PS3

WOW!

OMIGOD! Ya gotta check this out the KillZone II video!

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/16/news_6124681.html?sid=6124681

And then check out the specs of the new Shiz Niz Cell! Its the Sony E3 2005 Press video.. WOW! check out the specs on this thing. 100 times more throughput than the fastest Intel 4 chip, twice as powerfull as a 6800 Ultra!. Faster and more power than the fastest PC! Is it a bird?, Is it a plane?, NO!, its the new Shiz Niz,Super Dupa, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Poopy Diapers PS3

Im eating plenty of good food and vitamins so as to get me kidneys in good shape for sale, as i'm running a little low on me blood reserves

Have you pre-orderded yet? or will I get mine before you?

MUHAHAHAHAHA

see ya online!

for those of you who doesn't understand all that computer acronym mumbo jumbo, look at it this way: the graphics card alone is twice as powerful as your entire computer. poopy diapers indeed.

PS3 does look impressive (on paper, anyway). But demos don't cut it for me. I'm a "wait-and-see" buyer when it comes to the consoles. They gotta have the specs and then a decent library of at least 10 games I "need" to play before I'll drop my cash.

I remember when the ps2 specs came out long ago and I was blown away. I thought it was years ahead of pc hardware. LOL what a joke. With all the aliasing it didn't even measure up to UT99 or Q3 Arena. And it didn't even look much better than the Dreamcast! Still, the PS2 did well because it had such a huge installed base and great gameplay despite the graphic handicaps.

Bottom line, I don't drop 500 bucks for NOTHIN unless I can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who's hooked on it. The last wave of consoles was good but never sucked me in. With all the junk they do with consoles these days, such as stupid online subscriber models, sequel mania and unrelenting product placement in some games, I don't have very high hopes for the console future. Particularly when the future costs 500 freakin bucks.

I was tempted to buy a 360 for one reason, I admit. Street Fighter 2: Hyper Fighting was coming out and would feature online play. I was a hardcore OG streetfighting fiend back in the day and I knew that if the online play was good, fools would step up for me to decimate, just like the old skool days.

Now, some people claim there's no way to get a fighting game to work online but I've played Zbattle, which is a SNES emulator with peer-to-peer code. I've played people 1500 miles away with practically no lag, as if they were standing right next to me. But of course, due to the busted online model designed to seperate you from your bankroll, the 360's online play is horrific and the fighting games I played are completely unplayable online. So what you're left with is a game that I already dropped at least $1000 worth of quarters into back in 1992 running on hardware that could run NASA simulators without breaking a sweat. I closed the lid on that idea and hit the flusher...

PS2 didnt impress me compared with a PC, now PS3 compared with a PC is Whooo Yaahhhhh Baby!

Where do you think UT2007 demos come from

The PS3

No love for the "Wii"?

Heh, despite its... odd name, I still think that console grabbed my attention the most. The PS3's power is nice, but the price tag is hefty.

But then again, all I really care about is the games. I couldn't care less about whatever features they have on the hardware if they games aren't fun

PS3 does look impressive, but I have strayed from the consoles as of late. There are fewer "console exclusive" games that make me want to run out and by the console just to play them. I have a PS2 and a Gamecube and I'm not planning on any more in the near future.

The demos I've seen of the Wii look intriguing(sp?), but we'll see what they do with the technology. Gimmicky stuff like the Nintendo DS are just like frosted mini-wheats....sugar-coated, and you dump 'em before the day is over.

Wii ftw

I plan on buying it launch day with Zelda Twilight princess. It looks like a lot of fun to play, plus if I wanted to play Zelda old-school I could just use a normal controller.

Ooo wrote:

PS2 didnt impress me compared with a PC, now PS3 compared with a PC is Whooo Yaahhhhh Baby!

Where do you think UT2007 demos come from The PS3

Yeah, but when we reading the specs a year before its release, we were saying the same thing....

"Aaaaand Wii!"

It seems to me all the PS3 (and 360) have are same-old shooters and whatnot. Halo 3: The ending to Halo 2 ;p Big whoop. They just don'e excite me, but I'm pumped about the Wii. I'd thought I was done with the Smash Bros. series, but when I found out about the new one, the flame lit up again. I just remembered I had Twilight Princess reserved for GameCube. I wonder if I can switch it to Wii?...The new Mario Galaxy game also intrigues me. Manipulating the world around to help Mario run around, and you're also controlling Mario? Yes, please

It's the controller. The 360 and PS3 are effectively using the same paradigm that Nintendo started with the NES. Analog sticks, shoulder buttons, and rumble packs are all just variations on the theme. Not that there's anything wrong with that in itself, but it's encouraging uncreative game design. Nintendo is trying a new way of controlling the games. Like with the DS, the aim is to prompt developers to come up with new game ideas by making it difficult to use old ideas. Whether the gambit pays off has yet to be determined.

TheElectrician wrote:

Gimmicky stuff like the Nintendo DS are just like frosted mini-wheats....sugar-coated, and you dump 'em before the day is over.

Keep in mind that Sony has consistently stolen all of the really good 'gimmicky' stuff from Nintendo. Rumble controllers, Handheld-to-console interfacing, and now the motion detection in the controllers.

Sure some of their innovative ideas are risky and a couple have died almost before the paint was dry on them (Vitrual Boy and the 64DD come to mind), but Nintendo is the only one of the three companies that is fighting to deliver the best gaming experience to the user. Not just fighting for the sake of fighting with the rival companies.

I've never been a big playstation fan. They've never had very many games I wanted to play. Assassin's Creed looks real cool, but I'm not going to drop $500 bucks for 1 game. I actually didn't buy any console last gen, there just weren't enough good games for any console(I did buy a dreamcast,but only because it costed like 30 bucks and the games were dirt cheap).

I also like good online play. The only console that has had good online play is the xbox, so I bought a 360. For that reason and there were a few games I was looking forward to. Personaly though, if people are going to pay for an online service, they should set up servers to play on instead of having one of the players be host.

So, graphics wise, the PS3 looks awesome, but thats not enough for me. The only reason I don't like nintendo is that they haven't had any good shooters since the N64.

What suprised me about the PS3 is rather all its bluders?

$850-$1kAUS for a console? NO THANK YOU!!
Then theres the stripped down version that has no wifi, no hdmi support, no backwards memory card support meaning your saved games from the PS1/2 cannot be transferred.
And Sony's attitude bugs me. Upon MS's announcement that they would be releasing two versions of the 360 (premium and light), they said they think its a stupid idea. And then guess what? THEY GIVE 2 VERSIONS OF THE PS3.
When asked about nintendo, sony said they dont believe in "gimmicks", and then guess what? They ripoff nintendo's motion sensor controller, only that its half the effort of what nintendo has done.

I loved my PS1, but sony over the time has to me become more and more arrogant.
Although i probably will not be getting any of the new consoles, if i had to choose, the PS3 would be my last choice.

v0rTeX wrote:

TheElectrician wrote:

Gimmicky stuff like the Nintendo DS are just like frosted mini-wheats....sugar-coated, and you dump 'em before the day is over.

Keep in mind that Sony has consistently stolen all of the really good 'gimmicky' stuff from Nintendo. Rumble controllers, Handheld-to-console interfacing, and now the motion detection in the controllers.

Sure some of their innovative ideas are risky and a couple have died almost before the paint was dry on them (Vitrual Boy and the 64DD come to mind), but Nintendo is the only one of the three companies that is fighting to deliver the best gaming experience to the user. Not just fighting for the sake of fighting with the rival companies.

Ah, console loyalty.

I think you're giving them a bit too much praise. In that sense, they ripped off "color" from the Linx and the gamegear for handhelds.

http://gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=866

http://gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=867

I don't believe they were first with a memory pack either. They took the same old gameboy and just made it smaller with color and remarketed it like 10 years after it originally came out on the crest of pokemon. The n64 was cartridge based when other companies had long-before innovated with disc media. Series like Resident Evil and Metal Gear didn't (and I don't think ever would) come out of Nintendo.

http://gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=907

They aint all that. Even though the dreamcast failed, I would honestly take the dreamcast library and hardware over the gamecube.

Rumble packs are out for the PS3, they were canceled due to interference with the motion sensors

DOH!

http://www.us.playstation.com/News/Stories/4355

just so you know, Nintendo stole the motion controller from another company. I had a motion controller for my ATARI 2600, thats how old the concept is. The mercury switches never worked that well, I hope the Wii (why?) concept pulls it off better.