It's nice to know that you didn't even read my post.
Aside from noting that the PS2's controller was unimpressive (since it was a recycled design, not necessarily knocking it), I pretty much noted that anything negative that could be said about the 360 launch goes double for the PS2's launch, and look where that landed Sony.
I even went so far as to note that the PS2 didn't have a notable library six months after launch while the 360 does and further stated surprise in expecting anything different for the PS3. While I did agree that anything is possible, I felt that the rest of the post made my stance clear.
Well silly me for assuming that a gaming machine's launch should be evaluated on its performance as a gaming machine. Also, unintentional uses can't really be credited as successes on Sony's part.
But I'm quite disappointed with the 360. The Xbox really appealed to me and it just seems that the 360 represents another step in the loss of the charm of console gaming. If the PS3 gains significant popularity, that'll be another few steps but at least Nintendo knows what it's doing.
It's an article comparing the two. And "affordable" is relative. Comparing it to the prices and capabilities of competitors (present and future) has everything to do with what makes it particularly affordable and to who.
In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.
You just described the PS2's launch.
Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found about it was the controller. It really felt nice. Aside from that, I was disinterested in the console as a whole. It was big. It crashed a bunch (until we put it on a better platform), and it didn't have any decent games.
Wow, PS2's launch again...
Now, they've got an impressive lineup. Fight Night, Burnout, Table Tennis, and Geometry Wars (o, how I am e'er addicted to you, geometry wars) make the system worth it. Although, I still think my friend is an idiot for justifying the 500$ he spent to get the system when it was still sold out everywhere.
An impressive lineup less than six months after launch? I can't help but think that this is more than could be said about the PS2...
so, being that you already own a 360, are you implying that you wouldn't purchase a ps3, no matter how strong the offering of launch titles?
So, after the PS2 and PSP (I honestly don't even remember any PS1 launch titles) launches you're actually expecting a good launch for the PS3? When has Sony ever had an impressive launch lineup?
I can only guess that it factors bottlenecks into the final score. It might even recommend different "class" games that aren't as CPU or GPU intensive as other areas.
I was thinking, with the way Sony's going consoles will lose the common hardware configuration. So it's possble that now there'll just be standard hardware configurations... say if you have certain parts from 2008 then your PS3 could be considered a PS3-8. Well could this philosophy of standardizing hardware be applied to PCs? Sony's edging closer to PCs, what if PCs also edge a bit closer to consoles? Hardware manufacturers could categorize their hardware to meet a specified performance on a specified hardware setup to label their hardware with standardized performance designators.
That's not to say I'm in favor of this... but having those standards in place, I feel, would greatly help PC developers.They'd be shooting for a 2008b hardware configuration when developing their game rather than shooting in the dark. I realize I haven't really explained this too well and if somebody cares to elaborate further then feel free. I also realize that this would require a certain level of honesty and cooperation among hardware manufacturers that likely won't be happeneing any time soon, just a thought.
That's good to hear, so long as I'm logged into my profile, I'm sure.
But what about plugging it back in during play, anybody know if that'll let me avoid the download (say, to continue XBLM downloads I've started while I play my game...)?
Is there a way to uninstall the patch on the 360 version?
Since I'm sure it's an auto-update (meaning I have no say in whether or not the thing gets downloaded and installed), I'm going to opt to play with my 360 not connected to my network. Anybody know if plugging it back in once my game is loaded will let me avoid the download and register my acheivements to my Xbox Live account?
Yea, it's a job. And guess what? They got fired. Unless they can win other tournaments, that's why I said the competition will become more fierce. Perhaps certain players felt comfortable competing only in CPL or local matches. Well now those people will compete in more tourneys, and if they're good, no problem.
"leaving many pro-gamers wondering how to make their lifestyle pay."
Uhh, they could get fucking jobs. And aren't there other tournaments? If anything, the fewer prizes should mean that competition will only get more fierce. It sucks that it's cancelled for the year, but the world of competetive gaming isn't exactly over because of this.
Blitz: The League is an amazing game. I'd recomend getting it for the Xbox since the PS2 version's load times really got on my nerves. But be warned that it's significant for its presentation and not so much for its gameplay (not to say the gameplay doesn't stack up, it's just not as deep as you might like).
But I was instantly turned off by WarCraft 3's graphics. I guess to me an RTS is just more pure when it's sprite-based, maybe things just felt simpler that way.
This is news in that MS is playing the predictable card once again. At last year's E3, there was decent information on the 360, all running real-time (if unimrpessive) demos and a bunch of info on Live. Well the next day, Sony rolled out the CG-fest and didn't even address it, letting the fanboys jump to as many conclusions as they possibly could (like that Spring 2006 was the US release date too and everything they saw was real time).
So what does MS do this time? They schedule their conference at the latest possible time before the start of E3. Painfully obvious move, and one that I'm sure Sony anticipated. Sony can let the hype generate itself for 24 hours after their show's over before MS even has a chance to open its mouth, and mind you that when it (MS) does, it won't be prepared to respond to whatever Sony cooked up for this year.
Between the annoying ARGs and the embarassing "lucid dream" quotes, I'm struggling to figure out why the 360's marketing team even gets paid.
It must be extrmely interesting, considering I never shared it, nor did I call either platform the minority. The GP accused that people who prefer games like Mario Kart to "better" racers or SSB to "better" fighters (Nintendo fans) as the minority. I just pointed out what you did, and you just misinterpreted my post.
Eh? Then don't. I don't think they're "forcing" anything. Almost every PSP game has some network connectivity... but it's not always PvP or chatting with friends. "Exit" has tons of levels you can download. PQ lets you post high scores.
Uhh, yes. You're being forced to dedicate processes that are only useful to those who are online. That's the complaint. I don't really mind it so much since I'm quite fond of online gaming and consider home internet connection bandwidth to be a greater constraint than hardware limitations whenever I play an online game.
Nor are the multiplayer games diminished by multiplayer anymore than Super Mario Bros was ever diminished by letting your friends play with you. Assuming such is rather silly at this point. If anything, these days not being able to play with friends is a misfeature.
This isn't a silly point. It's silly to fail to realize that time spent on the multiplayer as far as a single player gamer is concerned is just time not spent on the single player, time spent making the game cost more to develop, time spent taking away from the single player, or any combination of the three. Also, claiming that a game lacking multiplayer is unfinished probably isn't the best way to have somebody who only plays single player see your point. You know, I'm just saying.
Many games benefit from small-scale multiplayer; not having it flattens a game in a dimension you don't realize exists until you've played over the network for a considerable period. I experienced this after playing FFXI for a long time, then tried playing a single-player RPG. A certain aspect seems very flattened.
Flatness? Or maybe you're just more fond of the experience than of the story? Hey, maybe playing with/against actual people makes the game seem more significant to you, but saying a game is flat because 4,000 people aren't playing in the same world as you is a bit much of a generalization.
Unlike the 360, the PS3 builds on a history of a multitude of every variety of game; these aren't going away or in any way being diminished simply by providing online functionality, especially since that functionality is not always going to be the same thing. And especially if it's easy to add.
Uhh, what? The PS3 isn't building on anything, developers might, with their games on the PS3... Anyway, that's just a matter of what kind of fanboy you are.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to know that you didn't even read my post.
Aside from noting that the PS2's controller was unimpressive (since it was a recycled design, not necessarily knocking it), I pretty much noted that anything negative that could be said about the 360 launch goes double for the PS2's launch, and look where that landed Sony.
I even went so far as to note that the PS2 didn't have a notable library six months after launch while the 360 does and further stated surprise in expecting anything different for the PS3. While I did agree that anything is possible, I felt that the rest of the post made my stance clear.
Well silly me for assuming that a gaming machine's launch should be evaluated on its performance as a gaming machine. Also, unintentional uses can't really be credited as successes on Sony's part.
But I'm quite disappointed with the 360. The Xbox really appealed to me and it just seems that the 360 represents another step in the loss of the charm of console gaming. If the PS3 gains significant popularity, that'll be another few steps but at least Nintendo knows what it's doing.
But yes, anything is possible.
It's an article comparing the two. And "affordable" is relative. Comparing it to the prices and capabilities of competitors (present and future) has everything to do with what makes it particularly affordable and to who.
Wow, PS2's launch again...
An impressive lineup less than six months after launch? I can't help but think that this is more than could be said about the PS2...
So, after the PS2 and PSP (I honestly don't even remember any PS1 launch titles) launches you're actually expecting a good launch for the PS3? When has Sony ever had an impressive launch lineup?
As compared to everybody else, who can only afford a PS3...?
I can only guess that it factors bottlenecks into the final score. It might even recommend different "class" games that aren't as CPU or GPU intensive as other areas.
But that's assuming they do it right...
Well I was thinking more along the lines of something people actually care about...
I was thinking, with the way Sony's going consoles will lose the common hardware configuration. So it's possble that now there'll just be standard hardware configurations... say if you have certain parts from 2008 then your PS3 could be considered a PS3-8. Well could this philosophy of standardizing hardware be applied to PCs? Sony's edging closer to PCs, what if PCs also edge a bit closer to consoles? Hardware manufacturers could categorize their hardware to meet a specified performance on a specified hardware setup to label their hardware with standardized performance designators.
That's not to say I'm in favor of this... but having those standards in place, I feel, would greatly help PC developers.They'd be shooting for a 2008b hardware configuration when developing their game rather than shooting in the dark. I realize I haven't really explained this too well and if somebody cares to elaborate further then feel free. I also realize that this would require a certain level of honesty and cooperation among hardware manufacturers that likely won't be happeneing any time soon, just a thought.
That's good to hear, so long as I'm logged into my profile, I'm sure.
But what about plugging it back in during play, anybody know if that'll let me avoid the download (say, to continue XBLM downloads I've started while I play my game...)?
Is there a way to uninstall the patch on the 360 version?
Since I'm sure it's an auto-update (meaning I have no say in whether or not the thing gets downloaded and installed), I'm going to opt to play with my 360 not connected to my network. Anybody know if plugging it back in once my game is loaded will let me avoid the download and register my acheivements to my Xbox Live account?
FYI
Not in a rush to confirm this, just passing on what I've heard. So yea, PC gamers are allowed to be a bit bitter.
Actually, I believe it was heading to both. It was just swamped with Mac press coverage because "omg, a good-looking new game for the Mac!"
Judging from your spelling, I'd say any time you spend gaming and not studying is a wai-excuse me, waste.
Yea, it's a job. And guess what? They got fired. Unless they can win other tournaments, that's why I said the competition will become more fierce. Perhaps certain players felt comfortable competing only in CPL or local matches. Well now those people will compete in more tourneys, and if they're good, no problem.
Blitz: The League is an amazing game. I'd recomend getting it for the Xbox since the PS2 version's load times really got on my nerves. But be warned that it's significant for its presentation and not so much for its gameplay (not to say the gameplay doesn't stack up, it's just not as deep as you might like).
Nostalgia...
But I was instantly turned off by WarCraft 3's graphics. I guess to me an RTS is just more pure when it's sprite-based, maybe things just felt simpler that way.
Any girl that tastes like chicken has to have something wrong with her. Stay the fuck away from that...
I'll see your hope for SC2 and raise it a "I hope it's still sprite-based."
Hey, I can dream can't I?
This is news in that MS is playing the predictable card once again. At last year's E3, there was decent information on the 360, all running real-time (if unimrpessive) demos and a bunch of info on Live. Well the next day, Sony rolled out the CG-fest and didn't even address it, letting the fanboys jump to as many conclusions as they possibly could (like that Spring 2006 was the US release date too and everything they saw was real time).
So what does MS do this time? They schedule their conference at the latest possible time before the start of E3. Painfully obvious move, and one that I'm sure Sony anticipated. Sony can let the hype generate itself for 24 hours after their show's over before MS even has a chance to open its mouth, and mind you that when it (MS) does, it won't be prepared to respond to whatever Sony cooked up for this year.
Between the annoying ARGs and the embarassing "lucid dream" quotes, I'm struggling to figure out why the 360's marketing team even gets paid.
It must be extrmely interesting, considering I never shared it, nor did I call either platform the minority. The GP accused that people who prefer games like Mario Kart to "better" racers or SSB to "better" fighters (Nintendo fans) as the minority. I just pointed out what you did, and you just misinterpreted my post.
So how is the DS the minority and the PSP not?
Wasn't this a competition of higher education? We didn't do all too hot.
A console tailored to the needs of developers seems like a hell of a product to me.
Oh yea, it was shunned before it was even released by almost every Japanese developer, thus destroying its chances there.