PS3 x Revolution x Xbox-360

[Taylor--]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

@ Sync13 and co.

Sure, sure... "It wasn't kiddy and it was a good console" -and pigs fly. But there is no reason to repeat what I have already argumented succesfully HERE. Pretty long (if interesting) reading, though, so don't tell you weren't warned.

Look at the window some day, and maybe you will see pigs flying if you choose to think that way about the Gamecube. Please explain, seeing as how your a "Nintendo's kiddy" believer, to why Nintendo is kiddy.

[Ending]

You would had found your answer behind just one click. But here it is on a silver plate:

Jusi isn't the only one. Ever since N64 was published Nintendo has done nothing but produced kiddy-grade games after another. Yes, they did attempt to swipe off this reputation with such brands as Resident Evil, but that is hardly worth mentioning due of the inconcistency of it. I bought NES when it was still brand new and loved it. Same with SNES and I still play those games on emulators. N64 was okay, but I was a sucker for missing the prime of PSX, for N64 didn't have too many games to play. A few years later Gamecube was published, which I also owned for a year or so before selling it out. :/

Of these, Gamecube was the first real disappointment and all -and I mean all- their games since SMB64 have been either "nice-for-one-playthrough" (Metroid Prime 1) or mediocre at best. Luigi's Mansion, Super Mario Sunshine, MP, Zelda... You name it. Then their most recent releases... Man, those are just plain awful. Anyone here tried "Superstar Saga", their latest release? If yes, then you know what I mean, for that game proves without question what Nintendo is today: a toy-maker.

So I have to agree with Jusi; Revolution is quite likely their last attempt to maintain some kind of presence in the markets where bigger, stronger companies are ruling now. It's not a pity either: N was really humongous during its prime, but slowly they have squandered their product lineups, wealth, and development. A company like that deserves to die.

...And an answer to the automatic "NO! U R N00B! NIN RULZ!" replies can be found from the same place, so throw at me something better.

[xxxplizit]

Itachikun: I would definitely get a PS3, but I'd wait a tad longer in case I have enough money to purchase one. It does show some promise, though tryin to adapt to the boomerang shape is questionable. XD

[Ledgem]

I don't know why people purely talk about the systems involved. I follow the game companies, not the systems' makers. I discovered that when I bought a Nintendo 64 and a PlayStation. I have less than ten N64 games, simply because Nintendo utterly lost out to Sony in terms of developer support.

Microsoft is getting the right idea now: Dead or Alive 4 (which looks amazing, by the way) is exclusive to the XBox 360... at least, for now. When companies start making titles exclusive to their systems, it begins pulling at the consumers. Who buys a system just for the system, anyway?

The XBox 360 is technologically very nice. By releasing early, they've avoided taking a side in the HD-DVD vs. BluRay disc disputes as well. This does, of course, put their system at a possible slight disadvantage. The PlayStation 3 will, of course, be using BluRay. BluRay has been criticized for its DRM implementations. Nobody really knows how it'll be utilized, but the possibilities only get more and more nightmarish.

Nintendo has stated that their goal is not to outdo the other systems technologically (graphics), but to be innovative in terms of gameplay. They also want their system to be relatively small and unobtrusive. The XBox 360, if you haven't heard, consumes quite a bit of power and is supposedly a bit noisy. If you've seen anything about the Nintendo Revolution you'll know that it has the potential to really change the way games are played. The question is whether it'll take hold. It may be too "revolutionary" for gamers or, more importantly, game developers to accept.

[Fox Fire]

Im getting The revolution to go wit my DS.

[Yoska]

Originally Posted by Syn13

Actually I don't really know the specifics of the Gamecube sales but its a good system

I do find it a fine system but Bill and Sony just had a better round, not much but enough to say Gamecube was the worst.

Years ago I bought Gamecube and while I don't regret it, right now it's a dust magnet. It doesn't deserve the dust though. It's one fine looking fellow. One I would relate to a design production, and very unlike the butt-ugly N64 or DS. Nintendo didn't fail in hardware but in the game department, and in marketing. I dare say it had the best hardware: cost-effective, working controller and just generally exceptional all-around design. But games, there was only a handful of really good.

[Angelic Cross]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

You would had found your answer behind just one click. But here it is on a silver plate:

That post of yours from the other site didn't answer Taylor. You didn't specify anything that would consider "kiddy". All you did was state your opinion, with no evidence given, that several games of their games sucked, then proceeded to bash Nintendo (and don't tell me that saying a company "deserves to die" just because you didn't like their games isn't bashing; geez, did they kill your family or something?).

In any case, that post wasn't anymore meaningful than a "No U!" answer. What charactersitics, with examples from Nintendo games, do you consider kiddy? That's what he's asking. You asked for the courtesy to not give a n00b answer. The least you can do is give the same courtesy back.

[Shiryuu]

I've always liked Nintendo, so that's a given. I'd probably get a PS3 too once its price goes down close to NR's price or something, unless NR somehow gets the same games as PS3's.

XBOX360 just doesn't appeal to me. I was never really interested in the games the XBOX had, and 360 just seems much of the same thing right now.

[Taylor--]

Originally Posted by Angelic Cross

That post of yours from the other site didn't answer Taylor. You didn't specify anything that would consider "kiddy". All you did was state your opinion, with no evidence given, that several games of their games sucked, then proceeded to bash Nintendo (and don't tell me that saying a company "deserves to die" just because you didn't like their games isn't bashing; geez, did they kill your family or something?).

In any case, that post wasn't anymore meaningful than a "No U!" answer. What charactersitics, with examples from Nintendo games, do you consider kiddy? That's what he's asking. You asked for the courtesy to not give a n00b answer. The least you can do is give the same courtesy back.

Yeah exactly, Wirhe, I had already read that when I made my post. Stating them as a "toy maker" because they made a cartoony/colorful looking game? Thats almost like saying every anime is for kids because they look colorful and somewhat cartoonish. BTW, Superstar Saga isn't their latest release. It came out 2 years ago.

[Takeru]

I'm going to get a PS3....when it becomes affordable (under $300) if not... I'll probably have to go with a XB360...though I don't like Microsoft

[Cueil]

First I would like to say the the ignorance in here on gaming is increadable. I guess that is to be expected of the softcore gamers. The perceved advatage of power that the PS3 has is almost completely false. Kojima-sama(maker of MGS series) said that the diffrence in terms of power is very small and only in nit picky matters like certain advantages one has over the other.
Another thing you need to do is look at the japanese support for the 360... the JRPGs will start rolling in pretty soon and all you have to do is a little research... such as Magna Carta 2 being a Xbox 360 game and there were 2 more JRPGs announce for the 360... one of them also being exclusive. Instead of say M$ sucks you should do a little research on the systems before you make a dicision to buy one over the other. The problem with Xbox fans is we don't buy trash and many Japanese devs put out side dishes as a test to see how fans would react... well most were trash with a few awsome exceptions. I think if you have any love with online gaming you should really being looking at a Xbox 360 purchase around the summer/fall of 06. If you can hold out till the PS3 launch you can probably score one for cheeper and hopefully Blue Dragon will be out by fall. As for PS3 being launched in spring... perhaps they can do a spring launch in Japan, but it's not likely that the US will see it till fall and Eropeans will get it in the butt again. As for innovation... well you wont be seeing that for a year or so... you can't take risk unless they have a good chance of paying off. I also thing people have a false impression of what Microsoft is as a company now and certainlly wht the Xbox division is like. Perhaps take a stroll over to majornelson.com and see what it's like from an insider view and feel free to join the community you don't have to register, but please don't be a jerk and flame. Now that I've jumped around a bit I'll just hit that post quick reply button -_0

[Cueil]

Originally Posted by Shiryuu

I've always liked Nintendo, so that's a given. I'd probably get a PS3 too once its price goes down close to NR's price or something, unless NR somehow gets the same games as PS3's.

XBOX360 just doesn't appeal to me. I was never really interested in the games the XBOX had, and 360 just seems much of the same thing right now.

I think you'll change your mind once you look up some of the games comming out for the system. Try not to base your ideas on what the Xbox1 currently has and look at what Microsoft has done to get the games that you like on their new system

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Cueil

The perceved advatage of power that the PS3 has is almost completely false. Kojima-sama(maker of MGS series) said that the diffrence in terms of power is very small and only in nit picky matters like certain advantages one has over the other.

How can it be completely false? No consumer has put it to the test. You're citing one developer, and I'd also like to remind you that no developer can pull out the full power of a system right away. Take a look at the first Playstation 2 games, and compare them to what's being released now for proof. We don't know what the real difference in power will be because the systems are of a completely different architecture. If developers treat it like a regular processor, then sure, the power difference probably won't amount to much. But if they code for it in a unique fashion, then who knows? I'm not a Sony fanboy, and I laughed at Sony when they announced that they eighth core on the CELL "may or may not work" (they have since marked that core as a "redundancy" core), but don't be so quick to say how that technology isn't so special. Bring the Sony fanboys back down to Earth, but don't go any farther than that.

I agree with you that Microsoft is finally starting to do things right. Though their console doesn't particularly bring any major hardware innovations about, it's still quite powerful. As you also mentioned, Microsoft is trying to change the face of gaming so that online multiplayer gaming is no longer limited to the computer. With their XBOX Live service, they're certainly well on their way.

What I'll always say, though, is that it really doesn't matter the hardware of the console. Nobody buys a console that can display the most amazing graphics of the crappiest games ever, they want a console that can play their favorite games - fun, interesting games - before it can render those games with stunning visuals. Sure, fans complain about lack of "modern graphics," but if they're complaining then it means that they've bought the game and played it. Fans follow the games, and that's the way it should be.

[Cueil]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

How can it be completely false? No consumer has put it to the test. You're citing one developer, and I'd also like to remind you that no developer can pull out the full power of a system right away. Take a look at the first Playstation 2 games, and compare them to what's being released now for proof. We don't know what the real difference in power will be because the systems are of a completely different architecture. If developers treat it like a regular processor, then sure, the power difference probably won't amount to much. But if they code for it in a unique fashion, then who knows? I'm not a Sony fanboy, and I laughed at Sony when they announced that they eighth core on the CELL "may or may not work" (they have since marked that core as a "redundancy" core), but don't be so quick to say how that technology isn't so special. Bring the Sony fanboys back down to Earth, but don't go any farther than that.

I agree with you that Microsoft is finally starting to do things right. Though their console doesn't particularly bring any major hardware innovations about, it's still quite powerful. As you also mentioned, Microsoft is trying to change the face of gaming so that online multiplayer gaming is no longer limited to the computer. With their XBOX Live service, they're certainly well on their way.

What I'll always say, though, is that it really doesn't matter the hardware of the console. Nobody buys a console that can display the most amazing graphics of the crappiest games ever, they want a console that can play their favorite games - fun, interesting games - before it can render those games with stunning visuals. Sure, fans complain about lack of "modern graphics," but if they're complaining then it means that they've bought the game and played it. Fans follow the games, and that's the way it should be.

It isn't just one dev that says this it's many devs that talk about this. Also several devs speak poorly about the cell's setup. Thos SPEs are not all created equal... they run a diffrent speeds and each is better at one thing then the other. It's a fundemental diffrence of opinion on CPU structure than any other company has. Asychronous(sp? I know I can't spell I just woke up) cpus is not the future... both Intel and AMD are running down a path of multicore CPU structure and both feel strongly that all the CPUs should run at the same speed. I think the biggest problem with this will be that it will be hard to port over games from one system to the other. So only the larger companies can make games for say the PS3 and Xbox 360. However on a good note for Nintendo fans this probably wont even be a problem with ports to and from the Revolution and the Xbox 360. Both systems will be using the same CPU type and the same (ATI) video card type. I want to see some cross platform multiplayer games in the future as well... wouldn't it be fun be on a clan of Xbox 360 owners and be in CTF game with a clan of only PS3 owners?

[arias]

Originally Posted by Cueil

It isn't just one dev that says this it's many devs that talk about this. Also several devs speak poorly about the cell's setup. Thos SPEs are not all created equal... they run a diffrent speeds and each is better at one thing then the other. It's a fundemental diffrence of opinion on CPU structure than any other company has. Asychronous(sp? I know I can't spell I just woke up) cpus is not the future... both Intel and AMD are running down a path of multicore CPU structure and both feel strongly that all the CPUs should run at the same speed. I think the biggest problem with this will be that it will be hard to port over games from one system to the other. So only the larger companies can make games for say the PS3 and Xbox 360. However on a good note for Nintendo fans this probably wont even be a problem with ports to and from the Revolution and the Xbox 360. Both systems will be using the same CPU type and the same (ATI) video card type. I want to see some cross platform multiplayer games in the future as well... wouldn't it be fun be on a clan of Xbox 360 owners and be in CTF game with a clan of only PS3 owners?

^ We all have seen this demonstrated as quite irrelevant -- PS2 was probably the hardest to develop of the current generation. Sony sucks in providing developer tools. Nintendo and Microsoft do much better with that, and the Dreamcast was purportedly easier to develop for.

Companies WILL have to develop for Sony, I think. Revolution is a possibly good option, but with the rising costs of games in general anyways, they need a bigger consumer base to work on. It's possible that only Sony will really provide this extensive large consumer base; after all, the bigger the population the easier it is for niche markets to exist.

Regardless, in the end, whatever sells, sells. Despite technical difficulties, setbacks, etc.. whatever, I think the fight still has some way to go, with it seemingly on Sony's side now. They might fuck up, though. We'll see.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Cueil

Thos SPEs are not all created equal... they run a diffrent speeds and each is better at one thing then the other. It's a fundemental diffrence of opinion on CPU structure than any other company has. Asychronous(sp? I know I can't spell I just woke up) cpus is not the future... both Intel and AMD are running down a path of multicore CPU structure and both feel strongly that all the CPUs should run at the same speed.

Where did you hear that the individual cores were clocked at different speeds? I haven't looked into it extensively, but I heard that they were all the same speed, 500 MHz (maybe 550, the exact number is not important). The only one running at a different speed is the "master core." Of course, its function is completely different from the other, low-speed cores.

What do you mean by "asynchronous" CPUs? Intel and AMD are developing multicore processors, yes; IBM is also doing it for their Power processors. We're seeing a shift from high-speed processors and single-process applications to parallel processing. This is why the CELL, and Sony's choice to go with it, is pretty revolutionary. It requires a fairly different means of programming for. If you treat it as a regular processor, it's clocked slower than any one of the three G5's sitting in the XBox 360, so of course it'll be underpowered. I don't expect to see the full potential of the CELL brought out any time soon, considering that multi-process applications are pretty much nonexistent at this point, for anything (especially games).

I'll also piggy-back on what arias mentioned. Combine what I said about parallel processing and the relative lack of experience with it, with the fact that Sony has a history of making hardware that's difficult to develop for. Of course developers will hate it. Sony probably knows the raw potential of the system, but it has to be brought out by the developers. It'll take time for them to get adjusted to that, I'm sure. I'm certainly very interested to see just how much of the hype over the CELL is real. Whether Sony is lying about its statistics or not doesn't matter, because we'll probably never see the full potential in use. But, because it's so different... who knows? It's certainly far too early to be saying that it's a flop, though.

[DarkWarrior]

I'll probably get a PS3 since most Japanese games end up there. But what interests me most is the Nintendo Revolution.. I'm probably one of the few people that think that the remote control rocks.

Xbox 360.. meh. The only thing my Xbox did was collect dust. The only games I was really interested in (KOTOR I/II) came out on the PC anyways, and Halo just isn't my cup of tea. (FPS on consoles.. NO).

[Cueil]

I will totally contridict you... Sony's PS1 was easy to develope for the PS2 was almost as bad as the Saturn and really towards the end you see a shift to Xbox... slowly more and more devs are moving over because in the future Japanese only games will be non-existant and there will only be games with world wide appeal. While the Japanese game market grows smaller the US game market is getting bigger and bigger and the European market is fast gaining on the Japanese market for the number 2 game market. On the SPEs and the way they work I will not claim to be an expert, but from your explenation I will go on a limb and say I probably know a little bit more than you. Your idea of multicore/multithreaded is something that Microsoft is going into sony's PS3 will only have one multithreaded core and that will be the PPE or the main processor that will be running at 3.2ghz running double threaded. The SPEs are extreamly powerfully when it comes to streaming data like video, but they have no real branch prediction and their memory is very small which doesn't help with branchy thing like AI. The SPEs on the Cell will run however fast they run... I don't know the accual speed, but I would guess they probably run around the same speed as the PPE... I'm not sure, but if they are significantly slower(500mhz) there would be a bottleneck. The Cell is only diffrent because of it's design and it's likely to be crushed in the long run by AMD and Intel's future designs. I'm more interested in what ATI did with Xenos... the Xbox 360's GPU structure is fundemently diffrent yet still the same. The unified shader and smart dram make it very interesting. ATI claims that the harder you push it the better the results and they it can acheave 99% productivity... in contrast regular video cards rarely push past 70%

[Cueil]

Originally Posted by DarkWarrior

I'll probably get a PS3 since most Japanese games end up there. But what interests me most is the Nintendo Revolution.. I'm probably one of the few people that think that the remote control rocks.

Xbox 360.. meh. The only thing my Xbox did was collect dust. The only games I was really interested in (KOTOR I/II) came out on the PC anyways, and Halo just isn't my cup of tea. (FPS on consoles.. NO).

Why don't you look at the lineup of games before you just toss out the idea of never buying the 360.

[Cueil]

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-36...mad-144560.php

Things are starting to look better... of course b00b13s f0r t3h w1n!