[Eugine]

I never mentioned Sony's name in my last post >_<

[Caael]

I know, it's in response to all your TRT posts.

[Drizzy Drake]

Caael, on May 11 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

You havent owned one, your opinion doesnt matter. All the 30% of RROD is bull****. People are worried about getting RROD because they hear so many stories about it, but out of every xbox 360 owner in the world,you havent seen a news story for those people who havent got RROD, have you.

Plus the noise is only loud when you put a disk in, because it's processing the info.

Um, TJ and Erika live with me, and they own a 360, and therefore I play one daily, so how bout you STFU or GTFO. That's first of all. Second of all, the RROD isn't just hype, nor did I ever say there was a 30% chance of getting it. There is about 8% of getting a RROD, which is still an insanely high amount, and a 0.02% of getting a non-working PS3. Just so we get that out of the way.

I also know 10+ people who have gotten more than one RROD, and apperently, so does every other person on this planet. The 360 is not a good peice of equipment, nor does it have a larger selection of great exclusives than the PS3 does(counting future games).

[Caael]

There's less than an 8% chance of getting one. After last August, the chances went right down. On X3F, there were about 2 stories a day before august ( when falcon chips came into place) and now there's 1 a week if you're lucky. So uh, i know what i'm talking about more than you do.

Quote

You are on some crack for thinking Microsoft is the best thing in gaming. The original XBox had 3, MAX, great exclusives, crazy ammounts of glitches, and was just not a good system. And don't even get me ****nig started on the 360.

Didnt own the original, was a Nintendo fanboy up until the Wii. I'm not a fanboy for any company, the xbox 360 itself is bull**** but I love the games it has. I dont care if they're not exclusive to 360 because I dont see how a game being released on PC or PS3 as well will make me like it less. Assassins Creed is on PS3, does it mean I dont like it? No it does not. I dont know what you're trying to prove here.

Plus I could say you suck massive **** for liking Sony, but we're not going to get anywhere. You're not going to change my opinion.

[Drizzy Drake]

Well you've said countless times that the GAMES make a console. If there are better exclusives one a certain console, wouldn't you want it more than a console with worse exclusives. You bringing up non-exclusives is completely irelevant. I completely forget that you're british, because you seem so American, going completely off the point to defend what you like. :P, you're Johnny Cochran.

I didn't say you suck, I said you were smoking crack, like not in the right mind state, for thinking Microsoft is the best gaming company.

[Legolastom]

Dipset, on May 12 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Um, TJ and Erika live with me, and they own a 360, and therefore I play one daily, so how bout you STFU or GTFO. That's first of all. Second of all, the RROD isn't just hype, nor did I ever say there was a 30% chance of getting it. There is about 8% of getting a RROD, which is still an insanely high amount, and a 0.02% of getting a non-working PS3. Just so we get that out of the way.

I also know 10+ people who have gotten more than one RROD, and apperently, so does every other person on this planet. The 360 is not a good peice of equipment, nor does it have a larger selection of great exclusives than the PS3 does(counting future games).

But it has a large back catalogue, many, many online features and loads of great games coming out in the future. While a few of the great games are on the PS3 as well many are not, the only game for PS3 that I myself am interested in is little big planet. While PS3 is the best piece of hardware it has (In my opinion at least) the weakest selection of games, out and coming out.

But on the point of exclusives it isn’t damn fair that you get Darth Vader and we get… Yoda.

[donotwant]

Dipset, on May 11 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

Twas a joke. I own an X-Box allready, I just promised myself to never buy a 360. Insane ammounts of systems breaking down, that ANNOYING whizzing sound, and the fucking RROD.

RROD 20% of the time is lulz.

[Eugine]

Yea omg o.o
Microsoft is probably the worst gaming company out now. They're just terrible.

Microsoft sacrificed durability and refused to properly test its system for errors, just to beat Sony into the market, and you guys still love that company. Atleast we know whatever Sony does (even if its arrogant) helps the gamers.

[Drizzy Drake]

@ Lego-FINALLY, somebody defending the 360 without sticking their penis into it first.

And Lego, I have something to tell you. Lego, I, am your father. *Waits for "NOOO!!!!"*

[Legolastom]

I leik turtles.

And Eugine, seriously take your mouth out from Sony's ***.

[Drizzy Drake]

I may love Sony, but I know when they have ****ed up, and when they have done good. The PS3, though not as good as it could have been(sales wise) is a great product. So is the Wii. Better graphics are my only beef with the Wii. The 360 is just a complete failure.

[Eugine]

Exactly Skidz.
omg o.o, me and Skidz agreeing?

But yeah, I can't believe people say Sony sucks, and points towards the PS3's not-so-stellar start only. They always neglect the masterpieces called the PS and PS2.
Mark my words, Sony is like no other. They'll win this generation.

They know how it feels to lose the lead in many markets then rebound. They are the real comback kids.
Don't worry, Sony will retake the audio market soon. They're just hawt.

[Legolastom]

I dont understand how people call the 360 a failure, if anything it is better than both consoles in quality, as the PS3 is failing in its games and the games on the Wii are a joke (Unless they have "The legend of Zelda" or "U R MRGAY" in the title).

I had been a Nintendo fanboy for ****ing long enough to see how they have changed.Pre-Wii they were only about making great games on great consoles (64 had the best games ever on it IMO) and now look at what games are on the console.

As for the 360 the only reason you have given for the PS3 being better is because the 360 is prone to break down, and so far none of the people I know who have 360s have broken down. Now if you are trying to say your console is superior at least give substantial reasons why the other one is inferior, the 360 is by no means perfect but for my its close enough.

[Someone Else]

If the PS3 fails this console war it'll be because everybody already has a 360, and the PS3 and 360, like Raven said, are pretty much interchangeable.

Very unlikely I'll own a 360. My dad bought a PS3, I have a good PC capable of gaming at top/near top quality, and I bought a Wii. That pretty much covers all games and even if there is a 360 exclusive, well, this is Microsoft we're talking about... it'll come to PC eventually.

PS3/Wii/PC FTW.

Sony still sucks.

[Caael]

Dipset, on May 12 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

Well you've said countless times that the GAMES make a console. If there are better exclusives one a certain console, wouldn't you want it more than a console with worse exclusives. You bringing up non-exclusives is completely irelevant. I completely forget that you're british, because you seem so American, going completely off the point to defend what you like. :P , you're Johnny Cochran.

I didn't say you suck, I said you were smoking crack, like not in the right mind state, for thinking Microsoft is the best gaming company.

I'm not defending the 360 here, i'm wondering why the hell it matters if you like PS3 more than 360. I brought up exclusives in response to Eugine, who keeps mentioning how good the PS3 exclusives are (Haze looks good, but thats about it).

And for the last part, that was a joke.

Quote

@ Lego-FINALLY, somebody defending the 360 without sticking their penis into it first.

Sorry, when was I analling M$ again? I've said countless times that the 360 itself it's crap, and it's the games on it that I like.

Quote

Microsoft sacrificed durability and refused to properly test its system for errors, just to beat Sony into the market, and you guys still love that company. Atleast we know whatever Sony does (even if its arrogant) helps the gamers.

You've never owned a M$ console, so you dont really deserve an opinion on this. M$, despite having crap hardware compared to the PS3 still have good customer service. I mean, the RROD is pretty much unfixable, but at least they'll send you a new 360.

Quote

I may love Sony, but I know when they have ****ed up, and when they have done good. The PS3, though not as good as it could have been(sales wise) is a great product. So is the Wii. Better graphics are my only beef with the Wii. The 360 is just a complete failure.

I'm not arguing that the PS3 isnt a good piece of technology, i've said this before (though might have been on X3F) that I would like a PS3, I just cant justify spending £300 on it, because theres not enough games i'd play on it. It's an awesome piece of hardware, but all the games I like on it I can get on 360. Plus I prefer the 360 exclusives.]

And the 360 is a failure? Hardware wise, maybe, but the gaming catalogue it has is far superior to the PS3, purely because it's been out longer. The only PS3 exclusive i'm remotely interested is Haze.

By all means, i'm not saying PS3 is bad. Give me one quote where i've said PS3 is bad. I've definately said this on the forum before; " Having a PS3 is like having two penises. Having one is cool and all but having another one is cool also, but a bit superfluous.

Quote

Don't worry, Sony will retake the audio market soon. They're just hawt.

Say what? I'm not too informed on the audio market, who's winning at the moment?

Quote

As for the 360 the only reason you have given for the PS3 being better is because the 360 is prone to break down, and so far none of the people I know who have 360s have broken down. Now if you are trying to say your console is superior at least give substantial reasons why the other one is inferior, the 360 is by no means perfect but for my its close enough.

This. Eugine and Skidz keep basing their arguement against 360 soley on the fact that it gets the RROD. Anything else? Just because the hardware isn't as good as the PS3 doesnt make the 360 a bad console. It's not like the PS3 raised the standards so anything below is inferior.

Quote

So is the Wii. Better graphics are my only beef with the Wii.

Totally off topic (well not really, but unrelated to the discussion), my beef with the Wii is the lack of proper 'gamer' games. Zelda is good to a point, but there's only one game on Wii and it's dated now. Mario I dont count as a proper series, as i've only ever liked the 2D ones and Metroid has tried too hard to be like Halo lately. They need a new franchise to help them get back into the gaming market, not the casual market.

I'm by no means a 360 fanboy, because if I was a fanboy I would call the other consoles crap without reasoning. I've explained my reasons for why I prefer the 360 other the other consoles. Not why I dont like the others, because dont get me wrong, I do like them, I just prefer 360. Hopefully this will clear up my stance on the situation.

[Legolastom]

Dipset, on May 12 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

@ Lego-FINALLY, somebody defending the 360 without sticking their penis into it first.

Now I have seen more of your posts I can see how hypocritical (No FF spell check make me sad) this statement is.

You and Eugine are both complete and utter fanboys and any point you try to prove about other companies is moot. Not like they will be substantial anyway.

/ChangeOfTone

*The eyes*

[donotwant]

Eugine, on May 11 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Yea omg o.o
Microsoft is probably the gaming company out now. They're just !

[Caael]

Quote

@ Lego-FINALLY, somebody defending the 360 without sticking their penis into it first.

*facepalm* What you dont realise is that 360 fanboys are the most accepting of the other consoles. I'm not even a 360 fanboy. I'm a 360 appreciator :P

[Zeypher]

Caael, on May 11 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

*facepalm* What you dont realise is that 360 fanboys are the most accepting of the other consoles. I'm not even a 360 fanboy. I'm a 360 appreciator :P

Not the one's at my school. They're like the KKK of anything non-360.

[Caael]

Damn, if Brawl had voice communication and online stage-creator like Forge in Halo, i'd play it.

[Legolastom]

All fanboys are the same Caael.

[Caael]

Meh, might just be the ones i've encountered. On Brawl forums we had Ninty fanboys, on X3F there's 360 fanboys and on here there's sony fanboys. Each 'fan-group' acted differently depending on the console they fapped over :B

[Zeypher]

You're not even gonna try Brawl, Caael?
At least give it a shot :P

Forgive me if I sound stupid...but what does fap mean?

[Eugine]

Masturbating.
And Caael, Ipod.

I do not own any next gen console, and never own an Xbox, but I have friends who have (had) each consoles. The first Xbox sucked really bad, and the 360 is basically FPS 360. No variety. This is why the 360 does well only in USA, it just doesn't have a diversed catalog.

[Zeypher]

You don't have a PS3 o.0
I think somebody posted this before but...
360= FPS
PS3= RPG
Wii= Adventure and Platformers

It all depends on what you like...personally I prefer Adventure games (like Zelda). I could care less about Mario...And I like RPGs, which is why I have a DS.

[Eugine]

Nah. I play all my PS3 by my cousin o.o

And no, that's wrong >_<
360 = FPS
PS3 = Little of everything with lots of RPGs
Wii = Nintendo titles

[Zeypher]

Nintendo Titles = Adventure, platformer, Metroid (yes, it's own genre), fighting, party, sports, and little rpg.

[Eugine]

Yep. And only expect one of each for every console.

That's Nintendo's problem. They make good games, but far too little.

[Zeypher]

Eugine, on May 11 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

Yep. And only expect one of each for every console.

That's Nintendo's problem. They make good games, but far too little.

Well...they're not trying to spray out a whole bunch of games all at once. Imagine the 3 Wii Zelda games released on one day :\
They also take a long time to make games...their perfectionists...which is good (in the case of OoT) and bad (in the case of Brawl's many delays :P )

[Eugine]

Then don't make 3 Zelda titles? How about making some new IPs? >_<
How about making a new bucking Golden Sun? >_<

[Zeypher]

Quote

How about making a new bucking Golden Sun? >_<

You know what?
You're right.

For once in your life... :P

[Eugine]

My logics are undeniable. I am always right.

... (in my head anyway xP!)

[Someone Else]

Nintendo should make a new RPG and shooter franchise, the two most popular genres in this age of gaming. It'd really give them a leg up this generation.

Golden Sun could be the RPG franchise. Shooter could be, well I dunno, maybe Disaster: Day of Crisis will become a franchise? =O

[Zeypher]

Disaster: Day of Crisis will be a franchise.
And we have The Conduit coming.

[Golden Legacy]

^ Kudos to you Zeph for remembering The Conduit! That definitely has so much potential to be Nintendo's premier shooter.

Eugine, on May 11 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Exactly Skidz.
omg o.o, me and Skidz agreeing?

But yeah, I can't believe people say Sony sucks, and points towards the PS3's not-so-stellar start only. They always neglect the masterpieces called the PS and PS2.
Mark my words, Sony is like no other. They'll win this generation.

They know how it feels to lose the lead in many markets then rebound. They are the real comback kids.
Don't worry, Sony will retake the audio market soon. They're just hawt.

I agree with Eugine here. Sony managed to topple Nintendo for the game industry crown. They know what they're doing, and all the evidence you need are the PS and PS2, both of which have sold 100+ million units apiece. Try grasping your mind around that number.

PS3 is very reminiscent of the beginnings of those two consoles. It's definitely worth pointing out that Sony will have a harder time reaching number 1 now that Microsoft/360 is now in play (and especially because the two have very overlapping markets), but it's definitely not to be counted out.

Especially now that Blu-Ray has become the industry high-definition disc standard. Remember the DVD/PS2 combo there, how successful it was? And that the PS3 is the best Blu-Ray player out there, and it will be for years to come even.

Legolastom, on May 11 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

I dont understand how people call the 360 a failure, if anything it is better than both consoles in quality, as the PS3 is failing in its games and the games on the Wii are a joke (Unless they have "The legend of Zelda" or "U R MRGAY" in the title).

360 has the most consistent and well-rounded game library. Well, my opinion of course, but it's definitely more wide-reaching than either PS3 or Wii.

Wind Dude, on May 11 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

If the PS3 fails this console war it'll be because everybody already has a 360, and the PS3 and 360, like Raven said, are pretty much interchangeable.

Very unlikely I'll own a 360. My dad bought a PS3, I have a good PC capable of gaming at top/near top quality, and I bought a Wii. That pretty much covers all games and even if there is a 360 exclusive, well, this is Microsoft we're talking about... it'll come to PC eventually.

PS3/Wii/PC FTW.

Sony still sucks.

I promise you, Sony is not going to lose. Remember that Microsoft/Xbox is pretty much dead in Japan as it always has been. Remember that the PlayStation brand is immensely strong in Europe - and as evidence, the PS3 has already outsold the 360 in the UK, 17 months after its release.

It's going to be the closest and most hard-fought generation yet.

[Caael]

Eugine, on May 12 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

Masturbating.
And Caael, Ipod.

I do not own any next gen console, and never own an Xbox, but I have friends who have (had) each consoles. The first Xbox sucked really bad, and the 360 is basically FPS 360.

Lol that's probably the most stereotyped statment i've ever heard.

The xbox 360 is not just full of FPS's. I do not understand why people keep saying this, because the only half decent exclusive FPS it has is Halo.

[Toasty]

The 360 has the most FPS's, the PS3 has the most RPGS, the Wii has the most....well, "innovative" games. But really, the Wii has the most adventure type games. And also the most S.H.I.T. and crappy third party "movie" games. Good lord it annoys me to no extent to see a 10 year old walk into gamestop and buy those things. I'd find the factory that was making them and burn it if I could. Lizzy McGuire and My Little Pony were not meant to become videogames. They look like something some fat 25 year old coded in ten minutes in his basement.

ANYWAY. The 360 has a lot of FPS, but it also has more Western RPGS than Sony or (obviously) the Wii. At least to my knowledge. Plus, it has Forza which personally, looks 10 times more fun to play than some driving simulator with fancy graphics, aka GT5.

Wii has Brawl, FE:RD, and I found Twilighht Princess to be okay. I'm considering buying MP3: Corruption, but it's supposed to be good. SMG was fun while it lasted, but I would have liked to have spent $10 less on it. Regardless, it was better than Sunshine for the most part. Wii also has Mario Kart.

PS3 has a lot of RPG's, Motorstorm (which was okay), and the only game that I've so far actually enjoyed on it, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Though MGS4 looks epic, and Killzone 2 is supposed to be the most amazing looking game ever. Supposedly.

The only thing is, the PS3 is still overpriced, and DOESN'T need all of that power. The fact that it plays blu-ray's is irrelivent. If I buy it, I'm buying it to play games. Not to watch some movie in HD that I spent too much money on. The dang thing would cost half as much if it had half the processing power and dropped the blu-ray player. Even after that, it would still be the most powerful system on the market.

360 does occaisionally go anal on itself and die, but it's not that often anymore. I only know one person who it's happened to, and it only happened to them twice.

The Wii only sucks right now because Nintendo is being gay and not realising that they need FPS's and RPG's. Ninty used to be the king of RPG's back when the NES/SNES was around. Then sony came in and took Square Enix away from them.

But overall, Sony pisses on it's customers. Anyone who denies that is stupid and blind. No exceptions.

[Caael]

Toasty, name 1 FPS that isnt Halo exclusive to 360.

I hate it when people generalise the 360 of being mainly FPS's, when really, pretty much every FPS you can get on 360, you can get on PC or PS3

[Legolastom]

****ING HELL!!

Just spent the last 15 ****ing minutes posting a reply only for it not to be ****ing posted! ****ING HELL!

[Caael]

Which is why I always copy my long posts before posting them, incase that happens.

[Eugine]

Blu-ray is not irrevelant to gaming >_<

And Sony doesn't piss on its customers o.o. Why should we flipping care if Sony is "arrogant" or w/e as long as we enjoy their product anyway? Microsoft pissed on its darn customers the most btw. They basically forced original Xbox owners to upgrade >__<

[Caael]

So why is Blu-ray relevant to gaming, Eugine?

[Eugine]

More space allows for more detailed games?

[Caael]

Since when has been storage on standard DVD's been a problem?

[Eugine]

It is >_<
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/10/16/killzo...ity-not-luxury/

Quote

On a final note, Guerrilla Games gave a nod to the Blu-ray camp, saying the graphics and level of detail found in the game could only be done with large storage space. "It is not a luxury to have Blu-ray, but rather a necessity, as compression only gets you so far. I mean, the level that we showed at E3 and Leipzig topped out around 2GB! Also having the CELL and SPUs means we can offload all of our physics processing to an SPU, or process AI using the SPU's.

[Laharl]

curious, what makes you guys feel your respective companies need such zealous defending?

[Legolastom]

I dont know. Eugine doesnt even own a PS3 but feels compeled to bash away at others. We are merely defending the console that we like the best. Of course if there wasnt anyone bashing it in the first place we wouldnt need to, but fanboys are idiots and attack anything that is diferent from the console they defend.

[Caael]

I'm not attacking or defending anything apart from my opinion. That's the point i've been trying to get across to the blind sony fanboys; why does it matter if said console is better than other console?

[TheEnglishman]

I've always seen it as 'play what you want' and just leave it at that. If someone else has a different opinion, then they just won't play your console.

[Eugine]

I am NOT defending Sony. I am just educating you guys on the fact that Sony is the king of gaming.
Hate Sony all you want, but just bow to them.

[Caael]

So basically trying to shove Sony's **** down as many throats as you can.

[Laharl]

Caael i promote you to resident MS fanboy

now you, Eugine and Zephyr must fight to the death

GLADIATOR STYLE

denial is delicious. yesh yesh.

[Eugine]

No Caael. I am just trying to make you guys accept reality >_<

[Legolastom]

Wow Eugine your an even bigger fanboy than the people that actually have the console.

And while Caael isnt exactly the least biased here you can group him with this ****** can you?

[Laharl]

okay, you can be resident MS fanboy intead XP

[Eugine]

I'm a Sony fanboy, not a PS3 fanboy >_<

[Zeypher]

Laharl, on May 12 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

Caael i promote you to resident MS fanboy

now you, Eugine and Zephyr must fight to the death

GLADIATOR STYLE

denial is delicious. yesh yesh.

I think Caael and I have made it clear that we aren't fanboys.
But yes, down with Ujeen.

[Caael]

Laharl, on May 12 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Caael i promote you to resident MS fanboy

now you, Eugine and Zephyr must fight to the death

GLADIATOR STYLE

denial is delicious. yesh yesh.

Give me a post where i've sucked M$'s ****, metaphorically speaking. I'm not a fanboy, I'm a supporter. I prefer the 360 to other consoles, I dont have a mortal nemesis with the other countries.

[Eugine]

Zeypher, on May 12 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

I think Caael and I have made it clear that we aren't fanboys.
But yes, down with Ujeen.

I hope you know I'm not really a 'fanboy'. I just think Sony is dah bomb.

I've owned - NES, SNES, PS, PS2, GC, Genesis, GBA and DS. I WILL NEVER BUY A MS CONSOLE THOUGH >_<

I think all 3 'next-gen' consoles lack games honestly, but the PS3 seems like the best choice imo. It'll pwn next year.

[Caael]

So basically, because me and Tom prefer MS, we're fanboys and we're also wrong?

Thats some good logic.

[Eugine]

I've never called you a MS Fanboy >_<
I was just explaining to you why MS sucks mucho.

[Ravenblade]

Has anyone ever wondered why games like "The Simpsons" sell? Or movie rip-offs made by EA?

Its because your average member of the public is retarded. And will buy anything. Is that a testament to the greatness of the game? No. The original Perfect Dark was one of the best shoot em ups I ever played, and it had a tiny fan base.

Whoever wins the console war, is likely not going to be able to account all of its sales to the awesomeness of its machine - it'll be mostly down to hype and advertising. Therefore, arguing which is best based on sales alone is utterly pointless.

Therefore, you have to argue over which one you enjoy playing the most. Since that reels us back towards opinion, the point is moot. On top of that, you would have to have extensive playing knowledge of all three to really be able to compare.

Thus I would ask:

Is Microsoft the soft power king? (Soft power being cultural pull - in this case, American cultural pull - ie shooting things)

Is Sony the brand name and multi-function king?

Is Nintendo the gimmick king?

As this is how each sells itself respectively.

Arguing sales is as pointless for consoles as it is for games. I am stunned time and time again as I go into Game and see no decent games in the top ten whatsoever.

[Caael]

Lies, the Simpsons game is awesome.

[Golden Legacy]

Caael, on May 12 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Since when has been storage on standard DVD's been a problem?

Eugine, on May 12 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

It is >_<
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/10/16/killzo...ity-not-luxury/

Caael, high-definition storage was always going to be the inevitable "next" step. The thing that makes it curious is that one company decided to take a risk and invest so much into it (Sony) while the other decided to keep it on the side (Microsoft).

Also, reportedly Metal Gear Solid 4 could not fit onto a Blu-Ray disc - which is just insane.

Although, that said, I do agree that it's not necessary to move beyond standard DVDs for most games, at least the ones that are coming out today. Even Brawl was able to fit on a standard DVD disc (though it was dual-layered).

[Caael]

Actually, I retract my statement about storage. Lost Odyssey requires 4 DVD's full of data for the full game.

[Eugine]

Soon you will be retracting your Sony hate/MS love also =)

[Laharl]

being neutral in today's market is both a blessing and a curse x_x

yay: free choice of consoles + games

nay: you get hate from all sides, from a increasingly retarded gaming public

[Toasty]

A regular sized, dual layer DVD holds 8.5GB of data. More than enough for most games, especially when considering compression codecs nowadays. Blu-ray is NOT needed, at least not yet. Blu-ray IS a luxury item on the PS3. It would've been far smarter to impliment it in the PS4/5 when it will likely be far cheaper to impliment.

http://en.wikipedia....VD#DVD_capacity

Brawl uses a dual layer DVD (aka DVD-9), but it's got a crapload of stuff in it. Besides, it's the first Wii game to need that much space yet. As far as PS3 games go, I could understans that they MIGHT need more storage space, but I'm sure that even inventing some kind of DVD drive that can read two sides of a DVD at a time would be cheaper than Blu-ray. If they could do that, they could use dual side, dual layer DVD's, capable of 17GB.

As far as the Cell processor goes, It'd be cheaper to just use a seperate physics processer to do the physics and stuff. The Cell processor is designed so that it has 7 cores, and one master core. One of the seven cores is for the OS, which leaves six cores to do various things such as physics, AI, etc. The only thing is, all 7 of those "SPE's" are parallel processors. The Cell BE CPU itself is classified as a vector porcessor since it can run 9 threads simultaneously (one per SPE, two from the main core), but it's actually only using one SPE for physics, and one for graphics. Both of which are much better handled by true Vector type processing units, such as a GPU or PPU (graphics and physics respectively).

Basically, if the PS3 settled for even 5 SPE's instead of 7, or better yet, just used a quad core Power PC CPU (the Cell BE itself is based on the Power architecture), and used true vectorized PU's for the physics/etc., they could've saved quite a bit of money.

Instead, they chose to give it more power than it needed, because they thought people cared.

Laharl, on May 12 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

curious, what makes you guys feel your respective companies need such zealous defending?

I'm bashing Sony. Not defending MS/Ninty. :P

[Eugine]

>__<
You may know the jargon, but don't insult Sony when you don't know shyt plz.

The cell was developed by Sony/Toshiba and IBM to be used in MANY electronics not just the PS3. The PS3 just happened to be the first to use it. Sony invested money for a LONG TERM strategy, not a short term.
And don't try to sound smarter than those guys, they know what they were doing, so shat up.

So what you just said there was mute.

[Toasty]

Eugine, I'm not retarded. I know what the Cell BE was designed for, and I also know that unless it was using more than one SPE to process the Physics information, it wouldn't outperform a true vectorized processing unit. I know my shyte.

I'm not saying that I'm smarter than them anyway. They weren't stupid, they were arrogant and wanted to show off. It would've been FAR more cost effective to use a dual or quad core Power PC CPU and seperate vectorized PU's for the physics and graphics.

The Cell BE, like Blu-ray, is just simply not needed in gaming yet. Nor is it economically smart. It costs too much for it to be truely worth it in a console. When it comes to medical equipment like X-Ray machines, and other insturments (what the Cell BE was also designed for), the health of a human being outweighs the cost.

I've spent countless hours reading up on various things about computers, and working with the hardware itself. I know what I'm talking about.

Besides, assuming that the SPE's proved 32 GFLOPS at 4GHz, and the PS3's Cell BE runs at 3.2, then the PS3 should be capable of 179.2 GFLOPS.
The 360, in comparison, is capable of a theoretical 115 GFLOPS, yet it can play games in HD with awesome physics as well (like halflife 2)

[Ravenblade]

Laharl, on May 13 2008, 12:54 AM, said:

being neutral in today's market is both a blessing and a curse x_x

yay: free choice of consoles + games

nay: you get hate from all sides, from a increasingly retarded gaming public

Do you notice how they just aren't paying attention at all? XD Any words of reason and neutrality are totally ignored for the sake of continuing to argue over what are, in reality, opinions. Biased ones.

[Eugine]

I said this, and I will say this gain. The cell (and blu-ray technology) were NOT designed for gaming alone. It was designed to use in MANY entertainment device.

When Sony and company designed the Cell and blu-ray, they weren't thinking "Omg, how can I make it work well for the PS3?", they were thinking "How can we make it work for the entire entertainment industry". Alright?

So I say this again, your opinion is mute, since they were not designed for the PS3 alone.

[Ironsight]

I have to ask why people do this. All you're proving to everybody else is that you have nothing better to do than pointlessly defend game consoles made by companies that neither know nor care about you.

[Toasty]

SO THEN WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE THEY IN THE PS3?

Because Sony wanted to make it seem like a monster, and give it more power than it needed. The PS3 did NOT need the Cell BE. The Cell BE wasn't even designed for the PS3, so why would they use the Cell BE in the PS3?

The 360 uses a Tri-Core Power PC CPU running at 3.2 Ghz, and produces roughly 2/3's the power of the PS3 (assuming the PS3 gets 179 GFLOPS). That's less than half the cores (each producing about 38 GFLOPS a piece, vs. the PS3's assumed 25.6 per SPE), and for $100 less if your comparing it to the 360 Premium.

If the 360 had just one more core, it would beat the PS3 in power, and I highly doubt it would cost all that much more to produce.

Besides, Intel is about 6 months away from producing 8 core CPU's, which MIGHT be mor expensive than the Cell BE, but will drop in price to below the cost of the Cell BE within 5 or 6 months.

[Eugine]

They are in the PS3 because Sony's game division is a trendsetter. Placing those stuff in the PS3 not only guarantees economies of scale, it also guarantees its success. Yeah, honestly it had an effect on Sony's game division in the short term, but in the long term, Sony on a whole will benefit tremendously because of this.

The PS3 was by far the perfect device to start with.

[Toasty]

Nothing's perfect. Especially if it sets your wallet on fire.

Sony is not a trendsetter. They're a trend follower. When they try to be a trend center, like I guess they did with the Cell BE, they spend more money than they need to to make their system. Like I said, they could've replaced the Cell CBE with a quad core CPU and reduced the cost of production while increasing processing power. Coupled with a physics processing unit, the PS3 could've had even more amazing physics.

The Cell BE won't be put out of commission by multi-core CPU's (ones with 8 or more cores), because future versions of the Cell BE will likely include more than 8 SPE's, and a 32 core Cell BE running at 4 Ghz can do what a prototype Intel CPU running at 3.13Ghz can do with less than half the cores (the prototype has 80 cores). both can hit a Terra FLOPS of processing power. Though the prototype hit 2 TFLOPS at 6.26GHz, it was using 150 something watts of power. Which is quite a bit for a CPU.

[Eugine]

Toasty, I don't know the jargons, but come on, Sony as a company had reasons as to why they didn't go with the quad core CPU. I don't know what went on beyond closed doors, here is my analysis.

Obviously the Cell is more expensive now because it is a completely new technology. As more of Cell ends up in people's home the price will decrease and create economies of scales. Also breakthroughs can decrease cost (for eg getting new assembling techniques). I also believe Sony and IBM would have developed proper techniques to ensure in the long run, the Cell would be profitable.
I don't know how cheap the 'quad core' is, but remember, Intel being the largest semiconductor has all the technology and factories to produce cheaper. I think Intel has all the knowhow to decrease costs quickly.

This brings me to my other point. Sony and IBM as companies, would rather have their money spent inside rather can continuing to fund Intel. Remember, Sony also has a semiconductor (however how small it maybe) division, so developing the Cell ensures money is kept within the company.

[Toasty]

IBM provided CPU's for all of the current gen systems. The Wii, 360, and PS3 all use PowerPC based CPU's. IBM used to provide all of Apple's CPU's (apple now uses both the PowerPC architecture and the x86-x64 architecture, aka intel CPU's), and IBM's CPU's are commonly found in servers.

Intel is the largest, but IBM is in no way small. There was no other reason to put the Cell BE into the PS3 than for bragging rights and because Sony thought people would actually care that it used "futuristic technology." It will probably become sucessful and yield profits for both IBM and Sony, but it could easily flop just like Intel's origional Itanium processor (nicknamed the "Itanic"). It was incredibly innovative, and was in many ways like the Cell BE. It was capable of computing multiple instructions in a single clock cycle (i.e. running multiple "threads") just like the Cell BE, and was also very innovative. It promised to be implimented into everything from super computers to high end desktops. Yet it flopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Devel...89.E2.80.932001

Take a look at the projected sales and actualy sales.

I'm not sure how good the Cell BEis doing in the market right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up like the Itanium: Flopping and comming back a few years later with an improved model. Likely to be named Cell BE 2 or something

Though again, I don't know how well they're selling atm.

FLOPS means FLoating-point Opperations Per Second, and is commonly used to measure a CPU/system's processing power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS

[Eugine]

Sony didn't do it for bragging rights imo. From a business standpoint it was the best place to start off the Cell.

The PlayStation is the most established gaming brand, and everyone thought the PS3 would have been a guaranteed success, which obviously includes Sony. Why not use the PS3 as a trojan horse for the Cell (and Blu-ray technology)?

[Someone Else]

Laharl, on May 12 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

being neutral in today's market is both a blessing and a curse x_x

yay: free choice of consoles + games

nay: you get hate from all sides, from a increasingly retarded gaming public

Haha, too true my friend. Too true. I don't like Sony for a lot of things they do, but I have to buy a PS3 for MGS4 + GTA4 since there's no point in me owning a 360 as I've stated before.

Quote

Soon you will be retracting your Sony hate/MS love also =)

Haha loser. I'm sorry Eugine, you're a cool guy overall, but you're the biggest fanboy I've ever seen.

And @ Toasty, tl;dr all around.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on May 12 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

As far as the Cell processor goes, It'd be cheaper to just use a seperate physics processer to do the physics and stuff. The Cell processor is designed so that it has 7 cores, and one master core. One of the seven cores is for the OS, which leaves six cores to do various things such as physics, AI, etc. The only thing is, all 7 of those "SPE's" are parallel processors. The Cell BE CPU itself is classified as a vector porcessor since it can run 9 threads simultaneously (one per SPE, two from the main core), but it's actually only using one SPE for physics, and one for graphics. Both of which are much better handled by true Vector type processing units, such as a GPU or PPU (graphics and physics respectively).

Basically, if the PS3 settled for even 5 SPE's instead of 7, or better yet, just used a quad core Power PC CPU (the Cell BE itself is based on the Power architecture), and used true vectorized PU's for the physics/etc., they could've saved quite a bit of money.

We haven't see the full power of PS3. Just a fraction of it. Also, from what you said, that doesn't mean that there is only one thread for each of graphics and physics. If a developer chose to, they can allocate as many cores to any aspect of the game as they want.

If they want to power the graphics, more cores for that. Physics, cores for that too. There is one minimum for each but that is NOT the limit. That's why the other cores aren't specified for anything - they can be distributed and directed as the developers wish.

Eugine, on May 12 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

The cell was developed by Sony/Toshiba and IBM to be used in MANY electronics not just the PS3. The PS3 just happened to be the first to use it. Sony invested money for a LONG TERM strategy, not a short term.
And don't try to sound smarter than those guys, they know what they were doing, so shat up.

Eugine, on May 12 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

When Sony and company designed the Cell and blu-ray, they weren't thinking "Omg, how can I make it work well for the PS3?", they were thinking "How can we make it work for the entire entertainment industry". Alright?

This is a very important point Eugine is making and one that you keep missing. The Cell architecture was designed for the entire electronic/entertainment industry - the PS3 happens not only to be the first application of it, but is a very powerful version of it too.

When and if it gets adapted, they can use the Cell in varying degrees of capacity and power for different electronics. That's why there is a whole field in semiconductors, to always be searching for new ways to improve efficiency and increase processing ability.

Toasty, on May 12 2008, 09:39 PM, said:

SO THEN WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE THEY IN THE PS3?

Because Sony wanted to make it seem like a monster, and give it more power than it needed. The PS3 did NOT need the Cell BE. The Cell BE wasn't even designed for the PS3, so why would they use the Cell BE in the PS3?

See above point.

Quote

The 360 uses a Tri-Core Power PC CPU running at 3.2 Ghz, and produces roughly 2/3's the power of the PS3 (assuming the PS3 gets 179 GFLOPS). That's less than half the cores (each producing about 38 GFLOPS a piece, vs. the PS3's assumed 25.6 per SPE), and for $100 less if your comparing it to the 360 Premium.

Notice how the 360 is having problems? Red rings of death ring a bell? (pun intended)

Quote

If the 360 had just one more core, it would beat the PS3 in power, and I highly doubt it would cost all that much more to produce.

"I highly doubt" is not an argument. If the 360 had one more core, it would be too taxing for the system, moreso than it already is.

Quote

Besides, Intel is about 6 months away from producing 8 core CPU's, which MIGHT be mor expensive than the Cell BE, but will drop in price to below the cost of the Cell BE within 5 or 6 months.

This proves Sony's strategy is working! They introduce the Cell, that architecture is adapted into the electronics industry, and look - their example is being followed.

It's the next wave in electronics, the next big thing for the entertainment industry. The only difference is that Sony had the foresight and vision to see it first.

[Eugine]

What do you guys have to say about the PS3 passing the 360 in Europe despite being a year behind, the negative press and higher price tag? eh eh?

EDIT: OMG GL you defend Sony better than me >_<. I should feel ashamed >_<

[Someone Else]

Says there is PS/Sony fanboys in Europe? Really doesn't prove anything in my opinion considering the PS3 has LESS games than the 360, and even Wii if you think about it.

[Eugine]

No! >_<
It shows that the PlayStation brand, actually the Sony brand overall has a reputation of quality and durability there, unlike Microsoft.
It also shows that people are willing to trust Sony more than Microsoft, and are willing to pay a higher price for a system, which they believe will benefit them in the long term, rather than the short term.

Microsoft had a winning strategy by shipping the 360 first. They just screwed up the operation. I guess they suck when they cannot buy their success?

Oh, and GL has made some very, very relevant points. Btw, just throwing this out -Large businesses care about the long term survivability and profitability of their company, not the short term. Yeah, it would be good to have short term success, but long term is key.

[Toasty]

And often the key to long term sucess is through short term sucess first. If you can't gain momentum to begin with, how can you hope to continue on?

@WD: Yeah, I know they're rediculously long posts. XD

Golden Legacy, on May 12 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

We haven't see the full power of PS3. Just a fraction of it. Also, from what you said, that doesn't mean that there is only one thread for each of graphics and physics. If a developer chose to, they can allocate as many cores to any aspect of the game as they want.

And then there wouldn't be enough cores to process everything else. Graphics, AI, Physics, Controls, and then there's two more things I forgot. Each are assigned a core. But even if you had all 7 cores processing the physics (which is impossible, since then the game wouldn't run at all), you could have 96 in a vectorized PU. Stream processors, which are found in GPU's in the dozens, are much better equiped to process graphics and physics than a paralell processor like a regular CPU, or the SPE's in the Cell BE.

If they want to power the graphics, more cores for that. Physics, cores for that too. There is one minimum for each but that is NOT the limit. That's why the other cores aren't specified for anything - they can be distributed and directed as the developers wish.

Depends on the game and how many tasks they can assign to any given core without overloading it and slowing down the game/causing glitches.

This is a very important point Eugine is making and one that you keep missing. The Cell architecture was designed for the entire electronic/entertainment industry - the PS3 happens not only to be the first application of it, but is a very powerful version of it too.

When and if it gets adapted, they can use the Cell in varying degrees of capacity and power for different electronics. That's why there is a whole field in semiconductors, to always be searching for new ways to improve efficiency and increase processing ability.

Doesn't mean it was a smart move for them to put it into the PS3. Just because the PS3 is using the Cell BE doesn't mean other companied are going to say "Oh, it's in the PS3, so we should put it in our servers/computers/etc.!".
In contrast, the PS3's Cell BE is fairly weak. I believe there's a version with 32 SPE's that hits one TFLOPS. About 60 times more powerful than the PS3's.
I know that. They disable some cores for some applications, and leave them open for others, allowing less demanding applications to have cheaper Cell BE's. Regardless, standard CPU's will likely have 64 cores by 2012. That's Intels projected target.

Notice how the 360 is having problems? Red rings of death ring a bell? (pun intended)

From what I heard, it has to do with overheating. If you overheat computer components, they fry and fail. Besides that, do you hear domputers completely failing as often as 360's nowadays? (and I'm talking about for any given brand and model. There's bound to be quite a number of failing PC's since there's so many of them) They use similar hardware.

"I highly doubt" is not an argument. If the 360 had one more core, it would be too taxing for the system, moreso than it already is.

The number of cores has nothing to do with stress on the system. Infact, more cores means less stress, since processes can be offloaded to that 4th core. On top of that, it likely would've only cost about $50 to $100 to add an extra core. Even then, Microsoft probably wouldn't have had to increase the 360's price by much to continue to make profits.

This proves Sony's strategy is working! They introduce the Cell, that architecture is adapted into the electronics industry, and look - their example is being followed.

And Cell BE's would've been implimented anyway regardless of them being in PS3's. Sure, I can agree that the PS3 helped, but people aren't going to use it unless they find it useful anyway. It's not like the PS3 is their only way of chowing off the Cell BE anyway. How do you think that Intel and IBM sell all of their other processors? The PS3 is not needed to market this new processor.

It's the next wave in electronics, the next big thing for the entertainment industry. The only difference is that Sony had the foresight and vision to see it first.

Now your starting to sound like Eugine. <.<;

The Cell BE, like I've said before, sounds pretty similar to Intel's Itanium incident. I'm not going to say that it isn't going to work incredibly well for home theater and entertainment applications, but I doubt that this will replace the x86-x64 CPU's used today. Those will last for quite a while. And they'll slowly be replaced by true 64 Bit processors. Which will in-turn be replaced by 128 Bit processors. All the while increasing the number of cores.

I can see the Cell BE being implimented into HDTV's, movie theater projectors, X-Ray machines, and a lot of other stuff. But it's not going to fully replace CISC processors in desktops, and RISC processors in portable devices like smartphones.

[Laharl]

Eugine, on May 12 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

I am NOT defending Sony. I am just educating you guys on the fact that Sony is the king of gaming.
Hate Sony all you want, but just bow to them.

Eugine, on May 13 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

EDIT: OMG GL you defend Sony better than me >_<. I should feel ashamed >_<

LOL HYPOCRISY

[Aquamarine]

Eugine, on May 13 2008, 05:47 AM, said:

What do you guys have to say about the PS3 passing the 360 in Europe despite being a year behind, the negative press and higher price tag? eh eh?

Man, there are a lot of people who are a combination of dumb and loaded in Europe.

That's what I have to say.

[Zeypher]

Laharl, on May 13 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

LOL HYPOCRISY

lmao

[Toasty]

Aquamarine, on May 13 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

Man, there are a lot of people who are a combination of dumb and loaded in Europe.

That's what I have to say.

The PS3 is also easier on their wallets. Euro & GBP's worth >>>>> USD's worth.

[Split Infinity]

In summary: Toasty can't afford a PS3. :P

[Toasty]

Obviously. I could barely afford a Wii. Luckily I got one for Christmas.

Regardless of whether I can afford one or not, it kinda pisses me off that Sony could've easily made this system cheaper, because I'll admit, it's nice. But there's also a number of games on it I'd like to play. My main problem is with Sony always trying to beat the competition in the worst ways possible. D:

[Split Infinity]

Nobody's forcing you to buy a PS3, although as one of the 'big three', you'd expect it to be more affordable...

As for Blu-ray, it's a pretty superior disc format compared to DVD, and although you don't need 50GB to store a video game on, it sure isn't a bad thing either. It can also stream data at about 54Mbits/s, which is nearly five times faster than DVD, so there's less load times too. Although that's less of an issue now that consoles have hard drives.

[Caael]

But the PS3 has insanely small amounts of ram so that cancels out the loading thing.

[Laharl]

people whop rant on about console specs rather than games are stealing MY oxygen

[Drizzy Drake]

Legolastom, on May 11 2008, 08:49 PM, said:

Now I have seen more of your posts I can see how hypocritical (No FF spell check make me sad) this statement is.

You and Eugine are both complete and utter fanboys and any point you try to prove about other companies is moot. Not like they will be substantial anyway.

/ChangeOfTone

*The eyes*

Yes, I'm an utter fanboy. That's why I loved the original X-Box, and defend the Wii whenever I can. Jesus, stfu. You don't know me.

Caael, on May 11 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

*facepalm* What you dont realise is that 360 fanboys are the most accepting of the other consoles. I'm not even a 360 fanboy. I'm a 360 appreciator :P

Responding to the same quote twice. Ya, that's cool.

[Caael]

So is just insulting people, without giving a real reason as to why. There was no point in even responding to that.

[Drizzy Drake]

He called me a fanboy, I said I wasn't. I didn't insult him. I said he didn't know me, and to shut the fuck up.

[Caael]

That was in response to the part about me quoting twice, not about what Tom said btw

[Drizzy Drake]

Allright. I think we can all agree Tom is retarded. :P.

I wasn't insultoing you, I was insulting your action of responding to the same thing twice.

[Caael]

Because I had a better response the second time around, and nobody would have seen it if I edited it in. That's why.

And while Tom is retarded, he knows what he's talking about.

[Drizzy Drake]

So you made yourself look like a fool for responding twice.

And no, he really doesn't. I am not a Sony fanboy.

[Someone Else]

The worst kind of fanboys are fanboys that don't know they are fanboys.

Though I don't think you're a fanboy dipsy, just throwing it out there.

[Laharl]

Caeel & Skid:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z254/laharl_the_slayer_07/aiz.jpg

[Caael]

Dipset isnt a fanboy, he's misguided :P

C'mon, any criticism the Wii gets, it deserves.

[Drizzy Drake]

I don't deny favouring Sony over other companies, but I am not a fanboy. Final Fantasy, however, yes.

[Caael]

Never liked FF. Dont know why, probably the over-complexness of the story and all the games.

[Someone Else]

Frankly I think all 3 consoles are **** right now. Gaming's been dying a little ever since it went mainstream, you get crappy, easy games that are all just copies of what's been done because that's what the mainstream likes.

And don't just point the finger at Nintendo here, though they're doing it, too.

[Laharl]

lol duplicate post.

the more mainstream gaming gets, the more shyte the developers try to get away with. dark days indeed

[Someone Else]

Actually I didn't mean to post it in the other topic. =P

This is why I tend to prefer PC games. PC = less mainstream = a less retarded group of gamers in comparison to mainstream = better games with better gameplay in my opinion.

Shame that PC is dying. It's just too easy to pirate games on that platform.

[Caael]

The problem with PC gaming is that a large majority of the games on PC require really high specs on your comp, and most people just dont have that money to shell out on upgrading your PC so you can play a few games. If I had the money, I would totally pimp my PC and game my nuts off, but thats not possible. It's why consoles are much easier and cheaper; no need to upgrade (software-wise though they do need upgrading) and oh so much cheaper.

Thats just why I prefer console gaming.

[Someone Else]

I don't mind it, it keeps PC from being mainstream.

You seem to be missing the point that the problem with gaming now is that it's mainstream.

[Laharl]

my problem with PC gaming i that a vast majority of games available are FPS, RTS or WRPG. certainly not my favourite genres

[Eugine]

Wait, you obviously never enjoyed the wonderful machine called the PlayStation 2 WD.

[Someone Else]

You mean the system that, according to you, made gaming mainstream?

[Eugine]

Yep yep. It was mainstram and yet the games there were awesome. I blame Microsoft and Nintendo for the problem you are talking about >_<

[Ravenblade]

You just see no wrong with Sony at all, do you?

[Zeypher]

Ujeen, you are so naive.

[Someone Else]

His name is pronounced "yoo-jin", dammit.

[Eugine]

Yeah, I'll like to massacre his real name also >_<

[Ironsight]

How is it that M$ and Ninty are responsible for mainstream gaming, but the console made by Sony that is directly responsible can't be blamed?

[Eugine]

Wind Dude, on May 14 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

Gaming's been dying a little ever since it went mainstream, you get crappy, easy games that are all just copies of what's been done because that's what the mainstream likes.

This is really Microsoft's fault >_<, and to a smaller extent Nintendo. Nintendo's games are basically the samething, different console >_<

[Laharl]

evidence please

[Ironsight]

Eugine: "Because Sony is the best that's why!"

[Zeypher]

DarkSword, on May 14 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

"Because Sony is the best that's why!"

lawl

[Ironsight]

I was predicting Eugine's response.

[Golden Legacy]

Quit with the single-word, useless posts or warns will be given out.

That said, I personally think that with regards to mainstream gaming, Sony introduced it, truly, for the first time, with the PlayStation. Back in the days of PS vs. N64, Nintendo spaced out its releases and focused primarily on first-party games - so much so, in fact, that the N64 only launched with three games, Super Mario 64 being one of them because it was content with simply having its premier series take the front while not prioritizing other 3rd party selections.

However, Sony's strategy was different. From day one, it offered many more titles branching over a broad range of genres - racing, fighting, action, adventure, strategy, you name it. Buoyed with the support it received for going with the far more efficient and cheaper CD (as opposed to the N64's limiting and extremely costly hefty cartridges), 3rd parties came out in record numbers and supported the system.

In doing so, it introduced a whole new range of gamers. Advertising was targeted to exemplifying the wide range of games and genres available on the PS, a strong initiative that countered with Nintendo's almost exclusive focus on few "selected" titles, mostly its own.


The success Sony had wasn't just widening the gaming demographic - it managed to introduce new gamers while also continuing with the dedicated hardcore fanbase.

Nintendo has gotten the first part down right with the casual gamers. However, with it being the dominant console maker, it has now gone back to the days of the "exclusivity" - now, this time, its the hardcore gamers that are getting the shaft. It is trying hard to maintain the balance, but its entire strategy, its entire focus, its entire philosophy now is to embrace the wide-range of casual and non-gamers.

[Eugine]

Exactly GL.

From FPS 360 topic -

Laharl, on May 14 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

name me 15 must own original exclusives on the current gen consoles and i'll eat my hat then become a christian

MotorStorm, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Resistance: Fall of Man, Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, SingStar, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Warhawk.

Oh well. Only 10.

Rather diversed imo.

[Split Infinity]

Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a remake, Ratchet and Clank is a sequel, Folklore received bad reviews and I wouldn't really call Singstar a 'must-own' game.

Still, GT5 is coming soon... :(

[Ravenblade]

Admittedly, I have only heard of 1 of those games...Heavenly Sword. Im sure more people have heard of Nintendo and X360's exclusives.

[Eugine]

Well, depends on what you're looking for. Sony fans will know more about Sony games, Nintendo loyalists will know more about Nintendo games and Microsoft tarts will know more about Xbox games.

[Ravenblade]

True, but then Im no 360 fan and I know of Halo, Bioshock...um, I also think I can claim to know of Half life..or is that the same as Bioshock XD? Perfect Dark, Kameo...i think thats it, but still =/

[Split Infinity]

Eugine is under the assumption that a gamer can only have knowledge relating to a single console. It would explain his fanboyism. :(

[Eugine]

I think you ignored the word MORE.

[Drizzy Drake]

Sex.


:(.

I am officially addicted to GTA 4. It will hold me over untill GT5 and FF13 and MGS4 come out. LET'S SEE THE 360 COME OUT WITH MGS4. YEAH, DIDN'T THINK SO. WOOOOO.

I'm done.

[Caael]

You lied to me skidz :( Eternal soanta is awesome

[Drizzy Drake]

I disliked it. The battle system seemed sluggish. That may just be me though. (Don't call me a FF fanboy. XD.)

[Caael]

I'm not :(

Define 'sluggish', because for me it doesnt go very slowly at all. You're constantly involved in the action.

[Drizzy Drake]

Good. If you did, I'd have to rip your head off, and shove Legend Of Legaia down your throat. One of the best non-FF RPG's out there, and nobody knows about it. ()

Not really slow, just annoying. Ya, sluggish wasn't really the right word. I don't know. I didn't enjoy it.

[Caael]

I must admit that when you're trying to get somewhere, having a monster rush into you is annoying, and having to finish the battle. But it's one of the better RPG systems there is at the moment; turn based but real-time action.

[Drizzy Drake]

Wacth Legend Of Legaia, then I read what you type. :(.

It's allright, but the battles system is annoying.

[Caael]

What does legaia have to do with anything?

I like the ES battle system. Idk if you dont, because I think it works, and is simple to use, but with quite a lot of extra depth.

[Drizzy Drake]

I brought it up, as a pre-emptive to the "well, you're a FF fanboy, so blow me." Twas a joke.

[Toasty]

Nintendo needs t get up off their arses and release a good RPG for the Wii. There's only a handful on the DS as it is.

Laharl, on May 14 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

my problem with PC gaming i that a vast majority of games available are FPS, RTS or WRPG. certainly not my favourite genres

*shudder* Not a fan in the slightest. I don't care much for RTS either, though I have had fun with AoE III. I like FPS's though.
The PC also has some good racing games. NFS Porsche Unleashed is old, but awesome. That's the only good one I can think of off the top ofmy head though. XD

Truthfully, I'd like someone to name ONE JRPG for the PC. I don't think there's even one ou there.

Eugine, on May 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

Exactly GL.

From FPS 360 topic -
MotorStorm, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Resistance: Fall of Man, Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, SingStar, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Warhawk.

Oh well. Only 10.

Rather diversed imo.

Singstar can suck my salty, sweaty balls. I'll even go and acually work out once in a while just to get 'em in shape for sucking.

Besides, all of those re for the PS3. The PS3 is by far, not the only system with good games. I like MS and R&CF:ToD though.

[Someone Else]

What WRPGs have you played? Some are really great.

WRPGs: Elder Scroll series, Mass Effect, KoToR 1/2, Neverwinter Nights, Baldurs Gate...

Many WRPGs actually try to be different, whereas JRPGs all seem based on the same formulas of dependence on a story with gameplay that sort of repeats itself.

[Toasty]

Other than Fable, I've never played any. But I've seen many people play them, and I'm just not afan of the whole "Go here, complete task, gain exp, get item, repeat" without there being any real end to the game. Plus, few of them really have a true storyline.

[Split Infinity]

Think MMO, minus the noobs. :B

[Toasty]

MMO's can get up close and personal with my genitals.

[Split Infinity]

But I doubt they will.

[Laharl]

Eugine, on May 15 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

Exactly GL.

From FPS 360 topic -
MotorStorm, Ninja Gaiden Sigma (remake), Resistance: Fall of Man (as unoriginal as it is generic, as in VERY), Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (sequel), SingStar (spinoff), Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (Tomb Raider clone), Warhawk.

Oh well. Only 10.

Rather diversed imo.

fixed

and of the ones that arent striked, Folklore and Heavenly Sword suck pretty damn hard.

Wind Dude, on May 16 2008, 05:54 AM, said:

Many WRPGs actually try to be different, whereas JRPGs all seem based on the same formulas of dependence on a story with gameplay that sort of repeats itself.

you do realize that statement can just as easily be reversed?

except with WRPGs its the gameplay that stays constant, as in ridicolously reptitive adventures in grindland. One the most important aspects of an RPG is the combat as that one the player spends a lot of his time doing. the battle system of the JRPGs varies with each game, whilst most W-RPGs stick with the same tedious combat system. i really shouldnt need to go on about plot. J-RPGs have worthwhile casts, actual character development and keep you in touch with the main plot, whereas W-RPGs have a cardboard cutout of a plot, ZERO meaningful character development and are usually keeping you busy with so many pointless BS sidequests (that have to over ans over) that you lose sight of your ultimate goal. On reflection that's probablty a good thing.

[TheEnglishman]

I guess I'd agree with Laharl about the plot generally being better with JRPGs.
I'm also struggling with a problem. I've got enough money to afford a 360, but I've also got some pretty big exams. I guess the game playing must wait for a few weeks.

[Eugine]

JRPGs > WRPGs >.<

WRPGs are so flipping impersonal.

[Someone Else]

Impersonal? Actually I feel WRPGs are a bit more personal than JRPGs. At least WRPGs let me build my own character, tell him what to say, and do whatever I feel like whenever I want in an often times fairly open world. JRPGs are waaay too linear, set to a very specific path starting from point A to point B, where A is the beginning of the game and B is the credits at the end of the game. The best WRPGs also have you make moral decisions, even if a lot of times they're just a basic Good vs Evil decision.

I'm not hating on JRPGs or telling anyone to change their mind. I mean, not many people are going to agree with me. This is a JRPG forum. Just saying, give WRPGs respect for what they try to do.

[Toasty]

Golden Sun wasn't even very linear. FFIII (it's the only FF game I've played) is probably the most non-linear RPG I've plyed. Contact, which I haven't gotten very far in, is pretty linear, but it's battle and leveling system more than makes up for it.

Though there are some pretty linear RPG's out there, I suppose.

[Legolastom]

Golden sun wasnt very linear? Well compared to most WRPGs it is extremely linear.

[Caael]

Toasty, do you understand the meaning of linear? Golden Sun, like most JRPG's follows a fixed path where you have to complete certain tasks in a fixed order to move on. There's the occasional branch where you make a decision that affects the story, but that's where the complexity ends.

A non linear game is something like Oblivion; there's a goal and you have to get to it. Doesnt matter how, doesnt matter when and it doesnt matter which order you get to it in, as long as at some point, you complete your goal.

[Someone Else]

Oblivion is sort of linear. Nearly all quests are completed in the exact same way. It's more sandbox than anything else. The Witcher is the best example of a non-linear RPG.

[Split Infinity]

Caael, on May 18 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

Toasty, do you understand the meaning of linear? Golden Sun, like most JRPG's follows a fixed path where you have to complete certain tasks in a fixed order to move on. There's the occasional branch where you make a decision that affects the story, but that's where the complexity ends.

Typical Golden Sun dialogue.

Ivan: How would you like to progress the story?
Isaac: *decision one*
Garet: No, that's wrong!
Isaac: *decision two*
Garet: I agree!

[Caael]

I love how in some games it forces you to pick an option.

"Would you like to come to the dangerous mountain with me?
*choses no*
"Aww, come on it will be fun. Would you like to come to the dangerous mountain with me?"

Trust me, even if you say no 1000 times, they will say the same thing. I know from experience.

[Zeypher]

That's how games work these days. Devs are too lazy to make multiple outcomes and make deeper stories.

[Split Infinity]

No, it's because mutiple endings are usually just gimmicks.

[TheEnglishman]

Caael, on May 18 2008, 02:39 AM, said:

I love how in some games it forces you to pick an option.

"Would you like to come to the dangerous mountain with me?
*choses no*
"Aww, come on it will be fun. Would you like to come to the dangerous mountain with me?"

Trust me, even if you say no 1000 times, they will say the same thing. I know from experience.

The Rambo game on the NES started similar to that. It was like:
'Will you chose to help?'
*no*
'Ok, but the game won't start until you say yes.'

[Toasty]

XD

Legolastom, on May 17 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

Golden sun wasnt very linear? Well compared to most WRPGs it is extremely linear.

In GS2, I remember being able to do many different tasks (not even including sidequests) at any given point in the game, save for the end. The origional was more linear, but I know that you at least had a choice of either fighting Tret first, or Saturos first. Plus, sidequests.

And the difference between JRPG's and WRPG's in terms of lineraness, is that a lot of JRPG's may have only one way of completeing a quest, but you can do those quests in any order you like. Though usually they're in groups. i.e. "complete these and move on to the next set."

WRPG's have multiple ways of completeing a goal, at least that's how I percieve it.

Either way, I'd rather have a linear game with a storyline than a non-linear game that allows you to do many different things, but doesn't progress in any way, shape, or form.
I suppose that's because I'd go insane if I worked and worked and worked, and never got anywhere other than maybe building some muscle or knowledge.

[Legolastom]

While a WRPG like Oblivion doesnt have a paticularly amazing main storyline, the amount of lore and books in the game is staggering, not to mention the amount of unique NPCs which all have a story to tell of some sort.

[Laharl]

NPCs are nearly always ****wads in any form of gaming.

There's nothing wrong with linearity unless its forced upon you, as in there is absolutely no reason to go anywhere other than where the game wants you to go next, see Final Fantasy X.

[Golden Legacy]

Laharl, on May 18 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

NPCs are nearly always ****wads in any form of gaming.

There's nothing wrong with linearity unless its forced upon you, as in there is absolutely no reason to go anywhere other than where the game wants you to go next, see Final Fantasy X.

Linearity also works for other genres, especially for action-adventure. Metroid and Castlevania, for example, allow you to explore freely as much and as expansive as you want, but there will come a point where you will need the next item or upgrade to proceed.

It acts as an eventual "bottleneck" of sorts, when you've exhausted all the possibilities of places to go to just with your current items and set-up.

[Eugine]

Anyway, another one bites the dust, and it's all falling into places like how I rightfully predicted.

BioShock is coming to the PS3. Like I said, and I'll say it again, the PS3 is the console of the future, and we'll see the 360 exclusives slowly dwindle then evaporate as more developers understand the PS3 more and more.

[Someone Else]

Does anyone care? BioShock's been on the PC and 360 for awhile now. Anyone who wanted to play it has probably done so already.

The only really amazing titles to look at for the PS3 are MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 2, and maybe Killzone 2. And MGS4 comes out next month. I think the Wii has a better outlook in the future than the PS3, for chrissake's.

[Eugine]

It matter yes. It's the psychology.
And not really, some people still have yet to play BioShock.

And there are more PS3 exclusives out there which are exlusives. Personally not that excited about LBP, but there are so many great sequels from the PS2 who have yet to make it to the PS3.
Socom, Jack, GT, FF, Tekken, GoW just to name a few o.o

[Someone Else]

But, I don't know, do you really think that people are just going to forget the 360? There's still a lot of 360 owners, and with your psychology many probably aren't going to buy PS3 because of cost, and since the two consoles are interchangeable anyway.

I predict this console generation will be veerrry close and not as much of a landslide as the last generation's PS2 was. It's too early to tell, ignore whatever "statistics" people wave in front of your face.

[Toasty]

Most 360 owners are not ging to migrate to the PS3 Eugine. And developers aren't going to just up and forget the 360 either Eugine. The PS3 has 1.5 times the power of the 360, f that Period. There is no "hidden power" left to be discovered.

The PS3 is powerful capable of some pretty amazing graphics and stuff, but not so much that everyone is going to go "OMG! The PS3 has so much potential! It's potential totally outweighs the fact that it and it's games are overpriced!"

Even if they weren't overpriced, the developers still wouldn't migrate entirely. You'll probably see some develope PS3 and 360 games, and you might even see some screw the 360 and move to the dark side of Sony, but you're not going to see a total, or even majority loss of support for the 360. Nor will that happen with the Wii.

[Golden Legacy]

Microsoft was wise to release a year earlier, knowing full well that they needed a headstart if they were to stand a chance against Sony's hardware (much more than 1.5 stronger than 360, Toasty) and PlayStation brand.

That said, I agree with the general consensus that this console race is going to be closer than ever. If we break it down into the three largest markets:

North America
360: very strong base, majority of Xbox Live users
PS3: slow start, starting to gain a little more momentum as Blu-Ray starts taking precedence.
Wii: insanely successful, on track of surpassing even the PS2. Best evidence of casual-gamer success, new demographics.

Europe:
360: somewhat solid...
PS3: but Sony has already outsold Microsoft after being behind by a full year. PlayStation brand in Europe is the strongest of the three and cannot be underestimated - PS3 will ultimately be the winner here
Wii: reasonably strong, higher than 360 but not by much

Japan:
360: non-existent. literally.
PS3: solid base and starting to gain momentum. FFXIII, MGS4, and Biohazard 5 will be huge.
Wii: complete dominance, strongest evidence of casual-gamer success here and in NA.

[Someone Else]

I think the Wii pretty much won, developers just need to realize how much money they can make on the Wii if they take it seriously.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on May 22 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

Microsoft was wise to release a year earlier, knowing full well that they needed a headstart if they were to stand a chance against Sony's hardware (much more than 1.5 stronger than 360, Toasty) and PlayStation brand.

http://en.wikipedia....ox_360_hardware

Quote

It has a theoretical peak performance of 115.2 gigaflops

http://en.wikipedia....tion_3_hardware

Quote

PlayStation 3's Cell CPU achieves 204 GFLOPS

Though the PS3 can produce a total of 2 Teraflops, that's only when you throw the GPU in there as well. I couldn't find a FLOPS reading for the 360's CPU+GPU. Regardless, GPU's usually have higher FLOPS counts because they have many "pipelines". The multiplying the FLOPS per pipeline by the number of pipelines, and then by the operating frequency of the GPU, will give you the FLOPS of the GPU.

That's twice as much power though, but still, not a lot more than 1.5.

[Split Infinity]

BIOSHOCK IS COMING TO PS3?! OMGWTFGTFOYES!!!!

[Eugine]

I think I am tired of saying this, but exactly GL!

Anyway Toasty, I am not talking about 360 owners switching to the PS3. There are atleast 170 million potential next-gen users, and as you can see by sales charts most have not gone next-gen. Those are the users I am talking about. Those who are still undecided.

[Zeypher]

Ujeen, the PS3 is the Sega Saturn of this gen. Overpriced from the get-go, and no good games. History will repeat itself, and the PS3, like the Saturn, won't be able to pull out a win.

[Laharl]

that's the best comparison i've ever heard it might in my life XD

the PS3 can and will step it up a few notches in the next year

unlike the Saturn, which had one fatal flaw...


























































































...it was shit

[TheEnglishman]

I think all 3 are doing too well to fail, and that they'll just end up with varying amounts of success.

[Someone Else]

At this point I think all speculation on who will do better is purely based on opinion of which console appeals to you, personally.

Though I think so far that 360 > Wii > PS3

The PS3 is finally beginning to look pretty sweet, just not as sweet as the other two.

[Eugine]

Wii > PS3 > 360.
The Wii is just dah bomb now, and is the PS3's only threat.

[Caael]

WD is correct, I agree with most of the things he says in this topic.

[TheEnglishman]

Wind Dude, on May 23 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Though I think so far that 360 > Wii > PS3

Right now I agree, though given the titles on the horizon for PS3 I think it could move up.

[Zeypher]

I think we'll get a good look at the situation after E3, when Nintendo reveals their games for the second half of '08 and early '09.

[Drizzy Drake]

:D, BIOSHOCK, :o, NO WAI!!!! I'll probalby buy this.

Also...

End of race I want to see:

PS3>Wii>>>>>>360

End of race we will probably see:

Wii>PS3>>>>>>360

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on May 23 2008, 08:59 AM, said:

Wii > 360 > PS3.

Fix'd
I don't see how PS3 could be a threat to Sony with the Wii's massive fanbase and massed infantry style of game marketing. The PS3 has too few good games to be any match for the Wii in my opinion.

[Drizzy Drake]

DarkSword, on May 23 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

Fix'd
I don't see how PS3 could be a threat to Nintendo with the Wii's massive fanbase and massed infantry style of game marketing. The PS3 has too few good games to be any match for the Wii in my opinion.

Fix'd.

I don't think it's a threat to the Wii, but I strongly believe it will come up second in this generation.

[Eugine]

I never said the PS3 is a threat to the Wii... I said the Wii is a threat to the PS3... Two completely different things mind you.

[Drizzy Drake]

You honestly think the PS3 will BEAT the Wii? Sales wise, that just won't happen. You are in denial my young padawan.

[Eugine]

Omfg. READ WHAT I SAID. YOU GUYS DONT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???!?!?!
I SAID THE WII IS THE PS3S ONLY THREAT.

That means I believe the Wii is the only console who has a chance of beating the PS3... I never said the PS3 will sell more than the Wii. Gosh.

Where's the facepalm image when you need it?!?!

[Drizzy Drake]

I know what the fuck you are saying. YOU need to read what I say more carefully. You said the Wii is the PS3's only threat. That states that you believe that the PS3 will win the race, unless the Wii beats it. What I am saying is that you are in complete denial thinking the PS3 has a chance of beating the Wii. It jsut won't happen.

I am talking about strictly sales here, not games.

[Eugine]

Dipset, on May 23 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

That states that you believe that the PS3 will win the race, unless the Wii beats it.

Uh, yeah... Obviously. The Xbox has no chance...
So, your point is again? -___-

[Drizzy Drake]

...oh my. You think the PS3 has a 2:1 chance over the Wii(you didn't say it, but you implied it. Maybe not those numbers, but you think the PS3 will do better), but only a fool, or a COMPLETE fanboy would think the PS3 OR the 360 will outsell the Wii. It just won't happen. Little kids, and casual gamers will buy the Wii, plain and simple. Plus, people who have a PS3 or 360, will buy the Wii. People who are low on cash, will buy the Wii. Nintendo fanboys, will buy the Wii. SHIT lovers, will buy the Wii. ANd then people who like Zelda, Metroid and Mario will buy the Wii.

[Eugine]

Quote me plz? I just wanna be consistent.

[Ironsight]

Damn, I think I said it backwards. Whatever.

[Drizzy Drake]

Jebus Christ. I give up Eugine. Does anybody get what I am trying to say?

[Ironsight]

*raises hand*
It's no use though, he's too far in.

[Zeypher]

You're trying to say that everybody will buy the Wii?
Or that Ujeen is a dumbass?

[Ironsight]

...A little from collum A, a little from collum B...

[Drizzy Drake]

POlice-Are you trying to distract us, or are you jsut comepletly senile?

Grandpa Simpson-A little from colum A, a little from colum B.

But thank you Darksword, for understanding my reasonable logic.

[Eugine]

I get what you're trying to say, I just want to know where I said what you said I said...