Let's say MS, Nintendo, or Sony gave you the opportunity to play with some early launch software (running on actual hardware and indicitive of final graphics...you do not know ahead of time which titles you'll play, but it will be a bit of every title to be launched with the system...think of it as a demo disk), which company would you rather take the offer from?
Which console would you rather be testing right now?
- Thread starter GwymWeepa
- Start date
SEGA's new arcade board with Virtua Fighter 5 running on it. A possible Panzer Dragoon arcade game would be good on the new board too. The long in development but on the back burner FV3 would also be a major plus and I would be happy if all those were n the new arcade board.
Othber then that it would be PS3. It has the most interesting technology and I am curious to know just how good or bad the tools Sony and IBM comes up for it will be.
Othber then that it would be PS3. It has the most interesting technology and I am curious to know just how good or bad the tools Sony and IBM comes up for it will be.
I'm most curious as to wtf Nintendo thinks is so revolutionary, so that attracts my attention first. 
From from a tech perspective, though, I want to see the PS3. Because... don't we all? Hehe.
From from a tech perspective, though, I want to see the PS3. Because... don't we all? Hehe.Evil_Cloud
Veteran
GwymWeepa said:
Just wait a few more months...
YeuEmMaiMai
Regular
I would want to see what Nintendo does and Sony would be a close second. As for MS console, take a look at the PC and DX 10 and I think you will get the idea.
Sonic said:
STOP TEASING and give us some info already!!!!
cybamerc said:
Pearl of wisdom of the day...
Ah, another flame by cyba. Just b ecause it's Nintendo is automatically means it will have something he likes. And just because it's a Sony means it will be absolutely crap. Try looking at actual games either system offers and the experience and then come up with a decision.
I'm not teasing anyone. I am no longer in the know in regards to SEGA, at least internally. I just have whispers here and there. A panzer dragoon arcade is my fabrication of what I would want, because I think it would be a splendid shooter for the arcade.
I am curious to see what Nintendo is going to do to revolutionize gaming. They have big shoes to fill with all the hype of them saying just that. Maybe we will get a brand new franchise that is original in a sense that Link and Zelda aren't in them. I would like a brand new Mario game of course, but I just hope it will actually be good and not cooked raw like Mario Sunshine. I'm guessing the actual hardware might even be somewhat close to Xenon, but I am just making assumptions right there. The one thing I'm curious about is what Nintendo will do in regards to the CPU.
With Sony and PS3 I just really want to see if CELL is actually all that it is hyped up to be or not. I'm sure it will have more and better games than the Nintendo system and possibly Xenon. But that has yet to be seen.
MS's Xbox 2 has me intrigued solely for the online plan and what the actual CPU will be. A tri-core CPU sounds interesting if outright rediculous.
I'm not teasing anyone. I am no longer in the know in regards to SEGA, at least internally. I just have whispers here and there. A panzer dragoon arcade is my fabrication of what I would want, because I think it would be a splendid shooter for the arcade.
I am curious to see what Nintendo is going to do to revolutionize gaming. They have big shoes to fill with all the hype of them saying just that. Maybe we will get a brand new franchise that is original in a sense that Link and Zelda aren't in them. I would like a brand new Mario game of course, but I just hope it will actually be good and not cooked raw like Mario Sunshine. I'm guessing the actual hardware might even be somewhat close to Xenon, but I am just making assumptions right there. The one thing I'm curious about is what Nintendo will do in regards to the CPU.
With Sony and PS3 I just really want to see if CELL is actually all that it is hyped up to be or not. I'm sure it will have more and better games than the Nintendo system and possibly Xenon. But that has yet to be seen.
MS's Xbox 2 has me intrigued solely for the online plan and what the actual CPU will be. A tri-core CPU sounds interesting if outright rediculous.
I wonder what the poll would look like if it was asked at a primarily developer based forum and asked "Which company's next-gen offering would you rather code on?"
Well yes of course, what's wrong with that?, he likes Nintendo games. Right now none of us know much of anything about these next gen consoles. All we know is some of the games each system will have. XBox Next will have Halo, PS3 will have GT ect, Revolution will have Mario, Zelda, Metoid ect. So obviously if you're making a judgement right now then you're going to choose the system that will definitely have some games you want. If you love Halo that will be XBox Next, if you love GT that will be PS3 and if you love Mario ect it will be Revolution.
I wouldn't say PS2 launch games were crap.
They may not have been technically up to current titles, but for their time they were competitive.
RRV was jaggy, but played great. It was a good game, cery addictive, and at that time even the graphics looked great. Now of course it looks quite bad, as we've got accusttomed to cleaner looking.
Tekken TAG was a solid fighter, with excellent graphics that look good even today I'm talking about NA and EU TT graphics)
SSX was great.
Madden was supposedly great, haven't touched football games myself.
Time Splitters (was it a launch title?), that was good.
I think most of the launch games were of quite good quality, maybe they did not offer all the depth titles that have been longer in development would offer, but they were mostly solid, graphically good (at that time) games.
Of course there was crap games too, like Evergrace, Eternal Ring.... but every console has them.
What did xbox have at launch? Halo, DOA, Project Gotham, Oddworld, Amped, Fusion Frenzy, NFL Fever.
Of those games, compared with PS2 launch titles of same genre, only Halo can (imo) be said having been considerably better than anything on PS2 launch.
DOA, while graphically of course surpassing Tekken TAG... I wouldn't call it considerably better (imo worse) than Tekken TAG.
Project Gotham, again graphically miles ahead of RRV, but aside graphics, what else did it offer over RRV that would have made it that much better launch title.
Oddworld... not a good game.
Fusion Frenzy.... average.
NFL Fever... Madden is considered much better.
I would be as worried of xbox2 launch title quality as PS3 and next Nintendo.
But as the lasting quality of launch titles really is not that important, nor affecting much how the console will succeed in future, I really wouldn't be worried for any of them
First and foremost they need to make an impact, and that is done by graphics first, exciting new features second, not depth of gameplay or even innovative game ideas.
A racing game, fighter, football game and a fps that the buyer can tell looks much better than his current console. That's all needed. You won't even notice that it really is just the same what you played on your old console because the graphix are so ooh pretty
They may not have been technically up to current titles, but for their time they were competitive.
RRV was jaggy, but played great. It was a good game, cery addictive, and at that time even the graphics looked great. Now of course it looks quite bad, as we've got accusttomed to cleaner looking.
Tekken TAG was a solid fighter, with excellent graphics that look good even today I'm talking about NA and EU TT graphics)
SSX was great.
Madden was supposedly great, haven't touched football games myself.
Time Splitters (was it a launch title?), that was good.
I think most of the launch games were of quite good quality, maybe they did not offer all the depth titles that have been longer in development would offer, but they were mostly solid, graphically good (at that time) games.
Of course there was crap games too, like Evergrace, Eternal Ring.... but every console has them.
What did xbox have at launch? Halo, DOA, Project Gotham, Oddworld, Amped, Fusion Frenzy, NFL Fever.
Of those games, compared with PS2 launch titles of same genre, only Halo can (imo) be said having been considerably better than anything on PS2 launch.
DOA, while graphically of course surpassing Tekken TAG... I wouldn't call it considerably better (imo worse) than Tekken TAG.
Project Gotham, again graphically miles ahead of RRV, but aside graphics, what else did it offer over RRV that would have made it that much better launch title.
Oddworld... not a good game.
Fusion Frenzy.... average.
NFL Fever... Madden is considered much better.
I would be as worried of xbox2 launch title quality as PS3 and next Nintendo.
But as the lasting quality of launch titles really is not that important, nor affecting much how the console will succeed in future, I really wouldn't be worried for any of them
First and foremost they need to make an impact, and that is done by graphics first, exciting new features second, not depth of gameplay or even innovative game ideas.
A racing game, fighter, football game and a fps that the buyer can tell looks much better than his current console. That's all needed. You won't even notice that it really is just the same what you played on your old console because the graphix are so ooh pretty
It isn't really all that difficult to estimate how that poll would turn out. MS dev environments are, from my experience, head and shoulders above everyone else's tools.DaveBaumann said:
That being said if I had to test one console it would be the PS3 simply due to the fact that it's the platform where strategy games and RPGs are most likely to be released.
Can THIS thread at least stick to the topic instead of getting bogged down in PS2 launch title attacks/defenses again?
cthellis42 said:Can THIS thread at least stick to the topic instead of getting bogged down in PS2 launch title attacks/defenses again?
I'll try my best...
I am kind of interested in Nintendo's Revolution. However, I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of diversity of the GCN library, which more or less was a continuation of the N64 instead of having a broader appeal. Sony on the other hand improved their library in the areas the PS1 library was lacking. Plus, the cell technology sounds quite interesting and I'd like to give it a test drive as well. So atm I am torn between those two choices...
Similar threads
