While I am admittedly a PS3 fanboy I think I have the ability to talk about them, since I have played all three, its not like "oh noes, if I touch a Xbox I will turn into a Bill Gates Zombie!"
Firstly the Wii:
I honestly hate the Wii, I think everyone over hypes it, its games, its franchises, and everything Nintendo with the exception of Smash Brothers brawl that one Shiny Opal in a cave of grime. For one thing its name is what makes me angry, for starters it sounds like a toy an 8 year old would have, The Nintendo: Revolution would have been a better name and arguably would have made sense but no they tossed the cool name for a corny gimmicky name, the tossers.
Now for the specifications, the game offers nothing new or invigorating to the console market in terms of graphics, considering top of the line video cards are more expensive then this bloody contraption I'm not surprised they threw in the towel and compensated with gimmicks.
Now for the Gimmicks I really don't like the Wii Mote, it rarely works right for me and doesn't feel right, if I am playing a baseball game and i swing the bat Ild think the speed I swing it would matter but it doesn't. It also didn't feel right in any of the launch titles like Red Steel or whatever it was called, the game with the guns and Samurai swords, frankly FPS's have no business being on a console with the exception of any game with decent co-op.
And now finally the games, now I can understand playing good Mario games, good Zelda games, and I can understand why people like Metroid games (other then to fantasize about Samus) but I just cannot understand all the hype.
The Wiimote has motion sensing.
Big whoop.
We knew they would have the same games, I can mark it points for giving us the ability to replay all of our favorite classics from the Gameboy. So what was all the hype about other then the hilarity of people destroying their big screen tv's?
The Xbox 360:
Now my feels about this console are a bit more ambiguous, I am an avid Halo fan and I will respect a console for almost always consistently offering good co-op multilayer in the majority of their games but I fear that console gaming has bred a generation of selfish spoiled drunk brats born and bred to be fearful and suspicious of more realistic FPS's that 99% of the time are available on the PC.
Exhibit A: Mr. N, N or Nero from my school and I have gone into a VERY heated discussion about the relative merits of Call of Duty 4 and the Halo series.
Now I am a Halo fan but I nonetheless supported Call of Duty 4 in this discussion in the terms of more realistic modern combat, personally I prefer Project Reality for realism but out of the two above I prefer Call of Duty for my FPS "seriousism fix". Nero however repeatedly bashed Cod4 not because of any particular gameplay feature beyond its realism as a sort of flaw but mostly because he no matter how hard he tried sucks at it, these were his words. At this point I rolled my eyes and point out hes comparing Apples and Oranges, an FPS should not adjust the aim for you it should not patronize you and assume your retarded, a console game takes out all of the skill beyond spray and pray from playing a proper first person shooter like Cod4.
I fear that the XBox has resulted in a new generation of First Person Shooters for the consoles in mind with the ralying cry of "Lets be like Halo" and completely ignores what actually makes a good game, the ability to allow skilled players who use teamwork, strategy, and individual skill, temperment and accuracy to win.
And not bunny hopping grenade throwing, camping, auto aim adjusting jerks.
I think the 360's Graphics are okay, nowhere near my computer or for that matter the Play Station 3 Microsoft just went for the "rush out a 400$ computer" strategy and frankly lost out in the quality race and are now lost the format war.
Personally i think Xbox Live is the best feature of it but my beefs with it are many, A) the need to pay for it, B) the lack of any interactivity between it and PC multilayer of PS3 multilayer.
What is it? Shadowrun is the only game that has Xbox live for both PC and Xbox? Lame. They gimped the game for PC players too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
PS3 Review Coming soon.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I fear that the XBox has resulted in a new generation of First Person Shooters for the consoles in mind with the ralying cry of "Lets be like Halo" and completely ignores what actually makes a good game, the ability to allow skilled players who use teamwork, strategy, and individual skill, temperment and accuracy to win.
This hasn't come true. Gears of War, Army of Two, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter... the tactical shooter is alive and well on the 360.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Reviews of the Wii that pretty much boil down to "its not aimed at my demographic" amuse me Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I lend particular credance to ones that start with "I don't like the name."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I bothers me to no end that I can only buy a PC, a PS3, or an Xbox360 if I want high end graphics. Nintendo practically slapped me in the face by not making the Wii a 400+ dollar graphics card.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I bothers me to no end that I can only buy a PC, a PS3, or an Xbox360 if I want high end graphics. Nintendo practically slapped me in the face by not making the Wii a 400+ dollar graphics card.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
From what I've read, Nintendo didn't go with the name "Revolution" because it's an awkward word in Japanese. I don't know what the Japanese word for revolution is or sounds like, though, so I don't know if that's actually likely to be true.
But just about anyone can say "wii."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think part of the success of the Wii stems from not following the herd on HD graphics. It's allowed them to set a significantly lower price point, and given them an incentive to focus on innovative and enjoyable games.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've spent more time playing on the Wii than I have the other two, and I own none of the above. I mostly game on the PC.
But I *am* quite in tune with the gaming press and gaming culture. And while some of the Wii's software/hardware has definitely been gimmick-over-substnace (Link's Crossbow Training?!) or leaned overly-heavily on the kid-friendly angle, there seems to be a concensus that Super Mario Galaxy is an amazing game- in part because it is, first and foremost, a game, not a "cinematic tour de force" or an "interactive experience" or a "stock footage generator for HD TVs." (Which is not to say that it doesn't also look amazing.)
Games like [the infamous] "No More Heroes" also suggest that the Wii may find a broader, more adult audience than Nintendo's reputation might suggest- and also that big N has finally learned its lesson, realized that adults are a big part of the gaming audience, and loosened up a bit (if not necessarily on its own properties.)
Most of the games I'd really want to play are either ported to the PC or available (or to be available) on the Wii; I don't really feel like the soul of "Rock Band" or "Guitar Hero" is lost by playing them at a lower resolution. The only game for the PS3 I'm likely to feel any sense of loss about is Metal Gear Solid 4.
I'm not really likely to buy any of the consoles (I don't get all that much time to game these days anyway.) But if I did, I'd probably get a Wii; I "get" the Wii.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I've been pining after the XBOX 360 Elite for some time now, but have held off plans to purchase one for several reasons, including (but not limited to) lack of available funds and lack of knowledge on whether or not there will be a Blu-Ray add-on. Does anyone know whether this will happen?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have heard no, as Sony owns the rights to Blu-Ray, and they won't allow it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Reviews of the Wii that pretty much boil down to "its not aimed at my demographic" amuse me
There was a time that nintento serviced a wide range of demographics well. I am thinking way back to the N64, which ranged from puzzle games, long rpgs lke Ocarina of Time, to Wetrix, to Goldeneye, and everywhere in between.
Blayne is making a valid point in saying that the main gimmick of the Wii is limiting its gameplay experience outside a smaller demographic. I think he's absolutely right- many of the wii games including Mario Galaxy are just better on a traditional controller- it turns out in my experience that the Wii-mote has added no desirable capability, other than to express actions such as swinging or punching, which galaxy doesn't even use, and which most game designers are not really ready or willing to incorporate into their game engines and concepts.
I snark at Blayne all the time, but he's making a pretty good point.
I'll add that I think the concept of the Wii-mote itself is half baked to begin with. People are highly, highly familiar with the idea of point-and-click capability, and the added "third dimension" is a cheat. The Wiimote is not depth sensitive, only directional, which i think gives it a somewhat strange responsiveness. Because you can't see the pointer anywhere off screen, the notional interaction with the on screen object you use is dimensionally collapsed- I think there's an inherent issue involved with representing your three dimensional actions on a 2D screen that is going to make the control feel... just odd. I get the sense with the wii that the image is "pulling" all my actions toward it, and that pointing the wiimote away from the screen diminished my control.
[ April 24, 2008, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's a Shadowrun game out?
Is it any good? I love the series, and I loved the game that Sega had out.
(by the by, is there a reason we started a new thread for this?)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's a Shadowrun game out?
Even those who enjoyed the basic play of the thing were generally less than enthusiastic about the small number of maps and lack of single-player.
Fans of the original license mostly seemed to feel it was a thin coat of paint on a not-terribly-original FPS.
And alas, the game's overall mediocre performance seems to have led Microsoft to close its FASA division.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's disappointing. The old Shadowrun game was really cool, and frankly I thought the storyline was well above par for a game of the time.
They should bring it back to that, and have Mike Stackpole write a new storyline, make it a mixed RPG/FPS, and use the Wolf/Raven characters. I'd want to play that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ori...have you seen the head tracking using the wiimote? It adds a true 3d field to it, and I bet within 2 years there will be a ton of games using it.
The best thing the Wii has done is open the field up to a lot of people who had never liked video games, like my parents. They are in their 60's, and just bought one, and they LOVE it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Metroid was far cooler when to open consoles or doors I had to push my wiimote in, twist it clockwise and then pull back.
Firing arrows in LOZTP with a wiimote was far more interesting. Heck even the speaker on the wiimote adds immersion to the games.
If anything I appreciate that Nintendo has expanded the playing field for what sorts of games can now be created. True it's been hard for 3rd party developers to come up with good uses for the wiimote-nunchuck setup, but that's like saying the original video game controller was alittle unresponsive and therefore stupid.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
beware swearing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They should add a mic with word recognition technology into the Wiimote. That'd add tons of applications, from game shows to singing, etc.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There was a time that nintento serviced a wide range of demographics well. I am thinking way back to the N64, which ranged from puzzle games, long rpgs lke Ocarina of Time, to Wetrix, to Goldeneye, and everywhere in between.
I don't know what Wetrix is, but the rest of your list have analogs on the Wii.
---
I have a Wii and I've noticed that, on several of the games, I have fun in a way that I don't when playing other systems or on the computer. I'm really smiling and such when playing Wii sports, Rayman Raving Rabbids, WarioWare or Mario Galaxy.
This fun is, I think, a lot of the appeal of the Wii, although it is maturing as a console in 08 and 09. I can get "That's awesome" or a sense of accomplishment or "Oooh, pretty" or a variety of other feelings from the other games, but smiling, laughing fun is hard to come by.
The wii took a different path, not just from the hardware, graphic centric focus of the other consoles, but also in the way they approached how people played games.
The motion control is the obvious sign of this, but there are other things too. One that it seems to me is often overlooked is the simplicity of the control schemes. I see it as like Super Smash Brothers for an entire system. SSB diverges wildly from other fighting games in how very simple the controls are. Anyone can pick it up and play it and get all the moves for any character. What other contemporary fighting game can you say that for? This is one of the reasons why SSB is so much more fun than other fighting games.
This change is why my parents, my girlfriend, my 5 year old niece can all have fun playing some of the things on the wii. You can see this is Mario Galaxy too, where they've actually come up with a working two-player platformer mode. My niece loves collecting the star bits and shooting them at enemies (her favorite is the Bouldergeist). I can help out my not terribly proficient girlfriend from the second player too and we have fun doing it.
I like it because you can have Wii parties where you don't have to only invite a select group of people. To me, game consoles were largely solitary (or like head to head with a guy friend) activities. The Wii isn't. I like that it makes social gaming fun and accessible. I like that, when they are done well, the controls are much more immersive and not something you have to think much about.
---
Point 2. The wii mote makes certain types of games possible that aren't really on the other consoles.
I can't stand dual analog stick shooters. Uptil the wii light gun abilities, if I was playing a shooter, I was playing on the computer. Now, I play on the wii and everyone else can too. For rails games like, Ghost Squad or Link's Crossbow, all you have to do is pick up the controller and you're good to go. And, again, this is fun.
Also point and click games like Zak and Wiki, Sam and Max, and Strong Bad's Cool Game For Attractive people. I really like those types of games, although I still miss typing my actions like back in the day.
I can't wait until the head tracking and other innovations are brought in as well.
I'm also getting Wii Fit, in large part so I can play games like We Ski and whatever else they come up with that.
---
Point 3. It's Ninetendo, so you know that they are going to have some of the best games and that these games are going to be exclusive. Mario Galaxy, for example. SSBB. Mario Kart. Hopefully Pikmin 3. Whatever the actual Zelda Wii game is. You know with Ninetendo that you are going to have some absolutely amazing games to play.
Plus, especially with the larger target audience they bring and the options provided by the wii mote, there are some very interesting 3 party stuff coming out. Boom Blox, The World of Goo, etc.
Then there's the virtual console. Ninetendo's back catalog is full of some of the best games of all time. I've got Super Mario Brothers 3, Waverace, Mario 64, Streets of Rage 2, etc. on there. I've also got the Zelda compilation disc for gamecube, so I have just about every non-handheld Zelda playable from my wii.
---
There are definitely some weak points. The lack of processing power is one. Honestly, I couldn't give a crap about the video - the only reason I'd even want a big TV is to better play games on it. Not much of a TV watcher or a video guy. But there's some hints that The Force Unleashed isn't going to have the same physics model on the Wii, which would suck. Also, Ghostbusters is a different game, which I'm not sure is actually good, bad, or neutral. However, both of these have exclusive play stuff because of the Wii's motion controls, so it's hard to say.
Online is really annoying. No doubt about that.
Lack of a hard drive is a big drawback.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I honestly hate the Wii
Hating a game system is truely pathetic. You don't like it, that's fine; don't like it. Feeling actual animosity towards it? I think you may have made a fundamental mistake in your conception of where your reproductive organs are located.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But there's some hints that The Force Unleashed isn't going to have the same physics model on the Wii, which would suck.
From the physics demos we've seen of The Force Unleashed on the 360/PS3, I can't imagine how the combination of physics and animation engines that seem to drive so much of the gameplay could possibly be remotely the same on the Wii. The number of onscreen agents, the fact that the physics of their interactions with the world and their animations aren't scripted, the fact that each agent is aware of its surroundings to some degree (e.g. how thrown Stormtroopers will grab onto anything that's nearby, including other Stormtroopers, to save themselves), unscripted break patterns in objects based on their physical attributes... I just can't see all of it surviving intact on the Wii.
The 360 can execute six concurrent threads in hardware across three symmetric cores; the PS3 has seven or eight asymmetric cores. The heart of the Wii, as far as we know, is the single-core processor that was in the GameCube with a clockspeed bump from 485MHz to 729MHz. It has the advantage of out-of-order execution (the Xenon and Cell are both in-order processors), but that isn't nearly enough to bridge the gap in number of cores or clockspeed.
However, the Wii version will have exclusive multiplayer Wiimote lightsaber duelling, from what I've read, so Wii owners will still get something pretty cool.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm going to expand on my demographic note.
Nintendo partially out of necessity and partially out of a conscious decision has decided to pursue new demographics beyond those targeted by the N64 and GameCube, both of which from a marketing standpoint were not successes since both lost market share compared to the dominance of the SNES.
This is not entirely their fault, both Sony and Microsoft have deep pockets and have plenty of money to throw at each other in a competition for the most technologically advanced console, just look at the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD battle. Nintendo could try to compete but with its relatively smaller budget would probably get smoked. Nintendo *needs* to try something new rather than just compete head-to-head directly with Sony and Microsoft.
Thats the necessity.
The opportunity is that Nintendo can parlay its weaknesses into strengths. Don't have a big budget? Make a console from off-the-shelf hardware and make a profit on each console rather than a loss. Since each console is a profit rather than a loss as in the Sony model, they can afford to concentrate on casual gamers who typically buy less games. Don't have graphics horsepower? Concentrate on demographics that largely don't care.
Consider this, look at the best selling PC games for February link
They indicate two demographic trends that are rather important. First, the sheer dominance of World of Warcraft despite being released in 2004. It has been sucking up a substantial portion "hardcore gaming" demographic and will continue to do so. That combined with the piracy issue (this demographic is more likely to pirate on any console) makes it less attractive. Second, the presence of no less than *five* "The Sims" games in the top 20, also after a 2004 release. The Sims franchise has almost been a licence to print money from a demographic which has been somewhat neglected.
So no, they aren't going to focus on the "hardcore gamer young white male demographic" (this is going to stereotype wildly, but such is the fate of demographics). But they will expand into the "let's have a casual party game" demographic, the "parents who are too busy to spend 100 hours on a game and learn complex games" demographic, the "we made The Sims and its expansions a licence to print money" demographic, and even the "I feel like exercising" demographic.
It even fits well into my personal favourite, "the wife/girlfriend usually won't play (violent) video games, but will make an exception for the Wii" demographic.
Only time will tell if this strategy, will pay off. Initial sales figures seem to predict 'yes.' But in the meantime, if you're going to "review" the Wii, you should be careful to determine whether you're reviewing the console OR you're reviewing the business strategy.
Or to really make it short, you don't normally go into a Jackie Chan movie, complain about the lack of pretentious drama, and review it as if you were expecting a Zhang Yimou movie.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I honestly hate the Wii
Hating a game system is truely pathetic. You don't like it, that's fine; don't like it. Feeling actual animosity towards it? I think you may have made a fundamental mistake in your conception of where your reproductive organs are located.
Whistled. If you want to be a dick take it elsewhere or you know do something more productive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus, Ninetendo surely is targeting other demographics and is clearly not focusing on the demo you're talking about as strongly as the other two, but they're are still plenty of games for them, as far as I can tell.
Zelda Metroid No More Heroes Okami Mario Galaxy Resident Evil Call of Duty and so on
You seem to me to be saying that they aren't servicing a wide range of demographics, but then providing that they aren't focusing on one specific demographic.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Please dial it back, guys.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dial what back?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
One quick comment on your post, Mucus: Using off-the-shelf parts was what caused Microsoft so many headaches with the Xbox, because nVidia owned the intellectual property for the Xbox GPU and refused to cut the price as time progressed in the way Microsoft had wanted them to. Because the CPU/GPU industry changes so quickly, what was initially a tweaked but essentially off-the-shelf GPU became a niche product manufactured only for one customer, namely Microsoft. The Microsoft-nVidia lawsuit was ultimately settled out of court with undisclosed terms, IIRC.
Using off-the-shelf parts alone doesn't necessarily guarantee low cost in the long term -- you also need to own a stake in the IP.
With the Wii, it isn't so much that the components are off-the-shelf, it's that it's basically a tweak of the GameCube. The CPU got a speed bump and the GPU got a bit of tweaking, but for any developer who worked on the GameCube, the only wrinkle with the Wii is the change in control scheme. Internally, the Wii is basically a GameCube revision with the circuitry rearranged to suit the new enclosure.
All of this isn't to dispute your point, since you're right that Nintendo's plan was to make a low-cost console that could sell at a profit from the get-go and provide a familiar and easy environment to developers to keep game development costs down. I'm just clarifying a bit based on my views.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MrSquicky: I'm not 100% sure if I'm parsing your last sentence correctly, but it seems your interpretation (of what I am saying) is incorrect.
What I'm saying is that they aren't focusing the small "hardcore gamer young white male" demographic. That doesn't mean that they will suddenly abandon it.
Instead, I'm saying that they are focusing on expanding all of the demographics that I listed, which previously have been a smaller segment of the market, but have the potential to be much larger (arguably with the cross-demographic appeal of the Wii and games such as Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and The Sims even on other platforms, it might already be bigger).
However, this change in focus does not mean a total drop in support for the older demographic. When you're losing a war, you don't completely stop fighting a rear-guard action, even if you are focusing on making gains somewhere else.
Besides, Zelda, Metroid, and Mario Galaxy *aren't* targeting quite the same demographic that games like GTA4, Halo 3, and Gears of War are. They can have appeal to that first demographic, but they aren't focused on it in the same way those latter games are. The others that you mentioned are third-party releases that Nintendo doesn't really have the same level of control over.
twinky: Ok
[ April 25, 2008, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus, My mistake. I had got into my head that you had posted Orinoco's post above. That made everything all mixed up for me.
---
edit: While market forces play a part, I think Ninetendo has consciously, as part of their identity, kept away from courting the same demographic in the same way as GTA or Halo or other violent shooters, especially the crime/sociopathic glorifying ones.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Alright PS3 Review:
My experience with the PS3 is even less then the Wii or 360 surprisingly enough for some people, I borrowed a 360 to play Halo 3 (which I rented) a Wii I manage to play at many peoples houses, but the PS3 I only managed to play in store at their demo exhibit.
So here's my first impressions: the graphics made me drool for more even with my 4 gbs of ram and cross fired video cards using windows vista with a directx 10.1 capable game (assasins creed) the PS3's graphics seemed comparable or maybe it was because of the 42" HD screen or even better then what my computer offered. Everything seemed more real more sharper the contrast was to die for. The interface on the Sony menu was just as familiar as I remembered it on the PS2 and I know right then and there that when i finally get one it'll be like home coming reunion between long lost relatives from the galapigoss islands of hard core gaming.
Now I only managed to be able to play 1 game on it, I think it was called Armoured Assault Core 2 a mech game of some sort and I LOVED it even if it were only a demo and had to leave after 15 minutes. The gameplay was exactly as i thought proper mech comabt should be if you took gundam wing and made it a tactical simulator type of game, there were tactics in it in how you used terrain, you could control your mech in nearly every way possible showed in animes and it even let you when you felt like it despense with tactics and pull out your beam sword and charge in leeroy jenkins style and not get too punished for it.
Additional points go to it in the form of it being easily turned into a Linux server with ubuntu *yay* but I nearly immiedately tear it off for not featuring WINE properly so I cant use it as PC and play PC games on Linux I blame the complete lack of drivers.
My other beef is that the two games I want to play on it, FFXIII and White Knight arent released yet afaik and its still freakishly expensive so until I can get a job I can only stare across the infinite expanse of the EB Games window until the clerks grab a broom and shoo me away.
Of course I will only get a PS3 that has full hardware acceleration for backwards compatibility not software acceleration.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Of course I will only get a PS3 that has full hardware acceleration for backwards compatibility not software acceleration.
Haven't those been phased out? I thought all the new SKUs had only software acceleration.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The more expensive models still have hardware acceleration afaik, I just need to find it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But they're not making those anymore. Unless you're getting it soon, you'd likely need to pick it up second hand.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The more expensive models still have hardware acceleration afaik, I just need to find it.
The discontinued 60GB PS3 contained both the Emotion Engine and the Graphics Synthesizer from the PS2. The current 80GB PS3 contains only one of those chips (can't remember which offhand), giving it partial backwards compatibility [Added: To be clear, it's partial hardware and partial software backwards compatibility as opposed to the 60GB model's full hardware backwards compatibility]. The 40GB PS3 contains neither and has no PS2 backwards compatibility, IIRC.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...But hey, they put Rumble back in...
(Sometimes, of late, Sony seems rather like a thrashing, injured whale in an ocean of sharks.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, buying a secondhand 60GB PS3 is probably one of the more sensible ways to get a PS3.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But lacking the 5 year BestBuy impalement proof warranty.
I always extend warranties as much as possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So that at the end of 5 years I can break it and return it for a new one no questions asked.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wonder if Blayne will be writing reviews about the PS4, mauve-ray, how gimmicky the Yiimote is, and how he's forlornly trying to save money to buy a PS4 in a store window by the time he's ready to break the PS3 on schedule in 2013 Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It's practically impossible at this point to find a new PS3 with full backwards compatibility unless you're willing to pay at least $600 on ebay. It is certainly an incredible game system and even a bargain as far as blu-ray players go, but for me it's not worth a penny more than the $399 I paid for it.
At any rate, Best Buy only has the 40gb version and soon the new 80gb with the rumble controller, both of which are pretty much only backwards compatible with some PS1 games.
I just got my PS3 (the 40gb) a couple of weeks ago, and I'm pretty happy with it. In fact, the only major complaint I have is that I can't fully integrate it with my universal remote. I did get this as a cheap partial solution, but I can't enter numbers or power the system on or off with it. It's not that big of a deal, though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Thats the necessity.
The opportunity is that Nintendo can parlay its weaknesses into strengths. Don't have a big budget? Make a console from off-the-shelf hardware and make a profit on each console rather than a loss. Since each console is a profit rather than a loss as in the Sony model, they can afford to concentrate on casual gamers who typically buy less games. Don't have graphics horsepower? Concentrate on demographics that largely don't care.
Having seen this, I pray you don't tell me you are one of the Apple bashers on this board- because this is close to their model as well.
I should say, in terms of targeting demographics rather than focusing on the kitchen sink model of windows machines
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: At any rate, Best Buy only has the 40gb version and soon the new 80gb with the rumble controller, both of which are pretty much only backwards compatible with some PS1 games.
That isn't accurate. The 80GB PS3 is compatible with a large number of PS2 games, though not nearly as many as the 60GB model.
The lack of IR on the PS3 will definitely be an annoyance for me. It will be the only device in my AV rack that isn't compatible with my Logitech Harmony programmable universal remote.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Ah. Well, I stand corrected. Still, for me it's not worth anywhere near the extra $100+. It probably helps that I never had a PS2, so I'm not as disappointed as some.
Which Harmony do you have? I bought the Harmony One a few weeks ago, and it's absolutely amazing. I've never had a remote with so much flexibility and yet such simplicity.
There are some decent solutions out there to fix the lack of IR support, but they're all done by individuals with limited time and resources, so it's a tad difficult to get hold of one. Plus, they're a little pricey, around $50 or so.
I'm willing to bet, though, that an affordable solution will come out pretty soon. The demand is definitely there for it. My hope is that it will be an IR to bluetooth converter in a compact usb drive/usb passthrough, but that's probably asking too much.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have the Xbox 360 co-branded one. It's basically the 550 but with an Xbox 360 colour scheme and ABXY buttons with appropriate functionality. It controls everything in my rack, though, and I love it dearly. Out-of-the-box 360 control was sweet, too.
There's actually a lot of really good stuff in the PS2 back catalogue, so it's kind of a shame that PS3 backwards compatibility is so inconsistent across models. Anyone with a device that can play PS2 games should check out Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Katamari Damacy as a minimum.
My PS2 gave up the ghost recently and I'm not finished with it yet -- I'm in the middle of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. Fortunately P3 is compatible with the 80GB PS3, and since I'm interested in a PS3 for Wipeout HD anyway, I'll likely pick one up when the June 80GB+DS3+MGS4 bundle is released.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Yeah, I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that video games are just something you play through once and then discard to make room for the future...is not a real gamer. 80% of my gaming time is spent playing old things, many of which are not part of the current generation. I will never, ever grow tired of the PS2 and 1 final fantasies, Shadow of the Colossus, Ocarina of Time, the original Mario Bros. games, Donkey Kong, blah blah blah. Don't get me wrong, there are some newer titles that own majorly like Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, DMC4, Smash Bros Brawl of course, etc. But I think it's safe to say video games qualify as art just as much as books and movies do, which means if you really care about them, you're going to want to go back and relive the memories someday. The problem is, they can't just be picked up like any old book; they've gotta be played on either their original console, or on a new one with compatibility. And hardware lifespans aren't what they used to be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Beware of swearing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I almost never replay games that are the same (or close to the same) every time. Games with more open worlds and/or multiple endings are the ones that keep me coming back. Oblivion and Mass Effect come to mind. I also plan to go through BioShock a second time.
I don't re-read books all that often, either. I think your metric for who is and is not a "real gamer," whatever that means, is flawed.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I almost never replay games that are the same (or close to the same) every time. Games with more open worlds and/or multiple endings are the ones that keep me coming back. Oblivion and Mass Effect come to mind. I also plan to go through BioShock a second time.
I don't re-read books all that often, either. I think your metric for who is and is not a "real gamer," whatever that means, is flawed.
Interesting, I'm pretty much the same way. There are very, very few games, books & movies that I will watch more than once.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not even sure how useful a metric like "real gamer" could actually be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Bigger Screen.
[Edit] Also a more inclusive gaming environment. The living room/family room/den with a big TV and a couch in front of it is a lot more conducive to social video gaming (party games) than a desk and desk chair.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Bigger Screen.
[Edit] Also a more inclusive gaming environment. The living room/family room/den with a big TV and a couch in front of it is a lot more conducive to social video gaming (party games) than a desk and desk chair.
There is the expense, computer gaming can get very expensive, especially with higher end games. Consoles being standardized and mass produced and then usually sold for less than production cost is a big plus.
There's also the out of the box playability, you don't have to consider hardware or drivers and there's usually no install time (with the exception of some PS3 titles to my understanding).
Control schemes would definitely be a subjective matter, personally I find the controller more ergonomic than the keyboard/mouse for most games (with the exception of RTS).
The online factor is also very big (at least on the Xbox, the Wii is a bit behind on that front) when you turn on your console, you can instantly see which of your friends are on, and what they are playing, and you can jump right in with them by just changing out your game. You also don't have to worry about viruses.
On the subject of different consoles, I have a Wii and a 360, and I find myself enjoying both equally, although for different reasons. That's not to say I hate or think the PS3 is stupid. It definitely seems like a competent machine. It just doesn't have any appeal to me.
Each of the consoles have their pros and cons, as does computer gaming, I have found for the 360, Wii, and low-level computer gaming, the pros outweigh the cons, at least for me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, the screen and environment can be independent of whether it is a computer or a console (i.e. I share my largest screen between a console and a computer, and the environment... is what you make of it)
In many ways, the line between traditional computer and console is somewhat blurring, especially with the XBox360.
However, these are some advantages to the console approach that I can think of:
* More compressed time between R&D and deployment, reducing the "chicken and the egg" problem. We saw how long it takes for certain parts like DVD-ROM drives, gamepads, etc, although available on PC far ahead of consoles, are never really taken advantage of. Developers do not want to develop for something few people have, and few people will buy something for just one game. By forcing everyone to have the same setup (or close to it), the console manufacturer can ensure that the developer can develop for these peripherals much faster.
* Standardized hardware also contributes to an easier to use OS. Its a lot easier to program a simple, yet effective OS when everyone has the same hardware
* Planned obseletion, this may not seem like an advantage, but it really is. When playing games on a computer, you don't really know for sure how long you hardware will last. You just wait until you find a game (GTA4? Starcraft 2? Fallout 3?) that you will need to upgrade for, you do so, and then wait for the next required upgrade. If someone designs a game with oddly high requirements (Guitar Hero 3?), then you're out of luck. Meanwhile, your hardware is either overpowered at the beginning of the cycle or grinding away near the end, when you're trying to drag out the process of upgrading) With a console, you know that you don't have to upgrade for the next five or so years, and everyone else will have the same experience too, so developers have to optimize performance for that same hardware.
* Console media (usually) means less patches for games and thus a more stable and polished initial release.
* For the developer, more effective DRM. People can pirate console games, but I would bet that the prevalence is less than in the traditional PC community due to the need to mod/chip the actual hardware
I'm sure that there are more points, but those are a few.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Up until fairly recently, I would have suggested simplicity. It used to be that all you needed to do to start playing a console game was insert the disk or cartridge. Consoles still seem to be somewhat easier to "get into" than computers, but the differences between complexities of interface do seem to be narrowing.
I'd echo Mucus' comment about standardized hardware, although again, that doesn't seem to be reaping quite the benefits it used to. Console gamers used to be able to definitively say that their games were the ones that didn't require five patches to be playable; now, console games are indeed coming to market with significant bugs, and even getting patched (for those with broadband, at least.) The number of patches that have been applied to the PS3 firmware and MS' "red ring of death" difficulties aren't encouraging trends either.
I do think there's significant differences in the experience, however. Console games are far more likely to be played by multiple people in the same room. Everyone may not know how to play from the outset, but they probably at least know the functions of their controller. (MS is working on standardizing Windows gaming to the 360 controller, but it's a long way from market penetration as yet. (As a PC gamer, I must admit to some ambivalent feelings on this point.)) PCs tend to be used in a very close environment, with the user a few feet away from the screen at most; consoles are centered around a television, and our habits tend to dictate that we stay six feet or more away from televisions, which also makes the experience less "closed off". For that matter- and, again, MS is trying to make this less the case- consoles tend to be in the living room with the television, while PCs are in offices, studies, and bedrooms, often tucked away almost like some kind of dirty secret.
Consoles are perceived as fun. Slightly nerdy fun, perhaps, but basically happy-go-lucky toys. PCs are perceived as tools, and the very skills that are necessary to use them effectively contribute to them being seen as far more nerdy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I guess for me, the sort of games that I see the PS3 and XBox 360 playing are ones that I'd generally play alone or on multiplayer on a network. I guess Rock Band, Guitar Hero, etc. are not, but I'm thinking of Halo or Grand Theft Auto (which looks amazing, by the way) or God of War or Bioshock, etc. These are all solitary games for me. I could be totally wrong, but it seems like these sorts of games are the main focus of those consoles.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
My 15 year old daughter always wants to be elsewhere, because of Rock Band. I miss the kids hanging out at my house!!
I'm solving this issue by getting Rock Band for our home.
*If you buy it, they will come*
I'm sure I'd enjoy it as well.
It's been a while since this was posted. What are your feelings on the different consoles now? Any one out performing the other? Are there more games out for WII now? I'm not even sure what questions to ask.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
January sales:
PlayStation 2 101.2K PlayStation 3 203.2K PSP 172.3K Xbox 360 309K Wii 679.2K Nintendo DS 510.8K
WII FIT (WII) 777K WII PLAY W/ REMOTE (WII) 415K MARIO KART W/WHEEL (WII) 292K LEFT 4 DEAD (360) 243K CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR* (360) 235K SKATE 2 (360) 199K GUITAR HERO WORLD TOUR* (WII) 155K NEW SUPER MARIO BROS (DS) 135K MARIO KART DS (DS )132K LORD OF THE RINGS: CONQUEST (360) 113K
Wii's doing unbelievably well and is officially at this point a profound success that marks the resurgence of Nintendo
360, while not pushing the absurd numbers of the Wii, is holding up well as the 'serious gamer' platform, and the two consoles largely get to have their own assured markets carved from the gamer populous.
PS3 is dead. No system movers. Declining sales. Not a single piece of PS3 software moved over 110k. Very awful situation for Sony.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I got a Wii this summer! (After this thread so I didn't notice it then.) I am NOT a gamer and had no interest in a gaming system but heard about Wii fit and decided it would be cheaper than a gym membership. I am so thrilled that I bought it. My husband is more into these things than I am and he says that the Wii is a gaming system for the non-hard core gamers. For this reason, he suggested, that many people did not take it seriously -- to their cost! It has outsold the other systems because it found this niche.
I don't know about how many games it has vs. other systems, but what gets me is the type of games it has vs other systems. I am so thoroughly enjoying Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Samba Di Amigo, and We Cheer -- which were all Christmas presents.
They are getting me off the couch, which was the big reason I got the system in the first place!
There are new games coming out soon. EA, which managed to do poorly at Christmas despite the fact that game sales did very well, finally realized that people are loving the Wii and is going to make some games for it. I don't know if they will be good or not. The bad games for the Wii are the ones that don't understand how to use the wiimote as anything other than a normal controller. I try to avoid those. But there will be new games.
I don't think I'd own any other system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think I'd own any other system.
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think I'd own any other system.
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
It's some sort of crazy like a fox business model.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: PS3 is dead.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. I saw you say the same thing in Blayne's stolen PS3 thread and I disagreed then too. Selling 200k units last month (based on your numbers, I didn't research myself) doesn't translate into failure in my eyes. It's true that Sony hasn't advertised as well as it could have, and it's true that I own a PS3 (and a Wii) so I am no outsider looking in and I may benefit from the success of the PS3 because developers will continue working on it. But it doesn't seem in danger. Xbox 360 came to the market a year before the PS3 and only has 7mil more units out there to show for it. Seems to me that the PS3 is catching up. Even if it comes in 3rd place at the end of the game, it will still have respectable numbers to show for it. Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will. I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: PS3 is dead.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. I saw you say the same thing in Blayne's stolen PS3 thread and I disagreed then too. Selling 200k units last month (based on your numbers, I didn't research myself) doesn't translate into failure in my eyes. It's true that Sony hasn't advertised as well as it could have, and it's true that I own a PS3 (and a Wii) so I am no outsider looking in and I may benefit from the success of the PS3 because developers will continue working on it. But it doesn't seem in danger. Xbox 360 came to the market a year before the PS3 and only has 7mil more units out there to show for it. Seems to me that the PS3 is catching up. Even if it comes in 3rd place at the end of the game, it will still have respectable numbers to show for it. Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will. I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
Just because people are stating that the platform is an abject failure does not mean they are declaring the death of the parent.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are all still in the game. Nintendo almost died between the Super Nintendo and the Nintendo 64. You can bet that Sony when it releases another console will not simply make a PS4. In fact I'd be willing to bet it won't even be called a PlayStation. The PS3 isn't even in contention for being one of the worst consoles, but compared to the PSX and the PS2 it's an embarrassment.
Next time around I expect Microsoft and Sony will incorporate some devices clearly designed to emulate and improve upon the wiimote, while Nintendo will release a console that is something like $300-$400, shying closer to 300, that will be more of a graphics monster, with hopefully some more surprises. The bane of the Wii so far has been that third party developers have not been very effective at incorporating the control scheme in their game designs. Further the Wii has not gotten nearly as many third party titles as the other two consoles because some games simply can't be ported to it. The latter problem is certainly solvable. I think the former problem simply requires time, we've had so much time to develop games for a stationary remote, having the remote moving around was a large leap.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Eh. I have all three consoles and I only own one game for the PS3. I use it for Blu-ray primarily. This is not an uncommon arrangement. As standalone Blu-ray devices get cheaper, the incentive to purchase a PS3 decreases. If I were in the market right now, I'd probably buy a standalone rather than a PS3. In addition, it has only a handful exclusive titles, and only only a few of them are "must haves". The PS3 may not be dead, but so far it is not doing very well. There are few objective reasons to go with a PS3 over an Xbox 360. Blu-ray movie playback is one, but it is diminishing. Exclusive titles is another, but they are few the value will depend on the individual gamer. If you aren't a MGS fanboy, then you probably don't need to care that MGS is only on the PS3.
To the original poster: If Rock Band is the reason you are getting the system, then you want a 360 or a PS3, not a Wii. The Wii has limited storage so it can't take advantage of the huge downloadable song library.
You may also want to consider getting whatever your child's friends have so they can share games, play together online, etc.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think I'd own any other system.
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
This doesn't seem right to me. In fact, I have a different suggestion. The people making games they hate for the Wii are responsible for the huge gap between the good games and the bad games. Because the Wii has some real stinky games. I can only assume that they were made by actual gamers trying to make a few quick bucks off of a new hot system but who hate the games they are making. These games tend to get very bad reception. I cannot imagine that the people who have written the real winners hate the games they make. In fact, one of my favorite games, Samba Di Amigo, has a video you can unlock of the people making the game.
This is why I carefully read all the reviews at Amazon.com before selecting a Wii game.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I want my PS3 back Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
It's just pining for the fjords...
The thing is, during the PS1 era, software companies didn't have to sell (according to some estimates I've heard) 500,000 units just to make their costs back.
I don't really think the PS3 is exactly about to kick up its heels, but it's in a surprisingly unenviable position despite being a platform for what is now the only high-definition movie format.
When "God of War III" comes out, I suspect its numbers will tell the real tale as to whether we should be preparing a eulogy for the PS3.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: EA, which managed to do poorly at Christmas despite the fact that game sales did very well, finally realized that people are loving the Wii and is going to make some games for it. I don't know if they will be good or not.
EA's fourth quarter looks bad due to a one-time restructuring charge that the elected to write down in that quarter, sort of like how MS wrote down the Xbox 360 warranty charges in one quarter rather than spreading the losses out.
Added: While I think the PS3 may be catching up to the 360 worldwide, it definitely isn't catching up in NA. For the first three quarters of 2008, the PS3 did outsell the 360 by a little bit, but nowhere near enough to close the installed base gap. When MS cut the price of the 360 late in the third quarter, 360 sales leapfrogged PS3 sales and haven't looked back.
[ February 19, 2009, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I got a Wii last year for Mother's day/my anniversary. I haven't got to play as much as I would like having a little one around. However, I have loved playing when I get the chance. I love the Wii fit. We also love Wii bowling. Even people who don't play video games have loved coming over and bowling.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
Your numbers are flawed. Yes, the 'PS1' sold only 28M, but that's the PlayStation One, a more compact version of the Playstation. If you want to give a more accurate number, it would be 102.49M units as of March 31st, 2007.
Your numbers also ignore the PS2's sales, which surprisingly are STILL selling better than the PS3. And by that I mean from each quarter, more PS2s are sold than PS3s. (Same source from above, comparing the tables.) The PS2 is at over 140M. (Same source as above.)
The PS3, on the other hand, dramatically failed to meet Sony's expectations. It's only sold 21.3M as of December 31st, 2008.
Really, the only thing the system has going for it is the Blu-ray player. Now that HD DVD is dead, that's the next medium. But as pointed out from above, as the price in stand-alones drop, the motivation to buy PS3s decrease.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games.
Tom, I'm assuming you're saying this tongue in cheek and don't actually believe it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games.
Tom, I'm assuming you're saying this tongue in cheek and don't actually believe it.
I don't think he is. A huge number of people who went out to buy a Wii have said time and time again things to the effect of, "I don't typically play video games, but the Wii is just different."
Or, "I myself do not play video games, but I bought a Wii for my children/grandchildren because we enjoy playing Wii sports together."
And even, "The Wii is a huge hit in senior institutions, none of them ever played video games until now."
----
Ben: Vadon pretty much stated what my response to you would be. Also remember the first Playstation was Sony's initial foray into video games. At the time Nintendo and Sega dominated the market. The PSX was so successful that by the time PS2 was released Sony was now a household name in the video game market, just as Microsoft is nowadays whereas it was not when they initially released the Xbox.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think the PS3 is great, and since it isn't almost outdated...in fact I don't believe there are any games out there that completely use it's full capabilities even now.....I bet it will continue to grow. As opposed to the 360, which was never strong enough to last more than a few years,,,,and tehy are already talking about replacing it with a new machine. ...In the long haul I'd still bet on the PS3 being a great machine.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think the PS3 is great, and since it isn't almost outdated...in fact I don't believe there are any games out there that completely use it's full capabilities even now.....I bet it will continue to grow. As opposed to the 360, which was never strong enough to last more than a few years,,,,and tehy are already talking about replacing it with a new machine. ...In the long haul I'd still bet on the PS3 being a great machine.
Really that is what i think the best hope for the PS3 is, I am not going to have to buy a PS4 in 2010, buy I might be told to go get a X-box whatever.
The other great thing is that if i still had a Ps2 I am still getting some new games. But by now X-box is useless for next-gen games.
I also have reason to beilieve that by 2010, in order to play a ew Wii game you are going to have to dress up like a gundam. But you will lose weight, and seniors just LOVE IT!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: in fact I don't believe there are any games out there that completely use [the PS3's] full capabilities even now.....
The extent to which this is true is very much open for debate.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The extent to which this is true is very much open for debate.
Indeed. The quality of 360 games is also still improving and there is not really any objective way to determine how much headroom remains on either platform from which you can project future improvement. So far the PS3 has not demonstrated any obvious technical superiority regarding graphics quality or processing performance.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games.
Tom, I'm assuming you're saying this tongue in cheek and don't actually believe it.
I don't think he is. A huge number of people who went out to buy a Wii have said time and time again things to the effect of, "I don't typically play video games, but the Wii is just different."
Or, "I myself do not play video games, but I bought a Wii for my children/grandchildren because we enjoy playing Wii sports together."
And even, "The Wii is a huge hit in senior institutions, none of them ever played video games until now."
----
Ben: Vadon pretty much stated what my response to you would be. Also remember the first Playstation was Sony's initial foray into video games. At the time Nintendo and Sega dominated the market. The PSX was so successful that by the time PS2 was released Sony was now a household name in the video game market, just as Microsoft is nowadays whereas it was not when they initially released the Xbox.
This describes me; however, it does not describe my husband. He loves video games and thinks the Wii is great. He loves Star Wars Force Unleashed because he can act like he's really swinging a light saber.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There are also "hardcore" gamers with Wiis. However, Nintendo has definitely expanded the Wii's audience outside of that core group to people like you and the others Mucus describes.
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Ben: Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will.
Here's an example:
Final Fantasy XIII is no longer a PS3 exclusive. That's actually a pretty big deal; AFAIK the only major exclusive JRPG that Sony has kept is White Knight Chronicles. Everything else has moved to handhelds, gone crossplatform, or even become a 360 exclusive. Last gen, if you wanted to play JRPGs you pretty much had to buy a PS2.
Grand Theft Auto IV was a simultaneous crossplatform release as well. Last gen, if you wanted GTA at release, you had to own a PS2.
Really, the only huge exclusive PlayStation franchise left is God of War. (Although I'm sure Killzone 2 will sell well, the Killzone franchise doesn't have the long history of consistent big sales that the God of War franchise does.)
The PS3 is this generation's GameCube in terms of sales, but unlike the GameCube it hasn't even been profitable. The PS2's longevity and profitability have propped Sony's gaming division up so far, but PS2 sales are starting to tail off. For that matter, PSP sales are dropping as well.
I don't think Sony is out of the game this gen any more than Nintendo was last gen. They'll be around next gen, although the next gen may get here later rather than sooner due to the economic situation. But I can't think of a marketplace metric by which the PS3 has been a success -- and I say that as someone who owns one and likes it.
(Full disclosure: I own a 360, PS3, DS, PSP, GameCube, dead PS2, and a Mac.)
[ February 19, 2009, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think the statement "people who buy games for the Wii hate video games" is a bit broad.
I love video games, and I really enjoy the Wii.
Many people I know who own a 360 have also recently bought a Wii, simply because it's a lot more fun in a party environment to bust out Wii Sports than it is to bust out CoD4.
Even more than that, Wii games are still video games, as much as self-styled "hardcore gamers" want to plug their ears and go "la la la la" whenever anyone points that out. So, you can't like Wii games and hate video games... it's like saying you like hamburgers but hate meat.
A more accurate statement would be that "Wii games are primarily bought by people who don't appreciate the niche of 'hardcore' games that has recently been in vogue".
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I stand corrected on my sales figures. Chalk that up to hasty research on my part.
While I understand that sales have been disappointing and falling short of Sony's hopes and predictions, I still wouldn't classify the system as dead. Not a runaway success no, but not an out and out failure or dead either. Yes Final Fantasy and GTA IV launched/are launching multi-platform, they are still releasing for both. I think because of smaller install base of the PS3 in the U.S. it makes sense to go multi-platform at launch for those games. They will recoup development costs much sooner that way. That is just good business, but the PS3 isn't an afterthought in these instances. In fact, it's my understanding that the PS3 is the lead platform for FF13 development. So it doesn't seem to me that anybody has abandoned it (in reference to my jumping ship comment above and twinky's response). You can call it third place, or even distant third if you'd like, but it's certainly not dead. I would be more likely to grant that the PSP is dead or dying before the PS3. It just seems premature to call the PS3 dead when it still has support from alot of 3rd party developers making exclusive and multi-platform games for the system.
Wow, upon reviewing this post I seem mighty defensive like a fanboy. Heh.
*As I mentioned in an above post, in the interest of full disclosure I own a PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP, and buy current games for my Windows system as well.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I stand corrected on my sales figures. Chalk that up to hasty research on my part.
While I understand that sales have been disappointing and falling short of Sony's hopes and predictions, I still wouldn't classify the system as dead. Not a runaway success no, but not an out and out failure or dead either. Yes Final Fantasy and GTA IV launched/are launching multi-platform, they are still releasing for both. I think because of smaller install base of the PS3 in the U.S. it makes sense to go multi-platform at launch for those games. They will recoup development costs much sooner that way. That is just good business, but the PS3 isn't an afterthought in these instances. In fact, it's my understanding that the PS3 is the lead platform for FF13 development. So it doesn't seem to me that anybody has abandoned it (in reference to my jumping ship comment above and twinky's response). You can call it third place, or even distant third if you'd like, but it's certainly not dead. I would be more likely to grant that the PSP is dead or dying before the PS3. It just seems premature to call the PS3 dead when it still has support from alot of 3rd party developers making exclusive and multi-platform games for the system.
Wow, upon reviewing this post I seem mighty defensive like a fanboy. Heh.
*As I mentioned in an above post, in the interest of full disclosure I own a PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP, and buy current games for my Windows system as well.
I don't think it's quite dead yet either, I was merely correcting your numbers, showing why it wasn't a success, and talking about the trouble brewing for it in the blu-ray market.
You're right, FFXIII was being developed for the PS3 in mind, but as time went on and the PS3 didn't make the sales numbers they wanted, they extended the franchise to the XBox 360. Square-Enix is also making DQ9 for the Nintendo DS as opposed to a console release, GTA went multi-platform as well.
While the PS3 isn't dead, the fact that they're losing exlusive titles is a sign that it is dying. That's not to say that in the future Sony won't create the next, winning system. They've just lost this round of the console wars.
For full disclosure, I suppose, I have a Wii, DS, and my older systems. (PS2, SNES, Famicon, N64, and GBA) I don't have money to be a big gamer. Otherwise I'd totally go for a 360 and/or PS3 of my own.
My biggest investment in these console wars came from when I made a bet with a kid. Specifically, he bet that the Xbox 360 would be more profitable than the Wii after Halo 3 was released given a month. I took the bet in a heart beat after clarifying he said 'profitable.' Easiest 20 bucks I ever made. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't think the PS3 is dead either, and didn't say so.
Trivia:
The PS3 is the lead platform for an increasing number of 360/PS3 crossplatform games nowadays, because it's way easier to get your PS3 game running on the 360 than it is to do it the other way around. The 360 has three symmetric general-purpose cores, each of which can execute two concurrent threads, and it also has a unified memory architecture. The PS3 only has one general purpose core and a number of smaller cores, and the CPU and GPU each have their own batch of memory*.
Consequently, from what I've read, if you build your game from the ground up for the 360, you basically have to hack it apart and completely rethink your threads and how data flows between them to make it work on the PS3, but you don't have to do that if you go from the PS3 to the 360. Because Microsoft's architecture is easier to develop for and MS provides better dev tools and support, early on this gen a lot of crossplatform games ran better on the 360 due to these differences. Now with more developers leading on the PS3, the performance of crossplatform games is generally fairly comparable, with the exception of antialiasing. The PS3 versions of crossplatform games often either lack AA or use quincunx, whereas their 360 counterparts are antialiased. I first noticed this when I downloaded the Mirror's Edge demo for both systems, but it's evident in other crossplatform games as well.
*The PS3's GPU can technically address main memory as well, but it's extremely slow in doing so.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
For me, it goes like this -- Any game I want for the 360 is out on the PC, or will be out soon. And I love my PC. I also love my big, overweight, loud ps3. And little big planet. Now I just need a Wii.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
*shrug* The 360 is over that too. Big, huge, expensive ($$$ and goodwill) problem, but it's not an issue for current consoles and hasn't been for over a year now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
I didn't say sony was out of the game, though they're hurting massively right now.
Sony was looking bad in the end of 2008, they're looking bad now.
Despite the fact that the 360 had an earlier release, its sales grew considerably between last year and today. The PS3 is the only console to see its sales base shrinking.
That in mind, profit is not earned based on systems moved; the PS3 sells at a considerable loss to Sony, which must be recouped by the sales of titles.
Sony does not have any system movers, and it has very weak game sales.
The apt summarization of PS3's January performance is that the system is dead in the water.
360 is alive, fo sho. Healthy even.
Wii is more than alive. Its sales have increased so profoundly that we can put it in the category of 'undergoing apotheosis'
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
Sony is a hardware company, and Microsoft is a software company. Those strengths are readily apparent on both of their consoles this gen.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
*shrug* The 360 is over that too. Big, huge, expensive ($$$ and goodwill) problem, but it's not an issue for current consoles and hasn't been for over a year now.
Shenanigans!!!! I declare shenanigans:cry:
I got proof. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Haha. I'm not saying they never break. I'm just saying they don't ALL break any more. When a current system RRODs it's a legitimate "$*&% happens" experience now.
I feel for you, man.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
So, after all this, I'm thinking a Wii?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I love my wii- but I am not a gamer. I also love my wii fit. My dr and I were discussing it with weight loss and she said that the big problem with it is people buy it and then feel good. They just never bother using it. But I use it all the time (I also use my exercise bike regularly). My husband and I enjoy playing tennis against each other and some of the party games are a lot of fun.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This describes me; however, it does not describe my husband. He loves video games and thinks the Wii is great. He loves Star Wars Force Unleashed because he can act like he's really swinging a light saber.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Haha. I'm not saying they never break. I'm just saying they don't ALL break any more. When a current system RRODs it's a legitimate "$*&% happens" experience now.
I feel for you, man.
ARGH, mah 360's have always consistently broken.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If you want it for Rock Band primarily, I have to agree that you should consider getting a 360 instead of a Wii. (I have both, and a PS2.) I don't have Rock Band, but I've played it, and the option to expand your music library by downloading more songs is great. And you don't get that on the Wii. If you think you'll be using it for other games, and you're not a traditional gaming household, then go for the Wii.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Rock Band 2 for Wii does have downloadable content, but only a small subset of the DLC for 360/PS3 is available on the Wii, and your only storage options are the 512MB internal flash memory and 2GB external flash memory.
I have over 5GB of Rock Band content. Between Rock Band 1 songs I've exported to my 360's hard drive, Rock Band 2 disc songs, and DLC, I've got on the order of 200 songs available to play when I fire up Rock Band 2.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Good to know...about the downloadable content. We would most likely want to keep adding to our music library.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Rock Band 2 for Wii does have downloadable content, but only a small subset of the DLC for 360/PS3 is available on the Wii, and your only storage options are the 512MB internal flash memory and 2GB external flash memory.
I have over 5GB of Rock Band content. Between Rock Band 1 songs I've exported to my 360's hard drive, Rock Band 2 disc songs, and DLC, I've got on the order of 200 songs available to play when I fire up Rock Band 2.
Though I believe the Wii version allows hot swapping of SD cards (annoying) to get all your songs. And they are committed (they say) to getting all the songs on the Wii store ASAP, and seem to be following though, if the early indications mean anything.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I can only stare across the infinite expanse of the EB Games window until the clerks grab a broom and shoo me away.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)