PlayStation

[kaid]

I was refuting, specifically, the point about most of the "well reviewed" DS games being gimmiks.

 

[Chill]

Yeah, I was really just asking because you said you spent $2000. I was only half-serious because I did read the industry does use hours and not money spent to determine if you are a hardcore. That's actually pretty interesting because the general opinion is that the only people who want to buy new consoles are the harcore.

 

[N4NO]

MPH, Mario Kart DS, SM64 DS, NSMB, Sonic Rush, Super Princess Peach, Castlevania? Even Lost Magic was consistantly fan-reviewed several points highter than the official review.

I will give an opinionated reason as to why I dislike all those games. You have brought up a good point. Some of these games slipped my mind. You have included just about all the non-minigame games. I can't really refute these games the way I had the others, as my reason for dislike of these is more based on genre preferance and other things.

MPH - I don't like FPSs(Except Half Life)
Mario Kart - I don't like racing games
SM64 - I have already played and beaten this on 64. It was the DS game I had when I had the system, and I forgot to add that I actually did like this game. My bad.
NSMB - I'm not the biggest fan of 2D side-scrollers, though if I did really have a Mario-urge, I could play SMB on NES.
Sonic Rush - I am a big Sonic fan, Sonic on Genesis was actually the first game I played with a passion, but it had gotten bad reviews, so...
Super Princess Peach - Like I said, not a big 2D SS fan, and I could play SMB on NES, also heard it was really short
Lost Magic - Got horrible reviews. At least from the magazine that I read, Game Informer. I can forgive and look past a 7 or so, but LM got like a 4, which is really bad.

Now that I have given my opinion, I don't want to argue anymore, and I respect whatever your opinion may be. To each man, his own.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I was really just asking because you said you spent $2000. I was only half-serious because I did read the industry does use hours and not money spent to determine if you are a hardcore. That's actually pretty interesting because the general opinion is that the only people who want to buy new consoles are the harcore.

I've always gone by hours, because some people have more money than others but just don't use the stuff they buy excessively. I beat HL 2 and BW2 and haven't really had much play time on my new computer, but that's fine with me as I got more than my money's worth in being able to play those two games with minimal crashing (HL2 and BW had some serious glitches, but I never got them in Oblivion) so that proved to be more than worth it for me.

Hardcore gamers will play a game repeatedly until they have mastered it for hours a day, then prove to others they are the best. Casual gamers, like myself, play games for entertainment and usually only play multiplayer for the added fun factor.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

Serect!

It seems Sony has some language issues...





... this appears to be 100% real.


Source: http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/omg-pl...r-spelling-mistake-update-its-real-180260.php

 

[Crimson King]

Or a photoshopped picture because "Serect" would be Engrish which is an open bashing of the Japanese language. Nice try though.

 

[Cashed]

It's actually a couple weeks old and it's real.

 

[Chill]

I'm having a hard time believing this is real. Sony has produced how many millions of controllers with the word 'select' on them? Unless someone's hand printing the words select on the controllers how else would something like this happen?

edit: That wasn't a rhetorical question.

 

[Zink]

Whoa!

Check this out- problems with the Cell chip!

 

[Paranoid_Android]

that looks a bit unerving. I'd be seriously worried about my cell chip busting - especially after the warranty expires.

 

[Chill]

IGN has some of its staff weigh in on the PS3.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/722/722923p1.html

 

[lonejedi]

Wow, nothing like a bunch of Playstation Fanboys talking about how well they think the Playstation will do. It would have been nice if they had other editors from other systems talking about it. All of them think Sony is going to be on top, but I don't really see that happening.

Sure it will do well, but it's not the sales of the system that makes the money for the company, it's the games that make the money. People are going to be reluctant about the price, which means, less people buying the system, which means less people buying the games.

I really think it's gonna come down to Xbox vs Wii, with Playstation falling behind. Nintendo is finally going to have some third-party support, which doomed them with the game cube. Plus they'll continue to have the Japanese market, something X-box will never have. And the Wii will have it's unique ness with the controller. While the Xbox will get more hard core gamers, because of it's graphics and traditional controller set up, and online ability.

I really don't see any HUGE potential with the PS3. It's basically an expensive X-box with sub-par online capabilities, plus blu-ray.

 

[The Great Marth]

gamecube had more troubles than just a lack of 3rd party.............online games=3(maybe 4) and it was in a gay color......purple.

 

[lonejedi]

gamecube had more troubles than just a lack of 3rd party.............online games=3(maybe 4) and it was in a gay color......purple.

Online wasn't a huge part, and neither was the color, I don't buy a system just because of the color.

Playstation2 had very few games online as well, yet they flourished because of thrid-party support.

 

[The Great Marth]

color DOES effect sales.......look at the DS sales............when the many colors were released=massive surge in sales of DS.

And PS2 had alot of great games to go online..........gamecube had crap=PSO,Kirbys air ride(where the A button did 3 things) and a harry potter game.......

so like i said.

 

[Chill]

Wow, nothing like a bunch of Playstation Fanboys talking about how well they think the Playstation will do. It would have been nice if they had other editors from other systems talking about it. All of them think Sony is going to be on top, but I don't really see that happening.

Haha that was exactly what I first thought when I started reading it. To their credit they all did say that the margin was going to be much, much closer between the three companies. If they had said that the PS3 was going to "win" by a landslide I would have to doubt their subjectivness.

Other editors opinions wouldn't have changed things much as both the 360 and Wii staff think their console will do the best. It would have been more like console debates and less about the PS3. That could have fun to read though.

I agree with them that the numbers will be close this gen but I don't agree that the PS3 will come out on top. I think at this point it is to early to tell which console will do the best.

 

[The Great Marth]

Haha that was exactly what I first thought when I started reading it. To their credit they all did say that the margin was going to be much, much closer between the three companies. If they had said that the PS3 was going to "win" by a landslide I would have to doubt their subjectivness.

Other editors opinions wouldn't have changed things much as both the 360 and Wii staff think their console will do the best. It would have been more like console debates and less about the PS3. That could have fun to read though.

I agree with them that the numbers will be close this gen but I don't agree that the PS3 will come out on top. I think at this point it is to early to tell which console will do the best.

are you getting a PS3?

 

[lonejedi]

color DOES effect sales.......look at the DS sales............when the many colors were released=massive surge in sales of DS.

And PS2 had alot of great games to go online..........gamecube had crap=PSO,Kirbys air ride(where the A button did 3 things) and a harry potter game.......

so like i said.

What about Mario Kart:DD that was online, as was 1080.

 

[Zink]

Hey Chill, did you notice they praised the Blu-ray inclusion? That's what tipped me off.

 

[The Great Marth]

What about Mario Kart:DD that was online, as was 1080.

yep, forgot about those.

 

[Chill]

are you getting a PS3?

Yeah, I just don't know when yet. It'll probably be next year when the price drops to $400 which is an acceptable price for me. There are too many games that I don't want to miss out on.

Hey Chill, did you notice they praised the Blu-ray inclusion? That's what tipped me off.

I'd hardly call it a praise but whatever.

 

[Zink]

I believe they called it "wonderful technology".

 

[Paranoid_Android]

I honestly can't see the PS3 being a good buy. Sure, it has a Blu-Ray player that's probably worth as much as the entire system (or more), but Blu-Ray is only an advantage for users of HD-TV's (Or am I missing something, and it actually allows for huge game content too?). In any case, it's not the same deal as the DVD-Player where all you needed was a TV with AV ports. It's also not extremely innovative, which is something I always look for in a gaming system - sure, the graphics are going to be incredible, but I'd much rather have my developers working on fun game concepts than on new ways to make a digital image look more realistic, no? The controller (which actually made me lose respect for Sony - it really feels like a total rip-off of Nintendo) will probably be used for flight-sim and driving games since it has no "pointer" feature, but only accellerometers. This is OK, but it feels like a step behind the big N. Another strike against the PS3 is that the 8-cored processor has a low yield, and that they will certainly not be immune to cell-deaths during manufacturing, let alone later on in the system's lifetime. Sony said they were only accepting cell chips with 7/8ths or 8/8ths of the processor cores working and than yield of these wasn't exactly great (with any useless 4/8 or 5/8 chips being pumped out). Finally, the price will hurt the PS3 to get the non-sucker's deal, you have to pay $600.00. That just seems rediculous, but I'll put that aside considering it actually does have quite a bit of expensive hardware on board (if you get one in working order, it'll probably be a great deal, but that's only if you can actually make use of Blu-Ray).

Another thing that concerns me, and this doesn't just go for Sony, is that games will become more expensive - they have to. Devs aren't just making 3D graphics anymore. They're drawing up hundreds of pages of scripts and hiring musicians (the good companies - not those *******s that do it digitally) and voice actors, and now those nerds in the offices have to deal with all sorts of shadowing and ray tracing (well, I guess not ray tracing yet - that'd make the game really slow), and other stuff. How much time and money is actually being put into making games FUN anymore? This is one of, if not the reason that I like Nintendo despite being let down by the 'Cube's scarce third party support and lack of online capabilities.

Sony has to jump a lot of hurdles, me thinks. What do they have over the XBox 360? Will the graphics be identifyably better? Will there be better online capabilties? Etc.? I just don't get it.

 

[Chill]

I believe they called it "wonderful technology".

One person says he thinks the technology is awesome and then goes on to say "Still, the issues are presenting a problem for Sony in multiple ways. The company has a whole lot riding on the technology and if it outright fails, well, that would be very bad for PlayStation and Co."

Another says "If Sony stays with their plan of recycling the same stale movies (We don't give a **** about Resident Evil Apocalypse, Hitch and A Knight's Tale, Sony!), the format is as good as lost."

I'm not here to defend people I don't know but there comments seem pretty honest to me.

I just don't get how you (PA not Zink) can call the $500 PS3 the "suckers deal". It feels like I just said this, infact as I'm writing this I can still see my reply to the last person who said that. With a few minor alterations...

How is the $500 version the "suckers" package? The $500 PS3 plays games and saves games. If someone's not going to be using the features on the $600 version why should they spend $100 more for it? Seems like something a "sucker" would fall for.

What do they have over the XBox 360?

The same thing the Wii has over the 360. The same thing the 360 has over the PS3. Games.
If someone wants Gears of War or Halo, they'll buy a 360. If someone wants Mario or Zelda they'll buy a Wii. If someone wants Final fantasy or Metal Gear they'll buy a PS3.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

How is the $500 version the "suckers" package? The $500 PS3 plays games and saves games. If someone's not going to be using the features on the $600 version why should they spend $100 more for it? Seems like something a "sucker" would fall for.

The $500 PS3 doesn't have the good HD port which means your wonderful Blu Ray player is going to be gimped. Sucker.

 

[Zink]

The point of the Blu-ray is that it can play in HD- BUT you have to buy all you movies AGAIN in addition to buying the PS3. Not gonna happen.

 

[lonejedi]

The same thing the Wii has over the 360. The same thing the 360 has over the PS3. Games.
If someone wants Gears of War or Halo, they'll buy a 360. If someone wants Mario or Zelda they'll buy a Wii. If someone wants Final fantasy or Metal Gear they'll buy a PS3.

But you're already starting to see some Third Party Devolopers start to shift over from Sony, to other systems. Look at the Wii for example. Squarenix already has two rpgs coming out for the Wii on launch. You also have Snake appearing on SSBB. Metal Gear has been on the Cube before, and with the wiimote, it might come back on the Wii. Of course Halo won't come over to Nintendo, but alot of the old third party players are. Even Lucasarts has promised full support for all systems, and a Wii- only game will probally be in the future. Now Nintendo is gonna have a decent internet service.

I'm not trying to be a fanboy, Playstation still has some great games, but if they're less consoles out their being sold to teenagers, than their are less games to be sold, meaning less profit.

 

[Cashed]

Wait. You guys are trying to say the only reason Sony went with Blu-ray is for a higher resolution? Noooo. They're mostly trying to push their new format that they want to succeed over HD-DVD (I hope both go down the drain, personally), they knew developers would like more disc space as that means developers can code lazier or include more content. DVD9 is a fine format though, Oblivion is only 4.5GB, half of that being audio. The only games you're going to be seeing taking up all of that Blu-ray space is games like Final Fantasy, and not because of size, but because of the high resolution FMVs they'll have. LASTLY there is the 1080p output, but really, you could do 1080p output off of a DVD9, you'd just need a HDMI out, something that no current models of the 360 have.

 

[kaid]

Another Nail in the coffin.

The Blu-Ray Killer

The thing practically screams, "Anything you can do, I can do better!"

 

[Chill]

The $500 PS3 doesn't have the good HD port which means your wonderful Blu Ray player is going to be gimped. Sucker.

Oh dear. Which part of "not using features" don't you understand. I could care less if Blu-Ray movies(which I probably won't be buying anyway) don't display in 1080p. They still display in HD. Was that really your entire argument for calling the $500 version gimped? You don't have to like the console but please don't post nonsense in here.

 

[Giygas]

Cashed is right. Much like the DVD-ROM was for the PS2, and the UMD was for the PSP, Blu-Ray is Sony's trojan horse for getting their format into homes, fast. For every hundreds of millions of PlayStation 2 systems sold, there were that many DVD players on the market.

Of course, parallel lines are increasingly being drawn between the PSP/PS3 and the DS/Wii. Sony's PSP has clearly been outsold by "inferior" technology, showing that consumers will go with innovation (though Sony still clings to th at "number of PSPs shipped" number. It's meaningless if half of the darn things sit on store shelves collecting dust). And look what's happened to the UMD format. It sank. Fast. Foreboding, anyone?

And on HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, Gamespot's Alex Navarro pretty much sums up my feelings.

I've never been a big fan of the whole attitude Sony tends to take whenever it invents some ridiculous new media format. It's always that of, "Look, what we've got here is going to make all competing forms of media irrelevant, so you'd better pony up the three-times-as-much-as-the- competition price that we're asking for this format that nobody is actually going to bother adopting because a cheaper, as-good alternative exists. You dig?" It really does feel like Betamax all over again.

An HD-DVD format doesn't force me to buy a whole new player to view movies, or rebuy all the movies I currently own. Blu-ray does. Why in God's name would I waste my time and effort with a Blu-ray player, given these facts? Seriously, I'm asking. Does anyone have a good reason for why Blu-ray should even exist?

Storage space? Last time I checked, if a game couldn't fit on one disc, you put it on two. Or more. Did having two discs for the GCN version of RE4 really make the game suffer? Did having 19 disks on FF VII make the game worse?

 

[Chill]

I read that before too. The only part that didn't make sense is this, "An HD-DVD format doesn't force me to buy a whole new player to view movies, or rebuy all the movies I currently own."

Last time I checked there are HD-DVD players and HD discs (sold in red casing) am I missing something?

 

[Mic_128]

I think that HD-DVD movies can be played on a DVD player, but nothave the uber HD-detail or whatever.

EDIT: Or at the very least, you don't need to rebuy all your movies.

 

[Chill]

That might be what it is. Blu-Ray players can read DVDs so the rebuying movies part doesn't make sense either.

 

[Zink]

But you can't take advantage of the Blu-ray player without the Blu-ray discs. It does read DVDs but there's no point as it's exactly the same quality as a DVD player.

 

[Chill]

This applies to both formats. You can't take advantage of a player without the disc. Being able to read DVDs prevents you from needing to buy your movies again unless you want the HD version.

 

[Zink]

And HD is the whole point of getting the Blu-ray player. Why would you pay $800 for a Blu-ray player to play DVDs you already have a player for?

 

[Chill]

Zink, you are so off base it isn't even funny. Read moar.

 

[Zink]

Read moar what? The Blu-ray needs to use Blu-ray disks to take full advantage of the player. To use the Blu-ray player on the PS3 to its capacity, you need to buy Blu-ray disks. You already have your movies on DVD, which can be played on a DVD player that you already have. Ergo, to use the PS3 Blu-ray player you must re-buy all your movies in the Blu-ray format. Not to mention the upcoming format war with HD-DVD, which can be played on a standard DVD player but requires an HD TV, as does Blu-ray.
So what would you rather do? You have DVDs and a DVD player. To take full advantage of either of the next formats you need an HD TV. For one that's all you need. For the other you need an HD TV, a PS3/Blu-ray player, AND you need Blu-ray movies.
I know which one I'd pick.

 

[SuperBowser]

umm, wouldn't you need HD DVDs for the other? (which I think is his point)