The gaming thread!!!

Originally Posted by Mehdi

Complete rubbish. Where is your proof? Developers cliam there is little difference overall with the 360 having the edge in graphics processing power :

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/ar...er_speaks.html

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm

Note both articles are from 2006 when the consoles were both on sale and complete.

umm...The articles say precisely what I said. Right now developers are finding it easier to get more out of the 360 than PS3. The person who wrote the blog on the guardian site also seemed to provide a more detailed explanation about developing for the 2 machines.

And if you've seen any footage of these games, most of which were supposed to be launch titles, you would know not a single one of them looks impressive graphically. Given they have been in development for 2 years now that doesn't bode well for the supposed power of the PS3.

I'd say the graphics for the better launch titles were solid, quite why you'd expect something more is beyond me. Sony has almost always had slow starts with getting results on their machines, the PS took a while before the big hitters came out, and the PS2 was out almost 2 years before the first real killer app came out. Xbox on the other hand is better in this regard, as the XBox had a great lineup for it's launch and the 360 has had some fast results too. Oh, and I'd like to know which of the games I listed were meant to be launch titles?

What videos have you been watching? They look average graphically. I've been following the progress of the PS3 for years. Sony continually lied about the machines power. Look at the early videos of MotorStorm and the final release. The difference is like night and day.

lol, amusing how you think the games are average looking. Sony hasn't lied about the technical specs of the PS3 (they messed up in many other regards though), the press made assumptions on videos they were shown. The big debate wasn't on Motorstorm either, it was on Killzone, with the current game not actually looking too far off of the video footage originally shown.

Right and as the Xbox 360 is graphically more powerful and easier to develop on the 360 will continue to set the benchmark for next gen consoles. Right now claims that the PS3 are more powerful are just that - claims but then Sony have a habit of lying.

Let's wait and see, seeing as it takes a good few years before we're sure what'll happen in the market. I don't see why you're so concerned with graphics (the whole of your reply to me was only about graphics), which are becoming rudementary in gaming now as we've reached a point where eye candy isn't enough to sell a game anymore, which is clearly exemplified by the success of Wii.

Originally Posted by ACMILAN1983

umm...The articles say precisely what I said.

Where does it say :

However, the potential of Sony's machine blows both the 360 and Wii out of the water, as technically it a superior piece of kit.

No one claims it's technically superior and Blue Ray doesn't make it technically superior.

Oh, and I'd like to know which of the games I listed were meant to be launch titles?

Next gen versions of Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy were supposed to be PS3 launch titles.

lol, amusing how you think the games are average looking. Sony hasn't lied about the technical specs of the PS3 (they messed up in many other regards though), the press made assumptions on videos they were shown.

The press based their assumptions on what Sony's CEO, Phil 'The Liar' Harrison, told them :

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9051

19 May 2005

GamesIndustry.biz: One question on the lips of many people at the moment: how much of what we saw in the PlayStation 3 demos was actually running in real-time?

Phil Harrison: Everything in the demos was real-time.

And what about the game footage clips?

Phil Harrison: Not all of that - in fact, none of it was real-time because it was all running off video. If you make a presentation to two and a half thousand people, you're going to put some of it on video just to be on the safe side.

Phil Harrison: I've been asked this question a lot. The way we put those videos together, everything was done to specification. Everything was done to PS3 spec. Virtually everything used in-game assets; some things were rendered.

How representative of what we're actually going to be seeing in PS3 games were those videos?

Phil Harrison: I think very. I think depending on the game, different games took a different approach to their way of expressing what the games are like - but clearly, something like Motor Storm uses more cinematic, replay-like cameras than you would ever enjoy in-game. So that makes a big difference... But everything is done to spec.

The big debate wasn't on Motorstorm either, it was on Killzone, with the current game not actually looking too far off of the video footage originally shown.

Here's the original :

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/6443.html

And here's the latest actual in game footage :

http://www.gametrailers.com/game/1668.html

To say that's not too far off is like saying Paolo Maldini is not too far off his 20th birthday.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/play...hread.id=18839

“With Killzone, the expectation internally and externally is very high – and I won’t show it until it’s going to exceed people’s expectations. It will be next year before we show it again, but it’s coming along very well. The team are working very hard, they know exactly what they have to do and there’s no doubt they will achieve it, but there’s nothing to be served by something that doesn’t satisfy my goals for the project. I can tell you, though, that some elements already exceed the trailer.” - Phil Harrison

And which elements exceed the trailer?

Let's wait and see, seeing as it takes a good few years before we're sure what'll happen in the market. I don't see why you're so concerned with graphics (the whole of your reply to me was only about graphics), which are becoming rudementary in gaming now as we've reached a point where eye candy isn't enough to sell a game anymore, which is clearly exemplified by the success of Wii.

I see you've climbed down about graphics now you know the machine isn't what it's cracked up to be. I was convinced Sony would be a success in the console market and the PS1 and PS2 were fantastic machines but a console is not like a football club. I do not subscribe to the fanboy mindset. I owe Sony nothing. You can wait and see but I got tired of Sony's lies so got a Xbox 360 instead.

Originally Posted by Mehdi

Where does it say :

No one claims it's technically superior and Blue Ray doesn't make it technically superior.

Next gen versions of Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy were supposed to be PS3 launch titles.

The press based their assumptions on what Sony's CEO, Phil 'The Liar' Harrison, told them :

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9051

19 May 2005

GamesIndustry.biz: One question on the lips of many people at the moment: how much of what we saw in the PlayStation 3 demos was actually running in real-time?

Phil Harrison: Everything in the demos was real-time.

And what about the game footage clips?

Phil Harrison: Not all of that - in fact, none of it was real-time because it was all running off video. If you make a presentation to two and a half thousand people, you're going to put some of it on video just to be on the safe side.

Phil Harrison: I've been asked this question a lot. The way we put those videos together, everything was done to specification. Everything was done to PS3 spec. Virtually everything used in-game assets; some things were rendered.

How representative of what we're actually going to be seeing in PS3 games were those videos?

Phil Harrison: I think very. I think depending on the game, different games took a different approach to their way of expressing what the games are like - but clearly, something like Motor Storm uses more cinematic, replay-like cameras than you would ever enjoy in-game. So that makes a big difference... But everything is done to spec.

Here's the original :

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/6443.html

And here's the latest actual in game footage :

http://www.gametrailers.com/game/1668.html

To say that's not too far off is like saying Paolo Maldini is not too far off his 20th birthday.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/play...hread.id=18839

“With Killzone, the expectation internally and externally is very high – and I won’t show it until it’s going to exceed people’s expectations. It will be next year before we show it again, but it’s coming along very well. The team are working very hard, they know exactly what they have to do and there’s no doubt they will achieve it, but there’s nothing to be served by something that doesn’t satisfy my goals for the project. I can tell you, though, that some elements already exceed the trailer.” - Phil Harrison

And which elements exceed the trailer?

I see you've climbed down about graphics now you know the machine isn't what it's cracked up to be. I was convinced Sony would be a success in the console market and the PS1 and PS2 were fantastic machines but a console is not like a football club. I do not subscribe to the fanboy mindset. I owe Sony nothing. You can wait and see but I got tired of Sony's lies so got a Xbox 360 instead.

Ok I'll give quick answers to this because I really don't want to get involved with the console wars, nor was it my intention when replying to you originally.

I never said that the articles said that the PS3 has much greater potential, I was referring to the graphics comments they made along with the comments about the XBox being easier to develop for. They don't really speak much of what the machines are capable of.

I'm pretty certain FF13 wasn't ever meant to be a launch title, whilst with MGS4 I'm pretty sceptical.

The only thing Phil Harrison makes clear in that interview is that everything was done to PS3 spec, which isn't likely to be a lie. His other answers weren't clear, nor did they make much sense at times, but I still fail to see how he's lying.

The Killzone 2 trailers aren't that much apart. The quality of the first is better, that's undeniable but the difference isn't great enough to actually bother complaining about. With a slightly improved framerate and smoother textures there wouldn't be any notable difference. I'm not going to talk about the exceed the trailer comments, no one can be sure what he meant.

I never made a big deal about graphics in the first place, I don't see why you're trying to suggest I did (nor has my opinion changed as to what the machine is capable of). I don't have a bias towards any of the manufacturers (on the contrary I think Sony have done a simply rubbish job marketing the PS3 and in HR), and if it was up to me, gaming would go single format. And believe me, if I was to choose a console right now other than the PS3, it would definitely be the Wii, not 360.

Haha Killzone 2 a launch title! in time Sonys titles will out do ms the only game a xbox360 is worth buying for is Halo and thats it imo

Originally Posted by ACMILAN1983

I never said that the articles said that the PS3 has much greater potential, I was referring to the graphics comments they made along with the comments about the XBox being easier to develop for. They don't really speak much of what the machines are capable of.

Then I suggest you read them again.

The only thing Phil Harrison makes clear in that interview is that everything was done to PS3 spec, which isn't likely to be a lie. His other answers weren't clear, nor did they make much sense at times, but I still fail to see how he's lying.

It's a flat out lie because the videos were clearly not done to spech. The evidence is the pre game videos of Motorstorm and Killzone and the actual in game footage.

The Killzone 2 trailers aren't that much apart. The quality of the first is better, that's undeniable but the difference isn't great enough to actually bother complaining about. With a slightly improved framerate and smoother textures there wouldn't be any notable difference. I'm not going to talk about the exceed the trailer comments, no one can be sure what he meant.

Difference isn't that great? The quality of the textures, the incredible animation, the smoothness of the frame rate is World's apart. In fact we will be lucky to see that level in the next gen machines i.e. the successors to the 360 and PS3. Had Motostorm looked like the video Sony revealed in 2005 I would have a PS3 instead of a 360.

I never made a big deal about graphics in the first place, I don't see why you're trying to suggest I did (nor has my opinion changed as to what the machine is capable of).

You continually claimed the PS3 is technically superior. It isn't.

I don't have a bias towards any of the manufacturers (on the contrary I think Sony have done a simply rubbish job marketing the PS3 and in HR), and if it was up to me, gaming would go single format. And believe me, if I was to choose a console right now other than the PS3, it would definitely be the Wii, not 360.

I don't care what console you buy, I'm just pointing out the PS3 isn't as powerful as Sony had many of us believe and there is no evidence to suggest that it’s more powerful than the 360. The proof is in the games.

Originally Posted by Kaka1899

Haha Killzone 2 a launch title! in time Sonys titles will out do ms the only game a xbox360 is worth buying for is Halo and thats it imo

Of course the PS3 will outsell the 360. Halo 3? I think it's utter garbage. Give me Gears of War and Crackdown any day.

Originally Posted by Mehdi

Of course the PS3 will outsell the 360. Halo 3? I think it's utter garbage. Give me Gears of War and Crackdown any day.

on the last few days at college my mate brought his 360 in and we played GOW and i can honestly say iv never been as bored playing a 3rd person shooter, Halo on the otha hand was so much fun with the exspansive maps,weapon selection and viechals scatred about

Originally Posted by Mehdi

Then I suggest you read them again.

It's a flat out lie because the videos were clearly not done to spech. The evidence is the pre game videos of Motorstorm and Killzone and the actual in game footage.

Difference isn't that great? The quality of the textures, the incredible animation, the smoothness of the frame rate is World's apart. In fact we will be lucky to see that level in the next gen machines i.e. the successors to the 360 and PS3. Had Motostorm looked like the video Sony revealed in 2005 I would have a PS3 instead of a 360.

You continually claimed the PS3 is technically superior. It isn't.

I don't care what console you buy, I'm just pointing out the PS3 isn't as powerful as Sony had many of us believe and there is no evidence to suggest that it’s more powerful than the 360. The proof is in the games.

The articles barely go into great detail about graphics, and other aspects of the machine aren't discussed.

Killzone and Motorstorm were done to spec. This does not mean that the final game will look the same. Again, the machine is capable, but that doesn't mean the developers have got to grips with achieving such results. And no, the videos aren't world's apart.

I also don't see why people make a big deal about GOW. Graphics aside (no denying they are spectacular), the game isn't all that impressive.

The games on the 360 that appeal most to me are Bioshock, Blue Dragon and Ace Combat (referring to exclusives).

yes 360 games do look good but id rather have loads of fun playing online on Motorstorm than been bored out my head on gow

I recently read about a person who is a lego enthusiast and has made a fully working PS2 out of lego:

http://gaming.800a.ws/wp-content/gal...ame-art-19.jpg

He's also made some working guitar hero controllers out of lego too. I thought it's an impressive achievement.

Originally Posted by Kaka1899

on the last few days at college my mate brought his 360 in and we played GOW and i can honestly say iv never been as bored playing a 3rd person shooter, Halo on the otha hand was so much fun with the exspansive maps,weapon selection and viechals scatred about

And last gen graphics.

Originally Posted by Mehdi

And last gen graphics.

i never said Halo 2 had next gen graphics did i?

Originally Posted by ACMILAN1983

Killzone and Motorstorm were done to spec.

They were done to spech just not PS3 spech.

This does not mean that the final game will look the same. Again, the machine is capable, but that doesn't mean the developers have got to grips with achieving such results. And no, the videos aren't world's apart.

The PS3 is clearly not capable of graphics we saw in the demos, nor is the Xbox 360 and the videos are literally next generation consoles apart. You lose all credibility if you maintain this stance. The camera doesn't lie.

I also don't see why people make a big deal about GOW. Graphics aside (no denying they are spectacular), the game isn't all that impressive.

People made a big deal about GOW because it's a state of the art, violent arcade shooter. It's THE benchmark title for all next generation games.

The games on the 360 that appeal most to me are Bioshock, Blue Dragon and Ace Combat (referring to exclusives).

And that's the strength of the Xbox 360, great exclusives :

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/31/36...rail-with-sim/

Heading into the holiday season, it's worth looking at NPD's sales figures from September in the United States with particular attention paid to the total hardware to software sales ratios of the current generation consoles. Although people typically call it the "attach rate," NPD was clear to point out to Joystiq that an attach rate corresponds to a specific title (e.g., Halo 3 has a 110% attach rate*). The sales ratio has been most controversial for the Wii as the console's been unfairly labeled as a Wii Sports seller, and not much else. Comparing current hardware to software sales ratios shows Xbox 360 leads with nearly seven games sold for every system. PS3 and Wii, in terms of this ratio, are practically equal, although the Wii has sold 2.6 million more units. The hard numbers:

Xbox 360: hardware to software ratio: 6.59 (hardware total sold = 6.8 million; software total sold = 44.8 million)

PlayStation 3: hardware to software ratio: 3.58 (hardware total sold = 1.9 million; software total sold = 6.8 million)

Wii: hardware to software ratio: 3.44 (hardware total sold = 4.5 million; software total sold = 15.5 million)

My guess is most people are buying PS3 for Blu-Ray not for gaming.

Originally Posted by Kaka1899

yes 360 games do look good but id rather have loads of fun playing online on Motorstorm than been bored out my head on gow

I switched Motorstorm off after 5 minutes.

Originally Posted by Kaka1899

i never said Halo 2 had next gen graphics did i?

No but when I pay for a next gen console I expect next gen graphics not the rubbish we get in Halo 3 or some PS3 titles.