Ex Developer Says PS3 NOT as powerful as 360
Rowdy J
PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
Sony has said that the PlayStation 3 has more power than Microsoft's Xbox
360, but that it requires a bit of patience and legwork to leverage that
power. Jason Booth, a former developer from Harmonix, just doesn't see it
happening. He thinks game designers are trying to match PS3 games to 360
games at best.
Jason Booth, a former Turbine and Harmonix developer who has worked on both
Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, has posted some interesting comments on his
blog regarding "PS3 misconceptions and spin."
"I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers
complaining about 'lazy ports' to the PS3. They often mention how the PS3 is
the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console
for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive
marketing spin... ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360
counter parts, and ...most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck," he
says.
First and foremost, Booth doesn't think PS3 really has a graphical
advantage. Why? "Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics
performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations
you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on
the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use
simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance," he says.
"Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than
on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on
the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences
here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power."
He also suggests that Blu-ray is not really an advantage: "[It's] great for
watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the Blu-ray
drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the
360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if
you're streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you
can stream."
He acknowledges that with the greater storage space of Blu-ray "there is the
potential to use that to do something cool," but he argues that "most
developers who use the entire Blu-ray drive are doing it to work around
other problems with the PS3 such as its slow loading."
He adds, "For instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is
stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one
copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game
and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any
problem."
Ultimately, Booth says "the performance centric research into the PS3 has
been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of
performance you get out of the 360 naturally... developers must spend
significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can
already do easily and with a lot less code... On top of this, there is
shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling."
Whether these comments can be taken at face value is up to you; Booth adds
at the end of his post that his remarks "might come across as a lot of Sony
bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches." It's an interesting
perspective nonetheless.
The alMIGHTY N
I would actually love to read how other developers compare working on
the Playstation 3 versus working on the Xbox 360. It's easy for us to
recite "Playstation 3 is a new architecture and great developers are
up to the challenge" or "Playstation 3's architecture is too
complicated and developers waste time and money learning it."
What do the developers say?
alvinst...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Developers like Ubisoft have gone on record praising the PS3 for
superior hardware. Also, it is well known the Rockstar feels that
Xbox 360 crippled their GTA4 development. No wonder they signed
exclusive with Sony.
CellFish
news:1193675394.8...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I live in Montreal which is where UbiSoft develops most of its titles. Not
only do I KNOW that Ubisoft has never gone on record saying that the PS3 is
superior to the Xbox 360, employees working there who are friends of mine
regularly make fun of the system.
At MOST, Ubisoft has called the PS3 a 'superior system' without comparing it
to anything.
terryfied
> development.
I never knew that.
Do you have a link?
SpanishTeacher
That one was actually old. You can search the archives because a
couple of people posted links to stories in defense of someone posting
that the PS3 was the cause of the GTA4 delay. The problem is, it
wasn't the 360 that was said to have caused the delay but rather the
lack of a hard drive as a standard on all versions of the platform.
Not the same thing.
Tom
"Rowdy J" <row...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%5nVi.3506$Nz7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17934
>
> PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
How many times are you fanboys going to regurgitate the same article over
and over and agai? Not only that, you're prick enough to crosspost it, in
the hopes of starting a flame war.
Rowdy J
"Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:lpudne2KppNKi7va...@insightbb.com...
Nah, I'm prick enough to post a real article that laughs out loud at the
PS3. That's all. I didn't notice someone else posted it until just now.
We have regular 360/PS3 pro/con discussions in here. Get used to it.
Prick.
Mr.Be...@gmail.com
> <alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone who works in Montreal likes to make fun of the whole world.
UBIsoft sucks anyway. I lived in that POS city for 15 years. Beautiful
city, but people are one of the laziest on Earth and so are UBIsoft
programmers - Montreal division.
RMZ
Nice spin, Ubisoft did not use the term "superior hardware". What they
said was that they find PS3 "no more difficult to develop for than the
XBox 360".
Ref: http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=129688
This statement says nothing for the limitations of the hardware.
Difficultly to develop for and limitations in terms of frame rate and
some of the other specifics this former Guitar Hero programmer mention
are two different things. What's difficult to develop for can be
somewhat subjective depending on the amount of knowledge the developer
has, for example if some of your development staff worked at SONY or
IBM on the cell architecture or have previous experience developing
for similar architecture then your developers have an edge in this
area and can make the statement that PS3 is no more difficult to
develop for.
For non-programmers it's impossible to really understand what makes a
system difficult to develop for. So essentially as with most
professions you have a group of standards that you work with. For
graphics there are standard shader languages and standard graphic
programming interfaces that once you learn them you can transfer that
knowledge to any hardware platform and apply them, OpenGL is an
example of a graphics API used by the Gamecube, Wii, PS3, etc...
With the PS3 SONY sold developers on being highly compatible with
existing standards, but they aren't. Well, they support them, but they
have alerted those standards to an extend that there is a high
learning curve. This of course is just an extenshion of SONY's
arrogance, the theme is "we're SONY, this is what you're going to do
next.... pay millions to train your development staff to get up to
speed or stay off our hardware platform". Microsoft's approach with
the 360 was quite different and they do more to help third-party
developers. Their also adhei closely to the same standards PC
programmers use since they control the API, DirectX.
The difference of course to consumers means little, but to developers
it can mean millions in training and millions more lost in learning
the API on the job for a project this sort of thing translates into
game delays which does effect consumers and of course the vendor. This
is exactly what we've seen with SONY.
To those who critize these developers for stepping up and saying
something, damn you. These programmer have nothing to gain by stepping
up and making a public statement, they they have everything to loose
reputation wise. The fact that they are risking their careers should
tell you what they are saying is true. There simply is no motive to
lie save conspiracy theory bullshit. What motive would they have to
tell the truth and risk their jobs? Their motives are the same as
mine, they want customers to know that SONY is full of shit when it
comes to the PS3's abilities and that SONY did not deliver what they
promised with PS3, essentially cell technology is very very far from
the hype.
That's the truth, you can believe what you want.
The alMIGHTY N
The potential of the Cell processor is certainly greater than the
potential for the Xbox 360's processor. However, the CPU is used
mainly for AI, physics, etc. The potential of the Xbox 360's graphics
set is higher than that of the Playstation 3's.
The two systems have trade-offs when compared to one another.
The problem with the Playstation 3's architecture is simply that it is
much harder to program for. One could argue that better developers
would figure it out yadda yadda but they would have to invest much
more of the budget to do so just to get the same results.
The Xbox 360's architecture is easier for most developers to program
for not because Microsoft had a heart-warming chat with developers and
gave them what they asked for but because they designed it to still be
fairly similar to the PC architecture which makes it easier for
developers to make the transition.
Actually, Microsoft did listen to developers for one aspect. They
talked to developers to figure out whether they would want the
guaranteed hard drive in each system or more memory across the board
and most developers went for the memory. Microsoft had actually
considered only having 256Mb of RAM which would have been disastrous.
The alMIGHTY N
The lack of a hard drive was an issue brought up much earlier in the
year (circa April or May) which had nothing to do with the push of GTA
IV to 2008.
Big Daddy
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The potential of the Cell processor is certainly greater than the
> potential for the Xbox 360's processor. However, the CPU is used
> mainly for AI, physics, etc. The potential of the Xbox 360's graphics
> set is higher than that of the Playstation 3's.
I didn't follow the whole "cell" discussion too closely, but I had
understood that Sony intended developers to leverage the cell for better
graphics as well, but once it became apparant that it wasn't always so easy
for developers to do that, they put in an underpowered GPU or similar as a
fallback solution. So most of the ports where the graphics look better on
the 360 is just developers taking the easiest path and the result is
lackluster graphics since compared to the 360 it is underpowered in that
area. (EA Madden 08, for example) For those developers that are diving into
the cell, they can produce graphics that are higher than the 360 and we've
seen a couple of recent examples in this area (COD4 supposedly for
instance), though who knows if it's a "trend" or a "blip" and maybe only
those in Sony's hip pocket may in fact resort to the added effort (Rockstar
for example)
The King of Gaming
Xbot propaganda. It did come up earlier, but in no way was it ever
stated to be resolved, and it very well likely was still a problem
when the push back came. If you can find a link saying something to
the effect of "we overcame that hurdle" I'd be interested in reading
it. The demo that was shown to the gaming press was running on 360
hardware and almost to a man they all said it ran very poorly.
The bottom line is that the game was likely not going to be finished
for either problem, as at one point or another Rockstar has complained
about both systems.
The King of Gaming
>
> To those who critize these developers for stepping up and saying
> something, damn you. These programmer have nothing to gain by stepping
> up and making a public statement, they they have everything to loose
> reputation wise. The fact that they are risking their careers should
> tell you what they are saying is true. There simply is no motive to
> lie save conspiracy theory bullshit. What motive would they have to
> tell the truth and risk their jobs? Their motives are the same as
> mine, they want customers to know that SONY is full of shit when it
> comes to the PS3's abilities and that SONY did not deliver what they
> promised with PS3, essentially cell technology is very very far from
> the hype.
>
I actually somewhat agree with you here, Xbot... however, at the end
of the day I don't think this guy is someone who we need to be basing
our evaluations of the hardware on. Like most of the guys at Harmonix
he is a music guy turned video game guy (has music degree) and is
likely a glorified vb.net form programmer. I doubt he knows a data
structure from a data type. And his fill rate argument is rubbish.
Having said that, none of us would be happy if we were set in our ways
at our respective professions and then someone tries to turn our
worlds topsy turvy with a whole new way of doing things. Simpleton
though he may be, this guy is out there developing and there are many
others out there like him. If he is frustrated trying to use your
tools, that is definitely a problem. Sony is certainly taking a risk
by going with the cell, but at the same time sometimes a new way of
looking at something has its own rewards. I think it will all be fine
in the end, for both systems.
The alMIGHTY N
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2:03 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, SpanishTeacher <kyler.jack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 10:45 am, terryfied <terryvickers...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Also, it is well known the Rockstar feels that Xbox 360 crippled their GTA4
> > > > > development.
>
> > > > I never knew that.
>
> > > > Do you have a link?
>
> > > That one was actually old. You can search the archives because a
> > > couple of people posted links to stories in defense of someone posting
> > > that the PS3 was the cause of the GTA4 delay. The problem is, it
> > > wasn't the 360 that was said to have caused the delay but rather the
> > > lack of a hard drive as a standard on all versions of the platform.
> > > Not the same thing.
>
> > The lack of a hard drive was an issue brought up much earlier in the
> > year (circa April or May) which had nothing to do with the push of GTA
> > IV to 2008.
>
> Xbot propaganda. It did come up earlier, but in no way was it ever
> stated to be resolved, and it very well likely was still a problem
> when the push back came.
Really? I thought they had stated they were just going to require the
hard drive. Maybe I was thinking of a different game.
> If you can find a link saying something to
> the effect of "we overcame that hurdle" I'd be interested in reading
> it. The demo that was shown to the gaming press was running on 360
> hardware and almost to a man they all said it ran very poorly.
At what point was this demo shown to the press?
> The bottom line is that the game was likely not going to be finished
> for either problem, as at one point or another Rockstar has complained
> about both systems.
There are so few, percentage-wise, Core systems out there without hard
drive add-ons... why wouldn't they just say that you need the hard
drive? It seems like a simple enough solution...
Okay, here's the original complaint from Dan Houser of Rockstar...
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=16019
He says that both platforms have issues and both have advantages.
And some interesting theories...
http://www.games-digest.com/2007/08/gta-iv-delayed-.html
Another rumor...
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > The potential of the Cell processor is certainly greater than the
> > potential for the Xbox 360's processor. However, the CPU is used
> > mainly for AI, physics, etc. The potential of the Xbox 360's graphics
> > set is higher than that of the Playstation 3's.
>
> I didn't follow the whole "cell" discussion too closely, but I had
> understood that Sony intended developers to leverage the cell for better
> graphics as well, but once it became apparant that it wasn't always so easy
> for developers to do that, they put in an underpowered GPU or similar as a
> fallback solution.
What Sony intends and what can actually be done in the real world are
two different things, LOL. The Cell is a CPU. It's a powerful CPU in
theory, but it's still a CPU, designed to be much better at what CPUs
do. It was not designed to be a graphics processor although
technically a CPU can do that (if it gives up doing other things).
If the Playstation 3 was to run some sort of graphics demo with
absolutely no AI, physics, non-graphics calculations, etc., I'm sure
it could do it (although not nearly as well as a dedicated GPU), but
that's not how games are done.
GPUs are specifically designed to do graphics so they can power
through those tasks and let the CPU do what it does best.
> So most of the ports where the graphics look better on
> the 360 is just developers taking the easiest path and the result is
> lackluster graphics since compared to the 360 it is underpowered in that
> area. (EA Madden 08, for example)
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. No developers have come
even close to pushing either system to its maximum potential. We're
only 1-2 years into this generation so the best is yet to come for
both systems.
In any case, the issue with most ports not looking or performing as
well is probably because of the scope creep introduced by the need to
learn a very complicated and totally different architecture. Porting
between the PC and Xbox 360 is relatively easy because the
architectures are similar. It's a whole different story with the
Playstation 3. The Wii is also easy because it's really just an
enhanced GameCube - anybody who's developed for the GameCube will be
able to quickly adapt to developing for its successor.
> For those developers that are diving into
> the cell, they can produce graphics that are higher than the 360 and we've
> seen a couple of recent examples in this area (COD4 supposedly for
> instance),
I've yet to read an article from a neutral (or at least supposedly
neutral) source that says Call of Duty 4 looks better on the
Playstation 3. I once read impressions stating something to that
effect, but they were impressions written by people who wrote for a
Playstation 3 site.
This is not to say that this makes it untrue, just to say that it's
hard to take that without a grain of salt when the game hasn't even
come out yet. We all have to wait and see in November.
Doug Jacobs
> http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17934
> PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
Oh geeze. Does it really matter anymore? Who cares which is more
powerful? The time for debating specs and technical minutae is long gone.
The only real criteria for rating a game console after it's been released
is how good the games are.
After all, the PS2 wasn't the most powerful, and developers complained
about "how hard" it was to program. That didn't stop it from outselling
its competitors several times over.
It seems rather odd that folks want to still debate the PS3's potential
power (or lack of) all this time after the console has been on the
market. Perhaps it's because there isn't much else to discuss game-wise?
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
boodybandit
Mattinglyfan
Actually dumb ass, there is a difference between "Not More Powerful" and
what your stupid ass posted as the subject.
Rowdy J
"Mattinglyfan" <kyle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EvudnUzKnb1Iwrva...@comcast.com...
Jackass say what? Come on, I own both consoles... and the PS3 sucks
balls right now. If Sony were to come out with something mind blowing (not
just the blowing part), I'd be the first to step up and say "GREAT! Let's
play some PS3!" Right now, all I can say when asked abou the PS3 is... "it
sure is a shiny piece of shit, isn't it?"
khee mao
>
> PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
>
>
khee mao
"CellFish" <nomor...@forme.com> wrote in message
news:47260d4a$0$30119$7836...@newsrazor.net...
> it to anything.
>
nuts?
Brenden D. Chase
"Rowdy J" <row...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%5nVi.3506$Nz7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17934
What cracks me up is that it's all just rehash.
He doesnt bring up anything new. And ultimately he says that games made
specifically for PS3 could potentially be good, but they he says that no one
is going to take the time to do it. There's some games out and coming out
that totally go against this.
Furthermore, as i said about the rehash, it totally comes off as a wiki for
some of the fanboys around here.
Tom
Well, here's the section of that article that says the PS3 version will have
better lighting, textures and resolution:
http://www.dailygame.net/news/archives/006696.php
"Still, as strong as Call of Duty 4 is shaping up to be in the gameplay
department, the most immediately impressive aspect is by far its graphics.
The PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions all look surprisingly similar,
but that's not due to one platform being the lead; Infinity Ward personally
assured us that development occurred simultaneously on all three platforms,
and that there wasn't a base system. With that said, the console
similarities end when it comes to textures, lighting and resolutions,
because those three areas make the PlayStation 3 version definitely excel
over the Xbox 360 SKU. Regardless, every console owner will proudly use Call
of Duty 4 to showcase their high-definition TV, because COD4 is by far the
best-looking console game you will see this year."
Tom
Yes, but you know what your goal is here with that regurgitation, and it
isn't close to anything being a "discussion". Now go climb back under your
bed and put your tinfoil hat back on, before the thought rays start making
your skull shrink.
alvinst...@hotmail.com
> "Mattinglyfan" <kyler_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're an idiot. SO Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, Ratchet and
Clank, Ninja Gaiden Sigma are all stinkers? PS3 has plenty of games
to play.
Khee Mao
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:13ickir...@corp.supernews.com...
and don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, yeah, it looks great and
runs solid, but it reminds me a lot of Deus Ex on the og xbox, which wasn't
as pretty, but was a lot deeper and more interesting.
Rowdy J
<alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193719493.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Heavenly Sword was pretty good, while it lasted. Warhawk I have yet to
try, mainly because it's online only. Ratchet looks great graphically, but
it's very easy and simple to play. Ninja Gaiden -- played it on Xbox.
Rowdy J
There was no goal, except to make little whiny pussies like yourself
start pissing in your pants because a dev slighted your shiny POS3.
Tom
LOL, goes to show how much you really want to contribute to discussions
here. I don't own a PS3, I've never owned a PS anything. But when fanbabies
like you get countered with articles that show something above what the 360
can do, that can on the PS3, you disappear or complain of trolling. If you
were even the slightest in being objective, you wouldn't attack something
that scares you and your beloved.
Alex
because you could easily play "backup" games. That was the only reason it
was always sold in my country. You could buy game here for a PS2 like you go
and buy a milk.
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:13ickir...@corp.supernews.com...
pie
> http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17934
>
> PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
>
This was posted on Beyond3D on Friday and the thread was shut down
almost instantly. Rock band and GH (the developers previous projects)
are hardly graphical masterpieces that push the boundaries of the 360
and PS3.
More interesting though is the guy now works for Conduit Labs who are
working on a social gaming experience. Read the extract below - sound
quite like something I've heard of before that's coming to PS3.
http://www.worldsinmotion.biz/2007/08/conduit_labs_raises_55_million.php
"In an offline world, we do all kinds of complex interactions aside from
talking to one another. We play pool together, we bowl, we play tennis
together -- all kinds of different stuff, and none of those normal
social interactions like chatting and posting on bulletins and sending
snail-mail has been transcribed into social networks, email and IM. All
of thats moved online, but what hasn't is the ability to do something
with someone. To get a bunch of friends together on a Friday night, and
go 'out' and do something."
So does that mean Conduit's project will not be a virtual world at all?
On the contrary; "It is an immersive world," Hyatt explains. "The reason
I made that distinction is mostly because when people think about game
worlds, they think of something that feels liketypically, to play WoW or
Club Penguin, you separate yourself from the rest of your online
identity; suddenly you are a penguin, or an elf. The fact that you
happen to be using a broadband connection is the only reason its similar
with your other online experiences."
boodybandit
So you played and completed Ratcher and Clank?
boodybandit
DAMN!
I knew I should've had "beloved" patented
SpanishTeacher
> "Mattinglyfan" <kyler_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Way to pay attention to the post about your contortion of words.
terryfied
> because you could easily play "backup" games. That was the only reason it
> was always sold in my country. You could buy game here for a PS2 like you go
> and buy a milk.
One of the biggest selling points of the PS2 over the Xbox and
Gamecube, at least here in the UK, was the availability of pirate
games and cheap mod chips for the PS2.
Rowdy J
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yu-dnaLZZK_Fkbra...@comcast.com...
My youngest son did (10 years old.) He completed it in 4 days, and
that was just him playing after school and one day on the weekend. I
watched him play most of it... it didn't really make me want to grab the
controller. He dug it though, and that's what mattered.
Rowdy J
I own both consoles. I would really love both consoles if the PS had
anything worth a shit besides it's "Blur-Ray" capability and a few
downloadable games.
I don't disappear. Ever. Only in your mind because the truth hurts.
alvinst...@hotmail.com
> <alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heavenly Sword was outstanding with just the right length. Obviously
they invested a lot of time in production values so to increase the
length would require another 1 to 2 year delay.
Ratchet is a fun game to play, and it is not boring. That is what
should really matter. Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a superior version
offering new graphics, playable characters and levels.
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193689990.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
That's certainly good news for Playstation 3 owners. If what this
article says is true, there's finally a cross-platform game where the
Playstation 3 version is definitely superior to the Xbox 360 version
graphically. Also of note is that it's not a port - so one has to
wonder how much better all these Xbox 360 to Playstation 3 ports would
have been had the developers had the budget and inclination to develop
specifically for the architecture instead of having to hack a port.
The alMIGHTY N
The graphics are very nice, but the gameplay isn't all that deep and
gets repetitive pretty early on. Maybe the length being short isn't so
bad since there isn't much to the gameplay.
> Ratchet is a fun game to play, and it is not boring. That is what
> should really matter. Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a superior version
> offering new graphics, playable characters and levels.
Ninja Gaiden Sigma offers better graphics but that's hardly a reason
to play the same game over again. The new playable character is hardly
worth playing since she's not nearly as interesting and useful as the
main character. I don't know about new levels, but one complaint about
the original levels is that the focus is now all on the action and
less on the puzzle aspect so it's become more of a straight-up action
game. The original Xbox versions were a good mix of both.
The alMIGHTY N
> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
That's an insult to Bioshock LOL. The first Deus Ex game, on the PC,
was an awesome game with tons of customizing and the ability to play
in many different ways (the same concept as Bioshock, which is based
on System Shock 2, which came out before Deus Ex).
The Deus Ex sequel, which was available on the Xbox, was nowhere near
as good a game as the first, although it did have better graphics. The
game was much more linear and the customization aspect didn't seem to
have as much an impact this time around. Plus, it was way too easy to
just run around blasting everything and way too hard to play other
ways.
In the original game, it was equally compelling to run and gun as it
was to hack into systems and use stealth.
boodybandit
> On Oct 30, 11:45 am, "alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com"
> <alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 1:58 am, "Rowdy J" <row...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Heavenly Sword was pretty good, while it lasted. Warhawk I have yet
>> > to
>> > try, mainly because it's online only. Ratchet looks great graphically,
>> > but
>> > it's very easy and simple to play. Ninja Gaiden -- played it on Xbox.-
>> > Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Heavenly Sword was outstanding with just the right length. Obviously
>> they invested a lot of time in production values so to increase the
>> length would require another 1 to 2 year delay.
>
> The graphics are very nice, but the gameplay isn't all that deep and
> gets repetitive pretty early on. Maybe the length being short isn't so
> bad since there isn't much to the gameplay.
For a hack and slash game it has the best combat system I have played yet
(including God of War and Ninja Gaiden).
I'm not saying it's a better product than those titles but the combat system
is definitely better.
Khee Mao
I didn't really like about that game was the ending where every faction was
gathered in the same location and you decided which one to help to get the
different endings, which were all kind of lame. anyway, lots more variety,
lots more strategy, lots more variation and customization of gameplay in
Deus Ex than Bioshock, where the only real challenge in the game (thus far,
I'm not quite finished yet) was taking down the first Big Daddy. since then
it's been wash, rinse, repeat. there's no atmosphere or real dread or
terror or feelings of urgency or danger or really anything compelling me to
play this through a second time unless the game plays out completely
different should you choose to harvest little sisters, which I doubt. I
probably should have gotten the Orange Box instead.
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193762377.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 11:45 am, "alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com"
> > <alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 1:58 am, "Rowdy J" <row...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Heavenly Sword was pretty good, while it lasted. Warhawk I have yet
> >> > to
> >> > try, mainly because it's online only. Ratchet looks great graphically,
> >> > but
> >> > it's very easy and simple to play. Ninja Gaiden -- played it on Xbox.-
> >> > Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Heavenly Sword was outstanding with just the right length. Obviously
> >> they invested a lot of time in production values so to increase the
> >> length would require another 1 to 2 year delay.
>
> > The graphics are very nice, but the gameplay isn't all that deep and
> > gets repetitive pretty early on. Maybe the length being short isn't so
> > bad since there isn't much to the gameplay.
>
> For a hack and slash game it has the best combat system I have played yet
> (including God of War and Ninja Gaiden).
> I'm not saying it's a better product than those titles but the combat system
> is definitely better.
I played Ninja Gaiden a very long time ago so I don't really remember
it well enough to compare it to the 10-15 minutes of Heavenly Sword
I've played. I've never played God of War so I can't make a comparison
from that angle.
I do remember Ninja Gaiden's combat system being very well implemented
and that I wasn't really impressed by Heavenly Sword's, but it could
just be that I'm not as interested in straight-up hack-and-slash
anymore.
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193762546....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 29, 11:05 pm, "Khee Mao" <a...@asdf.asdf> wrote:
>
> >> I finally got around to Bioshock, have played about halfway through or
> >> more,
> >> and don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, yeah, it looks great
> >> and
> >> runs solid, but it reminds me a lot of Deus Ex on the og xbox, which
> >> wasn't
> >> as pretty, but was a lot deeper and more interesting.
>
> > That's an insult to Bioshock LOL. The first Deus Ex game, on the PC,
> > was an awesome game with tons of customizing and the ability to play
> > in many different ways (the same concept as Bioshock, which is based
> > on System Shock 2, which came out before Deus Ex).
>
> > The Deus Ex sequel, which was available on the Xbox, was nowhere near
> > as good a game as the first, although it did have better graphics. The
> > game was much more linear and the customization aspect didn't seem to
> > have as much an impact this time around. Plus, it was way too easy to
> > just run around blasting everything and way too hard to play other
> > ways.
>
> > In the original game, it was equally compelling to run and gun as it
> > was to hack into systems and use stealth.
>
> I played through Invisible War(?) as hacker/sniper/stealth. the only thing
> I didn't really like about that game was the ending where every faction was
> gathered in the same location and you decided which one to help to get the
> different endings, which were all kind of lame.
The whole game was a disappointment save for the graphics, which
weren't bad but weren't spectacular. It was basically a dumbed down
version of the first game with a far less compelling storyline. If you
can find Deus Ex for a cheap price, it may be worth checking out.
> anyway, lots more variety,
> lots more strategy, lots more variation and customization of gameplay in
> Deus Ex than Bioshock, where the only real challenge in the game (thus far,
> I'm not quite finished yet) was taking down the first Big Daddy.
I found Invisible War to be rather easy compared to the first game.
The character customization options were basically just an extension
of those found in the first game, which some could say were ripped off
of System Shock 2, which had come out a year earlier.
I don't think there's really much difference in the variation of
customization between Invisible War and Bioshock. Both games have a
lot of "powers" you can choose from, with Bioshock actually edging out
because it's more like the first Deus Ex - not only do you have the
powers but you can also improve your life, armor, speed, etc. (in the
first Deus Ex game, you had both the mods and skills as well, as
opposed to just mods in Invisible War).
The main advantage of Invisible War is the moderately branching
storyline (again, very inferior to Deus Ex). Bioshock is essentially
the same game, storywise, no matter what method of play you choose.
You fight the same bosses and learn the same things... you just have a
wide variety of ways to do all that instead of just straight run-and-
gunning.
In Invisible War, there wasn't much incentive to take out enemies any
way other than shooting them. You could use stealth to get past some
completely but if you were to confront someone, you basically had to
attack them with a weapon.
I've found VERY different strategies to use against Big Daddies, none
of which involved me getting up close and personal. In some cases, I
would find a tunnel to hide in to pick them off slowly... in some
cases, I would set up a whole slew of electrified wires... in other
cases, I would set up mines... sometimes I would lead them to my
hacked defense drones... and sometimes I would just freeze, burn,
electrify and bee sting them to death. Of course, I always tried to
set up fights between Big Daddies and the Splicers as much as
possible.
I could have just gunned them down over and over again, but that would
have been boring. I like that I have the option to do all these
different things, which Invisible War didn't give me.
> since then
> it's been wash, rinse, repeat. there's no atmosphere or real dread or
> terror or feelings of urgency or danger or really anything compelling me to
> play this through a second time unless the game plays out completely
> different should you choose to harvest little sisters, which I doubt.
Bioshock has a lot more atmosphere and a much better presentation than
Invisible War. The immersion is much better because of the superb art
design of the game. Invisible War was rather drab looking and the
presentation was kind of plain Jane.
> I probably should have gotten the Orange Box instead.
You only just bought Bioshock? The Orange Box sounds like a pretty
good purchase, but I wasn't a huge fan of Half-Life 2 and wouldn't
play it again. I wouldn't mind trying out the two episodes, though...
and Portal sounds pretty cool. I'm not a big fan of online
deathmatches usually so I don't know that Team Fortress would be that
interesting to me (love the art style, though).
slaye...@hotmail.com
> and Portal sounds pretty cool. I'm not a big fan of online
> deathmatches usually so I don't know that Team Fortress would be that
> interesting to me (love the art style, though).
TF2 is not an online deathmatch.
Tom
Yeah right, and it's interesting rationalization on your part that you own a
PS3 to which you attribute nasty epithets. It's a PoS according to you, yet
you have one and you say you "would love the PS, blah blah blah", but you
buy games for it and you and you son play them. Your definition of a PoS is
really distorted from what that term typically means here in quality
hardware, as to what it has in games.
Tom
Well Sony didn't dole out the dev kits until about 3 months before the PS3
was officially released and most know how long it takes to develop a game
these days, some take years. The 360, though admittedly easier to develop
games for, was doing this years before its release. I am not sticking up for
Sony, they screwed up IMHO, changing the original hardware around to
something a bit easier by adding a graphics card, them having to get a dev
kit out almost before release . But, had they had the dev kits years before,
then you could see what would have been. I bet they learned from this big
time.
Rowdy J
Tom, trade in your PS3 for a life. Seriously. Would you like a picture
of my PS3 alongside my 360 to prove in your shallow little head that while I
own a PS3, it doesn't mean I'm in love with it and will defend it blindly
even though Sony can't make decent games for it?
terryfied
> was officially released and most know how long it takes to develop a game
> these days, some take years.
Surely devs kits were given out three months before the *original*
release date, which was April/May 2006, and not the *official* release
date, which was November 2006?
Tom
"terryfied" <terryvi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193779156....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
No, I remember reading that the dev kits didn't get released until a few
months before release. Why do you think that almost every launch title for
the PS3 was a port?
Mark Johnson
There is decent games, its just maybe you don't like them which is fair
enough.
Doug Jacobs
> Heavenly Sword was outstanding with just the right length. Obviously
> they invested a lot of time in production values so to increase the
> length would require another 1 to 2 year delay.
At $60 for a game that's barely 6 hours long, I wouldn't call it
"outstanding". The reviewers agreed saying there wasn't enough gameplay
in the "game".
> Ratchet is a fun game to play, and it is not boring. That is what
> should really matter. Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a superior version
> offering new graphics, playable characters and levels.
R&C is about the only game I'd buy a PS3 for right now.
As for Ninja Gaiden, he obviously feels the added features and improved
graphics aren't enough to make play it again. Personally, I never
understood the concept of making a game so hard that it's only for "hard
core gamers".
Tom
LOL, you still cannot read can you, or are you mentally challenged having
someone with little time deciphering mostly one syllable words for you? I
told you before that I don't own a PS3, nor have I owned anything PS, what
part of that do you not understand? Yet, you say you'd love your PS3 blah
blah blah, yet call it a PoS here constantly. So, how does that measure up
with real sensibilities? And how you confuse me calling you on your claim
that the PS3 is a PoS while you say you love it, to me not believing that
you don't own one is really off the wall, I never said you didn't have one.
WOW dude, you really need that tin foil hat now.
boodybandit
Either that or you just didn't learn everything that HS has to offer as far
as it's play mechanics / combat engine. I absolutely love the fact that you
are always in the fight if you reflexes are fast enough. It was the most fun
I ever had wit ha combat system in that type of game. It's too bad the game
was so short and not put together as I wish it would've been. I just hope
there is a 2nd / sequel and they get it right because I definitely want
another shot at that engine with a more finished product.
Tom
"Mark Johnson" <mark-j...@freeola.com> wrote in message
news:fg87gu$f9k$1...@energise.enta.net...
But, would that make the console a PoS?
boodybandit
Do you have a comprehesion problem. He doesn't own a PS3 and he is the first
to criticize the PS3 when it's "deserved". Unlike your childish rants.
slaye...@hotmail.com
I am getting tired of reading this. He said he would love it if: and
then listed things.
> blah blah, yet call it a PoS here constantly. So, how does that measure up
> with real sensibilities? And how you confuse me calling you on your claim
> that the PS3 is a PoS WHILE YOU SAY YOU LOVE IT, to me not believing that
> you don't own one is really off the wall, I never said you didn't have one.
> WOW dude, you really need that tin foil hat now.
He never said he loved it, he said he would if it met certain
conditions. I am in the same boat with my PS3's at my LAN center. I am
enjoying R&C, and just started Heavenly Sword and am being mildly
entertained by it. Had I bought one for home use I would be very upset
at the lack of games, mostly long loading times, and various other
things that make me not enjoy the system overall. However, the fact
that I can get on the PS3 shows how well it's doing in my shop.
Rowdy J
Well, with the controller dropouts I've been experiencing (yes, most launch
machines have this issue), and the constant firmware updates to make things
work that should've worked upon launch, and the whole rumble fiasco (having
to buy new controllers to take advantage of it), and Sony's broken promises
about various software and release dates, yes... I think it qualifies it as
a PoS.
Rowdy J
<slaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193781584....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, Tom... who needs that tin-foil hat now? LOL
Rowdy J
So, let me get this straight... you don't even have the cash for a PS3
(or don't want one to begin with), but you spend your days on USENET
defending it?
Rowdy J
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TLudnd7w4dr_Nbra...@comcast.com...
Childish rants. That should be the name of this newsgroup. ;-)
Including your posts, ASS BANDIT.
slaye...@hotmail.com
> <slayerma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Don't confuse my siding with you on this one issue for siding with you
on the whole. You STILL seem to think Tom is a PS3 fanboy which proves
your insanity beyond a doubt. How many times does he have to say he
doesn't own or support the PS3?
There must be a full moon somewhere...
Doug Jacobs
> "In an offline world, we do all kinds of complex interactions aside from
> talking to one another. We play pool together, we bowl, we play tennis
> together -- all kinds of different stuff, and none of those normal
> social interactions like chatting and posting on bulletins and sending
> snail-mail has been transcribed into social networks, email and IM. All
> of thats moved online, but what hasn't is the ability to do something
> with someone. To get a bunch of friends together on a Friday night, and
> go 'out' and do something."
> So does that mean Conduit's project will not be a virtual world at all?
> On the contrary; "It is an immersive world," Hyatt explains. "The reason
> I made that distinction is mostly because when people think about game
> worlds, they think of something that feels liketypically, to play WoW or
> Club Penguin, you separate yourself from the rest of your online
> identity; suddenly you are a penguin, or an elf. The fact that you
> happen to be using a broadband connection is the only reason its similar
> with your other online experiences."
Yeah...there's this thing called SecondLife. It's been out on the PC for
ages, and is free.
Sony is trying to copy parts of it for their new-fangled online service
for the PS3 called HOME, which was supposed to have gone live this fall,
but got delayed (like just about everything else) until april 2008.
The idea is that your online avatar has a virtual apartment which you can
decorate with virtual furniture and items that you buy with real money.
Your apartment is also where you can display your trophies
(aka "Achievements" for you 360 fans) from various games, along with
little videos, etc. You can then invite other people over to your
apartment to gawk at your leet decorating skills, as well as your trohpy
collection. Yeah...that's just what I want in an online experience - to
be surrounded by dorks who actually think I should come over to their
virtual place and look at their trophy collection... Anyways, using HOME,
you can then "walk" your avatar down the streets to the store where you
can download movies, games, etc. Or head to the theater to catch the
latest game or movie trailer playing there. There'll also be lounges
where you and thousands of your buds can just hang out...online...on a
game console...not playing any games.
I don't know who came up with this whole idea, but honestly, if someone
comes up to me saying "Wanna see my trophies?" I certainly hope they let
me smack him with my virtual fist.
Rowdy J
<slaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193787599.3...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
There is... and if you were near me right now... you'd see the crack of
it up close and personal. ;-)
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I did say that he loved it the secondt time in my reply, I did
use "you'd" if you read the beginning, I forgot the second time later
in that same post to make it conditional. By the way, the games do
look cool on the PS3, but they are not my cup of tea without the
extras with more online features, that's the only reason I got the
Xbox and the 360, otherwise, I would have stayed with PC gaming.
boodybandit
um ah yeah.
That is my name.
Wow you're bright.
What post are childish rants of mine other than making fun of trolls?
Up until now I never thought you to be an asshole. Guess times have changed.
boodybandit
Please tell me you didn't just say the PS3 is POS hardware.
As a 360 consumer I can not believe you actually have the balls to go
"there".
You have really gone off the deep end now. Maybe you should tell you doctor
you needs to start some meds.
terryfied
> > release date, which was April/May 2006, and not the *official* release
> > date, which was November 2006?
>
> No, I remember reading that the dev kits didn't get released until a few
> months before release. Why do you think that almost every launch title for
> the PS3 was a port?
I never knew that.
What games would have been available if the PS3 would have been
released on time then?
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193761941.1...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If that were true, more people would be more willing to forgive.
However, you are absolutely incorrect. The *final* development kits
were released to studios in August, 3 months before launch. Those were
third-generatioin development kits with final specs exactly matching
the Playstation 3.
The first development kits were sent out to select third-party
developers in early 2005! EA, Epic and other larger companies were
already developing games by the time E3 2005 rolled around in May of
that year.
Granted, the earlier development kits were exact matches to the final
specs, but the system didn't change so drastically where developers
would have to overhaul their games. They have had PLENTY of time to
develop.
> The 360, though admittedly easier to develop
> games for, was doing this years before its release.
The first development kits were released to third-party developers in
2005. There was a big ruckus about how developers weren't getting any
development kits even that late in the game.
> I am not sticking up for
> Sony, they screwed up IMHO, changing the original hardware around to
> something a bit easier by adding a graphics card, them having to get a dev
> kit out almost before release . But, had they had the dev kits years before,
> then you could see what would have been. I bet they learned from this big
> time.- Hide quoted text -
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193771039.8...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Well, this game sold a lot better than their previous effort - Kung Fu
Chaos on the Xbox - so I imagine they'll probably do a sequel.
The alMIGHTY N
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com <alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Heavenly Sword was outstanding with just the right length. Obviously
> > they invested a lot of time in production values so to increase the
> > length would require another 1 to 2 year delay.
>
> At $60 for a game that's barely 6 hours long, I wouldn't call it
> "outstanding". The reviewers agreed saying there wasn't enough gameplay
> in the "game".
>
> > Ratchet is a fun game to play, and it is not boring. That is what
> > should really matter. Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a superior version
> > offering new graphics, playable characters and levels.
>
> R&C is about the only game I'd buy a PS3 for right now.
>
> As for Ninja Gaiden, he obviously feels the added features and improved
> graphics aren't enough to make play it again. Personally, I never
> understood the concept of making a game so hard that it's only for "hard
> core gamers".
That whole concept is retarded but there's a market for that.
Luckily, the default difficulty, while higher than the original game,
is still "doable" by a gamer who invests some time and effort. The
hardest difficulty setting is supposed to be like Ninja Gaiden
Black's... near impossible for anyone but the best to complete.
The alMIGHTY N
Where do you get "don't even have the cash for a PS3" from anywhere in
his post?
The alMIGHTY N
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 pie <p...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "In an offline world, we do all kinds of complex interactions aside from
> > talking to one another. We play pool together, we bowl, we play tennis
> > together -- all kinds of different stuff, and none of those normal
> > social interactions like chatting and posting on bulletins and sending
> > snail-mail has been transcribed into social networks, email and IM. All
> > of thats moved online, but what hasn't is the ability to do something
> > with someone. To get a bunch of friends together on a Friday night, and
> > go 'out' and do something."
> > So does that mean Conduit's project will not be a virtual world at all?
> > On the contrary; "It is an immersive world," Hyatt explains. "The reason
> > I made that distinction is mostly because when people think about game
> > worlds, they think of something that feels liketypically, to play WoW or
> > Club Penguin, you separate yourself from the rest of your online
> > identity; suddenly you are a penguin, or an elf. The fact that you
> > happen to be using a broadband connection is the only reason its similar
> > with your other online experiences."
>
> Yeah...there's this thing called SecondLife. It's been out on the PC for
> ages, and is free.
It was featured a week or two ago on The Office. The biggest (or
second biggest depending on how you feel about the boss) loser in the
office is enthralled by it.
> Sony is trying to copy parts of it for their new-fangled online service
> for the PS3 called HOME, which was supposed to have gone live this fall,
> but got delayed (like just about everything else) until april 2008.
>
> The idea is that your online avatar has a virtual apartment which you can
> decorate with virtual furniture and items that you buy with real money.
Whoa whoa whoa...
Are you talking about Second Life or Home here? I know in Second Life
you have to pay real money for stuff... but in Home, too?
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> Are you talking about Second Life or Home here? I know in Second Life
> you have to pay real money for stuff... but in Home, too?
Home will also be selling stuff. You can only get the basic stuff for
free.
-Eric
The King of Gaming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, it's the Doug Jacobs Troll, who has no real intention of owning
*any* next gen console anytime soon, complaining about the PS3 again.
Who'da thunk it?
Can we at least wait untill it comes out and see how it is? By the
way, you forgot to complain about the PS3 not having any games in this
post. It must have gotten cut off, no way you'd leave it out.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Oct 30, 12:23 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > and Portal sounds pretty cool. I'm not a big fan of online
> > deathmatches usually so I don't know that Team Fortress would be that
> > interesting to me (love the art style, though).
>
> TF2 is not an online deathmatch.
I know, I'm just making a generalization... I was never really into
online competitive modes because for many games people just cheat or
just fling insults at each other that are annoying to listen to.
I like coop modes myself.
slaye...@hotmail.com
As far as I have seen on both systems, TF2 has no cheating (apart from
the heavy running while firing gun bug which was fixed) and the crowds
tend to be mostly mature. Most people are smart enough to take hits
for the team (like you wouldn't see a full team of snipers, because
they would get rolled by a spy) and play useful classes like heavy and
medic because it's fun. Muting spamming idiots is a rare occasion but
they made it very simple.
I would give TOB a shot, at the very least for Portal.
Doug Jacobs
> Wow, it's the Doug Jacobs Troll, who has no real intention of owning
> *any* next gen console anytime soon, complaining about the PS3 again.
> Who'da thunk it?
Yeah, I'm a troll because I happen to think HOME is a stupid idea.
> Can we at least wait untill it comes out and see how it is?
Based on Sony's demos and press releases about HOME, I fail to see how
it's a good idea.
1: As Sony's answer to XBox Live, it's a failure as not all games - by
Sony's design - have to use HOME. This results in a rather fragmented
online experience like the PS2 had, and makes some of the strongest
features of XBox Live impossible to truely recreate on the PS3.
This isn't the PS2 we're talking about here, where Sony got blindsided by
Microsoft for not having a solid networking/multiplayer plan in place.
Sony has had years to analyze what Microsoft has done and prepare for the
launch of the PS3. Yet, even after delaying the PS3 for 6 months, there
was no network. Several PS3 games had to drop(!) their online component
altogether because the developers couldn't afford to wait for Sony to make
up their mind.
And now, you're telling me that ~18 months into the PS3's life, we might
possibly, finally, have something that *SHOULD* have been ready well in
advance of the PS3's launch 2 years ago? Think about it. Microsoft
already had its plans for the 360's online service - including
Achievements and everything else - already defined and working about a
year before the 360 came out. This gave developers ample time to
integrate Live with their launch titles.
2: If Sony expects me to spend serious time walking around this virtual
world of theirs - which is totally free - how exactly am I generating any
revenue for Sony? Since Sony's network is free, me hanging out on HOME
all the time means I'm not buying games or movies. In fact, hanging out
online means I'm *costing* Sony money. Yes, I know, Sony talked about
having ads on HOME. However Sony is deluding themselves if they seriously
think that ad-revenue is going to be enough to support the networking
infrastructure needed for millions of online loafers. Furthermore, if
HOME gets overridden with ads, is anyone really going to want to use it?
At least if I'm playing an online game against someone on Live, I've
already given Microsoft $50. Most of that will be going towards
maintaining Live itself. I doubt Microsoft makes that much profit from
that.
3: Trophies. In my virtual apartment. Do I really need to explain why this
is perhaps the lamest idea I've ever heard?
4: Walking around the virtual world to go to the virtual store to buy my
downloads. Yeah, OK, that might be cute once or twice, but really? Just
give me a menu. I don't want to have to make my avatar interact with some
virtual store avatar just to download a movie trailer or a game. Is Sony
really thinking that people bought a PS3 just to pretend to be a virtual
person buying movies in a virtual store?
Home could have had some great potential - such as allowing people to
customize their avatars with items from games they've played, and then
take those avatars into whatever game you want. Why not, eh? That would
be truly impressive. Sony could even charge for accessories for your
avatar to wear. At least that would make more sense than buying a stupid
virtual couch object for your stupid virtual apartment that NO ONE ELSE
WANTS TO SEE.
With people complaining that Sony's network is already pretty slow, can
you imagine what HOME will be like with all those users on it, not to
mention all the animated/video ads. Yeah, that's just what *I* want - a
slower, lamer version of Second Life that costs $400.
slaye...@hotmail.com
> 4: Walking around the virtual world to go to the virtual store to buy my
> downloads. Yeah, OK, that might be cute once or twice, but really? Just
> give me a menu. I don't want to have to make my avatar interact with some
> virtual store avatar just to download a movie trailer or a game. Is Sony
> really thinking that people bought a PS3 just to pretend to be a virtual
> person buying movies in a virtual store?
God that be stupid.
slaye...@hotmail.com
Halloween and I told myself I wouldn't let it spill onto usenet...
Epic failure...
Big Daddy
>> But, would that make the console a PoS?
>
> Well, with the controller dropouts I've been experiencing (yes, most
> launch machines have this issue), and the constant firmware updates to
> make things work that should've worked upon launch, and the whole rumble
> fiasco (having to buy new controllers to take advantage of it), and Sony's
> broken promises about various software and release dates, yes... I think
> it qualifies it as a PoS.
well this proves that you don't own the console. I think the last firmware
update was mid september
Big Daddy
> ASS BANDIT.
I doubted you have a ps3 based on your comment about firmware updates, and
now I doubt your old enough to have a 10 year old as this type of post
couldn't come from someone much older than that himself.
Big Daddy
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> If that were true, more people would be more willing to forgive.
No *people* would still bash because they hate Sony.
> However, you are absolutely incorrect. The *final* development kits
> were released to studios in August, 3 months before launch. Those were
> third-generatioin development kits with final specs exactly matching
> the Playstation 3.
>
> The first development kits were sent out to select third-party
> developers in early 2005! EA, Epic and other larger companies were
> already developing games by the time E3 2005 rolled around in May of
> that year.
They only released around 100 dev kits in June of 2005 (not early 2005).
The released close to 10,000 3 months before release in 2006 (August).
slaye...@hotmail.com
Big Daddy
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:13if8gt...@corp.supernews.com...
> R&C is about the only game I'd buy a PS3 for right now.
Is that true even if you didn't own the 360? Because there are a lot of
good non-exclusives available (oblivion, GH, etc.)
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
EA and Epic had development kits well before June of 2005. They were
already showing demos at E3 that were built using the dev kits they
received. Dev kits were in developers' hands as early as April of
2005. Granted, not everybody had them, but the big companies did.
In either case, developers didn't have these kits "for years" as the
previous poster claimed.
The alMIGHTY N
I might rent it soon but I definitely won't be buying it anytime soon.
I ended my moratorium on console games but I'm still holding back
because I can't spend the way I used to with a kid now. I bought
Guitar Hero III with the guitar yesterday and I probably won't buy
another game until Rock Band, after which I probably won't buy another
game until 2008 (unless I give in to my temptation to get the
Collector's Edition of Mass Effect).
The alMIGHTY N
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, it's the Doug Jacobs Troll, who has no real intention of owning
> > *any* next gen console anytime soon, complaining about the PS3 again.
> > Who'da thunk it?
>
> Yeah, I'm a troll because I happen to think HOME is a stupid idea.
>
> > Can we at least wait untill it comes out and see how it is?
>
> Based on Sony's demos and press releases about HOME, I fail to see how
> it's a good idea.
It looks like Second Life (albeit with better graphics). Sony's
description of it sounds just like Second Life (with a much more
limited world, of course). Journalists and the like who have seen it
liken it to Second Life.
If there were no Second Life, this could be a big hit because you'd
have all those geeks who are now playing Second Life jumping on that
instead.
The fact that there already is a Second Life makes it harder for this
thing to be really successful because people who are going to be
interested in playing something like Second Life, Playstation 3 fans
or not, are probably already playing that already and won't want to
divert time from their alternate reality to hop on a more limited and
specialized version of it.
What I'm hoping Sony does is provide a plain vanilla online interface
for people who simply want to set up online games or do simple
chatting so they don't have to jump through hoops to do it. I haven't
read anywhere that Sony is planning on anything but the virtual world,
which means that players will have to walk around this virtual world
just to do things they should be able to do in a matter of seconds.
That's the biggest problem with this. I think it's wrong to say that
this Home project on its own is going to be bad. I'm not really
interested and many people won't be, but the success of Second Life
proves that the idea is viable. The problems come when you consider
that gamers are pretty much forced to interact with this even if
they're just trying to watch a trailer.
So...
Does anybody know if Sony has announced that the Playstation Network
as it exists is still going to be around and Second Life Lite will
just be another way to get online... or is Home going to just replace
what PS3 gamers have now? If the former, it's not that bad a thing,
personal opinions aside.
Big Daddy
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127242.html
Shipment of 100 dev kits. Dated June 9, 2005. "Sony Computer Entertainment
is STARTING to ship out its development kits for the PlayStation 3. says it
can't manufacture enough to meet publisher demands"
And the 100k shipment notice
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154682.html
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1193926440.3...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
My bad... thought you were talking about the Xbox 360 development
kits...
Rowdy J
"Big Daddy" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nVaWi.3794$Nz7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Yeah, because everyone else's posts are SO mature. Wow, I'm completely
amazed at the level of enlightenment that is bestowed upon me from posts in
here on a daily basis.
Rowdy J
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1L2dnax7o6XP_7Xa...@comcast.com...
The hardware is fine. The software blows balls. And without the
software... guess what... the hardware blows balls too.
What IS with the controller dropouts though? That SUCKS. To be in the
middle of a fast paced game and have the controller get hit with the "stupid
stick" and stop responding for a second or two is utterly ridiculous.
Sony's probably trying to avoid commenting on it... but it IS a real
issue... and a real issue without a fix as far as I know.
Rowdy J
Oh boy... you guys are funny. How many firmware updates have there been
since launch? Exactly. Too many to note.
Oh, and they all took about 10-20 minutes to download too.... on an
Elite DSL connection (3.0mb) Not because they were large, mind you -- but
because the network sucked wind and couldn't feed it's customers quickly and
efficiently.
Rowdy J
I didn't. I got it from his picture in the newspaper under the heading
Bankrupt: In Both Mind And Wallet.
Rowdy J
And I doubt you have a single clue as to what the hell you're talking
about. Fair enough?
Doug Jacobs
> It looks like Second Life (albeit with better graphics). Sony's
> description of it sounds just like Second Life (with a much more
> limited world, of course). Journalists and the like who have seen it
> liken it to Second Life.
> If there were no Second Life, this could be a big hit because you'd
> have all those geeks who are now playing Second Life jumping on that
> instead.
To be fair, it isn't exactly second life since there is no user
item-creation. Nor is it exactly like those 3d Avatar chatrooms, like
IMVU, since there will be other activities available instead of just chat,
and I'm not sure how much (if any) customization HOME users will have over
their avatars. I've already heard that Sony shot down the idea of
allowing game-based costumes/items for avatars, which I think was a really
big, dumb mistake on Sony's part...
> The fact that there already is a Second Life makes it harder for this
> thing to be really successful because people who are going to be
> interested in playing something like Second Life, Playstation 3 fans
> or not, are probably already playing that already and won't want to
> divert time from their alternate reality to hop on a more limited and
> specialized version of it.
Even if Second Life didn't exist, Sony would quickly find that there would
be 2 kinds of Home users. Those who reluctantly use it to just get online
tasks done with, and those who use it exclusively - not playing other
games at all. Problem is, within the larger context of gathering friends
together to go play a game, Home is just overkill. On the other side, as
a social network, it's too limited.
> What I'm hoping Sony does is provide a plain vanilla online interface
> for people who simply want to set up online games or do simple
> chatting so they don't have to jump through hoops to do it. I haven't
> read anywhere that Sony is planning on anything but the virtual world,
> which means that players will have to walk around this virtual world
> just to do things they should be able to do in a matter of seconds.
I would hope for this too, but then, this negates the whole purpose of
Home, if you think about it. Otherwise, all the non-social network users
will use the menu system, leaving Home to the chatters.
> Does anybody know if Sony has announced that the Playstation Network
> as it exists is still going to be around and Second Life Lite will
> just be another way to get online... or is Home going to just replace
> what PS3 gamers have now? If the former, it's not that bad a thing,
> personal opinions aside.
I'm not at all clear what Sony plans to do with either once Home
supposedly goes live in April of next year.
gmon...@hotmail.com
<alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29,3:46 pm, "Rowdy J" <row...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mattinglyfan" <kyler_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:EvudnUzKnb1Iwrva...@comcast.com...
>
> > > > "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:lpudne2KppNKi7va...@insightbb.com...
>
> > > >>>http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17934
>
> > > >>> PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says Ex-Harmonix Dev
> > > >> <snipped>
>
> > > >> How many times are you fanboys going to regurgitate the same article
> > > over
> > > >> and over and agai? Not only that, you're prick enough to crosspost it,
> > > in
> > > >> the hopes of starting a flame war.
>
> > > > Nah, I'm prick enough to post a real article that laughs out loud at
> > > the
> > > > PS3. That's all. I didn't notice someone else posted it until just
> > > now.
>
> > > > We have regular 360/PS3 pro/con discussions in here. Get used to it.
> > > > Prick.
>
> > > what your stupid ass posted as the subject.
>
> > Jackass say what? Come on, I own both consoles... and the PS3 sucks
> > balls right now. If Sony were to come out with something mind blowing (not
> > just the blowing part), I'd be the first to step up and say "GREAT! Let's
> > play some PS3!" Right now, all I can say when asked abou the PS3 is... "it
> > sure is a shiny piece of shit, isn't it?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Clank, Ninja Gaiden Sigma are all stinkers? PS3 has plenty of games
> to play.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
============================================================
PS3 has shit, only crappy games, nothing great and worth to buy.