Ps3 And X360
- Thread starter itsme
- Start date
Nintendo
Nintendo Switch
Nintendo DS lite, even though it's last gen. As for this gen, SONY PS3 of course. 
FluffyPanda
I have 6 little blue things. W00t.
Personally, I think that the PS3 will "win", but I don't think it will be the best console.
The Rev will be an interesting one, nintendo really does produce some of the most fun party games you can get your hands on. Donkey Konga for the gamecube was a good example.
The 360 will probably get the best games, just because XNA makes programming for it and windows so unbelievably cheap and easy.
The PS3 will "win" because of the name and the ridiculous numbers sony is throwing around. Sure, the cell architecture is capable of twice the power of the 360, but getting a development team together that can actually write good code for that platform will be a nightmare. The PS3 will be great for weather simulation in the comfort of your own home, but not so good for games.
Give it a couple of years and you might start to see games coming out that can use enough of the power of the ps3 to out perform the 360, but I wouldn't bet on it being much sooner.
The Rev will be an interesting one, nintendo really does produce some of the most fun party games you can get your hands on. Donkey Konga for the gamecube was a good example.
The 360 will probably get the best games, just because XNA makes programming for it and windows so unbelievably cheap and easy.
The PS3 will "win" because of the name and the ridiculous numbers sony is throwing around. Sure, the cell architecture is capable of twice the power of the 360, but getting a development team together that can actually write good code for that platform will be a nightmare. The PS3 will be great for weather simulation in the comfort of your own home, but not so good for games.
Give it a couple of years and you might start to see games coming out that can use enough of the power of the ps3 to out perform the 360, but I wouldn't bet on it being much sooner.
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
As far as I can see, Nintendo will be successful as they'll be the only company that are appealing to gamers who can't pay £50 per game.
We'll have to see though, as I don't know whether Rev or PS3 games will be that price.
We'll have to see though, as I don't know whether Rev or PS3 games will be that price.
chimpoid
Member
It's handy to look beyond the technical specs. I think sometimes people get too bogged down in the whole "360 does 90fps while PS3 only does 88fps. Haha, what a waste of time the PS3 is!" thing.
Putting technical specs to one side.
PS1: was a superb console. Gameplay wise I loved it and spent many a late night playing wipeout, tomb raider etc.
PS2: I was convinced would be a real show-stopper and it turns out it was an absolute sack of shit. Please note I was willing the PS2 to be everything I had hoped and dreamed for after such a good time with the PS1.
Xbox: I sniggered when I heard that Microsoft were releasing a games console. "Hah, flight sims on a console!" Turns out that once again I was wrong and the Xbox had a stack of top notch games and after getting used to the bulky controllers there was a lot of fun to had.
Nintendo 64: Fun, Fun, Blocky fun.
The one thing that strikes me looking back is how accessible the N64 games were compared with the Sony and Microsoft offerings. No weighty instructions manuals, minimal tactics. Nintendo seem to have a nack of making games that just "play" with little or no thought.
After a hard day working at a computer screen it's sometimes nice to be able to "play" a game and not "learn to play" a game.
Winners? It's nearly impossible to tell and I can guarantee that the "runner up" will not suffer financially I guess that this time next year Sony will still be the name that people most associate with consoles and will be forefront in the public's mind when you talk about games machines. They are still riding high on the wave of fans from the PS1 I think and they seem to have weathered the PS2 fiasco nicely. Lets hope that PS3 represents "new blood" rather than just the same games with some graphical enhancements.
Nickspoon: Indeed, can't or won't
Putting technical specs to one side.
PS1: was a superb console. Gameplay wise I loved it and spent many a late night playing wipeout, tomb raider etc.
PS2: I was convinced would be a real show-stopper and it turns out it was an absolute sack of shit. Please note I was willing the PS2 to be everything I had hoped and dreamed for after such a good time with the PS1.
Xbox: I sniggered when I heard that Microsoft were releasing a games console. "Hah, flight sims on a console!" Turns out that once again I was wrong and the Xbox had a stack of top notch games and after getting used to the bulky controllers there was a lot of fun to had.
Nintendo 64: Fun, Fun, Blocky fun.
The one thing that strikes me looking back is how accessible the N64 games were compared with the Sony and Microsoft offerings. No weighty instructions manuals, minimal tactics. Nintendo seem to have a nack of making games that just "play" with little or no thought.
After a hard day working at a computer screen it's sometimes nice to be able to "play" a game and not "learn to play" a game.
Winners? It's nearly impossible to tell and I can guarantee that the "runner up" will not suffer financially
I guess that this time next year Sony will still be the name that people most associate with consoles and will be forefront in the public's mind when you talk about games machines. They are still riding high on the wave of fans from the PS1 I think and they seem to have weathered the PS2 fiasco nicely. Lets hope that PS3 represents "new blood" rather than just the same games with some graphical enhancements.Nickspoon: Indeed, can't or won't
Alpha2
Heroic Autobot
Are you calling the PS2 a sack of shit because of sony's overblown estimates or lack of games? because I've got a whole shelf that says you're wrong if that's the case. The PS2 was sucessful because it continued the formula with games that made the PSone successful, undoubtedly the PS3 will do the same.
Were there things about the PS2 that sucked? sure, But the PSone wasn't without sin either, you hate one, you hate the other.
Were there things about the PS2 that sucked? sure, But the PSone wasn't without sin either, you hate one, you hate the other.
chimpoid
Member
No Alpha2, I'm trying to keep the whole technical side out of things but the PS2 was such a pain in the ass with it's nasty flimsy hardware that it's hard to keep an open mind. I should re-iterate that I was desperate for the PS2 to be good but it fell short of the mark.
It's not the lack of games, more a quality over quantity issue. PS2 did, as you say continue the formula used so successfully with the PS1. In the same way that, at the box office, Speed 2 followed the formula of Speed, Transporter 2 followed the formula of Transporter 1 etc. The PS2 really came across as a cheap nasty sequel. The a lot of the games (not all) were unimaginative, franchised, blah blah. If you consider the leaps made from Tekken 1 to Tekken 2 and 3. Then you see what the PS2 offered for that product line? Nicer graphics, added characters. There was nothing that screamed "Buy me".
Vice City? That game was a real exception to the rule as far as I'm concerned. That game made it worth the cost of the console. It was a step forward from GTA3 but worked on so many levels and corrected a lot of the things that were wrong with GTA3. Rather than simply upgrading the visuals etc. They spent time and effort getting it right and improving gameplay and really honing the system to work well on a console.
The wipeout franchise? I'd buy that if they made speed-racing turds. However the impact that the PS1 offerings made is light years away from the PS2's "next gen" letdown. It was very much more of the same stuff.
Tomb Raider? Same thing applies.
It's worth noting that I might just be whining because I set high expectations for the PS2. Remember what the PS1 was up against when it came out? It was a reasonably ground breaking console in my opinion and the PS2 had some pretty lofty goals to achieve in order to match the tearaway success that it's "older brother had".
Max Payne? Hmm, accuracy wasn't really required on that one. It was another one of those nasty pc ports that just fell short of the mark when compared with the PC version. There is a trend, I think, where people remember the PS1 games and actively pursued PC versions. With the PS2 it seems that the opposite happened, PC games were ported over. I remember pointing out to my brother in law (console gamer) that Call of Duty etc. looked little "tame" on the PS2. Wildly uncontrollable, slow aiming, just a watered down version of the original (mostly to make up for the slow reaction of analog stick vs. mouselook). I would far rather have seen them push the crash bandicoot's and other games, sticking with stuff that was playable and enjoyable on the console rather than making those sort of ports.
The PS1 had it's stinkers as well but a lot of the games were truly innovative, (in retrospect this might be due to fact that the "next gen" consoles were innovative in themselves). The PS2 was a far harder target to find the "diamonds" in amongst the cheap cash-ins. You are right that the PS1 wasn't without sin. Anyone who's had to deal with the lens housing and runner system on a system prior to the 7xxx series can tell you that
I would disagree about hate one, hate the other though. When people came to the PS1, I believe that their expectations were exceeded. The PS2 however was interesting for the first hour or so but after playing the games for a few hours there was very little to make you believe that your were playing a newer console.
It's fair to say that my opinion is just that, my opinion, but I try to keep an open mind on consoles and played and enjoyed all 3 of the "next gens". For the most part they had all had their shining stars but the PS2 more than the others seemed to be the one that required the most searching to find it. Possibly this was down to the massive number of games and he fact that a lot of developers jumped on that bandwagon expecting automatic success. If the PS2 had a quarter the number of games and a good dose of the innovation that made the PS1 the success that it was then it would have danced all over the competition. Sadly, that is not as profitable for everyone as mass marketing and continual releases of "reasonable quality" games.
(OK chimp, shut-up, we're tired )
It's not the lack of games, more a quality over quantity issue. PS2 did, as you say continue the formula used so successfully with the PS1. In the same way that, at the box office, Speed 2 followed the formula of Speed, Transporter 2 followed the formula of Transporter 1 etc. The PS2 really came across as a cheap nasty sequel. The a lot of the games (not all) were unimaginative, franchised, blah blah. If you consider the leaps made from Tekken 1 to Tekken 2 and 3. Then you see what the PS2 offered for that product line? Nicer graphics, added characters. There was nothing that screamed "Buy me".
Vice City? That game was a real exception to the rule as far as I'm concerned. That game made it worth the cost of the console. It was a step forward from GTA3 but worked on so many levels and corrected a lot of the things that were wrong with GTA3. Rather than simply upgrading the visuals etc. They spent time and effort getting it right and improving gameplay and really honing the system to work well on a console.
The wipeout franchise? I'd buy that if they made speed-racing turds. However the impact that the PS1 offerings made is light years away from the PS2's "next gen" letdown. It was very much more of the same stuff.
Tomb Raider? Same thing applies.
It's worth noting that I might just be whining because I set high expectations for the PS2. Remember what the PS1 was up against when it came out? It was a reasonably ground breaking console in my opinion and the PS2 had some pretty lofty goals to achieve in order to match the tearaway success that it's "older brother had".
Max Payne? Hmm, accuracy wasn't really required on that one. It was another one of those nasty pc ports that just fell short of the mark when compared with the PC version. There is a trend, I think, where people remember the PS1 games and actively pursued PC versions. With the PS2 it seems that the opposite happened, PC games were ported over. I remember pointing out to my brother in law (console gamer) that Call of Duty etc. looked little "tame" on the PS2. Wildly uncontrollable, slow aiming, just a watered down version of the original (mostly to make up for the slow reaction of analog stick vs. mouselook). I would far rather have seen them push the crash bandicoot's and other games, sticking with stuff that was playable and enjoyable on the console rather than making those sort of ports.
The PS1 had it's stinkers as well but a lot of the games were truly innovative, (in retrospect this might be due to fact that the "next gen" consoles were innovative in themselves). The PS2 was a far harder target to find the "diamonds" in amongst the cheap cash-ins. You are right that the PS1 wasn't without sin. Anyone who's had to deal with the lens housing and runner system on a system prior to the 7xxx series can tell you that
I would disagree about hate one, hate the other though. When people came to the PS1, I believe that their expectations were exceeded. The PS2 however was interesting for the first hour or so but after playing the games for a few hours there was very little to make you believe that your were playing a newer console.
It's fair to say that my opinion is just that, my opinion, but I try to keep an open mind on consoles and played and enjoyed all 3 of the "next gens". For the most part they had all had their shining stars but the PS2 more than the others seemed to be the one that required the most searching to find it. Possibly this was down to the massive number of games and he fact that a lot of developers jumped on that bandwagon expecting automatic success. If the PS2 had a quarter the number of games and a good dose of the innovation that made the PS1 the success that it was then it would have danced all over the competition. Sadly, that is not as profitable for everyone as mass marketing and continual releases of "reasonable quality" games.
(OK chimp, shut-up, we're tired
)
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
I'm agreeing with the 'nasty flimsy hardware'. Sony buy very cheap lasers, and mine refuses to read blue discs. The best console lasers so far are actually in the Dreamcast (this excludes the Xbox 360, because I'm not sure about that). Part of the reason that Sony make so much profit is their investment in cheap parts.
Huxley
Gamera, King of Monsters
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,602
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Manchester England
- Website
- www.animeboredom.co.uk
chimpoid posted on Apr 5 2006 at 09:29 AM said:
So, you're saying you didn't like the PS2 because there were too many shitty games released for it? Yeah, that's true, but was anyone forcing you to play all those sequels and formuliac rip-offs? You could have just stuck to Katamari Damacy, ICO, God of War or anything else that's actually half decent.
You just seemed to reem off a list of games that were either a) unimaginative sequels or B) ports of unimaginative PC games. Of course the PS2 Wipeout game was going to be a disappointment; the series had already run its course on the PS1. Tomb Raider 3 was rubbish, so why would you expect Tomb Raider 4 to be any good?
Now, I can't say much for the PC ports because generally I'm not interested in FPS games, but I do know that Max Payne was a notoriously bad conversion on the PS2. Besides, the PS2 was never designed to play PC games. Although there are a few ports, most of the games are designed specifically for the console and these almost always fare better. Tip: don't buy a PS2 to play PC games
If you pick and choose I'd bet the PS2 has as many good/great games as any other system. Maybe it has more bad games, but you don't have to play those if you don't want to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ando
Member
im gonna say you are k-razy for not including the rev. i think it will do very well with its low expected price, good game franchises and its emulation only adds to it, especially if they integrate online play with the emulation. just the thought of super smash bros of any type online makes my mouth water
chimpoid
Member
Three games I'd never heard of. I guess that shows that I spent more time fixing PS2's than playing them. I initially went for games that I knew and hoped would be improved upon. As for being forced to play them, it was very much a case of hunting through lists of games and findig something that caught my eye, usually something I had played previous versions of.Huxley posted on Apr 6 2006 at 01:16 AM said:
Just the first games that came to mind I'm afraid. I disagree though on the points here. By all accounts wipeout pure has breathed some new life into the franchise. (I've yet to pick up a PSP to verify this but I'm hopeful)Huxley posted on Apr 6 2006 at 01:16 AM said:
Tombraider-wise. Star Wars Episode 1 was wank but they managed to sort that out in later releases. I was hoping that after TR3 (which agreed, did suck) they might spruce things up a bit and make it a little more "fluid"
Indeed, my thoughts exactly. The problem I had here were so many non-pc users ranting about Medal of Honour etc. and how good they were on the PS2. Eventually I caved in and took a peep. It was just plain wrong, and also the most heavily advertised and promoted game I think I saw on the PS2.Huxley posted on Apr 6 2006 at 01:16 AM said:Now, I can't say much for the PC ports because generally I'm not interested in FPS games, but I do know that Max Payne was a notoriously bad conversion on the PS2. Besides, the PS2 was never designed to play PC games. Although there are a few ports, most of the games are designed specifically for the console and these almost always fare better. Tip: don't buy a PS2 to play PC games
Yeah, it just burns me that a huge number of games that might be grabbed as impulse buys turn out to be no better (and in some cases, worse) than the releases on it's predecessor.Huxley posted on Apr 6 2006 at 01:16 AM said:
Again, I may be biased against the PS2 due to it's lousy hardware. That console was the cause of more pissed off phonecalls and messages than I care to remember. I think this more than anything might have been the thing that left me with such a bad taste in my mouth. Hmm, now that I think the first thing that comes to mind when I think about the PS2 is "piece of shit". It's almost a knee-jerk reaction to the system that sucked up so much of my free time. I know some people who have had few or no problems with the PS2 but not many. Comparing the near weekly repairs/advice on PS2's with a total of 1 repair on an xbox that might explain my tendency to side with the other consoles when considering which I would buy.
Last edited by a moderator:
iignotus
The one and only
I remember when I first played Wipeout for PSX. I said to myself, a number of times, "How can graphics and music in a game get any better??". I said the same thing a bit later with Gran Turismo. Mmmm memories...
chimpoid
Member
Heh, I was teaching my 5 year old to drive with GT1 this evening. His first time playing a driving game. He did well while I regailed him with stories of how I used to kick ass at it. The memories of it were shattered when "Dad" here realised that he couldn't keep the damn motor on the track for more than 2 corners. That's another kid just realised that his dad's a useless tosser ...turn into the spin barbie...
...turn into the spin barbie...I'm certain that was the mindset Ninty had around the time they released N64. They talked about having only the best games and stuffs around N64 launch time, I remember. The thing is that, though, you can't simply cherry pick out the good ones like picking a dream team. (yes, that was the term, Ninty used, right? - dream team)Huxley posted on Apr 5 2006 at 05:16 PM said:
As many as crap games PS2 has, it has the most great games by far among the current generations, either. Ninty must be missing the good ol'days when they were complaining about having too many games on their system. I mean, any console makers will love to be in that situation for sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
FluffyPanda
I have 6 little blue things. W00t.
Sony will only win if they keep their price down AND manage to get the developers on board. Right now there are a lot of worried games companies watching costs soar as they try to figure out how to make a good PS3 game.
The move to HD textures and detailed models adds to the production costs, but nothing like having your programming team floundering around trying to figure out how the hell they're supposed to write good code on cell.
Sony's latest deadline slip is likely to be as much because there aren't any games that will be ready to be released according to their early schedule as manufacturing problems.
I think sony have slipped up with their new "powerhouse" console, it's got way more power than it needed to be succesful, but cost and complexity will be a big problem. Rather than "stupidly powerful" they should probably have gone for the "very powerful" design of the 360, or the "rather powerful and cheap" design of the revolution.
The move to HD textures and detailed models adds to the production costs, but nothing like having your programming team floundering around trying to figure out how the hell they're supposed to write good code on cell.
Sony's latest deadline slip is likely to be as much because there aren't any games that will be ready to be released according to their early schedule as manufacturing problems.
I think sony have slipped up with their new "powerhouse" console, it's got way more power than it needed to be succesful, but cost and complexity will be a big problem. Rather than "stupidly powerful" they should probably have gone for the "very powerful" design of the 360, or the "rather powerful and cheap" design of the revolution.
Yep, it looks like Ninty isn't so stupid after all....
But this is all conjecture. If Sony release the PS3 at around 300 to 400 euros, I will buy one, if it's more, I won't. And I am an adult with cash. If I won't buy one, who will......
But this is all conjecture. If Sony release the PS3 at around 300 to 400 euros, I will buy one, if it's more, I won't. And I am an adult with cash. If I won't buy one, who will......
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
Kat-a-mar-i Dam-a-cy!
My apologies for this post, but it had to be said.
My apologies for this post, but it had to be said.
Huxley
Gamera, King of Monsters
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,602
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Manchester England
- Website
- www.animeboredom.co.uk
chimpoid posted on Apr 6 2006 at 01:57 AM said:
Fair enough, I can understand that. Personally speaking I've had my PS2 since launch day (a decision I still partially regret) and a had total of 0 problems in about 5 years so that doesn't really apply to me.
Regardless, if you haven't heard of Katamari Damacy, ICO or God of War you're missing out on some of the best games the PS2 has to offer. Medal of Honour is not one of them...no by a long shot.
Last edited by a moderator:
My vote goes to PS3 and Revo splitting the market in 5:3 or 6:3 ratio. Especially, after seeing X360 fell flat on its face with its Japanese launch, I have no faith on X360's success. It'll ride on MS money and a few American PC gamers, and that'll be just enough for it to stay afloat, but not much more. You can do so much with FPS PC ports, after all.
The GameInformer coverage on Red Steel, the first Revo game revealed, gave me a huge boost in my confidence toward Revo's success. It seems gaming industry is slowly turning into comic book industry, and Revo may be able to bring in some fresh blood to keep this industry from becoming comic book industry.
The GameInformer coverage on Red Steel, the first Revo game revealed, gave me a huge boost in my confidence toward Revo's success. It seems gaming industry is slowly turning into comic book industry, and Revo may be able to bring in some fresh blood to keep this industry from becoming comic book industry.
