Sony's launch wasn't very good, but at least give them the credit they're due... They released an estimated 83,000 units in Japan, and 200,000 more in the US.
Never mind the fact that the 360 outsold the PS3 in Japan in the month of November, and during that same period, roughly 3x as many 360s were sold in the US.
Considering that the PS3 has been in production (according to Sony) since October, they didn't even manage to ship 300k PS3s during the month of November? Yet Sony is still confident they'll hit 1 million by the end of the year, which would require a 400% increase in production! Even if this miracle occurs, Microsoft is going to sell more than 1 million consoles this holiday season which is only going to increase the lead they already have over Sony.
Personally, I think Sony will be lucky if they've sold 700k PS3s worldwide by the end of the year.
If you average 1 hour a night in gaming, that's easily enough time to "finish" about one game a month.
At that rate, it shouldn't be hard to average about 10 games a year.
Of course, that assumes you're also buying NEW titles. Otherwise, it doesn't count as a sale from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/EA/etc.'s point of view...
Unfortunatly, with the higher price of games this time around, I'm probably going to start buying a lot more used titles, or maybe even start renting. $60 is just waaaaay too expensive for a game you know you'll finish in under 20 hours.
Is it a PC that can play games? If so, then any PC dating waaaay back to the 8086 was a "Gaming PC". What sort of non-news announcement is this?
Reminds me of the old "Multi-media level" rating which failed pretty quickly as soon as Pentium computers became affordable as they all had CPU, memory, graphics, CD-ROM and sound capabilities far beyond the highest rating.
Heck, I even remember when DOOM (the first one) was used as benchmarking program, which quickly became outdated and replaced by another game as even the wimpiest office-grade video card was scoring off the chart.
Even if Microsoft is looking at "Gaming PC" to mean "PC that's running Vista", it's still a meaningless measurement since I highly doubt the 1000s of PCs used for developing software for Vista are going to be running any sort of game - including the inevitable updated version of Solitare and Minesweeper.
You might as well have Sony and Nintendo announce they've sold millions of "Super Computers".
You'd be surprised actually... The 10 year old daughter of one of my wife's friends doesn't get an allowance, but basically can her parents to buy her anything she wants. I think it's a small miracle that she hasn't become a totally spoiled brat. According to the daughter, her classmates get around $50/mo in allowance! (remember these are 10 year olds and not from particularly rich families either!)
There is a rating system (ESRB.org) but apparentally too many folks don't know about it, and don't bother reading the package.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen some excited youngster clearly under the age of 10 (much less 16) hand his mom or dad a game like GTA3, DOOM3, COD2, etc., only to have said parent put it into their basket without even looking at it.
In fact, I remember hearing about some idiotic grandmother wanting to sue Rockstar over the 'hot coffee' incident because she bought what she thought was a "wholesome" game for her 12 year old grandson. Did grandma ever stop to wonder what that large "RATED "M" FOR MATURE" sticker meant? Or how a game called "Grand Theft Auto" was somehow a good game for a 12 year old?
The stores in California are required - by law - to now have large ESRB signs posted prominenantly in their game ailses. This includes at least one 5 foot tall carboard display illustrating what each rating means, as well as countless smaller signs/stickers stuck to the shelves, and other information.
Despite this, the stores, just like movie theaters, are not required to enforce the ratings. There are some exceptions, but for the most part, so long as the kid has the pay, he'll get to play. Oh, I know chains like WalMart and Toys R Us say they try not to sell the more violent games, but you'll still find violent Teen and Mature rated games on their shelves.
Wah wah wah. Parents are too busy to take care of their children now a days.
THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING KIDS.
My dad worked 2 jobs. My mom was working on her masters degree (which in itself is more than a 40hr/week job)
They had 3 kids.
We had to get permission before going to see a movie or buying any video game (parents wouldn't buy us games - we had to buy them ourselves) - but first, we had to have finished our homework.
Spending too much time playing games or watching TV wasn't normally an issue as our parents made sure we were involved with a number of extra-curricular activities, as well as going to camp 2-3 weeks each summer.
Stop sticking up for the screw-ups. If people aren't willing to take an interest in their child's upbringing by spending TIME and ENERGY on them, they should do the rest of society a favor and get sterilized. No one said raising a kid was going to be easy, but simply blaming others is a habit I really wish our country learn to break.
I can't recall the name of it, but there's an arcade game at my local Dave & Buster's which gives you a small foam replica of a samurai sword that you wave around inside a sensor area. On screen, you see the game sword moving in the same way. In the game you play a samurai who has to fight feudal-era demons and zombies - essentially Onimusha with a better controller, or Samurai Jack vs. House Of The Dead.
Anyways, the only control you have is how you swing or hold the sword. And yes, the monsters can block your attacks just as you can block theirs.
To get around the problem your describe, the game only interprets a few movements - mainly, holding the sword in various positions (for blocking) and downard or side-to-side slashes (for attacking). If you're good, it is possible to behead enemies with 1 strike.
If my attack is blocked, my onscreen sword just bounces back - it doesn't stay locked. While my arm may still be extended, the game's sword is waiting for my next command. This means if you were to wave your sword up and down repeatedly, all you see on the screen is your sword chopping down repeatedly - you don't see the upward stroke at all.
Despite the seemingly simplistic move set, it's still quite fun to play.
Of course, a light saber can do more than just wave around...and I'm sure there's going to be many reports of broken windows and TVs as people get too excited and physically THROW their Wiimote in an attempt to get their character to throw his lightsaber at someone.
I believe Squeenix has made some vague references to them not being Sony/PS3 exclusive this time around. They've confirmed that Final Fantasy XIII will be PS3 exclusive, but they apparently have some plans for some sort of Final Fantasy game, among others, for the 360.
As it stands, Sony has already lost some heavy hitters in the form of Rockstar (GTA) and Konami as both have announced their intention to release formerly PS3 exclusive titles on the 360 simultaneously.
With more and more titles going cross platform, featuring nearly identical graphics, features and gameplay, exclusive titles are going to be more important than ever. I hope Sony realizes that, and stops assuming that people will buy a Playstation based on name alone.
Besides, when there was a special limited edition bundle of the 360 and the new RPG, Blue Dragon, all 100,000 units sold out in one day. Clearly the Japanese are willing to buy a console regardless of who makes it - you just gotta give them a reason (GAMES).
New processor - who cares? What's that going to do for the games?
New storage media - who cares? What's that going to do for the games?
So far, these elements haven't done anything for the games or other features.
I don't buy consoles because of what hardware or storage medium they use. I don't buy them because they're "innovative". I buy consoles for one purpose, and one purpose only: GAMES.
If you come out with a console powered by pigeons and it can some nifty set of games - I'll be there.
So far, the 360 can do just about everything the PS3 can do - for less. In some cases, the 360 even does things BETTER than the PS3. Let's look at Tony Hawk 8. The PS3 version has no online play - which is a huge feature on the 360 version.
Blu-Ray has done nothing positive for the PS3 so far. It's a slower drive than the 360's DVD drive (this is "innovation"?) It's also very expensive and difficult to manufacture, which is one reason the PS3 is more expensive than the 360, and is experiencing severe inventory problems. How is this "innovation"?
Furthermore, many of Sony's justifications for the added price just haven't come through. The games aren't all in 1080p - worse still - there are times when you won't even get HD resolutions on your HDTV! Many games aren't even getting good reviews. Online play - which is becoming increasingly popular - is moreorless the same mish-mash it was on the PS2, where each game required you to maintain a separate account. Live itself may not be "innovative" but it does several things to make the online experience a lot more enjoyable and seamless.
You don't always have to be "innovative" to make a good product. Simply making something easy to use and reliable is sometimes the only "innovation" customers need.
Right now, the advantage is Microsoft's. Sony can still make a comeback, but it's going to have to work quickly to address the problems and criticisms brought up by users and reviewers alike.
Re:A review review: this review sucks
on
NY Times Review of PS3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The OP is close, but the actual problem is that if your TV does 1080i, but not 720p (which is many older HDTVs) then you will end up playing that game, and any other 720p game, in 480p. The PS3 cannot currentally upscale a 720p signal to 1080i.
'Resistance Fall Of Man' is only in 720p, not 1080p.
The 360 apparentally can upscale 720p to 1080i, so this shouldn't be a problem for the 360.
Sure, the 360 had problems of its own. Early units tend to over heat, and I seem to recall that content downloads weren't originally in the background until Microsoft changed this with a software update.
And sure, both consoles had(have) some of the same early problems - lack of available inventory, and some game releases were delayed, for instance.
But the PS3 seems to have launched with some rather embearassing omissions:
The PS3 comes with no HD cable. The 360 Premium has always come with a HD cable.
The PS3 launched with only a few exclusive titles, and the non-exclusive titles that came out don't look any better on the PS3. In fact, some claim they're worse due to framerate issues.
The PS3's online service is a mess. Granted, Sony didn't have the benefit of building upon an established system, which is what Microsoft had for the Xbox and later the 360. But still, the hype and promises from Sony certainly don't match the delivered experience. After all, it's not like Sony hadn't ever HEARD of Live! before. They've had a long time to get their service ready to go - and then they even had a ~6 month extension! After all that the only thing they seem to have really worked on is the marketplace...where you'll be able to pay Sony $1 to download game demos and other preview material.
I don't quite agree we should "give it some time". Some of the functionality that the reporter was complaining about - like the centralized friends list, and the ability to play your own music in games, are things that even the original XBox was able to do from day one.
Furthermore, the in-game music thing sounds like a bug to me - Sony promised this would be something you'd be able to do. Of course, Sony promised lots of things about the PS3, and so far doesn't have the best of records in terms of delivering.
Maybe Sony will get its act together and make the PS3 into something approaching the beast we were all urged to save our lunch money to purchase. For right now, however, the PS3 offers too many deal-breakers, be it the lack of games, the inability to upscale 720p to 1080i, or any number of other issues. Of course, in the meantime, the 360 is going to continue on its way. The longer Sony dwaddles, the harder it is going to be for them to catch up, much less surpass, Microsoft.
Sony's PS3 billboards aren't any better. The other day, I saw one billboard that looked like it had "///7" written on it. Nothing else. No "Sony", no "Playstation 3", not even their stupid "PLAY B3YOND" tagline.
If you didn't already know about the PS3 and know when it was being released, you'd have no idea what the ad was for - and worse still - no way to find out.
Sony's TV ads don't even really explain what the ad is for. Is it for the baby doll? (it does get more screentime than that black blocky thing in the corner) Is it for a new horror movie? Maybe a new Silent Hill game? What's the story we're supposed to take away from the ad? "Playstation 3 - it'll really creep the bejeezus out of you!" or maybe "Possessed naked baby dolls can levitate black blocky objects -BEWARE!"
Maybe it's just as well the ads are horrible. Sony's shipping so few units to the US that they could drive people away - and still sell out.
IF Blu-Ray is successful, then the PS3 has a big leg up, as it already includes the means to play Blu-ray movies.
IF, on the other hand, Blu-Ray is not successful, Sony must still support it for the PS3, just as Sony must still support UMD for the PSP because both mediums didn't just play movies, but are used for software (the games) as well.
Sony is gambling that the higher prices NOW will pay off in the future by launching Blu-ray into millions of homes, striking a large blow against HD-DVD.
As for games, it's yet to be shown how Blu-Ray adds anything to them, other than providing tons of extra space for those long, beautifully rendered, non-interactive CGI movies Square so loves using in their Final Fantasy games and other RPGs. I've not heard of any game filling a Blu-Ray disc. Supposedly the developers of 'Resistance...' were claiming each level was going to use up 4GB of space on the Blu-Ray disc, but later it was shown the entire game fit into 12GB (down from their initial claims of 24GB) While still larger than a dual-layered DVD, there's not much real information on how that space is being utilized (is it multiple versions of the cutscenes? is it uncompressed texture and graphical data? etc.)
Personally, I could care less what format the games used. And I'm not going to get interested in next-gen DVDs until the format war has gone away, or multi-format players are readily available and under $500. I figure that's a good 2 years away.
I remember going to see 'Princess Mononoke' at a small art theater. A couple came in with their young (maybe 4?) daughter. The usher tried to warn them that the movie was pretty violent, but the father waved him off saying he knew about anime (they were a Japanese couple...) Well, if they were expecting something like Totoro or Nausicaa, they were sadly mistaken after a solider got his head blown up (and off) by a demonic arrow within the opening minutes of the movie. The parents were horrified, but their daughter just laughed. LOUDLY. In fact, anytime someone died a gruesome bloody death, the daughter laughed as if it was the funniest thing she'd ever seen.
They didn't leave until near the end when the wolf spirit died, and the daughter asked "Doggie...dead?" and started bawling her eyes out.
Another time after watching Shrek, I overheard a mother tell her children that it was "too bad Fionna turned into an ugly ogre." Sheesh! Talk about missing the point!
The latest word from Sony is that PS2 games will receive no boosts or enhancements on the PS3. They will play and look exactly as they do on the PS2.
This is rather disappointing as at one time Sony said the PS3 would up-scale PS2 game graphics, giving them a HD-boost. But alas, it seems this was just another pipe dream from Sony.
The KH series has always been action-based, making it a button masher. And I don't know how much sense KH2 would make if you hadn't played the first one (or the horrible sequel on the GBA).
Dragon Warrior isn't Square's franchise, but Enix's, and hasn't changed much based on what I've seen of the previous games... I played DW7, and got the same feeling you had. Guess that's why they named the series "Drag On, Warrior"... It wouldn't have been as bad if at least the combat system was halfway interesting, but it was strictly something out the NES era. And you NEEDED 100s of random battles in order to train your characters' classes...
I liked FF9 OK, but I'd advise you to avoid FF10 - VERY linear. In fact, the only exploration you get to do is at the very end, and that's just to get everyone's ultimate weapon. Most of these tasks are just downright aggravating and tedius. Not that you need them, just level up a bit in the bonus dungeon, and you'll stomp through the rest of the game easily. The story was OK, but not really "surprising" (hint: Tidus is an idiot) but the characters were pretty amusing...well, not Yuna. You never really believed she was really going to do anything but sit in the corner and look at her shoes.
Yes, I don't understand Nolan's comments at all where he says there's only 300k early adopters, yet it's a foregone conclusion that 100% of 400k units making up the initial launch allocation have already been spoken for (with eBay on standby) So the PS3 has already outsold his predictions?
It'll sell 1 million in the US easy. But over taking the 360 which is ahead in sales and price, is going to be the hard part. Especially since the majority of the PS3's launch games are cross-platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony's launch wasn't very good, but at least give them the credit they're due... They released an estimated 83,000 units in Japan, and 200,000 more in the US.
Never mind the fact that the 360 outsold the PS3 in Japan in the month of November, and during that same period, roughly 3x as many 360s were sold in the US.
Considering that the PS3 has been in production (according to Sony) since October, they didn't even manage to ship 300k PS3s during the month of November? Yet Sony is still confident they'll hit 1 million by the end of the year, which would require a 400% increase in production! Even if this miracle occurs, Microsoft is going to sell more than 1 million consoles this holiday season which is only going to increase the lead they already have over Sony.
Personally, I think Sony will be lucky if they've sold 700k PS3s worldwide by the end of the year.
If you average 1 hour a night in gaming, that's easily enough time to "finish" about one game a month.
At that rate, it shouldn't be hard to average about 10 games a year.
Of course, that assumes you're also buying NEW titles. Otherwise, it doesn't count as a sale from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/EA/etc.'s point of view...
Unfortunatly, with the higher price of games this time around, I'm probably going to start buying a lot more used titles, or maybe even start renting. $60 is just waaaaay too expensive for a game you know you'll finish in under 20 hours.
Even though I've cut down drastically, I'm still buying about 2 games a month.
:-)
Unfortunatly, I can only finish about 1 game a month.
You can see where this trend is going but on the positive side, it means I can wait for games (and hardware) to get really cheap
What exactly is a "gaming PC"?
Is it a PC that can play games? If so, then any PC dating waaaay back to the 8086 was a "Gaming PC". What sort of non-news announcement is this?
Reminds me of the old "Multi-media level" rating which failed pretty quickly as soon as Pentium computers became affordable as they all had CPU, memory, graphics, CD-ROM and sound capabilities far beyond the highest rating.
Heck, I even remember when DOOM (the first one) was used as benchmarking program, which quickly became outdated and replaced by another game as even the wimpiest office-grade video card was scoring off the chart.
Even if Microsoft is looking at "Gaming PC" to mean "PC that's running Vista", it's still a meaningless measurement since I highly doubt the 1000s of PCs used for developing software for Vista are going to be running any sort of game - including the inevitable updated version of Solitare and Minesweeper.
You might as well have Sony and Nintendo announce they've sold millions of "Super Computers".
You'd be surprised actually... The 10 year old daughter of one of my wife's friends doesn't get an allowance, but basically can her parents to buy her anything she wants. I think it's a small miracle that she hasn't become a totally spoiled brat. According to the daughter, her classmates get around $50/mo in allowance! (remember these are 10 year olds and not from particularly rich families either!)
There is a rating system (ESRB.org) but apparentally too many folks don't know about it, and don't bother reading the package.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen some excited youngster clearly under the age of 10 (much less 16) hand his mom or dad a game like GTA3, DOOM3, COD2, etc., only to have said parent put it into their basket without even looking at it.
In fact, I remember hearing about some idiotic grandmother wanting to sue Rockstar over the 'hot coffee' incident because she bought what she thought was a "wholesome" game for her 12 year old grandson. Did grandma ever stop to wonder what that large "RATED "M" FOR MATURE" sticker meant? Or how a game called "Grand Theft Auto" was somehow a good game for a 12 year old?
The stores in California are required - by law - to now have large ESRB signs posted prominenantly in their game ailses. This includes at least one 5 foot tall carboard display illustrating what each rating means, as well as countless smaller signs/stickers stuck to the shelves, and other information.
Despite this, the stores, just like movie theaters, are not required to enforce the ratings. There are some exceptions, but for the most part, so long as the kid has the pay, he'll get to play. Oh, I know chains like WalMart and Toys R Us say they try not to sell the more violent games, but you'll still find violent Teen and Mature rated games on their shelves.
Wah wah wah. Parents are too busy to take care of their children now a days.
THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING KIDS.
My dad worked 2 jobs. My mom was working on her masters degree (which in itself is more than a 40hr/week job)
They had 3 kids.
We had to get permission before going to see a movie or buying any video game (parents wouldn't buy us games - we had to buy them ourselves) - but first, we had to have finished our homework.
Spending too much time playing games or watching TV wasn't normally an issue as our parents made sure we were involved with a number of extra-curricular activities, as well as going to camp 2-3 weeks each summer.
Stop sticking up for the screw-ups. If people aren't willing to take an interest in their child's upbringing by spending TIME and ENERGY on them, they should do the rest of society a favor and get sterilized. No one said raising a kid was going to be easy, but simply blaming others is a habit I really wish our country learn to break.
I can't recall the name of it, but there's an arcade game at my local Dave & Buster's which gives you a small foam replica of a samurai sword that you wave around inside a sensor area. On screen, you see the game sword moving in the same way. In the game you play a samurai who has to fight feudal-era demons and zombies - essentially Onimusha with a better controller, or Samurai Jack vs. House Of The Dead.
Anyways, the only control you have is how you swing or hold the sword. And yes, the monsters can block your attacks just as you can block theirs.
To get around the problem your describe, the game only interprets a few movements - mainly, holding the sword in various positions (for blocking) and downard or side-to-side slashes (for attacking). If you're good, it is possible to behead enemies with 1 strike.
If my attack is blocked, my onscreen sword just bounces back - it doesn't stay locked. While my arm may still be extended, the game's sword is waiting for my next command. This means if you were to wave your sword up and down repeatedly, all you see on the screen is your sword chopping down repeatedly - you don't see the upward stroke at all.
Despite the seemingly simplistic move set, it's still quite fun to play.
Of course, a light saber can do more than just wave around...and I'm sure there's going to be many reports of broken windows and TVs as people get too excited and physically THROW their Wiimote in an attempt to get their character to throw his lightsaber at someone.
I believe Squeenix has made some vague references to them not being Sony/PS3 exclusive this time around. They've confirmed that Final Fantasy XIII will be PS3 exclusive, but they apparently have some plans for some sort of Final Fantasy game, among others, for the 360.
As it stands, Sony has already lost some heavy hitters in the form of Rockstar (GTA) and Konami as both have announced their intention to release formerly PS3 exclusive titles on the 360 simultaneously.
With more and more titles going cross platform, featuring nearly identical graphics, features and gameplay, exclusive titles are going to be more important than ever. I hope Sony realizes that, and stops assuming that people will buy a Playstation based on name alone.
Amen!
Besides, when there was a special limited edition bundle of the 360 and the new RPG, Blue Dragon, all 100,000 units sold out in one day. Clearly the Japanese are willing to buy a console regardless of who makes it - you just gotta give them a reason (GAMES).
The 360 supports composite (included with all 360's), s-video, component (included with the "premium" 360 package) and VGA.
The PS3 supports composite (included in the box), s-video, component, and HDMI.
You can also reuse your PS2 compatible cables with the PS3 if you want s-video or component video. Otherwise, the PS3 uses a standard HDMI cable.
The Wii supports composite, s-video and component (but only to 480p).
The 360 and PS3 also support optical audio, using a standard cable just like the PS2 and Xbox did.
New processor - who cares? What's that going to do for the games?
New storage media - who cares? What's that going to do for the games?
So far, these elements haven't done anything for the games or other features.
I don't buy consoles because of what hardware or storage medium they use. I don't buy them because they're "innovative". I buy consoles for one purpose, and one purpose only: GAMES.
If you come out with a console powered by pigeons and it can some nifty set of games - I'll be there.
So far, the 360 can do just about everything the PS3 can do - for less. In some cases, the 360 even does things BETTER than the PS3. Let's look at Tony Hawk 8. The PS3 version has no online play - which is a huge feature on the 360 version.
Blu-Ray has done nothing positive for the PS3 so far. It's a slower drive than the 360's DVD drive (this is "innovation"?) It's also very expensive and difficult to manufacture, which is one reason the PS3 is more expensive than the 360, and is experiencing severe inventory problems. How is this "innovation"?
Furthermore, many of Sony's justifications for the added price just haven't come through. The games aren't all in 1080p - worse still - there are times when you won't even get HD resolutions on your HDTV! Many games aren't even getting good reviews. Online play - which is becoming increasingly popular - is moreorless the same mish-mash it was on the PS2, where each game required you to maintain a separate account. Live itself may not be "innovative" but it does several things to make the online experience a lot more enjoyable and seamless.
You don't always have to be "innovative" to make a good product. Simply making something easy to use and reliable is sometimes the only "innovation" customers need.
Right now, the advantage is Microsoft's. Sony can still make a comeback, but it's going to have to work quickly to address the problems and criticisms brought up by users and reviewers alike.
The OP is close, but the actual problem is that if your TV does 1080i, but not 720p (which is many older HDTVs) then you will end up playing that game, and any other 720p game, in 480p. The PS3 cannot currentally upscale a 720p signal to 1080i.
'Resistance Fall Of Man' is only in 720p, not 1080p.
The 360 apparentally can upscale 720p to 1080i, so this shouldn't be a problem for the 360.
IGN has more details:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746282p1.html
Which "same issues" are we referring to?
Sure, the 360 had problems of its own. Early units tend to over heat, and I seem to recall that content downloads weren't originally in the background until Microsoft changed this with a software update.
And sure, both consoles had(have) some of the same early problems - lack of available inventory, and some game releases were delayed, for instance.
But the PS3 seems to have launched with some rather embearassing omissions:
The PS3 comes with no HD cable. The 360 Premium has always come with a HD cable.
The PS3 launched with only a few exclusive titles, and the non-exclusive titles that came out don't look any better on the PS3. In fact, some claim they're worse due to framerate issues.
The PS3's online service is a mess. Granted, Sony didn't have the benefit of building upon an established system, which is what Microsoft had for the Xbox and later the 360. But still, the hype and promises from Sony certainly don't match the delivered experience. After all, it's not like Sony hadn't ever HEARD of Live! before. They've had a long time to get their service ready to go - and then they even had a ~6 month extension! After all that the only thing they seem to have really worked on is the marketplace...where you'll be able to pay Sony $1 to download game demos and other preview material.
I don't quite agree we should "give it some time". Some of the functionality that the reporter was complaining about - like the centralized friends list, and the ability to play your own music in games, are things that even the original XBox was able to do from day one.
Furthermore, the in-game music thing sounds like a bug to me - Sony promised this would be something you'd be able to do. Of course, Sony promised lots of things about the PS3, and so far doesn't have the best of records in terms of delivering.
Maybe Sony will get its act together and make the PS3 into something approaching the beast we were all urged to save our lunch money to purchase. For right now, however, the PS3 offers too many deal-breakers, be it the lack of games, the inability to upscale 720p to 1080i, or any number of other issues. Of course, in the meantime, the 360 is going to continue on its way. The longer Sony dwaddles, the harder it is going to be for them to catch up, much less surpass, Microsoft.
5 of games on their list are racing games. I hate racing games - control pads don't make good steering wheels.
I found it odd they put KOTOR 2 on the list but not Jade Kingdom.
Granted, Jade Kingdom felt like KOTOR in a fakey "asian" skin, but it was unique in that there just aren't many martial-arts RPGs out there.
Furthermore, from what I've read about KOTOR2, it was released buggy and incomplete.
I agree. Psychonauts was a very good game.
But it wasn't an exclusive title, so it didn't make this list.
Sony's PS3 billboards aren't any better. The other day, I saw one billboard that looked like it had "///7" written on it. Nothing else. No "Sony", no "Playstation 3", not even their stupid "PLAY B3YOND" tagline. If you didn't already know about the PS3 and know when it was being released, you'd have no idea what the ad was for - and worse still - no way to find out. Sony's TV ads don't even really explain what the ad is for. Is it for the baby doll? (it does get more screentime than that black blocky thing in the corner) Is it for a new horror movie? Maybe a new Silent Hill game? What's the story we're supposed to take away from the ad? "Playstation 3 - it'll really creep the bejeezus out of you!" or maybe "Possessed naked baby dolls can levitate black blocky objects -BEWARE!" Maybe it's just as well the ads are horrible. Sony's shipping so few units to the US that they could drive people away - and still sell out.
What it really comes down to is:
IF Blu-Ray is successful, then the PS3 has a big leg up, as it already includes the means to play Blu-ray movies.
IF, on the other hand, Blu-Ray is not successful, Sony must still support it for the PS3, just as Sony must still support UMD for the PSP because both mediums didn't just play movies, but are used for software (the games) as well.
Sony is gambling that the higher prices NOW will pay off in the future by launching Blu-ray into millions of homes, striking a large blow against HD-DVD.
As for games, it's yet to be shown how Blu-Ray adds anything to them, other than providing tons of extra space for those long, beautifully rendered, non-interactive CGI movies Square so loves using in their Final Fantasy games and other RPGs. I've not heard of any game filling a Blu-Ray disc. Supposedly the developers of 'Resistance...' were claiming each level was going to use up 4GB of space on the Blu-Ray disc, but later it was shown the entire game fit into 12GB (down from their initial claims of 24GB) While still larger than a dual-layered DVD, there's not much real information on how that space is being utilized (is it multiple versions of the cutscenes? is it uncompressed texture and graphical data? etc.)
Personally, I could care less what format the games used. And I'm not going to get interested in next-gen DVDs until the format war has gone away, or multi-format players are readily available and under $500. I figure that's a good 2 years away.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
Sony's right, the PS3 isn't a gaming console...it's a PC.
After all, what veteran computer user doesn't immediatly check for updates upon booting up a new computer for the first time??
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
That's pretty funny.
I remember going to see 'Princess Mononoke' at a small art theater. A couple came in with their young (maybe 4?) daughter. The usher tried to warn them that the movie was pretty violent, but the father waved him off saying he knew about anime (they were a Japanese couple...) Well, if they were expecting something like Totoro or Nausicaa, they were sadly mistaken after a solider got his head blown up (and off) by a demonic arrow within the opening minutes of the movie. The parents were horrified, but their daughter just laughed. LOUDLY. In fact, anytime someone died a gruesome bloody death, the daughter laughed as if it was the funniest thing she'd ever seen.
They didn't leave until near the end when the wolf spirit died, and the daughter asked "Doggie...dead?" and started bawling her eyes out.
Another time after watching Shrek, I overheard a mother tell her children that it was "too bad Fionna turned into an ugly ogre." Sheesh! Talk about missing the point!
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
The latest word from Sony is that PS2 games will receive no boosts or enhancements on the PS3. They will play and look exactly as they do on the PS2.
This is rather disappointing as at one time Sony said the PS3 would up-scale PS2 game graphics, giving them a HD-boost. But alas, it seems this was just another pipe dream from Sony.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
The KH series has always been action-based, making it a button masher. And I don't know how much sense KH2 would make if you hadn't played the first one (or the horrible sequel on the GBA).
Dragon Warrior isn't Square's franchise, but Enix's, and hasn't changed much based on what I've seen of the previous games... I played DW7, and got the same feeling you had. Guess that's why they named the series "Drag On, Warrior"... It wouldn't have been as bad if at least the combat system was halfway interesting, but it was strictly something out the NES era. And you NEEDED 100s of random battles in order to train your characters' classes...
I liked FF9 OK, but I'd advise you to avoid FF10 - VERY linear. In fact, the only exploration you get to do is at the very end, and that's just to get everyone's ultimate weapon. Most of these tasks are just downright aggravating and tedius. Not that you need them, just level up a bit in the bonus dungeon, and you'll stomp through the rest of the game easily. The story was OK, but not really "surprising" (hint: Tidus is an idiot) but the characters were pretty amusing...well, not Yuna. You never really believed she was really going to do anything but sit in the corner and look at her shoes.
Well, I hated 8, but I liked 7.
Still, FF7 was no Xenogears. Not the most graphically advanced RPG like FF9 or ChronoCross, but WOW, what a game!
Yes, I don't understand Nolan's comments at all where he says there's only 300k early adopters, yet it's a foregone conclusion that 100% of 400k units making up the initial launch allocation have already been spoken for (with eBay on standby) So the PS3 has already outsold his predictions?
It'll sell 1 million in the US easy. But over taking the 360 which is ahead in sales and price, is going to be the hard part. Especially since the majority of the PS3's launch games are cross-platform.