Yahoo: PlayStation 3 - first impressions

[MasterDisaster]

Well, it’s certainly heavy and – whisper it – a little ugly. But while the console itself may not win any beauty contents – a “shiny black pillow” was my wife’s most generous description - it has a weighty substantial feel with tactile buttons and, more importantly, runs very quietly.

Resistance: Fall of Man shares Call of Duty’s bombed out European architecture but seems to lack the intensity of that series despite being quite challenging. Similarly, blasting alien enemies is reminiscent of Halo, especially the vocal effects, and is enjoyable enough but there is nothing here that couldn’t be seen or done on the 360. Bear in mind that this is initial impressions of unfinished code so things could get more inspiring. But as it stands Gears of War has nothing to fear.

MotorStorm, the last time we saw you was in video form at the 2005 E3 conference. How pretty you looked then, how deceived we all were. But, in a genuinely shocking surprise, MotorStorm is pretty damn good.

Sadly the same can’t be said for Lair. Controlled using the motion-sensor built into the pad, Lair sees you guiding a dragon around some pretty-ish environments while breathing fireballs aplenty. Fans of Panzer Dragoon may enjoy but I was unconvinced. The controls felt quite loose and though it was only a demo I won’t be holding my breath for this one.

Elsewhere the new joypad - aka SIXAXIS - takes a little getting used to, mainly because it feels so light. In fact it is almost too light and feels slightly cheap, though the triggers have got a satisfying feel

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/specials/PS3/.html

 

[Shifty Geezer]

(Ignoring the broken frame )

They gave Yahoo an early PS3 just for that?! It generally says 'nyah, it's a PS3. Not amazing and this is a bit manky' and then concludes 'I've been unexpectedly surprised with what I've seen so far.'

Worthless journalism.

 

[nonamer]

...but there is nothing here that couldn’t be seen or done on the 360. Bear in mind that this is initial impressions of unfinished code so things could get more inspiring. But as it stands Gears of War has nothing to fear.

That's a rather snide comment. Could he turn that around and say nothing in Gears of War can't be done on a PS3?

 

[weaksauce]

Meh, they should make the battery bigger and better for the weight.

 

[Acert93]

That's a rather snide comment. Could he turn that around and say nothing in Gears of War can't be done on a PS3?

Look at it from the mainstream media:

E3 2005
E3 2006
Launch 2006

Those are the events they follow--they are not gaming press. They are following it from the more mainstream perspective and -- to Sony's benefit to answer Shifty's question -- bringing wide exposure to non-IGNish consumers.

Looking at it like that, the surprise is this: E3 2005 Sony made a concerted effort to push the PS3 as 2x as powerful as the Xbox 360. That was the clear impression they made.

The Xbox 360 does 720p, PS3 does 1080p (2x + pixels)
The Xbox 360 has 22GB/s main system memory bandwidth, PS3 has nearly 50GB/s (2x + power
The Xbox 360 can perform 1 TFLOPs, PS3 can do 2 TFLOPs (2x power
The Xbox 360 has 1 output, PS3 has 2 HDMI outputs so you can run 32:9 (2x displays)

As mainstream press and consumers go, the expection set by Sony has been the PS3 is 2x the Xbox 360. Logic would follow that the games would be 2x as good looking.

So the question never was, "Can the PS3 do Gears of War" (it could, it may be a little different due to different system strengths, but different not worse/better) but the question has been "Can the Xbox 360 even do PS3 software?" Sony created that question by setting the expection for the PS3.

I know we are all entrenched in the daily news and hands on technical details, but for the mainstream press like Yahoo you have to connect the dots. And to be fair to them, that is who their average reader is. They get 1 or 2 blurbs a year about the PS3, starting at E3 2005. They have not followed everything we have.

Putting the launch into the mainstream context is relevant, not just so much on B3D.

Btw, the fact they compare it to CoD2 isn't necessarily a bad thing. I did the same thing 6 months ago. CoD is a HUGE success, it could be compared against much WORSE games.

 

[pegisys]

That's a rather snide comment. Could he turn that around and say nothing in Gears of War can't be done on a PS3?

I don't think that matters, the PS3 came out a year later so it's always going to be this way, and it always looks bad for the later system when a older system can do pretty much the same thing

then it could be said for price as well why pay so much more for one system when a cheaper one can do pretty much the same thing

and in this case Sony falls in both categories, they have to convince people that paying more for their system is going offer something that can't be gotten any where else

 

[Tap In]

Look at it from the mainstream media:

E3 2005
E3 2006
Launch 2006

Those are the events they follow--they are not gaming press. They are following it from the more mainstream perspective and -- to Sony's benefit to answer Shifty's question -- bringing wide exposure to non-IGNish consumers.

Looking at it like that, the surprise is this: E3 2005 Sony made a concerted effort to push the PS3 as 2x as powerful as the Xbox 360. That was the clear impression they made.

The Xbox 360 does 720p, PS3 does 1080p (2x + pixels)
The Xbox 360 has 22GB/s main system memory bandwidth, PS3 has nearly 50GB/s (2x + power
The Xbox 360 can perform 1 TFLOPs, PS3 can do 2 TFLOPs (2x power
The Xbox 360 has 1 output, PS3 has 2 HDMI outputs so you can run 32:9 (2x displays)

As mainstream press and consumers go, the expection set by Sony has been the PS3 is 2x the Xbox 360. Logic would follow that the games would be 2x as good looking.

So the question never was, "Can the PS3 do Gears of War" (it could, it may be a little different due to different system strengths, but different not worse/better) but the question has been "Can the Xbox 360 even do PS3 software?" Sony created that question by setting the expection for the PS3.

I know we are all entrenched in the daily news and hands on technical details, but for the mainstream press like Yahoo you have to connect the dots. And to be fair to them, that is who their average reader is. They get 1 or 2 blurbs a year about the PS3, starting at E3 2005. They have not followed everything we have.

Putting the launch into the mainstream context is relevant, not just so much on B3D.

Btw, the fact they compare it to CoD2 isn't necessarily a bad thing. I did the same thing 6 months ago. CoD is a HUGE success, it could be compared against much WORSE games.

well said and a view that any rational person would/should take when evaluating these impressions.

 

[slider]

The launch is near enough that I'll largely ignore these articles. And let's face it: some people have already made up their minds! Anyways, I didn't check the link but have heard that if you want a positive preview there's some of those around too. The Eurogamer one springs to mind.

 

[rounin]

Overall, the article itself seems to be neither positive or negative in terms of comparisons, despite what the OP intends to show with selective quoting

If someone with the opposite personal agenda found it first, then they could have selected these quotations and left readers of the thread with a totally different impression :

...runs very quietly. After a year with the 360 you certainly appreciate the relative silence....

The PS3 has built in power supply - unlike the 360’s huge power brick – which makes it feel a much tidier, if heavier, package. The build quality is good too. With no tray - discs are elegantly sucked in – and touch sensitive buttons for power and eject, you certainly get the impression of quality. Though let’s face it, at the price Sony are likely to charge, decent build quality is the least you’d expect.

MotorStorm is pretty damn good. The environment in the one level I have access to is mightily impressive – think dusty canyon – while the wide range of vehicles – ranging from bikes to trucks – make for a satisfyingly redneck racing experience. I’m keen to see more.

The lack of rumble doesn’t seem a major issue at the moment but it is likely to be missed in the longer term.

 

[Sankari]

Oh well, seems like they liked the system and the games, being somewhat more critical than others. Who would have guessed that MasterDisaster did some selective quotations.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

well said and a view that any rational person would/should take when evaluating these impressions.

Acert's points are very clear and sensible, but for a 'gaming' website I felt it definitely off. If this were an article in GQ or Guys 'n' Stuff or Hello Magazine or some other totally non-gaming based media I'd have understood. Perhaps that's what this yahoo.games thing is, but I was imagining it to be an attempt to offer proper insight into gaming rather than a sporadic blog into things happening in the gaming world that Yahoo viewer might have a passing interest in (why else are Sony sending them PS3 evaluation kits if they're not a serious games-news source? Have they got that many to spare? Are they sending PS3's to Hello and GQ too?!).

Maybe I'm being totally irrational?

 

[Tap In]

Maybe I'm being totally irrational?

of course not... there are degrees to the "rational" about which I was referring.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Oh well, seems like they liked the system and the games, being somewhat more critical than others. Who would have guessed that MasterDisaster did some selective quotations.

Tell me about it.

 

[Acert93]

Acert's points are very clear and sensible, but for a 'gaming' website I felt it definitely off.

I guess from the subject line I thought it was a Yahoo article (kind of like how MSNBC.com covers video games in the "Technology" section, but that only gets a blurb once every 2-4 weeks, i.e. "big" stuff like E3, console launches, etc). So after reading your comments I went to the site, and it does appear to be a "gaming portal":

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/

Traditionally "Yahoo Games" was online card/flash games, but it does seem they are emulating the GameSpot style on that site. How serious theya re and the audiance I have no clue, but it does seem a little more "gamish" than casual mainstream. Now that could still be their audiance, but I don't have the time or interest to go read their previews, reviews, news, etc to find out. Kind of shows how relevant they are

As for the OP post, I think we all knew what parts would be highlighted I was only explaining why a mainstream journalist may make those sort of comments (and why to a degree they are fair), but I also thought it was relevant that the "bad" comments about Resistance are really a compliment! CoD2 and CoD1 were considered GOTY material by many in the press. Like I said a looong time ago, FPS are a tough cookie to crack. You have to have excellent execution, have a couple "great" and "new" features that stand out, and have a compelling story while being competitive graphically and having that "it" factor. It is a robust, thick genre which continues to grow, branch out, and diversify (innovate) in design and technology. And this is a yearly thing due to the PC's influence. An 8.5-9.0 FPS is a really good game relatively, typically better than many other games in other genres that score in that range. From the comments it seems Resistiance is shaping up to be challenging. It may lack some of the scripting/intensity of CoD2, but few games match the series there. If the features are good and the quality even it could be a great twitch/fast FPS on a platform where it can really stand out. But we will have to wait for reviews, and I can almost guarantee this: Some will think it is the best ever (already seen some comments about "PS2 gamers don't expect as much" in past discussions) and others (think PC gamers with specific FPS tastes) may not care for it at all. Some great games like Half-Life 2, Far Cry, CoD2, etc come under criticism in the genre, so I am sure regardless of how good or bad Resistance (or GOW for that matter) is it will get a lot of over-praise and over-criticism. It comes with entering a deep and competitive genre.

 

[rounin]

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/

Traditionally "Yahoo Games" was online card/flash games, but it does seem they are emulating the GameSpot style on that site. How serious theya re and the audiance I have no clue, but it does seem a little more "gamish" than casual mainstream. Now that could still be their audiance, but I don't have the time or interest to go read their previews, reviews, news, etc to find out. Kind of shows how relevant they are

Yea, but actually this particular site used to be called www.gamesdomain.com and were independent before they got taken over by Yahoo a few years back when I was a Dreamcast gamer since they often had the first reviews. I used to be a regular visitor. They weren't bad and had good points of criticism. That said after they got taken over/sold and DC got cut off, I promptly stopped going.

 

[Acert93]

Shows how much I know, I had never seen the site before

 

[Geo]

Gentlemen, talk about the subject rather than each other. Talking about each other will result in some vacations.

 

[patsu]

Hmm...

The brief article strips away all bells-and-whistles and takes a layman look at PS3. Though unfair, I agree with the Resistance's "yet-another-FPS" comment. Unfortunately even though the writer is "unexpectedly impressed" with the basic PS3, he/she didn't explain what's impressive and why. So the writeup seems disconnected like a collection of random points. I wish it was longer.

As for Ascert's comments regarding mainstream media, I don't believe that the mainstream follows E3 keynotes. From all my real encounters with lay people, their questions center around:
* I heard PS3 is expensive
* I heard PS3 has blu-ray
* I heard about the big delay in PS3

No one came to me and said, "You know about the HDMI thing ? ..." or "PS3 = 2 x XBox 360"

IMHO, this article seems to be for gamers (still). Their readers will likely read other gaming sites too.
If Yahoo wants to target mainstream, this article should be published in the general section to begin with.

 

[Nesh]

I d like to add that some impressions may not be very accurate especially when they are testing demos.

Some games dont give the right idea of how they fair up when they are simply demos while others give a better indication.

For example I remember when I tried Burnout3 and ZOE2 demos I simply wanted more. On the other hand when I tried Final FantasyX, Silent Hill3/4 and VF4 although I was interested they got me awfully bored, but the complete games were a totally different story because for some titles you need an aggregate experience of various parts that expand througout the game to get a clearer picture of how good they are, while other titles are more direct. Some times the opposite may happen as well. When I tried Enter the Matrix for a few minutes I was excited. So I got the full game and I wasnt all that impressed. A demo for some titles is enough while for other titles is not.

Reviews and gamer experiences on the full games will be more informative.

 

[Rangers]

With no tray - discs are elegantly sucked in

Both the Wii and PS3 have this, 360 is left out. Thoughts?

Some claim that the possibility that discs can be "eaten" and impossible to get out of the machine makes it bad. On the other hand it seems more high tech.

I wonder if a future redesigned 360 (smaller, etc) might incorporate this.