System Wars PS3 vs. Wii vs. 360
#1
Posted 21 November 2006 - 07:02 PM
As you might expect, this topic is for all the heated debates over which will sell the most, which has the better games, the whole graphics vs. gameplay debate, and overall which console is the best.
Now, I am going to remind everyone of the rules, just to be safe:
1) An obvious one, but NO SPAMMING AT ALL. All posts must be constructive.
2) Another obvious one, but NO FLAMING OR ATTACKING OTHER MEMBERS We are all gamers, and whatever console or games you abide by, you cannot, and will not, criticize or start insulting another member for whatever reason.
3) Keep the language clean and simple.
Offenders will receive a warning and a suspension, immediately.
The purpose of this thread is to solicit a fun, healthy, and competitive gaming atmosphere for everyone. I encourage you to all participate, as indeed the next few years will see a dramatic shift in gaming.
Now, that said:
Let the System Wars Begin!
#2
Posted 21 November 2006 - 07:49 PM
But, lets see, I think that the 360 is a good solid choice, but the Wii is just a new way to play games. As for Sony? They're sorta like the Porches. I guess.
#3
Posted 21 November 2006 - 08:20 PM
PS3 has the brand, the graphics, and (eventually) the heavy-hitting mass-appealing titles. Say what you will about the price point, the system looks sleek and has technology that is perhaps several years ahead.
Xbox 360... if it was also coming out this year, I wouldn't think too much of it. However, after having a year's headstart, and selling several million systems, it definitely is staying in the race. The second and third generation titles for 360 are definitely getting more polished, and with the release of Gears of War, and the promise of the Halo 3 multiplayer beta test, it definitely has something going for it. Plus, no one can ignore the appeal and success of Live.
Wii. Ahh, what haven't we said about it? It stands to change everything. A revolutionary control scheme, Wii Channels, sleek, small, and affordable. It definitely has the potential to be a powerful mainstream success. However, this won't come as easily as Nintendo thinks. I've played Wii, as I'm sure many of you have, and while it definitely is new and fun to play, in most games, the control isn't flawless. I'm still worried that to the mainstream individual, Wii (especially without Nintendo's name attached) will be soon as nothing more than a gimmick. Thank God it has Zelda to keep it for the Core Gamers too, who will carry it over to next year.
I feel the true test will be next year.
#4
Posted 21 November 2006 - 08:52 PM
That was done by me. What I wanted to do was organize the forum, as we had too many discussion topics going around. This topic was meant to replace the original pinned Next-Gen topic. The Wii Discussion topic had started to become a debate between all consoles, not just Wii, so I took that out. You can create another one, but make it clear that ONLY the Wii should be discussed and nothing else. - GL
#5
Posted 21 November 2006 - 09:20 PM
Wii and Ps3. 360 has had it's time in the sun, since it is a completely different system to the Wii, Microsoft went for graphics, there won't be a competition. But just wait for the Ps3 to become affordable, only the Bill Gate fanboys will be able to resist.
Also, has Nintendo dug itself into a early grave? The Gamecube was a flop, and a company can not handle two flops in a row, if the Wii doesn't pick up I reckon Nintendo will be a has-been. Not to mention how they are supposed to top the Wii, do they go back to common gaming and plunge into the graphics race or keep with the interactive gaming?
#6
Posted 21 November 2006 - 11:09 PM
I like my games artsy. I want good orchestrated music, good storyline, and of course good visuals, ALONG WITH good gameplay. It's not that Nintendo don't realize games as an art, Zelda was inspired by Miyamoto's childhood of hiking in the wilderness. That's a form of self-expression. I'd just like Nintendo to embrace technology and provide me with good eye candy, too. :P
#7
Posted 22 November 2006 - 09:44 AM
But, back to warring, this is the best analogy that I've found.
somewhere said:
Or something like that. I'm too lazy to find the exact quote.
#8
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:25 AM
#9
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:30 AM
At least it won't happen to the Wii, which uses hardware that we had about a year ago, maybe two. :P
#10
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:34 AM
#11
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:35 AM
To make this post meaningful, I'd like to address advertising, and I'd like to say that I think that so far, Sony has had the best tv spots. The commercials are eerie and definitely promote a weird factor. Although a few commercials don't really advertise all the console's capabilities, they still make you watch, and at the end you're laughing and asking, "What?" blankly into your tv screen. Meanwhile, Nintendo has had almost zero advertising from what I've seen, and Microsoft is promoting Gears of War with any chance they get. I'd like to see how the advertising war plays out in the next few months.
#12
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:45 AM
Aquamarine, on Nov 22 2006, 12:34 PM, said:
Given: Public PS3 caught fire in a store, had been used non-stop.
Prove: Personal usage of a PS3 will cause it to catch fire in your house.
@SOT: Nintendo has been advertising but it's the same crap we see with the Red Steel. Guy is playing the Wii, he's having tons of fun, kinda looks like a moron... Sony's commercials have never been any better. Which isn't saying much. Sony sucks with advertising.
#13
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:47 AM
#14
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:47 AM
As for the PS3 on fire thing, I heard that was only one case. Am I wrong? If it is just the one then surely it is unfair to suggest there is a threat to the rest.
#15
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:53 AM
Wind Dude, on Nov 22 2006, 06:45 PM, said:
I don't need to hear that a home PS3 became a beacon of light to be worried(to be worried if I were getting one, that is). It has happened once, right? That means that it can happen again and I think it totally foolish to risk your life to play a game. You don't have any proof that it would NOT happen if I were to play it only 3 hours a day, while I do have proof that it HAS happened, no matter how long it was being played.
#16
Posted 22 November 2006 - 07:15 PM
Why? Just ask yourself, who are the people who always buy the console at launch? Tell me, the people waiting in line for days to buy a PS3 or a Wii, are they the hardcore gamer, or the "mainstream" individual?
Nintendo and Sony can rely on their fanbases to carry them through the system's launch, and well into the early part of next year.
#17
Posted 23 November 2006 - 12:10 AM
Aquamarine, on Nov 23 2006, 04:34 AM, said:
:P
Golden Legacy, on Nov 23 2006, 12:15 PM, said:
Why? Just ask yourself, who are the people who always buy the console at launch? Tell me, the people waiting in line for days to buy a PS3 or a Wii, are they the hardcore gamer, or the "mainstream" individual?
Nintendo and Sony can rely on their fanbases to carry them through the system's launch, and well into the early part of next year.
I'm far from a hardcore gamer but I am trying to get permission to go to the 12:01am launch at my EB. I really just want the last day off school.
Also, does it make sense advertising the Ps3? Is there even one for sale anywhere, well except Ebay probably. By the time there are more Ps3's to be bought the word will have spread sufficently.
#18
Posted 23 November 2006 - 04:09 AM
#19
Posted 23 November 2006 - 10:11 AM
Sony's strategy, and to a lesser strategy Microsoft's, is to artificially increase demand. By providing so few units, and knowing that they will be sold out, it gives the impression that they are being sold out at an unbelievable rate, and therefore encourages people to hurry and try to get one.
Nintendo tries to reach out as many units as far as possible to the general public.
In the long run, Sony's strategy has better potential, but in practice, Nintendo's is more practical.
#20
Posted 24 November 2006 - 04:00 AM
Aquamarine, on Nov 22 2006, 09:53 AM, said:
Quit trying to make sony look bad. Just because their system is overpriced and their laptop batteries catch fire doesn't mean they're crap. :P
But seriously. Unless this happens on more than one occasion (it only happened once, and it was being played much more than any consol has been designed to) then don't worry about it. Much more likely is that one of the subproscessors ( a cell in the PS3's cell proscessor) will blow out, rendering the PS3 useless. But even that isn't very likely since they're all tested thoroughly before they even reach ANY electronic device.
#21
Posted 24 November 2006 - 10:35 AM
#22
Posted 25 November 2006 - 03:37 PM
EDIT: Sorry GL, does this count as spam? I meant for it to be humorous more than constructive. I'll just make it constructive :P
So yeah, I did get a Wii, I've had no overheating problems, and it plays great. Lovin the Virtual Console, and I can't wait to see more games released for it. I really wish all games could work with the Wii remote though, as the Gamecube controller feels inferior now, and I can't afford a classic controller right now.
#23
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:09 PM
Honestly it really annoys me. If I was in America I could get FFXII, FFIII on DS, a PS3 or a Wii before Christmas (I do know that getting a PS3 would involve the 2 day queue and some luck). Only the Wii will be out here before Christmas and there isn't enough on there, for now, for me to get one.
Sorry I just felt the need to moan.
#24
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:13 PM
Blink, your really going to buy a classic controller!? The GC works on almost every game. Some exceptions are the other two systems, the non-Nintendo ones.
#25
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:18 PM
Anyways I'd want to get used to the Wii controller before I bought another one. How does it feel to use Blink (or anyone else with a Wii)?
#26
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:44 PM
Also, I see early signs of this topic becoming one-sided. Keep it open to all consoles, and keep all the specific Wii talk for the Wii Discussion.
#27
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:49 PM
Well, my neighbors got the Wii and within three days of buying it, the 8 year old kid was playing Wii Baseball, swung the controller incredibly hard, hit the controller against a dresser in their basement and broke the controller.
I found this funny, and it just goes to show you that the only thing unpractical about the Wii is that if you don't have enough room to play it, don't buy it.
#28
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:53 PM
On a side note, who is responsible for the tracking of the console sales (in your signature)? And unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the Wii up around 700,000 units a few days ago? Must have been an error.
That said, anyone know how many units of each console were available for the US launch? And how do they compare with the 360's launch last year?
#29
Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:58 PM
I got the link from Aqua, but it appears to be a good source. And yes, there must have been an error in the Wii's sales because they took about a 100,000 figure drop a few days ago.
As for sales, I don't know any specific figures, but the Wii was much better stocked that the 360 was at its launch, and the PS3 two days before it.
#30
Posted 25 November 2006 - 06:11 PM
What I really want to know (and can actually have happen!) is what the PS3's download service is like for old games. Anyone here happen to get one? :P
#31
Posted 26 November 2006 - 02:24 AM
I'm interested in the downloads as well. It's just unfortunate that nobody has one here.
*Doesn't do this post 4 times :P *
#32
Posted 26 November 2006 - 02:33 AM
Golden Legacy, on Nov 25 2006, 02:44 PM, said:
Yeah, the last time it happened, I did it. And it wasn't an accident either. :P .........Quit staring!! It was my first day here!.....and my first forum for that matter!.......
The Wii has been sold out almost everywhere I go. Along with nunchucks. The only things left in most stores here in Portland OR are Wiimotes and Retro Controllers. The new shipments for Wii's will be in two weeks here. We'll get another shipment of 2million.
As for the PS3, there isn't ANYTHING except a large handful of games anywhere. But that's to be expected since there were only 500,000 systems between two continents.
#33
Posted 04 December 2006 - 11:55 AM
Nobody I know has it, but when someone does get it, I'll probably be over there....a lot. I still haven't tried it!
#34
Posted 04 December 2006 - 02:38 PM
Apparently all the Wii's in Japan have all sold out, which isn't too suprising.
#35
Posted 04 December 2006 - 06:55 PM
Like I mentioned earlier in this topic, I've played a PS3.
#36
Posted 04 December 2006 - 08:17 PM
I ask because I'm curious to see how much the Wii gained when it launched in Japan this past weekend.
#37
Posted 05 December 2006 - 03:43 AM
http://nexgenwars.com/
By the way, SoT got the link from me.
WD, what games did you play for the PS3 and what were they like? Most importantly though, what was the actual console like?
#38
Posted 08 December 2006 - 07:09 PM
And I can respond about the PS3, I played it a little at the Digital Life expo a while back.
I only played Sonic the Hedgehog for a few minutes, but let me tell you this; my mouth literally dropped open when I saw the graphics. You have to trust me on this, the graphics are PHENOMENAL. They look better than some CG I've seen, that's for sure. I actually spent a bit just goggling and staring at the screen. The texture, the detail is so incredible, I can't emphasize that enough.
Having just played Elebits on the Wii, it felt a little archaic to be holding a standard controller in my hand, but I managed. Sonic didn't play too differently from its 3-D predecessors; still the same control scheme, lack of camera control, etc.
But of course, that's my limited experience with the PS3. I have to say, graphics CAN definitely attract gamers; they may not hold them for very long, but it's definitely something worth having.
#39
Posted 08 December 2006 - 09:16 PM
The controls were O.K, but that was just about it. You tilt the controller to steer. Felt a bit imprecise though but that probably was from my lack of experience. The graphics looked pretty good, but I wasn't really too impressed by it (Oblivion on my computer looks just as good) but maybe it was just the television. You probably need an HD TV to see the changes.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "what was the actual console like". And I can't tell you literally because the PS3 didn't actually seem to be in my line of sight! (probs was sealed away) BUT, from my approximately 5 minutes of experience with the PS3 (I got frustrated and left after driving off a cliff for the sixth time) I can tell you that the PS3 didn't feel too much different from the last generation's console... just a leap of a graphical improvement and what seems to be a tacked on motion-detecting Dual Shock controller. By the way, I'm putting a major stress on 5 minutes of experience... with an early demo of a game.
#40
Posted 09 December 2006 - 01:41 AM
Golden Legacy, on Dec 9 2006, 01:09 AM, said:
And I can respond about the PS3, I played it a little at the Digital Life expo a while back.
I only played Sonic the Hedgehog for a few minutes, but let me tell you this; my mouth literally dropped open when I saw the graphics. You have to trust me on this, the graphics are PHENOMENAL. They look better than some CG I've seen, that's for sure. I actually spent a bit just goggling and staring at the screen. The texture, the detail is so incredible, I can't emphasize that enough.
Having just played Elebits on the Wii, it felt a little archaic to be holding a standard controller in my hand, but I managed. Sonic didn't play too differently from its 3-D predecessors; still the same control scheme, lack of camera control, etc.
But of course, that's my limited experience with the PS3. I have to say, graphics CAN definitely attract gamers; they may not hold them for very long, but it's definitely something worth having.
Yay someone saying that Sonic the Hedgehog looks good! Maybe the PS3 version will be better than the awful
#41
Posted 09 December 2006 - 05:31 AM
WD: I wasn't clear enough, by "what was the actual console like", I meant what are the graphics like and do they really add something to the gameplay. Also, were there any new tidbits added to the console, like Wii has the Mii Chanels and stuff... but I didn't know you had such a limited time with it.
#42
Posted 09 December 2006 - 08:57 AM
Anyways it sounds like the Sonic game isn't much better on PS3. How depressing for me.
#43
Posted 09 December 2006 - 10:31 AM
Let me start off with the console that appeals least to me, the Wii. I know, the Wii has made a break in the revolution of games, as the new gameplay is softly said groundbreaking. I never imagined that you could play games like that -- at home. I tried it, at a friends. Playing both Zelda and a golf game, I noticed that it is indeed fun... for as long as it lasts. After fifteen minutes it already started to be annoying, thus I changed to the normal controller. Zelda is practically the only game on the Wii which interests me (strange enough I find Zelda so marvalous that I do think that the game itself is worth buying the console), but the rest of the games are rather .. childish (?) In my opinion. Manga games, Turn-based RPG's and party games cover the biggest market for the Nintendo console. This makes the Wii the least for me.
Next, the Xbox 360. A great console, don't get me wrong. The graphics are slick, the titles together with the gameplay are great, but there is thing which just annoys me with this console; the controller. It holds so uncomfartable that I can't hold it longer then 20 minutes before having to release it. I managed to get to thirty minutes with GoW, but that's the only game. Even the smaller controller isn't comfortable, and I think that quite ruines it, since the console itself is awesome.
Then, for the last and best part; the Ps2. I myself have been a sony fan for a long time, so it can also be a prejudice, but the things that other consoles miss, are included in this console. We have the games; serious, action packed titles, sided by other, more humurous games. The ps3 has a wide variation of genres and styles, which makes it easier to chooce. Then there is the controller. It holds so easy, so perfect, that I can play with it forever without getting cramps. This console is the ideal console, despite the price. I can't wait for the game Assassin's Creed myself, and I hope it's a Ps3 launch-game in the Netherlands.
#44
Posted 09 December 2006 - 12:00 PM
It sounds as if you need to give Wii and Xbox more of a chance.
#45
Posted 09 December 2006 - 12:11 PM
Giving them more of a change. Well, I played on the Wii for like two hours -- not that long, but long enough for a first impression -- and the Xbox/360 for longer then 10 hours. Kinda long enough to "review" it, in my opinion.
#46
Posted 09 December 2006 - 12:17 PM
#47
Posted 09 December 2006 - 12:24 PM
#48
Posted 16 December 2006 - 12:43 PM
Now, I may hate Sony but I'm still very open-minded. Heck, if I wasn't open-minded I probably WOULD be a Sony Fanboy. (ooh burn) But anyway, here's what the skinny is.
For now, Wii dominates over PS3. It has more consoles out, has more fun games to play, AND it's affordable. You'd have to be a real Sony boy to resist getting one if you had the money based on these FACTS. Plus with backwards compatibility to GC and downloadable classic games coming out.
The PS3 is often being compared to the Xbox 360, and for good reason. They're both in the tradtional gaming zone. And for now, the PS3 has nothing on the 360. The PS3 doesn't graphically improve on anything the 360 has so far. Not a lot to justify the $600.
So basically, the PS3 just isn't worth the money yet. It may catch up, but Sony's going to have work REALLY hard to get those PS3's out there. If the 3rd party developers dish out those games, and I'm not even sure if the devs are going to risk making a game on a console owned by so few people.
#49
Posted 16 December 2006 - 03:17 PM
Now, it's more complicated with the consoles because obviously there is the Xbox 360, which has a year's headstart and an installed base of over eight million units, which already places it on even ground with PS3.
Nintendo and Microsoft really do have the momentum now, with Microsoft coming out with increasingly graphically impressive titles, and big hits like Gears of War, and Halo 3 on the horizon, and Nintendo having nearly unlimited praise from the mainstream media, Zelda at launch, and of course, the window of opportunity to attract people of all demographics.
#50
Posted 19 December 2006 - 05:18 PM
#51
Posted 19 December 2006 - 06:59 PM
#52
Posted 19 December 2006 - 07:49 PM
watch, on Dec 19 2006, 07:59 PM, said:
Thank you for redeeming my faith in mankind.
My friends been trying to convince me for the past week, that he played the 360 and that its better. The only game that I would probably ever play on the 360 would be Halo 3, and seeing that theres quite a bit of a wait for it, i don't see the point right now. As for the PS3, what else can I say...
#53
Posted 19 December 2006 - 08:02 PM
#54
Posted 20 December 2006 - 07:56 AM
#55
Posted 20 December 2006 - 06:50 PM
#56
Posted 20 December 2006 - 07:32 PM
Golden Legacy, on Dec 19 2006, 09:02 PM, said:
My only problem with the 360 IS that its practically meant only for FPS games. I disliked the first xbox for being based on mainly shooting games, and not enough RPGs, etc.
Im not gonna say that the 360 is horrible because I actually do like it, but with my personal opinion in gaming, I prefer the PS3.
#57
Posted 20 December 2006 - 08:59 PM
#58
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:40 AM
I just want to note that I'm not defending Microsoft or anything, I'm just comparing the PS3 and 360. I would never ever buy the PS3 OR the 360. They're not worth the money in my opinion.
#59
Posted 21 December 2006 - 10:03 AM
What's keeping me from the Wii? I guess the fact that the only game that interests me so far is TP.
360? Dunno, just don't want it ^^
#60
Posted 21 December 2006 - 02:09 PM
Eugine, on Dec 21 2006, 04:03 PM, said:
What's keeping me from the Wii? I guess the fact that the only game that interests me so far is TP.
360? Dunno, just don't want it ^^
That's my opinion pretty much summed up, though I don't have a huge amount of PS3 games that I want.
I guess the fact that the PS3 is near impossible to get at the moment stops people from getting one as well. <_<
#61
Posted 26 December 2006 - 06:18 PM
Wii = 30%
360 = 20%
That's how I hope the market share will be at the ending of this gen. I atleast hope this generation will make Sony realise that words (Ken's arrogance is annoying!) can cause you to lose market share, so just do like Nintendo and Microsoft and say what the people want to hear, only good things ^^
Also, I hope they realise bad business decisions from other divisions can cause the whole company to suffer, so know who you're employing >.<
But, damned Nintendo... yeah it didn't go the direction Sony or Microsoft went but bah, the Wii isnt a breakthough in technology, it may be in gaming. Sony had similar technology patented. If Sony released a Wiilike controller for the PS2, which surely would have better gfx and better accuracy than the Wii and call it it's 'next-gen' console people will be like Sony is so damn unoriginal! Using old technology! and mind you that's basically the Wii, a 1.1 GC with a "wiimote".
When infact it's the samething Nintendo did, use old technology, that what costs one million to develop? in gaming -__-', and now they're the one that's revolutionizing gaming x.x...
Come on Sony, release a new PS2 with a Wiilike controller for 100, and everyone will be on your case.
#62
Posted 26 December 2006 - 11:58 PM
Quote
Okay, I've been trying to be neutral for all consoles, but this post just exudes sheer "fan-boyism", to the extreme.
It's one thing to say that Wii isn't a breakthrough in technology on the level of hardware (which is obviously true), it's another to say that Nintendo isn't making strides in technology. How on earth is the Wii controller NOT a breakthrough? It's enough of a revolution that mainstream media caught the attention, and Wii was shrouded with awards for innovation, which is a far cry from the PS3 gaining mainstream media.
And why are you assuming Sony would do a better job with the controller? Need I remind you, Eugine, that the PS3 controller DOES have motion-sensing capabilities, that was first introduced ONE WEEK BEFORE E3. Tell me, who's copying here?
And for the record, the motion-sensing of the Sixaxis controller is weak and ineffective compared with Wii.
You fail to see the point of Wii. You don't acknowledge just how much of a difference in gaming it's creating. Tell me how far the typical RPG, the FPS, the action game can take you before you realize that the next step needs to be taken.
#63
Posted 29 December 2006 - 08:11 AM
I know it's just for the sake of conversation but come on, where's the suspense in this when we all know the outcome? It's like me creating a "What console is the best?" topic on my clan website which is dedicated to Xbox Live, bet you can't guess which console they will vote for eh?
That's my little rant, anyway. I'm done now, anyhow.
#64
Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:09 PM
This topic isn't a "Which console do you think is best?" topic. It's a topic for debate and conversation about ALL three consoles. Yes, I won't deny there is a Nintendo-bias on these forums, but that's not to say there isn't support for the other consoles; and besides, instead of just accusing us of "fanboyism", why not create the official Xbox 360 topic, or actually try to debate the topic itself?
#65
Posted 31 December 2006 - 05:23 PM
#66
Posted 02 January 2007 - 12:23 AM
The 360 still needs support in Japan, and although they've got games like Blue Dragon and other Japanese RPG's on the way I still don't think Microsoft have done nearly enough to win over the Japs. Also with the upcoming online services for the Nintendo Wii and PS3 Online isn't it about time Microsoft consider making their Xbox Live service free or at least cheaper? Also their XNA idea is amazing but I'm not going to pay £50 every six months just to have access to a development kit, even though I have an amazing concept for a game which I shall call Broom-Fighters.
As for the PS3, I think it's no understatement to say that Sony have been making one blunder after another with their next-gen console and naturally it's pissing everyone off. Not only have most of Sony's exclusives magically come over to the 360 there are even rumours that MGS4 may be mutli-platform too. What does the PS3 have left franchise-wise after that? Gran Turismo and Devil May Cry.
#67
Posted 02 January 2007 - 04:36 AM
Nemphtis, on Jan 2 2007, 06:23 AM, said:
I'd agree with that. The whole experience will probably lose it's novelty after awhile. It's like when the PS2 released the Eyetoy camera. Does anyone use that now?
#68
Posted 02 January 2007 - 07:07 AM
I agree that the novelty of the Wii will die down, but it'll still have excellent games and free online play, which will be the reasons people will buy the console in the future.
#69
Posted 02 January 2007 - 01:19 PM
Nemphtis, on Jan 2 2007, 12:23 AM, said:
I have a hard time believing, and I even find it impossible that MGS4 will be anything but a PS3 exclusive. I'm sure Sony will go to great lengths to keep that franchise exclusive.
#70
Posted 02 January 2007 - 01:38 PM
Personally, I think they're going to have to adopt a normal game controller after a while for traditional games.
#71
Posted 02 January 2007 - 06:45 PM
Sea_of_Time, on Jan 2 2007, 03:19 PM, said:
Need I remind everyone what happened with Soul Calibur? Even though Soul Calibur II sold better on GameCube than PS2, for some reason ($) Namco chose to release Soul Calibur III on the PS2 ($). Though Namco claims it was to focus on a single game and make it better, ($), Sony won it over with an exclusive ($) deal.
Getting my drift here?
Wind Dude, on Jan 2 2007, 03:38 PM, said:
Personally, I think they're going to have to adopt a normal game controller after a while for traditional games.
Fire Emblem for the Wii used the traditional controller back when it was demoed.
EDIT:
Taken from IGN:
According to preliminary NPD data, the Xbox 360 was the best-selling console during the holiday season in the U.S. CNBC is reporting that Americans picked up two million units of Microsoft's system during the period.
But Nintendo was not far behind. In spite of limited availability, the Wii sold 1.8 million units from its launch until December 25. Sony only moved approximately 750,000 units of the PlayStation 3, due to manufacturing problems and decreased demand. Over the holidays, IGN repeatedly found PS3s available at retailers while no Wiis were in sight. The price of a PS3 on eBay has also dropped to around its MSRP, while the Wii is still selling for over twice its retail price.
NPD expects to release complete sales data for the holiday season later this month.
#72
Posted 03 January 2007 - 11:06 AM
Sea_of_Time, on Jan 2 2007, 07:19 PM, said:
Don't be so quick with that, because if you recall Metal Gear Solid 2 was released on the Xbox as well as the PS2. I think that Metal Gear Solid 4 will definitely be on the PS3 first but there is a realistic chance that it could later be released on the 360 as well.
Wind Dude, on Jan 2 2007, 07:38 PM, said:
To be honest I love the retro controller the Wii has for the Virtual Console games, and I cry myself to sleep sometimes thinking about how they could have made that their standard controller instead of going for this silly novelty gimmick.
#73
Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:30 PM
#74
Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:38 PM
#75
Posted 03 January 2007 - 05:08 PM
I know that they probably have small hands in Japan, but I'm a white guy and 6 feet tall. I have BIG hands.
#76
Posted 03 January 2007 - 05:15 PM
Me111, on Jan 3 2007, 03:38 PM, said:
But You can't really compare it to the DS, because the DS is more about the two screens than the touch screen IMO. They do incorporate the whole duel screen thing into every game, but we'll see what happens with the Wii since its to early to tell.
As for the retro controller I haven't even seen it yet, besides one picture of it I saw a while back. I'll look on google or something.
#77
Posted 03 January 2007 - 05:27 PM
PS3: With it's amazing graphics and good power and apparently its 'quiet' his console is a powerhouse but in my opinion and according to the PS3 official magazine the controller feels light like some cheaply made plastic which I kinda don't like. Also I'm not paying up to £400+ to get a console that I would be then drained of money to get any games for. Still the games for it look sweet with the next Final Fantasy being released on the PS3 and of course Call Of Duty 3 the game selection of the PS3 should become amazing.
Wii: Though usually I am a Nintendo Fan Boy which I can admit I still think things went wrong during development. I love the controller I mean using it as a katana in red steel and using it as the bow or sword in Zelda is awesome and with the tiny speaker in side the controller allowing you to here the sound of the arrows being unleashed is just amazing but. Graphics. The Graphics are just a bit better then the Gamecubes but I don't think Nintendo was aiming for a big powerhouse with huge graphic power they were interested in making a breakthrough in gaming. Still the Games Available are cool and I'm sure there selection will build up to I nice fun family collection. For Wii stands for 'We' as in We as the people.
Xbox 360: Its a nice white machine with nice online playing and sweet graphics and the first to introduce wireless controllers. The game selection is good and it's interface is very nice with cool blade effect. But Microsoft did nothing new apart from the Wireless controllers in my eyes there was nothing to catch my eyes were as also the backwards compatibility is poor meaning that some of the games don't work or are slowl and glitchy making some of your old fave classics unplayable. Still nice console.
Still we will not know the best console till more games are out oh and the reaction to the PS3 when it comes out here it uk.
#78
Posted 03 January 2007 - 06:53 PM
I will pick up on one thing you said; that all the console makers have flaws that they AREN'T willing to acknowledge.
Nintendo: As innovative as the console is, the Wii's graphics will catch up with it, if not already. This is going to hurt a lot more than they expect.
Sony: As powerful as the PS3 is, going for half a thousand, and easily twice that of its competitors, is going to hurt its momentum. Again, Sony doesn't realize just how much the price tag is going to hurt it, especially if they can't even produce enough units in time.
Microsoft: Surprisingly, I don't have much to say on Microsoft. Launching earlier allowed it to make up for its subpar gaming selection (Gears of War anyone?), and honestly, I think it's in the best position right now.
#79
Posted 03 January 2007 - 07:02 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 3 2007, 06:53 PM, said:
Gears Of Wars is awesome. But yes I know what your saying about how sony + nintendo ont admit the flaws in the consoles.
#80
Posted 03 January 2007 - 07:32 PM
BUT, in a year or two, PS3's are going to be much more affordable. Then what? It could very well dominate Wii and the Xbox 360. The PS3 is a powerful enough of a console that Sony wouldn't have to make a PS4 for a long time.
#81
Posted 03 January 2007 - 07:38 PM
Wind Dude, on Jan 3 2007, 07:32 PM, said:
BUT, in a year or two, PS3's are going to be much more affordable. Then what? It could very well dominate Wii and the Xbox 360. The PS3 is a powerful enough of a console that Sony wouldn't have to make a PS4 for a long time.
And yet I think as soon as they get news about the next xbox if there is a next xbox they will start designing a new console. It's just the kinda thing that could happen but same thing for Nintendo.
#82
Posted 03 January 2007 - 07:43 PM
#83
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:06 PM
This is something important to know about Sony's systems; they make them to last ten years.
The original PlayStation was only stopped just last year, and the PS2 is expected to be manufactured for at least another three years.
The thing is, of course, that in each case, the "next generation" was launched in the middle of the "last generation".
For example, Sony launched PS2 halfway through the PS1's ten year cycle.
Sony launched PS3 halfway through the PS2's ten year cycle.
But Sony can't possibly release a PS4 halfway through the PS3's life cycle, because it still won't have recovered from the huge losses on the hardware.
(Sorry if that was confusing to follow, but I think it's interesting to point out).
#84
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:19 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 3 2007, 08:06 PM, said:
This is something important to know about Sony's systems; they make them to last ten years.
The original PlayStation was only stopped just last year, and the PS2 is expected to be manufactured for at least another three years.
The thing is, of course, that in each case, the "next generation" was launched in the middle of the "last generation".
For example, Sony launched PS2 halfway through the PS1's ten year cycle.
Sony launched PS3 halfway through the PS2's ten year cycle.
But Sony can't possibly release a PS4 halfway through the PS3's life cycle, because it still won't have recovered from the huge losses on the hardware.
(Sorry if that was confusing to follow, but I think it's interesting to point out).
This is a very good point. Of course if the PS3 really does do good and sell a lot Sony may have a chance of having enough money to finance research into building the PS4 but its very unlikely to be realized in the next 5 years in fact would even expect research for another four. I think Sony have been a bit risky with there money when it comes to the PS3 but still must wait for a while and see how it does.
#85
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:19 PM
Microsoft seems to be doing well, but apparently they get huge losses on every 360 made. They hope to make it up with game sales, but I think they have to sell 4-5 games per console to break even. But judging by their recent performence, they might be all right.
#86
Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:29 PM
#87
Posted 04 January 2007 - 06:23 PM
#88
Posted 04 January 2007 - 06:24 PM
#89
Posted 05 January 2007 - 10:05 PM
Golden Djinn13, on Jan 3 2007, 11:15 PM, said:
Actually I do recall one or two DS games which don't use both screens at all during the entire game. Just wanted to point that out since I find it annoying when people generalise upon something when they know damn well they haven't tested or seen every single DS game ever released. Also, it's good to see some people aren't just sticking with Nintendo, there I was thinking you're all a bunch of ****suckers.
#90
Posted 05 January 2007 - 10:10 PM
That said, let's face it. We all know there are going to be some gimmicky Wii games, and we all know there are going to be some intuitive, truly revolutionary games that are coming. Look at the DS; when it was launched, not one single games really brought anything new forward (even Super Mario 64 DS, was obviously just a port, and the controls were only tacked on).
But now, Nintendogs, Elite Beat Agents, Metroid Prime Hunters, etc. have all changed that.
One final point, however: the success of the DS guarantees for the Wii what the GBA guaranteed for the GameCube: NOTHING.
The GBA was incredibly successful, but that didn't help GameCube sales.
Just because the DS has taken over the handheld market, doesn't guarantee that Wii will do the same in the console market.
#91
Posted 07 January 2007 - 01:55 AM
#92
Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:53 PM
It's hard to say at this point, but it'll clear up in the long run. As I see it, Sony is stuck at the starting line with an expensive exotic car which has engine trouble, while MS in their american muscle and Ninty in their suped up Japanese tuner are off to a good start. It just depends on which one has a higher top speed.
#93
Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:04 PM
#94
Posted 07 January 2007 - 08:12 PM
#95
Posted 07 January 2007 - 08:29 PM
I'm not too sure which of the three consoles I like the most, but if there's one thing I've ever been certain about in the console wars that thing was the dominance Xbox Live has over all the other online services. Look at the PS3, Sony are copying Xbox Live as much as they possibly can with their points system and all that malarky. Xbox Live is an excellent arena for clans, but the Wii's online service so far has shown me nothing for clan support.
Also, I would like to point out a few small factors between the 360 and Wii which could make a huge difference in attracting customers. The Wii is cheaper than the 360 without a doubt, and that is a great selling point naturally. But the Wii isn't technologically next-gen and it may gain a reputation to be one of those things which are cheap but un-popular. Think of the 360 has an iPod and the Wii as some MP3 you've never heard of, when you're buying an MP3 players will you go for the much-hyped iPod or take a risk with the cheap MP3 player? Chances are you'll feel safer with the more expensive purchase. The biggest difference is the next-gen technology though, the Nintendo Wii is often said to be a GameCube with new controls, the 360 has the horsepower but the Wii has the flashy modifications if we were talking about cars.
So who do I think would win if Sony lost the crown? I think people aren't ready for a change just yet, and I think people will go for the more familiar and traditional 360 console compared to the "we're very different" Nintendo Wii. That's my perspective as someone who looks at information and decides based on the facts rather than who they favour. Personally I would want Sony to win since that console has the most games, but I would also want Microsoft to win since their online service is fantastic, but at the end of the day I also want Nintendo to be successful because they are a big part of gaming's history and I'd hate to see them die.
#96
Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:07 AM
#97
Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:11 PM
Sea_of_Time, on Jan 8 2007, 11:07 AM, said:
I'm going to make the argument that was a GOOD thing for Sony. Tell me, would the PS2 had sold as much as it did if it relied on one single game to carry it through? It shows that Sony has enough variety in its games that it doesn't need a super-seller.
That said, what about Grand Theft Auto? Devil May Cry? Final Fantasy?
And Anubis, excellent post, you really show a good grasp of the facts. Yes, I think it's pointless to compare the Wii's online service with Microsoft's, even the PS3 can't really compare (besides the fact that it's free).
The one thing I'm going to point out is that people "aren't ready for change".
If the DS has shown anything, it's that Nintendo's philosophy of "weaker, but innovative" CAN be successful; not necessarily that it will be, but it has that potential to be.
Right now, I'm not going to count anyone out of the race yet. It's only just begun, and there are simply too many factors to consider.
#98
Posted 09 January 2007 - 05:35 AM
Quote
Read it http://gear.ign.com/...3/753710p1.html
And SoT, that statement was a bit incorrect, SSBM was the GC 'it' title simply because there really wasn't any other to compare with it, but Sony PS2 had so much none really stood out. Read this
Quote
Super Mario Sunshine (5.5 million)
Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (3.5 million)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (3.07 million)
Quote
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (12 million)
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (11 million)
Grand Theft Auto III (11 million)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (7 million)
Final Fantasy X (5 million)
Devil May Cry (4 million)
Kingdom Hearts (4 million)
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (3.6 million)
Madden NFL 2004 (3.5 million in US only)
Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (3.48 million in Japan only)
Final Fantasy XII (895,000 in US only, 2.38 million in Japan only,[88] approximately 3.275 million)
Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy (3.2 million)
Final Fantasy X-2 (3 million)
When people were worried about Sony losing the crown just because of GTA, this is why, watch the sales. It's the best selling game for any console.
#99
Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:32 AM
What I'm saying is that when people look back at this console generation twenty years from now, one name will come up more than any other, Halo. Even though Sony had GTA, it was not an exclusive title. I realize the PS2 was an extremely successful console, but the games are not what it's going to be remembered for. That is what worries me about the PS3, it does not have a super-seller that will guarantee to carry the system. A GTA will sell well, that's a given. A MGS will sell well, also a given. But what is yet to be seen is if game series like Gran Turismo will start being stale on this new system. Sony is relying on sequels right now, and with Microsoft already having an original classic with Gears of War, the future may be promising for Sony, but it is not a spectacular future.
#100
Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:15 PM
#101
Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:18 PM
#102
Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:58 PM
Ubisoft generally make a point not to focus on a single console, it's bad business.
#103
Posted 09 January 2007 - 04:14 PM
Anyway, also like Nemphtis pointed out, it's hard to pick a next-gen winner in this early stage, if you watch the list, none of those games were lauch titles. It takes time for those games to be developed, and the company has to know how to use the gaming system power effeciently.
Also, from the list GT, FF, KH, Madden(not KH3, but Final Mix) DMC, MGS, Jak will be coming to PS3 as they were on the PS2 with the exception of GTA (since it no longer will launch exclusively for PS then launch a few months after for Xbox) and Dragon Quest (none was announced for any Next-Gen console anyway).
And saying GT wouldn't sell or get stale is simply... amazing.
Do you know why GT sells? It's one of the only racing game to offer a real life simulation, for hardcore racers and with the amazing graphics GT5 is already seeing I'd bet it'll be a console seller.
But anyway, have you watched Heavenly Sword? This game seems to match Gears of Wars graphics and the PS3 isn't even out for a year (it will be released in March), that's one game that's standing out, might even be a hit.
#105
Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:25 PM
Whereas the 360 has GoW, and Resistance:FoM (I'm not sure if that's exclusive though). Both good games IMO, and at least GoW is a hard hitter.
What I'm trying to say, is that MS is trying to make new classics to stay fresh, while both Sony and Ninty (but Sony much much more than Ninty) are relying on Sequels. At least to an extent.
#106
Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:34 PM
#107
Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:59 PM
#108
Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:26 AM
Eugine, on Jan 9 2007, 10:14 PM, said:
I was waiting for someone to mention this game. Heavenly Sword is the only original PS3 game I am dying to get the console for, it's graphically impressive and it also looks like a barrel of fun to play. I suggest everyone goes and finds some Heavenly Sword footage to fully appreciate this upcoming title.
Mr.T, on Jan 10 2007, 01:25 AM, said:
Whereas the 360 has GoW, and Resistance:FoM (I'm not sure if that's exclusive though). Both good games IMO, and at least GoW is a hard hitter.
What I'm trying to say, is that MS is trying to make new classics to stay fresh, while both Sony and Ninty (but Sony much much more than Ninty) are relying on Sequels. At least to an extent.
Firstly, you must smoke some seriously powerful drugs. Viva Pinata is a 360 exclusive so I don't know why you listed it as a Nintendo Wii game. Also Resistance: FoM is a PS3 exclusive so I don't know why you listed it as a 360 game alongside Gears of War.
That aside - you have a point but your outcome is wrong. You're right that Microsoft are making an effort to come up with original titles where as Sony and Nintendo are mainly relying on their previous big hits, but do you know why this is? Don't forget that Microsoft are still newbies to the console gaming industry, Nintendo have been around for ages so they have a nice selection of infamous mascots and franchises, Sony have also been around for a while now so they are slowly doing the same thing, but Microsoft are still trying to build up a concrete line-up since their only real memorable character is Master Chief where as when you say Nintendo people automatically think of Mario, Link etc.
Golden Legacy, on Jan 10 2007, 01:34 AM, said:
Original, but not genre-defining or draw-dropping. Just original, nothing special.
#110
Posted 13 January 2007 - 02:04 PM
#111
Posted 13 January 2007 - 10:18 PM
#112
Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:22 AM
#113
Posted 14 January 2007 - 09:14 PM
Let's hope this time the Wii and 360 kick the PS3's ass so Sony can finally open their eyes and see that they need more than just a brand name to keep gamers interested from now on. Next time I buy a PlayStation, I want to buy it because it rocks like a mother****er, not because it's a PlayStation but because it's a damn good gaming console with a damn good selection of games.
#114
Posted 14 January 2007 - 10:52 PM
To be fair though, I don't think the Wii will turn out like GameCube for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that Nintendo is providing the console with actual continued support, rather than leaving its console without any new games for three months.
So far, 360 and Wii have done their jobs, and have made Sony realize that its PlayStation brand isn't infallible.
#115
Posted 15 January 2007 - 06:25 AM
#116
Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:32 AM
#117
Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:45 AM
#118
Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:55 AM
#119
Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:59 AM
#120
Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:13 PM
#121
Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:16 PM
#122
Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:21 PM
So let's see, for 2007:
Xbox 360: Halo 3
Wii: Super Smash Bros. Brawl
PS3: Heavenly Sword (?)
Biggest titles of 2007. Feel free to agree, disagree...
#123
Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:24 PM
#124
Posted 15 January 2007 - 12:35 PM
#125
Posted 16 January 2007 - 07:49 AM
#126
Posted 16 January 2007 - 12:43 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 15 2007, 07:21 PM, said:
So let's see, for 2007:
Xbox 360: Halo 3
Wii: Super Smash Bros. Brawl
PS3: Heavenly Sword (?)
Biggest titles of 2007. Feel free to agree, disagree...
I wouldn't agree with the Wii game. Yeah, Brawl is going to be big, but Mario Galaxy will be bigger. I mean, come on, it's Mario for heavens sake!
#127
Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:17 PM
#128
Posted 17 January 2007 - 12:20 PM
#129
Posted 17 January 2007 - 01:13 PM
#130
Posted 18 January 2007 - 06:40 AM
Sea_of_Time, on Jan 17 2007, 07:20 PM, said:
I'm a Nintendo fan(in case you haven't noticed :angry: ) and I'm looking forward to SMG more than I'm looking forward to SSBB. Mario Galaxy WILL be bigger, since it will be something new, and the REAL 3D Mario since Super Mario 64, while it seems that Brawl won't be much different to Melee, all it will have is more characters and new stages.
#131
Posted 18 January 2007 - 10:37 AM
#132
Posted 18 January 2007 - 05:56 PM
#133
Posted 19 January 2007 - 04:08 AM
#134
Posted 19 January 2007 - 08:47 AM
Is the SSB franchise good fun?
Yes.
Is the SSB franchise the biggest selling franchise on Nintendo consoles?
No.
Can you grace us with a list of games you think are more popular?
Zelda (because it's zelda)
Metroid (because it's the only decent shooter Nintendo has)
Mario (their biggest franchise ever)
What do you think about comments made regarding SSB to be the biggest and most important game for the Wii?
Laugh out loud, *****.
#135
Posted 19 January 2007 - 07:45 PM
However, being the biggest title doesn't necessarily mean it's the most... for lack of a better word, "effective"?
Aquamarine and Anubis (still can't get around to calling you Nemphitis), what was one of the major reasons that GameCube did poorly last generation? Remember the lack of a true online initiative? Something which Xbox has gotten such a strong hold in?
Galaxy is more important to appeal to satisfy the Nintendo tradition.
Brawl is more important to take Nintendo's online/multiplayer initiative forward.
Times have changed. The N64 was launched with just three titles, one of them being Super Mario 64. Tell me, if Wii launched with just Galaxy, would you say it would have the same momentum it has now?
#136
Posted 19 January 2007 - 11:21 PM
#137
Posted 20 January 2007 - 05:31 AM
It's a well known fact that when it comes to online, FPS, MMO and RTS rule the roost.
#138
Posted 20 January 2007 - 08:09 AM
That said, I think GL is wrong that Brawl will be as big an online game as the XBox games. Don't forget that ONLY Nintendo fans will play Smash Bros. People that are fighting/online game fans will not buy a Wii because Brawl can be played online. Only Ninty fans will buy Brawl.
#139
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:21 AM
Hell, my own sister (who is as much of a non-gamer as all of us are hardcore fanboys) enjoys playing a little Smash every now and then, simply because it's THAT accessible to her.
But my brother and I still play Smash from the "hardcore gaming" standpoint.
This is exactly the type of title Nintendo needs. A strong, guaranteed seller, with mass appeal.
Edit: I agree with Eugine (next post).
#140
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:37 AM
Quote
Well Aqua, I don't agree. I know people who bought a GC just for Melee, and I'm one of them. Eventually I'll buy a Wii just for Brawl the same.
SSB is one of the games, many non-Nintendo fans play, if not the only... and I think Brawl would still hold the formula.
#141
Posted 20 January 2007 - 03:34 PM
#142
Posted 20 January 2007 - 04:17 PM
SSB isn't just a normal beat-em-up game, it's way more than that... The game is all about skill, speed and mindgames. And it's ofcoarse also a great multiplayer game if you put items on, or do some wacky Coin Battle.
So yeah, I think Brawl will be bigger then Mario Galaxy, may it be with or without Online options. The main tournaments will still be hold in real life, however an online tournament mode would be nice to!
#143
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:33 PM
Aquamarine, on Jan 20 2007, 02:09 PM, said:
That said, I think GL is wrong that Brawl will be as big an online game as the XBox games. Don't forget that ONLY Nintendo fans will play Smash Bros. People that are fighting/online game fans will not buy a Wii because Brawl can be played online. Only Ninty fans will buy Brawl.
ARGH, you freakin' fanboy.
Why do these idiots insist on getting on my nerves with such... Pointless and dodgy facts?!
So tell me you un-biased and extremely knowledgable gamer, how is Smash Bros. so different to other fighting games such as Dead or Alive to the point where it can be played SO MUCH LONGER? Why would you make such a retarded and biased statement? Why? Anyone who says bull**** like that lose any respect I had for them when it comes to video games. Where are all the real gamers who look beyond the fan-bull**** and judge a game based on what it is?
Are you trying to imply to me that the Smash Bros. series is far superior to legendary beat'em ups like Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Dead or Alive, Street Fighter & Guilty Gear? The only... ONLY thing the SSB series has that other beat'em ups don't have is the fact that there are so few moves you can do with each character that it's easy to get into the game. That is a double edged sword so it's not even such a big selling point, and it's exactly why SSB isn't one of the most sold beat'em up games out there.
I think Super Smash Bros. is a great game and it's one of the FEW games I actually bought for my pre-historic GameCube, but to tell me that Smash Bros. is something superior to other fighting games that are fifty times more mainstream and well-known is a biased comment that makes me want to rip out your tongue and feed it to a nun.
Man, I'm pissed now. I'm going to go teabag some Nintendo fanboys on Nintendo WiFi now.
#144
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:39 PM
And say what you will about that, that means very simply that SSB reaches a much wider audience, which in turn sells more.
Finally, for the love of God - stop calling us fanboys. You can't just go around judging against everyone because they make a statement like that.
#145
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:43 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 05:39 AM, said:
And say what you will about that, that means very simply that SSB reaches a much wider audience, which in turn sells more.
Finally, for the love of God - stop calling us fanboys. You can't just go around judging against everyone because they make a statement like that.
Let me get this straight, are you trying to tell me that you think it's a well-known fact the Smash Bros. series sells more than the Dead or Alive series? Do you honestly think the age rating stops young gamers from buying Dead or Alive? Do you have any idea how little effect your statement has made?
The Dead or Alive series has appeared on the PlayStation and Xbox, the two biggest consoles of it's time. I can 100% guarantee you that the DoA series has sold more copies than the SSB series, period. Don't get me started on statistics.
and anyone who makes a stupid comment like that SSB one is a fanboy, period.
#146
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:47 PM
What I mean is, at the very least, SSB is available to a wider audience. Do you have any idea how little effect your statement is having, when you can't even acknowledge that simple fact?
#147
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:53 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 05:47 AM, said:
What I mean is, at the very least, SSB is available to a wider audience. Do you have any idea how little effect your statement is having, when you can't even acknowledge that simple fact?
Actually, I agree so kiss my white ass.
I can't believe you said 'Do you have any idea how little effect your statement is having, when you can't even acknowledge that simple fact?' just after you admitted you didn't make yourself clear. I would laugh, but I'm still annoyed by the fanboy comment I read earlier.
Yes, SSB can appeal to a wider audience age-wise but first and foremost the wider audience don't all own a Nintendo console and secondly just because it appeals to a wider audience it doesn't mean it will appeal to their style. I love SSB but I prefer fighting games that have a good list of combos and attacks, I want to spend weeks trying to master my character. Do you think the wider audience wants to play a game with just six different attacks or a game where each character has a good variety? Why do you think other games don't just have six attacks, hm? SSB appeals to a wider audience age-wise but does the exact opposite when it comes to how they've layered the game. It's a great game but will never get to the popularity level of games like Tekken.
#148
Posted 21 January 2007 - 12:02 AM
And to answer your question, YES - you're making the assumption that the wider audience "doesn't want" to play a game like SSB. Who are you to make that generalization? No doubt there are people who are turned off by it's lack of random 12 hit combos that most people pull-off button-mashing, but there are also others who'd never even pick up a controller if it wasn't for the design found in Smash.
#149
Posted 21 January 2007 - 04:11 AM
#150
Posted 21 January 2007 - 05:25 AM
Nemphtis, I'm not saying that Smash Bros. is superior to other fighting games in all aspects. It is in some, but no game is perfect. I said that Smash Bros. can be played longer because I, who have both Melee and Soul Calibur 2 for GC, can play Melee far longer. Maybe I shouldn't have looked at it that way, but that also goes for many of my friends. It's just that Smash Bros. has more possibilities for different kinds of battles when you look at all the different arenas and items.
And please, of course the Smash Bros. series has sold less than Dead or Alive and Tekken when it only has two games, whilst the other two beat'em ups which I mentioned have quite a lot more(especially Tekken).
And WHY is the Xbox the biggest cosole of its time!? PS2 sold about five times as much as it, that shows how big the Xbox really was.
Anyway, as for Eugine's and GL's posts where they say that Smash Bros. is played by non-Nintendo fan(boys)... Ok, there is nothing I can say to that, if you know people who aren't Ninty fans but bought a GameCube just for Melee I guess you're right. But SMG will still be bigger... :)
#151
Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:16 AM
Let's put this in the context of the entire next-generation console race.
Which do you think will have better perception, SMG or SSBB?
During the holiday season, we're expecting some big titles like Halo 3, and no doubt some mature titles off the PS3 front.
Nintendo is choosing to release SSBB during that time, NOT SMG. Why do you think that is?
#152
Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:24 AM
Snake made it even bigger ^^
#153
Posted 22 January 2007 - 10:09 AM
#154
Posted 22 January 2007 - 12:12 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 06:16 PM, said:
Nintendo is choosing to release SSBB during that time, NOT SMG. Why do you think that is?
I don't understand. Do you by chance know when those two games will be released? Galaxy has a March-December 2007 release date(Miyamoto's original idea of having Mario released in the first six months of the Wii's life will probably not happen after all). Brawl only has a 2007 release date. Tell me how you know Nintendo wants Brawl to be launched during the holidays, but not Galaxy.
#155
Posted 22 January 2007 - 05:27 PM
#156
Posted 23 January 2007 - 10:00 AM
#157
Posted 23 January 2007 - 07:48 PM
Metroid is a bigger deal than you make it out to be, especially in the Western market. It is essentially one of Nintendo's few truly "mature" titles, and it's VERY important for two reasons:
1) As already said, to help shake of Nintendo's image as being a "kiddie developer"
2) Corruption seems to be the game that will solidify the FPS genre on the Wii. It's important for that reason alone, as the Wii-mote has been nearly universally accepted as having the potential to have the best console FPS controls.
#158
Posted 24 January 2007 - 12:48 PM
#159
Posted 10 February 2007 - 12:16 PM
Xbox 360: 10,470,928
PlayStation 3: 1,393,373
Wii: 4,482,820
Considering the high price of the PS3, it's limited supply, and the fact that it's only been released in two major territories (North America, Japan), as opposed to its competitors, I'd say it's doing decently.
#160
Posted 10 February 2007 - 12:40 PM
#161
Posted 11 February 2007 - 08:16 AM
#162
Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:09 AM
#163
Posted 18 February 2007 - 05:37 AM
Now comparing Dead or Alive to SSBB, I can't say much since I've only played the latter. If all it is is a level field, with two characters going head to head, then it's crap. Especially if there's combos. No matter how cool looking they may be, combos have been well over used. As for a level playing field, what's the point in even having different fields if they're all just flat? So what, they've got different scenery. Big deal. That's what made Soul Caliber 2 so boring for me. It was too repetitive. Now this was all speculation, but generally, most fighting games are just like that. So correct me if I got anything wrong.
Now as for SSBB, yeah, it's only a 2D fighting ground, but at least it allows for much more diversified levels. You can do a lot more with a 2D field than a 3D field, mainly because adding platforms to a 3D field makes things worse. Now sure, there certainly are some fields that are crap, like the final destination one, but so many more are different. Yes, they may all have platforms, whether they're positioned differently or not, and yes, it's possible to be repetitive with them. But compare Big Blue to Green Greens (the newer level) in SSBM. They both have platforms, but they also have environmental hazzards, and in Big Blue, the platforms move around and dissapear, Not only that, if you touch the ground, you go whizzing off the screen. In Green Greens, there's two stationary platforms in the middle, two platforms off to the side, and a tree in the middle. But between the side platforms and the main part of the stage, blocks come down, and occasionally they'll explode. Both are 2D fighting grounds with platforms, yet they're almost entirely different.
Now I'm pretty sure there aren't items in Dead or Alive, mainly because games like the one I described earlier just don't have them. There's no point in incorporateing them. In SSBB, they have items. But if you don't want them, you can always turn them off for a clean battle. And, no two items are alike. There's even a profound difference between the red and green shells. The red ones stay on the stage and move around much longer, the greens slide off the edge. The thing about items, though, is that they offer a new level in fighting styles. some people can get really good if they use certain weapons. When I used Kirby, I'd always have the bombs turned on because with him, I'd become somewhat of an ace marksman with bombs. Seemingly able to predict someones movements and snipe 'em out. Not only that, there's the poke'balls with all the poghaymon and stuff, and then the beamsword, which when accompanied by a swordsman, became a potent combo. If you were good enough, the home run bat could dominate the field. But if you don't like haveing items around to cause havoc, you could always turn them off. Infact, I usually play without items.
Now as for the characters, there isn't much difference between the two games (again, it's speculation). They all are suited to different fighting styles. Some are faster, some jump higher, some are brutes. They may also have their own special moves. In this sense, the games are very similar. Infact, if you switched the characters around between games, you'd probably still be able to play them fairly similar as opposed to normally.
Basically, DoA is a 1on1 (I don't know if it's multiplayer) fighting game with a lot of repetitiveness. Though this can be a good thing, because it eliminates a lot of other factors, leaving you with just you skill against another's. I've played like this, and it's fun, but for me it just get's boring too quickly.
SSBB & SSBM are like free for all party fighting games (hence the word 'melee' in it's title. It means parrty in another language). There are so many different variables to test, and so many different items and levels, that you could play for hours and not even scratch the surface. For days on end you could play it and stll not experience it all. I hadn't even heard of wavedashing until a good two years after I got SSBM. But even though you can have a 4 player free for all with a bunch of items at your disposal, you can also have clean 1vs1 fights on plain fields like the final destination.
You see, SSBB & SSBM offer very similar features compared to DoA, but then they have their own free for all party brawl. It's like pitting a serious game against a party game, but the party game can be serious should you want it to. If you like serious games, DoA's your choice. If you like casual party games, SSBB's you best bet.
Now again, a lot of this is based on speculation since I've never played DoA, but it's comparing a 1on1 fighter to the Smash Bros. series. I'm assuming DoA is a 1on1 like Soul Calibur with the level ground and combos and stuff, but without the swords.
#164
Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:07 AM
Yes, DoA is what you say, except that battle arenas are more different there than in Soul Calibur because you can fall off them and land somewhere far below, continuing your fight there. Although I don't agree with you that SC2 is boring, and that combos have been over-used, you are mostly right. Smash Bros. does offer many more ways to play.
Still, everything you said was obviously quite biased.
#165
Posted 18 February 2007 - 04:29 PM
DOA isnt as bad as toasty says. It's a decent fighting game, which actually has a storyline. And a half decent one. SC2 has a good story line too. The thing is with DOA is that its all been done before. Its like a remastered Tekken. Which isnt that great. It has online play and all, which is good but its just not cutting it for its genre
#166
Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:40 PM
Aquamarine, on Feb 18 2007, 05:07 AM, said:
It's more of a dispute between possibly to easy to learn, and possibly to hard to learn. Some gamers want a challenge, some want an easy, but still in depth game to play.
#167
Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:20 PM
If you know the kinds of combos a character has the combos that take a long time aren't much of a draw back. If you want to use that kind of attack first you would probably have to use a quicker combo with good knockback, then when the enemy is far away or unable to move for a second just use the lengthy move.
Although what I just said might not defend normal fighting games in any way I just felt the need to say that. Everyone has different tastes in games, and Toasty just doesn't like typical fighetrs.
#168
Posted 20 February 2007 - 10:10 PM
SSB has interesting stages, items, and wider variety of characters.
They're different.
#169
Posted 21 February 2007 - 10:27 AM
#170
Posted 21 February 2007 - 12:28 PM
#171
Posted 22 February 2007 - 12:34 AM
Wind Dude, on Feb 20 2007, 08:10 PM, said:
SSB has interesting stages, items, and wider variety of characters.
They're different.
Yeah yeah, I know. Really, the only similarity is that they're both fighting games. Other than that, they're entirely different.
.....booby physics. XD
#173
Posted 22 February 2007 - 10:36 AM
That said, an interesting bit of info:
Source: nintendojo
A recent study conducted by Hardcoreware showed that Nintendo's console drained the fewest watts out of any current gaming machine. Wii averaged 17.8 watts when in gameplay at any given time, with a peak of 18.4 watts. Compared to a 185.1-watt average for the Xbox 360 and 193.6 for the PS3, it's clear that a Wii will seriously save on monthly electricity bills. A gaming-oriented PC was also included in the study, and took the most power out of all the machines, averaging 198.02 watts when in use.
#174
Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:16 AM
I suppose this will convince the more cautious and evnvironmentally friendly people that Wii is good
#175
Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:21 AM
#176
Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:44 AM
#177
Posted 22 February 2007 - 12:15 PM
#178
Posted 22 February 2007 - 01:30 PM
#179
Posted 22 February 2007 - 06:11 PM
Caael, on Feb 22 2007, 10:15 AM, said:
That's certainly....interesting.....It also makes it so much funner to try plug an American made TV into one....
But yeah. That's less than the average lightbulb (45 watts). And for a gameing system, that's incredible. I mean, a lightbulb is so simplistic, and it's only part is really small. The Wii however, has all that motion sensing stuff and WiFi and a CD slot thingy and and and......
But seriously. That's amazing.
#180
Posted 22 February 2007 - 10:15 PM
True to Nintendo's word.
That's not to say, however, that gamers DON'T want large, loud, and luscious graphics.
(And so, the debate begins again :))
#181
Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:00 PM
Meh, the PS3 is too overpriced for what it offers IMO. If you're so worried about graphics, go with the 360. They may not be as lucious as the PS3, but it's better priced for what it offers.
#182
Posted 23 February 2007 - 10:18 AM
#183
Posted 23 February 2007 - 07:28 PM
#184
Posted 23 February 2007 - 08:45 PM
Mr.T, on Feb 23 2007, 09:28 PM, said:
Admittedly, currently the PS3 isn't interesting, even I wouldn't buy it. But that statement there just took the cake.
Firstly, before saying anything do some research. It is estimated the PS3 would break even by March 2008, and the PS3 is getting cheaper as we speak, eg. the European model, the only downside with the new, and cheaper model is that some PS2 games aren't playable at launch, but Sony is hoping to fix that by firmware upgrade.
Secondly, it's only race between 'Ninty and MS' in North America. Both the PS3 and Wii have surpassed the Xbox 360 in Japan, and most retail chains in Europe are saying the PS3 is the most preordered system in console history (although it can mean most people are preordering it now to refrain from getting shot on launch day...). This doesn't indicate the PS3 will sell it's 1 million allocation on day one, but atleast it's a positive sign.
Thirdly, go look up on the games which are being released this year on the PS3. Maybe you are blinded, so still have yet to realise them.
... and yes, before you say it... I'm blinded by Sony. Hence my signature :huh:
#185
Posted 23 February 2007 - 08:52 PM
I love Nintendo WAY more than Sony and Microsoft. For me, they've created more appealing games than the other two. Sony and Microsoft focus too much on violence and sport games as their strong points. Nintendo makes better multiplayer and better fantasy games. They even make more RPGs, my favorite genre. Nintendo's games just have a much longer lasting appeal to me than Sony's and Microsoft's games.
#186
Posted 23 February 2007 - 09:02 PM
Anyway, to add to my comment, I must say Sony lost sight of the PS3 as a game machine, and instead pushed it as a trojan horse for Blu-ray, to benefit the company as a whole.
I admit also that there's a high posibility of Sony claiming third place in this gaming generation, and its gaming division is going to get a massive surprise, but oh well, seems like this decision created positives in other divisions... Sony's HD TVs has like 75% of the market share, blu-ray is seem to be winning the format war.
Oh well, lets hope things turn around soon.
#187
Posted 23 February 2007 - 09:25 PM
Sony rocks when it comes to TVs, cameras, and stuff. =P
#188
Posted 24 February 2007 - 03:37 AM
#189
Posted 24 February 2007 - 06:58 AM
'It's going to have 4D graphics!'
"HD only starts with us!'
And all the promises it just removed over the years, the current PS3 we see, is obviously not what Sony hoped for. But even Sony realised even it, one of the best in innovations just can't delivered it this time. People are now like 'that's the PS3? It's just like the 360!'
#190
Posted 24 February 2007 - 02:10 PM
I mean, there are only three visual dimensions (depth, width, height) and the 4th dimension is supposed to be "time", and I don't know how "time" could be applied to "4th dimension" graphics in a video game. Sounds like it was a marketing ploy to me.
#191
Posted 24 February 2007 - 07:24 PM
#192
Posted 24 February 2007 - 09:17 PM
I think the PS3 has an AGEIA Physx chip, not sure about the Wii and the 360 but they are capable of using AGEIA Physx too. (Red Steel on the Wii uses Physx and the Tom Clancy games on the 360 use it too)
#193
Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:24 PM
#194
Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:45 PM
As we know, the PS3 IS the most powerful console out. It's just that tapping into the power is very, very hard. They estimate currently only 20% of the PS3's power in used.
Will we see a huge leap in gaming graphics at the end of the PS3 life-span? One that can be considered 4D? Who knows...
#195
Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:59 PM
#196
Posted 25 February 2007 - 09:14 PM
Eugine, on Feb 25 2007, 09:45 PM, said:
As we know, the PS3 IS the most powerful console out. It's just that tapping into the power is very, very hard. They estimate currently only 20% of the PS3's power in used.
Will we see a huge leap in gaming graphics at the end of the PS3 life-span? One that can be considered 4D? Who knows...
Mr.T, on Feb 25 2007, 10:59 PM, said:
I know this is a strange tangent, but I should point out the same was true for the PS2, to a different extent. In terms of development, the PS2 had the most complicated system architecture; comparatively, the GameCube and even the Xbox were both easier to develop for, and the tools that developers had were more easily understood at first.
#197
Posted 25 February 2007 - 09:55 PM
#198
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:06 AM
#199
Posted 08 March 2007 - 04:05 PM
#200
Posted 08 March 2007 - 05:03 PM
The blu-ray players you're talking about is last-gen. Blu-ray companies (eg. Sony) are launching $500 Blu-ray players now, and hope the price to be $300 by end of year. Compared to HD-DVD, the players outthere are faster, so speed isn't a really valid point. Soon, blu-ray will surpass current DVD speeds.
Finally, Blu-ray is currently outselling the competition 3:1, and has the most movies sold so far, so saying Blu-ray wouldn't dominate, is ironic, since it is. I think you hate blu-ray because Sony is the leader in the consortium.