Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cnet has gone hands on with all three systems.  Here's what they think:

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6464_7-6551960.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

Cnet's full review of PS3:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=cnetfd.ld1

 

Cnet's full review of Wii

http://reviews.cnet.com/Nintendo_Wii/4505-6464_7-31355104.html?tag=cnetfd.ld2

 

Cnet's full review of 360

http://reviews.cnet.com/Microsoft_Xbox_360/4505-6464_7-31355096.html?tag=txt

Cnet is probably just looking at tech specs and execution. I'm still
waiting on PS3's game library to lure me in. (PS3= months of no miniatures).

Cnet folks are definitly techies, so no suprise there, although they do basically say that all 3 systems are good and it's all about the games.

Posted By malfred on 11/14/2006 1:52 PM
Cnet is probably just looking at tech specs and execution. I'm still
waiting on PS3's game library to lure me in. (PS3= months of no miniatures).

I just compair it to terminators.

25 terminators = Wii
40 Terminators = 360
50-60 Terminators = PS3

So, if just just trade in your dreams of a Lysander Wing army you have have the Next gen system of your choice.

I normaly am a Sony fan, but the price tag is what got me, and Gears of War. That game alone promted me to buy a 360 and I have been happy since. With rumors of PS3 games costing upwards of around 100 bucks? I think not, unless they put out some really cool uber must have game...I'll past this time around, or at least until the price drops some.

Chappy P!

Haven't seen that rumor. Link?

The rumor for game pricing? I saw it on Attack of the Show a while back on the G4 TV station. They mentioned that games for the PS3 could go as high as 100 buck, but the range would be a little to a lot more than the 360, which is still quite high. Yes I do realise that the Legendary Halo 3 edition is 100 bucks, but that's because of the Spartan helm you get with the game as well as any other features that collector's edition might possess.

Chappy P!

FYI -- never trust a TV show's gameing rumors.

Well I never heard $100 but I have heard that they will be $60-70 becuase of the higher cost of Blu-ray disks and supposedly higher cost of developing 1080 games with decent framerates. I could search for the links again, but meh. So far they are $60 which is still $10 more then I like for new games.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9901

Sounds like he's leaving himself open to going over 59.99, but he seems to
understand that a 99 dollar game would be untenable at this point.

I find it hard to believe that the 360 only has 10megs of Video Ram. That's gotta be a typo...

I admit I was wrong...It does seem like the games are evenly priced to the 360...I dunno, but I just don't see myself going with Sony this time around.

Sure, I had a playstation, I bought it during college when I saw a friend playing Final Fantasy VII. I went out and bought the system and that game...and skipped a weeks worth of classes, at least some of them.

When the PS2 was released, I broke down and bought on of them, but it was harder that time around due to the cost of the system. I knew xbox was around the corner, but it didn't seem to have the titles I was interested in. Halo was released and I almost broke down, but I resisted.

Gears of War was the selling point for me as far as the 360 goes. The system was cheaper too. I held off as long as possible, to wait to hear what the price of the system would be, and when that was announced, I said nope! Not this time. I began to see screen shots of GoW for the 360 I was sold.

Would I like a PS3, sure, but not now. Maybe one day if or when the price might drop, but so far I am happy with my 360.

I can only scratch my head when I think of Nintendo?? I don't think I could ever buy a Wii, but hey you never know?

Chappy P!

Eater of his own words =)

360 + Wii = gming bliss for the same cost of PS3

It's actually correct, Achilles.  Sort of.  There are 10 megs of DEDICATED video RAM.  The 512 megs of system RAM are shared between the processors and the video card, allocated as needed.  Gives the developers more flexibility for programming, as opposed to the PS/3's more restrictive architecture.

Ah.. that makes more sense! I was just agog that my 360 can run Gears of War and on the Video Memory of Doom 3d!

Well I don't see myself replacing my good old standard xbox since I'm still finding new, fun games to keep me happy. When Halo 3 comes out I think I'll have a harder time resisting the 360, but to be honest I know I'll resist just fine

But the PS3? It's actually considered a joke amongst the people I talk to. I can't help but chuckle at the thought that you can buy ~3 Wii's OR one PS3. Wait- the PS3 doesn't come with a game in the box like the Wii does? AND the games are going to cost insane prices?!?! Think about it- how much of a Wii library can you get for $700? How much PS3 can you get?

And this screen resolution stuff is garbage. HD DVDs are a joke too. I've watched DVDs on my father's 50" tv and they don't look any less real then "real life". Then I switch his cable on and put up an HD feed. The difference? Negligible. Honestly- it's like throwing all your bed sheets away and running off to the nearest store to find something with a higher thread count. Why do you care so badly? Because the people selling it to you want you to. And come on- if you can afford an HD DVD your eyesight is likely more then a little poorer then 20/20. When your eyesight slips a single point do you have to run out and get new classes because the world just isn't sharp enough? I hope not

At least that's my opinion. And I think that buying the PS3 and telling someone that you're paying for an HD DVD player is silly too- we both know the future of HD DVD format is extremely uncertain. Customers aren't exactly clamoring to replace their DVD collections. Furthermore, the price of HD DVD players are going to plummet with time- just as DVD players did. So you've got a baseline DVD player (as in it represents the bare minimum of HD DVD technology- the equivalent of a non-progressive scan DVD player from back in the day- high tech for a while then subpar for years and years) that may or may not play a format that'll be supported a year from now.

Please excuse my rant in a dead topic... I just wanted to throw it out here Feel free to prove me wrong guys- this isn't exactly my field of expertise!

That's a good point. How good is good enough? I remember when I was a kid I had a 13" black and white TV in my room with an antenna, and I loved it. Now I watch TV on a widescreen HD TV with cable, but am I enjoying it that much more? Not really.

Although I completely agree with what Drake is saying, I do want to say in response to Crawling Chaos that I think its the general lack of HD programming that hurts the HD experience.

If you're into something like football (like I am) having a big HDTV with 5.1 surround really, really improves the experience, at least for me it does. When they show the local feed of Charger games, I'd rather watch the national HD game regardless of who is playing; that's how much more the clearer and larger image means to me.

The same goes for video games and movies to me. Having a 60" screen that essentially encompases my vision and 5.1 surround really immerses me in both movies and video games. I can't even stand watching the on-demand movies anymore because they don't play widescreen with 5.1 like movies on the HD channels or from a DVD do.

So to me, the advent of HD has been as important as I imagine the switch from black and white to color was for some.

I think that when the vast majority of channels are finally in HD (it'll get there someday) the masses will finally see and appreciate the difference between HD and SD.

You know what they should HD enable? Windtalkers. Muahahhahaha...

I guess what you want to watch would make a big difference. I've only watched one football game this season, and it's been a long while since I've watched a basketball game. If you're just watching a regular tv drama of people talking in close up shots, the sharpness isn't as important as if there are twenty-two guys fighting over a small ball.

The one game I saw was the 49ers beating the Raiders. I was so pleased that it motivated me to start painting my world eaters again. What with the red and gold.

Posted By yakface on 11/30/2006 6:47 PM

If you're into something like football (like I am) having a big HDTV with 5.1 surround really, really improves the experience, at least for me it does.

Actually that's why my father bought his HD tv.  He's a lifelong steelers fan.  I remember as a kid he used to take mom's angel off the top of the Christmas tree and put a steelers hat there.  He did that every year :p

I see what you mean about it encompassing your vision and giving a different experience, but I really think people over emphesis it compared to gameplay.  I mean- what's more important: pretty or fun?  And I really think that's what Wii did intelligently- they've decided to go back to what made tetris such a brilliant game- innovative gameplay that keeps you hooked.

A couple thoughts.  I DO think high def displays have value, however I agree that HD-DVD is a pig in a poke.  Here's my thinking...

HD TV

High def displays are DEFINITELY worth it in the world of gaming.  Try playing a game on your PC in 640x480, then try playing it at a much higher res.  You'll notice the text is cleaner, you can see more on the screen (in games like RTS's) smaller details can be included, etc.

You can REALLY notice this in text on TV's, if they are low-def.  High Def TV's can display small text in games and still be very readable.

The myth, though, is that you don't NEED a HD-TV to enjoy next-gen HD gaming.  All you need is a good old-fashioned computer monitor.  The 360 has a VGA adapter, just plug that into your VGA monitor and you're ready to go. 

I actually do this in my house, I play my 360 on a 20" monitor.  Still haven't saved up for a massive HDTV yet.

 

HD-DVD vs Blue Ray - Wrong Question

This I believe is the 8-track tape of our time.  It's not that people don't want to see movies and TV in high def, it's just that the age of little spinning plastic disks that are easily scratched as being the primary way of distributing video and audio is all but at an end. 

There is a paradigm shift coming:  Video and Audio will be distributed in the near future in one of two ways:

1) Electronically via the Internet

2) Small, nearly indestructible, memory sticks.

The Internet is already going on.  iTunes is the classic example for audio, but it's happening in Video right now.  Microsoft just launched it on X-box Live last month.  You can download HD movies (Superman Returns, Batman Begins, etc.) and HD TV shows from several networks (CBS, Comedy Central, etc.).  Tivo also offers a similar service as well.

I think some people will still prefer to go to a store and by a 'hard copy' of a movie or album, which is why I also think #2 will happen.  Memory sticks are becoming dirt cheap.  Folks are all excited about blue ray and it's 30 gig capacity, but that's nothing in a year or two.  There will be 100 gig and more memory cards out, and that will drive down the dinky cards to almost free.

Then the music industry and movie industry can easily distribute on that medium.   If only TV's had card readers built into them, you wouldn't even need a player... OH wait!  Many TV's already do!!! 

The other big advantage to getting ride of DVD's is that its a moving part that can break ... sure they're way more reliable than old VHS movies, but laser readers get dirty, disks get scratched, drives are noisy, drive trays break, etc.  Memory sticks are much more sturdy and are solid state: No moving parts.  Much better technology, much less energy to run, much smaller devices.

What do you think?

I see your point Russ, but you must admit that at some point people need to realize the resolution of a game should be a far less important factor then the gameplay. And I really think the Wii's idea is brilliant as it stimulates innovation by handing the developers a means of doing something completely new and making this new method of controlling the standard rather then the exception. Remember the Nintendo powerglove? Imagine if it hadn't sucked AND it was the system's main controller. What would platform video game titles look like now?

The 360 and the PS3 aren't consoles- they're gaming computers. Well guess what guys? Everyone has a computer in their homes and for the cost of your system they could've bought that computer with a sexy graphics card and some nicer ram.

What's the difference between PC and PS3/XBox games right now? Well for starters it's nice when a developer know exactly what system configs they can design for. But will we see something as sexy as FarCry et all on these next gen systems? Possibly, I've got no idea what the future for those systems looks like in that respect. But I can say with certainty that PC games will continue to harness the frequent upgradability of PCs and use it to make more amazing games. Of course the next gen developers will say "we'll be able to make that game- just wait to you see the PS4!".

My computer is really getting old- 5 years old in fact. And I know I've got to replace it because I can't do CAD on it for school work. But when I upgrade I'll be able to do everything on my PC, including playing hotter games then next gen systems can offer me. Except the Wii unless PC developers play some catch up and we start seeing ports of Wii games and a PC controller adapter.

My point? Nintendo has created a cool new toy that I can't get on my PC. Sony and Microsoft have created less useful semi-substitutes for my PC that'll steeply decline in usefulness.

As far as format goes I agree with you Russ. An HD-DVD type system is merely an incremental innovation.

But guess what? Ipod's already got a sexy new system that's almost ready for launch. It's a cool little box that works like an ipod for your tv. It stores movies, tv shows, music, slideshows, etc and allows you to play them straight off your tv.

What makes this different then just switching your video out connection from your monitor to your tv? Well it's a Mac for starters- so we all know it's going to be sexy, easy to navigate and full of innovative features. You can already buy movies and tv shows via iTunes... so who's to say that capacity won't explode with this device and make video rental shops a thing of the past? It just might... but I suspect we won't see Blockbuster go under since CD retailers sure aren't non-existent due to the digital music revolution.

But hey- my kids might get all their media through an iSomethingOrOther.

Cool, eh?


Would you guys mind if I reposted my Post and your specific responses on my myspace blog (with credits to you guys, of course)?

Nintendo also created rob the robot and the zapper. While one was easier to use than the other, they both lost out ultimatly to the standard game controller. I think Wii has a nice little niche with its remote. But they are offering an additional standard game pad for a reason. I think that the Wii remote will end up curled up in a box as the uses for it will run short. I donno. I've spent some time with it and I'm not overly impressed. Maybe I'm just old, or maybe I just don't like having to keep a dangling cord away from my 2 yr old.

Don't be so pessimistic Jayden. The fact remains that all the launch titles I know of use the nunchuck. From what I read about the standard controller it was supposed to be used with all the pre-wii games.

Its pessimism coming from experance. How many outside the box periferals has Nintendo come up with? Light gun, Rob, Power glove, track pad, umm I'm sure there are more not to mention all the thrid party knock-off designs.

The point is, the remote is a neat (more importantly new) idea. But will it have the staying power needed? There are some games that just are not going to work with the two handheld devices. There is a reason that the basic D-pad has been a staple over the last 10 years.

Maybe the Wii remote will change that, history says is wont. We will have to wait and see how long it sticks around.

BTW, I'm not saying the remote is a bad thing. It can be quite an interesting diversion, but I don't think its the future.

The Wii is supposed to be an intersting diversion. It's not really designed with "gamers" in mind, but everyone.

Thats why real gamers have a Wii60

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/01/2006 2:59 PM
I see your point Russ, but you must admit that at some point people need to realize the resolution of a game should be a far less important factor then the gameplay. And I really think the Wii's idea is brilliant as it stimulates innovation by handing the developers a means of doing something completely new and making this new method of controlling the standard rather then the exception. Remember the Nintendo powerglove? Imagine if it hadn't sucked AND it was the system's main controller. What would platform video game titles look like now?

Well, anyone who thinks resolution or graphics are the be-and-end-all of a video game isn't very smart (and yes, I know there are plenty of those people out there). The fact is, that great graphics, a great resolution, a nice big display and surround sound definitely do augment the gameplay experience, no doubt about it.

While gameplay is, and will always be king, these things add up. A great game is fun. A great game with great graphics, resolution, a big display and surround sound is even better!

A crappy game with all those add-ons is still just a crappy game.

Concerning the Wii, the ultimate impact it will have has obviously yet to be written, and will naturally take some time to really discover. The true question to ask is: is controlling a game through physical motions actually more *fun* in the long-run, or does that control scheme become tiresome after a while and you just want to get back to playing a fun game without having to wave body parts around?

The thing is, some people simply assume that video games will eventually be controlled by the body (or directly from the mind) or that they may end up like Star Trek's holodeck where you are fully immersed in the "game".

And that may indeed end up being the case, however it also may not be the case, as using a control pad or mouse/keyboard may always remain an easier way for humans to comprehend a virtual existence.

For example, for years scientists were convinced that "virtual reality" would be accomplished by having people put big goggles over their eyes, sit in wierd seats and wear gloves and other accessories that would help them interact with their virtual environment.

Well, this all naturally failed because it is hard (if not impossible) to create an existence that completely tricks the brain into believing you are somewhere else. However, virtual reality does actually exist today, just not in the way scientists originally imagined it would.

MMOs are a form of virtual reality in that people control a virtual avatar around a world and interact with other people. The "reality" in this virtual reality isn't about tricking the mind into thinking we're some place else, but rather creating a convincing world inside a computer and having people interact with one another virtually. In other words, the first idea was to create virtual reality through hardware, while the second version (MMOs) create virtual reality through *software*. The graphics and controls in MMOs are mundane compared to the real-world, but the shared human experience is very real.

So when it comes to the Wii, the problem is, when you're swinging the tennis controller to play the tennis game, it doesn't feel like you're playing tennis, it feels like you're swinging a controller. While I agree that this can be a humourous activity(especially for others watching you) after a while does this extra action actually make the game more fun or does it just become tiresome?

When no one is around, are you really going to want to keep swinging the controller around in a year or two after every game on the Wii has pretty much done the same thing?

I personally don't believe so.

 

What high-end computer with a graphics card capable of playing the best games costs $450 or even $600? I sure haven't seen anything close to that. And of course with a PC you need to constantly check the specifications of games you buy to make sure you can run the newest game; a hassle that people like me don't want to have to deal with.

From everything I've read on the subject, the market for console games continues to grow at a much faster pace than PC games. If anything, more and more people are switching over to consoles from their PC than the opposite. 

And while it is true that consoles are just computers in many regards, who cares? The line between console and computer is getting closer and closer with each generation of consoles (every 5 years or so). Whether PCs come into your living room or whether consoles move into your office, we eventually arrive at the same place: a "computer" of sorts at the center of your household (i.e. your TV).

I believe that "most" people who play games want to be comfortable and that generally means sitting in front of the TV in the living room. Every big computer company is trying to find a way to bring the computer to the living room because that's where most people at home spend their free time.

Certainly when it comes to me, I don't *want* to play games on my computer. I don't like sitting at a desk with a mouse and keyboard. I like sitting on my couch with a giant TV in front of me. Which is exactly the same reason why I'm not rushing out to pick up a Wii. While I admit that it will be fun at parties, I just don't see myself wanting to play most of my games requiring me to swing the controller around.

Actually, I think exactly that is already happening. Many stores (such as Tower Records) have been closing down/going bankrupt because of the state of digital music.

There's still a lot of time to go before it really gets to a point where the masses download regularly, but it will eventually get there (how long is the big question).

 But getting back to the Wii. For it to really change the face of gaming it would really need to do one thing: get the non-gamer to actually buy games. I know non-gamers who have tried the Wii and loved it. But if it doesn't hold their interest enough to actually go out and buy the system and/or continually buy games then I think it will go down in history as an interesting attempt at something new but ultimately a failure.

 

p.s. you can repost any of what I've written if you want on your blog.

http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive/PBF055AD-Game_System.jpg