Right, I've played PS3

[Avid Fan]

I really miss the point-n-click too. Why in the hell isnt there any of the oldies on the DS?

[MCHufnagel]

I wonder when the demo units will be out?

They're already out.

Well, I haven't seen any where I live. I've been to plenty of stores in the last week also.

[n8littlefield]

Well, I've played the PS3 as well, and have to say I'm completely unimpressed, especially when it's right next to a 360 kiosk. Motor Storm reeks of 1st generation title, it's slow, the graphics are nice, but not nearly as nice as I expected and the gameplay feels really shallow.

 

Honestly, next to a 360 playing Gears of War it looks terrible. I can't imagine anyone picking the PS3 over the 360. As much as I love my PS2 Dual Shocks, I have to admit that the 360 controller is more comfortable too.

 

Neither is for me, I'm doing the Wii, but later if I decide to get a more "traditional" console, it's a complete no-brainer - Microsoft wins hands down.

[sega saturn x]

I really miss the point-n-click too. Why in the hell isnt there any of the oldies on the DS?

I don't know, perhaps because no one would buy them?

[n8littlefield]

I really miss the point-n-click too. Why in the hell isnt there any of the oldies on the DS?

 

There aren't any classics, but there are quite a few games that feature the same type of gmeplay:

Phoenix Wright

Hotel Dusk (coming soon)

Trace Memory

Touch Detective

 

Supposedly the Sam & Max folks have expressed interest in moving the new game onto the Wii as well...

[darklord1977]

Seriously? Wow, man. I thought for sure that the Playstation 3 would be comparable to dedicated Blu-Ray players. I even said as much in my console predictions a few months back, which seem to be further and further off the mark as the days go by.

 

All right, so how's the Blu-Ray playback on the PS3 in comparison to say, a good quality DVD player? Is there a noticable improvement?

 

JR

the quality of the picture and sound of a blyray disc vs a dvd is about the same in my opinion..i have a hd tv and tried out both discs... nothing really spectacular to report sure having the blu ray player inside the ps3 is a great idea.. but for some reason i dont know why the colors on my dvds look sharper when played on my ps3 so this is a good thing:)

[darklord1977]

Somehow I'm not surprised about Gran Turismo, seeing how Sony has been rather arrogant all this time with the PS3.

yeah gt hd was a train wreck waiting to happen..no shock here..ill stick to my project gotham 3 for my 360:)

[darklord1977]

I think that the "next gen" will really have to prove itself before it can be a runaway success. All three console companies have their work cut out to entice "new" gamers and not piss off the people who initially bought and support thier consoles. So far I am not impressed, fueled by the what I consider a lack of things new enough to warrant a large game console purchase. Today, I enjoyed the buy 2 get one free at a local gamestop and walked out of the store with 7 games for a mere $25. At the current prices of current gen stuff, it is going to have to be one hell of a game for me to go buy it new for $50 to $60 bucks. Count me out of this battle, I am happy with leftovers for now. Let me know when the prices come down to reality.

im pretty impressed with my playstation 3 and my xbox 360...both are great systems. and i cant wait to see what comes out next for games.....as for the nintendo wii...im not crazy about it..the graphics are not all that..i have some gamecube games that look better..

 

..as for the wii controller im not impressed...its just a gimmick in my opinion...ive played the wii and was saying whats the fuss? i think nintendo dropped the ball with the wii...personally i think the best systems nintendo made were...the famicom, the nes, super nes. and the gamecube...

[Cheese007]

Comparing the GC to the NES is an insult IMO.

[Gabriel]

As an owner of both a 360 and PS3, here are my impressions so far.

 

The PS3 controller is more comfortable. The only problem is that I have to use the exremely short USB cord constantly because wireless devices don't work worth a damn in my apartment. But, unlike last generation, the Microsoft controller isn't an unusable brick this time around.

 

In terms of multi-functionality, both devices have their pros and cons. There are too many of each to go into here, but, in the end, both systems come out about equal. Both have been crippled to various degrees in the name of "security" and to safeguard other proprietary formats by each company.

 

It's hard to judge games at the moment. I suppose one of the better comparizons is Call of Duty 3 to Resistance. In that comparison, Resistance just looks better. From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

 

Even with the problems the PS3 has with playing non-HD PS2 games, it still beats the holy crap out of the 360 in the backwards compatibility department. Yes, the interlaced PS2 titles look all jaggy, but you can at least play them. PS2 titles which supported progressive scan play fine. I even tested the PS1 Atari Classics 2 disc and found that the PS3 could play Paperboy, so at least some long standing compatibility issues have been addressed.

 

The game library of the 360 has had a year to build up, and even though the titles have been a slow treacle, it's still not entirely fair to compare to the launch PS3 lineup. It's no shame to admit that the current 360 library beats the infant PS3 library. Since the main overriding reason to buy a new generation system is new games, then this is a fairly damning advantage the 360 has.

 

So, the 360 is slightly better at the moment, but the PS3 could still easily beat it.

 

As for the Wii, my view of it is simple. It is not in the same generation as the 360 and PS3. It's a last generation console, something akin to a modern day Emerson Arcadia 2001. Anything that the Wii can do, the 360 or PS3 will be able to do better. There are only two debatable advantages it has. The first one is that it will have Nintendo exclusives. That's a given. The other advantage is the Wii controller. But there's nothing preventing both Sony and Microsoft from releasing a new controller which is just like the Wii's. Nintendo exclusives can't be changed, but if the gaming world really wants motion sensors and pointers then those features can be added to the PS3 and 360.

 

Personally, I think people are going to quickly get sick of "controllers of the month." After all, we've been through dance pads, bongos, guitars, and now the wiimote, nunchuck, and 'classic' controller.

[Gregory DG]

From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

Then you should see this article on GameSpot. The 360 graphically outdoes the PS3 on nearly every page. Most of the PS3 shots are blurry compared to the 360.

[MCHufnagel]

From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

Then you should see this article on GameSpot. The 360 graphically outdoes the PS3 on nearly every page. Most of the PS3 shots are blurry compared to the 360.

I would take those with a grain of salt, still shots can be deceiving. But then I don't think that Gabriel is non-biased either. He did say that he hoped that Nintendo doesn't win this generation. But I too feel that the Wii controller scheme is over-rated. Like Gabriel said, you can add motion sensing controllers to any console.

 

I owned an Arcadia 2001 and the Wii will never be in that shit category!

[Gabriel]

I owned an Arcadia 2001 and the Wii will never be in that shit category!

 

I think you understand what I mean, but to be perfectly clear and make sure my comment is not mischaracterized...

 

The Emerson Arcadia 2001 was, in some ways, designed to be a peer of the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. It was constructed to be just good enough to be barely above both of those systems. The bad news was that the Atari 5200 and Colecovision were the true representatives of the next generation of game hardware, and the Emerson Arcadia wasn't even remotely in their league. That is the comparison I'm drawing, that the Wii is clinging to the old generation and has just enough ooomph to edge out the PS2 and XBox, but is nowhere near the capabilities of the PS3 or 360. I'm not saying that the Wii is an Emerson Arcadia.

 

In the short term, I think this has clearly been a good idea on Nintendo's part. I don't think customers are really ready for the current generation of hardware to end. I think there's a bit of tech-shock going on.

 

But, in the long term, I think it's damaging and stagnating overall to the hobby.

[MCHufnagel]

I owned an Arcadia 2001 and the Wii will never be in that shit category!

 

I think you understand what I mean, but to be perfectly clear and make sure my comment is not mischaracterized...

 

The Emerson Arcadia 2001 was, in some ways, designed to be a peer of the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. It was constructed to be just good enough to be barely above both of those systems. The bad news was that the Atari 5200 and Colecovision were the true representatives of the next generation of game hardware, and the Emerson Arcadia wasn't even remotely in their league. That is the comparison I'm drawing, that the Wii is clinging to the old generation and has just enough ooomph to edge out the PS2 and XBox, but is nowhere near the capabilities of the PS3 or 360. I'm not saying that the Wii is an Emerson Arcadia.

 

In the short term, I think this has clearly been a good idea on Nintendo's part. I don't think customers are really ready for the current generation of hardware to end. I think there's a bit of tech-shock going on.

 

But, in the long term, I think it's damaging and stagnating overall to the hobby.

 

Yes, I did know what you meant . I don't think that the lack of HD graphics will hurt the hobby though. I really don't think that the majority of homes will only have a HDTV until after the Wii is replaced. And SDTV's will be around for a long time after that. IMO, the competition of a different controller scheme will spur MS and Sony to be more pro-active in using different controllers.

[misspent_youth]

Personally, I think people are going to quickly get sick of "controllers of the month." After all, we've been through dance pads, bongos, guitars, and now the wiimote, nunchuck, and 'classic' controller.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. I think that the interface to a gaming system is the place that has the most potential for the next major advancement in gaming. It's seems that for the last while the tech improvements from generation to generation were limited to graphical and storage improvements. Changes in interface have been limited to more buttons, and vibration. The fact that so many different interfaces have popped up lately (the bongos, guitars, dancepads, eyetoy, etc) tells me that the industry is starting to focus on the area that has been most neglected over the years. All of the controllers you mentioned appear to me to be a progression, rather than a passing fancy.

[ubersaurus]

I owned an Arcadia 2001 and the Wii will never be in that shit category!

 

I think you understand what I mean, but to be perfectly clear and make sure my comment is not mischaracterized...

 

The Emerson Arcadia 2001 was, in some ways, designed to be a peer of the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. It was constructed to be just good enough to be barely above both of those systems. The bad news was that the Atari 5200 and Colecovision were the true representatives of the next generation of game hardware, and the Emerson Arcadia wasn't even remotely in their league. That is the comparison I'm drawing, that the Wii is clinging to the old generation and has just enough ooomph to edge out the PS2 and XBox, but is nowhere near the capabilities of the PS3 or 360. I'm not saying that the Wii is an Emerson Arcadia.

 

In the short term, I think this has clearly been a good idea on Nintendo's part. I don't think customers are really ready for the current generation of hardware to end. I think there's a bit of tech-shock going on.

 

But, in the long term, I think it's damaging and stagnating overall to the hobby.

 

I'd disagree. The Arcadia offered nothing new, really-the controller was the same basic thing as you were seeing for everything else of the day. Quite frankly it didn't have anything to counteract the inferior visuals of the Colecovision and 5200. The Wii does. Microsoft isnt' going to release a motion sensitive controller for the 360 that gets wide support, because of how many traditional controllers have been around, packed in with the console. And PS3 already has about as good as they're going to get for the same reason. Unless the controller is standard, support is going to be very limited, and with Nintendo's standard one being so different, it's going to get plenty of support.

[agradeneu]

From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

Then you should see this article on GameSpot. The 360 graphically outdoes the PS3 on nearly every page. Most of the PS3 shots are blurry compared to the 360.

 

 

Well, I'm surprised someone can make this verdict. Its really were neatpicking gets pathetic. If ppl were not biased by that text nobody could tell the difference. The difference are so minor that they are insignificant. I could make two stills of a Xbox 360 game and there would be minor differences too. Which one was the PS3 shot then? Of course that one looking worse. Bullshit. These gfx are identical. Nuff said.

Edited January 15, 2007 by agradeneu

[Gabriel]

From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

Then you should see this article on GameSpot. The 360 graphically outdoes the PS3 on nearly every page. Most of the PS3 shots are blurry compared to the 360.

 

 

Well, I'm surprised someone can make this verdict. Its really were neatpicking gets pathetic. If ppl were not biased by that text nobody could tell the difference. The difference are so minor that they are insignificant. I could make two stills of a Xbox 360 game and there would be minor differences too. Which one was the PS3 shot then? Of course that one looking worse. Bullshit. These gfx are identical. Nuff said.

 

Oh yeah, that. I meant to reply to that.

 

All those games are ones which were made first for the 360 and then half assed ported over to the PS3. In that case, it's the same as the games which were made for the PS2 and then ported over to the Xbox. Buy the original, because the half assed port is going to be, by definition, half-assed.

 

Plus, there's VERY heavy bias in that article. They really try to gloss over any element where the PS3 equals and excels while they immediately jump on and harp endlessly about any minor flaw they can find. Other things are just subjective calls about lighting effects. They definitely aren't equally comparing things.

 

The only semi-legitimate comparison of graphics I've seen is a linked comparison of Gears of War to Resistance. In that comparison the reviewer gives the edge to Gears, not for anything objective, but because he prefers the more clutterred and dirty look of Gears to the cleaner look of Resistance. Even still, that's a much more valid judgement than the comparison of the games above.

[agradeneu]

From what I've seen, I'd definitely give the edge in graphic performance to the PS3.

Then you should see this article on GameSpot. The 360 graphically outdoes the PS3 on nearly every page. Most of the PS3 shots are blurry compared to the 360.

 

 

Well, I'm surprised someone can make this verdict. Its really were neatpicking gets pathetic. If ppl were not biased by that text nobody could tell the difference. The difference are so minor that they are insignificant. I could make two stills of a Xbox 360 game and there would be minor differences too. Which one was the PS3 shot then? Of course that one looking worse. Bullshit. These gfx are identical. Nuff said.

 

Oh yeah, that. I meant to reply to that.

 

All those games are ones which were made first for the 360 and then half assed ported over to the PS3. In that case, it's the same as the games which were made for the PS2 and then ported over to the Xbox. Buy the original, because the half assed port is going to be, by definition, half-assed.

 

Plus, there's VERY heavy bias in that article. They really try to gloss over any element where the PS3 equals and excels while they immediately jump on and harp endlessly about any minor flaw they can find. Other things are just subjective calls about lighting effects. They definitely aren't equally comparing things.

 

The only semi-legitimate comparison of graphics I've seen is a linked comparison of Gears of War to Resistance. In that comparison the reviewer gives the edge to Gears, not for anything objective, but because he prefers the more clutterred and dirty look of Gears to the cleaner look of Resistance. Even still, that's a much more valid judgement than the comparison of the games above.

 

 

Well its just about trivia for fanboys, give the ppl what they want and compare the incomparable. Final Night Round 3 looks better on the PS3 and they left that out.

You are right that these games are all ports of Xbox360 developed games so they don't make use of any the advantages the PS3 has over the Xbox 360, thus its patheic to debate on the power of the PS3, its highly speculative.

Edited January 16, 2007 by agradeneu