|
Poll Result |
|
|
Still can't wait or starting to get cold feet? |
|
|
I don't care I want one now! |
|
9% |
[ 1 ] |
I'll wait until the price drops |
|
54% |
[ 6 ] |
I'm waiting to see if any launch titles blow me away. |
|
36% |
[ 4 ] |
|
|
|
Total Votes : 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 556 Location: Bergen, Norway
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I won't go into a Wii debate here as well, but I'll answer Sorrow:
Hardware difference? Next-generation storage medium and 1080p are two of the more prominent differences, but there are more, if I remember correctly. I just don't remember what they were. Anyway, I think we'll definitely start to see more console MMOs in the future, what with the harddrives and the web access and so on. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 3734
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Magnulus wrote: | Next-generation storage medium |
..or, potential betamax of the HD generation. That said, they could really force HD-DVD out if they incorporate JVC's dual format technology into all new releases (JVC have made DVDs that have a bluray movie, and a standard DVD movie on a deeper layer that will play in any normal DVD player. If all new releases came out in that format, then you'd be building a collection of bluray films before you even bought the player. If you ever upgraded, the decision would be obvious.) I'd be happy for anyone to win, as long as the format war is decided quickly.
1080p, whilst obviously the future, just seems like a pile of marketing hype again. I suspect most, if not all, games will go with 720p for speed. Since the current crop of HD displays don't even go up to 1080p res even if they actually accept the signal, I doubt this generation is going beyond 720p.
Still, if you want a 1080 bluray player, then the top end PSIII pack may be worth it. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 556 Location: Bergen, Norway
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, you're right. They're not huge differences, though I am excited about the Blu-Ray capabilities. Personally, I wouldn't buy a player for neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD for years and years. I only got my first DVD player (apart from the PS2, which I never really owned, but rather shared with my brother when I lived at his place for a bit.) for Christmas 2002, so that tells you something about how much of an early adopter I am.
But when I get a PS3, I'll also have Blu-Ray. We've already been planning to get an HD projector for the living room when we can afford it, so the PS3 ties in nicely.
I know it could turn into a betamax sorta thing, but this time, at least Sony has a fair chance. As far as I can rememeber, the betamax incident was a result of Sony showing their new technology to some other companies, they went, "Hmmm, aha. So that's what they're working on" and went full-tilt to best them, coming up with a smaller, cheaper, crappier version. This time, the size is the same, the price isn't really THAT different (apart from the first few players, though I've heard there will be $500 players soonish after the release of BluRay.) and Sony has something like the PS3 to put to use for mass distribution.
When I'm thinking of 1080p, I'm thinking I want the thing to be able to output to the full capabilities of my FUTURE display. I don't give a rat's buttock right now, as I'm stuck with an old 32" TV with regular ol' PAL.
Also, though, the PS3 will have Hellboy. I dunno if the Xbox will, but the PS3 will. That's enough for me. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Sorrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 146 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
the internal systems [excluding all HDD and Discs] is only a 50mhz gpu increse with the PS3.
unless they have updated the specs sinse i looked 1 month + ago.
I hate TV screens, low resoution slow refresh rates....woo. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 556 Location: Bergen, Norway
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, you said. But the Harddrive and the discs and all that is ALSO part of the hardware. And there are differences to pipelines etc etc etc that I am far too little techno-savvy to explain.
I love TV screens. Huge, soft resolution (looks higher than it actually is), refresh rates that work more than well enough for most console games, and the fact that they're normally in the living room, which means you can play from your sofa or bean bag.
EDIT: On PC games, I normally play at 800x600 anyway to save processing power for the real candy. I've actually even hacked the ini file of Oblivion to play it in 512x384 (or whatever that was.)
EDIT 2: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614783p1.html
This article is "a little" out of date, but you can see the differences clearly. I don't know how much of a difference a teraflop makes over two teraflops, but I'm guessing it doubles something or other. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 3734
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Magnulus wrote: | This article is "a little" out of date, but you can see the differences clearly. |
That means very little though when it comes down to it. The 360 has 3 easily programmable cpu cores, whereas the PS3 has 1 custom CPU and 6 DSP-like custom processors, which are (from what I hear) not exactly easy to work with.
People should just use their eyes rather than relying on stats (that reminds me of school playground dicussions about whether the Amiga was better than the ST). If you see much better games on the PS3, then that's a better yardstick. Heavenly sword is one game that I think looks marginally better than what's been appearing on the 360 - although I find myself utterly unexcited by the gameplay. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 556 Location: Bergen, Norway
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, like I said, I don't know how much of a difference the differences really make, but since he said there was NO difference apart from the 50MHz, I thought I'd just throw it out there and let those more savvy than me say how it looks.
I thought that WWF Smack-Down looked really good, with the big, sweaty wrestlers prancing around. I'm talking about the graphics here, of course. The fact that they actually looked sweaty is part of what caught my eye. And they do look real-time. Not like the Tekken screens and video they showed last year, which had individual beads of sweat and strands of hair, etc.
The Xbox 360 kind of perplexes me in the way that Oblivion looked a lot worse (from what I've heard) on that than on a good PC, and that just sounds like it shouldn't happen. I mean, when a console is NEW, it should at least be able to put up a fight with current high-end computers. Shouldn't it? Has it always been like that, I just hadn't noticed before?
Really, though, I don't give a hoot which one is the most powerful. I like the way Nintendo are taking the easy-going approach to graphics and finally realising that more polygons, super-ultra-normal maps, fifty million centilliflops and what have you are not what makes a good game. It takes courage to jump out of the graphics-war, and I think that ultimately, Nintendo will be rewarded for their courage. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 3734
|
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Magnulus wrote: | The Xbox 360 kind of perplexes me in the way that Oblivion looked a lot worse (from what I've heard) |
No console has ever been released that matches the power of a current PC since we moved to 3D games. Memory is always at nowhere near PC levels. Although you should also form opinion based on your own experiences rather than hearsay. I have to get back to people going out there and just using their eyes - check videos.google.com by typing in 'E3 2006' and you;ll find lots of stuff to watch. Graphically I don't see that there's any decider yet - Sony appear to be showing a ton of pre-rendered footage (as per usual), but interspersed are some great looking bit of gameplay footage such as Heavenly Sword. The 360 though has some fantastic looking games too though, not least Gears of War (which uses the Unreal Engine), Crysis and Chromehounds (pretty spiffy looking mech game).
Based purely on the realtime visuals for these games, I don't know how anyone can decide betwen the two. Yeah Sony fans could bring up the Bluray argument, but then xbox fans could bring up the fact that a 360 + hard drive + high def drive could be nearl y$200 less than the price of a PSIII by release time.
I've never seen two consoles with so little to choose between them. I suspect Sony will win out - for the simple fact that the world has bought into the Playstation brand, however I would think MS will at least double their market share (not like that's saying much though ) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Doom III
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 117
|
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
after E3 there was nothing that intrested me on ps3
i am still waiting to decide what to buy to replace my ps2 but sonys e3 line was complete rubbish apart from heavnly sword
suppose it will take a while after launch before they get the really good games out but the 360 is tempting me with chromehounds viva pinyata and gears of war
i thought gears of war was easily the best looking game in e3
uses unreal engine so may get on ps3 too |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
hair65
Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Posts: 886
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|