PS3, XBox or Wii: Pros and Cons of Gaming Consoles

As someone who's an avid no time since I started my blog gamer I think I can provide a good review of the ongoing gaming consoles.

The cons of Sony's (SNE) PS3 vs the others:

1) Memory card slots: to play with existing data from PS2 titles you have to purchase an additional memory card adapter as the PS3 does not feature original PlayStation memory card slots. Likewise, not all PS2 games will play properly on the PS3, only adding to the frustration of the gaming experience.

2) Logistics and distribution: what pisses me off the most is I have to wait until the end of Feb 07 to get my PS3, which is totally ridiculous. I just can't believe that Sony's management would have missed the massive demand of this product. PS2 has been the best selling console, so Sony just releasing 400,000 units is hubris! You'd think after delaying it twice they would have gotten their act together.

3) The price: having talked to friends who received their PS3s, some even paying hefty prices on eBay, this was not an issue. Why? the Ps3 is not just a gaming console, its an entertainment system...which brings me to its pros.

The pros of PS3 vs others:

1) It is far superior to the Microsoft (MSFT) Xbox: as some one who has an Xbox 360, I've played plenty of PS3 at their launch parties down here in Canada and even in Dubai. The revolutionary Cell Broadband Engine in the PS3 can deliver smooth performance as it is able to handle a higher workload much more easily. So, what does this mean? It means much smoother transitions and virtually no slow down in frame rate. With that in mind, PS3 games are far superior graphically than its PS2 predecessor, are faster than most PC games on the market today, and in my view, better than Xbox 360.

2) Blue-ray: Blu-ray discs are the next leap forward in disc technology. It provides for more storage, up to 50GB, which allows it to meet the requirements of high-def games and movies. The best part about Blue-ray is that Blu-ray drive featured in the PS3 will also support many of the older disc formats, including CD-ROM, CDR+W, DVD, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, and DVD+R.

At the end of the day its "you get what you pay for". When you buy a PS3 you get the amazing new technologies, not to mention the wicked good line of upcoming games and IMO graphics that are better than the Xbox 360.

That being said, this Christmas will be a Xbox 360 Xmas in terms of sales. Unfortunately all the pros don't matter if you can't have one.....or have to wait ages for one. Hence, Microsoft will be the sales and volume beneficiary.

With regards to Nintendo (NTDOY) Wii's problems- whether its Xbox 360, PS3 or the Wii I can promise you they all have their flaws. Good thing is they are working to make them go away. I remember having lots of problems when PS2 came out, such as not being able to play PS1 games and hard drive reading problems, but all those eventually went away.

So when consumers will complain, the 3 console makers will listen.

Comments

[carleast:]

The thing is though Yaser is that if you're Sony you have this dilemma. You either scrap the Blu-Ray as standard in the PS3 idea and release the product world wide pre Christmas so that everyone can get one. That idea would also make it cheaper. Short term that is a great way to gain market share. But then you have this long term vision of the company as a whole. Blu-Ray is very much part of that vision. Not only that you are acutely aware that Blu-Ray faces just as big a battle against HD DVD as the PS3 has against the Xbox 360 and the Wii.

Here's where I am sure Sony have made the right choice.

The PS brand is huge. People are very loyal to it and they are also aware that the PS3 is far more powerful than it's competitors. Blu-Ray on the other hand is completely new and has no customer loyalty yet. It is also competing against a competitor that costs half as much that does exactly the same thing. Sony knows that in order for Blu-Ray to win it need some serious help. Not least because early market adoption of Blu-Ray and HD DVD is likely to be slow. So what better way to give Blu-Ray the advantage than to include it, as standard, in the big brother of something that has sold 100m units and has an army of fans and that is also much more powerful than it's new rivals.

Short term? Yes Sony definitely loses out. Long term? Well it's far from guaranteed but by saying no to the carrot on the stick they've given themselves a chance of feasting on far more profits in the future.

I say Bravo Sony. Or should that be Bravia?

2006 Nov 24 10:24 AM

[Marcus Flynn:]

What I find a smidge humorous is the fact that the fundamental function of these systems is the one thing each of you has failed to address! Each machine is essentially a games console and will realistically be bought on the basis of how good its repertoire of video games is! I know countless PS2 owners and each and every one has at least one other DVD player in their home. Thus the DVD playback function of the PS2 was little more than a gimmick. Fair enough it is without a doubt a great bonus that the PS3 will possess Blue-Ray capabilities, however should such technology ever become mainstream how many nerdy technophiles (who realistically are the only people who would buy a games console on the basis of its non-gaming abilities) are going to be happy using a lower end Blue-Ray machine. By this I mean that by the time that Blue-ray takes off, the PS3 will essentially be of lower quality than the future Blue-Ray machines in the same way the PS2 was at the lower end of the spectrum as a DVD player and also in the same way that the PS1 was at the lower end of the spectrum as a CD player!

Furthermore, you keep addressing the PS3 as a total entertainment system rather than simply a games console! However can you realistically point out one feature other than the Blue-Ray compatibility that isn’t common place in practically every home! For example it acts as a CD player, a DVD player etc, but in reality everyone already has each of these! So essentially you are forking out twice as much as you would for the dubiously named Wii, simply to have an average Blue-Ray system!

By the way Carl, how you can possibly say that the PS3 is the only system out of the three that could go down in the history books! The Wii is the only system which can pull the games industry out of this monotonous rut of regurgitated bollocks it is now finding itself in! And should it manage such a momentous achievement I’m fairly sure it will go down in history! Who is going to look back and pick out the PS3 as the benchmark of gaming? All it is, is a PS2 with better graphics! It offers nothing even remotely original! Don’t you realise that regardless of the PS3, Sony would still have gone ahead with their Blue-Ray ambitions so your suggestions that a game console will go down in history for it’s non-gaming functions is total baz buddy!

2006 Nov 24 11:10 AM

[Tom B:]

I think in a few years general purpose CPU's will be available for less than th cost of a PS3. That will be the end of the console market. It will be like Palm; a niche that existed for a while and then started to disappear.

2006 Nov 27 01:58 PM

[Yaser Anwar_:]

Carl,

You've mentioned an excellent point & I concur with you on Sony's short-term loss and their pro-activeness when it comes to PS3 and Blue-ray.

Would it be ok with you if I quoted what you said on my blog? I'll reference your name and if you've got a blog let me know.

Good stuff. Y

2006 Nov 24 10:39 AM

[carleast:]

Feel free to use any of my comments Yaser.

Regards

Carl

2006 Nov 27 10:56 AM

[Marcus Flynn:]

Carl, your point about Blue-Ray inclusion in the PS3 is certainly valid, however I reckon you’re mistaking shrewdness for quality! Sony’s decision to include Blue-Ray capabilities on the PS3 is based on their knowledge that the technology, in order to be a guaranteed success, needs a helping hand! The last thing Sony need is another Betamax disaster! They obviously believe, and I think rightly so, that there is no better way of getting this new vulnerable technology into homes all around the world, than to include it as part of a games console that will be bought regardless!

My concern however, is that you see this shrewd marketing ploy, as a great bargain! I find it hard to believe that Sony have pumped all their money into giving you the highest quality Blue-Ray machine before the technology has even taken off! I don’t know if I am explaining this very well, but basically what I’m trying to say is that Sony have surely included a lower quality Blue-ray machine in the Playstation in the hope that when the technology does finally take off, the can pump their money into fine tuning the technology, and then and only then will people really be getting the higher quality machines and ultimately, value for their money! So essentially gamers are being used as pawn (and I don’t mean to sound too over-dramatic) in a far larger battle! They are being forced to pay a huge deal more money so that Sony can boost the chances of a Blue-Ray future!

2006 Nov 24 12:02 PM

[Yaser Anwar_:]

"I find it hard to believe that Sony have pumped all their money into giving you the highest quality Blue-Ray machine before the technology has even taken off!"

Marcus- How can you say its not a high-tech Blue-ray? I mean with each gadget/product of such kind there are always updates. The first ipod wasn't the greatest, it didn't work with Windows (I think) but soon AAPL figured it out and now its a big hit.

You maybe right about the blue-ray not being of the highest quality, I just think like any new technology there are going to be updates along the way.

2006 Nov 24 12:52 PM

[Marcus Flynn:]

I don't think I explained my point very well! I’m not insinuating that Sony have better technology that they just aren’t using, I’m saying that I doubt they’re going all out to insure that the PS3 blue-ray is ‘out of this world technology’. However I’m not suggesting it is poor quality, I’d imagine it’s fairly standard. Their priority is to ensure that blue-ray finds its way into as many homes as possible! Once they have established it as a common form of media, then and only then will they really start to invest in getting the most out of the technology. I’m only 18 and frankly I know nought about the inner workings of Sony but I’d imagine that they will refrain from breaking the bank before they know full well they’ve a success on their hands! It all comes back to my point that people are over-estimating the abilities of the PS3 because in honesty by the time Blue-ray has established itself as the main form of media the PS3 technology will be out-dated and owners will be rightly peeved that they forked out an extra €200!

2006 Nov 24 02:07 PM

[carleast:]

I agree with you to a certain extent Marcus. There are obviously always limitations with a new technology. And I'm sure over the next few years we'll see Blu-Ray or HD-DVD improve far beyond what the initial players are in quality.

But what you are not putting into perspective is that these PS3 owners are getting a Blu-Ray device machine for only $200 (if you take that as the amount that has been added on to put it in the machine. I actually think it might only be $120 though). How much do the first stand alone Blu-Ray machines cost? Many times more than that anyway. So even though I'm sure the quality isn't as good it is still sure to be worth well beyond the $200/$125 extra that it's adding to the machine. And I actually think Sony are absorbing some of the costs of the Blu-Ray chip anyway so I doubt you would have seen that amount shaved off the total cost of the PS3. The main thing that it has done is cause major delays. Those delays are worth it in my opinion.

The other point is that by integrating the Blu-Ray in to this I truly believe that it does change this from being just a games machine to a home entertainment system. The processor and graphics chip are powerful enough to use the PS3 for a number of other things. The internet and live streaming from various HD movie sites and music sites being one of them. When the PS1 had cd capabilities and the PS2 had dvd capabilities people weren't as excited about them as they are about the PS3's Blu-Ray drive.

Sure, the Wii may be attempting to change the face of gaming. But I believe the evolution that we are getting from the PS3 is a huge step in terms of all round home entertainment convergence.

I think Sony believed in the PS brand enough to try and use it to make the Blu-Ray brand get the head start that it needs. By flooding the market with Blu-Ray (even if it isn't the primary reason for owning the PS3) you are telling the movie studios that there is enough market penetration to need plenty of Blu-Ray content. It gives the market the kick start that it needs. That's especially important considering that neither Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is guaranteed to succeed.

Carl

2006 Nov 27 11:30 AM

[carlivar:]

Shouldn't the title of this article be "PS3 versus everyone else"? It is very PS3-centric. Very little Microsoft or Nintendo info.

2006 Nov 27 08:19 PM

[Marcus Flynn:]

Well Carl, (Eastwood that is), I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier in the thread! That is, that I am not necessarily saying that the Blue-ray inclusion is a negative thing! However I am sure there are those who see it that way! Essentially, and I see this as an undeniable fact, the PS3 is first and foremost a games console! I see it this way because even if the extra features were stripped away people would still buy it, however if you removed the games aspect of the machine people would not! Thus I believe gamers are being given the short straw by Sony, who clearly have ulterior motives for the Blue-ray inclusion! Many people, and I would include myself in such a bracket, are annoyed at knowing that should they want the PS3 for it’s gaming capabilities, they will have to fork out extra for Blue-ray technology that hasn’t even proven itself, simply because Sony need to insure its success! I would have no qualms if Sony sold the PS3 without Blue-ray as standard, for a lower price, before making a Blue-ray add-on available for those who genuinely want it! Of course that wouldn’t be half as beneficial to Sony as a whole so they aren’t going to do it! You strike me as someone who is waiting with baited breath for Blue-ray! If so that’s fair enough however you must consider the thoughts of those who aren’t but would still love the PS3 simply as a games console, and thus are forced to take a hefty hit to the wallet!

I accept your suggestion that the extra cost added to the PS3 as a result of the Blue-ray technology may well be less than the Blue-ray is actually worth, however this still doesn’t necessarily represent a bargain! Take the launch of the DVD for example! When DVD’s first took off, I bought a high quality Sony DVD player! I did so not only because in the short term it provided better picture quality, but because it offered a longer shelf life and would date at a slower rate to the other lower quality machines! To this day it still holds its own! Given my ownership of this machine, if somebody offered me a low quality DVD player worth 100euro for half that price (50euros in case your mathematics aren’t the best), I would still say no! This is because it would be a waist of 50euro given that I have one already that is of higher quality! Thus the same rationale can be employed when looking at the PS3’s blue-ray function! If Blue-ray ever does take off I will surely buy myself a quality machine, and therefore the Playstation machine will be of little use! Off course one could argue that it could be placed in a different room etc. but personally I only have need for one!

By the way I’m Irish so I speak of the euro rather than the Yankee dollar but as far as I am aware the exchange rate is practically even so the prices shouldn’t vary too greatly!

2006 Nov 28 01:03 PM

[carleast:]

Lol. I'm actually English and worked in Foreign Exchange up until Feb so no problems there with the exchange rates Marcus. Incidentally the EUR is far stronger than the USD at the moment.

I see what you're saying there and have to say that I'm sure that's what most of the disgruntled PS fans feel themselves. What I'm saying though is that I doubt the final cost of the PS3 has been increased that much by the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive. If we're led to believe correctly the manufacturing costs of the PS3 with the 60gb hard drive is $840.35 (although this is a matter for some debate as it seems some of the breakdown is slightly inflated in it's estimation prices):

www.digitimes.com/bits...

Of that $840 the Blu-Ray Drive only costs $125. I think that price has been confirmed as far as I'm aware and isn't an estimation. So the Blu-Ray drive represents 15% of the final manufacturing costs of the PS3. Let's say we take out the Blu-Ray drive. That brings the manufacturing costs down to $715. That is still $115 above the retail price of the PS3. So I think it's safe to assume that Sony wouldn't have just passed on the $125 saving on to the consumer. On top of that they would have still needed to fit a dvd/cd drive. I'm guessing that consumers would have only seen a $60 reduction in price.

So, you can either have the PS3 for $600 with dvd or $540 with Blu-Ray. What do you want? That's only 45 euros more. Most can spend easily that much in the pub in a few hours.

Now in reality I don't think the extra cost is an issue then is it? Do you agree? But what is an issue is the time delay. Without Blu-Ray everyone worldwide would have had a PS3 for Christmas. Sony have taken a gamble on losing Christmas sales to get an extra piece of state of the art technology into their PS3 for hardly any extra cost to the consumer.

As for you point on the Blu-Ray drive not being up to standard of a stand alone machine. How do you know it's going to be that bad? There are a number of reasons why previous technologies weren't so good in the PS's. One of the main reasons was the low quality DAC's (digital to analogue convertors). The DAC is one of the most important parts to a CD/DVD player. But the DAC in the PS3 is not so important for Blu-Ray. Why? Because to transfer true HD pictures the signal remains in it's digital form via the HDMI cable to the TV. Only once it has got to the TV does it get converted. Obviously when you're dealing with pictures and sound there are other things to consider that make up quality but not having to rely on the PS3 DAC is very important.

So I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing the results of the Blu-Ray on the PS3 and comparing them to stand alone machines. For 45 euros I'm sure even you will be suitably impressed enough to hold off buying a Blu-Ray machine until they come down to a reasonable price.

Oh, and I bet a 100 euro dvd machine would beat your older more expensive machine. These upscaling DVD players are better than 4 or 5 year old machines that cost up to £1000.

2006 Nov 29 11:01 AM

[Marcus Flynn:]

Well I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying, but in my eyes the whole situation smacks of disloyalty on Sony’s behalf! They are essentially using gamers as pawns in what is clearly far bigger agenda for the company as a whole! Regardless of whether the added cost is $40 or $400, I as a gamer would like to be given a choice in the matter! As I suggested earlier in the thread the perfect solution to this problem (at least from the perspective of a gamer) would have been for Sony to scrap blue-ray as standard in the machine and release an optional add-on later! As far as I am aware such a move would have allowed for a launch date similar to the Xbox360. However like I said earlier this would never happen as it isn’t financially as beneficial in the long term for Sony themselves!

However I was disappointed today to learn that all isn’t fine and dandy in the world of the Nintendo Wii either! All this talk about Nintendo meeting the supply and demand criteria in Europe appears to have been a load of baz. I pre-ordered one this afternoon before being told I wouldn’t get my hands on it until February! Here was me looking forward to some Wii Sports on Christmas morning! It looks like there’ll be no Christmas in the Flynn family this year!

I don’t know whether you read the review of “Resistance: Fall of man” on channel 4 teletext today but from what they are insinuating it isn’t all it’s been hyped up to be! Given that it is the only genuinely anticipated launch title it’s not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination. Of course that’s only one review but I generally agree with what they say myself. “Zelda: Twighlight Princess” on the other hand has got rave reviews all over the net! That said you can’t trust a lot of internet reviewers who seem to have their final verdict set in stone before even playing the game! That aside however the Wii line seems similar to the PS3’s in that it’s fairly weak!

2006 Nov 29 01:09 PM

[carleast:]

I have to say that even though the Wii does break new ground in many respects I have not had confidence in it from day one. Every man and his dog are tripping over themselves to laud this new console for everything that it can potentially do. But I've always taken the stance of what doesn't it do? T3 magazine even gave it product of the year in their current magazine.

Now I do think it will be loads of fun to begin with. But all of this motion control will get tedious after a few months for one simple reason. The motion control isn't really that advanced. Fair enough it's one step closer to virtual reality and we should commend Nintendo for that. But even in the fighting games all that you will be able to do is perform the same moves that you would have been able to do with a controller. For instance, if I picked up a sword in real life there are probably millions of different angles I could point it in (all varying by a matter of mm's). With the Wii I'm sure you'll be able to swing the controller and make the character swing the sword in a few different directions but that's it. So you may as well do it with your fingers on the control pad. The same with the tennis. The variables are many millions of times less than actually playing a real game of tennis so eventually you'll start to think "I may as well just use my fingers on the control pad".

The PS3 on the other hand is 10 times more powerful than the PS2 and 3 or 4 times more powerful than the Xbox 360. This doesn't just mean better graphics. It means far bigger games that allow you to do far more exploration. It also means far more characters and much better AI. While this isn't ground breaking it's a evolution that is far more superior. To use an analogy, in the real world we see ground breaking inventions in the field of transport every now and again that seem very interesting to start with. But the car remains the king. It evolves and improves and as a result we stick with it. We get traction control and abs breaks (Blu-Ray), we get satellite navigation (wireless controllers), and we get better fuel economy and more safety feature (faster processor and graphics engine). Microsoft is the equivalent of Ford and Sony is the equivalent of Honda. Nintendo is that wacky scientist who's invented the flying car. Well ahead of it's time and not quite working they everyone wants it to. But genius nonetheless.

What winds me up is the analysts who say that the Wii is cheap enough to buy now and not be broke enough to not be able to afford the PS3. What is this world coming to? The Wii costs £180 in the UK and games will cost £30 each. Although it's cheaper than the Xbox360 that's hardly cheap.

You're right, Sony have been devious with Blu-Ray. But look at it from Sony's point of view. Do you think that they were right to do it? I think so.

2006 Nov 30 06:39 AM

[Marcus Flynn:]

Well I must say that I don’t really agree with what you’re saying there Carl! I indeed have many fears about the Wii but apparently they don’t correspond with yours! I think Nintendo are making a conscious effort to appeal to a niche market. They are avoiding the stereotypical gamers who seem to value graphics over actual enjoyment! They want ordinary non-pubescent punters to enjoy the simpler side of gaming that doesn’t require twenty button combos and nerdy gaming proficiency.

Firstly with regards to your promotion of the PS3’s technical power, and the evolution to which it is a supposed catalyst, I would like to point out that the PS2, the Xbox and the Gamecube were all vastly superior to the N64, yet few of their games came even close to recreating the expansive landscapes of Zelda: Ocarina of time. This serves to prove that games consoles have for years been powerful enough to facilitate the sprawling landscapes and immense detail you are depicting, but the fact remains that games developers are to lazy to take advantage! Look at the newest Pro Evolution game on the Xbox360 for example! It was lambasted for containing even less detail and fewer features than the PS2 version! Why was this? Because the developers find the next generation of consoles harder to programme because of their complexity so they just don’t bother! As far as I’m concerned we are highly unlikely to witness any game on the PS3 that is so gigantic, the Wii would be unable to handle it!

Graphically it is clear that the PS3 is streets ahead of its competitors but as I unfortunately discovered with my Xbox and Gamecube this power is often left unutilised. This is because most games bar those developed ‘in-house’, appear on more than one console, so, as was the case with the GTA game on my old Xbox, the graphics were only made to the specifications of the weakest console (PS2) so as to save the developers cash and to insure that all consoles were catered for! So essentially, despite the Xbox’s superior capabilities, I was in reality looking at PS2 graphics.

In relation to your suggestion that the Wii remote would soon become monotonous to use, I can’t say I agree with that either! I could put together a convincing argument to suggest that in theory using a controller to simulate the turning of a car or the movement of a character should become equally monotonous. I assume you understand that the Wii controller comes with a ‘nun-chuck’ device that includes an analogue stick so if developers vehemently intend their games to be played in the traditional manner the Wii is well capable of facilitating their needs! However in my opinion, once developers strive to think up new and innovative ways to use the motion sensitivity, then the controller will have endless uses and should stand the test of time! Even if developers don’t do this, Nintendo still will and we all know no matter how biased we are, that Nintendo are incredible games producers and quite frankly their games alone are capable of justifying the price of the machine.

Furthermore, we haven’t even mentioned the Virtual Games concept that Nintendo have introduced! I’m sure you’ve heard about it! If not you can download old NES, SNES and N64 favourites for next to nothing! Now in my opinion that makes it more of an all round entertainment system than any other console!
(Sorry about the rant but your last post hit a few nerves)

2006 Nov 30 02:00 PM

[carleast:]

Don't worry about the rant. That's what these comment sections are for. Reading about someone else's point of viewing is certainly enlightening if nothing else.

I suppose we will just have to wait a couple of years to find out which console comes out on top. I for one am starting to think that the Wii may take top spot for the next year. And not just because the PS3 is short in supply. But gradually over the next 12-24 months I can't see how something like the Wii will win. Nintendo have always been great at innovation and doing something just a little bit different but I have to say that I'm sticking by my argument that different hardly ever wins. Better generally always wins. Sticking to tried and trusted formulas but improving on them is normally a sure fire way to win. Evolution rather than revolution is the name of the game. Especially when you are the market leader with huge brand loyalty.

As for the Wii being capable of coming up with games that have as much depth to them as games on the PS3 then we'll see. While something like Zelda is huge in detail and sprawling landscapes the new PS3 offers the opportunity to make the whole landscape completely interactive. Everything can be altered. Not only that you could have 200 characters on screen with a PS3 who are all completely different in looks and personality which I doubt will be something that you'll see on the Wii. Detail is now something that the PS3 will take to new levels.

As for games developers only developing a game to a certain standard that will look the same on all formats then I agree that this is what happened in the past with the xbox and PS2. But the only reason this happened was because even though the xbox was more powerful than the PS2 all of the games developers had stronger links and bigger contracts with Sony. So games were made for the PS2 and then adapted for the xbox without changing much. This time the tables are turned and the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox360. What you will see is the games being developed for the PS3 and then adapted for the Xbox360. Because the Xbox360 is less powerful then the games will just be cut back slightly. Sony is in a very strong position to demand that this is the way things work being the market leaders. They still have strong ties with the developers (although not as strong) and as a result don't expect them to not utilise the power of the PS3. To be honest though I don't even expect this to have much of a bearing on whether people choose the PS3 or Xbox360. People will buy the PS3 regardless.

As for the Wii controller I am by no means saying that a normal controller is on par with it. It is far more unique and advanced. But in principle all it does is replace the analogue control stick with the ability to use your own body movement. But if I'm playing a game where I'm holding a sword then I'm still going to be able to move that sword in exactly the same ways with a control stick as I am with the Wii motion controller. It's not like the Wii controller increases the range of movement that the game character has. Granted it makes the whole experience more enjoyable and more life like but the limitations of the in game character will limit the abilities of the controller.

As for the virtual games concept. Well, it's nice enough but I can't see many people using it too much. It's not as if we all yearn to play games of yesteryear other than for just old time sake. With the exception of Mariocart 64 that is :)

2006 Dec 01 10:20 AM

[carleast:]

Here's the first evidence that the controller is going to get boring

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/te...

2006 Dec 08 10:35 AM

[Marcus Flynn:]

Carl that's clearly a review of Wii Sports not the Wii controller! You have to recognise that Wii Sports is a free game, intent on simply introducing gamers to the new system of controls! It isn't pretending to be a phenominal experience of depth and immersion for the gamer. It's simply a basic, fun, rudimentary example of how the controller can be utilised! I've been scowering the internet for weeks now for opinions on the Wii-mote and its potential, and i could produce dozens of articles that take up posistion on the opposite side of the fence!

With regards to your claim that the Wii-mote doesn't allow any additional movement to an analogue stick, well honestly that's untrue! Fair enough analougue sticks did provide full 360degree movement, but one aspect of ovement they couldn't acount for was speed! Take your sword example for instance. In games of the past, i.e Zelda, your sword swipes wheren't controlled by the analogue at all! They were carried out by pressing the "A" button! The resulting action was of a set speed and velocity! With the Wii-mote you can control the acceloration, speed, velocity, etc. A better example would be a boxing game! With the Wii-mote, natural athletesism and reflexes are rewarded! This may be bad news for pubesent nerds, but I like to thing i've avoided such a stereotype, and thus I welcome these new gaming possibilities!

As for your insinuation that the PS3 will facilitate totally interactive landscapes, well you're living in a dreamworld my pedigree chum! I read recently that development of a PS3 game costs approx 8.6million euros! this means that a game must sell at least half a million units before it represents any reasonable bargain! You must take into consideration the fact that games developers are intent first and foremost on making profits and this augmentation in development costs means that insuring financial stability will breed either corner cutting, or increased retail prices! Personnally I reckon the former of the two is most likely!

As for the Virtual Console concept you seem to be over-looking Nintendo's recent DS and GBA releases! For years now Nintendo have been realing out retro games on their portable consoles, at prices between 30-50euros, and people have been lapping them up! why if they're getting them for a reduced price would they refuse?

Sorry about the delay in my reply! I wrote up a massive rant a few days after your second last post, but for some reason it never appeared when I clicked 'Add Comment'. Frankly I was too pissed off to re-write it! However it was prtty similar to the above!

2006 Dec 10 03:13 PM

[Nate77:]

The Ps3.....bottom line is set up for the future. It's true ability still hasnt even been tapped into yet. It isnt even fair to compare the ps3 to any other system, until developers TOTALLY get onboard with the Cell Processor. We still have a core not in use. The makers of the ps3 are thinking down the road. I see constant comparisons reguarding graphics and so on, but the truth is that.... the Cell Processor isnt all that common among developers. Once they get use to working with it and pushing its limits, everyone will see what Sony had in mind for the Ps3. As far as shipping goes, Id rather have a product as it was intended. If pushing back the shippment date is gonna prevent the kind of failure the xbox 360 had.... (what was it the red death syndrome) then by all means push it back. You end up waiting the same amount of time if you had to send your xbox back for repair. I like that Sony is more interested in delivering quality versus them making a few more bucks. Shows the true passion that has propelled their consoles to where it is today. I let my ps3 fold all night ritualisticly, and havent had a problem. Look up some forums on how the game makers feel about the systems, and you will see, that it is a new beast, that they ARE willing to wrestle to the ground and defeat, thus yeilding a whole new level of gaming, that doesnt depend on raising your heart rate with wireless remotes..... but also making love to your mind thru your eyes. Good games are suppose to piss your wife off, and wreck your family. Hands down..... you wont find a more complete gaming system that is more for the people than you think. With an upgradable hardrive, and the ability to load a whole other OS system..... this system will keep the best of em busy. As far as remotes go..... that motion technology being used in their system is no different than you wanting the same blow job you seen on your favorite porn. How many differenet ways can it be done. I applaud them for barely changing the remote, mainly because for true hardcore gamers, we get pissed when you have to change what we were use too.... Its the difference between switching a weapon out accidentally... when I was trying to really blow your head off with the Mac.

2008 May 27 05:13 AM

[a gamer:]

You know, I have been reading all of these posts, and none of them mention the Xbox360 or Wii's pros. It has only been Sony's PS3 pros and Microsoft Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii cons. Frankly, i have never seen something so completly one-sided. For one thing, all of the controllers for the Xbox360 are wireless, and it has the gold standard for online play. I know you have to pay for the online (not much - if you get the $50 year + 1 month card, it equals $3.85 per month) but the people at Microsoft are always improving things, and just recently, the Xbox had an update which lasted 7 minutes and it changed the way the screen is when you dont have a game. Oh, and you can have avatars for Xbox that can be used in a couple games and are always shown on your friend list. Also, about the graphics thing, different games look better on different consoles. And its not like you can compare Halo 3 to Killzone 2.

Mar 24 11:07 PM