Yeah. I wanted to get a PS3 with backwards emulation so last year when Gamestop had a couple of the Metal Gear Solid bundles selling with the 80 gig with backward emulation selling at the same price as the new 80 gigger who lacks that and a couple of other things I jumped at it.
I do have a pie in the sky idea that Sony is going to integrate software backwards emulation at some point in the future. Maybe not, though.
Jesus Christ, I ask again, is this fucking necessary?
I think everyone above me has made all the important points for and against the various consoles. I just want to say that I have had both a PS3 and a Wii since they were launched and most days the Wii sits there looking sad and lonely while the PS3 gets used almost daily.
When one is asking for opinions on the major consoles? Certainly.
Also, if you’re just looking for data points and scoring, I’ve got a 360 and play it pretty much daily and would happily pay double for Xbox Live. I also have a Wii, but it sees a lot, lot, lot less play.
Even my girlfriend, who’s pretty much been a Nintendo person her whole life rarely plays the Wii. We started playing it again recently for Rayman’s Raving Rabbids TV Party, though.
Cause you know if there’s one thing gamers just can’t stand, it’s having fantastic fun.
Just posting to say that in a couple months, Nintendo is releasing improved motion controls that allow direct 1:1 movement with the onscreen characters. It’s coming with a game called Wii Resort which features throwing frisbees for dogs to catch and Kendo-style swordfighting.
To me, this screams “We are desperate to get rid of these things”. And as for the price difference, I’ll grant that the wireless adaptor for the 360 is stupid, but $20 for a battery pack? Or I could use the same rechargable batteries I use for everything else in my house that cost $10 for 4 and not have to worry about cabling my controller up to charge it.
In terms of lineup, the only significant differentiators between the systems are that the 360 has more RPGs (baffling) and, well, XBLA seems to have many nicer offerings the Sony equivalent right now.
Bluray has zero value for me at this time, and is likely to have zero value for me going forward, so it wasn’t really a factor.
Anyway, yeah. The Wii. Several friends have them. They’re fun to play for short periods, but honestly, the majority of the games for it do nothing for me, so it wasn’t really a consideration.
But…but…but…it doesn’t have blood and zombies and death squads and blood and car explosions and more blood and real-time networked virtual butt-spanking with my buddies! It’s not for REAL gamers! 
Sounds about right, yup. Why does it piss you guys off so much?
That the Wii isn’t for ‘real gamers’ is precisely why it does so well.
ETA: That 1:1 relationship will be a profound improvement, the wishy-washy precision about the Wii drove me crazy.
Fuck dogs and frisbees and Kendo swords. Give me Tiger Woods golf.
It had better have a lot of courses on it, though, or else I’m going to be a very disappointed panda.
I think it’s the “everyone plays it” angle.
Because it’s both factually incorrect (the wii does in fact have games with blood gore & guts and brains in the teeth. The Wii is also the home of Onechanbara: Bikini Zombie Slayers) and absurdly self-crippling. It’s like arguing that people who don’t read Clive Barker aren’t real ‘readers’ and all the breadth of literary experience is just crap shovelware & stupid kiddie stuff - except for ‘real’ books about zombies.
If you tried to say that about books or movies or tv - people would laugh at you.
I almost agree with this but I’m not sure it makes the point you think it’s making.
What the Wii does is turn former non-gamers into gamers. This is a good thing for our industry.
It doesn’t mean that the new gamers aren’t real gamers or that longtime gamers won’t enjoy Smash Bros, Galaxy, Zelda, Pikmin, Resident Evil, No More Heroes, Okami, Fire Emblem, Mario Kart, Zack & Wiki, World of Goo, Metroid, House of the Dead, etc.
Real gamers play games. Period. We’re lucky to have such variety.
I agree - I was disappointed that they didn’t have 1:1 initially. I’m really looking forward to the change and the new games designed for it.
I think the “3 times larger” space issue is pretty over-rated, as really the only things that require more than a DVD’s worth of space are FMV scenes (textures and sound to a much lesser extent) Personally, when I’m playing a game, I’d rather actually play it than watch a 30 minute prerendered cutscene. Besides there’s always disc-swapping, which isn’t really that bad if you only have to do it once. Another thing to consider is that the 2x speed Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 actually has an worse data transfer rate than the 12x DVD drive of the 360. Hence the need for the PS3’s game installation on the hard disc.
While I agree that Microsoft had some pretty severe design flaws with the RROD, the “10 year” thing is pure marketing B.S. The PS3 has it’s fair share of hardware issues as well. All consoles do.
The newer “Jasper” version of the 360 has 40% less power draw under load(170W->100W) versus the original X360. That means 40% less overall heat. The Jasper’s fans have gotten much quieter as well (~5dB reduction in noise). Still not as quiet as a PS3, but they’ve more than halved the original difference between the two (the difference used to be ~8dB, it’s now ~3dB)
Note that the PS3 only has 256MB of memory dedicated to the GPU, while the unified memory architecture of the 360 allows for 512MB to the GPU.
Your statement that the PS3’s GPU is “slightly stronger” is exactly the opposite of the general consensus I’ve read.
Hey, Paul, tell us a little about the kind of gaming you’re interested in, would you?
Hard to know where to start with this post, but let me dissect it a bit
I agree that in a lot of ways the Wii is not a next gen console, though it is significantly more powerful than the gamecube was, but Nintendo has never been known for cranking out “plenty” of good games. Their dev cycles tend to run 2 to 3 times as long as that of most other companies. Their games are usually quality, but they’re usually few and far between. Also you can’t make an arguement for giving them time to establish a user base as the Wii already has a HUGE user base, larger than that of either hte x360 or the ps3 by leaps and bounds
how is that different than Nintendo or Sony? Sony got into the market cause they wanted to partner with Nintendo to make the Super Nintendo Disc Drive, then Nintendo screwed them over and the SNES DD became the PSOne. They’re all in it for the money, period.
Sony can’t make a good game to save its life either. Both Sony and MS rely on (what often become 2nd party) developers to make exclusives for their system. Of the big 3 Nintendo is really the only competant in house developer. Sony’s 989 Studios, anyone? Also the the main processor for the 360 is completely different from that of the PS3
GTA4 was years away from either system (launched at approx the same time for both ps3 and x360) so I’m not sure what this arguments is trying to say
both systems have plenty of AAA games (ps3 having both Killzone 1 and 2, MGS, etc). X360 has more games for several reasons: first off it’s selling better (or was initially, ahven’t looked at the figures for awhile) so with a larger installed user base more devs made games for it. Second it’s much easier to dev games for cause it’s very similar in architecture to a PC, hence companies like Valve porting PC games to the 360 but refusing to have anything to do with the ps3 and it’s cell processor
the blu-ray disc is significantly bigger, but to say it can hold 3x the data of a dvd9 is a bit of a misnomer as, with the ps3s 2x disc drive, there needs to be a lot of redundant data to keep it from having ridiculously load times (also why many games instal onto the ps3s harddrive). MGS4 was a ps3 exclusive not for this reason (though they did fill the blu-ray with uncompressed audio and video simply cause they could, it would have fit onto a dvd9 had they compressed it like most devs do) but because it was developed AS a ps3 exclusive, a selling point for the system. Simply put, sony BOUGHT the license to the game.
And mostly in the first game generation for these systems?! are you nuts? Most of the AAA games already have sequels, the x360 has been out for a good 3.5 years, the ps3 maybe 2.5 (they launched november of 2005 and november 2006 respectively). If you go with the common “5 year” figure we’re more than half way through this system generation
try living in Japan. New games are often upwards of $80 USD :eek:
No way in hell was there uncompressed video on that disc. The PS3 wouldn’t have the bandwidth in several key places to process that sort of throughput. Just thinking of the player alone - hell a single point hard drive will probably have issues streaming uncompressed high def video. You’d need an array. Maybe they did some sort of high bit rate, high def compression, but there must have been some sort of compression going on. Not only that but isn’t there some sort of ridiculous amount of video cut scenes in that game? Uncompressed high def video would eat up space like there’s not tomorrow. We’re talking 400-800 gigabytes per hour.
:
: Yet another reason to love PC gaming 
First off i want to say sorry for the rambling nightmare post, as i explained at the time etc etc but anyway…
To YamatoTwinkie, i do agree with what you say about the disc space in principle and it only depends on the how games advance over the years but it cant be denied that bigger doesnt hurt when it comes to storage, and installing on the hard drive isnt much of a issue really since the ps3 comes with one anyway.
I do not really agree with the “pure marketing BS” comment but i do understand your comment and sony is showing commitment to the older consoles it has made so i think my statement was fair. But i am unclear what hardware problems the ps3 had. Can you point me in the direction of more information about that, it is entirely possible i missed the problems as i came late to the next gen party.
Regardings the jasper version… dammit why didnt i find out about that before i bought that loud version!!! on the topic of the loudness of the ps3… i cant hear it at all, but good to know the numbers so thank you.
On the graphics point…you are totally correct and thats my bad, i was intending to point that out but it got lost in my head, so i concede that point to you. My head was working on two thoughts at once and i lost one of them.
And To PopeJewish i again agree with your comment on the Wii user base, i got the point of the sentence wrong, i was not intending to say they didnt have a huge user base, i was meant to say in the past tense they didnt(just after release) and now they do(as the games come out). It still sounds weird but i hope you understand what i was intending to say. Nintendo does like to take its time to perfect the key games before releasing them as you say, but nintendo does have long standing relationships with designers and companies to get good games out there, which again i mangled that statement by thinking more than typing, so sorry for the bad posting there.
I do have a problem with the statement sony got into it for the money as i would think it was more of a case to try not to waste the work they had put into the disc based console they had done before nintendo back away, as i said before, i am not suggesting anyone got into making games consoles for the fun of it, obviously they want to make money but microsoft made the choice purely for money in my mind.
On to the “poor mans GTA” line, what i intended to say was that the 360 was weak at the start with games more seeing what can be done rather than great games, GOW outstanding. Mot stating PS3 did have but…i was tired and etc… i concede that point.
I thought it was easier to dev for the ps3 rather than the 360, at least thats what i read somewhere,
And almost lastly, Has it been that long already? times flies… it just doesnt feel like its that stage in this console generation to me… or is it just me :s
And lastly… 80 dollars!!! thats it im staying in texas lol
ok now actually lastly sorry for this awful post but the multi quote thing hates me and is just not be friendly to me.
I heard yesterday on NPR that there have been more Wii Fit Controllers sold than all PS3 systems. That amazes me to no end. I would bet that the Wii Fit Controller has a higher profit margin too!
Personally, I own a PS3, and I love it.
To develop a game solely for the PS3 as opposed to the X360, yes- but if you develop an XBox game, you have also developed a PC game. All you have to do to port it is remap the controls for keyboard/mouse, and mess with the video resolution.
In order to port a PS3 game you have to rewrite half the code so that the game will run under Windows; on the Xbox it already does.
Not quite, but it’s getting there.
Worldwide, there are about 21 million PS3 systems out there versus 18 million copies of Wii Fit.
In just the US, it’s 8 million PS3 systems versus 7 million copies of Wii Fit.