Umm... the only thing they're doing for the 360 version of FFXI is upping the resolution. Not redoing textures, not adding content, not improving the engine in any other way...
Of all the reasons I can think of to get a 360(and there are several, they just don't appeal to me), FFXI isn't very high on the list.
Guess what leads to a greater propensity towards violence? Poverty, injustice and indifference. All I'm saying is that there are far more causes of violence, and keeping 'violent' games out of the hands of children is pretty low on the list.
Yup. Poverty is another risk factor. Indifference and injustice, now you're just trying to turn a phrase. If you can point out where I said violent video games caused an increase in risk, I'll eat my hat. You can't, because I never said that. I didn't even imply it. I explicitely stated that there was no statistically relevant study that pointed out any such correlation without ever revealing my opinion on the matter in one way or another. The only question I raised was whether or not anecdotes from the 20-something set, and studies done primarily on us would continue to hold relevance to this perenial debate. Now... what do you not understand about these statements?
Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).
Way to go captain obvious. Now, point out where I contradicted you just now. Raising a question is different than contradiction btw. FYI. It's a hypothetical, say in 6 years we have full immersive "sim-sense" and there's no difference between a game and an actual experience. That's the kind of shit I was questioning, and the gap between that and the current/next generations of games, which IS closing btw(just look at what I grew up with versus THIS generation).
The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.
Ahh... So you didn't want to be on topic. You just wanted an argument... or Karma.
You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.
Ahh, implicitly. What a wonderful word for making shit up. I stated, and I quote myself here, "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto the parents who buy their kids these violent forms of media." I think the implication there is that enforced age restrictions would shut up the social conservatives by allowing them to shift the blame onto the parents who bought the games.
Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?
Apparently, you're missing any form of science education, because that's precisely the logic the media violence folks use. In the case of both passive smoking(2nd hand smoke) and media violence(gaming and stallone movies[although I think they might be onto something in the case of crap like 'Stop or My Mom will Shoot']), there is NO evidence that either causes a statistically significant increased risk for anything(apart from smelly clothing in the case of 2nd hand smoke). That's what smoking does by the way, it increases your risk(significantly) of various cancers(lung and throat) and other diseases, but it doesn't cause them(you live long enough w/o something else failing, and you're getting cancer). You're not going to smoke one cigarette and catch cancer.
I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somew
The only question I have is, is it relevant to the argument?
I grew up on the 8-bit and atari generation. By the time the SNES and things like doom hit, I was in my teens. Now, I'm in my 20s. The games have grown more and more realistic, in fact they strive for realism. I see no current indications of this trend reversing.
So, are our experiences... are the current studies which can't show any statistically significant relationship between violent video game play and later violent behavior relevant to an argument that basically boils down to the effects of current games? No one can ultimately say one way or the other how it's going to pan out until it's no longer relevant to the then-future situation... so it keeps being rehashed over and over and over again.
Seriously, this has come up more times than I can count anymore.
I'm tired of it. Just enforce the damn ratings by law, all of us adults will still be able to hit the local gaming shop and pickup GTA4. If you're underage and your parents approve, you can still play it. If you shoot up a school or something, you had bad parents. End of story.
There were violent movies, books and comics. I was born in a violent part of my city, and I'm not violent.
Well, I could run to a local college library and pull up a slew of case studies that say actual exposure to violence during various stages of development produces a variety or reactions, one of the possible ones being an increased propensity towards violence. Exposure in this case being domestic abuse, growing up in a war zone, going to war, witnessing gangland violence first hand and the like with various levels of intervention and interaction. There's a metric assload of them. Hell, I think it's so accepted that violent experiences during childhood have traumatic effects it's covered in Psych 101.
The problem is not with enforcing game ratings. The problem is believing that violent games cause violent tendencies.
The article "pro-gaming expert" actually came out against game ratings with two contradictory reasons: 1. Retailers would stop stocking mature titles because ratings were enforced. (I presume they would do so only because of a massive demand decline.) 2. 85% of all mature titles get into children's hands because an adult purchases them for them so enforcing ratings isn't necessary.
Secondly, I never said violent games cause violent tendancies, in fact I even parenthetically pointed out that there is no statistically relevant link available atm between the violent behavior and media violence exposure(via interactive or passive media).
Alcohol, in excessive amounts, has been known to cause violence and reckless behavior in individuals. Smoking causes second-hand pollutants which endanger other people. How does playing Metal Gear Solid 3 on my PS2 harm anyone directly?
Alcohol leads to a lowering of inhibitions which can lead to violence(in vino veritas). It doesn't always do so. In fact, most of the time it doesn't. Smoking however, only harms the individual partaking of that habit(no, sorry anti-smoking people, it does nothing to you, unless of course we do junk science small sample sizes unadjusted for those small sizes with no control or toss in a discredited report from the EPA... but hey, Doom had something to do with columbine, so I guess we can swing it both ways if you want!).
Why should there be any blame with respect to games at all? There are a lot of social factors that lead towards violence. Remember that the Japanese and Europeans, amongst others, play the same games, but have lower rates of violence.
Oh I don't know. Maybe because some people insist on assigning blame to games when it could easily be shifted to the parents who buy the games. They're "bad parents" much like the ones that buy kegs for their kids on weekends.
I don't feel like getting into a social context argument. So I'll just ignore that. But anyway, out of curiousity, did you not read the comment before you replied to it? Because it looks like you just skimmed it and tried to be a karma whoring slashbot from over here.
Huh? They did not have the types of games when I was growing up that they have now. So I can't really weigh in and say "I played violent games, and I'm ok."
About the most violent thing I can think of that I played was Doom. Which is comically cartoony compared to stuff like Manhunt or the newer GTAs. Or hell, any modern FPS. Mortal Kombat is also NOTHING compared to what we have now. Go back and play it. Not only are the situations found within ridiculous, but the graphics are downright tame. I've seen better gore effects in foreign low-budget horror flicks(which I also watched growing up, and apart from a sick sense of humor, I'm pretty well-adjusted). There's also looney tunes. None of this is in the same league as some modern games!
We just didn't have the tech to produce violent situations with as much realism as we can now. We don't have as much now as we will next year, and we won't have as much then as we will 5-6 years from now. Now, does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. We know that exposure to violence during certain stages of development effects people(and even later in life, PTSD and the like). The extent to which simulated or indirectly viewed violence(IE: via the news) does is still up in the air(with current data pointing to it not being statistically significant[but hey, neither is 2nd hand smoke!]) because psych is such a voodoo art soft science(and the professor quoted here isn't a developmental psychologist). Now, as the line blurs between reality and gameplay due to improved physics, graphics, AI and a miscellany of immersion techniques, this could very well change. That's tangenital however.
Now, believe it or not, that was just a big tangent on the "I played violent games growing up and I'm FINE" argument I keep seeing. No you didn't, at least not compared to what's out right now.
Anyway, I certainly can't think of a valid argument AGAINST enforcing game ratings when it comes to sales to minors. So you can't buy an M rated game if you aren't 18 by law rather than by inconsistent policy. Oh no. You can't buy cigarettes or alcohol either(I mean, after all, shouldn't parents, you know PARENT? Keep their kids off smokes and booze! Why should Uncle Sam be involved?).
It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto the parents who buy their kids these violent forms of media. The big demographic for these games is the 18-30yo set anyway, so any fears about retailers discontinuing stocking them is just downright paranoid. I mean, you can buy adult adult content at any DVD store. What makes you think Gamestop is going to stop carrying GTA? Because both they and the clerk will get fined if they sell to your underaged ass?
*looks up from smashing crates into people with the gravity gun*
Nooooo......:-D
And hey, which is cooler, the warehouse scene where they're boxing the ark from Indiana Jones, or a bunch of pallets? How would you like it if the "very special award" arrived in a cardboard box full of peanuts rather than a wooden crate labeled "frage-eel"?
The revolution is rumored to be using a 4 core PPC processor running at 2.5GHz. The 360 is a 3 core PPC processor running at 3GHz. The GPUs are both ATI and comparable. Memory, bandwidth and structure are different.
No, it's on par with MS's 360 according to every bit of info that's been leaked. The only difference is the number of cores on the CPU and clock speed, but they're equivalent. Both are a bit below the theoretical max performance on the PS3. Which of course is a number pulled out of the nether regions of a jack-ass. The GCN is below the theoretical max performance of the PS2, and it looks 2 times better and doesn't have load times.
Therefore, I can conclude that the Revolution will look/perform better than the PS3. Right?
Oh and of course the revolution doesn't do some of the things the 360/PS3 will do(like uber HD resolutions), but it's in the same league when it comes to RAW CPU/GPU POWAH.
Yea, it's been done 3 times in the zelda series. Link to the Past, Ocarina, and most recently the Minish Cap. The rest haven't(7 games off the top of my head[original, zelda 2, majora's mask, wind waker, link's awakening, oracle of ages, oracle of seasons]).
Twilight Princess will be the 4th Zelda to have overlapping worlds(past/future, light/dark, normal/twilight, big/small), and the 3rd console release to have different ability sets(young/old link, the masks, and now wolf/normal link).
It looks pretty epic though. The horse battles, some of the boss fight footage we've seen in trailers. Zelda's never really been all that dialog heavy, which was always part of it's charm.
Let me throw my sword with power when I have full hearts and the master sword. I've missed that.
The revival of the dark world from Link to the Past is a nice touch. I watched the trailer a little while back and was kind of surprised they did that, until I noted the dark motes/style. So, he's a wolf now, not a bunny.
Actually, my first FF was 1. Then 2(4 JP) and 3(6JP), and I still hold that 6 is the best, closely followed by 5 and 4. 7 wowed me with eye candy(not much else), but it annoys the piss out of me now with how dated it looks(and how much worse it looks then I remember), whereas the old sprite based games don't. And I don't really care about any of the characters, most of them are void of any backstory.
The only people I find that dispute the SNES generation as being the best, are those that picked up the series at 7. They may rank 7 highly, they may enjoy the entire series, but 6 always comes out on top.
It went from being linear to open ended after that. Which a lot of us like.
A lot of us like the character development via all the backstory. Celes visiting the grave of General Leo. Locke's girl. Shadow. Setzer and the airship. Revisiting the castle to get the Esper. Etc. Etc. Each character got as much development as main characters get these days.
It was the first and the last FF to do that. It was also the last FF before "hit a button wait 3 minutes" and cut scene hell set in.
For me, 10 was the final straw. For some, it was the PS generation.
Oh, and if you want to see X-2s system done right, check out 5.
I'd worry more about Nintendo. They have a few patents on emulation.
They didn't really go after pocketNES, but I'd expect they would certainly go after any working out of the box emulator for the PSP because it's not their hardware.
They'd also probably go after Sony for allowing it, and guess what, they would probably win the lawsuit. You're talking running pirated games on the competition's hardware.
If you want those old games, there's a wide range of hardware capable of playing them. Including the GBA via purchased cart or via flash cart(up to the SMS/NES, DS should go up to SNES/Genesis via various exploits with the same hardware), laptops, palm devices, pocket PCs, and the GP32.
Re:When will the public revolt about issues like t
on
GPS-tracked Clothing
·
· Score: 1
Whether or not people realize what they really want. Hardware or Software.
I feel sorry for Sony fans. They have nothing to really be fans of except bad laser assemblies and a bad controller that's been around so long we're so used to it that it doesn't matter how bad it is anymore. Certainly not games, because outside of a few titles(notably Gran Turismo), Sony doesn't make games, they make platforms. The games have only been coming because most people buy the platform to get the games that haven't come out yet. You could just as easily substitute a 360, or a Revolution for that PS3 and the exact same thing would happen. PS3 projects would be retooled to go to whichever system has the marketshare.
The games are also why Nintendo is always a safe bet, if you like their stuff that is. Because you know over the course of the hardware's life you're going to get a certain set of titles, as well as some new ones, and if you enjoy those titles you've justified your cost of admission. Third party titles are a bonus.
That's also why Microsoft is a safe bet if you love Live and Halo enough. If you like console ports of PC properties. Any third party titles from the old boys are a bonus.
Imagine the best piece of computing hardware on the planet coming out, but there's no software for it, and it's released by a company that isn't known for their software. Would you buy it? I wouldn't, it's a sucker's purchase.
Anyway, here's what I see happening, and it's all because of the PSP. Everyone who wanted a PSP probably has one by now, but not enough people bought them to overturn the DS's 2:1 lead(which in turn is wayyy behind the GBA). In turn, we aren't seeing many exciting games coming out for the PSP, nor have we heard much about new in-development games of any magnitude. We are seeing some cool toys hitting the DS. So the wait and see people will likely gravitate over there if they go anywahere. If this cements itself, and continues up until the PS3 launch(I'd say this is a safe bet), all of the early adopter, "Sony's totally gonna get all those great 3rd party games," people are gonna be a bit gun-shy about the PS3, on the tail of the relative failure of the PSP.
Toss in Sony muscling devs to make PSP games if they want to make PS2/PS3 games, and boom, the game is Microsoft's and Nintendo's to lose. And that's a SEGA v. Nintendo style battle right there. It's gonna all come down to marketshare, development difficulty, and licensing cost. It's wayyy too early to call it, but if I'm not overestimating my fellow gamers, Sony's gonna wind up the loser.
If I'm wrong, and if Sony wins round three mainly because Square wanted more space for FMV 10 years ago, I'm going to be a sad sad panda.
Oh and as to EA. Who cares what they have to say? So they're the #1 publisher? Nintendo's #2(sometimes even surpassing EA by hitting the #1 slot) and no one seems to listen to them because of that.
The top flips up, revealing 4 GCN controller ports and 2 GCN memory card slots. So we'll still be able to use our wavebirds for GCN games at the very least.
Wait a minute... The DS has a WIFI boot function with enough storage to boot NES/SNES games wirelessly.... and it's been announced as having connectivity with the Revolution.
Online isn't an innovation. It's been around for over 20 years in one form or another without ever catching on. The Famicom had a network in Japan for example, and the Dreamcast had modem support and online play. It still hasn't completely caught on. 2 million people play live. That's a 10% XBox penetration and 1% total penetration.
Same with downloadable content. SEGA had a cable service that let you download and play games.
Non-exclusivity? Now you're smoking crack. There have always been ports and cross-platform games going back to the SNES generation.
Nintendo and Sony are the big "other people stealing ideas" companies of this generation. Backwards compatibility and first party wireless controllers that work.
Slashdot Mirror
PocketPC and Palms are thataway -->
Hey now, emacs is great for us 3-armed galactic presidents. We hardly EVER have to call people over to help us hit a key combination.
Umm... the only thing they're doing for the 360 version of FFXI is upping the resolution. Not redoing textures, not adding content, not improving the engine in any other way...
Of all the reasons I can think of to get a 360(and there are several, they just don't appeal to me), FFXI isn't very high on the list.
Guess what leads to a greater propensity towards violence? Poverty, injustice and indifference. All I'm saying is that there are far more causes of violence, and keeping 'violent' games out of the hands of children is pretty low on the list.
Yup. Poverty is another risk factor. Indifference and injustice, now you're just trying to turn a phrase. If you can point out where I said violent video games caused an increase in risk, I'll eat my hat. You can't, because I never said that. I didn't even imply it. I explicitely stated that there was no statistically relevant study that pointed out any such correlation without ever revealing my opinion on the matter in one way or another. The only question I raised was whether or not anecdotes from the 20-something set, and studies done primarily on us would continue to hold relevance to this perenial debate. Now... what do you not understand about these statements?
Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).
Way to go captain obvious. Now, point out where I contradicted you just now. Raising a question is different than contradiction btw. FYI. It's a hypothetical, say in 6 years we have full immersive "sim-sense" and there's no difference between a game and an actual experience. That's the kind of shit I was questioning, and the gap between that and the current/next generations of games, which IS closing btw(just look at what I grew up with versus THIS generation).
The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.
Ahh... So you didn't want to be on topic. You just wanted an argument... or Karma.
You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.
Ahh, implicitly. What a wonderful word for making shit up. I stated, and I quote myself here, "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto the parents who buy their kids these violent forms of media." I think the implication there is that enforced age restrictions would shut up the social conservatives by allowing them to shift the blame onto the parents who bought the games.
Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?
Apparently, you're missing any form of science education, because that's precisely the logic the media violence folks use. In the case of both passive smoking(2nd hand smoke) and media violence(gaming and stallone movies[although I think they might be onto something in the case of crap like 'Stop or My Mom will Shoot']), there is NO evidence that either causes a statistically significant increased risk for anything(apart from smelly clothing in the case of 2nd hand smoke). That's what smoking does by the way, it increases your risk(significantly) of various cancers(lung and throat) and other diseases, but it doesn't cause them(you live long enough w/o something else failing, and you're getting cancer). You're not going to smoke one cigarette and catch cancer.
I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somew
Oh I can relate to it.
The only question I have is, is it relevant to the argument?
I grew up on the 8-bit and atari generation. By the time the SNES and things like doom hit, I was in my teens. Now, I'm in my 20s. The games have grown more and more realistic, in fact they strive for realism. I see no current indications of this trend reversing.
So, are our experiences... are the current studies which can't show any statistically significant relationship between violent video game play and later violent behavior relevant to an argument that basically boils down to the effects of current games? No one can ultimately say one way or the other how it's going to pan out until it's no longer relevant to the then-future situation... so it keeps being rehashed over and over and over again.
Seriously, this has come up more times than I can count anymore.
I'm tired of it. Just enforce the damn ratings by law, all of us adults will still be able to hit the local gaming shop and pickup GTA4. If you're underage and your parents approve, you can still play it. If you shoot up a school or something, you had bad parents. End of story.
There were violent movies, books and comics. I was born in a violent part of my city, and I'm not violent.
Well, I could run to a local college library and pull up a slew of case studies that say actual exposure to violence during various stages of development produces a variety or reactions, one of the possible ones being an increased propensity towards violence. Exposure in this case being domestic abuse, growing up in a war zone, going to war, witnessing gangland violence first hand and the like with various levels of intervention and interaction. There's a metric assload of them. Hell, I think it's so accepted that violent experiences during childhood have traumatic effects it's covered in Psych 101.
The problem is not with enforcing game ratings. The problem is believing that violent games cause violent tendencies.
The article "pro-gaming expert" actually came out against game ratings with two contradictory reasons:
1. Retailers would stop stocking mature titles because ratings were enforced. (I presume they would do so only because of a massive demand decline.)
2. 85% of all mature titles get into children's hands because an adult purchases them for them so enforcing ratings isn't necessary.
Secondly, I never said violent games cause violent tendancies, in fact I even parenthetically pointed out that there is no statistically relevant link available atm between the violent behavior and media violence exposure(via interactive or passive media).
Alcohol, in excessive amounts, has been known to cause violence and reckless behavior in individuals. Smoking causes second-hand pollutants which endanger other people. How does playing Metal Gear Solid 3 on my PS2 harm anyone directly?
Alcohol leads to a lowering of inhibitions which can lead to violence(in vino veritas). It doesn't always do so. In fact, most of the time it doesn't. Smoking however, only harms the individual partaking of that habit(no, sorry anti-smoking people, it does nothing to you, unless of course we do junk science small sample sizes unadjusted for those small sizes with no control or toss in a discredited report from the EPA... but hey, Doom had something to do with columbine, so I guess we can swing it both ways if you want!).
Why should there be any blame with respect to games at all? There are a lot of social factors that lead towards violence. Remember that the Japanese and Europeans, amongst others, play the same games, but have lower rates of violence.
Oh I don't know. Maybe because some people insist on assigning blame to games when it could easily be shifted to the parents who buy the games. They're "bad parents" much like the ones that buy kegs for their kids on weekends.
I don't feel like getting into a social context argument. So I'll just ignore that. But anyway, out of curiousity, did you not read the comment before you replied to it? Because it looks like you just skimmed it and tried to be a karma whoring slashbot from over here.
Huh? They did not have the types of games when I was growing up that they have now. So I can't really weigh in and say "I played violent games, and I'm ok."
About the most violent thing I can think of that I played was Doom. Which is comically cartoony compared to stuff like Manhunt or the newer GTAs. Or hell, any modern FPS. Mortal Kombat is also NOTHING compared to what we have now. Go back and play it. Not only are the situations found within ridiculous, but the graphics are downright tame. I've seen better gore effects in foreign low-budget horror flicks(which I also watched growing up, and apart from a sick sense of humor, I'm pretty well-adjusted). There's also looney tunes. None of this is in the same league as some modern games!
We just didn't have the tech to produce violent situations with as much realism as we can now. We don't have as much now as we will next year, and we won't have as much then as we will 5-6 years from now. Now, does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. We know that exposure to violence during certain stages of development effects people(and even later in life, PTSD and the like). The extent to which simulated or indirectly viewed violence(IE: via the news) does is still up in the air(with current data pointing to it not being statistically significant[but hey, neither is 2nd hand smoke!]) because psych is such a voodoo art soft science(and the professor quoted here isn't a developmental psychologist). Now, as the line blurs between reality and gameplay due to improved physics, graphics, AI and a miscellany of immersion techniques, this could very well change. That's tangenital however.
Now, believe it or not, that was just a big tangent on the "I played violent games growing up and I'm FINE" argument I keep seeing. No you didn't, at least not compared to what's out right now.
Anyway, I certainly can't think of a valid argument AGAINST enforcing game ratings when it comes to sales to minors. So you can't buy an M rated game if you aren't 18 by law rather than by inconsistent policy. Oh no. You can't buy cigarettes or alcohol either(I mean, after all, shouldn't parents, you know PARENT? Keep their kids off smokes and booze! Why should Uncle Sam be involved?).
It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto the parents who buy their kids these violent forms of media. The big demographic for these games is the 18-30yo set anyway, so any fears about retailers discontinuing stocking them is just downright paranoid. I mean, you can buy adult adult content at any DVD store. What makes you think Gamestop is going to stop carrying GTA? Because both they and the clerk will get fined if they sell to your underaged ass?
*looks up from smashing crates into people with the gravity gun*
:-D
Nooooo......
And hey, which is cooler, the warehouse scene where they're boxing the ark from Indiana Jones, or a bunch of pallets? How would you like it if the "very special award" arrived in a cardboard box full of peanuts rather than a wooden crate labeled "frage-eel"?
Has the PSP launched in Europe yet? I've pretty much stopped caring about the system so I haven't really been following it.
If it hasn't, the aggregate demand from the US + Japan + a European launch could be what requires the sudden production jump.
I don't think there's any way in hell it's just us + japan requiring it.
The revolution is rumored to be using a 4 core PPC processor running at 2.5GHz. The 360 is a 3 core PPC processor running at 3GHz. The GPUs are both ATI and comparable. Memory, bandwidth and structure are different.
No, it's on par with MS's 360 according to every bit of info that's been leaked. The only difference is the number of cores on the CPU and clock speed, but they're equivalent. Both are a bit below the theoretical max performance on the PS3. Which of course is a number pulled out of the nether regions of a jack-ass. The GCN is below the theoretical max performance of the PS2, and it looks 2 times better and doesn't have load times.
Therefore, I can conclude that the Revolution will look/perform better than the PS3. Right?
Oh and of course the revolution doesn't do some of the things the 360/PS3 will do(like uber HD resolutions), but it's in the same league when it comes to RAW CPU/GPU POWAH.
Ehh... four swords is kind of a bastard child in the franchise. It's basically link to the past with up to 4 players. So I didn't include it.
Well, they could go with a half-life style dialog system. Where the main character NEVER talks, but everyone else does.
I don't think Zelda really needs dialog though.
Nintendo has an ATI developed GPU. Same as MS. Sony's using something Nvidia developed.
Yea, it's been done 3 times in the zelda series. Link to the Past, Ocarina, and most recently the Minish Cap. The rest haven't(7 games off the top of my head[original, zelda 2, majora's mask, wind waker, link's awakening, oracle of ages, oracle of seasons]).
Twilight Princess will be the 4th Zelda to have overlapping worlds(past/future, light/dark, normal/twilight, big/small), and the 3rd console release to have different ability sets(young/old link, the masks, and now wolf/normal link).
It looks pretty epic though. The horse battles, some of the boss fight footage we've seen in trailers. Zelda's never really been all that dialog heavy, which was always part of it's charm.
Let me guess... you couldn't play Kingdom Hearts either? Because if Wind Waker made you cringe, the under the sea level would probably kill you.
Let me throw my sword with power when I have full hearts and the master sword. I've missed that.
The revival of the dark world from Link to the Past is a nice touch. I watched the trailer a little while back and was kind of surprised they did that, until I noted the dark motes/style. So, he's a wolf now, not a bunny.
Actually, my first FF was 1. Then 2(4 JP) and 3(6JP), and I still hold that 6 is the best, closely followed by 5 and 4. 7 wowed me with eye candy(not much else), but it annoys the piss out of me now with how dated it looks(and how much worse it looks then I remember), whereas the old sprite based games don't. And I don't really care about any of the characters, most of them are void of any backstory.
The only people I find that dispute the SNES generation as being the best, are those that picked up the series at 7. They may rank 7 highly, they may enjoy the entire series, but 6 always comes out on top.
It went from being linear to open ended after that. Which a lot of us like.
A lot of us like the character development via all the backstory. Celes visiting the grave of General Leo. Locke's girl. Shadow. Setzer and the airship. Revisiting the castle to get the Esper. Etc. Etc. Each character got as much development as main characters get these days.
It was the first and the last FF to do that. It was also the last FF before "hit a button wait 3 minutes" and cut scene hell set in.
For me, 10 was the final straw. For some, it was the PS generation.
Oh, and if you want to see X-2s system done right, check out 5.
I'd worry more about Nintendo. They have a few patents on emulation.
They didn't really go after pocketNES, but I'd expect they would certainly go after any working out of the box emulator for the PSP because it's not their hardware.
They'd also probably go after Sony for allowing it, and guess what, they would probably win the lawsuit. You're talking running pirated games on the competition's hardware.
If you want those old games, there's a wide range of hardware capable of playing them. Including the GBA via purchased cart or via flash cart(up to the SMS/NES, DS should go up to SNES/Genesis via various exploits with the same hardware), laptops, palm devices, pocket PCs, and the GP32.
Oh, maybe when it's not a hoax by contagiousmedia.
Whether or not people realize what they really want. Hardware or Software.
I feel sorry for Sony fans. They have nothing to really be fans of except bad laser assemblies and a bad controller that's been around so long we're so used to it that it doesn't matter how bad it is anymore. Certainly not games, because outside of a few titles(notably Gran Turismo), Sony doesn't make games, they make platforms. The games have only been coming because most people buy the platform to get the games that haven't come out yet. You could just as easily substitute a 360, or a Revolution for that PS3 and the exact same thing would happen. PS3 projects would be retooled to go to whichever system has the marketshare.
The games are also why Nintendo is always a safe bet, if you like their stuff that is. Because you know over the course of the hardware's life you're going to get a certain set of titles, as well as some new ones, and if you enjoy those titles you've justified your cost of admission. Third party titles are a bonus.
That's also why Microsoft is a safe bet if you love Live and Halo enough. If you like console ports of PC properties. Any third party titles from the old boys are a bonus.
Imagine the best piece of computing hardware on the planet coming out, but there's no software for it, and it's released by a company that isn't known for their software. Would you buy it? I wouldn't, it's a sucker's purchase.
Anyway, here's what I see happening, and it's all because of the PSP. Everyone who wanted a PSP probably has one by now, but not enough people bought them to overturn the DS's 2:1 lead(which in turn is wayyy behind the GBA). In turn, we aren't seeing many exciting games coming out for the PSP, nor have we heard much about new in-development games of any magnitude. We are seeing some cool toys hitting the DS. So the wait and see people will likely gravitate over there if they go anywahere. If this cements itself, and continues up until the PS3 launch(I'd say this is a safe bet), all of the early adopter, "Sony's totally gonna get all those great 3rd party games," people are gonna be a bit gun-shy about the PS3, on the tail of the relative failure of the PSP.
Toss in Sony muscling devs to make PSP games if they want to make PS2/PS3 games, and boom, the game is Microsoft's and Nintendo's to lose. And that's a SEGA v. Nintendo style battle right there. It's gonna all come down to marketshare, development difficulty, and licensing cost. It's wayyy too early to call it, but if I'm not overestimating my fellow gamers, Sony's gonna wind up the loser.
If I'm wrong, and if Sony wins round three mainly because Square wanted more space for FMV 10 years ago, I'm going to be a sad sad panda.
Oh and as to EA. Who cares what they have to say? So they're the #1 publisher? Nintendo's #2(sometimes even surpassing EA by hitting the #1 slot) and no one seems to listen to them because of that.
The top flips up, revealing 4 GCN controller ports and 2 GCN memory card slots. So we'll still be able to use our wavebirds for GCN games at the very least.
Wait a minute... The DS has a WIFI boot function with enough storage to boot NES/SNES games wirelessly.... and it's been announced as having connectivity with the Revolution.
Consoles aren't... microcomputers?
Dear god man!
And if you believe Sony's specs(1/16th the power of the EARTH SIMULATOR!?), I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Online isn't an innovation. It's been around for over 20 years in one form or another without ever catching on. The Famicom had a network in Japan for example, and the Dreamcast had modem support and online play. It still hasn't completely caught on. 2 million people play live. That's a 10% XBox penetration and 1% total penetration.
Same with downloadable content. SEGA had a cable service that let you download and play games.
Non-exclusivity? Now you're smoking crack. There have always been ports and cross-platform games going back to the SNES generation.
Nintendo and Sony are the big "other people stealing ideas" companies of this generation. Backwards compatibility and first party wireless controllers that work.