[Nosferatu]

Toasty, on Jul 18 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

And Zeph, the 360 is looking better than the Wii at the moment. The Wii's only got a few good titles ou, and only a few that are expected to come out soon.

Yeah. My Wii has gotten no action since Brawl. Dear lord that came out bad.
The 360 is sort of running the show right now. Saying otherwise is a sign of denial at this point in time.

[Split Infinity]

No, the PS3 runs them at higher framerates with minimal to no increases in detail. I've played both, believe me.

[Zeypher]

It's not good for the type of games I like :D

[Golden Legacy]

Nosferatu, on Jul 18 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Yeah. My Wii has gotten no action since Brawl. Dear lord that came out bad.

XD

Split Infinity, on Jul 18 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

No, the PS3 runs them at higher framerates with minimal to no increases in detail. I've played both, believe me.

When it comes down to it, there is hardly a difference between 360 and PS3 cross-platform titles, graphically. At least, in the first year or so - PS3 will slowly be able to perform those titles smoother as developer's start being able to tap into its huge capabilities.

[Split Infinity]

Well, Oblivion had a number of advanced pixel shaders which did a better job of rendering far-off terrain but they eventually ported them over to PC and 360.

[Toasty]

GL, the PS3 doesn't have as much potential as you think. It certainly wouldn't be able to play Crysis on High settings and in high definition at 30 FPS, which is usually the minimum framerate for consoles.

Sure, it's still got aces up it's sleeves, but it's not going to be as amazing as you might think.

The Cell BE may have a Power PC core with seven "helper" cores, but think about this:
Either by the end of next year, or some time the year after, Intel will release a true 8 core processor that supports SMT. That allows it to run 16 threads at any given moment. The Cell BE can only run 7 or 8 (can't remember which), and it runs at a lower clockspeed too. Not only that, but the Cell BE is built on a larger process (I'll have to check the article, but it's larger than 45nm) than even some current-gen chips (which are built on the 45nm process). Intel's new chip is built on the 45nm process, and will probably be moved to a 32.5nm (or something like that) process later on.

The smaller the process, the cooler it runs and the more energy efficient it is.

As it stands right now, all of the consoles are running on outdated hardware. Though to give them some slack, their hardware is usually designed on specialized vrsion of old hardware to begin with. The origional Xbox ran on a modified Pentium 3, while the current gen CPU's were the Pentium D dual core's.

However, the PS3 is designed upon newer hardware than it's competitors. Still specialized, but now it's old.

Split Infinity, on Jul 18 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

No, the PS3 runs them at higher framerates with minimal to no increases in detail. I've played both, believe me.

No they don't split. People have run actual tests on the games. 360 runs them at about 30-31 FPS, PS3 runs them at around 29 FPS. It's not a lot, but the 360 still runs them faster. But like I said, the PS3 alternatives tend to have a bit more detail.

Zeypher, on Jul 18 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

It's not good for the type of games I like

You mean Nintendo games, or Super Happy Innovative Titles? =P

[Zeypher]

What's the point in all this useless powuh?

[Legolastom]

Useless? Lulz.

[Nosferatu]

Legolastom, on Jul 18 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

Useless? Lulz.

Seriously. You're starting to really annoy me. Post something intelligent, or don't post at all. Although that's going to be hard for you, isn't it?

Lego, if you read this post, read this too:

Quote

3. Do not spam. We do not allow (except in "The Common Room"):
Overuse of emoticons.
ALL CAPS.
Giant fonts or needless formatting.
Replies totally irrelevant to the original topic.
Replies with less than 5 words.

[Zeypher]

lol

[Toasty]

*backhands* Apparently that goes for you too. Read the quote, man.

Zeypher, on Jul 18 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

What's the point in all this useless powuh?

It's not useless. It's just overrated. The PS3 has the potential to produce graphics more stunning than the 360. Just not mind blowingly amazing graphics. Those kinds of graphics are reserved for high-end gaming PC's.

[TheEnglishman]

I'd say the 360 was stronger as it has similar abilities to the PS3 (Don't go into technical jargon here, if they can play the same games they must be reasonably similar), and that the difference in price is just too big for most.

[Ironsight]

Zeypher, on Jul 18 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

It's not good for the type of games I like :!:

Yeah, Nintendo games.

[Toasty]

Me111, on Jul 19 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

I'd say the 360 was stronger as it has similar abilities to the PS3 (Don't go into technical jargon here, if they can play the same games they must be reasonably similar), and that the difference in price is just too big for most.

The PS3 has more power, so it can play games on the 360's level. Most of the games out so far that are "pushing" the PS3's hardware, though, aren't pushing it much harder than the 360's hardware can handle.

[Caael]

Zeypher, on Jul 19 2008, 06:09 AM, said:

lol

Rofl

E3 wasnt all lost for me; it made me incredibly excited about a lot of games (Prince of Persia, Halo Wars, Fable, Far Cry 2, Gears of War 2)

[Laharl]

Split Infinity, on Jul 18 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

PS3 = PS2 + PS3 + Blu-ray

that would be the case if the PS2 backwards compatibility hadnt been removed :/

Blu-Ray is not a credible selling point

PS3 is growing up and still has no killer titles. If the PS1 and PS2 started out like this Sony would be out of the console race already

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Jul 19 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

No they don't split. People have run actual tests on the games. 360 runs them at about 30-31 FPS, PS3 runs them at around 29 FPS. It's not a lot, but the 360 still runs them faster. But like I said, the PS3 alternatives tend to have a bit more detail.

Not for cross-platform games. There's a reason COD4 is locked to 30fps on the 360 and 60fps on the PS3. Oblivion can be reduced to 1fps in large battles on the 360, not so on Sony's machine. The only exception I can think of is GTA4, and that was just a longer draw distance.

Toasty, on Jul 19 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

GL, the PS3 doesn't have as much potential as you think. It certainly wouldn't be able to play Crysis on High settings and in high definition at 30 FPS, which is usually the minimum framerate for consoles.

Consoles run on very specialized hardware, they use their processing power a hell of a lot more efficiently than a PC. If a PS3 can play this, it has a pretty good shot at something like Crysis. Maybe even the 360.

Laharl, on Jul 19 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

that would be the case if the PS2 backwards compatibility hadnt been removed :/

Blu-Ray is not a credible selling point

PS3 is growing up and still has no killer titles. If the PS1 and PS2 started out like this Sony would be out of the console race already

I'll give you that first one, but Blu-ray players are pretty damn expensive at the time being; considering what else the machine has to offer, the price is almost generous.

[Drizzy Drake]

The backward combatibility hasn't been removed on the 80GB PS3, just the 40GB. Kinda gay, but I don't mind since I hav the 80GB version. Still gay it can play imported PS3 games, but not imported PS2/PS1 games.

[Split Infinity]

Huh, they don't have PS2 compatibility on PAL models. We always get the short end of the stick...

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, whether the PS3 can compete with the latest PC technology is irrelevant. In terms of consoles, it has the upper hand over the 360 in terms of specs, and that is slowly being realized.

Also, just to mention one very interesting point about the PS3's Blu-Ray compatiblity - it is the absolute best Blu-Ray player on the market even for the next few years. The most high-end separate Blu-Ray players are designated 1.1 or 1.2 versions, but the PS3 is a full-fledged 2.0 version that won't be beaten for many years to come.

In other words, there is a reason why Blu-Ray is such an important component of the PS3. It is, literally, "future-proof", and the only one on the market that will be so for years to come.

[Nosferatu]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 19 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Toasty, whether the PS3 can compete with the latest PC technology is irrelevant. In terms of consoles, it has the upper hand over the 360 in terms of specs, and that is slowly being realized.

Also, just to mention one very interesting point about the PS3's Blu-Ray compatiblity - it is the absolute best Blu-Ray player on the market even in the next few years. The most high-end separate Blu-Ray players are designated 1.1 or 1.2 versions, but the PS3 is a full-fledged 2.0 version that won't be beaten for many years to come.

In other words, there is a reason why Blu-Ray is such an important component of the PS3. It is, literally, "future-proof", and the only one on the market that will be so for years to come.

Can't argue with the truth.

Although this is an invigorating conversation I'm pretty sure the console war isn't over graphics, (That can be argued but whatever.) but more over who has the better games. PS3 may have the advantage in graphics and being "future-proof", but it's obviously being beaten to death by lack of good games.

The same is going for Nintendo lately.

[Golden Legacy]

Of course, games are what will decide the console wars. I soundly agree with that. I am just saying, don't write off the PS3's specs or hardware because in that area, it easily trumps the other consoles.

Secondly, don't underestimate the PlayStation brand. Time will tell if the loss of FFXIII exclusivity is a significant loss and enough to cause Sony to lose, but keep in mind, it is still exclusive in Asia - the second largest market (namely Japan), where 360 is literally non-existent. Keep in mind the huge popularity of the brand in Europe, where MGS4 has already outsold any other major title on 360.

I'd say, Sony is definitely in third now and the loss of exclusivity has definitely hurt it. However, PS3 is far from out, and more than ever Sony has to rely on its "ten year strategy", something that neither Microsoft nor Nintendo have ever done before.

[Zeypher]

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=327896

[Nosferatu]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 19 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

I'd say, Sony is definitely in third now and the loss of exclusivity has definitely hurt it. However, PS3 is far from out, and more than ever Sony has to rely on its "ten year strategy", something that neither Microsoft nor Nintendo have ever done before.

What is this "ten year strategy"? I've never heard of it.

[Drizzy Drake]

I just remembered that I wanted to see something on Kingdom Hearts 3 for PS3 at E3, but alas, there was nothing.

[Zeypher]

I have never played a KH game.

[Ironsight]

Thank you for informing us all of that, Zephyer.
So, anyone else excited about Fable 2?

[Zeypher]

Np man.

Fable 2 looked ok. Is the whole point of the game raising your family?

[Drizzy Drake]

Fable is, was, and will always be a my momty version of TES.

[Ironsight]

TES?

[Drizzy Drake]

The....Elder....Scrolls.

[Ironsight]

Ah. Well, the games are similar in the way that its the generic rags-to-riches hero setting.

[Golden Legacy]

Nosferatu, on Jul 19 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

What is this "ten year strategy"? I've never heard of it.

Sony always plans its consoles for ten-year lifespans. Production of the original PS1 actually ceased only in 2004 - even when the PS2 had already been on the market for a while. Likewise, PS2 continues to sell phenomenally well even now, despite it being almost a decade old.

The same philosophy holds true for the PS3. Sony doesn't look for an immediate profit or short-term gains; they look for how their system can impact and sell the market years after its inception, years after even the successors in the console race emerge.

It's a well-thought out strategy. It allows them to build on the success of the prior console to supplement and support the company as the newer one emerges. Just look now, even if the PS3 isn't selling up-to-par with its competitors, they still have the PS2 and its fantastic range of games to support them and keep them going, as well as keeping the brand alive.

Sony's 10-year strategy is pretty strong. The PS1 and PS2 have all shown how successful consoles can be if they are thought about in the long-term. The strategy is what's keeping PS3 alive and why it's far from being out of the race - in fact, when Nintendo and Microsoft inevitably bring out their next consoles in the next five years, Sony could theoretically bide its time and just wait out, their PS3 console being more than technologically viable and competitive.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 19 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Sony always plans its consoles for ten-year lifespans. Production of the original PS1 actually ceased only in 2004 - even when the PS2 had already been on the market for a while. Likewise, PS2 continues to sell phenomenally well even now, despite it being almost a decade old.

That's probably mostly due to the PS2 having an ass-load good of games to play, and being affordable.

[Split Infinity]

Well duh, any console is going to have an ass-load of games and be affordable after nearly ten years...

[Ironsight]

Ok, so my argument is flawed. But ti's still far cheaper and has more good games on it.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 19 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Toasty, whether the PS3 can compete with the latest PC technology is irrelevant. In terms of consoles, it has the upper hand over the 360 in terms of specs, and that is slowly being realized.

Also, just to mention one very interesting point about the PS3's Blu-Ray compatiblity - it is the absolute best Blu-Ray player on the market even for the next few years. The most high-end separate Blu-Ray players are designated 1.1 or 1.2 versions, but the PS3 is a full-fledged 2.0 version that won't be beaten for many years to come.

In other words, there is a reason why Blu-Ray is such an important component of the PS3. It is, literally, "future-proof", and the only one on the market that will be so for years to come.

Well duh. The PS3 isn't a computer, and it's architecture is designed for gaming period. Thus, it is a lot more efficient at gaming. Though graphics/physics/AI may have the potential to be very impressive on the PS3, the PS3 just isn't as powerful as so many think.

Anyway, my point is, is that even though the PS3 is superior to it's competitors right now, technology that's better than it for nearly half the cost will arise within only a few years. I used the Intel octal core CPU as a refrence because it has 8 processors on one die. Just like the PS3's Cell BE (if you include the main power pc core, which you should). However, the cores in those processors are different.

Basically, if Sony want's the PS3 to last ten years, they need to get their asses in gear and get working on some games. Because 8 years from now, we'll have technology far above and beyond that of the PS3. It'll be like comparing the highest-end gaming PC's to my Dell Dimension 8100.

And I don't care how amazing the PS3's blu-ray player is, it's not going to be a big enough selling point to carry the console for 10 years.

The PS3 is far from future-proof. It'll last longer than the other two consoles (most likely. The Wii has motion-sensing, man. :!: They just need to quit being retarded and use it the way it should be used), but not ten years. At least not without a library of games as massive as the PS2's.

[Split Infinity]

PC technology is irrelevant, we're talking about consoles here.

By the way, Sony has a queue of games a mile long for the PS3, far more than the other two consoles, although that's probably because they've already released most of their big-name titles. Making their console survive the long run is one of Sony's highest priorities, and that's why they chose to release it so late. Microsoft did the opposite, now they're sitting on a mountain of RRODs.

Sony decided to wait, and as a result their machine is virtually flawless. Pretty much nobody has ever had a problem with their PS3, with the exception of one of the system updates. They obviously learned from their mistakes with the PS2.

[Someone Else]

EA is beginning to redeem itself in my eyes.

Crysis was an overall good game, it had some definite flaws but overall was an above-average, ambitious, and technical marvel of a shooter.

And there's Dragon Age and SPORE coming out soon, both in which have been given years and years to be developed... which is a complete twist on EA's usual philosophy. Quantity over quality.

Oh, and Sims 3. Which looks to be going in a good direction.

[Zeypher]

I kind of want a PS3 so I can get FF13.

[Caael]

What's wrong with a 360?

[Split Infinity]

Because the PS3 is getting both versions of the game?

[Nosferatu]

And if you don't like multiplayer games, that would be a total waste of money.

[Laharl]

Split Infinity, on Jul 21 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

Because the PS3 is getting both versions of the game?

that'd be great if Versus XIII didnt look like X-2 meets Devil May Cry.

...

and wasnt completely unnecessary.

here's an idea square, instead of making three sub par titles why not make one whacking awesome one?

[Nosferatu]

I smelt Devil May Cry. Unfortunantly that wasn't DMC I was smelling. Apparently I smelt crap.

[Laharl]

Wind Dude, on Jul 21 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

EA is beginning to redeem itself in my eyes.

EA cannot be redeemed. that's like slowly starting to appreciate Hitler

[Legolastom]

Hitler was a bad guy starting a war and all that, but I mean we have to appreciate some things he did, like the Holocaust, at least he tried to help the world in some ways.

[TheEnglishman]

^I'm assume that's sarcasm, or your humour is sick.
It's strange how much people have panned E3 this year. Personally I thought it was ok but reading stuff like this provide some interesting views.

[Zeypher]

How the Nintendo Conference should have been.
Lol @ "Ladies and gentlemen, Shigeru Effing Miyamoto".

[Golden Legacy]

Satoru Iwata: Good morning. I think everyone recognizes that a big change -- a true paradigm shift -- has taken place in the global game market. In 2005, all of you haters thought we were fools to release a cheap console with an untested new peripheral. But who's laughing now? Huh? Who's laughing now, bitches?

Audience: (Chuckles nervously, glances around behind them to see if that's what's really on the TelePrompTer.)

LOL. Brilliance, sheer brilliance, that's exactly how it should have happened.

[Toasty]

That would have made for an awesome conference.

Split Infinity, on Jul 20 2008, 02:46 AM, said:

PC technology is irrelevant, we're talking about consoles here.

By the way, Sony has a queue of games a mile long for the PS3, far more than the other two consoles, although that's probably because they've already released most of their big-name titles. Making their console survive the long run is one of Sony's highest priorities, and that's why they chose to release it so late. Microsoft did the opposite, now they're sitting on a mountain of RRODs.

Sony decided to wait, and as a result their machine is virtually flawless. Pretty much nobody has ever had a problem with their PS3, with the exception of one of the system updates. They obviously learned from their mistakes with the PS2.

Consoles take their technology from the computing market. The origional Xbox had a modified Pentium III in it. A Processor which was built for computers.
The point is, technology will be available in the future which will make the PS3 obsolete long before ten years have passed. Technology doesn't sell the console, the games do. Sony obviously didn't figure that out from their PS2, which was actually the least powerful system on the market at the time (yes, even the GC was more powerful). It sold becuase it had a crapload of good quality games that people wanted to play. Not because it was powerful.

So instead of learning from any mistakes they made with the PS2 (which seem few and far between seeing as how well it did), they've disregarded everything they should've learned from the PS2, and have made new mistakes instead.

And the PS3 was far from flawless when it was released. I remember seeing far more broken PS3's at Gamestop than even the 360. And now that the 360 has gotten a hardware update, RRoD's are few and far between. And they'll be non-existant after the second hardware update, which will merger the CPU and GPU, further reducnig power consumption and heat output, and possibly even giving the 360 a little more power (i.e. fewer frame-rate drops and less lagging in games. Nothing significant though).

[Someone Else]

Zeypher, on Jul 21 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

How the Nintendo Conference should have been.
Lol @ "Ladies and gentlemen, Shigeru Effing Miyamoto".

Shigeru's response:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/WindDude/shigeru_miyamoto_060605.jpg

Reggie's response:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/WindDude/not-my-problem.jpg

Baby playing Wii Fit:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/WindDude/2117766088_6601caa81b.jpg

Guy being attacked by furries:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/WindDude/furries.gif

Can we talk about E3 now?

This might be an amusing read:
http://kotaku.com/50...3-in-two-comics

[Zeypher]

Holy my mom, that panel with Cammie scared the my mom out of me.

[Golden Legacy]

Perfectly true, lol. Although, I think the first comic should give more credit to Sony, they had a better conference than usual (especially with LittleBigPlanet and MAG).


Here's a not-as-funny but worthwhile read about E3.
http://games.ign.com...2/892415p1.html

Take notice of the pictures from the 2006 conference and compare that with this year's.

[Someone Else]

Some people think Sony's conference was really good, best of the show. I thought it was meh. They spent too much time saying "we're awesome!", then they showed some game trailers. The only gameplay that was presented was with LittleBigPlanet, and that was just used as a Powerpoint presentation!

[Someone Else]

http://www.vgcats.co...s/?strip_id=269


...*cries*

[My Best Wishes]

Whose Potatmoto supposed to be? Nintendo??

[Someone Else]

Potatamoto = Shigeru Miyamoto who I'm sure you know who he is. Creator of Mario and Zelda. Basically, the gaming industry's big daddy.

[Toasty]

Remind me again why E3 was downscaled?

[Someone Else]

A bunch of blah blah blah emo wrist slitting tl;dr-ness that basically translated to, "it cost too much money".

[Golden Legacy]

It was more than the money, it was also about "efficiency". The claim was that because of the absurdly huge attendance of E3, it wasn't possible for game journalists to have some decent time with games. It's ironic actually, it was a very common complaint of the old E3, that it had too much flair and dazzle and not enough to actually get a feel for the games and be able to preview them as they should.

Also, remember that companies have to go out of their way to creating demos for E3. It often interfered with the game's progress and development, because the game companies would have to pause everything and set up a demo of the game for the convention - which just gets in the way and is something that only large developers and publishers can afford to do.

The change to E3 was coming for many years now, only I don't think anyone expected it to be as severely downscaled and lacking like it is now.

[Someone Else]

Which is also saying it cost too much money.

It's alllll about the money, in the end.

[Toasty]

Why don;t they just letthe first day of E3 be for journalists and business men only? The glitz and glamour can come the following few days.

And developers don't have to release demos at E3. If they can't afford it, they can release more footage.

[Golden Legacy]

Wind Dude, on Jul 23 2008, 02:32 AM, said:

Which is also saying it cost too much money.

It's alllll about the money, in the end.

Read this part again.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 23 2008, 02:09 AM, said:

It was more than the money, it was also about "efficiency". The claim was that because of the absurdly huge attendance of E3, it wasn't possible for game journalists to have some decent time with games. It's ironic actually, it was a very common complaint of the old E3, that it had too much flair and dazzle and not enough time to actually get a feel for the games and be able to preview them as they need to.

Money is a factor but this was also very critical in changing E3.

[FlamingDuck]

I heard some interesting opinions on the most recent 1up Yours poolside E3 wrap up podcast. Basically, they said E3 isn't really for the gamers anymore, because we already follow the other conferences and random announcements. E3 is where there's a lot of press coverage, and news makes it into outlets that normally don't cover video games. So it makes sense for companies to announce things that the "casual" market would be interested in at E3 while they've got a lot of casual press gathered together already, because you know most of the time, those news outlets are not going to make an effort to cover video games, as it's just not what they do.

So that's a pretty good interpretation of the new E3 in my opinion. When it was downsized from the "gamer mecca", it also shifted focus a bit.

Anyway, the whole episode is 3 hours long, but the first 20-30 minutes are pretty interesting. The rest is sorta blergh.

[TheEnglishman]

http://www.gametrail...ayer/37555.html
I guess it's not surprising that they announced Nintendo as the worst aspect of E3. I guess they deserved it though.

[Laharl]

i vote E3 to be the worst aspect of E3

waste of whacking time

[Nosferatu]

Quote

UK, July 30, 2008 - Sony's PlayStation 3 could soon be the lead console for multiplatform titles – and the Xbox 360 versions will benefit as a result, according to comments from Sony Computer Entertainment America's Scott Steinberg.

"As the third parties begin to move their development to native PS3 and port down to other platforms, they'll start to see their games' fidelity getting better and better," Steinberg told gamesindustry.biz, "and in fact I think even Xbox 360 games will start to look better as a result."

Steinberg continued to justify his beliefs by citing Criterion's recent Burnout Paradise, which led on the PlayStation 3. "[It's] a great example of a game that shipped fairly recently that showed what you can do if you start originally on PS3, and we've seen and heard more of that from our third party publisher relations group. As they realise that if you start on the PS3 other platforms look better, it starts to become a no-brainer."

If I think what I think I'm reading, I need someone else to read it. Just to make sure.

[My Best Wishes]

What? The Ps3 has superior graphics to a 360?

[Someone Else]

Sony are being arrogant, elitist bastards again.

Their PR dudes really just should shut up, because a lot of people hate Sony for comments like that.

[Golden Legacy]

They have to spin stories their way. That's what companies do.

[Toasty]

Don't try and justify this faggotry.