TIME: PS3 a 'bust'

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2006-12-20 04:49pm

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-12-20 05:16pm

Uraniun235 wrote:So... wait, if the PS3 is a bust, the 360 is lacking, and the Wii doesn't come out with any serious games to appeal to 'serious gamers', would that make this whole generation something of a bust?

Basically yes, I think it could easily happen. People aren't going to adopt the 360 en masse for $400 with few good games just because the PS3 sucks even harder, and the Wii is still just a giant question mark at this point. It's possible that this entire generation of consoles could be looked at as an example of what not to do. I'm sure one or more of the consoles will be successful, but I have my doubts that any of them will reach PS2 levels of sales and popularity.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-12-20 05:34pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Question from the audience: What the fuck is a 'Serious Gamer'?
Usually the sort of person involved in "Major League Gaming." Which is an actual organization. They're prominent in Halo 2 for hijacking a popular gametype, calling it their own, and then looking down on anyone who does not play this gametype exclusively.

More succinctly, someone who literally does not play for fun.

So basically, pretentious stupid twats who should be kicked to the curb and mocked for being losers.

I'm sorry, but this sort of person should never, ever be pandered to. If it is so that they get no good games on their precious X-Boxs, that the PS3 flames out and teaches Sony a few valuable lessons as it becomes a charred smear, and the Wii happily rakes in cash for being cheap, fun, and open, I will be all the happier.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-12-20 05:55pm

I'd like to chime in on "MLG are idiots". They were co-sponsors at EVO2k5, then stole the vast majority of the floorspace and tv sets for their Halo tourney, leaving the main EVO event crammed into a tiny corner. Then, they booed the EVO finals, and things deteriorated to just short of an outright fracas.

They aren't ever invited back.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-12-20 06:55pm

Galvatron wrote:PS1/PS2 games look awful on the PS3.

My god..and thats hardware emulation...

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-12-20 07:15pm

I was literally shocked when I saw the comparison shots. I was expecting the resolution increase to make things look better (usually it reduces edge artifacts by making them smaller and harder to see). I wasn't expecting games to be beaten with the ugly stick.

Especially since Xbox games when upscaled frequently look like absolute sex.

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-20 07:33pm

Galvatron wrote:PS1/PS2 games look awful on the PS3.

The incompetence required to accomplish that, with PS2 hardware, simply boggles my mind.

Post by **Steve** » 2006-12-20 10:53pm

SirNitram wrote: I'm sorry, but this sort of person should never, ever be pandered to. If it is so that they get no good games on their precious X-Boxs, that the PS3 flames out and teaches Sony a few valuable lessons as it becomes a charred smear, and the Wii happily rakes in cash for being cheap, fun, and open, I will be all the happier.

Just so long as the controller doesn't become industry standard. At that point, I would give Nintendo my undying hatred.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-12-20 11:35pm

Steve wrote:
SirNitram wrote: I'm sorry, but this sort of person should never, ever be pandered to. If it is so that they get no good games on their precious X-Boxs, that the PS3 flames out and teaches Sony a few valuable lessons as it becomes a charred smear, and the Wii happily rakes in cash for being cheap, fun, and open, I will be all the happier.
Just so long as the controller doesn't become industry standard. At that point, I would give Nintendo my undying hatred.

I doubt the WiiMote will become standard. I do suspect that motion sensing tech will, however.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2006-12-20 11:35pm

You know what, for all the people groaning about the 360, I have one, and I'm really very happy about the games I have for it. While it may not be "ZOMG PS1/2", I'm content (and frankly I didn't really like most of the games for the PS1/2 anyway).

Meanwhile, the PS3 seems like utter garbage, and may only pick up steam by making a FF7 remake. Let's face it, there are enough rabid fans of 7 that a remake would create a surge of popularity potentially large enough to soften the blow.

And I've got nothing really bad to say about the Wii. Nintendo went left when everyone else went right, and it seemed to work.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-12-21 12:31am

It's like I've been saying all along: This generation is what the 32-bit generation would've been like if the Playstation hadn't come along. We're just seeing the modern equivalent of the 3D0, CDi and pre-3D-retool Saturn, systems that pretty much take the things that the previous generation of systems already did well enough, do them slightly better in ways no one really cares about, then charge an arm and a leg for them.

There are no games for the PS3 or Xbox360 that couldn't be made for the PS2 or Xbox with a slight downgrade in graphics, which was never the case for any of the at least moderately successful entried from previous gens. (The Wii is slightly different due to its controller, but that could easily have been made as a perhipheral for the Gamecube. Hell, the Wii's biggest game right now is just a Gamecube port, albeit one that came out a few weeks before the Gamecube version did.)

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2006-12-21 12:49am

Drooling Iguana wrote:It's like I've been saying all along: This generation is what the 32-bit generation would've been like if the Playstation hadn't come along. We're just seeing the modern equivalent of the 3D0, CDi and pre-3D-retool Saturn, systems that pretty much take the things that the previous generation of systems already did well enough, do them slightly better in ways no one really cares about, then charge an arm and a leg for them.

There are no games for the PS3 or Xbox360 that couldn't be made for the PS2 or Xbox with a slight downgrade in graphics, which was never the case for any of the at least moderately successful entried from previous gens. (The Wii is slightly different due to its controller, but that could easily have been made as a perhipheral for the Gamecube. Hell, the Wii's biggest game right now is just a Gamecube port, albeit one that came out a few weeks before the Gamecube version did.)

...How, exactly, would you propose we have a similar revolution? 2D -> 3D is a huge leap, but once you're in 3D already, how would you propose making games amazingly better?

I mean really, the difference in PS1 and PS2 was primarily graphics. I would say that what you said for the difference between PS2 and PS3 is roughly the difference between PS1 and PS2, with the exception being that at the time, a bundled DVD player was actually valuable (in fact, sony made the PS2 cheaper than their DVD players at the time).

I'm really getting tired of people who keep expecting another 2D -> 3D revolution. It's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is gradual increases in graphical quality for the professionally produced games.

Graphics could get a lot better, sure, they could even get photorealistic, but getting that level requires a huge amount of processing time to say nothing of lots of art work. The "next big thing" is as yet undefined, because there's no real goal right now. Procedural stuff is limping along, AI is stuttering, as always, interaction with environments is still roughly where it was ten years ago, etc.

Does this mean that making more detailed, better-looking games is somehow not worth doing? High-Def TV is taking off. Games were going to follow suit eventually, if just to compete more with computer games, which always looked better in part to the fact that computer monitors were always high-definition compared to TV screens.

I mean, I guess we could just beam the graphics into our brains, allowing our minds to create the most realistic games ever, or hook our nervous system up to the game to let us play without those limited console controllers, but really now, at some point we have to accept that there isn't another hurdle to leap like the last ones. I mean, we've already been to the moon. There is literally nothing outside of landing on a planet from another star system that could begin to match that.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2006-12-21 12:58am

Why is there all the hatred towards the PS3 ?

It is the best looking system of them all. The price is the only thing that gets me, I see it as the new NeoGeo of the gaming world. Easliy the best hardware, but to pricey to pay for it.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2006-12-21 12:59am

Drooling Iguana wrote:It's like I've been saying all along: This generation is what the 32-bit generation would've been like if the Playstation hadn't come along. We're just seeing the modern equivalent of the 3D0, CDi and pre-3D-retool Saturn, systems that pretty much take the things that the previous generation of systems already did well enough, do them slightly better in ways no one really cares about, then charge an arm and a leg for them.

There are no games for the PS3 or Xbox360 that couldn't be made for the PS2 or Xbox with a slight downgrade in graphics, which was never the case for any of the at least moderately successful entried from previous gens. (The Wii is slightly different due to its controller, but that could easily have been made as a perhipheral for the Gamecube. Hell, the Wii's biggest game right now is just a Gamecube port, albeit one that came out a few weeks before the Gamecube version did.)

Agreed

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2006-12-21 01:03am

Sam Or I wrote:Why is there all the hatred towards the PS3 ?

It is the best looking system of them all. The price is the only thing that gets me, I see it as the new NeoGeo of the gaming world. Easliy the best hardware, but to pricey to pay for it.

New NeoGeo, huh? You mean a crappy system that nobody plays except for die-hard enthusiasts?

There is a good set of reasons for the PS3 and Sony in general. Allow me to steal from Ace Pace:

Ace Pace wrote:Now lets start on the PS3.

From prerendered footage(Killzone2) while claiming it's real.
To the fake release dates that went from Spring 2006 to november 2006 in three differant forms.
From the price. And the casterated version that is ONLY 500USD.
To the massive list of issues.
To the price, where you're paying double an Xbox for the same features.
To the complete lack of killer titles during launch.
To the hordes of developers jumping ship to MS.
To the price, where you're paying SIX HUNDRED USD FOR AN XBOX360 WITH BLURAY.
To the....5 launch titles.
To the price...I think I've repeated myself enough.
The utterly idiotic controller, yay,lets throw away our RUMBLE feature because we refuse to license the patent.
And replace it with an obvious ripoff of the Wiimote, WHILE CLAIMING IT IS ORIGINAL.
To the price, for nothing.
For a completly idiotic 'Media center experiance' with a horrible UI.
Can I mention 600 USD some more?
The lack of HDTV cable included, meaning the "HDTV CONSOLE" can't output HDTV right off the bat.
Did I mention the lack of killer games?
The utter arrogence of Sony who went from 4 million consoles at launch, world wide, to 2 million in NA and Japan. To 1 million. To 500,000 thousand, at launch. While they actully shipped something closer to 300,00 thousand units.
Uh....Europe, we have forgotten you...

Does this come anywhere close to summing this up?

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-21 01:04am

Sam Or I wrote:Why is there all the hatred towards the PS3 ?

It is the best looking system of them all. The price is the only thing that gets me, I see it as the new NeoGeo of the gaming world. Easliy the best hardware, but to pricey to pay for it.

Not exactly the best looking when playing a PS1/PS2 game though is it?, the actuall PS2 has it beat there, yep worth paying $1000AUD for.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-21 01:04am

Sam Or I wrote:Why is there all the hatred towards the PS3 ?

It is the best looking system of them all. The price is the only thing that gets me, I see it as the new NeoGeo of the gaming world. Easliy the best hardware, but to pricey to pay for it.

Who gives a fuck about hardware when all of the games suck ass?

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2006-12-21 01:09am

After all the predictions that consoles will eventually destroy the PC gaming market with consoles like the PS2 and X-Box, it looks like the winner this gen could be the DS and PCs.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-12-21 01:10am

I don't know if anyone feels the same, but when my brother got the PS2, the games sucked major ass too. The Bouncer, for example. My first PS2 game. No joke.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-12-21 01:14am

Hotfoot wrote:...How, exactly, would you propose we have a similar revolution? 2D -> 3D is a huge leap, but once you're in 3D already, how would you propose making games amazingly better?

No idea, but I never implied that I know what should come next.

I mean really, the difference in PS1 and PS2 was primarily graphics. I would say that what you said for the difference between PS2 and PS3 is roughly the difference between PS1 and PS2, with the exception being that at the time, a bundled DVD player was actually valuable (in fact, sony made the PS2 cheaper than their DVD players at the time).

The PS1 couldn't do full 3D without some serious trade-offs. I mean, seriously, did you ever play games like Soul Reaver or the original Medal of Honor? Great games, to be sure, but you couldn't see your hand in front of your face the draw distance was so bad. The PS2 allowed full 3D games to be made well enough to easily suspend disbelief. The PS3 just lets people make PS2 games slightly shinier.

I'm really getting tired of people who keep expecting another 2D -> 3D revolution. It's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is gradual increases in graphical quality for the professionally produced games.

Who's expecting a revolution? I'm just explaining why the current generation really isn't worth the upgrade.

Graphics could get a lot better, sure, they could even get photorealistic, but getting that level requires a huge amount of processing time to say nothing of lots of art work. The "next big thing" is as yet undefined, because there's no real goal right now. Procedural stuff is limping along, AI is stuttering, as always, interaction with environments is still roughly where it was ten years ago, etc.

And none of the new systems bring us any significant distance closer to any of these things.

Does this mean that making more detailed, better-looking games is somehow not worth doing?

If it means paying $600 for a new console and having the typical price of new games jump up for the first time since the move to optical media, yes.

High-Def TV is taking off. Games were going to follow suit eventually, if just to compete more with computer games, which always looked better in part to the fact that computer monitors were always high-definition compared to TV screens.

I mean, I guess we could just beam the graphics into our brains, allowing our minds to create the most realistic games ever, or hook our nervous system up to the game to let us play without those limited console controllers, but really now, at some point we have to accept that there isn't another hurdle to leap like the last ones. I mean, we've already been to the moon. There is literally nothing outside of landing on a planet from another star system that could begin to match that.

Why try for another revolution? Why not just let the march of technology allow us to increase the depth and polish of games with their current graphical quality while lowering the prices? Without having to worry about constant graphical one-upmanship game developers would have to start dirrerentiating their offerings based on, horror of horrors, gameplay!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-12-21 01:19am

General Zod wrote:
Sam Or I wrote:Why is there all the hatred towards the PS3 ?

It is the best looking system of them all. The price is the only thing that gets me, I see it as the new NeoGeo of the gaming world. Easliy the best hardware, but to pricey to pay for it.
Who gives a fuck about hardware when all of the games suck ass?

And which most can be played on the competing system, and look exactly the same in terms of graphics.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-21 01:19am

What should Microsoft have done to curry more development of more and better games for the 360?

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-21 01:25am

NRS Guardian wrote:After all the predictions that consoles will eventually destroy the PC gaming market with consoles like the PS2 and X-Box, it looks like the winner this gen could be the DS and PCs.

But don't you understand? The DS is a gimmik like the Wii! It's doomed to failure! I'm going to wait for the PSP2, it'll be exactly the same as the PSP, but will have "NexGen" graphics, and a funky new media storage type that will 're-define my gaming experience'.[/SONY FANBOY]

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-21 02:18am

Vympel wrote:I don't know if anyone feels the same, but when my brother got the PS2, the games sucked major ass too. The Bouncer, for example. My first PS2 game. No joke.

On the other hand, the PS2 didn't cost twice as much as the other consoles available at the time.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-21 02:36am

And it played DVDs (a first, I think) *and* had the PS1 catalogue playable with some texture smoothing. Not like the PS3, which plays a format nobody cares about (and DVD, but it's not important anymore) and plays older games like shit.