E3 2005 - PS3 and XBOX360 discussion found here Thanks Beard of Dan Higgs!

It was an OK read. He got some things wrong. I think Kameo was originally planned for GC, then Xbox, then X360, and the Alpha Kits have 2 of the 3 cores, not just 1. Sounds like he just saw that it was running at 1/3 the power, so he assumed it only used one of the three cores. Besides a few of those problems, nice easy article to read.

IGN seems to have their closing comments on E3. Check those out here:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/618/618070p1.html

Also, there is this awesome, IMO, 8-minute trailer of a next-gen game called Dark Sector. This was one of the first next-gen games to be announced, and it usually looked average to good; however, if this trailer is what to expect out of next-gen games (and it should since it is running off of the engine, IIRC, and I doubt they would spend that much time on all that stuff for just something prerendered), then I'm going to be happy. You can download it at IGN as well:
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/674/674091/vids_1.html

You may have seen it on (or part of it) on G4's Cinematech. In fact, that's what reminded me of it.

Lastly, the Xbox 360's user interface can be seen on the Internet. Check it out here:
http://www.betanews.com/slideshow/Xbox_360_User_Interface/6/1

Well, it seems like all the good stuff is over. There may be some things that show up these few days after E3, but that should be just about it. G4 will have a post-E3 show on Monday, IIRC. I can't recall the time though. Until then, I'm going to start doing some more downloading. That EA next-gen clip and the Dark Sector trailer took forever.

 

I've heard you say this before, but it hardly compares to what I've read/heard from other devs. For example, both in David Jaffe's blog and his video interviews, he pretty much raves about how Sony supported him to create exactly what he envisioned. They gave him plenty of money and a had an incredible amount of trust in his vision to allow him to create what he wanted, which turned out to be a good idea. And with all the comments from devs about the PS3, along with Epic coming onboard, I just don't see the stories about how they treat their devs badly and whatnot. Even if they did, bringing Nvidia and IBM onboard should show how much they have come from a developer support POV.

What were Capcom, Namco, Konami, Take-Two, EA, Square-Enix, Koei, Epic, Bethesda, etc., thinking when they announced support for the PS3 at E3 considering how terrible they are to work with?

 

I was mostly referring to the dev interviews from the conference when I mentioned those companies, although I'll give you that. That said, Hideo Kojima raves about it in the video, and hearing from the devs in the videos was great. And Tim Sweeney seemed to be eager to work with Sony, Cell, and the RSX.

However, my point about David Jaffe still stands. I could probably get countless other developers to mention, especially since I recall a few episodes of Icons in my head at the moment of devs loving Sony.

 

This is the part to take note of:

I can't even believe they even bothered posting that on their site. From what I read, this is basically a comparison done by someone at Microsoft. It basically like saying the Xbox 360 is the more poweful system because it has 3 cores while the PS3 only has 1.

Let's see if someone from Sony can put out something for IGN to put up. Maybe even Reggie can come out and say that since the Revolution can play all sorts of games, it is much more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3, since their selection of games is so limited.

FWIW, while Sony did hype the EE some, it was hyped even more by the press, which really wasn't fair. When you had guys writing how it would bring an end to PC's, then you're setting your self up for disaster. I started rolling me eyes when I read some articles pretty much saying the same thing about Cell, which again, won't happen, at least not for a while.

Cell is great at what it is supposed to do. But it can't do everything. When it comes to multimedia and entertainment, Cell is great. If you want it to do all the things your PC does, you'll be disappointed.

 

So any interview with a game developer that contradicts what DaDakota is wrong because DaDakota is the CEO of Gizmondo, he went to E3, and he's been in the business while I haven't? What does that have to do with anything? Again, I've read or seen several interviews with developers, and I can't recall one of them commenting on this; in fact, a lot of times, it seems to be the opposite. In fact, there's two articles out now that talks about new developers for the PS3:

http://news.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,39029682,39189338,00.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4568777.stm

Factor 5, someone I forgot to mention earlier, seems to like what Sony is doing and apparently the dev support from Microsoft compared to Sony must not have made that much of a difference in their decision. IIRC, there was also a survey for developers not too long ago asking which handheld they would be excited to develop for, and the PSP was winning that poll by a large margin, IIRC. There actually has been a lot of support for the PSP despite how unproven it was.

I find it funny that I shouldn't believe what I read on other message boards (who also have developers, such as those from JAM, EA, Bethesda, and more) and IGN (with several dev interviews), but instead trust someone on this message board. I'm sure if I went to these other message boards and proclaimed how terrible Sony developer support was because of something a CEO of Gizmondo (a competitor of a certain Sony game device), I'd get the same message about reading too much into other message boards and that I shouldn't argue with everything else that has been said.

Not that it matters, but I was probably about 13-14 when the PS2 came out. Luckily, there's something called the Internet that contains so much information so that if you do not know something, you can learn it through there.

Sony did make some outlandish comments (PS2 will be like the Matrix), but so did others (Seamus Blackley, IIRC, used the same Toy Story graphics comment that everyone always remembers Sony for). That said, there were some crazy stories that were made by the press, where the writer of the article made their own assumptions, sometimes screwing up the facts. There could be times where Sony said the PS3 CPU would give us 100 times the performance of the PS2 CPU, and then you'd be getting writers saying how Sony promised that the CPU for the PS3 would be clocked at 30GHz, or that we'd be getting 6.2 Teraflops of power from it. There was even an article a little while back where a writer said something about the Cell layout in the PS3 would be something like 8x64. If you think Sony ever suggested that, then I'd sure like to see where.

 

Don't get me wrong, Sony will put their own PR spin on things just like every other major company. Besides what I mentioned in my earlier post, they've said a few other things, such as the whole Ken K and the PSP's square button scenario. Thank goodness that got fixed.

But I see Sony getting attributed with even more ludicrous statements that they never even made. The Toy Story comment (although it did come from Microsoft) and the whole launching missiles thing seemed to have originated from analysts or writers. Take this new article about the PS3 for example:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050522/323/fjiiv.html

Pearson doesn't even work for Sony, but I wouldn't doubt it if this article starts getting linked all over the place and eventually, people start expecting human brain-like performance from the PS3, "because Sony promised us." It reminds me of those PS2 tech demos that everyone swears were better than anything the PS2 has every done in real-time, but if you look at them now, they look like crap that has been easily surpassed by the PS2. Yet there is still the misconception that Sony lied to us with those tech demos.

 

Sounds about right, considering what someone from EA said on Gaming-Age. He basically said the same stuff; in fact, he actually is working on some of the stadiums, one of which is Reliant. He commented that the stadium and its lighting is really complex and is making it difficult to make the game look like the real stadium. I haven't watched too many Texan's games (for obvious reasons), but can someone confirm how unique the lighting in the stadium is? I seem to remember someone on that board saying that some of the broadcasts looked off a bit due to the lighting.

If they paid that much attention to detail, then it does seem like they're working pretty hard, despite not having another game to really compete with. The Madden shots I showed earlier looked way better, IMO, than the prerendered stuff of McNabb, so we may be surprised by how much better the final product looks. I've actually been a little surprised at how good the EA stuff looks when compared to other next-gen games. I was expecting EA's graphics to be average, considering that seems to be how it was this gen, but they're putting up some impressive stuff. I wonder if maybe that is because of RenderWare though. That's some pretty impressive middeware if is due to it.