FWIW, most of the stuff I posted didn't require a CS degree in order to understand. Just basic tech specs you'd find in a press release. Not any patent language (gosh that's hard to understand) or developer-oriented papers. Just the types of specs you'd probably see in a press release for the most part. When Sony/Nvidia finally release info on the RSX, I expect it to say something like "RSX is a SM3.0+ GPU that operates at XXXMHz with X vertex shaders and X pixel shaders" or something like that. Those are basic specs for any GPU that I'm guessing at least some PC gamers understand. They don't necessarily need to know the exact architecture of the card, but they know that the number of pipes, the shader model #, and the clock frequency are important factors in making a good GPU (along with good RAM). The reason I brought up the importance of tech specs was because I was getting the impression that people thought they were just marketing hype, in which case they wouldn't care about them even if they knew about shaders/latency/cache sizes/etc. I'm guessing these people will just assume that the gap in power between the consoles will be about the same, no matter what the tech specs say. I did not get the impression that people were ignoring them because they could not understand them (and wouldn't want to either). So I brought up certain cases where the specs of a console would make an impact. For example, the example specs I gave earlier would probably be enough to show a pretty big difference between that console and current-gen systems, so you would get a "next-gen" console in terms of hardware power. However, in comparison to the Xbox 360 or PS3, that console would get abused terribly. I "translated" the specs to show what I mean. Basically, I wouldn't want a console that could be limiting a developer's creativity. Again, put PSP+DS together and imagine the games that could be possible. I'd try to find a better example than those two, especially since HL2 was developed with older tech in mind (enough to make it run on the Xbox, which, going sort of by what you said, is on par with the PS2 and GC). PC games and console games are developed with different things in mind, so the technical differences are difficult to really differentiate, compared to say console A from X generation and console B from Y generation (or even A from X and B from X). That said, I think I understand what you're trying to say. I don't think it matters though. I wasn't really trying to compare great game X on hardware A versus great game Y on hardware B; I was trying to show what could be the differences between great game X on hardware A versus great game X on hardware B (I'd rather play FF7 on the PS1 than FFX-2 on the PS2; now, FF7 on the PS3...) Both games you mentioned are great. However, one is limited a lot more by the hardware than the other. Katamari Damacy is a game that would have been fun to play next-gen, next-next-gen, or even a gen or two ago (maybe like the DS version), although I'm guessing it could be a lot better in future versions. HL2, on the other hand, seemed to rely on some technical features that would make it fun, such as physics, enemy AI, realistic-looking interactions, lighting, etc. Actually, one of the things they didn't do so well technically were the load times, which by itself was enough to turn-off some gamers. Put it on a PS1 and I'm not sure it would be as great of a game; in other words, Gabe Newell's creativity would be limited by the hardware specs of the PS1. I know I'm using generation gaps again, but that's the easiest way to explain things without busting out tech specs or something like that. Actually, I guess you could also compare the PSP and DS. This is a little more difficult to do given the TS of the DS, but say you put Advance Wars: DS (or some other game that is good, not necessarily because of the TS) on the PSP. It probably wouldn't hurt to up the graphics, AI, level sizes, etc, but the basic gameplay would probably be the same (if not better). Now put something like GTA:LCS or Burnout Legends (that actually may be possible to see eventually). The great things in those games get lost in the translation, so to speak, sort of like the two Ridge Racer games for the handhelds. Again, you can have fun games on any platform, like you said. I'm not debating that inferior hardware couldn't produce great games; what I'm saying is that the more power available, the better the game could possibly be. Define "generations." A generation could mean a small leap or a big leap, depending on the consoles. As for your example of $400 consoles, I agree. It would be crazy if one console would be much more powerful than the other at the same price. That's why I said that in order to have hardware that was on par with the PS3, the Revolution may have to be more expensive than the speculated ~$200 price tag (or it may have to be released much later). Since I find it more likely that the Revolution would stick at the speculated ~$200 price (it will be "cheap and affordable" according to them) and release not too much longer after the PS3. If it didn't, we probably wouldn't see the controller until later. To me, that scenario makes more sense that a $400 2006 Revolution, or a $200 2008 Revolution. It is under this scenario, however, where issues arrive, IMO. The Revolution will be much more powerful than anything this-gen. Does that automatically put it on par with the other two consoles? IMO, it doesn't. Technically, there could still be a big difference between the two, maybe as big as some generations. It occurred with the DS and PSP. The DS was more powerful than anything prior to it. Is the DS "generations" behind the PSP in every way? Hardware-wise, it is IMO. As far as the possible reasoning for anything like this, I already gave those numerous times. Instead of simply stating there's no evidence, show me why there isn't any. The Revolution may not support HD resolutions. That's possible evidence. The Revolution will be "small, quiet, and affordable." That's possible evidence. It isn't like we will all be totally surprised if the Revolution is less powerful than the other two consoles; if anything, it is expected. I personally think there is also enough evidence that it could be quite a bit behind in power, especially compared to the PS3. And BTW, by behind in power, I mean it could be much bigger than the DC->Xbox gap; heck, given some of these screens, it looks like there could be that big of a gap between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 alone. As for learning about tech specs, I realize not everyone wants to know the pros and cons of 10MB of EDRAM with 256 GB/s BW to the GPU. That's perfectly fine. What I want people to realize is that these specs aren't necessarily just meaningless hype. If people are fine playing Nintendo-developed games, then great, buy a Revolution. The idea of playing Zelda on even a GC1.1 should be enough to get at least some gamers to pick it up. However, don't buy a Revolution because you think it will offer the same type of gameplay features (due to hardware) that the other two will (especially the PS3), but in a smaller, quieter, and more affordable console. The power difference between the consoles may allow for things to be possible on the PS3 that would not be possible on the Revolution, just like the Revolution's controller may do the same. Again, I find there to be many important factors in buying a console. I wouldn't disregard the great games available on the PS2 in my decision process. I wouldn't disregard the online play of the Xbox. I wouldn't disregard the price of the GC. And in the case that there is a rather large power gap between the Revolution and the PS3, I wouldn't disregard that power advantage. What I've been trying to show is that exact point. The tech specs are just as important as the rest. If all or just about all games were multiplatform, then a console's game library would be irrelevant. If each console had the exact same online plan, then it would be pointless to buy one due to the online service. If each console cost $200, then buying one because it is "cheap" would be pointless. So, why assume the power will be about the same, and therefore, irrelevant? You don't have to know the technical terms and definitions of every piece of hardware in a console to understand that a more powerful console allows for new and better gameplay features. Since the PS3 appears to be "considerably" more powerful than the other consoles, then it will allow for better games to be made. Since I like playing games, especially ones that bring brand new gameplay features, this power gap goes into my decision process for a next-gen console.
I don't know. One quick theory I read was that maybe he was given some sort of disease or poison that accelerated his aging. In that one screen, he looks like he is injecting himself with something. Maybe something to hold off the process? I don't know. That would be an interesting scenario, although I don't know how likely it would be. BTW, I believe MS will be doing a pre-TGS show early tomorrow in Japan, which puts it at around 11:00 PM here, IIRC. We might get another present late tonight/early tomorrow morning.
Hmmm....going off a slight tangent on the theory you heard, it would make sense, assuming that cloning may not have been prefected during those times, that Snake's aging accelerated at a certain breakpoint/age point. After checking those zips files out and seeing Otacon, I'm inclined to believe that is the Solid Snake and not BB.
Even if the PS2 had a head start, if it was all about power, then it wouldn't still be leading by a lot. The Xbox's lead over the Cube isn't that great compared to Sony's. Wayy back when the Genesis launched early, the SNES was able to battle back in the lead. As tech specs get more complicated, the truth is that current bottlenecks will be mitigated while new bottlenecks will be found. I'm disappointed that Nintendo doesn't have an HD option or even support it, but perhaps that'll benefit them in the long run. Most of the stuff inside the Xbox were off the shelf except for the CPU (an Intel hybrid) and the GPU. If they had gone proprietary, it would've took longer in planning and been more costly to build ground up. That's why the Xbox is computer sized... Now that MS has the experience, they've gone proprietary this round. Meanwhile the Nintendo could've added a DVD but they were cheap. In fact, there's even mods out there to make the Gamecube read DVD-Rs (can't play video, no MPEG decoder). It's minimalist design was specific, right down to the cooler Gekko processor that didn't need a noisy fan to cool the system. Nintendo's been designing consoles and handhelds since the 80's. MS has boatloads of money to buy experts. Sony failed in regards to the Emotion Engine because it wasn't the next big thing in the hardware market (which Cell is supposed to accomplish). Sony's graphics on general ports usually fail in comparison to the Cube or Xbox, unless the game was originally designed for the PS2. Developer freedom and support is just as crucial as the power and capabilities of the processor. The former Sony has successfully carried out. There's also incentive with 30 million PS2 owners... Possibly. Powerful hardware and graphical capabilities is a lot like horsepower and miles per hour in car engines. When there's different terrain and conditions, the numbers on paper don't accurately translate to real world numbers. Because they haven't released anything substantial yet. Those three factors and the look is the only thing we know. I think we've discussed the threaded/multithreaded issue before already. If Nintendo banks on dual cores with a GPU that can compete with Sony and MS's then the difference won't be seen for another 2-3 years.
Ugh...again, I'm not saying console power > everything else. I don't know why everyone keeps thinking that's how I see things. Keep the PS2/GC/Xbox/etc. examples away; I know the power advantage of the Xbox didn't make it the console to get, just like the PS2's power disadvantage didn't really hinder its success. What I'm trying to say is that it is wrong, IMO, to completely disregard this aspect of consoles, especially when there might be a larger than normal gap. If next-gen has a similar power gap as this one, then it becomes less important. I'm not disagreeing with that whatsoever. That's basically what I was referring to when I talked about MS's first console where they made some mistakes (besides not going with AMD and getting screwed with the Nvidia deal). I think the Xbox 360 could be a better example of a efficiently designed console compared to the Xbox. It isn't just some big PC parts that are just good enough for next-gen. As for the GC stuff, I didn't know about the DVD-R part, but that was interesting to know. I remember a DVD version of the console, but I don't think it was that popular. However, you mentioned their philosophy with console design; basically, a quieter, less powerful processor is better than a more powerful, noisy one. I see them doing something similar with the Revolution. My reference to Sony's advantage did not really refer to experience in regards to console design. Nintendo could have made 100 consoles/handhelds compared to say 2-3 for Sony, but Sony would have the advantage. The same could be said for MS buying experts. The reason for this is that Sony has their own factories and technology to use for creating their hardware. I suppose you could say that up to the design phase, the three would be somewhat even (although I'd still say Sony would have a slight advantage, IMO). Where Sony gets ahead is that they don't have to pay anyone else to make the console parts. MS/Nintendo have to pay a hardware manufacturers to make their parts; Sony, on the other hand, can just use their factories. And since Sony usually has some of the more advanced manufacturing processes, they can get it done cheaper and better. If you had to sell some cakes, would you just buy them and then sell them, or would you minimize the costs by making them yourself? Also keep in mind that the parts going into the Xbox 360 and Revolution may not be used for anything else, making them a little unique, and therefore, harder to manufacture. For the PS3, Sony will use Cell, Blu-ray, and other parts for their other businesses; because of the large demand for these parts, Sony can still make use of them (TV's, servers, workstations, etc); if a Xenon chip only had 2 of the 3 cores working, then it is basically a waste of expensive silicon space. With this process, Sony will either be able to create hardware of the same power, but much cheaper, or they can strive for a little more power to meet a certain price point. As for the EE, I'm not sure how it "failed." I imagine that the expectations of being the next big thing in hardware were things said by the media, not necessarily Sony (not sure, but that's how everything else that Sony allegedly hyped turned out). I would imagine that it was a pretty good success for Sony. For the PS2, it allowed for it to be competitive in power compared to consoles released ~18 months later. If the GS was a little better designed, it would have turned out even better. Depending on how Sony does BC on the PS3, there could be 300M EE's in the world in 5-8 years from consoles alone. I also read that Sony usually puts the EE, or slight variations of the EE into a lot of their TV's; they just don't go by the same name. If it worked for Sony, I wouldn't doubt it if other companies used similar tech, although maybe not the EE specifically. Cell is basically a evolved EE in some ways, so the EE led to the eventual development of the Cell technology (wonder if it was have been viewed as a failure if Cell was called the EE2 or something like that), and maybe other technology. I guess if you expected Intel, AMD, Samsung, Philips, JVC, etc. to come knocking at Sony's door, asking for millions of EE's for their products, then it was a failure. I don't really see that happening with Cell either, although it may get used a little more due to whatever IBM and Toshiba decide to use it as. In fact, Intel is basically looking to use a similar design in a few years, so I doubt they will use Cell, but they will use something similar. I'm sure others chip designers/manufacturers will as well. The other parts about the PS2's graphics and whatnot I agree with, although I'm not sure where you were going with it. Was that addressed to the part you quoted, or was it just something you decided to talk about? It is a valid point, but I didn't see how it went with my quote. As for that point, I do agree. But I have no reason to assume which console will have difficulties translating those numbers to the real world. In general, I'll take the more powerful hardware, especially if the gap is pretty big (I'll take 70% of say RSX if it is MUCH more powerful than the Xenos at 95%). For all we know, it could be the weaker systems who have problems meeting their theoretical numbers. Maybe that is what is happening with the Xbox 360 when compared to the PS3 since it doesn't look like there should be quite as big of a gap as there is, especially this early in the game. I believe Nintendo basically did say that they weren't going to battle it out with Sony and Microsoft for the top spot in hardware power. That statement together with all the other small details are all you really need to get a general expectation of how powerful the Revolution will be. It could be as powerful as the Xbox 360 depending on how late it releases. It could also be a little bit weaker (maybe PS2->Xbox or something like that). Going by those details, I'm pretty sure it won't be way more poweful than that. I can imagine them saying "It will be huge and a expensive. It will need to be cooled by liquid nitrogen, and it will need a lot of power to run." That would be one expensive console, but I bet it would be pretty damn powerful. That would make sense, except that PS3 single-threaded games mostly look much better than Xbox 360 single-thread games. A lot of the games for each have been running off the one main core in each console, but apparently the rest of the systems' power have been enough to make a noticeable difference. Also, there was an interesting interview with a developer from Crytek a while back. The way he made is sound, the thread design of the PS3 was better than the Xbox 360's threads. He mentioned something like each Xenon core was more like 1.5 threads, while the main core for Cell could do 2 threads, while each SPE would do one each. In a way, it almost sounded easier to design threads on Cell than Xenon. I don't know. Maybe it will be easier to just do single threads on the SPE's and then two threads on the main core instead of doing 2 (or 1.5) threads on each Xenon core. Multi-core development may take a little bit to get used to, but PS2 developers should have an advantage there. I guess if Nintendo is at least able to make one core that mirrors the PPE, and get a graphics card that matches RSX, it might take a little while for developers to show the big differences. I don't know how likely that would be though, especially the GPU part (if the Revolution had a RSX, it would have no problem outputting 1080p on 2 screens, let alone 720p on one). And it would also have to have similar amounts of RAM, bandwidth, and preferably something that would act like the Cell<-->RSX interface. That part right there is one of the things that separates the PS3 from the Xbox 360, so it may need to be present in the Revolution for it to output similar results as well.
I look at it this way: In the past, it's meant little. Means little this generation, in terms of good games and success in the systems. Meant little in past generations, where the Genesis couldn't take a big lead and the Game Gear died. As such, it's hard to say it's so important now. Particularly since so much is assumption. We don't know anything about Revolution, just assumptions. We haven't even seen an actual honest-to-God, hand on the controller, PS3 game really running yet. And already what seem to be actual gameplay XBOX 360 shots look better than they did two months ago. You're right; if there is a larger-than-normal gap, it could be more of an issue. But when you start breaking it down into details, there's a lot of ways to interpret what a 'large' gap is. Does the current crop of systems have areas where that gap is considered significant? There's too much in the air to put that much stock in it. Too much to take into account; the skill of the first party developers. The resources of third party developers. (In the case of the PS3 and Revolution) Control and controller issues. Not too mention the pure number of crap titles that are put out there to make a quick buck. Tech will mean less in those cases. They will, however, affect what we'll see out on the shelf. And then there's the hype aspect. That turns a lot of people off. And it's another reason there's less stock in tech. Now, you're right, it's possible the PS3 could be considerably more powerful than the XBOX 360 (though we dont' have any kind of final product to gauge by yet), but most people aren't going to know what that means. They're going to hear 'more powerful' and use it as it's intended - hype - to make their decision. Then they'll promptly go out and buy Big Mutha Truckers 3, or something. That's one reason it means jack to a lot of gamers. To the people in the know, it's one thing. But for the vast majority, it means sh*t. Tech doesn't make games. Good developers will make use of tech, true, but it can't be automatically assumed that the best tech will have the best games. I didn't even buy an XBOX until the last year because it didn't have the most games I thought were decent, despite the fact that it's the most powerful system. This generation things could change, yes. But like I said, there's not enough solid evidence to say so. And I don't think there will be until all systems are out on the shelves and have some games to their name.
I just want to say HOOOOOOOOOOLLEEEE SHIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEETTT at the MGS4 images. I'm going to die when the trailer comes out. :O!!!!
Go to Gamespot and check out the teaser they showed at TGS. Funny, plays to the Snake crowd (rather than Raiden), and kind of points towards a less stealth oriented gameplay. Not sure about it though, it is a teaser after all. In other news, straight from a website whose initials look a lot like IGN comes this: "TOKYO Sept. 15, 2005 Fueling global anticipation for the arrival of its powerful new video game and entertainment system, Microsoft Corp. today announced that Xbox 360&153; will arrive on store shelves Tuesday, Nov. 22 in North America, Friday, Dec. 2 in Europe, and Saturday, Dec. 10 in Japan. The announcement, made on the eve of Tokyo Game Show 2005, marked the first time that a game console will be launched in three territories in the same time frame. In preparation for what is expected to be massive worldwide demand for the new system, Microsoft also announced that Xbox 360 manufacturing is under way, with state-of-the-art facilities producing millions of units ultimately bound for frenzied gamers' homes from Osaka, Japan, to Oxford, England, and Orlando, Fla. This holiday season, gamers in Japan, Europe and North America pining to experience jaw-dropping high-definition graphics, unmatched online play and compelling digital entertainment features of Xbox 360 will finally have the chance," said Robbie Bach, chief Xbox officer for Microsoft. "Renowned development studios around the world are busy putting the finishing touches on their Xbox 360 games. We expect a strong portfolio of titles on launch day and through the holidays that will appeal to fans of every genre and gamers in every region, and with more than 200 games currently in development, continuous new additions to the library are on the way." Just before Thanksgiving. If I can find someone willing to risk dimemberment by saving me a place in line (late work hours really do suck) I'll probably be there, money in hand, like the sheep I am.
I have to admit thats picture of Octacon of the MGS4 scan looks freakin amazing...just soo much detail from just a scan, the best I've seen so far from the new generation and I thought GoW and Killzone couldn't be beat. Its not that I doubted Kojima but I remembered in an interview where he said he won't be focusing too much on the graphics of MGS4 but rather the physics,facial emotion and animation....stuff you don't see on still pictures. Whats great about this whole things is that we already know its real time and Hedio Kojima had confirmed that(can someone also confirm if it runs on the alpha kit or the actual PS3 hardware?). I don't think he was a fan of CGI to began with and I don't remember him using any in his game, so its no surprise that everything will be in real time. Can't wait for the trailer from the TGS to be release on Friday...
Same thing here. And the great thing about the Octacon pic is that not just his face looks good; check out the wall in the back and the window blinds on the left. I guess Kojima had to say before hand that it would be in real-time since no one seemed to believe the first MGS2 media (and the game turned out to look even a little better). I'm like 90% sure this is on the PS3 beta kits. The beta kits aren't that much different from the alpha kits though. Basically, 512MB of XDR RAM instead of 256 (devkits typically have more than the final system), I think the same Cell CPU, and maybe a 7800 GTX instead of SLI 6800U's or whatever. The final kits won't be out until around December, and they'll have the 3.2GHz Cell CPU, the final RSX GPU (at least 30% faster than a 7800GTX), and the link between them. That last part is pretty big since the kits are using PCI-E, which only allows for like 3-4GB/s BW between Cell and the GPU IIRC, while the final kit will have like 35GB/s, IIRC. In other words, one of the key designs of the PS3 won't even be possible to do until December when the final kits get shipped.
Latest update on MGS4 from IGN. "September 14, 2005 - In its last issue, Famitsu promised that its upcoming issue would feature the worldwide scoop on Metal Gear Solid 4, and sure enough, that's what we've gotten in this week's issue. The magazine offers a first look at the PS3 sequel, complete with details that we're sure will be solidified once the Tokyo Game Show opens its doors on Friday and we're able to view Konami's MGS4 trailer. The magazine actually shares just a handful of details on the game itself, leaving most of the talking to the screenshots, which show one of the most realistic real time displays ever set to the game screen. In the screenshots, Snake -- or whom we believe to be Snake -- is revealed to be an old timer this time. The old character wields a gun and assumes Snake-like stealth poses in some shots. He's also shown interacting with a robot known as Metal Gear Mark II. If you've played one of Kojima's lesser known series, Snatcher, you'll recognize this robot, as it has appeared in that series in the past. Raiden will also return, series producer Hideo Kojima reveals to the magazine. The new Raiden will apparently be so cool that you'll rethink your opinion of the Raiden from MGS2. The TGS trailer will give us a first look at Raiden's next generation debut. Screenshots also show what appears to be an Otacon-like character -- that is, a guy with glasses appears in the shots and he looks just like one would expect Otacon to. Although, he's far more detailed than previous Otacon characters have been thanks to the new power at the hands of Kojima Productions. And, like the new Snake, he looks a bit older this time around. Aside from character differences, MGS4 promises some changes in world structure. The world of Metal Gear Solid 4 is meant to be a war zone. While this was said of previous MGS games, this time you'll totally feel it. As you move through the game world, you'll see tanks, soldiers and fighter robots everywhere, indicating that you really are in a war zone. In comments with the magazine, Kojima shared some ideas on what went into the creation of MGS4. First, according to Kojima, the game's philosophy went from "real" to "natural." As an example of this, Kojima suggests that the exclamation marks, that in past MGS games have indicated when an enemy has discovered the player, may disappear from the game. MGS4 is apparently capable of expressing such an event naturally, based on the facial expressions and the motions of the enemy. The change to a more "natural" Metal Gear Solid takes on another form, Kojima reveals. Enemies, and the way in which you view enemies, will have greater dimension than the typical two dimensions of past games. Kojima doesn't reveal specifics, but does cite examples of Snake arriving in a battle field where country A and country B are fighting. Even though just two countries are fighting, it's possible that within one of the countries, there are different organizations that have different views and are also at odds with one another. What if Snake were to kill an A country solider. Wouldn't B country become Snake's ally? Kojima promises that we'll better understand this idea once we've seen the TGS trailer. In addition to multidimensional enemies, Kojima promises a new element of psychological warfare with MGS4. In past installments, enemies have simply targeted the player with attacks, something that Kojima refers to as being unnatural. Kojima asks, what if the enemy were to threaten the player -- what kind of psychological effect would that have on the player's concentration and ability to move? Sadly, he doesn't go into specifics. The shots revealed in the magazine are images running on actual PS3 hardware, and as impressive as they are, they will get better, according to Kojima's comments. While the images in the magazine are pulled from a demonstration clip, the world of MGS4 that you'll control when playing the game on the PS3 will look as good. And we assume the same can be said about the TGS trailer as a whole. Expect to get your first look at Metal Gear Solid 4 once the trailer airs on Friday. Stay tuned IGNPS3 for more around that time."
In the past, online play meant little. In the past, HD support meant little. In the past, supporting more than 2 controllers meant little. Things can change. There's really only one hardware company in the business, and they've only been around for two generations, in which both cases at least one console came out ~18 months later. Tech specs didn't really make much of a difference in the handheld world, yet now the PSP is starting to make a dent in Nintendo's handheld dominance. I don't think the PSP would be doing as well had the tech of the two handhelds been closer, but it was enough to make a difference. Going by the general specs of the PS3 and Xbox 360, there is a decent gap in power between the two. There is enough there to tell us that; it would be better with final RSX details, but the PS3 theoretically is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in just about every way (just about in this case is that 1% chance that something got missed in the comparisons). In contrast, even the PS2 outdid the Xbox in some specs, although not in the overall picture (relatively close though, IMO). We don't know the exacts of the Revolution, but there is enough to guesstimate where it could approximately be, from a worst case scenario to a best case. I did the same for the PS3. Worst case scenario, bad yields on Cell would hurt its performance (maybe 90-120 GFLOPS compared to the ~218 GFLOPs it has now, as well as other small downgrades), the GPU would be like a GS2.0 (with crappy shader support), the BR-drive would be 1x (if it even had it) and it would have 256 MB of XDR-ram. In that case, the PS3 would either be on par with the Xbox 360, or probably even a little worse (although some games would look damn good). Best case scenario, Sony would be able to put in a 2x16 Cell setup for ~512GFLOPS, get a pixel-shader only monster GPU from Nvidia (with SM3.0+), a 6+x BR drive, and 1GB of XDR-RAM. The PS3 turned out to somewhere in-between, but I was able to get a basic idea of how it would turn out. The same could happen for the Revolution (best case scenario = 2X, worst case scenario = .5X). For the most part, I've been ignoring the best case scenario to show how it may be at a disadvantage in a average to lesser-than-average scenario. Not really any exact predictions on my part, although it is possible. I just wanted to show that it was possible for this to happen, and therefore, the gap between the consoles would unusually large. As for PS3 gameplay graphics, I think we have a general idea of the the worst to expect. I-8 at E3 was gamplay, and running at 60 FPS (all on REALLY early hardware); I think the Sega game was as well. At the PS Meeting in Japan, Bandai showed some gameplay footage of their Gundam game, which looked just at good as their prerendered E3 clip. They also mentioned that they were only using just the main core and a "incomplete RSX," or something like that. And considering Bandai sucks at graphics (about at EA's level, except some of their games would be exclusives), that's saying a lot about how some PS3 games will look. Again, worst case scenario, I'd guess that games will look like I-8 or the Gundam game; they're not the best looking games, but they're better than a lot of Xbox 360 games (if not all). Best case scenario, all the demos will be met or surpassed roughly at launch for the PS3, and we'll all be laughing at those who thought the Killzone stuff was impossible. Of course, now that I think about it, that is all irrelevant in my argument. I'm not necessarily expecting the PS3 to get close to the best case scenario, and I'm not expecting the Revolution to get close to its worst case scenario. It is a possibility though, and that's why I bring up how important the gap in power between the two could be. Just because there's nothing confirming it doesn't make my point invalid. All it needs it to be in the realm of possibility. And since it is possible, it would be way too early to disregard the power of each console. I don't really think so, although the GC and especially the Xbox support features that the PS2 either has problems doing or can't do at all. When I think significant gap, I'd probably say something like DC->Xbox or something like that. However, I could have used some example tech specs to show what I meant by a large gap, but that didn't go so well last time. Um...OK. Not sure how power in this case would be any different than price, online play, amount of games, etc. It isn't like Nintendo won't be pimping the Revolution because of its "affordability," even if it had a crappy controller, crappy games, and crappy hardware. But people will go "Hey, this is a next-gen console at half the price." Then they'll buy it and find out that the console doesn't offer the same next-gen experiences that the other two might offer. I don't think hardware power (or any of the factors really) should be the sole reason for getting a console. So when someone goes and gets a console just because it is "more powerful," they might get screwed if they didn't factor in other things. A game library consisting of Big Mutha Truckers should have factored into his decision just as much as the "more powerful" thing. Also, while a gamer may not buy a console because it has X GFLOPs and Y MB of Z RAM, he may base his decision on the games. And if there is a GTA on the PS3 that graphically looks like the best fighter on the Xbox 360 (I guess DOA4 but I'd wait until something else), he may go with the PS3. Here, the specs of the PS3 allowed for developers to create a game that would be impossible to do on the Xbox 360, and the gameplay of the game sold the console to the gamer. He may not have known that the PS3 was "more powerful," but a game that would only be possible on the PS3 hardware was enough reason to buy the console. It was an indirect action, but the power gap impacted the gamer's decision as much as anything. Right, tech doesn't make games. I agree with that and that the best tech won't automatically have the best games. I don't think I ever really said that the console with the best hardware would get the "best" games. I think it is possible, or even likely, but it isn't a given. FWIW, you could also say that it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the best tech won't have the best games. And even though you brought up the Xbox example again, which I've said is irrelevant in this situation, there were at least some examples of games that were possible on the Xbox but not the other consoles. I said this earlier, but games like Doom 3 and HL2 could be played on a Xbox, and this was with a smaller gap than what I have been referring to. I guess a certain way of putting it is that, depending on how much more powerful the console is, the greater the likelihood a game on that console will be. A game can still be a stinker on it, but if you limit developers less than other consoles, they should have a better chance of making a great game. Finally, I left this for last (although I touched on it earlier), but I just realized that we seem to be arguing over something a little different than what I originally meant. That's my fault since I started veering off-topic with possible Revolution specs, Xbox 360 vs PS3 comparisons, etc. But I just realized that I just wanted to show that a more powerful console could be important. Not that the Revolution will be a weak console. Not that the PS3 will be a monster of a console. Not that any of this will happen and make a big difference next-gen. I was trying to show that it could happen. With that simple word, I can create any situation that is at least somewhat of a possibility to support my claim. Do I know what the Revolution's final specs will be, or what PS3 launch games will look like? No. Does it matter in this case? Not really. I'm not looking for a example that will completely mirror what will happen in the next 5-10 years. In this case, you can drop the whole "lack of solid evidence" argument since I'm not even really needing much to prove my point anyways.
I meant to post about this before but never got a chance... The release dates sound good. I'm just glad the Black Friday rumors weren't true, although they did cut it pretty close. It didn't mention it in that article you quoted, but MS also mentioned that the Japanese launch would only have the premium bundle (I think it is the same), and that it would only cost ~$350. Don't ask me why the couldn't do the same here. Besides the fact that this means developers will probably take more chances in general with assuming a HD, I would guess that a lot of Japanese developed games will require a HD. BTW, would you guys rather have a TGS thread for stuff like the Revolution controller, MGS4 trailer, any more last minute Xbox 360 announcements, and PS3/Xbox 360 media (or even current-gen media as well)? I didn't really plan on this thread still being active at this time, so I thought about making a TGS thread, but if you guys are fine discussing it in this one, it doesn't bother me any. I just didn't know if you guys minded reading through some BBS debates to get to the TGS info.
Impressions from 1up about the trailer (Kojima has an awesome sense of humor ): http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143788
QUICK, DOWNLOAD FROM ONE OF THESE AND PRAY THAT IT WORKS: http://tallah.org/video/mgs4.wmv http://rapidshare.de/files/5151155/mgs4.wmv.html http://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0R6J7JY51DY383A5TK8LYJ94GW I can't even describe it really. All I know is that Killzone looks like nothing now. I want a direct-feed version ASAP. Konami is supposed to put up a download later on, which should be better than the ones above. But even with crappy compressed video...
Good idea. I just wanted one person to tell me that. Unless you were planning to do so, I'll go ahead and try to get one up before I go to sleep. I'll repost the MGS4 stuff, and try to look for some other tidbits (RR impressions, PS3 game list, etc.).
Go for it. I just got home, so I'm trying to find out everything that was on tonight. Was anything 360 shown? If you need it, I'll put together some Rev stuff on the controller.
A little bit here and there was shown for the Xbox 360, although nothing as big as MGS4 or Nintendo's keynote. I was a little busy throughout the day, and then turned my attention towards the Revolution controller and the MGS4 trailer, so I may have missed some stuff from Xbox 360 games. The only thing I really saw were more Madden Xbox 360 screens, and they're still as disappointing as ever. I'm checking out some sites now for new media. It looks like there is a RR6 clip at one site. I'll put a link to it in the TGS thread if you're curious. If you want to, you can go ahead and get some Revolution stuff together. I'm just going to start the thread off with a little bit of PS3 info, some PS2 stuff, and some Xbox 360 stuff; I wasn't going to look for much more Revolution stuff since some of it is already in the controller thread.
