[TrashMan]

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20061011

and just coause it's fun:
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20061025

[Roanoke]

The reason they all want movie playing is because of the success of the original Playstation 2 in Japan, back when a standalone DVD player was still an expensive item.

To get a game console AND a DVD player (which also played all the Playstation one games) for not much more than a DVD player was a big deal.

Meanwhile, SEGA didn't have the money up front to buy DVD reader mechanisims for the Dreamcast. (Though I wonder how much they spent in R&D on the GigabyteDisc-ROM, or did that come from another company?) Ohyeah, and their stupid gaffe of telling the world they weren't making any more consoles after the DC. Yeah, that helped sales...

SEGA had one bright spot in their home videogame history, when their 16bit console blasted Nintendo off the top of the heap. From there it was one stupid desicion after another, and the bad luck to be the first presenter at the first E3, with the Saturn*, only to be blasted by Sony's simple announcement of a price $100 less for the Playstation.

Hmmm, this is interesting, a list of 792 Dreamcast games. *woot* Any other consoles meet or beat that? And ISRT that a couple new DC games were released last year. SEGA is also selling refurbished Dreamcasts on their website somewhere.

*And not demanding that the majority of Saturn games use both CPUs and video processors. Too many games only used HALF the Saturn's capability.

do note that the dreamcast has a huge indy following, and third party games for the DC are abundant in japan. from a western market perspective, the Dreamcast is all but dead, in japan, it's reasonably alive and well.

plus the American market was by far the best for the MegaDrive

[Turnsky]

i did a little reading.

from what i can tell, from a hardware and performance perspective, neither console is /really/ better than the other.

oh, and the PS3's backwards compatability is emulator-based, and aparrently not gonna be that much better than the 360's 

and i have drive specs.

Sony PS3 Blue-Ray:
1.5x speed, 9mb per sec read.

Microsoft Xbox 360 DVD
12x speed, 16mb per sec.

oh, and the ps3's controller won't have rumble capability.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/27/sony-forced-to-stop-selling-dual-shock-controllers/


also, with this whole 1080p business, nobody's making games that go that high yet, even though that now, both consoles can support it.

not to mention that a lot of developers are utilising the same amount of graphical resources to bring a game to both the 360 AND PS3..

in reality, which is better than the other, is moot.

[aldo_14]

i did a little reading.

from what i can tell, from a hardware and performance perspective, neither console is /really/ better than the other.

oh, and the PS3's backwards compatability is emulator-based, and aparrently not gonna be that much better than the 360's 

and i have drive specs.

Sony PS3 Blue-Ray:
1.5x speed, 9mb per sec read.

Microsoft Xbox 360 DVD
12x speed, 16mb per sec.

oh, and the ps3's controller won't have rumble capability.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/27/sony-forced-to-stop-selling-dual-shock-controllers/


also, with this whole 1080p business, nobody's making games that go that high yet, even though that now, both consoles can support it.

not to mention that a lot of developers are utilising the same amount of graphical resources to bring a game to both the 360 AND PS3..

in reality, which is better than the other, is moot.

It's all down to games.  Although - IMO - the 360 is lacking a true killer app at the moment (and suffering from some really shoddy port-cum-multi-format games), so is - moreso - the PS3.

[Deepblue]

Gears of War + Lost Planet.

2 Killer Apps right there.

[Taristin]

Funny, you're the only person Ive ever heard go on about gears of war. And Ive heard nothing of Lost Planet. Must be real killer.

[aldo_14]

Gears of War + Lost Planet.

2 Killer Apps right there.

Surely any argument about either needs to wait until either is released.

[Turnsky]

i did a little reading.

from what i can tell, from a hardware and performance perspective, neither console is /really/ better than the other.

oh, and the PS3's backwards compatability is emulator-based, and aparrently not gonna be that much better than the 360's 

and i have drive specs.

Sony PS3 Blue-Ray:
1.5x speed, 9mb per sec read.

Microsoft Xbox 360 DVD
12x speed, 16mb per sec.

oh, and the ps3's controller won't have rumble capability.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/27/sony-forced-to-stop-selling-dual-shock-controllers/


also, with this whole 1080p business, nobody's making games that go that high yet, even though that now, both consoles can support it.

not to mention that a lot of developers are utilising the same amount of graphical resources to bring a game to both the 360 AND PS3..

in reality, which is better than the other, is moot.

It's all down to games.  Although - IMO - the 360 is lacking a true killer app at the moment (and suffering from some really shoddy port-cum-multi-format games), so is - moreso - the PS3.

and therin lies my point..

as for deepblue's "killer app" thing, i remember a lot of things being touted as killer apps, they failed to live up to expectations, let's hold off the jubiliation over their existance until they're actually -released-, k?

[Deepblue]

Gears of War + Lost Planet.

2 Killer Apps right there.

Surely any argument about either needs to wait until either is released.

For GoW, all will be clear this tuesday.

As for Lost Planet, the demo + the vids in the following link completely convinced me.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/743/743340p1.html

EDIT: Removed gifs.

[Mefustae]

Myself, I found this little GoW trailer quite entertaining.

[Turnsky]

Myself, I found this little GoW trailer quite entertaining.

the mad world trailer is awesome, just from a presentation perspective.

and deepblue, i have a 512K adsl connection, and those bloody animated GIF's kill my bandwidth..

think of those poor schlubs still on 56k.

[Mefustae]

the mad world trailer is awesome, just from a presentation perspective.

Yep. The look on the bloke's face when he starts firing at that gigantic spider thing syncs up with the song so damn well.

[StratComm]

It's good presentation but I'm honestly not all that impressed with what it shows in terms of content and graphics.  We're about two generations beyond where graphics could differentiate one game from another anyway and showing a pre-rendered special effects shot, that says nothing about gameplay, doesn't really make me jump.  And the whole not yet released thing still comes to mind.

[Deepblue]

It's good presentation but I'm honestly not all that impressed with what it shows in terms of content and graphics.  We're about two generations beyond where graphics could differentiate one game from another anyway and showing a pre-rendered special effects shot, that says nothing about gameplay, doesn't really make me jump.  And the whole not yet released thing still comes to mind.

*hint* That's not prerendered.

Watch the latest 1up show. They say the trailer = game graphics. Furthermore, from the "behind the scenes" of the trailer at Gamespot, according to Epic, everything you see in the trailer can be executed in game, except for when Marcus is lying on his face.

[StratComm]

It's good presentation but I'm honestly not all that impressed with what it shows in terms of content and graphics.  We're about two generations beyond where graphics could differentiate one game from another anyway and showing a pre-rendered special effects shot, that says nothing about gameplay, doesn't really make me jump.  And the whole not yet released thing still comes to mind.

*hint* That's not prerendered.

Watch the latest 1up show. They say the trailer = game graphics. Furthermore, from the "behind the scenes" of the trailer at Gamespot, according to Epic, everything you see in the trailer can be executed in game, except for when Marcus is lying on his face.

Well, I try not to waste my time watching the commercial-cum-TV shows that cover this sort of thing, so I don't have that level of expertise.  My comment still stands in full.  Game graphics can, and often are, prerendered, and that commercial does not show one moment of actual gameplay.  Even if you can pull off the same style moves, you can't do it from that perspective and there's nothing saying the graphics will even look the same.  And I'm not saying anything one way or another about the graphics; they're expected to be good these days and I'm not saying that Gears of War will necessarily dissapoint.  I'm saying that the commercial itself doesn't really give me anything to go on.  And remember, killer graphics != killer app, and killer app is what you said it would be.

[Deepblue]

No, I'm saying the graphics are the same. All according to reporters who have had hands-on time in order to review the game.

And yes, they say it's really fun too. Nifty even.

[Mongoose]

I know nothing at all about this game or how good it's going to be, but that trailer really was amazing.

[Turnsky]

It's good presentation but I'm honestly not all that impressed with what it shows in terms of content and graphics.  We're about two generations beyond where graphics could differentiate one game from another anyway and showing a pre-rendered special effects shot, that says nothing about gameplay, doesn't really make me jump.  And the whole not yet released thing still comes to mind.

*hint* That's not prerendered.

Watch the latest 1up show. They say the trailer = game graphics. Furthermore, from the "behind the scenes" of the trailer at Gamespot, according to Epic, everything you see in the trailer can be executed in game, except for when Marcus is lying on his face.

Well, I try not to waste my time watching the commercial-cum-TV shows that cover this sort of thing, so I don't have that level of expertise.  My comment still stands in full.  Game graphics can, and often are, prerendered, and that commercial does not show one moment of actual gameplay.  Even if you can pull off the same style moves, you can't do it from that perspective and there's nothing saying the graphics will even look the same.  And I'm not saying anything one way or another about the graphics; they're expected to be good these days and I'm not saying that Gears of War will necessarily dissapoint.  I'm saying that the commercial itself doesn't really give me anything to go on.  And remember, killer graphics != killer app, and killer app is what you said it would be.

note: i said it looked good from a presentation perspective, nicely composed, everything.
we'll see if it's ingame or not when it comes to release time, and actual gameplay ensues. 

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/744/744008p1.html console fanboys should read this.

[SadisticSid]

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/744/744008p1.html console fanboys should read this.

The 360 and the PS3 are completely different architectures. So that would be comparing apples to oranges, then.

The only thing that matters is how streamlined a developer can make his code run on one system. For example, doing something trivial on the PS3 might require 400 CPU cycles while the same thing might take twice that amount on the 360. Even if the CPUs both ran at a given clock speed, had the same amount of memory and cache available, etc, it doesn't mean that the PS3's CPU is twice as powerful. It's up to the developer to try and pull that total down as much as possible or do things a completely different way.

It's the reason that straight ports from one platform to another always run like crap on the platform they're ported to - Halo ran well on the XBox, but even on PCs several generations ahead in hardware terms, many of the XBox's features had to be emulated, which is what caused the massive slowdown.

[Deepblue]

It's good presentation but I'm honestly not all that impressed with what it shows in terms of content and graphics.  We're about two generations beyond where graphics could differentiate one game from another anyway and showing a pre-rendered special effects shot, that says nothing about gameplay, doesn't really make me jump.  And the whole not yet released thing still comes to mind.

*hint* That's not prerendered.

Watch the latest 1up show. They say the trailer = game graphics. Furthermore, from the "behind the scenes" of the trailer at Gamespot, according to Epic, everything you see in the trailer can be executed in game, except for when Marcus is lying on his face.

Well, I try not to waste my time watching the commercial-cum-TV shows that cover this sort of thing, so I don't have that level of expertise.  My comment still stands in full.  Game graphics can, and often are, prerendered, and that commercial does not show one moment of actual gameplay.  Even if you can pull off the same style moves, you can't do it from that perspective and there's nothing saying the graphics will even look the same.  And I'm not saying anything one way or another about the graphics; they're expected to be good these days and I'm not saying that Gears of War will necessarily dissapoint.  I'm saying that the commercial itself doesn't really give me anything to go on.  And remember, killer graphics != killer app, and killer app is what you said it would be.

note: i said it looked good from a presentation perspective, nicely composed, everything.
we'll see if it's ingame or not when it comes to release time, and actual gameplay ensues. 

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/744/744008p1.html console fanboys should read this.

Go watch any of the latest footage and you'll see that it is indeed in game.

Or, compare if you will, this screenshot (thank you broken NDAs!)