hell considering what some late gen PS2 and Xbox games can do I'm sure the Wii will look fine
Perhaps you should consider what some of the latest GC games looked like. IIRC a lot of them looked better than PS2 games. So the Wii, being roughly 2x as powerful (not sure where that comes from, just hear it a lot), should look a good deal better than the GC. Let's not forget that programming for the Wii is supposedly a lot like programming for the GC, so devs will be able to make full use of its potential much earlier on.
Also, since it's only putting out 480p, it doesn't need all of that processing power to push all those extra pixels. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of 2007 there won't be a whole lot of difference in graphical appearance between the consoles. Unless, of course, the PS3 does what Sony says it can do, which with their track record, is doubtful.
Start the game by choosing a class that defines your initial skillset and ease of developing certain sets/types of skills. Then as you level up and progress through the game, the class becomes less and less a definition of your character. All skills can be available to train, but certain types would be easier or more difficult. Once you reach a certain point you start having the most developed skills define the class the character belongs to. So if I start out as a berserker but soon find that magic is a lot of fun, I can slowly steer towards becoming a mage, and once I hit a certain point, my class distinction would change to mage, rather than berserker, and the benefits/restrictions of the class would be inversely proportional to my level. This way those just starting out can get a boost in effectiveness, but are somewhat limited in what they can do, whereas those that have been around a long time get relatively no boost from their class at all, but can do whatever they want.
Peeps is slang from the mid-nineties that was cool for about 2 weeks. Now it's used exclusively by preppy white people who wish/think they were/are "hip" and/or cool. Also sometimes used by wiggers (for lack of a just as descriptive yet less offensive term).
Uh, dipshit, the PS3 by itself is the cheapest 1080p BluRay player on the market
Yes, because this really matters when few of the small number of people that actually have HDTVs have ones that can render 1080p.
27 playable games at TGS
Irrelevant until they actually show up at TGS. And just because there are 27 playable games, doesn't mean they'll all be ready for launch. They could be "playable" in that you can play through a 5 minute demo of the game.
By "nobody" do you mean nobody in the US or Japan? I'm sure people in Europe care. It's not like many of them are going to travel to the US or Japan for a conference. Sure, they get the same internet we do, but still. I'm sure E3 gets more coverage in the US than anywhere else, TGS gets more coverage in Japan than anywhere else, and so on. By not showing any games in Leipzig, they're not really doing a whole lot to capture the (albeit smaller) European market. They should have had playable demos at E3 (can't recall if they did or not; if they did, I didn't hear much about them in the news, which probably isn't good either) and should definitely have some by now, with launch being three months away.
...is why Sony doesn't have any playable titles yet. Are they not ready? Do they not want to show off an unfinished game? If they're not ready now, are they going to be ready for launch? This doesn't really speak well for their readiness for a November launch. At this point, the launch titles should at least be playable to a point, and the remaining development should be mostly finishing touches and bug fixes. I just don't get where Sony is going with this whole "no playable titles" thing. Anyone want to bet on if they'll actually be able to deliver playable titles at the Tokyo Game Show?
That depends on how you define failure. I understand that Nintendo made a decent profit off of the GC. That doesn't sound like a failure to me. I'm not sure about the Xbox. I don't really follow it.
If you define failure as how many are sold, well, we'd need the actual number of PS2s sold (not shipped) and how many weren't replacing a broken PS2 (because, honestly, buying a new PS2 because your old one broke doesn't really count as there's still only one being used).
I would bet on them looking rather similar. If there's any improvement on the Wii, it would simply be because of the Wii's more powerful GPU. However, I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did make some graphical enhancements for the Wii version.
What I'm finding odd is it sounds like there is gonna be a gamecube version as well.
It was orignally planned to be GC only. IIRC once it got pushed back a time or two, they decided to add in some enhancements if it was played on the Wii. Then eventually decided to make a seperate Wii version and take advantage of the Wii's capabilities. Now it appears that the main focus is on the Wii version.
That was an awesome game. I wish more games would implement the "where you hit the person makes a difference" factor as well (or even better) as Bushido Blade. I loved the fact that you could throw a knife into someone's head at the start of the match and kill them, but if you only kept hitting the person in the arms or legs it didn't do a whole lot of damage.
As for the failed drives on the PS2, IIRC there were a number that simply failed to play DVDs. Most games played fine, but stick a DVD in there, and you got nothing. How does that relate to the PS3? Well, DVD was fairly new tech when the PS2 first came out, and they had quite a few problems getting it to work consistently. Seeing that Sony was originally a hardware company, this should not have been an issue, especially since working DVD drives were already in production. As for the PS3, Blu-ray is brand new tech (granted Sony developed it) and with the track record they have with the PS2, it's reasonable that similar problems will occur with the PS3.
As for the rootkit, it doesn't matter if Joe Blow knows what a rootkit is. It was in the news, there was a class-action lawsuit, and if Joe Blow happened to be one of the people who got their computer screwed up, he'll know enough to know that Sony decided to rape its customers.
The point of the GameBoy thing was just to refute your statement that the PS2 was the only system to provide backward compatibility. And that the GameBoy line did it flawlessly, whereas the PS2 did not. Thus making it reasonable to assume that the Wii will have near perfect backwards compatibility (and in hardware, rather than software) and that the PS3 will most likely have some issues.
As for the Nintendo games, Mario, Zelda, and Metroid have been around since the NES, and they still manage to be some of the best selling games. Let's also not forget that the FF and MGS franchises were originally on Nintendo platforms. When a Sony or Microsoft series has been around that long, then I'll say they have solid franchises. But not until then.
Sony has [free / $500] backwards compatibility that has a history of working better than any other console company's, we should expect it to not work properly.
HA! I laugh at your incompetence. Have we forgotten the backward compatibility of the GameBoy line? Yes, I realise it's another Nintendo system. CLEARLY I'M A FANBOY!
I also noticed that 1st party Nintendo games tend to be consistently entertaining while PS2 games were mostly shitty clones that weren't worth paying for. You stated that you think it is likely for the PS3 to fail, which at this point is still speculation.
First, I said, "If the PS3 bombs, which isn't altogether unlikely, this will most assuredly happen." That's hardly saying the PS3 is likely to fail, just that it's a possibility. Yes, nitpicking, but if you're going to reference it, get it right. Second, I was talking about third party games on the PS2 being shitty, not first party ones. Third, first party Nintendo games DO tend to be consistently entertaining. Sony/Microsoft ones seem hit or miss to me at times.
We have no reason to believe that the PS3 will only maybe play movies.
What about the abundance of failed DVD drives on the PS2?
And whatever your opinion is of Sony's rootkit fiasco, it doesn't seem to have much to do with a console.
No direct consequence, yes. However it does ruin some of their consumer confidence, which can lead to people turning away from the Sony brand.
ZOMGWTFBBQ SOMEONE FAVORS ONE CONSOLE OVER THE OTHER THEY MUST BE A FANBOY!!!11one Christ, get over yourself. Perhaps you should note the objectivism in my post. Fanboy posts lack any sort of objectivism.
Come on guys, calm down. We get it. Both of your e-peens are huge. Sadly, that means nothing in the real world. Are you going to bone your girl with it? No. You'll bone her with your real-life tiny wang./duck
That's a good point... I didn't think of it that way but it still has to be better than the way the Xbox 360 does it.
So... what exactly makes you think it will be better than the way the 360 does it? It's not like Sony exactly has a good track record when it comes to that sort of thing.
More games means more good games as well as bad, also what appeals to you or I may not appeal to someone else and games sold (good or "bad") means dollars reinvested in new development.
That's what you would expect to happen, and it may, but somehow I doubt it. While those dollars might get reinvested in new development, if the dollars came from a shitty game, that just reinforces the development house's perception that their shitty games sell, and they will continue to make shitty games. Also, because of the popularity of the PS2, everyone and their mom feels they can produce a best-selling game on it. I'm all for indie devs, but not when they shit out a clone just because they can. I'm betting that if we look at the ration of good to bad games for the GC, XBox, and PS2, the PS2 fails miserably.
Sony may not be manufacturing quite yet, but does that matter if they can meet launch targets?
Isn't that exactly the point of the article? As in, if they haven't started manufacturing yet, how can they expect to meet launch targets? Or, are they intentionally underproducing to cause a shortage and artificial sellouts? Or, does Sony have something up their sleeves that will allow them to put a shitton of PS3s together really fast? Etc, etc...
Seriously, these types of comments need to be modded off-topic or flamebait or something. Sure, we can call the editors' motives, skills, biases, etc. (sexual preferences, even?) into question, but that should be on articles that are bunk. This one however has some relevant info, and would be a legitimate concern for those of us (no matter how few there are) who actually want to get a PS3 at launch. (I personally will never buy one)
Pros: Inexspensive Inovative game play potental. Back-catalog of NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, Turbo-Grafix 16 games Complete backward compatability with GC Cons: May have weak 3rd party support. The key word here is MAY. From what I hear, the 3rd party support is looking to be much better than the GC. Games may not make use of the Wiimote. Bacwards compatability looks like it requires rebuying your old games. A couple dollars a pop. Big deal. Vurtual Boy, N64. First party games on the gamecube tend to be low on content or at least repetative. How is this a con only to the Wii? Most 1st party games, especially with franchises, tend to be repetative. At least the Nintendo ones tend to be consistently entertaining (Zelda, Metriod, Mario, SSB)
Xbox 360
Pros: Out now, has a head start on games. Xbox live makes multiplayer easier. Good controller design. Well, at least better than the old Xbox and DualShock/Shake Cons: "exclusive" titles for the Xbox tended to show up on the PS2 and/or GC... the same may happen here. Hardware is prone to breaking... not a good value. The stable of games so far seem to be mostly games I would not buy, like the Xbox. Since when is a personal preference a con? Just because you don't like the games doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. Which is not to say it's not true, just that it's not a valid con when phrased that way. Perhaps "The stable of games so far seem to be mostly games the general gaming crowd would not buy, like the Xbox" would be better, but you'd still need to back this up somehow, since you do not solely speak for the general gaming crowd. Backwards compatability is severly limited and from what I hear buggy.
PS3
Pros: Konami support. (I am a huge MGS fan) So save your money and wait a couple years until it comes out on the Wii. If the PS3 bombs, which isn't altogether unlikely, this will most assuredly happen Backwards compatability. Do you actually expect this to work properly? IIRC the PS2 wasn't totally backward compatible with the PS1; do you think the PS3 will be any different (not just with the PS1, but with the PS2 as well, and probably compounding issues with the PS1)? Let's also not forget the lack of memory card ports, so have fun purchasing that dongle and moving all your game saves over. Sony has a track record of more 3rd party support than the big N and Microsoft. Yes, the PS2 has a crapload of games. How many of them are actually any fun? Not shitty clones? Worth paying for? Blue Ray... if it is picked up by the industry... though on the other hand who cares what media the games are on? Cons: Price, this is kinda a big one but on the other hand... I spend 1500-2000 on a computer for gameing. Your computer probably also serves a lot of other purposes as well (word processing, email, internet, etc.) and is upgradeable to a point. The PS3, on the other hand, will play games and (maybe) movies. The PC is clearly worth the price tag. DRM... well I don't plan on stealing anything but if it makes my life harder then it's a con. The other ones have some sort of DRM, too. It's just not in the press as much and they don't have that pesky Root-kit fiasco in their past. Blue Ray... if it isn't picked up by the industry much of the value of the system is lost. Negative press may put a dent in 3rd party support.
*whoosh* I think that one went right over your head. That was the whole point of my comment. It'd be simply amazing for Sony to win both, but we here at/. wouldn't care and would still talk about how shitty Sony is, rather than praise them for achieving what appeared to be the impossible.
What shouldn't happen and what doesn't happen aren't always the same thing.
You could say that about anything. My car shouldn't have a piston shoot through the hood on the way home from work today, but, hey, it could happen. The point is, sure the Wiimote could have some problems, but given that it's not basing its position detection off of the light from the tv screen and rather by a sensor bar, it should be a great degree more accurate than a lightgun. The input is more standard. Sure, lighting could affect it, but it's not nearly as likely as with a lightgun.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, since it's only putting out 480p, it doesn't need all of that processing power to push all those extra pixels. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of 2007 there won't be a whole lot of difference in graphical appearance between the consoles. Unless, of course, the PS3 does what Sony says it can do, which with their track record, is doubtful.
Well, they aren't really useful for anything else.
</p>
Start the game by choosing a class that defines your initial skillset and ease of developing certain sets/types of skills. Then as you level up and progress through the game, the class becomes less and less a definition of your character. All skills can be available to train, but certain types would be easier or more difficult. Once you reach a certain point you start having the most developed skills define the class the character belongs to. So if I start out as a berserker but soon find that magic is a lot of fun, I can slowly steer towards becoming a mage, and once I hit a certain point, my class distinction would change to mage, rather than berserker, and the benefits/restrictions of the class would be inversely proportional to my level. This way those just starting out can get a boost in effectiveness, but are somewhat limited in what they can do, whereas those that have been around a long time get relatively no boost from their class at all, but can do whatever they want.
Yes, a lot of rambling. No, I didn't RTFA.
Peeps is slang from the mid-nineties that was cool for about 2 weeks. Now it's used exclusively by preppy white people who wish/think they were/are "hip" and/or cool. Also sometimes used by wiggers (for lack of a just as descriptive yet less offensive term).
True, but I'd personally rather have a brand new game without the typical eBay risk for under $10. Not to mention these would have added "features".
if the full game was for sale, and not just a patch. Then I could get GC games that I don't already have on the cheap.
Irrelevant until they actually show up at TGS. And just because there are 27 playable games, doesn't mean they'll all be ready for launch. They could be "playable" in that you can play through a 5 minute demo of the game.
What a fucking coward fanboy you are!
By "nobody" do you mean nobody in the US or Japan? I'm sure people in Europe care. It's not like many of them are going to travel to the US or Japan for a conference. Sure, they get the same internet we do, but still. I'm sure E3 gets more coverage in the US than anywhere else, TGS gets more coverage in Japan than anywhere else, and so on. By not showing any games in Leipzig, they're not really doing a whole lot to capture the (albeit smaller) European market. They should have had playable demos at E3 (can't recall if they did or not; if they did, I didn't hear much about them in the news, which probably isn't good either) and should definitely have some by now, with launch being three months away.
...is why Sony doesn't have any playable titles yet. Are they not ready? Do they not want to show off an unfinished game? If they're not ready now, are they going to be ready for launch? This doesn't really speak well for their readiness for a November launch. At this point, the launch titles should at least be playable to a point, and the remaining development should be mostly finishing touches and bug fixes. I just don't get where Sony is going with this whole "no playable titles" thing. Anyone want to bet on if they'll actually be able to deliver playable titles at the Tokyo Game Show?
Perhaps for a one-night-stand?
That depends on how you define failure. I understand that Nintendo made a decent profit off of the GC. That doesn't sound like a failure to me. I'm not sure about the Xbox. I don't really follow it.
If you define failure as how many are sold, well, we'd need the actual number of PS2s sold (not shipped) and how many weren't replacing a broken PS2 (because, honestly, buying a new PS2 because your old one broke doesn't really count as there's still only one being used).
I would bet on them looking rather similar. If there's any improvement on the Wii, it would simply be because of the Wii's more powerful GPU. However, I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did make some graphical enhancements for the Wii version.
That was an awesome game. I wish more games would implement the "where you hit the person makes a difference" factor as well (or even better) as Bushido Blade. I loved the fact that you could throw a knife into someone's head at the start of the match and kill them, but if you only kept hitting the person in the arms or legs it didn't do a whole lot of damage.
As for the failed drives on the PS2, IIRC there were a number that simply failed to play DVDs. Most games played fine, but stick a DVD in there, and you got nothing. How does that relate to the PS3? Well, DVD was fairly new tech when the PS2 first came out, and they had quite a few problems getting it to work consistently. Seeing that Sony was originally a hardware company, this should not have been an issue, especially since working DVD drives were already in production. As for the PS3, Blu-ray is brand new tech (granted Sony developed it) and with the track record they have with the PS2, it's reasonable that similar problems will occur with the PS3.
As for the rootkit, it doesn't matter if Joe Blow knows what a rootkit is. It was in the news, there was a class-action lawsuit, and if Joe Blow happened to be one of the people who got their computer screwed up, he'll know enough to know that Sony decided to rape its customers.
The point of the GameBoy thing was just to refute your statement that the PS2 was the only system to provide backward compatibility. And that the GameBoy line did it flawlessly, whereas the PS2 did not. Thus making it reasonable to assume that the Wii will have near perfect backwards compatibility (and in hardware, rather than software) and that the PS3 will most likely have some issues.
As for the Nintendo games, Mario, Zelda, and Metroid have been around since the NES, and they still manage to be some of the best selling games. Let's also not forget that the FF and MGS franchises were originally on Nintendo platforms. When a Sony or Microsoft series has been around that long, then I'll say they have solid franchises. But not until then.
First, I said, "If the PS3 bombs, which isn't altogether unlikely, this will most assuredly happen." That's hardly saying the PS3 is likely to fail, just that it's a possibility. Yes, nitpicking, but if you're going to reference it, get it right. Second, I was talking about third party games on the PS2 being shitty, not first party ones. Third, first party Nintendo games DO tend to be consistently entertaining. Sony/Microsoft ones seem hit or miss to me at times.
What about the abundance of failed DVD drives on the PS2?
No direct consequence, yes. However it does ruin some of their consumer confidence, which can lead to people turning away from the Sony brand.
ZOMGWTFBBQ SOMEONE FAVORS ONE CONSOLE OVER THE OTHER THEY MUST BE A FANBOY!!!11one Christ, get over yourself. Perhaps you should note the objectivism in my post. Fanboy posts lack any sort of objectivism.
Come on guys, calm down. We get it. Both of your e-peens are huge. Sadly, that means nothing in the real world. Are you going to bone your girl with it? No. You'll bone her with your real-life tiny wang. /duck
That's what you would expect to happen, and it may, but somehow I doubt it. While those dollars might get reinvested in new development, if the dollars came from a shitty game, that just reinforces the development house's perception that their shitty games sell, and they will continue to make shitty games. Also, because of the popularity of the PS2, everyone and their mom feels they can produce a best-selling game on it. I'm all for indie devs, but not when they shit out a clone just because they can. I'm betting that if we look at the ration of good to bad games for the GC, XBox, and PS2, the PS2 fails miserably.
Seriously, these types of comments need to be modded off-topic or flamebait or something. Sure, we can call the editors' motives, skills, biases, etc. (sexual preferences, even?) into question, but that should be on articles that are bunk. This one however has some relevant info, and would be a legitimate concern for those of us (no matter how few there are) who actually want to get a PS3 at launch. (I personally will never buy one)
Additions/corrections:
... the same may happen here.
Wii
Pros:
Inexspensive
Inovative game play potental.
Back-catalog of NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, Turbo-Grafix 16 games
Complete backward compatability with GC
Cons:
May have weak 3rd party support. The key word here is MAY. From what I hear, the 3rd party support is looking to be much better than the GC.
Games may not make use of the Wiimote.
Bacwards compatability looks like it requires rebuying your old games. A couple dollars a pop. Big deal.
Vurtual Boy, N64.
First party games on the gamecube tend to be low on content or at least repetative. How is this a con only to the Wii? Most 1st party games, especially with franchises, tend to be repetative. At least the Nintendo ones tend to be consistently entertaining (Zelda, Metriod, Mario, SSB)
Xbox 360
Pros:
Out now, has a head start on games.
Xbox live makes multiplayer easier.
Good controller design. Well, at least better than the old Xbox and DualShock/Shake
Cons:
"exclusive" titles for the Xbox tended to show up on the PS2 and/or GC
Hardware is prone to breaking... not a good value.
The stable of games so far seem to be mostly games I would not buy, like the Xbox. Since when is a personal preference a con? Just because you don't like the games doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. Which is not to say it's not true, just that it's not a valid con when phrased that way. Perhaps "The stable of games so far seem to be mostly games the general gaming crowd would not buy, like the Xbox" would be better, but you'd still need to back this up somehow, since you do not solely speak for the general gaming crowd.
Backwards compatability is severly limited and from what I hear buggy.
PS3
Pros:
Konami support. (I am a huge MGS fan) So save your money and wait a couple years until it comes out on the Wii. If the PS3 bombs, which isn't altogether unlikely, this will most assuredly happen
Backwards compatability. Do you actually expect this to work properly? IIRC the PS2 wasn't totally backward compatible with the PS1; do you think the PS3 will be any different (not just with the PS1, but with the PS2 as well, and probably compounding issues with the PS1)? Let's also not forget the lack of memory card ports, so have fun purchasing that dongle and moving all your game saves over.
Sony has a track record of more 3rd party support than the big N and Microsoft. Yes, the PS2 has a crapload of games. How many of them are actually any fun? Not shitty clones? Worth paying for?
Blue Ray... if it is picked up by the industry... though on the other hand who cares what media the games are on?
Cons:
Price, this is kinda a big one but on the other hand... I spend 1500-2000 on a computer for gameing. Your computer probably also serves a lot of other purposes as well (word processing, email, internet, etc.) and is upgradeable to a point. The PS3, on the other hand, will play games and (maybe) movies. The PC is clearly worth the price tag.
DRM... well I don't plan on stealing anything but if it makes my life harder then it's a con. The other ones have some sort of DRM, too. It's just not in the press as much and they don't have that pesky Root-kit fiasco in their past.
Blue Ray... if it isn't picked up by the industry much of the value of the system is lost.
Negative press may put a dent in 3rd party support.
*whoosh* I think that one went right over your head. That was the whole point of my comment. It'd be simply amazing for Sony to win both, but we here at /. wouldn't care and would still talk about how shitty Sony is, rather than praise them for achieving what appeared to be the impossible.
I imagined the comic book guy from The Simpsons.