"The issue isn't that it can't play them, it is that there are almost none in that direction in development..."
I've run out of breath saying "It's too early.", so I'll simply wheeze.
Anyway, in response to everything else, let me just say, bon voyage. The Wii is not for you. Move along. Get a 360 or a PS3 and get on with your life. You have defined a hardcore game as "anything that is not on a Wii". So what can I say. The controls are gimmicky because they can't be used for 'hardcore' games. Your argument is as rediculous as your definition of 'hardcore' games which, by the way, you haven't defined. But once you do define it, I'm quite sure I can call it rediculous, too, as nobody else on the forums will agree with it.
So in the end, I'll simply rebut your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence and say I'm a hardcore gamer, and I like the Wii.
"i.e. what Mario64 was for the analog-stick/C-buttons"
Then maybe you should wait for Mario Galaxy and see what it is for the Wiimote. Or Metroid. Keep in mind, they wanted the launch title to be a simple title even Grandma could play.
"I played it already on the Cube, what do I need a Wii for that?"
You don't, but I think it shows the Wii is capable of more than casual games.
"On the Wii there is far less interesting stuff in the pipe."
Once again, developers planned way in advance to support the PS3. The same is NOT true of the Wii. Developers didn't start pleding their support until after the Wii starting selling like crazy.
"$600 vs $250 has a lot to do with that."
Yeah, 600 bucks is nuts. But you can't say the Wii is selling only because of the price. People are interested in the new type of gameplay.
"I'd say that time already told it. It just takes a while till the market will realize it and PS3/XBox360 hit a mass-market price range."
Again, your judgement is premature. The system hasn't been out a year yet. We're still waiting for Mario Galaxy, Metroid 3, Super Smash Bros. And if you think the PS3 is coming down in price any time soon (not counting the limited time only 100 dollar discount on 60G models) you're dreaming. The current price of the PS3 limits it to 'hardcore gamers only'.
But I'll sum up. You claim the Wii is a gimmick because it can't play hardcore games. Well, what is a hardcore game? After following the numerous flamewars on Slashdot between those who same game A is a hardcore game and those who say it ISN'T, I guess it's a subjective call. I think YOU guage a game by how complex controlling your character is. By that definition, the Wii can't play hardcore games. But I say it can because it plays Resident Evil 4 nicely, which I do consider a hardcore game.
"A game announcement on the other side should be doable quite easily, but that hasn't happened either."
And they have announced they will be making games for the Wii. But they won't say WHAT game until they're well into production. Which, of corse, they CAN'T be because they JUST STARTED.
"Number of objects to interact with, which in the Wii Sports is one."
Geeze, consider Tetris! How simple a game is that! Are you going to tell me it's not a full game?? Wii Sports is at LEAST as complex as Tetris. Your argument is rediculous!
"It proves that there is a market for casual gamer titles and has little to no value on how to do 'real' games with the Wiimote."
I think the only thing you've shown so far is your bias against casual games. Casual games ARE real games. But if you need more 'proof', go check out Resident Evil 4 for the Wii.
"They buy it for the hype, not for the (non-existent) wide selection of good games."
Yeah, just like they're buying the PS3 for the hype...or in other words...a promise of good things to come. But notice they're buying the Wii instead of the PS3, and they're doing it because they like what the Wii is promising.
"As said, a Cell that isn't used fully used doesn't do harm, a controller on the other side that can't handle the games people have been playing for the last decade is quite a more problematic."
If it can't handle the games people are playing, IT'S NOT ON THE RIGHT SYSTEM! The Wii was NOT designed for those games. But I digress. And so do you. The original argument was if it is a gimmick, and I still maintain that time will tell.
[I swear, I hate that HTML is the default formatting)
"Developers get their fingers on the hardware quite a while before the actual release and the lack of decent game support was also already visible before release."
That's why the point I made about developers not pleding their support of the Wii until AFTER it went on sale important. Developers didn't care, and therefore, had no plans for games on the Wii until the public had already started demanding them.
"Thats a very favorite myth, but where are the resulting games?"
Again, it takes time to make a game, especially on a system with a radically different interface. Developers started pledging their support after the Wii became a success. That's not that long ago. So your complaint is premature.
"Wii Sports is not a full game and therefore a pretty bad proof of concept, since it doesn't actually proof much."
Not a full game? By what measure? Wii Sports is probably the most played title on the Wii. I'd say that proves a lot. And you're saying it fails because it doesn't recognize complex movements. Well that's exactly what they're aiming for! So I'd say mission accomplished. Wii Sports proves you can have simple yet addictive titles based solely on the motion-sensing qualities of the Wiimote.
"the hard part is figuring out which action to do when you don't know it beforehand"
Yeah, that would be hard. It'd be pretty stupid too. What game could you develop that you don't know what action to expect from the player? "Random Actions by Ubisoft! (synopsis) The goal of the game is to do a completely random action, and in doing so, you solve the puzzle to defeat the Evil Power." If you're making a baseball game, you have a good idea the motions they will make. ANY type of game you're making, you have some reasonable expectation about the moves they will be making.
"The problem isn't that the Wii comes directly with the Wiimote, but that it has nothing else going for it: online play is close to non existent, graphics power is five years behind everybody else, games are lacking and so on."
And yet even with all of those limitations, people are still buying it up left and right. So maybe it doesn't have everything you're looking for, but the majority doesn't seem to care.
"The Cell isn't a gimmick, it is an implementation detail, something no user has ever have to care about. A controller is however the thing which the user will touch and use on a daily basis, very different thing."
Your argument was that the controller is a gimmick because there are no games that take advantage of it. Well, there are no games that take advantage of the Cell either, so by your argument, it is also a gimmick. Sony touts the Cell as one of the features that puts the PS3 ahead of 360. But so far there don't appear to be any games that actually prove that. I'm not really saying the Cell is a gimmick. I'm simply saying that, like the Cell, it's too early to use a lack of available games as a judge on the system. The Cell has potential, so does the Wiimote. Both are odd ducks in the current generation. Both require a learning curve and a new way of thinking.
"Developers get their fingers on the hardware quite a while before the actual release and the lack of decent game support was also already visible before release."
That's why the point I made about developers not pleding their support of the Wii until AFTER it went on sale important. Developers didn't care, and therefore, had no plans for games on the Wii until the public had already started demanding them.
"Thats a very favorite myth, but where are the resulting games?"
Again, it takes time to make a game, especially on a system with a radically different interface. Developers started pledging their support after the Wii became a success. That's not that long ago. So your complaint is premature.
"Wii Sports is not a full game and therefore a pretty bad proof of concept, since it doesn't actually proof much."
Not a full game? By what measure? Wii Sports is probably the most played title on the Wii. I'd say that proves a lot. And you're saying it fails because it doesn't recognize complex movements. Well that's exactly what they're aiming for! So I'd say mission accomplished. Wii Sports proves you can have simple yet addictive titles based solely on the motion-sensing qualities of the Wiimote.
"the hard part is figuring out which action to do when you don't know it beforehand"
Yeah, that would be hard. It'd be pretty stupid too. What game could you develop that you don't know what action to expect from the player? "Random Actions by Ubisoft! (synopsis) The goal of the game is to do a completely random action, and in doing so, you solve the puzzle to defeat the Evil Power." If you're making a baseball game, you have a good idea the motions they will make. ANY type of game you're making, you have some reasonable expectation about the moves they will be making.
"The problem isn't that the Wii comes directly with the Wiimote, but that it has nothing else going for it: online play is close to non existent, graphics power is five years behind everybody else, games are lacking and so on."
And yet even with all of those limitations, people are still buying it up left and right. So maybe it doesn't have everything you're looking for, but the majority doesn't seem to care.
"The Cell isn't a gimmick, it is an implementation detail, something no user has ever have to care about. A controller is however the thing which the user will touch and use on a daily basis, very different thing."
Your argument was that the controller is a gimmick because there are no games that take advantage of it. Well, there are no games that take advantage of the Cell either, so by your argument, it is also a gimmick. Sony touts the Cell as one of the features that puts the PS3 ahead of 360. But so far there don't appear to be any games that actually prove that. I'm not really saying the Cell is a gimmick. I'm simply saying that, like the Cell, it's too early to use a lack of available games as a judge on the system. The Cell has potential, so does the Wiimote. Both are odd ducks in the current generation. Both require a learning curve and a new way of thinking.
Consider how long it takes to make a game, that the system was JUST released, and how many developers had written off the Wii already, and that answers the whole "I have heard that for a whole year" (the Wii isn't a year old yet...but...ok).
The people have spoken, and developers were quick to sit up and pledge their support when the Wii took off unexpectedly. The problem is breaking away from more traditional games, like FPS, RTS, etc, and making something completely new. That will take time as games trickle out: some will work and some won't, but eventually new genres will open and expand outwards.
"The idea of motion sensing is a nice one, making it however the only thing the console has going for it is a pretty stupid move."
The problem with making it an accessory is that it becomes a niche product like the light gun. No, it was necessary for them to make motion-sensing the cornerstone of the console. As for it being stupid...well, it's you vs. 8 million who think otherwise.
I've heard countless people dote on the PS3's cell processor, about how it will take time to reach its potential and leap ahead of the 360 (in defense of how ports on the 360 and PS3 aren't really that much different..). In the same breath (er, paragraph) they'll rail on the Wiimote being gimmicky, and the lack of titles available as proof. So I guess that makes the Cell gimmicky, too. Or it means the Wiimote currently has scantly-tapped potential. Pick one and go with it, I guess, because it's too early to tell where they're heading at this point.
But for the love of god, STOP using the "no games out now" arguments. Wii Sports is an excellent proof of concept.
Re:What do you mean cure? Fear is not a sickness!
on
MIT Finds Cure For Fear
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
On the flipside, it prevents you from doing things that could have potentially great consequences for a person. Such as mustering up the courage to ask someone out, or hop on an airplane without freaking out, or switching jobs and taknig a risk.
I'm not saying bottled courage is a good thing, but fear helps as much as hurts.
Yeah, I didn't think about it before, but C is a really good reason.
I think it was also mentioned that with software emulation, they can add visual effects to the games to improve PS1 and PS2 titles on HD sets, though I think it's probably just through AA. There's only so much you can do when the source is 1/3 of the target resolution.
WIth my PS2 hooked up to my HD set, Final Fantasy XII looked like pixelated crap. There were lots of initial complaints over 'jaggies' for older titles when played through a PS3. I don't know if it's better now.
"Be sure that the exclusive content is going to be no big deal, and it will be available for the PS3 as well in the future; in fact they did say they would do different things for the PS3 version. Calling this a selling point for the 360 is ridiculous"
Soul Caliber 2 for XBox had Spawn. Soul Caliber 2 for GameCube had Link. Soul Caliber 2 for PS2 had...that Tekken dude.
Spawn, Link, or Tekken dude? Hmm...I'd call those selling points.
I wanted Link, so I bought the GameCube version, even though I had an XBox and a PS2 as well. Exclusive content of the same game can make a difference.
I'm not saying a 1080p movie isn't impressive looking. I'm saying that at some point I forget to notice how 'crisp' it looks and start paying attention to the events unfolding in the movie.
When you first get an HD player, you get HD movies just to see how they look. Hell, I would've watched The Adventures of Hanna Montana in HD if it was the only thing available at the time. But as time passes, you stop being hyper-aware of how it looks and start going back to just watching a movie.
I guess my ultimate point is that the difference between HD and standard def doesn't change my enjoyment of a movie. A good HD movie would've been just as good in standard def.
Last generation, the XBox was my "Don't WANNA" console. I didn't want to buy it, but I had to for Ninja Gaiden. So I basically spent hundreds of dollars for one game, and I only played Halo 2 on it after that. (Actually, my computer was my primary game machine, but out of the consoles, my PS2 got used the most, primarily as a DVD player.)
I'm not doing that ever again. (Especially now that I'm married and my wife would kill me.)
So this generation the PS3 has become my "Don't WANNA" console. I don't wanna have to buy it, and I probably won't, even if Final Fantasy XIII remains exclusive to it. There are no games that will make me spend the ungodly amount of money I'd have to drop on the PS3.
I have the HD-DVD add-on for my 360, and in retrospect I think it was a bad purchase. Thanks to the HD war, not all the movies I want to see are available for HD-DVD, and I find that when I'm forced to resort to regular DVD...I don't really care. I'm just as happy either way, to tell the truth (with my 1080p tv). I could've and should've waited, and I can tell you from experience, HD movies aren't worth a 200 dollar player right now...and they CERTAINLY aren't worth a 500 dollar player.
From what I've seen, HOME is a bloated way to hook people up online. I like the streamlined 360 online features. I don't want to have an Avatar walk around meeting other Avatars. It's pointless. I AM the Avatar. Just cut out the middle man and let communicate directly with people. And I don't want to walk my Avatar down to the shop to shop for something. Just show me a menu. That's why I shop from home for things. Web sites make it easy to find stuff in a 2D list. I hate going to a store to look for stuff. I'll hate it even more having to go to take my little Avatar to a virtual store and look for stuff there, too.
When I think about getting a game console, I'm only thinking about games.
I honestly don't care one flip about all the 'extra' stuff the PS3 can do, and I'd bet most everyone else is the same way. It can run linux? Ok. Then what? My Wii can edit images. I'll never use it.
Using your argument, they could've included a 3D holographic image generator that would project famous paintings on your wall for an extra $1000, and you shouldn't complain about the price because it's another thing it can do.
I honestly don't care. I can do without. Without games, 600 bucks is way overpriced. And even with games, 600 bucks is way overpriced. I bought my 360 for 200 bucks because I considered 400 way overpriced.
The PS3 is a bad deal right now, and I'm not sure it will recover past the point where it's actually worth it to have it AND my 360. And with no games I'm certainly not going to take that bet right now.
Why would I boycott the 360? The games are fun, and the online play is effortless.
My 360 is in the shop right now. And yeah, it sucks, and it's the only console I've ever had that has broken down, but I'm okay with it, because, hardware issues aside, there's real quality in the system.
So go ahead and boycott. Let me know how that goes for you. I'm sure the 12 million other 360 owners will realize they're not REALLY having fun with their 360. They'll realize Microsoft has used their evil monopolistic powers to change what 'fun' is, and 360 owners will cast aside their 360s and await the Game Messiah, who will arrive bearing the Perfect Console.
In the meantime, I'm going to go play some Gears of War till Halo 3 comes out.
Further, I never see UAC popups unless I'm actually doing administrative tasks...like installing programs or changing system settings. I can honestly say I never see unexpected UAC popups while running as a limited user, and by unexpected I mean knowing I'm doing an administrative action.
Slashdot Mirror
"The issue isn't that it can't play them, it is that there are almost none in that direction in development..."
I've run out of breath saying "It's too early.", so I'll simply wheeze.
Anyway, in response to everything else, let me just say, bon voyage. The Wii is not for you. Move along. Get a 360 or a PS3 and get on with your life. You have defined a hardcore game as "anything that is not on a Wii". So what can I say. The controls are gimmicky because they can't be used for 'hardcore' games. Your argument is as rediculous as your definition of 'hardcore' games which, by the way, you haven't defined. But once you do define it, I'm quite sure I can call it rediculous, too, as nobody else on the forums will agree with it.
So in the end, I'll simply rebut your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence and say I'm a hardcore gamer, and I like the Wii.
I can't remember who is doing it, but they're making a TV that can do 120hz (which is a multiple of 24).
"i.e. what Mario64 was for the analog-stick/C-buttons"
Then maybe you should wait for Mario Galaxy and see what it is for the Wiimote. Or Metroid. Keep in mind, they wanted the launch title to be a simple title even Grandma could play.
"I played it already on the Cube, what do I need a Wii for that?"
You don't, but I think it shows the Wii is capable of more than casual games.
"On the Wii there is far less interesting stuff in the pipe."
Once again, developers planned way in advance to support the PS3. The same is NOT true of the Wii. Developers didn't start pleding their support until after the Wii starting selling like crazy.
"$600 vs $250 has a lot to do with that."
Yeah, 600 bucks is nuts. But you can't say the Wii is selling only because of the price. People are interested in the new type of gameplay.
"I'd say that time already told it. It just takes a while till the market will realize it and PS3/XBox360 hit a mass-market price range."
Again, your judgement is premature. The system hasn't been out a year yet. We're still waiting for Mario Galaxy, Metroid 3, Super Smash Bros. And if you think the PS3 is coming down in price any time soon (not counting the limited time only 100 dollar discount on 60G models) you're dreaming. The current price of the PS3 limits it to 'hardcore gamers only'.
But I'll sum up. You claim the Wii is a gimmick because it can't play hardcore games. Well, what is a hardcore game? After following the numerous flamewars on Slashdot between those who same game A is a hardcore game and those who say it ISN'T, I guess it's a subjective call. I think YOU guage a game by how complex controlling your character is. By that definition, the Wii can't play hardcore games. But I say it can because it plays Resident Evil 4 nicely, which I do consider a hardcore game.
"A game announcement on the other side should be doable quite easily, but that hasn't happened either." And they have announced they will be making games for the Wii. But they won't say WHAT game until they're well into production. Which, of corse, they CAN'T be because they JUST STARTED. "Number of objects to interact with, which in the Wii Sports is one." Geeze, consider Tetris! How simple a game is that! Are you going to tell me it's not a full game?? Wii Sports is at LEAST as complex as Tetris. Your argument is rediculous! "It proves that there is a market for casual gamer titles and has little to no value on how to do 'real' games with the Wiimote." I think the only thing you've shown so far is your bias against casual games. Casual games ARE real games. But if you need more 'proof', go check out Resident Evil 4 for the Wii. "They buy it for the hype, not for the (non-existent) wide selection of good games." Yeah, just like they're buying the PS3 for the hype...or in other words...a promise of good things to come. But notice they're buying the Wii instead of the PS3, and they're doing it because they like what the Wii is promising. "As said, a Cell that isn't used fully used doesn't do harm, a controller on the other side that can't handle the games people have been playing for the last decade is quite a more problematic." If it can't handle the games people are playing, IT'S NOT ON THE RIGHT SYSTEM! The Wii was NOT designed for those games. But I digress. And so do you. The original argument was if it is a gimmick, and I still maintain that time will tell.
[I swear, I hate that HTML is the default formatting)
"Developers get their fingers on the hardware quite a while before the actual release and the lack of decent game support was also already visible before release."
That's why the point I made about developers not pleding their support of the Wii until AFTER it went on sale important. Developers didn't care, and therefore, had no plans for games on the Wii until the public had already started demanding them.
"Thats a very favorite myth, but where are the resulting games?"
Again, it takes time to make a game, especially on a system with a radically different interface. Developers started pledging their support after the Wii became a success. That's not that long ago. So your complaint is premature.
"Wii Sports is not a full game and therefore a pretty bad proof of concept, since it doesn't actually proof much."
Not a full game? By what measure? Wii Sports is probably the most played title on the Wii. I'd say that proves a lot. And you're saying it fails because it doesn't recognize complex movements. Well that's exactly what they're aiming for! So I'd say mission accomplished. Wii Sports proves you can have simple yet addictive titles based solely on the motion-sensing qualities of the Wiimote.
"the hard part is figuring out which action to do when you don't know it beforehand"
Yeah, that would be hard. It'd be pretty stupid too. What game could you develop that you don't know what action to expect from the player? "Random Actions by Ubisoft! (synopsis) The goal of the game is to do a completely random action, and in doing so, you solve the puzzle to defeat the Evil Power." If you're making a baseball game, you have a good idea the motions they will make. ANY type of game you're making, you have some reasonable expectation about the moves they will be making.
"The problem isn't that the Wii comes directly with the Wiimote, but that it has nothing else going for it: online play is close to non existent, graphics power is five years behind everybody else, games are lacking and so on."
And yet even with all of those limitations, people are still buying it up left and right. So maybe it doesn't have everything you're looking for, but the majority doesn't seem to care.
"The Cell isn't a gimmick, it is an implementation detail, something no user has ever have to care about. A controller is however the thing which the user will touch and use on a daily basis, very different thing."
Your argument was that the controller is a gimmick because there are no games that take advantage of it. Well, there are no games that take advantage of the Cell either, so by your argument, it is also a gimmick. Sony touts the Cell as one of the features that puts the PS3 ahead of 360. But so far there don't appear to be any games that actually prove that. I'm not really saying the Cell is a gimmick. I'm simply saying that, like the Cell, it's too early to use a lack of available games as a judge on the system. The Cell has potential, so does the Wiimote. Both are odd ducks in the current generation. Both require a learning curve and a new way of thinking.
"Developers get their fingers on the hardware quite a while before the actual release and the lack of decent game support was also already visible before release." That's why the point I made about developers not pleding their support of the Wii until AFTER it went on sale important. Developers didn't care, and therefore, had no plans for games on the Wii until the public had already started demanding them. "Thats a very favorite myth, but where are the resulting games?" Again, it takes time to make a game, especially on a system with a radically different interface. Developers started pledging their support after the Wii became a success. That's not that long ago. So your complaint is premature. "Wii Sports is not a full game and therefore a pretty bad proof of concept, since it doesn't actually proof much." Not a full game? By what measure? Wii Sports is probably the most played title on the Wii. I'd say that proves a lot. And you're saying it fails because it doesn't recognize complex movements. Well that's exactly what they're aiming for! So I'd say mission accomplished. Wii Sports proves you can have simple yet addictive titles based solely on the motion-sensing qualities of the Wiimote. "the hard part is figuring out which action to do when you don't know it beforehand" Yeah, that would be hard. It'd be pretty stupid too. What game could you develop that you don't know what action to expect from the player? "Random Actions by Ubisoft! (synopsis) The goal of the game is to do a completely random action, and in doing so, you solve the puzzle to defeat the Evil Power." If you're making a baseball game, you have a good idea the motions they will make. ANY type of game you're making, you have some reasonable expectation about the moves they will be making. "The problem isn't that the Wii comes directly with the Wiimote, but that it has nothing else going for it: online play is close to non existent, graphics power is five years behind everybody else, games are lacking and so on." And yet even with all of those limitations, people are still buying it up left and right. So maybe it doesn't have everything you're looking for, but the majority doesn't seem to care. "The Cell isn't a gimmick, it is an implementation detail, something no user has ever have to care about. A controller is however the thing which the user will touch and use on a daily basis, very different thing." Your argument was that the controller is a gimmick because there are no games that take advantage of it. Well, there are no games that take advantage of the Cell either, so by your argument, it is also a gimmick. Sony touts the Cell as one of the features that puts the PS3 ahead of 360. But so far there don't appear to be any games that actually prove that. I'm not really saying the Cell is a gimmick. I'm simply saying that, like the Cell, it's too early to use a lack of available games as a judge on the system. The Cell has potential, so does the Wiimote. Both are odd ducks in the current generation. Both require a learning curve and a new way of thinking.
Consider how long it takes to make a game, that the system was JUST released, and how many developers had written off the Wii already, and that answers the whole "I have heard that for a whole year" (the Wii isn't a year old yet...but...ok).
The people have spoken, and developers were quick to sit up and pledge their support when the Wii took off unexpectedly. The problem is breaking away from more traditional games, like FPS, RTS, etc, and making something completely new. That will take time as games trickle out: some will work and some won't, but eventually new genres will open and expand outwards.
"The idea of motion sensing is a nice one, making it however the only thing the console has going for it is a pretty stupid move."
The problem with making it an accessory is that it becomes a niche product like the light gun. No, it was necessary for them to make motion-sensing the cornerstone of the console. As for it being stupid...well, it's you vs. 8 million who think otherwise.
I've heard countless people dote on the PS3's cell processor, about how it will take time to reach its potential and leap ahead of the 360 (in defense of how ports on the 360 and PS3 aren't really that much different..). In the same breath (er, paragraph) they'll rail on the Wiimote being gimmicky, and the lack of titles available as proof. So I guess that makes the Cell gimmicky, too. Or it means the Wiimote currently has scantly-tapped potential. Pick one and go with it, I guess, because it's too early to tell where they're heading at this point.
But for the love of god, STOP using the "no games out now" arguments. Wii Sports is an excellent proof of concept.
On the flipside, it prevents you from doing things that could have potentially great consequences for a person. Such as mustering up the courage to ask someone out, or hop on an airplane without freaking out, or switching jobs and taknig a risk.
I'm not saying bottled courage is a good thing, but fear helps as much as hurts.
"I really hate it when there's no way to get through an area without dying many times"
Then stay away from Perfect Dark Zero. I've been working on the damn game for months on Secret Agent. Frikkin' impossible.
"But were the games TRULY hard core back then?"
Battletoads.
Well I think I successfully ended THAT argument at least.
Yeah, I didn't think about it before, but C is a really good reason.
I think it was also mentioned that with software emulation, they can add visual effects to the games to improve PS1 and PS2 titles on HD sets, though I think it's probably just through AA. There's only so much you can do when the source is 1/3 of the target resolution.
WIth my PS2 hooked up to my HD set, Final Fantasy XII looked like pixelated crap. There were lots of initial complaints over 'jaggies' for older titles when played through a PS3. I don't know if it's better now.
No, but in those wonderful .02% cases where someone is looking at a 360 and a PS3 to play GTA4 on, it may mean everything.
"Be sure that the exclusive content is going to be no big deal, and it will be available for the PS3 as well in the future; in fact they did say they would do different things for the PS3 version. Calling this a selling point for the 360 is ridiculous"
...that Tekken dude.
Soul Caliber 2 for XBox had Spawn. Soul Caliber 2 for GameCube had Link. Soul Caliber 2 for PS2 had
Spawn, Link, or Tekken dude? Hmm...I'd call those selling points.
I wanted Link, so I bought the GameCube version, even though I had an XBox and a PS2 as well. Exclusive content of the same game can make a difference.
Yeah, it's not the end of the world to be without rumble (although I really like rumble.)
But I'm wondering if this will be considered a basic feature of the console, and Sony will require all new games to use the rumble feature.
Since the PS3 wasn't shipped with rumble controllers, does this mean developers have to code with the assumption that nobody has the rumble feature?
If the new Metal Gear makes rumble integral to the gameplay, it will mean possibly millions of early adopters will have to buy new controllers.
I'm sure you would've paid less for it, too.
I'm not saying a 1080p movie isn't impressive looking. I'm saying that at some point I forget to notice how 'crisp' it looks and start paying attention to the events unfolding in the movie.
When you first get an HD player, you get HD movies just to see how they look. Hell, I would've watched The Adventures of Hanna Montana in HD if it was the only thing available at the time. But as time passes, you stop being hyper-aware of how it looks and start going back to just watching a movie.
I guess my ultimate point is that the difference between HD and standard def doesn't change my enjoyment of a movie. A good HD movie would've been just as good in standard def.
Last generation, the XBox was my "Don't WANNA" console. I didn't want to buy it, but I had to for Ninja Gaiden. So I basically spent hundreds of dollars for one game, and I only played Halo 2 on it after that. (Actually, my computer was my primary game machine, but out of the consoles, my PS2 got used the most, primarily as a DVD player.)
I'm not doing that ever again. (Especially now that I'm married and my wife would kill me.)
So this generation the PS3 has become my "Don't WANNA" console. I don't wanna have to buy it, and I probably won't, even if Final Fantasy XIII remains exclusive to it. There are no games that will make me spend the ungodly amount of money I'd have to drop on the PS3.
I have the HD-DVD add-on for my 360, and in retrospect I think it was a bad purchase. Thanks to the HD war, not all the movies I want to see are available for HD-DVD, and I find that when I'm forced to resort to regular DVD...I don't really care. I'm just as happy either way, to tell the truth (with my 1080p tv). I could've and should've waited, and I can tell you from experience, HD movies aren't worth a 200 dollar player right now...and they CERTAINLY aren't worth a 500 dollar player.
From what I've seen, HOME is a bloated way to hook people up online. I like the streamlined 360 online features. I don't want to have an Avatar walk around meeting other Avatars. It's pointless. I AM the Avatar. Just cut out the middle man and let communicate directly with people. And I don't want to walk my Avatar down to the shop to shop for something. Just show me a menu. That's why I shop from home for things. Web sites make it easy to find stuff in a 2D list. I hate going to a store to look for stuff. I'll hate it even more having to go to take my little Avatar to a virtual store and look for stuff there, too.
I have a Wii-gret. I spent all day playing Wii Boxing and my arms hurt for days afterwards.
If I hadn't bought the Wii, I wouldn't have been forced to realize what an out of shape turd I am.
When I think about getting a game console, I'm only thinking about games.
I honestly don't care one flip about all the 'extra' stuff the PS3 can do, and I'd bet most everyone else is the same way. It can run linux? Ok. Then what? My Wii can edit images. I'll never use it.
Using your argument, they could've included a 3D holographic image generator that would project famous paintings on your wall for an extra $1000, and you shouldn't complain about the price because it's another thing it can do.
I honestly don't care. I can do without. Without games, 600 bucks is way overpriced. And even with games, 600 bucks is way overpriced. I bought my 360 for 200 bucks because I considered 400 way overpriced.
The PS3 is a bad deal right now, and I'm not sure it will recover past the point where it's actually worth it to have it AND my 360. And with no games I'm certainly not going to take that bet right now.
Why would I boycott the 360? The games are fun, and the online play is effortless.
My 360 is in the shop right now. And yeah, it sucks, and it's the only console I've ever had that has broken down, but I'm okay with it, because, hardware issues aside, there's real quality in the system.
So go ahead and boycott. Let me know how that goes for you. I'm sure the 12 million other 360 owners will realize they're not REALLY having fun with their 360. They'll realize Microsoft has used their evil monopolistic powers to change what 'fun' is, and 360 owners will cast aside their 360s and await the Game Messiah, who will arrive bearing the Perfect Console.
In the meantime, I'm going to go play some Gears of War till Halo 3 comes out.
"Linux will never have the ease of use of Windows 95 and Windows 98."
That's not a good thing. That means Grandma isn't going to use it at all.
Further, I never see UAC popups unless I'm actually doing administrative tasks...like installing programs or changing system settings. I can honestly say I never see unexpected UAC popups while running as a limited user, and by unexpected I mean knowing I'm doing an administrative action.
I play a lot of Steam games on Vista, but I never get prompted by UAC to play or install them.
I do development in VS2005 on Vista, but I never get prompted by UAC. (Maybe you haven't installed the service packs?)
The only time I got prompted on each of those was when I was installing them.