PS1 launch when I made my choice for gaming platform.

Hawkeye_a · May 16, 2006, 12:18 AM

Blu-Ray coupled with Cell is responsible for the PS3's price imo. If they wanted to include BR-DVD, and use the PS3 as a trojan horse,thats fine. at least attmpt to keep the cost of the rest of the components down. With Cell the idiots had to design a processor that was unheard of, that theoretically delivers performance that will probably never be used. R&D and manufacturing of the cell, imo are equally to blame for the PS3's price.

goMac · May 16, 2006, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Blu-Ray coupled with Cell is responsible for the PS3's price imo. If they wanted to include BR-DVD, and use the PS3 as a trojan horse,thats fine. at least attmpt to keep the cost of the rest of the components down. With Cell the idiots had to design a processor that was unheard of, that theoretically delivers performance that will probably never be used. R&D and manufacturing of the cell, imo are equally to blame for the PS3's price.

I agree that they should have stuck with a normal processor, but for other reasons. With the Cell, the PS3 can't run normal Linux software on whatever Linux distribution it has. Additionally, any software compiled on it will run like crap, due to the Cell's low performance when software doesn't use the SPE's. The Cell is also extremely hard to program for. Linux on the PS3 will be a joke, if it even ships. Linux is much more suited for something like the XB360, with 3 high performance PowerPC processors (so powerful, current XBox 360 games only use one core).

Bluray is included because Sony is under the impression that FMV will be awesome. I don't get this. When you have real time rendering 3D engines that look just as good as FMV cut scenes, why would you use FMV? A scripted scene in a 3D engine is going to take far less space. FMV was cool back when I got my Quadra 605. These days it's just redundant.

starman · May 16, 2006, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I played FF on the PS1. Never impressed me. And most of those games weren't available at PS1 launch when I made my choice for gaming platform.

which one?

Dark Helmet · May 16, 2006, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by mdc

I am not sure if the Blu-Ray drive is the reason for the high price, but my opinion of why it is in there is because Sony "knows" that the PS3 sell millions and thus the console becomes a trojan horse for a Blu-Ray player in your house.

Well duh.

goMac · May 16, 2006, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by starman

which one?

Both VII and IX, but mostly VII. IX was a little better. IMO VII moved too slow, especially the beginning, (and the long not skipable cut scene at the beginning?) I'm not a graphics kiddie, but the graphics on the PS1 were so bad that FF on the Playstation lacked the legibility of the N64 games like Zelda and even Quest64.

Gamoe · May 16, 2006, 02:17 AM

Fight the evil empire-- Don't buy an XBox!

Hal06 · May 16, 2006, 03:37 AM

To include Blu-Ray is highly questionable, while is clear that SONY 'had to do it', why the hell am I in the obligation to play the role of an early-adopter and pay for it?, if one wants to get a PS3 just for games, why have to deal with the 'get it or get it' blu-ray sony policy?, you can choose to get the hd-dvd add-on while getting the MS counterpart under the same scenario… I couldn't care less about the silly High Def DVD war but giving the final user a choice seems more reasonable, the ironic thing here is that is Microsoft the company giving you a choice.

Would be über funny if SONY shipped a non blu-ray ps3 sooner than later…

Nintendo's Wii stole the show in Los Angeles, KEY EVENT of the GAMES industry. It managed to overshadow SONY's much vaunted PS3, even though this was the first time buffs were able to play games on SONY's new system. Why that?, you know SONY, people was there to play games, NOT watching movies.

As MS being the next SONY… while they have the 100% market share on next generation systems (LOL @ MS marketing) Microsoft still doesn't have the breadth of software to be a real rival to Sony, or the devotion to be a rival to Nintendo.

While both SONY & MS have recommended to get a Wii besides their very own systems, would be pretty interesting to know which system would get (if asked) the guy which is getting Wii as first system.

Chuckit · May 16, 2006, 03:49 AM

Isn't Blu-Ray Sony's own technology?

Hal06 · May 16, 2006, 04:00 AM

BTW a funny video: 'SONY E3 Conference in 1 minute'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ

Busemann · May 16, 2006, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Inside Man

BTW a funny video: 'SONY E3 Conference in 1 minute'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ

"The stages of the game will also be based on famous battles which actually took place in ancient Japan. Here's this giant enemy crab"

Hawkeye_a · May 16, 2006, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Inside Man

BTW a funny video: 'SONY E3 Conference in 1 minute'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ

lol .... sounds like a remix that could be played at a techno club or something "599...599...599. ridge racer !!! ridge racer !!" lol

starman · May 16, 2006, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Both VII and IX, but mostly VII. IX was a little better. IMO VII moved too slow, especially the beginning, (and the long not skipable cut scene at the beginning?) I'm not a graphics kiddie, but the graphics on the PS1 were so bad that FF on the Playstation lacked the legibility of the N64 games like Zelda and even Quest64.

Unbelievable. That game was supposed to be on the N64 but since the N64 was gimp, Square moved to the PS1. If it had stayed on the N64 you'd be praising it.. Hey, how about the unskippable cutscenes in Zelda? They were even LONGER!

FANBOY!!!!!

ink · May 16, 2006, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by starman

FANBOY!!!!!

The more things change...

Jawbone54 · May 16, 2006, 11:27 AM

Riiiiidge Racer!!!

*hilarious*

goMac · May 16, 2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Unbelievable. That game was supposed to be on the N64 but since the N64 was gimp, Square moved to the PS1. If it had stayed on the N64 you'd be praising it.. Hey, how about the unskippable cutscenes in Zelda? They were even LONGER!

FANBOY!!!!!

Ok... so I didn't like FFVII. I'm not a huge have to have great graphics person, but when the graphics aren't sharp enough to see what you're doing, that's a problem.

And the cut scenes for FFVII were boring imo. So sue me.