The hardware SHOULD be the deciding factor, People are just ignorant to that fact. They want the games, but if everyone on the planet bought a GC or an XBOX instead, they would have gotten all the same games on those systems.. GTA3 would have gone to another console, as would MGS2.
Killzone: first pics
- Thread starter megateto
- Start date
LisaJoy said:
<laughs> Yes, the people, the developers, the publishers, the market... Basically, everyone but the techies watching from the sidelines. (The techies on the inside tend to know a lot more and can laugh at half the claims being bandied about for their particular console.)
marconelly!
Veteran
Don't try to wiggle out by some vague generalizations now. This is what you said:
And I answered by saying that I don't think it's the truth, and argumented it. You have found one game that basicaly has image quality better than almost any game on any any console and said it looks 'equal' to them, as if every game on those other consoles has IQ like that.
Yeah, poor people not willing to wait more than one year to get their gaming fix, knowing that even if they wait and even if 'everyone on the planet' bought something, they still wouldn't be able to play games such as GT3/4... Besides, console manufactures PAY for those exclusives because they know people will buy them. When all is said and done, hardware means nothing to people, it's just a means of content delivery, and IMO it should be like that. Sometimes I think I would be happier if I would stop obsessing with stupid things such as hardwares and gadgets and concentrate on things more important.
marconelly!
Veteran
Yeah... ok. We as in 'you', I suppose...
Regardless of that, it was the least important aspect of my point. Exclusives are paid for, or developed by 1st party devs, people buy consoles that have exclusives that interest tem, and that's about it.
LisaJoy:
Yeah, I love that logic. So by saying that, I presume you're telling me that when DC launched, everyone should have bought a Dreamcast (most powerful console at launch) - then, roughly a year later to just drop it and get a PS2 and after another year go for either a Cube or an Xbox. That's a great idea. The console industry doesn't quite work like that and probably never will. The majority buys one console and that usually tends to be their little investment for the next five or so years. If you really feel the hardware should be the deciding factor, why don't you just get a PC? I'm sure you'll be one of those people happy to spend hundreds of dollars on the next ATi/Nvidia card (which ever hits the store first).
Just out of curiousity though: how do you quantify which hardware is the most powerful and with that, the one people should buy given your argument that the hardware should be the deciding factor? Taking apart all 3 current consoles, it looks rather difficult to me, as I see that all 3 have some sort of flaw in them. Please care to point out what I am missing.
While I do agree that GTA had quite an impact on PS2 sales worldwide, it'd be foolish to ignore other important factors such as the sales of Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy and the mindshare from the successful PlayStation brand.
As for the first quote: that doesn't quite make sense, as GTA3 launched before Xbox or GameCube.
It's funny how you talk about 'they', because I happen to be one of them and I certainly didn't have to wait a year either. I remember having quite a lot of fun actually and that since day one.
Yeah, I love that logic. So by saying that, I presume you're telling me that when DC launched, everyone should have bought a Dreamcast (most powerful console at launch) - then, roughly a year later to just drop it and get a PS2 and after another year go for either a Cube or an Xbox. That's a great idea. The console industry doesn't quite work like that and probably never will. The majority buys one console and that usually tends to be their little investment for the next five or so years. If you really feel the hardware should be the deciding factor, why don't you just get a PC? I'm sure you'll be one of those people happy to spend hundreds of dollars on the next ATi/Nvidia card (which ever hits the store first).
Just out of curiousity though: how do you quantify which hardware is the most powerful and with that, the one people should buy given your argument that the hardware should be the deciding factor? Taking apart all 3 current consoles, it looks rather difficult to me, as I see that all 3 have some sort of flaw in them. Please care to point out what I am missing.
While I do agree that GTA had quite an impact on PS2 sales worldwide, it'd be foolish to ignore other important factors such as the sales of Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy and the mindshare from the successful PlayStation brand.
As for the first quote: that doesn't quite make sense, as GTA3 launched before Xbox or GameCube.
It's funny how you talk about 'they', because I happen to be one of them and I certainly didn't have to wait a year either. I remember having quite a lot of fun actually and that since day one.
:shrugs again: whatever.
one game doesnt give you an empire. D3 will probably run better on nvidia cards, but it doesnt meant the cards have succeed in what they are supposed to do. Believe what you will. RE4 > SH3.
Another thing is, i am 100% sure there are as many 30fps games on any consoles AND xbox is more capbable of running a similar game at higher fps than competition, BUT there are more poor IQ games on PS2 than any consoles. THUS, 30fps on xbox is much less of a concern than IQ on PS2.
LASTLY, i think console exclusives are dwindling as we go on.
one game doesnt give you an empire. D3 will probably run better on nvidia cards, but it doesnt meant the cards have succeed in what they are supposed to do. Believe what you will. RE4 > SH3.
Another thing is, i am 100% sure there are as many 30fps games on any consoles AND xbox is more capbable of running a similar game at higher fps than competition, BUT there are more poor IQ games on PS2 than any consoles. THUS, 30fps on xbox is much less of a concern than IQ on PS2.
LASTLY, i think console exclusives are dwindling as we go on.
Steve Dave Part Deux
Newcomer
Sony was able to bluff the world into thinking the PS2 was something it wasn't. Perception != reality.
Phil- Everyone has their own criteria for selecting the "best" system. Console comparisons and debates are ambiguous enough to arouse some of the more perverse logic humans are capable of entertaining. There is no "correct" method by which each person ought to select a gaming console, and there never will be.
Phil- Everyone has their own criteria for selecting the "best" system. Console comparisons and debates are ambiguous enough to arouse some of the more perverse logic humans are capable of entertaining. There is no "correct" method by which each person ought to select a gaming console, and there never will be.
marconelly!
Veteran
What the hell are you even arguing anymore? I'm kinda lost... What does RE4 has to do with anything now? Why do you even care if something is capable of something, if the actual result doesn't show it? Because your dad is stronger than his dad, although dads would never pick a fight?
Seriously, are you under the influence of something? There are more games on PS2 than on anything else, and on average those games have worse IQ than other consoles. *Of course* there will be more games with poor IQ than on those other consles, then. Why to heck should anyone care if there's a thousand games with shitty IQ if those games are crap to begin with, or respectively if there's a thousand of Xbox games with 30 FPS if they are crap? Shouldn't we be looking at, I dunno, games that are good and [/i]look good[/i]? Besides, what kind of excuse is it for Xbox games at 30FPS that a completely different problem is present on a completely different console? Again, I have no clue what are you arguing anymore...
Weeeell, my previous post was made in accordance to this 2 statements brought up:
1) "you look at the best looking ps2 games on screen they definatly look on par..Just look at sh3 "
-In my books, on par = equal, exact, samey same. I brought up RE4 because it certainly looks better than SH3.
2) "In average, yes, IQ is a problem on PS2 - just as framerate seems to be a problem on Xbox. In case you want to argue it on Xbox, be aware though that I am not dishing the hardware as it is very capable of it, but in average, framerate does seem to be on the lower side (just as you see IQ as a problem on PS2 hardware). "
-Dont you think my statements made more sense now?
There are good games with shitty IQ and they are also great games at 30fps. So where should we put them?
*I* think we should not restrict ourselves to just a few selected stuffs and proclaim all wells ends well. Thats just me though.
marconelly!
Veteran
I know I'm opening another can of worms here, but is RE4 even better looking than SH3? They look about on par to me, but I've only seen a short trailer and couple of pics of RE4. Not to mention that RE4 doesn't even have e release date yet, and is almost certainl coming at least a year after the SH3, which means the game basically doesn't even exist yet.
Except for validating 30FPS on Xbox by PS2's image quality problems, and being aware that the almighty Xbox is capable of something even if the particular game doesn't show it, I guess it does. I actually thought you were answering to my post.
Steve Dave Part Deux said:
Of course there isn't. Which I think is why we both found a statement like "The hardware SHOULD be the deciding factor" to be very silly in the broad landscape. The hardware is NEVER the deciding factor, as there is no real way to determine what is "best" even from a purely technical point; and it because TOTALLY laughable once you apply it to games' overall appeal and the public's preferences.
Meanwhile on RE4, does anyone have links to the E3 trailers for download? All I've seen so far are screens, and on the whole it's not been that impressive. (Granted the vast majority of leaked screens were from the beginning of the year.) Frankly, I'm just hoping SOME game rescues RE from being yet another "meh" game of the same type as it's always been, and one of the least-capable titles at instilling the horror part of the genre it created. So far I've had the most fun from Dead Aim, as it made for a new and interesting blend of games, and ditching the typical survival-horror fight mechanics in general is just fine by me. Hehe...
From what little of RE4 shown so far, it is definitely the more "solid" (ie more polygonal details?) looking title, with better pixel lighting. What SH3 has for is the detailed closed up cutscenes and the realistic choice of modelling(RE4 is more typical Japanese anime-ish art). In game graphics are nice but not RE4 quality IMO.
I think the winner is clear, at least from screenshot battle!
I think the winner is clear, at least from screenshot battle!
SH3 is good looking again from its polygonal output.. but its image quality is horrible, the textures in the game are extremely lowres, very blocky and muddy.
when your playing a game with bad textures its not that it distracts you, but when you play a game with sharp textures, it really stands out and you are just like, "wow, look at that", the original RE-make looks better in action than SH3, because the textures all around were just so crisp, Jills pants especially stood out with very crisp texturing.
when your playing a game with bad textures its not that it distracts you, but when you play a game with sharp textures, it really stands out and you are just like, "wow, look at that", the original RE-make looks better in action than SH3, because the textures all around were just so crisp, Jills pants especially stood out with very crisp texturing.
Similar threads
