Sony Moves Up E3 Ps3 Unveiling

Alpha2 posted on Apr 11 2005 at 05:14 AM said:
markusdragon posted on Apr 10 2005 at 10:46 PM said:
Instead it mimicks a Japanese graphics and storyline style.
You know, I'd heard soooo much about how Sudeki was going to be this cool japanese style game and when I finally decided to take a look at it the art design simply disgusted me. I saw nothing pleasnt about the characters and the models seemed to have a primitive joint system rather than a full body "skin" like almost everything created after the PSOne days. If the story got as much attention as the style did it'd be a very shallow imitation of japanese sensibilities.
Amazing what people can know about a game they've never played, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Notice how I never said anything about the game play?
I specifically said the style and artistic design. I based what I said on the elements I DID see specifically to avoid you trying to make comments like that. I can understand you want to defend the game but atleast try to do it based on what I said.
bast525 posted on Apr 11 2005 at 03:42 AM said:
Fable and Morrowind are TOTALLY different kind of RPG's than the kind of stuff the usual PS2 RPG player would ever play (IMO, Fable BARELY qualifies as an RPG at all). To take Final Fantasy, and Fable or Morrowind, and put them together and say "they are both RPGs" is really misleading... we need to break the RPG category up a bit.... Give a typical Final Fantasy fan Morrowind, and tell him "it's one of the best RPG's on the Xbox!" and watch as that fan NEVER touches another MS console again so long as they live! And you forget to mention the amazingly SUCKY Sudeki... the Xbox's attempt to mimick an FF style game failed MISERABLY.

Not saying Morrowind was a bad game, lord knows I put about 100 hours of my life into that game, and actually, I am a FF fan as well... but the typical square enix fan would sooner flush a new copy of most Xbox RPG's rather than play it.

Kotor comes closest to your 'typical' Japanese stlye RPG, and outdoes Final Fantasy, etc. on a lot of levels, IMO.

It's like Evil Dragon said... each system appeals to pretty different groups of people, Xbox is PC-game style action, PS2 is typical Japanese gaming with big eyed character platformers and RPG's, and GC is mostly younger but also home of the classic game characters we all grew up with.

I didnt mention Sudeki because I was simply illustrating that the Xbox does actually have some pretty decent RPGs.

That doesnt mean it doesnt also have some rubbish ones. Just like any other console.
Last edited by a moderator:
EvilDragon posted on Apr 10 2005 at 10:30 PM said:
Nintendos games a child compatible, so they also will always have a place in the world.
That generalisation is so terrible that I won't bother arguing against it. But I am kind of split. Nintendo are either going to be heavily underestimated, or release something like the DS again - technically novel/impressive, but not all that useful.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with nintendo and the revolution is that it could be too innovative that it scares away developers. Either that or it wont be that innovative and developers will just say,' meh, its been done.' and not bother. But even Iwata went and said that 3rd party support wasn't neccessary to prevail which is totally wrong cause if u look at gamecybe although it has many good games MOST of which were made by nintendo themselves. If nintendo could get more help from companies like Namco, Capcom, Treasure, etc. then it might have a good library to go with the console. The main reason i mentioned those 3 companies is because they have some very good games under their belts. for example namco and its tales series (which i have to say are some of the best RPG's ive ever played.) and treasure with things like gunstar heroes and ikaruga. I think the main problem is that gamers have become frustrated at the amount of sequels and the same types of games being churned out. In my opinion, they companies should try to create new games but keep loyal to past games.
Notice how I never said anything about the game play?
I specifically said the style and artistic design. I based what I said on the elements I DID see specifically to avoid you trying to make comments like that. I can understand you want to defend the game but atleast try to do it based on what I said.

yup, he was basing his opinion truely on graphics :lol:
firefly1201 posted on Apr 11 2005 at 02:47 AM said:
How powerful is this Cell thing anyways?

from PS3portal:
Early versions of the chip will be 90-nm, with a change to a 65-nm process, if cost and performance allow. Abstracts from presentations at the ISSCC, show the Cell processor running at 4.6 Ghz.

In December 2004, Nvidia announced that they have made a multi-year agreement with SCEI to develop the PlayStation 3's GPU, which is a custom variant of their next-generation graphics processor. In fact, they had worked for two years on the chip before making the announcement. They were previously responsible for the GPU in the Xbox console.

The 'Cell' chip which will consist of 234 million transistors, and have a die size of 221mm sqaured. A single Cell is theoretically capable of achieving a maximum of 256 billion floating-point operations per second (GFLOPS). This astounding single precision (32bit) floating point performance has been achieved by using a new radical architecture.
Last edited by a moderator:
the new architecture is nice, but don't expect anything super computer, especially for a console that should be priced around $300.
True it can only go so far but they're likely to just take another hit the same way they've done in the past on the price. $250-275 (USD) is the optimum consumer price for a console. They likely took a $100-150 loss on every PS2 in the first year and I'd suspect a similar loss on every PSP as well. The PS3 could be a 400 dollar system and be a 100-150 dollar looser as long as it gets into peoples homes. After the first 2 or 3 years (I image once this gen hits it'll be around a lot longer than the regular lifecycle just because it's going to be tough to top) they're looking at plenty of profit as long as they sell games to go along with them.
Well *I* DID play Sudeki and I hated it. I will go a little more in depth one what I previously said though as you were correct in catching one of my statements... you're right Sudeki doesn't PLAY anything at all like a typical FF-style RPG. It's another 'action RPG' along the lines of (but not saying it's very similar to) Fable. But yeah they tried to copy the Japanese 'flavor' and IMO they failed miserably. That's not the only reason I didn't like it though, I played about four hours of it and just was not having fun at all, I actually LIKE the FF-style menu/turn based combat, and was hoping Sudeki would be more like that. Being the 'action RPG' type game it is, maybe it'd be okay but after playing Morrowing and Fable, both much better than Sudeki IMO, I just felt like I was retreading the same ground.

Well whatever, another subjective oppinion and as I keep saying to each their own, I'm glad you got your moneys worth from the game, if indeed you payed for it :D I did not, so maybe I'm taking it more for granted, but I thought it was horrible.

I do find that not paying for games does skew your view on them significantly... if I BUY a game and it's only so-so, I try to force myself to like it... if I get a game for free and it's only so-so I dont waste my time.