Slashdot Mirror
2005's Console Hardware In Review
Next Generation is running an examination of the 2005 hardware announcements from the big three console companies. They look at details and benchmarks released so far for the next-gen consoles. From the article: "The wraps were taken off the PlayStation 3 at Sony's pre-E3 press conference. Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."
The GP didn't even mention Microsoft. You did. If you want to look at evil, none of the Big 3 are exactly blameless. Way back in the day, Nintendo engaged in anti-competitive behavior (which was later deemed illegal) to keep 3rd party companies from releasing games on multiple platforms, basically strangling the SMS and TG16. MS engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Internet Explorer and elsewhere through the Windows operating system. Sony is the more recent evildoer with their rootkits and whatnot.
"So, I pick my evil. And that evil is Sony. They were here before Microsoft, and they were my first gaming system I owned. So I'll stick with them."
I'm glad eveyone doesn't share your view or most of us would be stuck playing Atari Jaguars or some new-fangled Intellivision right now. I loved the first gaming system I owned (Atari 2600) but the Atari 7800 was just inferior to the NES. I switched systems and quite frankly don't regret it (Though I do wish they would've made a Proline-style controller for the NES.). Why not look for the better (in terms of both hardware and software available) system and ignore who made the thing? MS can have the honor of having their logo visible on a plastic box in my living room if they put out the best gaming system out there.
You know there is an alternative to both evil corperations: NINTENDO!
No sony is just still a padawan, MS is the true dark lord of the sith.
What would be real scary if the two join up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.
Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.
This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.
This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.
So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Wrong. It is possible that some of the footage was not realtime; at least some of it was (unless you'd like to claim the various realtime demos were scripted as well). However I challenge you to find any reputable (that means not some fanboy posting on a forum, or Tim Sweeney) evidence that it wasn't created on PS3 hardware. In fact, some of the 3D demos were created using only a Cell, no GPU. (I believe the main argument is that the GPU was not even created yet, which was accurate, but slower GPUs were available and it was possible to gauge the final power of the PS3 GPU.)
Additionally, a number of developers have said, up front, that a number of the demos were realtime. We have also seen the MGS4 trailer, which is also realtime, and which is easily on par with anything else shown at E3. So if the demos weren't realtime, they were still a demo of the final power of the PS3.
And a lot of other people were there who said the PS3 took the show. It certainly took the show for many people who weren't there. Maybe you mean "I was there, and I cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more".
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage