Is it just me, or are all the new game systems not that impressive

[Fignuts]

Visually I mean.

It looks great, but nothing I havn't seen on high end PC's. I was expecting better than PC graphics. The only one that shows promise in that aspect is gears of war for 360.

Also no backwards compatibility on the 360 is gonna suck.

[Ninti the Mad]

I guess you havent really seen the Ps3 then.

[Xero]

Truthfully, there's only so far technology can go. Although I must admit that some of the stuff I've seen is very impressive.

I'm sure that within the next three or so generations of video game consoles, we'll have graphics that are on par with something like Shrek, maybe even something like Yoda from Star Wars. The PS2 was 'supposed' to be able to handle Toy Story-like graphics. I haven't seen anything come close, and that shit was made in the late 80s-early 90s. (That's only an estimate. At the latest, they would have had to start development in 1992 or so.)

Of course, then we'll be saying that THAT looks like shit because a movie will come out that looks so realistic that you couldn't tell it apart from something real, and we'll want better graphics.

[Silent]

I don't think Consoles will ever look better then PC's. Not anytime soon anyway. The thing about PC's is that they are upgraded and the games become better looking when you ugprade them. You can't upgrade consoles.

And BTW Nintendo Revolution sounds pretty amazing, as do the other two systems. It will be tough to pick which one I want.

[TheNamelessOne]

From my point of view, this new generation of consoles is coming too early, mainly because of Microsoft's attempt to get the Xbox 360 out before the PS3, which they believe will ultimately cause them to get ahead of Sony in the next generation.

I also dislike the idea that is commonly thrown around by developers and publishers that better games can only be acheived with better technology.

[Ninti the Mad]

I also dislike the idea that is commonly thrown around by developers and publishers that better games can only be acheived with better technology.

In a way, it's true.

Imagine a wrestling game where a Royal Rumble actually has more than 6 people in it without frame rate problems?

:drool:

[Xero]

In a way, it's true.

Imagine a wrestling game where a Royal Rumble actually has more than 6 people in it without frame rate problems?

:drool:
Royal Rumble for the Dreamcast and Arcades had an unlimited number without lag. (At least, that's what I remember.)

[Silent]

Yeah but that game sucked.

[Xero]

Yeah but that game sucked.
I never said that it didn't. :shifty:

[Shadow]

In a way, it's true.

Imagine a wrestling game where a Royal Rumble actually has more than 6 people in it without frame rate problems?

:drool:

Lordy I would love to actually have an actual rumble in a wrestling game. Only one I remember playing that had that option was....waaaaaay back on the Sega Genisis.

[Requiem]

You obviously havn't watched the sony conference for the PS3.

[Funky Fly]

Yeah, holy shit.

Definitely going PS3 this time around. Revolution will have to wait.

[AareDub]

Royal Rumble for the Dreamcast and Arcades had an unlimited number without lag. (At least, that's what I remember.)

It wasn't unlimited on the Dreamcast. It topped out at 8 I think. I still have it in the closet somewhere, I guess I could check lol. No idea on the arcade though.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

What? Does no-one remember the PS2 conference? You know, the one when they showed the video from FF8 and said "OMG REAL TIME HARDWARE" and like fuck we got anything close... even remotely. To be perfectly honest, they won't get the graphics of that Killzone video or that car crash one.

Having said all that though, I think the PS3 will be the most powerful console on the market this time around. IBM have said that processor wise, the 3 consoles are very similar in terms of power and speed, but the NVidia GPU in the PS3 is allegedly a lot better than the 360's ATi card (probably Revolution too, but we have no firm details on that).

I think Sony will "win" again, but not by as much as this gen. The 360 will build up quite a userbase before the other 2 come out but it will be like the Dreamcast all over again, with the DCs graphics and power being great at the time but the Sony hype machine just making it look like the PS2 was 100 times better, which was a lie and there are probably about 10 games that wouldn't run on DC. Nintendo will survive and I predict they'll do better with Revolution. Theres just too much cool stuff to be ignored so far and with an online Smash Brothers at launch they may just pull a shock upset (I can dream....)

Finally, speaking about impressive on this next gen, did anyone see that 360 zombie game from Sega? It looked awesome and I just hope it's multi-format

EDIT: The XBox is backward compatible. Just with "selected" games. They will probably update the backward compatability over Live now and again

[#BROKEN Hasney]

In a way, it's true.

Imagine a wrestling game where a Royal Rumble actually has more than 6 people in it without frame rate problems?

:drool:
But they won't though. They'll bump up the graphics and polygon coulnt so they can't fit more people in again :(

[Ninti the Mad]

They should make a cel-shaded wrestling game with the New Mercy engine.

[Jonster]

It wasn't unlimited on the Dreamcast. It topped out at 8 I think. I still have it in the closet somewhere, I guess I could check lol. No idea on the arcade though.8 wrestlers and 1 ref.

[DS]

The new generation is coming in at perfect time and far superior then anything on the market. These new systems have better technology then anything for PCs right now, which is annoying for PC gamers but great for console gamers. Also note, the amazing stuff shown at E3 for the PS3 was only a couple weeks in development.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

The new generation is coming in at perfect time and far superior then anything on the market. These new systems have better technology then anything for PCs right now, which is annoying for PC gamers but great for console gamers. Also note, the amazing stuff shown at E3 for the PS3 was only a couple weeks in development.
Yeah, a couple of weeks with a 3D modelling program completly unrelated to the PS3.... Cpme on, they did it with the PS2 back in 1999 and yet people are still falling for it

[Funky Fly]

I'm still going PS3, unless Nintendo's 3rd party developer list gets a whole lot better.

[Gerard]

What? Does no-one remember the PS2 conference? You know, the one when they showed the video from FF8 and said "OMG REAL TIME HARDWARE" and like fuck we got anything close... even remotely. To be perfectly honest, they won't get the graphics of that Killzone video or that car crash one.




Yup, pretty much their whole press conference was pre-rendered bullshit, sad thing is most people will believe its in game graphics etc and buy it anyway. Same as when the ps2 launched, it was meant to be able to render "jurassic park" style graphics etc, didn't even come anywhere near it and prerendered cut scenes don't count.

This says it all really.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/New%20Folder/sonybs.jpg

[el fregadero]

Everybody knows that those aren't actual in-game graphics for the PS3. Doesn't change the fact that it's actual graphics will still be better than Xbox 360 and Revolution. Nor the fact that it will have better games, therefore being the better system.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Everybody knows that those aren't actual in-game graphics for the PS3. Doesn't change the fact that it's actual graphics will still be better than Xbox 360 and Revolution. Nor the fact that it will have better games, therefore being the better system.
Maybe, maybe not. IBM, the chip maker for all three, said they were all "very similar"...

As for better games, having an advance copy of all 3 consoles, how are they?

[James Steele]

Actually, the XBox has been inferior to the PS2 since day 1. The XBox 360 will most likely be inferior to the PS3. Except, all the Halo fanboys and shit wanna talk about GRAPHICS! GRAPHICS! GRAPHICS!. The library of good games that are exclusive to the XBox is not very big. The only thing holding back Nintendo is the lack of 3rd party games. The best fucking graphics in the world don't mean shit if all you got is Halo, Ninja Gaiden and a few other games.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Actually, the XBox has been inferior to the PS2 since day 1. The XBox 360 will most likely be inferior to the PS3. Except, all the Halo fanboys and shit wanna talk about GRAPHICS! GRAPHICS! GRAPHICS!. The library of good games that are exclusive to the XBox is not very big. The only thing holding back Nintendo is the lack of 3rd party games. The best fucking graphics in the world don't mean shit if all you got is Halo, Ninja Gaiden and a few other games.
Depends what you like. If you're into FPS games and online play, the XBox is definatly your console.

Also, this gen means shit to next gen. Sonys impact was massive because they capatilised on the Saturn being shit (in most peoples eyes anyways) and the N64 being heavily delayed/using carts still. Square signed up exclusivley and by the time Sony had thrown their cash around at all the developers they wanted, MS were a gen behind.

I think Nintendo should be alright this generation. Their console and the 360 is supposed to be uber-easy to port between, and the PS3 is still IBM based so there will probably be a lot of games going over all 3 platforms.

It looks like with FFXI going to 360 and Chronicles on gamecube, I don't think Square will be fully exclusive anymore.... Unless their next game fills up a fucking blu-ray disc with cutscenes

[Gerard]

As for better games, having an advance copy of all 3 consoles, how are they?


:lol:

[DS]

Yeah, a couple of weeks with a 3D modelling program completly unrelated to the PS3.... Cpme on, they did it with the PS2 back in 1999 and yet people are still falling for it
A couple of weeks with a 3D modelling program is one thing. It's another when they have the power of the PS3, Xbox 360, and Revloution to mess with. My point is, that the games look great now, just think about them when developers have gone through and tested and know what they're working with.

[Sepholio]

IBM is just flattering microsoft and nintendo. Their is no similiar processor to the cell, which powers PS3, therefor it is impossible they are similiar. If I recall from IGN's E3 coverage, they said revolution would be 3 times as powerful as gamecube according to the system specs. PS3 is 35 times as powerful as PS2 in the spec department.

Yea, those 2 are really similiar.

PS3 graphics will own the shit out of PC for at least a couple years. PC's will need about 2 new generations of graphics hardware and a completely redisgned processor architechture to be able to come close to them.

And while the Killzone video was most likely pre-rendered, some of the games they showed were not.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

IBM is just flattering microsoft and nintendo. Their is no similiar processor to the cell, which powers PS3, therefor it is impossible they are similiar. If I recall from IGN's E3 coverage, they said revolution would be 3 times as powerful as gamecube according to the system specs. PS3 is 35 times as powerful as PS2 in the spec department.

Yea, those 2 are really similiar.
Hooray for marketing!

No, Nintendo said it would be 3 - 4 times more powerful than the GC is.

Which has led people to mean it wont compete, depite the makers of all 3 consoles CPUs saying all three are going to be pretty much the same in terms of performance.

"But Sony say the PS3 is 25x more powerful than the PS2 - surely that means the revolution is going to be 4-5 times less powerful than the PS3!"


Sonys official specs for the PS2 are that it can push 75 million polygons per second.

Nintendos official specs for the GC are that it can push 12 million polygons/second.

Lets be generous to the PS2, and say it is roughly the same power as the GC (its not.)

That means we can mathematically approximate Sonys hype machine forumal as (75/12) = 6.25

so PS3 is likely to be (25/6.25) more powerful than the PS2.

Sp PS3 is likely to be 4 times more powerful than the PS2.

And the revolution is going to be 4X more poweful than the GC.

WOW!

THEY'RE THE SAME!

Equations with arbitary numbers = teh win

[Ninti the Mad]

lol you always diss Ps3

[Gerard]

lol you always diss Ps3


Because sony always seem to completly talk out of their asses when it comes to what their systems are capable of. :-\

[Loose Cannon]

I'm waiting for a system where like it's virtual reality and one of the levels is your actual house.

"Oh shit, Gannon's stealing my pudding pops."

**Hookshot. POW

[Vietnamese Crippler]

I'm waiting for a system where like it's virtual reality and one of the levels is your actual house.

"Oh shit, Gannon's stealing my pudding pops."

**Hookshot. POW

OMG Yoshi just ate my dad :(

[Shadow]

I wonder why Bowser's kidnapping my sister?

[Ninti the Mad]

Because sony always seem to completly talk out of their asses when it comes to what their systems are capable of. :-\


It's called hype.

Besides, they owned with Psx and Ps2 regardless of what they may have promised and thats what counts.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

lol you always diss Ps3
Well, not really. As I said, I believe that the PS3 will be the most powerful one on the market. (Not by a huge margin, but the NVidia GPU is supposed to be a little more powerful, even if the cell is comparable to the other 2 chips in terms of power).

BUT, I do not believe you will EVER see those Killzone, that car crash, or that FF7 tech demo in this generation.

[Sepholio]

You ignore the fact that the systems can not even remotely have nearly the same processing power unless Microsoft and Nintendo are adopting processors similiar to cell. If they are not, they will need to pretty much include 8 current-generation medium-range processors to even compete with the cell. And I don't see them doing that.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

You ignore the fact that the systems can not even remotely have nearly the same processing power unless Microsoft and Nintendo are adopting processors similiar to cell. If they are not, they will need to pretty much include 8 current-generation medium-range processors to even compete with the cell. And I don't see them doing that. Why? The cell has ONE processing core and SEVEN VECTOR CORES.

In terms of graphics hardware, the PS3 and the Xbox360 are comparable, and according to ATI the graphics hardware in the Revolution is on-par with the Xbox360. So no real differences there. In terms of CPUs, the PS3 has higher vector performance, but lower general purpose performance than the Xbox360, and the Revolution is still completely unknown in this regard (although IBM have said that it's CPU is comparable to the others). I think it'll likely average out, possibly with one console being better than the others for certain games. Still, the CPUs are absolute overkill.

As far as I can tell, they're all dead even in terms of hardware. So what makes you think the PS3 is so much better? Because it's shiny? Because Sony have paid off more journalists? Because of the marketing campaign?

Also, bear in mind that every single tech demo Sony and Microsoft have given was crap. Sony's demos were all pre-recorded and weren't running on real hardware (because the hardware isn't currently powerful enough to run those demos), and Microsoft's demos had to be run in lower resolutions and with things like anti-aliasing turned off because the devkits don't have the same video hardware as the final console.

Epic's demos were probably the best indicators. Both the Xbox360 and PS3 demos were so close you can't really tell the difference. They both looked good, ran well, and were both running in real time on the pre-release development kits, which aren't as powerful as the final hardware will be, and neither demo was even remotely optimised for the platform in question.

[Kane Knight]

Hooray for marketing!

No, Nintendo said it would be 3 - 4 times more powerful than the GC is.

Which has led people to mean it wont compete, depite the makers of all 3 consoles CPUs saying all three are going to be pretty much the same in terms of performance.
Let's ignore the "cooking of the books" for a second. While it's true that the Sony claims are dishonest marketing, I want to look at something else.

We've already addressed the issue of the Blu-Ray discs in the E3 thread. The discs can theoretically hold 200GB (8 Layers*25GB per). Orgasmic numbers, right? But there's this huge problem with games not NEEDING that level of capacity. How many games have you seen take up 200 GB, and how many would you imagine will come out in the PS3's lifespan?

So we need to look at what the games will run at, not what the system is capable of. 25X as powerful? Will the games be that powerful? And what will that look like? the PS2 was more powerful than the Gamecube, and yet the GCN took "inferior" hardware and put out superior graphics. Will the difference in the systems' power be noticable, and will we need something better than a standard TV to notice the graphical differences? What of the audio? How big a difference will there be in terms of gameplay and physics engines?