i just had to say, if anyone has not played yet, do so, i got my hands also on the new zelda, OMG, i used a hawk to hunt a chicken, lol
its not a 'PS3' by any means(graphics) but ya, the remote is awesome ill give them that, its smaller than i thought and light too!
its so much fun >_<
November 19 2006 10:40 PM EST
no offense or anything... i mean i am a hardcore Zelda fan... but nintendo is a big disappointment, especially with gamecube, all of the games were childish
November 19 2006 10:56 PM EST
Err Hyrule that was the point, Nintendo is a family oriented game system. They design and produce games that families are supposed to be able to sit down and enjoy together, notice most of the "hard core" games are 3rd party games which Nintendo has very little support for anyway.
Nintendo are so awful it is unbelievable.
For handheld consoles they are great (although I still own a PSP rather than anything else).
For consoles, ever since the NES and SNES they haven't come close to anything remotely playable, let alone good.
Games are always bad enough, playability with the controller make it worse.
I know the PS3 is going to cost a fortune but as soon as I can comfortably afford one I'll be heading straight for it.
let me know when the wii comes out with a system for this generation of consoles, instead of another last gen system. but other than that i say xbox 360 ftw!
November 20 2006 12:11 AM EST
I dunno guys, for $250? I'd go with the Wii than pay 2 or 3x more for a PS3 (or even more once it goes on EBay for lack of stock).
for $600, you can do a lot of things other than get a PS3. To put it in perspective, you could take a vacation and see relatives, you could go and buy a TV, you could go and buy quite a few good cameras (including the Canon SD700 IS I have my eye on xD).
Yes, the technology priced at $600 is amazing. But in 1.5 years or so, it will be a generation old. (Moore's Law). So if I were you I would buy the Wii instead of a PS3 and save that extra $350 for a rainy day.
or spend 50$ more and get a 360....
November 20 2006 12:18 AM EST
"So if I were you I would buy the Wii instead of a PS3 and save that extra $350 for a rainy day."
And if I had the money to spend, I'd buy the Wii and 35M CB2.
And then I'd rename myself Spid and you'd all cry in terror
but nah I have to agree with you Mitt-n-Pitt, Wii/360 are better to me, the poor man
November 20 2006 12:24 AM EST
"or spend 50$ more and get a 360...."
I would, if the 360 had a remote that was even one half as cool as the Wii's. That is the only reason why I want a Wii.
I'm a poor man, that is why when I have that sort of money it
will be much more worth it to get the PS3 rather than some
tacky console like the 360 or the Wii.
Nintendo focus too much on the younger generation with easy
games while giving them an impossible controller.
Microsoft focus too much on the guy that loves killing and gives
him an equally annoying controller just to enhance the
I always find Sony to be more user friendly, a wide range of
titles coupled with the easiest controller to use as well as
enough budget titles to keep the 'poor man' entertained.
the 360 is getting better and better, as you become able to stream media from your pc to it, microsoft's new Zune is also able to interact with it, and they are planning on making xbox live compatible with pc owners as well. imo, those features alone make it better. as far as the wiimote goes, i think it would be fun for the first 5 or 10 minutes and then get old quickly. can you imagine a 16 person lan playing an fps? it would be hilarious.
I haven't like a single FPS on either Xbox console that has been Xbox specific, they have always concentrated way too much on multiplayer gameplay rather than any remote storyline.
Ok, I'm not a huge FPS fan full stop but I much prefer ones such as timespltters which have at least some point or replayability to them, Xbox specific ones just have multiplayer which always gets boring for me pretty quickly.
Halo was fun once for the story the first time around bt after that was boring and within 5 minutes of multiplayer we only pissed around jumping the Banshee over the Scorpian because it sucks that badly.
Sony have always taken on a huge range of titles whereas Microsoft have been too acion specific with a few titles which mostly were on other consoles anyway.
The only Xbox only game which I enjoyed was Jet Set Radio Future.
ps has the 'easy controller' yes, but you only become good with your thumbs, ever tried to play guitar hero one or two? i have, i was as success as a kitten drowning in its own milk. Wii has its interesting remote, no? they have a tennis attachment and a gun attachment, come one, you can download old NES games, its atleast backwards compatable to the GC, wtf can teh 360 do, besides capp out.
i just played the wii once tonight for the first time and ill buy that rather than a 360 anyday, I WILL HOWEVER BUY A PS3 when its cheaper or as soon as FFVII is released on PS3, you guys all seem to ahve high epectations, but out of all 3 consoles that are out, i give it to nintendo for their remote, they have had some bad ones before like GC, but the new ones are sweet..hrm, its late.. sleepzzz
November 20 2006 1:42 AM EST
I played the wii today and I like it but I would rather use the normal controls like the GCs. I play red steel and it can be pretty difficult to get used to since you have to keep the remote balanced so that you are not constantly looking everywhere. But besides that I did enjoy the system.
Technical differences aside, I think Sony has the developer network to make the PS3 beat the snot of the 360, they just have to do it. Four launch titles is silly...
I don't care what anyone says, the Wii controller looks like the biggest step backwards in controller ergonomics ever, and leaves you waving your arms like a complete freak. I smell a class action law suit coming as kids start getting carpal and tennis elbow at 12...
November 20 2006 1:49 AM EST
ladies, its a kids system not an adult system, like leo said.
you're all adults, well, most of you, so how can you possibly call it crap, if it is aimed at people who are younger than you, i didn't find the N64 controller difficult, and i was about 7 years old, its not Nintendo's fault if a two year old can't play, and i believe N64 had the best controller for FPS, two sticks is crap.
The N64 controller single handedly crippled more gamers than any other controller...you have small hands Flamey, and likely smell of cabbage.
November 20 2006 1:54 AM EST
I thought that the N64 controllers were good and I have rather large hands. Also I know I don't smell like cabbage. :)
November 20 2006 3:01 AM EST
how novice? the handles were quite big, the only problem was the control stick, it screwed up after a while, but it was still playable.
Uhh? Just to clarify how did cabbage get into a gaming discussion?I'd think mentos and diet Coke would be more appropriate?
Don't knock the gamecube! Brilliant little console that. And *all* childish games? No way. Resi Evil, numerous RPGs, etc.
And the family orientated stuff is just fun! Super Smash and Mario Cart! :D
November 20 2006 3:12 AM EST
The N64 controller was great. Especially when I was playing Goldeneye. It was perfectly designed for that...not much use on other stuff though....
November 20 2006 3:14 AM EST
Lol, three members of the same clan almost at exactly the same time!
and Zog comes on late :P
But still, it seems like Nintendo and Microsoft are always taking a step backwards, or at least a meaninglessly small step forward.
Xbox used to be about pure power but now seems to have very little in comparison but they still haven't bumped up the gameplay.
Also they hav only just started using DVD which was the main feature of the PS2 which the PS3 will move to blu-ray for far more power.
The games will also be of a similar nature to PS2 but with increased graphics which means no loss of playability through high-end graphics.
Jeez, I guess where-ever there are gamers, there will be one of these stupid "no, my gaming console is better for A, B and C reasons" discussions. ARGH! Save it people, come on. These game consoles are all rather expensive (I see anything over $100 as a meaningful investment).
Therefore, when you buy one of these things, you are putting investment into it. Whether you want to admit it or not, if you buy a 360 you are going to want to tout its merits, and more then likely play down or even harp on someone who bought something other then what you have. Look, this argument is ages old, I'm not sure why we still have it, but those of us who have been through multiple multiple generations of gaming consoles know better.
The best game console to buy is one that you'll be able to play the most, get the most fun out of, have the most fun games and will have the most lasting value to you, NOT ANYONE ELSE. If you feel justified in buying a Xbox360 and getting all the games and the new HD-DVD drive and all that, then great you should be happy.
If you buy a PS3, and you happen to NOT be selling it, but would rather hold onto it and the few games for now to see what new games await, then awesome, more power to you. If you stayed in line for days to buy yours, then you are truly devoted and will get that much more satisfaction from the games and the system overall.
If you waited in line for a Wii and brought it home to play (not resell, and not as a gift), then I'm sure you've experienced the cool new remote, and are already looking forward to the other games released for the Wii. It should be interesting to watch someone play Tetris with that remote, I can't wait for the first video. :)
My point is this, people invest a lot of money into these gaming systems, simply because most people don't have the money to burn on owning all three systems, so conversing with other people about your system to try and validate yourself and your own spending habits is just sad. If you'd like to talk about games and whatever else, great, but please let this wholly sophomoric argument die here on CB.
November 20 2006 6:18 PM EST
Hear, Hear Verifex!
I wholeheartedly agree. Saying that any one system is better than any other is purely a matter of personal taste and opinion. No one system has it all, they each have their pros and cons, and it is up to each individual to decide which one (or two or three :D) suits their needs the best.
P.S. The Wii is best!
P.P.S. Just kidding... but seriously... it is.
What would be a really great approach to comparing game consoles would be to make one of those fancy lists of features in excel or something, like this: Comparison of RDMS's
Comparison of FTP Clients
(for the ultimate paradox)
Comparison of comparison tools.
November 21 2006 8:33 AM EST
I don't even see this "argument" as a gaming related argument. There's so much more at stake than video games here. It's a question of whether or not the world truly wants to embrace it's recent craze for "high def".
Let's start with the XBox 360. They're coming out with their HD DVD expansion on December 1st, which is all well and good. The problem is that the HD DVD format is not even true high definition! Sure, it supports 1080i (interlaced), which you all believe to be high def, but it's not! It's only half! Meaning that it works the same way as standard definition, in that only half of the lines are on the screen at any one time. On top of that, the HD DVD format, with the advent of their dual layer disc, will cap out at disc space of somewhere in the 60 gigabyte range. This is obviously not the way to go, albeit it's a way humanity has gone before... *cough*VHS*cough* Now, I have played the XBox 360 extensively, and I have to say it's quite impressive. I love the darn thing, and being a Zune owner, I'd have to say it'd be a good fit for me. However...
The PS3 comes into play. This is the only one of the three new consoles I've yet to play, but I believe it's the future. It's all about Blu Ray. Just as BetaMax was the superior format of the 80s, Blu Ray is the superior format of the present. With Blu Ray's possibility of triple layer discs, and the resulting 120 gigabytes of information storage, true high definition movies are entirely possible (true high definition takes, on average, 1G per minute, depending on movement). And to boot, Blu Ray supports 1080p (progressive), which is true high def (you get the whole picture all the time!). This is the only console out there that will let you take advantage of that fancy new 1080p television set you just bought! And then...
There's the Wii. My roommate stood in line for 18 hours so he could get one, and I'd have to say it's more of a novelty, and not really in the discussion. Long time Nintendo fans should get a kick out of it, and the controller is at least interesting (although it's not always very accurate). With so little computing power compared to the other systems this console has taken itself out of the long term gaming equation. It's almost as if Nintendo is satisfied being a niche gaming console... Oh well. That said, I still like the cute little bugger, but I wouldn't spend money on it unless I had young kids that I wanted to get an introduction into gaming quite like I had with the original Nintendo.
Well, there you have it. My take on the "next gen" gaming consoles. (Or should those have been around "gaming"?)
Fex, I agree. If I had the cash, I'd buy every gaming system available. As it it, I choose to go for the one(s) I'd get the most enjoyment out of for the cost.
That being said, if the following is more than just rumour, the PS3 has shot itself in the foot. It's rumoured over here that when you purchase a PS3 game, that game writes itself to the console and can't be played on any other.
So no taking your new game round to your mates to play on his PS3. No hiring games from Blockbusters. And no used/pre-owned game market.
November 21 2006 9:45 AM EST
I've asked Santa to bring a PS2 for my daughter. Yep, that's not a typo I really did mean 2 and not 3. Reading this thread I almost feel like retro-boy going out and purchasing a PS2 instead of something a little more "future". I'm hoping that with her being 10 and the PS2 having a vast amount of games already available on the market this will keep her (erm, and mine) interest for a while.
Even managed to talk wifey into buying her the latest Tomb Raider release.
um mem, hd-dvd supports 1080p and the xbox 360 supports 1080p as well
Pit: I could swear that was the one arena where the ps3 has a clear advantage...at least for now...I do remember hearing about the interlaced HD on the xbox...
xbox 360 indeed supports 1080p, there was a firmware update to the 360 in november that included 1080p support for the 360.
I don't know where I saw this, but I still think the best gaming machine of them all is still the PC, as you get all the features of all the consoles, but in an interchangeable box. Of course I'm a tech guy, and I know how to optimize my machine for speed in the case of the cpu-memory-draining games. But anyways, I'm interested in the Wii but for entirely selfish reasons.
The Wii takes the idea of make the game better, not just prettier; Nintendo puts their money where their mouth is now, and thats primarily my reason for being interested in the Wii. Whether or not their method of "making the game better" actually works remains to be seen of course. So, as of yet, I don't own any consoles; As I didn't see any must have games on any of the consoles yet.
I realize there will be some killer games for the 360 and PS3, and yes there will be alot of "Exclusive" titles for those systems, but hell, there will still be enough titles that come to PC that I'm not too concerned, I still have my PC as my hardcore gaming console. :)
The ease of a console is its selling point. No OS crashes. No not being able to play if your ISP falls over. No viruses. ;)
Sony have denied the rumours of 'binding' and the fact that they also say in this article that they aren't trying to make selling pre-owned games illegal pretty much says it all, unless they expect you to buy that persons PS3 as well.
November 21 2006 3:39 PM EST
I guess I should have done better homework on that one, Pit.
As far as PC gaming is concerned, I would agree that, for the most part, a PC can be a better gaming machine, although I would argue that this really isn't about gaming. This is a format war. The games are only a part of it, which is why my money is with Sony and Blu Ray, the better format.
And as for games being loaded onto your PS3's hard drive, I'm not sure where you heard that, but that's not the case. Of course, there's always the possibility that Sony doesn't trust all you Europeans so they are going that route. Which could explain why it won't be there until next Spring... I've heard a lot of different rumors concerning the whole secondhand gaming thing, but I won't believe it until I see it. On the other hand, even if Sony doesn't allow reselling of games, I wouldn't be surprised. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing this format and the Cell Processor. Why shouldn't they reap all of the benefits instead of some hack-and-slash game resell outlet?
November 21 2006 3:45 PM EST
Because Fair Use dictates otherwise? I would certainly never buy anything where a clearly able-to-be-resold media was artificially made not so simply so the Mother Company could profit. That's a lousy business model, in my opinion.
And from things I have read, all reports of Sony doing that have been found to be untrue, at least in the US. There is enough competition to keep Sony from trying that, at least I hope so...
To be honest, money doesn't actually play any part in the equation, all console manufacturers make a loss on their product overall yet they still do it, the high cost of the consoles, especially the PS3 may seem awful but they are nothing compared to the development, marketing and production costs the companies face themselves.
Consoles should mostly be considered a marketing ploy by the companies, even though Sony's main market is now consoles while consoles is practically Nintendos only real market.
I see them all as companies giving something to the community to entertain them, yes it is still costly for us but they need to recoup some of their costs (except for Microsoft).
November 21 2006 4:24 PM EST
Sure, the console selling business has never been profitable, but why do you think they sell the games for $50 a pop? So they actually do make money! Don't let Zoglog fool you all into thinking video game console developers are the next Ghandi. They aren't, and neither are their investors. They make plenty of money, and then some.
I didn't say they were God's Mem.
I wouldn't hand them so many praises unless they did it for free but I'm merely saying that they are still operating at a loss so to give the most out of a system that'll lose money anyway is a good thing.
Correct me if I am wrong here but if it cost you £20 on average to produce each of your films and produced 1,000 of them (including fixed costs) then sold them for £15 each and then gained £2,500 in profit on all future products thanks to those who wanted to keep buying your products how would you be 'making money' as you so put it?
Even that £2,500 profit from customer loyalty hasn't helped you cover the cost of the film in the first place and you have lost £2,500, losing money not making it and this includes the long-term view using a real example but obviously made-up numbers.
Also with the console market, customer loyalty doesn't even gain you future profit making sales because if each one operates at a loss then customer loyalty leads to a further loss, the only advantage would be if those customers started buying products from their other markets.
November 21 2006 5:50 PM EST
i wonder how a gaming console could bring up such argument. -_-
November 21 2006 6:16 PM EST
Umm, game sales make sure that there's a nice fat profit margin for the console makers, Zog. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are well aware that the console can be sold for less than what it costs them so that they easily recoup the cost via game sales. Heck, games like Madden or Halo probably recoup the lost money themselves.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure arguing the samaritan status of video game console makers, Zog, but I just won't be persuaded. These are publicly traded companies, run by huge boards of money hungry demons. You can't honestly believe they'd be in a market that wasn't profitable, can you?
The game makers get the money from game sales, yes they have to pay royalties to the console makers but I still bet you that it doesn't make enough to even break even until at least the next release of next gen consoles, further reducing the worth of the venture, pre-owned sales which especially for the PS2 are the largest sales of games anyway don't even get the game makers any money even more reducing it's worth.
Stop making the mistake that I am calling them samaritans or God's or whatever else you might think, I already have the opinion that it is at least to draw people to their other products but financially it just isn't that worth it for them yet they still provide the 'service' we desire, even if it is for their own ultimate gains it just doesn't get them any gains for an extremely long time in terms of a business approach.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html