Sony is trying to do way too much with this portable.
The whole idea of a portable gaming system is to have quick and easy access to games while you are on the go (fast load times, battery usage). We also don't want to pay an arm and a leg for the system and games because they generally don't get nearly as much use as our console systems get at home. So Sony has failed on two important "requirements" in my eyes. Handhelds aren't ready to move away from cartridge based games yet...so there goes fast loading and battery life. The technology just isn't there yet (well it's there it's just too expensive). And this system is way too expensive as it is. Who in their right mind would buy one of these. I guess the idiots that shelled out 400+ bucks for an ipod would be interested, but I digress.
You would think that Sony would of taken a look at the history of portable gaming systems and tried to get away from the tactics tried by Sega, Atari, etc. It didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?
Certainly not better at being a portable game system. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Sony is making an all-in-one portable media system that doesn't really do anything great. I hesitate to even put it in the same league as the DS. It doesn't really matter what Sony does at this point, they're locked in to a system well over the price of the DS, and it doesn't even compare to the DS in the most important feature of the system.
haha I feel your pain. I tried ATI for my last card upgrade and found out quickly how lacking the Catalyst and even Omega drivers were for OpenGL. I'll never go back to ATI.
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Nintendo always concentrates on the video game aspect of a handheld game system. It's hard to believe they've always dominated the handheld market doing business like that! *end sarcasm*
What's even funnier is the fact that you bash Nintendo when Sony (i'm sure you're "fanb0i" #1) doesn't offer any online capability on the PSP.
That's right. You're definitely not their target market. Nintendo is into making GAMING machines. Go buy an NGage. They do one thing and they do it better than anyone else. Pretty simple.
I see what you are saying. I didn't RTFA either hah but at first glance I thought it was just like the techniques I learned college for omitting hidden surfaces. What you're describing sounds pretty nice.
well after thinking about it more there is one major difference. It sounds like FF XII you never have the switch from overworld to the battle screen. Star Ocean let you move your characters freely around the battle field and let you issue attack/spell commands whenever you wanted.
Every time a new system comes out the first games are usually "rehashes" of games from the previous systems. The test is how original the games are that come out afterwards. Of course you're going to hear about Mario, Metroid, Animal Crossing, etc. for an initial lineup, just link Sony has theirs.
The nice thing about Nintendo is they will have the technology (wireless, 2 screens, etc.) to allow them to be way more innovative in the long run than Sony. Which is usually the case anyways.
Every system has their mascots. So should I have brought up GTA , or all the Tomb Raider games?
And then the rest of your post you simply helped prove the point I was making. Graphics don't make good games (regarless of the fact that the majority of the GameCube games DO in fact look great).
Each company has their own priority:
Microsoft: Advertising and hype + buying up companies to make exclusive games
PS2: Just shove a bunch of crap at people because they know quantity over quality is the key
Nintendo: Make quality games that play and look great.
When will people stop using "technology" as a reason for one system being superior to another? When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed. I'll stick with Nintendo all the way. They know what makes good games, not just what appeals to the sheep that only know about which system has the faster processor. The difference is negligable as far as technology goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony is trying to do way too much with this portable.
The whole idea of a portable gaming system is to have quick and easy access to games while you are on the go (fast load times, battery usage). We also don't want to pay an arm and a leg for the system and games because they generally don't get nearly as much use as our console systems get at home. So Sony has failed on two important "requirements" in my eyes. Handhelds aren't ready to move away from cartridge based games yet...so there goes fast loading and battery life. The technology just isn't there yet (well it's there it's just too expensive). And this system is way too expensive as it is. Who in their right mind would buy one of these. I guess the idiots that shelled out 400+ bucks for an ipod would be interested, but I digress.
You would think that Sony would of taken a look at the history of portable gaming systems and tried to get away from the tactics tried by Sega, Atari, etc. It didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?
Too bad SOE has nothing to do with FFXI.
The PSP is better at what???
Certainly not better at being a portable game system.
If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Sony is making an all-in-one portable media system that doesn't really do anything great. I hesitate to even put it in the same league as the DS. It doesn't really matter what Sony does at this point, they're locked in to a system well over the price of the DS, and it doesn't even compare to the DS in the most important feature of the system.
The cave explores YOU
I for one welcome our new software overlords.
haha I feel your pain. I tried ATI for my last card upgrade and found out quickly how lacking the Catalyst and even Omega drivers were for OpenGL. I'll never go back to ATI.
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Nintendo always concentrates on the video game aspect of a handheld game system. It's hard to believe they've always dominated the handheld market doing business like that! *end sarcasm*
What's even funnier is the fact that you bash Nintendo when Sony (i'm sure you're "fanb0i" #1) doesn't offer any online capability on the PSP.
Fascinating.
yeah Vampire Hunter D and Akira were great too. Classics =)
Ninja Scroll. That movie got me started on Anime. Will always be my favorite.
it's up to $140 as we speak. People that bought in at $85 made the right move. I'd be hitting the sell button right now.
That's right. You're definitely not their target market. Nintendo is into making GAMING machines. Go buy an NGage. They do one thing and they do it better than anyone else. Pretty simple.
Sony may have 100 developers but only a few of them will actually make good games. It's been that way since PS1. Quantity over Quality.
I see what you are saying. I didn't RTFA either hah but at first glance I thought it was just like the techniques I learned college for omitting hidden surfaces. What you're describing sounds pretty nice.
This algorithm of removing polygons that you can't see has been around for a long time...
Lowly Nintendo? It's funny how people tend to bash Nintendo in praise of Sony on such a regular basis.
Nintendo makes just as many great games as Sony does, they just don't release 50 shelf fillers in between like Sony. Open your eyes.
Mythbusters already busted this myth.
well after thinking about it more there is one major difference. It sounds like FF XII you never have the switch from overworld to the battle screen. Star Ocean let you move your characters freely around the battle field and let you issue attack/spell commands whenever you wanted.
The impression I got was the battle system plays a lot like Star Ocean.
Spoken like someone who hasn't written a line of code in their life.
are you people new to the console gaming scene?
Every time a new system comes out the first games are usually "rehashes" of games from the previous systems. The test is how original the games are that come out afterwards. Of course you're going to hear about Mario, Metroid, Animal Crossing, etc. for an initial lineup, just link Sony has theirs.
The nice thing about Nintendo is they will have the technology (wireless, 2 screens, etc.) to allow them to be way more innovative in the long run than Sony. Which is usually the case anyways.
This falls right in line with my favorite myth that
"Machine X is more powerful than machine Y...therefore machine Y sucks"
Let's raise the prices of legal downloadable music so people will stop downloading it illegally.
Brilliant.
If a game needs a hard drive and net access you can usually find me playing it on my computer.
Every system has their mascots. So should I have brought up GTA , or all the Tomb Raider games?
And then the rest of your post you simply helped prove the point I was making. Graphics don't make good games (regarless of the fact that the majority of the GameCube games DO in fact look great).
Each company has their own priority:
Microsoft: Advertising and hype + buying up companies to make exclusive games
PS2: Just shove a bunch of crap at people because they know quantity over quality is the key
Nintendo: Make quality games that play and look great.
When will people stop using "technology" as a reason for one system being superior to another? When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed. I'll stick with Nintendo all the way. They know what makes good games, not just what appeals to the sheep that only know about which system has the faster processor. The difference is negligable as far as technology goes.