I was just messing with you there. However, I would like to ask you when do the "extreme" cases start? Would N64 specs mean jack? Would DC specs mean jack? Would GC specs be jack? What about GC 1.5? What about PS4 (not a typo) specs? I didn't necessarily say I would expect it; I said there was a chance that it may happen. We do need some more information to get a good idea for what will happen, such as Nintendo's launch plans, their take on HD resolutions, and the designs of Broadway and Hollywood (are they big powerful chips, or small and efficient?). As for why I would think that, I already explained that pretty thoroughly earlier. Again, let's say Cell and RSX are computational beasts, the best work that IBM, Sony, Toshiba, and Nvidia have ever done. How can a $200 console coming out at around the same time from a non-hardware company be able to do about the same thing technically, especially when it is not that much bigger than a DVD case (I think that's what they compared it to)? If Nintendo could somehow do that in this particular situation, then Sony should go bankrupt for wasting billions of dollars in research for making a console that is twice as expensive (maybe 2.5 to 3 times if you want to factor in their expense) and twice the size (maybe more), yet only slightly more powerful.
Would you really expect a console to come out at the N6 or DC level? Even, that matter, at the current PS2 level? You depend way too much on tech specs. Spending $400 dollars on a system loaded with crap 1/3 of the developers will use will be great. Spending $200 on a system that will still be better than the previous generation, but won't be loaded with top-of-the-line stuff will be great too. And there's no way of knowing exactly what will be capable of what, especially depending on size, so there's no reason to expect such a huge gap in ability. The XBOX is the size of a house compared to the GC, yet both of them have great, beautiful games. And even if it is the least powerful of the three, does it matter? The PS2 is that currently, but here, even in it's last year, I'm looking forward to some of its games this XMAS. How many GFLOPS won't determine how much enjoyment a game can bring.
Funny cuz that's what a lot of people said about the N64, and I found that untrue as well, at least for me. If it wasn't for some of the multiplayer games I would have sold off my GC long ago. I really haven't been impressed with the games that came out for the GC, esp the 1st party ones. Zelda was a HUGE dissappointment for me. The graphics and battle engine rocked. But the engine was negated by the ridiculously easy battles and you can only marvel at pretty graphics for so long. I thought I would like AC and Pikmin, but found them a bore. Metroid was good, but don't like fps, would have much preferred 3rd person view. Mario Kart was okay, but better on the SNES. So pretty much all I'm left with is some good multiplayer games, and like 3 good rpgs. Eh. I really hope the new zelda is good, but this time I'm renting. I highly doubt I'll ever spend any money on Nintendo hardware ever again.
Some XBOX LIVE information, including official pricing: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/08/news_6132759.html?tag=lastword_all_headline These are the packages you'll see in stores: So basically, the XBOX Live subscription prices are the same. Also, supposedly you can transfer your current subscription to 360. Found this interesting:
I agree... I lost interest in Nintendo after the SNES days...was never really intrested in anything Nintendo put out N64 or GC. I did like this one game called Banjo Kazuuiee or something like that on the N64. There're only 3 games worth owning the GC for and that is Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 1 (remake) and Ikaruga.
Obviously everyone has their own preferences. I also was bored by Animal Crossing (but included it because many loved it), but thought Pikmin was fantastic. Ditto with Metroid, where I really liked the FPS aspect. I just feel like there are a bazillion games out there in the MGS, Halo, mode. Not that those aren't fantastic, when done well. It's also interesting to me, at least, that it really was the N64 platform that brought multiplaying Halo type games to popularity with Goldeneye. I just think Nintendo pushes the boundary in terms of creativity more than the others. I don't think that makes it "the best." I just think that, combined with it's consistently low cost, makes it a system you should almost definitely buy. You're essentially buying a $200 option to play a few really good games and some great creative ones. Now, for kids who are too young to have the money to buy multiple systems...well, they should be getting the Nintendo anyways because it does cater to that age more than most. For everyone else, buy the option. Personally, I've never been the biggest fan of Playstation because their heritage supported games I didn't love. Never been a fan of the FF series. Never liked all their long load times, etc. So I never really got into Playstation. RC's posts and technical displeasure with XBOX360 may mean I'll finally make the switch to PS3 this generation, but like many others, I am influenced by Halo, so will probably still go with XBOX360 and Revolution.
I have a modded XBox with more games than I know what to do with, not to mention that it's my primary media center for streaming digital video. That said, it will be a long, long time before I buy a next gen system- and it will probably be the Nintendo Revolution first.
So the rumor is that this Friday, the Revolution controllers and Mario 128 or whatever they call it will be revealed at TGS.
You guys make me want to go home and crank up my jaguar, 3DO and Turbographix 16. Actually I think I'll plug my PS2 in for the first time in months.
Not really. I'm thinking it would be more powerful than anything this-gen, but weaker than the other two consoles. I just don't know where in that big gap it is. I brought all those up as extremes (gradually lesser extremes from the SNES example), until it got around the power of the next-gen consoles. I just wanted to know at what point do tech specs not matter to you? Would the CPU be OK if it could only do 50 GFLOPS? What if the GPU was only SM2.0, was clocked at 300MHz, and only had 12 pixel shaders and 4 vertex shaders? What if it only had 128 MB of NUMA RAM for the whole system? Do these tech specs matter, or will it need to be a little closer to PS3's numbers before it becomes irrelevant? Exactly what on the PS3 would be crap that only 1/3 of the developers will use? If Sony prices a console at $400 (and loses much more than that on it), yet it is full of crap that developers won't use, then they just wasted billions of dollars on R&D. Depending on what and how successful the "revolution" is, 1/3 of the developers may not bother with it either, kind of like some developers did with the touch screen of the DS. Although I guess that won't happen if only Nintendo develops Revolution games. J/K I'm guessing much of the size difference between the Xbox and GC were due to the HD and DVD drive of the Xbox. Also, does the Xbox have an internal power supply? That said, even though MS did make the most powerful console this-gen, they could have done MUCH better, IMO. As I said, if a company spends that much money and can't make much of a difference, they wasted a lot of money...and guess how much the Xbox cost MS? Several reasons factored into that, but some of the hardware decisions didn't help (HD, GPU plan, etc.). Even then, the fact that it had a HD allowed for some gameplay that couldn't be done on the PS2 and GC. MS did a much better job this time around, considering they are a software company working on their second console. But since they and Nintendo are not hardware experts, they are at a bit of a disadvantage to Sony when it comes to designing and manufacturing hardware. You may say that the ~18 months between the PS2 and the GC/Xbox proves that it takes a lot to create a large gap in power. I, on the other hand, tend to wonder if maybe Sony's hardware expertise allowed them to futureproof their console; combine that with Nintendo's desire to make a cheap console and MS's mistakes on its first console and that may explain why the gap wasn't that big. I also tend to think there will be a much bigger difference in size between the PS3/Xbox 360 and the Revolution than the Xbox and GC, or that's how it looks to me. I believe the first two are about the same size, probably somewhere between the PS2 and Xbox (think closer to the Xbox, but not sure). The Revolution, on the other hand, looks like it could be one of the smallest consoles ever, from what I could tell. Nintendo even pointed out that it would be a small, quiet, and affordable. Those three don't usually go well together with powerful hardware. I bet it would have even been smaller if Nintendo decided to go with a new type of minidisc (maybe mini-BR discs or something like that). Again, if all the consoles are roughly the same, similar to this-gen, then this is a moot point, just like I said earlier. I agree that technical specifications don't matter too much when the consoles can do pretty much the same thing. If the Revolution is similar to the PS2 of this-gen, then you can forget everything. But as I've been saying this whole time, how do we know the Revolution will be able to do that? As I said earlier, comparing the DS and PSP might be the only good comparison we have. Two pieces of hardware released at about the same time. One was cheaper, quieter, more affordable, and "revolutionary"; the other was more expensive, had extra "crap," made some noise, and didn't aim to make a "revolution." Yet as we know, there is a pretty big gap in power between the two. Also, the fact that Nintendo may just stick with 480p can be telling about the difference in power. Seeing a game in 1080p on the PS3 versus something in SD on the Revolution can make for quite a difference in image quality. It sounds like Nintendo may be reconsidering this matter, but it should be an easy decision if the power is there. So, why the indecision? Why keep pointing out the "small, quiet, and affordable" parts? Maybe the Revolution won't be able to compete with the other two in power (and I'm talking about a gap bigger than the PS2->Xbox). Not by itself. As I said, it is one of many things that can improve the quality of a game. I would try to make it simple with extreme cases, but I think I've done enough of those. Given enough of an advantage, that extra processing power can allow for other tasks that can improve a game. For example, one thing brought up often about Cell is that it can pretty much match the performance of Xenon with only a few SPE's being used. The rest can then be used to work on enemy AI, lighting, physics, or something like that. This is kind of like the power difference involving the Ageia physics library that I mentioned earlier.
To be honest, I think there are a good number of games on the PS2 that offer the same original and fun gameplay experiences that Nintendo games normally offer. It is just that these games don't typically sell as well as the other games, so you don't see them mentioned as often. For example, let's say 1 in 4 games for the Gamecube offer this type of experience, yet only 1 in 30 PS2 games offer the same. However, since the PS2 has so many more games than the GC, the number might be about the same (or the PS2 may even have more). But we probably tend to focus in on the other 29 PS2 titles, especially since they are the ones that sell 1M copies a month, or something like that. I just tend to think of games like Rez and Katamari Damacy, probably two of the most original and fun games this generation, and they are both on the PS2. I also tend to think of the music games, like Amplitude, Frequency, and Gitaroo-Man, as well as the interesting looking game Okami. Maybe you should check out the IGN genre lists for the PS2 and check out some of these lesser known, yet still great games. Again, I don't think these games are anything that Nintendo offers and Sony can't. Now, Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc. games on the other hand... BTW, I would like to say that you should definitely wait at least another month or so before trying to read my displeasure as a good sign to pick a console. I'm fairly certain I have a good idea on the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but I think I'll be much better after TGS and X05. So far, it doesn't appear as if the Xbox 360 games really match the hardware (of the 360 itself or even the devkits), and not in a good way; the few realtime demos running on PS3 kits, on the other hand, have looked much better and have been doing so on early kits. I'm not sure how much can change in a month or two, but if MGS4 looks like crap, while PDZ looks like Killzone, then we may have some issues. I just read this one rumor that I believe said to watch out for some info tonight, although now it looks like that might not happen until Thursday. Probably just typical fanpage rumors, but I'll keep my eyes out. I think we might be able to get some MGS4 stuff maybe tonight or tomorrow. I believe Famitsu was supposed to get an exclusive for it around this time, so if our Japanese friends will upload some scans, we may have a pre-TGS present.
Seriously...reread what you just wrote. I'm less concerned about me not caring enough about tech specs than I am you being too concerned about them. ? I never said anything about PS3. You and I both know that in most consoles it's further down its life span when you start seeing games that really push the system to its limits. And there's a great deal more half-assed games out there than there are good ones.
I reread it. What's wrong with it? I just listed a few general tech specs that you would probably find in some press releases about the consoles. How am I "too" concerned with them? Uh-oh...I know what a pixel shader is and what the differences between a NUMA and UMA RAM setup are. Damn my desire to learn how consoles work. I should probably change my major from CS to Business or something else so I don't learn even more about these specs. Now I'll never be able to find a 1.9 TFLOP console more worthy of a purchase than a 2 TFLOP console, despite the price differences, developer support, brand history, etc. It would be nice if you answered the question though. What I wrote was a lot more specific that saying something like GC 1.5 over and over, which I was getting tired of using. So, would those tech specs be enough to make the differences between the consoles irrelevant, or do they need to be better? If so, how much? I'm assuming you know enough about tech specs in general in order to actually find them worth jack. You didn't say it specifically, but since I was talking about the PS3 vs Revolution and you were replying to me, I thought that's what you meant. Fair enough though. My bad in assuming that's what you meant. Still, the point remains that if that case were to happen, the company with the $400 would be losing a lot of money, most likely. As for the gradual pushing of the systems, that is true. I'm not sure what that has to really do with anything though, unless some console next-gen can be pushed a lot easier than the others. 10% of 100 GLOPS is still a lot more than 10% of 10 GFLOPS. Therefore, inefficiently used yet more powerful system will still be that much more powerful than another inefficiently used system.
Irrelevant. It's nice that you are a CS major...and I'd imagine that means it only makes sense you would want to research such things. But you realize most people don't, right? This discussion had to do with this: "I don't understand why some of you disregard tech specs so much." You offered that, so I'm trying to answer it for you. It's great that you desire to research TFLOPS and shaders as much as you do. But if you're going to assume that everyone else wants to learn the same as a CS major and therefore should have a deep desire to care so much about tech, why bring up the point? If you really want to understand why it doesn't make a difference to many folks, that's what I'm trying to explain. Maybe I'm just approaching it wrong. You mentioned Katamari Damacy as creative, inventive, a good game. That's true. So take Katamari Damacy, and say...Half Life 2. Both great games. Both at very opposite ends of a tech spectrum. Can you tell me how much of the PS2's power Katamari uses? Can you tell me how much memory, how taxing on the GPU or CPU it is? How many polys in each model? All off the top of your head? Can you do the same for Half Life 2? And yet, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Because it is at a different level in regards to tech, doesn't make one of those games inferior to the other. Their gameplay - the only thing that really matters - offer different experiences. That's my point. If you're going to offer two systems at $400 and one of them is generations behind in every way, then yes, it'll matter more. Just in terms of dollars you are spending. But there's nothing to suggest we're going to be talking about a drastic, drastic difference at the same price. And if it does happen, well guess what...it wont' sell. And that doesn't change my point. Even with a less powerful system (that's still better than last generation) is likely to have some great games. I'd just wait till I don't have to pay that much money for it. You probably know more about tech definitions than I do. That's good for you (particularly with the field you want to enter). But they matter little to the majority of people who are going to buy consoles (hence my distaste for the 'well i hear it'll be more powerful' way of thinking). And they matter little to me. That's not what I play games for.
I got to go to class in a little bit, so I'll respond to your post later. But here is one of the Famitsu scans of MGS4: As you can tell, Snake is an elderly person, and the game does take place on a battlefield. I'll post if anything more comes up. edit: Some DMC 4 scans as well, although I don't know if these are realtime or not: http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dmc4012mz.jpg http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dmc4028fa.jpg http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dmc4031xz.jpg edit2: Man, I posted this 5 minutes too soon. Here's 2 higher-res scans of MGS4: http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1495/mgs4021bh.jpg http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5988/mgs4031ve.jpg
Man, if that is Snake (it's probably BB again), he looks frickin' old....and the b*stard is still smoking....lol...btw RC, the links have died
Try these. They are zipped files from yousendit, so hopefully they should be easier to get during this craze: http://s45.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1X8B41S340CP13C8O6OT5W0BNO http://s45.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1JPQS0GLXQN2C2ITI6VF5PM23A It is probably better anyways since I didn't link to at least one of the DMC4 pics.
Thx for the zips RC.....I don't care so much for DMC at all, but I'm a big MGS fan...the only thing I care about from Capcom is the SF series...here's hoping that the Street Fighter 4 rumors come to fruition instead just being another stupid Capcom/SF rumor.
I didnt buy the last Metal Gear game (The second one with all of its B.S. put me off) but that Old looking Snake just seems stupid. Instead of Ration packs will he need to search for Depends?
