Slashdot Mirror


More On PS3 and Xbox 2

News for nerds writes "The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem."

81 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. iGame by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

    The article mentioned that "Microsoft is obviously a software company first and foremost, while Sony has more experience in hardware", so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?

    1. Re:iGame by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

      I'd much rather see them partner with an established console maker. The key to a successful console is the games. You need a lot of them. You need a few really good ones. You need at least one excellent, exclusive title. This would be really hard for Apple to swing all at once.

      I'd like to see them partner with Nintendo or Sony to release a built in gaming environment and compatible drives with the media. These companies make their real money on games and the licensing fees. Apple computers could all be extra consoles that sell more games. It would give games an extra market, it would solve the lack of games problem on OS X, and it would provide some 3rd parties with the opportunity to sell game pads and accessories.

      That would be a killer feature for Tiger. I don't think it is going to happen, but I'd really like to see it.

    2. Re:iGame by thre5her · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From ca. 1994: Sony can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like Nintendo did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Nintendo has.) So speculating about an Sony gaming comsole is a complete waste of time. Next question.

    3. Re:iGame by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, the iPippin, then. How's that?

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    4. Re:iGame by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that they've had mixed success in getting third parties to produce even desktop software for their machines does not bode well for their ability to attract game developers to the platform, either.

      Actually, developers are all about OS X. Heck I am sitting two offices away from some people developing Windows only software, that they are developing on powerbooks. I mean have you seen how much freeware/shareware there is for OS X? People love to develop on OS X. Businessmen on the other hand, aren't so keen on investing a pile of money into funding development for OS X, given it's small market share. Many of them just don't want to bother. Even big, entrenched players like Adobe, are less than stellar about committing to developing their products on OS X. Partly this is because so many companies have stupidly moved to MS owned technologies, and are now trapped. Partly this is just because management does not see the business case.

      Development on OS X is great. Development for OS X is a dream job for many. It is a profitable endeavor as proved by many companies. What many suits don't get is that Mac users are generally more affluent and willing to shell out money for things than the typical user. They are also often power users and aficionados that devote a relatively large portion of their funds to computing. You occasionally see a company like Adobe kill off development for a product on the Mac, even though it accounts for more than half of their user's. Thick skulled managers either assume that the Mac is dying and are trying to save money by getting ahead of the curve, or don't pay attention to their market share. Framemaker, for example, was cancelled after crappy sales for about 2 years (after they failed to make an OS X native version which everyone was waiting for).

      Basically, I disagree that they cannot find developers, but agree that they cannot find a large number of big development houses. Smaller shops do a lot better on the Mac. No what Apple will do if they are smart, is partner with Sony or Nintendo, and include an emulation environment with OS X. That way they get the games, and the development is taken care of by an already established player.

    5. Re:iGame by wankledot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market is 1994 is nothing like it is today. Apple would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    6. Re:iGame by saider · · Score: 2, Funny

      and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?

      A pink console.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    7. Re:iGame by skeptic1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Apple has thus far shown less then zero interest in moving into the entertainment market"

      Really?
      What do you think this is, then?

    8. Re:iGame by Metapsyborg · · Score: 2, Informative
      "I believe that was for their press department. Nothing to do with xbox2"

      No, the development kits sent out to game developers were essentially modded G5s. Pretty much any gaming mag will have the scoop, like Game Informer.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    9. Re:iGame by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The market of 1994 is nothing like it is today. Microsoft would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 (Sony, Nintendo or Sega) dont already. All of us can go at this all day. If you want to learn about why your statment is moronic pick up "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steven Kent... You will fine that your statement has been repeated time and again and proven false more often than true.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    10. Re:iGame by toriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Sony fought against established names (Nintendo and SEGA) too. Plus Microsoft when it introduced X-Box was up against Sony and Nintendo (SEGA having halted the Dreamcast).

      The big problem would be to find a market segment: The other three have the market divided between them (Nintendo for children and adults, Sony for teens (and some adults) and Microsoft for people who like to watch tits in DOA XXX Beach Volleyball). Not many more niches left.

    11. Re:iGame by David+Rolfe · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think Cringley's recent comments respond to your post nicely -- he says (to this effect anyway) "Would you rather have a Gateway LCD or a Sony LCD". He's speaking to the coming/rumored/inevitable sale of Sony products by Apple (and possibly vice versa); They already sell Sony cameras, for instance, so DVI displays and other hardware is the natural progression. What this says to me is that Apple wouldn't want to get in the way of SCE, they'd want to partner with it. So just like you say, Apple still stay a computer company, but partner with "Best of Breed" manufacturers to fill these other roles, like Sony.

      Off topic and and only tangentially related, consider the excellent ps-one emulators available for the Mac. :-)

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    12. Re:iGame by maotx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it look like this?

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    13. Re:iGame by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhhhh...It is the Mac Mini. It has a Radeon 9200 (better than the gForce 3 in the XBox), a 1.25 GHz processor (Better than the 700 Mhz Celeron in the XBox), 256 MB of DDR RAM (better than the 64 MB of RDRAM in the XBox). For $29.99 US you can get a TV video adapter from Apple. Play flash games, shockwave games, emulate old systems, and play modern games ported to Mac (there are some). Plus, when you are done gaming, you can watch movies and listen to music. When you are done with entertainment in general, take it off the top of your TV and put a monitor and keyboard on it, and work.

    14. Re:iGame by nuckin+futs · · Score: 2, Funny

      igame?
      great, now we're gonna hear jokes about the game controller having only 1 button.

    15. Re:iGame by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *Except* that the MacMini doesn't have optical out/5.1 surround sound. It's the one thing that missing from making it a good home theatre PC/DVD player/games machine.

    16. Re:iGame by michaeldot · · Score: 4, Informative
      Development on OSX is frustrating because of one thing. There is virtually zero documentation.
      APIs are half-published. Example code is poorly written. And Apple prevents google from indexing their developer site so finding the little information that *is* published is a pain in the ass.

      I rarely do this on Slashdot, but I'm calling pure BULLSHIT on this one.

      The interactive documentation built into Xcode is a pure delight. Double-click on a Cocoa/Carbon/QuickTime/Java method or function call and you get an instant lookup to extremely comprehensive documentation.

      Every method in the class, full description of all params, cross-referencing to related methods, historical notes on version compatibility.

      As to its highly organized and fully up to date web site documentation: Apple *uses* Google for its web site searches. It is fast and efficient.

      Google does index Apple dev. I've many times found links to just the right posting in an Apple hosted Cocoa/Carbon/OpenGL mailing list or other article simply by entering the function name in the Google search box.

      In short, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you're just innocently ignorant, but I really don't know what people like you gain from contributing such misinformation. You've made at least one Mac OS X developer mighty annoyed at the fiction you're trying to spread.

      The fact that you've been moderated +5 Interesting shows that the people who have mod points today are as clueless as you. Don't think I'll bother to read any more of /. today.

  2. i remember... by fresh27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when Nvidia said their GeForce FX series could render 6 Jurassic Park quality dinosaurs in real time. Long story short, this is bullshit and it'll be a while before we get such great quality.

    --
    http://ipod.fresh27.net/
    1. Re:i remember... by stupidfoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The same thing (rendering Toy Story like movies in real time) was said about the PS2 and Xbox. Has this happened? No. And it won't happen with the Xbox 2 and PS3. They'll look great, but they won't be of that quality.

    2. Re:i remember... by pbranes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      We have heard all of this before. PS3 marketing is doing what marketing does best - lying. Only believe it when you have the hardware in hand. We have never been given any evidence that the PS, Xbox, or gamecube marketing departments ever tell anything close to the truth.

      Case in point. Read this time article from before PS2 came out:

      http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0320/j apan.sony.html

      Don't believe it till you are holding it in your hands.

    3. Re:i remember... by Marvelicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question is: would it really be a problem. I'd hate to see Hollywood have to use actors instead of computers and all, but c'mon. Lets face it, the largest use of graphics in movies is kids movies, and that market won't really be hurt. As for the rest of it: if you can do it in real time on a game system, maybe its time to step up and improve movie graphics again. ...After all, it still doesn't look real to me!

      --
      Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    4. Re:i remember... by c0rN_g0aT · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually Nintendo released that the GC could do 6 to 12 million polygons per second when it was actually capable of 20+. They gave the real world specs for the GC.
      Sony and M$ are the liars.

      http://www.segatech.com/gamecube/overview/

    5. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its actually less bullshit than one might think at first. The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.

      In a movie you have a fixed set of camera angles and actions to be performed, if you could throw all your polygons, artists and CPU power to render those, you would get results close enough to the movie. However in a game you end up having neither a fixed camera angle, nor fixed actions, most stuff is up to the player. You just don't have enough artists to tweak each and every situation. One time the player might have a bazooker, next time a MG and next time he might want to crash into the dino with his jeep. So since you can't prescript all actions you have to let a physic engine and AI handle it, which in turn burns down valueable CPU, which you no longer can use for pushing polys around, in addition to that you no longer have an artists involved who can fine tune the stuff that happens on screen, so you might run into clipping errors or silly looking situations.

      Overall it is simply impossible to get an interactive situation look as good as a movie, even if you have all the CPU power you need at hand you still lack the artists for the fine tuning and often have zero control over the camera angle.

      Beside from that we already are in a situation where yesterdays cutscenes are tomorrows gameplay scenes, yet, most gameplay looks for more borring then the cutscenes we saw before.

    6. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats a difference that simply fades away over time, a ten your old renderfarm can't really do much more then a PC from today. Sure a PC can't do exactly what the renderfarm can, but thanks to better algorithms it can get results extremly close to that of the renderfarm with much less wasted CPU/GPU (no need to render hundreds of polygons when a single one with normal or parallaxmapping will do). PC also don't need to do renderings at cinema useable resolutions which reduces the work they need to do even more. If you compare the ten year old Toy Story with todays Doom3 there really is not much difference when it comes to the rendering quality, a little to less polys here and a unsharp texture there, but thats something that will quickly disappear in the next years. Beside from that, such issues are exactly my point, in a movie a blury texture doesn't matter, you simply don't move the camera close enough so that the viewer notices, in a game players will stick there noise into the wall, so even if the PC renders better then the movie, the results will be worse. Interactivity ruins the results today far more then the rendering power.

    7. Re:i remember... by Caraig · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.
      Not true. The big difference is not in the interactivity, but rather in the realtime rendering.

      A movie such as Jurrasic Park is made by putting the scene into a 'render farm,' a series of dozens if not hundreds of computers. Each computer not only works on a single frame, but more often than not works on a single element in each frame: color, specularity, shadows, alpha/transparency, Z/depth. In addition, very often, the individual characters and layers of static scenery within a frame are also rendered independantly, each with separate specularity, shadows, color, alpha, Z, etc., layers. This is why the average frame in Final Fantasy is said to be made up of 60 layers.

      Typically, rendering time for a single frame, assuming all layers and elements and components being rendered in parallel, could take between an hour and several hours, depending on the polycount and the texture size. This is done mainly because it grants the production team unprecidented control over the final product without having to render out entire frames after a single change to, say, a slug's specularity needs to be done.

      You simply cannot do this sort of thing in realtime, which is what gaming requires. It isn't a matter of scripting or interactivity or camera angles. The rendering engine usually doesn't care what camera angle it's at, it will still have to calculate polygons and textures and bumpmaps and all that other good stuff. It comes down to one thing only: pure computing power. If you can get a machine which will render a mad amount of polygons and several hih-resolution texture-, bump-, shadow-, and specular-maps (and maybe even normal maps, as well)

      There's also a slightly more subtle reason why a game will never look like a movie: framerate. Cinema framerates are almost universally 24.11 fps. Your typical twitch gamer would turn up his nose at such a framerate. ^^ It's the same reason videotape looks different from film: video is typically 30fps or so.
      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  3. Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We have no idea what the two will look like, but that doesn't keep us from making Wild-ass guesses and then providing 'analysis' on them!"

    1. Re:Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what ACTUAL INFORMATION do you have on the 'cell' chip? Aside from the hype about how a single cell will 'outperform a billion-jillion Opterons!'... have you seen one? Have you gotten any benchmarks? Is it another emotion-engine type hype where its theoretical numbers are impressive, but real-world output sucks because it's bottlenecked and compilers can't seem to squeeze more than a quarter of theoretical?

      'cause if you have, lemme know.

  4. Movie animation by truesaer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.

    1. Re:Movie animation by Omnicrola · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, your computer would only have to generate a maximum of say, 1600x1200 resolution frames. To put something on a film, which is projected on a 40-100ft (diagonal) screen, you need something on the order of 4000dpi images. (not sure what that works out to in pixels, as the aspect ratio is different between computer and film) Either way that's a heck of a lot more pixels. Plus, a lot of advancement has been made in 'shortcutting' to better-looking graphics. Jurassic Park probably used a lot more polygons than they would take to do the same job nowadays. You have pixel shaders, normal mapping, and a slew of other things that can be done in real-time now. Granted, there will probably be a disernable(sp?) difference to the trained eye, but that's just a fallacy of being educated in the art of the polygon. :)

    2. Re:Movie animation by dokebi · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a common misconception. Star Wars II in digital projection had a resoltion of 1280x1024. Many graphics cards can now do this resolution with very high polygon counts without much trouble.

      What really differentiates PC/console graphics and render-farm graphics is in the physics engine. The article mentions this as well. The reason Pixar films look so great is because they have very detailed physics models that do a lot of particle interactions--ruffled clothing, waving hair, splashing water, etc. The next generation consoles will have the capability to do *some* of this.

      Yes, it's true PC's can't do cinema type CG rendering, but not because of the reasons you give.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
    3. Re:Movie animation by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ever played Tron 2.0? The typical home computer or Xbox can easily produce graphics indistinguishable from movies-- as long as the movie is an effects show in Tron.

    4. Re:Movie animation by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pixel Count has next to nothing to do with movie quality rendering. Shading, Lighting, and Animation are what make movie quality rendering. Real Time Global Illumination? I don't thinks that's going to be a feature of these consoles. How about Caustic effects? Real Time Refraction? probably not. Those are some of what set a movie quality renderer apart from your 3d accelerator chipset. Not even polygon count does as much as those things to increase the realism in a rendering.

      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
  5. But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom for the country. I think Nintendo's system is definitely the one I'm most interested in seeing.

    And anybody else upset that Microsoft wants to rush the next next generation? I still don't think this generation has been tapped out yet in terms of graphics and gameplay potential (maybe I'm just a bit bitter cuz I bought an Xbox last week :P)

    1. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by fwitness · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm with you, but not as strongly. Unfortunately, the PS2 is really starting to get long in the tooth. I'll be sad to see it go as the new war begins. I am however, still pissed at Sony and Nintendo for rushing this DS/PSP thing, as the software lineups for both show is obviously the case.

      As for Microsoft, they may be trying to push forward a *little* bit early, but console history shows it's about time to introduce the new generation for early adopters.

      Don't worry about your XBox though, people still have PS1's lying around, and many a good game was released for that generation after the launch of the PS2/XBox etc. This generation of consoles still has some life yet, they just won't be media darlings anymore.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    2. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, yeah, but the Xbox, great as it is, is getting a bit old. The PS2 is positively ancient. The tech is from the late nineties, basically (OK, the Xbox is tip of the century, but only just), so it's nice to see it upgraded. What I'm most worried about, is the mod scene. They have to go right back to scratch with the next Xbox and the next PS3. I wonder how long it'll take'em to hack'em.

    3. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom..."

      In that respect, it's a lot like Apple. Actually...

      Both companies do very well with their portable products, even above and beyond their non-mobile ones. Both companies enjoy zealous followings, and suffer some zealous detractors. Both companies are often featured in articles with the word "beleaguered" or synonyms thereof.

      Is Shigeru Miyamoto Steve Jobs in disguise? We've never seen them both at the same time...

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  6. Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Crusher[DV] · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love this comment.

    "Graphics on PC games such as Half Life 2 will be capable on the new consoles"

    In another 6 months, PC's will have moved on yet again to the next generation GPU's, leaving these things behind once more.

    1. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by DeathFlame · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So apparently my less than sign didn't show up... so.. But with the price of one console less than the price of one high end video card...

  7. Physics? by chris09876 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the article they mention that a big thing they'll be able to do with the improved processing power is more realistic physics. ??? Does anyone else find that a bit weird? I remember like 20 years ago I played a game with monkeys on buildings throwing bananas at each other. That thing had gravity you could adjust :) The screenshot does look amazing though... it's going to be really interesting to see where this technology (games) goes not only in the next 18 months, but 5-10 years down the road. Maybe we'll have holodecks after all :)

    1. Re:Physics? by MaineCoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By "more realistic physics" it means collisions, physical chain reactions, complex shapes, more correct aerodynamic reactions, water simulation.

      Think Half Life 2, but with objects being more realistic in reaction (all those crates acted like they were hollow and made of balsa wood... which, if you break them open, you discover they are!).

      Consider a complex problem of an urban combat situation ala Black Hawk Down, but lets even make it more complex: a helicopter taking a hit to the tail, going into a destabilized spin, slamming at an angle against a building and sliding along, tearing things up as it goes.

      These days, the results would be: the helicopter takes the hit, which blows it up, and the dead husk falls to the ground, maybe with some forward velocity retained. The building would likely be unharmed.

      Ragdoll these days tend to look like dolls made of rubber. GOOD calculations are very CPU expensive, and multiple iterations are as well, so as few iterations of very fast low resolution calculations are used in physics these days to leave CPU time for other things, such as AI logic.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  8. Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. by teiresias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm getting old and all but I find with better graphics I end up forgetting about the game and just watching the game. For Halo I'd walk around for awhile just admiring different things while getting shot at by Convenant ships.

    Well not really. But I'd feel like I missed something whipping around on the warthog.

    This can only be more true with movie like games.

    Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. Can't wait! Although I'll probably be too distracted to actually finish my objective ;)

    --
    -Teiresias
  9. Every system says that by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a new Playstation comes out Sony marketing types talk about how it will deliver movie-quality graphics to the masses in realtime. The truth is that it tends to perform exactly how you would expect it to perform, about the same as a high-end PC graphics card at the time it is released. Given how PC graphics cards aren't very close to rendering movies in realitime yet, I think it is safe to assume that any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Every system says that by __aailob1448 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Parent is mostly right.

      for the last couple generations (which is when consoles went fully 3D) at the launch of a console, the games looked better than pc games. It took pcs a couple of years to catch up.

      The thing is, consoles used low resolutions. 320*240 to 512*384 mostly. Even now, only a few games support 640*480. Compare this to pcs where the expected resolution is 1024x768 to 1600x1200 and you can see that consoles have been "cheating" all along.

      They got away with it because TVs weren't capable of greater resolutions and the native interpolation made things look smoother (blurrier, but smoother).

      With the advent of HDTVs, next-gen offerings will all have to support HDTV which means a significantly increased strain on the console engines. Will this mean PCs will catch up quicker? We'll see...

    2. Re:Every system says that by tc · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, that would assume everything that was said about cell processors here was also untrue.


      Heh. Looking at your first link, I think you should consider the source a little bit. This is the same guy who believes he knows how to counteract gravity and travel faster than light. So if it's all the same to you, I'll consider his "analysis" of the cell processor with a large dose of salt.

    3. Re:Every system says that by jandrese · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to stop drinking the Sony Kool-Aid. "Fundimental revolution in processor/computer design" is the sort of BS phrasing Sony has been putting out about the Cell for ages. It's the exact sort of thing I was talking about. Sony promises the moon, and delivers a processor that is pretty decent at vector calculations.

      The PS2 was supposed to be a mindblowing revolution in hardware design too as I recall. The chances that the Cell processor is actually a disruptive technology seem very small at the moment.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  10. Porn industry better have devel kits! by garcia · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mr Dunn said he expected the introduction of real-world physics to be a major part of the new consoles.

    "We want to increase that level of immersion and realism in gaming to people can lose themselves in a game."


    Microsoft has apparently delivered devel kits to some of the game makers but Sony has not. I really hope that with these "real-world physics" and "more immersion" that the Adult Industry has development kits from all parties RIGHT NOW.

  11. Lalah! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth. The new consoles can't do much new because no one is risking it, they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over. That's just how the market is these days.

    Tell me when we're seeing Virtual reality, because untill then "inovation" is a word Microsoft like to throw infront of their patents.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Lalah! by Raunch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over.

      I think that's a little unfair to Nintendo. Mario sunshine was a very different game from all previous marios, not different to the level of others but a signifigant difference. Metroid went from platformer to first person and Zelda was cell shaded and set at sea. I mean, a Zelda that involves a ton of sailing? Then there's Pikmin. I mean, if that is more of the same to you, then you need a new interface, not a different game.

      Maybe xbox, maybe PS3. But I'll eagerly await anything that comes out of Nintendo.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
  12. Watch Nintendo, not Apple by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

    Last time Apple tried to make a game console, the result was the Pippin. It flopped. But by the time the Nintendo Revolution comes out, we'll probably have a half-height GameCube SP to match Sony's new thin PS2.

    1. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Pippin, like the Performa and the Newton, was a product of the Dark Times, between when Jobs had control of the company stolen from him, and when he stole it back.

      Let us not speak of the Pippin any further.

      If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by ProppaT · · Score: 2

      At one point it was speculated that half the reason Nintendo decided to go with the smaller discs was so their was potential in the future to make a portable Gamecube. It's a nice thought, although I doubt it would ever happen. But if the next gen GameBoy (the DS is not the next gen Gameboy) just happened to be a miniture, handheld version of the Gamecube with a screen that played Gamecube games, that would be nice.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    3. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Moonlapse · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it wasnt as tall, then it wouldn't be a cube anymore, now would it? =]

      --
      - I got my free iPod and a free Nintendo DS....why not
    4. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Macs have been notorious for having the smallest selection of crappiest games. The only decent ones are games that are ported from PC.

      I'll give you that the selection of games on the Mac is not wonderful, but you're a little off here. There have been a number of great games that started on the Mac and then moved to the PC, or in some cases never did.

      Wolfenstein 3d was a mac game before there was a Windows port, and one of the first FPS games, it ruled at the time. The Marathon series were some of the best FPS ever made and were the predecessors to Halo. Marathon 2 had voice chat with your team (and teams for that matter) ages before any PC game. The plots were also way, way better than any current FPS that I have played. I know people who installed mac emulators just to play Realmz which was a RPG that let the user create their own campaigns. How about Myth? It was at one time mac only and the most popular game ever sold (overtaken by the sims). Escape Velocity is a simple, but very fun space shoot em up that was on the mac for years before a pc port arrived. I'm sure there are plenty more.

      The Mac is not the best gaming platform in the world, but most of the good titles make it to the Mac and it has some gems all it's own. Characterizing the games as crappy is way off base.

    5. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Halo was orignally a Mac game, meant to showcase OSX, before Microsoft bought Bungie.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  13. Great news for PS2 owners by nizo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I look forward to the price drop in PS2 games and consoles, particularly in the used market. Granted the games won't have all the eye candy appeal that the PS3 games will, but I figure the new influx of games will keep me happy until the PS3 price drops (probably around xmas of 2006).

  14. Yep, this comment sums it up... by Gruneun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We can thrown more polygons around and have better AI but if it doesn't make for a better game then that's not very useful."

  15. PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from.. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...movies.

    Yes. I've talked to people at EA. They really have no clue what it takes to get a movie made. When it takes 100 CPU hours to render a typical frame (not unusual) and hours of work by human compositors to achieve subtle 2D effects for which no algorithms as yet exist (such as touching up the lighting because what is aesthetically pleasing isn't geometrically correct) I wonder how they're going to do this stuff at 60fps even if the hardware renders 1000 times faster than is possible on the current crop of PCs.

    On the other hand, if by movies they mean the likes of Episode II then Half Life 2 is already better.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  16. Realism? by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like everyone's goal is graphics realism and immersion. Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos. While Sony and Micsrosoft are trying to improve their graphics, Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.

    1. Re:Realism? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want to punch...they gave you the power glove.

      Nintendo (that is, Nintendo of America, the corporation) didn't give us the Power Glove. It was designed by Abrams Gentile Entertainment, Inc., and developed and marketed by Mattel.

  17. Yeah, right,?? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And Playstation 2 can presumably render the original Toy Story in real time, right? Just like Sony claimed before PS2 was released ( http://www.dvdfuture.com/features.php?id=2)?

  18. Re:Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gamin by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 5, Funny

    The illusion of total immersion is the first step in building the Matrix. Thank you for your feedback.

    -Agent Smith

  19. Its simple by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nintendo is not an American company. It is not traded on the American exchanges like Sony and Microsoft are. Press about Nintendo is not as useful to the people who actually get "gaming" news from the MSM, except to give perspective compared to Sony and Microsoft, and yes in the American market it is relatively doom and gloom for Nintendo. This is all logical and matter-of-course.

    And for a little perspective on rushing things... The GBA and Xbox both came out in 2001. The NDS is already out. Nintendo is the one complaining about the pace of the console cycle. This does not make sense. I'm just saying.

  20. Like the Emotion Engine! by InferiorFloater · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new PS3 has a "Realism System" guaranteed to render realism more realistically than ever before! Criminal simulators such as GTA are further enhanced by the special "Gritty" subprocessor!

    --

    ---------
    Get back to me when my brain starts working.
  21. What I wnat to know is... by Raunch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where the hell did that beautiful picture come from?
    It's definately rendered - but from what?

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40753000/jpg /_40753511_ea_screenshot203.jpg

    --
    George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    1. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Raunch · · Score: 2

      > It's probably the current EA football title.

      If it is, then it's a movie from the game.
      This is the page that has all of EA's football on it:
      http://www.easports.com/games/madden2005/home.jsp

      Click on screenshots and take a look. There is no way that picture from the article came out of the EA game engine

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    2. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Bagels · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's one of two "concept shots" that EA released a while back showing the estimated capabilities of next-gen systems. They also showed a fairly nice racer screenshot with a very high-poly car and trees with good-looking autumn leaves... quite impressive, assuming that they really do approximate next-gen graphics. The folks over at The Magic Box had both of them a while back, but you'll have to dig around to find them.

      --
      --- Bwah?
    3. Re:What I wnat to know is... by hollismb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the Febuary issue of XBN magazine (the last one):

      Speaking in December at a Financial Conference, Electronics Arts Cheif Financial Officer Warren Jensen displayed two screenshots purporting to represent the graphical capabilities of both Xenon (Xbox 2) and Playstation 3, claiming that the audience-wait for it-should "imagine the characters in a football game expressing real emotions. That's the kind of thing that's going to be possible with the next generation of technology."

      So that's where that shot came from, BS aside.

  22. In related news... by funny-jack · · Score: 4, Funny
    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    In related news, the PS3 will also be packed with the following features:
    • Built-in AI indistinguishable from humans
    • Integrated 10 MP digital camera
    • 10 Gigabit ethernet & wireless
    • Controllers will interface directly with the human brain--wirelessly!
    • Processor will run at 42 GHz
    All these and more, in the Next Sony Platform(TM)!

    ...is there anyone here who still believes pre-release/development crap like this? Anyone? I mean, anyone other than Michael.

    And now, it is time for a shameless plug.
    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
  23. Arent they just becoming PC's? by GatesGhost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both MS and PS want to have an "entertainment center", basically a machine that plays games, movies, music. pc's already do this, but they are much more upgrade friendly.

  24. Sure, the PS3 might be faster and more powerful... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but I have no doubt that the Xbox2 will be larger, louder, and hotter!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  25. Re:A lot more under the hood.... by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, Sony has stated that the PS3 will use a blue ray drive. Whether or not it will burn remains to be seen, but I'm predicting no.

  26. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by dim5 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Now watching other people play games will be as exciting as watching a movie!

    This is the second thread today that is a direct throwback to The Wizard.

    --

    Is something burning?
    Oh, it's my karma.

  27. distribution method of games by zornorph · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go. It's much smarter if you can get levels as you go."

    Sounds like another subscription service, which is definitely smarter for the manufacturers. Smarter for us? While it does mean that we can constantly get new levels, it also means that the game may not work without being able to go online to download the levels, or will be sold with crappy levels to encourage you to sign up.

    --
    http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
  28. Lots of console hype... by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm positive the next generation of consoles will be very nice to behold, but I also remember all of the hype surrounding the PS2 launch and how the PS2 was such a super computer that they had to ban exports to Iraq, and how it was "movie quality" and such... And then it came out, and it was a clear step up, but not nearly the giant leap the hype suggested.

    I suspect we'll see the same thing here.

    The other thing to worry about is that the increasing reliance of highly detailed art means games are going to take much longer to produce, cost a lot more to make, and those costs will certainly be transfered to the consumer. Not to mention that when you're making games that require 100s of artists and with artists being a limited resource, you'll be seeing less projects spread among less game developer/publishers, with less competition and thus less gameplay innovation...

    So things aren't *all* rosy...

    Still, I'm sure I'll buy the Xbox2 on release day... I'm a sucker for new things.

  29. Re:And in between? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's see. Nintendo also made rumble paks, analog sticks, 4 controller ports, hard drive in a console (64DD), and the touchscreen in the DS. There are other things, but they haven't ended up being so popular, like the e-reader.

    Hell Sony has been leaning on Nintendo's old SNES controller design for a decade now, only adding rumble and analog sticks after Nintendo introduces them.

    Say what you want about Nintendo, but without their constant effort, console gaming would not be anything close to what it is today.

    Maybe, just maybe, the poster was picking out three simple examples, and not attempting to be exhaustive. An illustrative sample if you will.

  30. Re:DukeNukem may come yet. by demonbug · · Score: 2, Funny
    Maybe now the hardware is finally able to support the game. The wait is over.


    Don't be too hasty. I hear they used an advanced compression algorithm in order to minimize the space the final game will take up. Unfortunately, the decompressor for their "Zero-Space" compression system is only now entering the earliest stages of development.


    Note: The above statement, like the article, has little or no foundation in reality.

  31. Detail vs. Gameplay by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that all this technology just increases the effort necessary to produce a given quantity of satisfying gameplay.

    Once you add physics into the mix, every object needs to be broken down into more parts, represented in more ways, its possible impact on the game logic dealt with. (No point putting in a maze puzzle if you can bash through walls.)

    So now you need hyper-detailed models with hyper-detailed textures and somewhat-detailed physics representations to produce something that looks as good as a second-tier film from ten years ago.

    And the state of the art is, say, Half Life 2, a game which provides gorgeous graphics but runs you around on rails -- because providing that level of detail in a more open-ended game is simply prohibitively expensive. Indeed, by all accounts, Half Life 2's game play is unusually restrictive, even by the standards of First Person Shooters.

    The key to me is choosing a level of design detail that suits the game you plan to make and then hiring an art director who can make the game look fabulous at that level of detail -- rather than maxing out the level of detail for the hardware currently available, and then producing the best game you can given the budget constraints you're stuck with.

    The way things are trending we'll have games where you only get to visit one room because it costs millions of dollars to texture the pillows, insects, cracks in the wall, navel fluff, etc.

  32. WHat about innovation on the PS2? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if you can exactly credit Sony for this, but what about the EyeToy, and headsets with non-traditional uses (i.e. Karioke Revolution instead of just voice chat in multiplayer games).

    I would say these are far better examples of innovation, becuase they hve both been wildly successful (something like over 10 million EyeToys sold now!) unlike the examples you provided.

    Microsoft has not done much, but even there one comapny had a very cool full custom control for a mech game (that really was more the game maker than Microsoft at work).

    Also, the PS2 has had some really original titles like Rez or Katamari Damacy. Nintendo has had some different stuff out, but nothing quite that edgy. Not even aything as wierd as Seaman on the Dreamcast!

    I am a big fan of Nintendo, the hardware and games they create. But I do think Sony deserves a lot of credit for a really diverse library.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. Re:Marketing... by Metapsyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    So, what's left for the PS4 then?

    Quote from the PS4 press release: "PS4 will provide graphics indistinguishable from reality."

    What about the PS9? Come on, you saw those commercials that aired when the PS2 was release. Best. Commercial. Evar.

    --
    (\(\
    (^.^) INFECTED
    (")")
  34. Nintendo is almost irrelavent except for portables by xswl0931 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's face it, except for the Super NES days, Nintendo is largely irrelavent. The Gamecube has not been a huge success outside of Japan (and even then, it's dominated by PS2). Nintendo is known for innovations, but not necessarily leading edge hardware. Nintendo's biggest problem is getting 3rd party support. They were so protective in the past (and also their younger audience stigma) that it's going to be hard for them to get 3rd parties to develop on the Nintendo. It seems like 90% of the games on the Gamecube are by Nintendo, and 80% of those games are sequels. I currently own all 3 systems, and I have the fewest games for the Gamecube. I would prefer if Nintendo became a developer for PS3 or XBox rather than try and introduce yet another machine as it's getting harder and harder to buy a console just for 3 games.

  35. Did anyone see this part...? by Sarcastic+Assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Was I the only one who caught this little blurb:
    [Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe,] said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.
    Most of the other posts (at least the ones modded +5) seem to focus on the hardware/marketing BS. Yeah, yeah, that's all well and good, marketing BS is as it always has been: BS. But if something actually similiar to this "starter disc" system were to be released with the next generation of consoles, it would be Very Bad. Think Infinium's Phantom: a system where you download the game, and you never really have a physical copy of the game. I don't know about you, but I despise the idea of some gaming-on-demand system. All the obvious problems people pointed out with the Phantom immediately resurface in my mind: what if you pay for the game, and the server goes down? What if you want to play the game, and the content provider decides to go under maintainence? We've already seen this in thousands upon thousands of disgruntled WoW gamers (though I know that Blizzard is committed to fixing the problems, and that wasn't meant to be an insult of Blizzard at all). For the sake of sane people everywhere, I sincerely hope this newfangled "content delivery system" isn't put into place.

    Also, am I the only one who just wants his consoles to play games? Granted, if I had the cash, I'd build a media center PC in a second, but that'd be dedicated to media. I'm really not feeling good about this whole convergence thing. The convergence thing, along with Bill Gates' push for "trusted computing" really make me trust my computer less.