It's a good thing when the popular choice differs from that of mosx's likes. I would rather not live in a world of self proclaimed gamers that are nothing less than elitist snobs that don't know what it is to really game, but instead rely on tech-fluff that's not relevant at all to what someone else defines as fun
Its incredibly ironic that you say that. Why? Because if any of us here were to believe the "popular" choice, online anyway, we'd all be rabid Nintendo fanboys that thought the GameCube was the best console of the last generation and that Metroid Prime and Mario Sunshine were two of the best games ever.
Whats the reality? Metroid Prime didn't sell good at all, the second one didn't even register on any "top sellers" list for the GameCube, and Super Mario Sunshine had to be THE WORST Mario game ever, even worse than the US version of Super Mario Bros. 2.
Yes I owned both and I know just how bad they are.
Whats the REAL "popular opinion"? Look at sales. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas sold 20 million copies on the PS2 itself. Combined with GTA3 and VC, those 3 games sold around 47 million copies depending on which Rockstar/Take Two press release you read.
Have some fun with Google and you'll see that you'd have to combine the top 5 GameCube sellers to slightly better GTA:SA's sales.
The funny thing is, people talk about how "great" the Wii is and how "popular" it is, yet the games on the system don't sell well at all. With the exception of the top 5, one of which is a pack-in game, the games sell relatively poor compared to game sales on better consoles. On top of that, if you look at the history of Nintendo consoles, ONLY the Nintendo games sell well, with the oddball game here and there by a 3rd party developer that does well.
With so many people owning a Wii, why don't the games sell better?
Oh thats right, because the Wii doesn't have any real games. All of the Nintendo fanboys rushed out and bought it, as they typically do, and now its following the same pattern as every other Nintendo system in history. System sells extremely fast up to a certain point, then the sales will level off... and then Nintendo will try to spur sales again by redesigning the system and a very large portion of the fanboys will go out and buy the new version again.
And before you say "Sony does the same thing!" keep in mind that both the PS2 and PS1 reached 100 million sold before, or slightly after, their redesigns were launched.
Maybe you should hop off your high hoarse and pick up a DS or Wii instead of making ignorant and flawed comments that are intentionally meant to be demeaning to others
Sorry, but unless Nintendo grows up and starts making real games again (and doesn't push an overclocked GameCube as their new console and sell it for 2.5x the price), I won't buy another Nintendo system. I've played the Wii. I've played the DS. I owned a GC, N64, SNES, NES, GB, GBP, and GBC. The last good Nintendo hardware was the SNES, and the last AAA title they released was Mario 64. The DS and Wii are both gimmicks and the fact that the games, with the exception of a couple, are not selling is proof that the Wii is nothing but a fad/gimmick.
Your Wifi argument is flawed to the core, especially when considering most online games use very little bandwidth. Battlenet does what it needs with only about 5k from what I've read -- Oh wait, let me guess, Blizzard doesn't make real games? The upload speed on most high speed connections isn't even a mbit, that doesn't even tap out a B connection let alone any cabled connection. Are there lots of peeps sharing your connection
It's not about bandwidth, its about signal strength and response time. WiFi (802.11g) can fall victim to many things, including the systems own internal interference.
I'll be buying a PS3 next year to play a GAME called Brutal Legends
Honestly, why would you throw away $400-$500 for a SINGLE GAME? Thats absolutely ridiculous. No game, not even GTA, is worth that much money.
So, why is Mario Galaxy getting raved at because it cuts the crap of everything unimportant in a game and it ended up being just a pure game?
"Nintendo haven't released a good game since Mario 64"
I think you should check Gamerankings.com Do you know what the top 3 games are?
1. Mario Galaxy
2. Ocarina of Time
3. Metroid Prime
The 3 best games of all time. 2 are on last place Nintendo consoles, 1 is on the Wii. Best games ever. And in the top 10, 5 are Nintendo games.
Just saying is all.
Every person who is not a diehard Nintendo fan gave up on reviews a long time ago. In fact, you can take some time with google and see that there were reports/surveys done that show that reviews have absolutely no affect on game sales.
Lets look at reality here for a minute. Everything that is released by Nintendo that has Mario on it (or something related to Mario), Zelda, or "Made By Miyamoto" on it will sell well, regardless of how terrible it is (Yoshi's Story any one?) and the Nintendo fans will act as if its a gift from God and praise it to no end.
I know I'll get in trouble for saying this.. but the only people I have *ever* met offline who like Nintendo (and I get around SoCal pretty good) were 3 gamestop employees who were obviously still in high school and had never had a girlfriend before.
I cannot think of a single person, offline, at this moment that likes Nintendo.
Even the one Nintendo fan I knew is disappointed with the Wii.
Now why are reviews useless? Again, lets look at reality for a second. Reviews have no affect on sales, and thats proven (google it or look at the sales of Yoshi's Story). Reviews are written by people who get paid by advertising revenue. So what do you do? You write what will get the fans to visit your site (or magazine) and that will drive up ad revenue, increasing profits and your pay check.
Besides, look what happens when reviews are honest. Go back a year ago and read Gamespots review of Zelda. They basically told the truth (old, tired game play that really wasn't that good to begin with in the 3D games) and the Nintendo fanboys would have hung the reviewer if they knew where he lived.
I have been a Steam user and tester ever since they launched,
They do not charge to change account name. You simply cannot change it
Then you should have enough knowledge of the site to search their support faqs and see that they actually UPDATED that and changed it so you could NOT change your name. Good job there Sherlock!
It has nothing to do with your email address. The account name is something that is only used to log in and add friends to your account. If you want to change your email address you go to the user details menu; change email or password. Bam. There is nothing at all tying it to your ingame name.
If you've been using Steam since they beta tested it, then you wouldn't have had any problem comprehending my post.
Back when Steam FIRST launched in beta, your ACCOUNT NAME was your EMAIL ADDRESS. Hence the reason I mentioned my email address being my account name.
After Steam went live, the only way you could change it was to pay $10 and send them proof of your CD keys.
Now if you're actually a Steam user, you can see that they updated this to NOT allow you to change your account name at all.
So thanks to that, and the fact that I was one of the first Steam users and still have my original Half-Life CD that was one of the first pressed, my account name is an old email address that I cannot change.
You do realize that GPU doesn't have anything to do with network, right? I have no problem playing games at minimum settings, and a MacBook will run Half-Life 2.
*sigh* I mentioned that because the frame-rate will be poor enough on your MacBook that you won't notice hiccups in the connection.
I'm typing this on my MacBook right now.
With an Intel GMA950.
I know how bad games run on it. Half-Life 2 at 640x480 with everything set to low isn't really worth playing. Part of the appeal of the game is the eye candy.
How is Zelda not a "real game"? Or Metroid, or Mario Galaxy, or Strikers, or BWii?
Mario Galaxy is basically the mini-games from Ratchet 2 on the PS2 turned into an entire game, with inferior platforming (Compared to Ratchet) thrown in.
Zelda is basically just too boring and too easy. As I said earlier in my post, the only person I knew offline that liked Nintendo was disappointed in the Wii. Their main reason? How awful the last Zelda game was.
Metroid is, quite honestly, one of the lamest FPS out there. No its not a "FPA" (first person adventure) as some of the fanboys claim. It is strictly a FPS where you walk walk walk, scan, find an enemy, scan it while it shoots at you, then shoot it.. then walk walk walk some more. I owned the first game and have no intention of ever playing any of the other Metroid Prime games. A shame, really, considering how good the first 3 were.
A single post by a single person which goes contrary to the thousands of posts over at the official Playstation forums where people have problems with the PS3's wifi.. everything from connection quality issues to WPA2 issues.
The 360 does a very poor job of that as well, however.
rofl how? The Xbox360's backwards compatibility is better than the 40 and 80GB PS3! At least the Xbox360 was able to UPSCALE games out of the box! Unlike the PS3. Not to mention Microsoft hasn't backed down on their promise of backwards compatibility. They're actually going farther with it by introducing "Xbox Originals" for Xbox Live that will let you download original Xbox games to your Xbox360's HDD.
You can head over to the Xbox website and see that the Xbox360, as it is now, has nearly every major title released on the original Xbox as perfectly playable, and far too many obscure titles are playable too.
The backwards compatibility is MUCH better than the PS3s at this point. Microsoft isn't backtracking (like Sony is famous for, and not just with this either), and they're going above and beyond what Sony is doing.
Let me know when the PSN Store gets "every" original Playstation game that we were promised. We were supposed to have all of them by now, according to good ole Ken Kuturagi, and we were supposed to be able to download them all on PCs by now. What happened to that?
What happened to the PSP music and movie download store? What happened to the features in GT4? What happened to the PS2 HDD media features? All pulled at the last minute thanks to Sony going back on their word.
The PS3's isn't bad, and it's free to boot. Fair trade IMO
Then you haven't used Xbox Live. And according to Sony, PSN won't always be free. Google it.
AFAIK PS3 offers or will offer all these things; they're all in software. And you listed good games twice.
I listed good games twice for a reason.
PS3 has had a year to get a feature the original Xbox had since 2001 (your own music during games), and its had a year to get features the Xbox has had since not too long after its launch, such as media streaming.
The PS3's media streaming, and format support, is a joke really.
You just listed "HD Movie downloads" as an XBox 360 feature, yet it doesn't count as a PS3 feature?
Because the HD movie downloads and HD-DVD drive are OPTIONAL. They're not forcing you to buy a format thats defective by design and unnecessarily raises the cost of the system.
One can choose to rent an HD movie on the video market place on Xbox Live, they can choose to add the HD-DVD drive (which works on PCs and Macs too btw). They're not forced to buy it whether they want it or not and pay an unnecessarily high price for the system as a result.
Regardless, Blu-ray has a very large base of movies; much more than the 360's download service. Also, if you think an upscaled DVD looks as good as native, try stretching a 480p trailer and compare it side by side to a 1080p trailer on a PC. If you can't see a difference, you're blind.
Yeah, "very large base" of movies. What is it up to now? 300? Maybe 400? How many of those are re-releases because nearly all of the blu-ray movies released last year, and most this year, were using MPEG-2 encoding and not H.264 or VC-1 and looked like crap?
"Stretching" is quite a bit different than upscaling. Quicktime and DVD Player (up until Leopard) "stretch" the video rather than upscale it. Just look how terrible DVDs in Tiger and previous versions of OS X look compared to Windows DVD players as far back as WinDVD 2.0.
Get yourself an Oppo, Onkyo, or other good upscaling DVD player.. a good GPU in your Windows machine plus a good software DVD player, or head over to AVS and ask them just how good upscaling can look. Search around AVS for some screenshots posted using FFDshows upscaling capabilities. Even the most hardcore video snob will have a very difficult time telling the difference between a properly upscaled DVD and an HD source. In some cases, especially when compared to HD over digital cable, the upscaled DVD will blow away the HD source.
Again, "Stretching" is a completely different thing than upscaling. Comparing that "stretched" trailer from Apple.com in Quicktime is completely different than comparing a good upscaling DVD player to an HD source.
Unlike the 360, you can upgrade the PS3's with an off the shelf drive.
The only positive point about the PS3.
Then you have simply cemented the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Ask "real" people outside of the Nintendo fan circles what they think of Zelda
Dude, take a logic class. PS2 problems /= PS3 problems.
Another ironic moment. Telling me to take a logic class when you fail to see that my point was that Sony hardware is definitely junk and the PS2's problems that prompted a class action lawsuit, that Sony lost, is proof of this.
Is that still under the assumption that the PS3 at a minimum costs $500 (In US)
You can only get the fully functional PS3 for $499.
As pointed out more times than one can count the 360 is more money than a base PS3 when you compare them 1:1.
Not at all. Fully functional Xbox360 is $349. Fully functional PS3 is $499.
ut using PSN to play games and interact with your friends will always be free
Google is your friend. Sony themselves stated that PSN will NOT always be free, and Home might not always be free either.
This is all opinions I suppose. Right now at this point with the defect rates in the 360 and the fact that to get the same features that you would with any version of the PS3 on the 360 you would end up spending more money the choice logically becomes "which version of the PS3 best fits your lifestyle"
Let's not forget that Microsoft extended the warranty for EVERY Xbox360 owner and for all new systems as well, even though the "defect" has been fixed.
Let's look at Sony's history, shall we? The first 3 generations of the original Playstation all failed due to heat issues. The PS2 prompted a class action lawsuit against Sony for DRE's that they refused to fix, even though it was their own design flaw.
At least Microsoft guarantees their work.
And, again, fully functional Xbox360 WITH backwards compatibility = $349. Fully functional PS3 WITH backwards compatibility = $499.
Oh, and the great thing about the Xbox360 not having wireless? Again, I can choose to add it. Or I can pick a better bridge than the wifi that comes in the PS3. Let me know when that PS3 is 802.11n capable
Hell, let me know when the PS3 actually has some games worth talking about. Don't make me laugh by talking about Lair or Heavenly Sword.
This thread makes me wanna puke...if I were browsing these forums as a guest and saw this thread, it'd be a great deterent to not join. It's already made me think less of this section. We can thank that to the immaturty of some people
I love it how when people aren't afraid to speak the truth, they're somehow "liars" or "immature"
The only ones who are immature are those who can't handle the truth or criticism.
Just like a few weeks ago in that thread about how poor the GPU is in the MacBooks and how awful Tiger was for DVD playback. None of the people who had an Intel Mac would see for themselves by installing Windows + WinDVD/PowerDVD/TheaterTek/PureVideo that DVD Player in Tiger was the laughing stock of all DVD players, and that it still isn't very good in Leopard. They just called people names and said they were "immature".
Blu-ray discs cost anywhere from $16.99 to $29.99 new in the US...just like DVD's did in the early days back in 1998/99
All of my DVDs new have been less than $15, even going back to the 90s.
Okay, well, that's how you should choose a system. Buy the one that has the games you want to play. But "vast number of incredible 360-only titles" is stretching it. Halo 3 and Mass Effect are the only two exclusives that you mentioned. Gears and BioShock aren't exclusive.
Really? I don't see Gears of War or Bioshock on the PS3. Games that have been released on a single console and the PC have always been considered exclusive to that one console. The "GTA3 Trilogy" is a perfect example of this, for the most part.
Bad advice. What a great way to waste energy and lower the lifespan of your laptop. It has to be on and running for this to work.
Compared to how poor the wifi support is in the PS3..
Even that setup won't allow you to smoothly stream high bitrate video content.
Well good for you. Do you want to pay for Ethernet ports to be installed all over my house? or deal with ugly cables being run across rooms to get to the tv. I honestly didn't know a majority of people live in dorm rooms.
Cables like that can go under the carpet. With just about everything being internet connected, or network capable, these days.. its best to really just run some ethernet cables through the attic or under the carpet along the walls.
Wrong thread for this subject...but I don't see digital downloads coming close to replacing physical media in anywhere less than at least 10 years. It's still too limited in comparison to what you get in return. You pay nearly the same price and get much less in return (like audio and subtitle options along with bonus content like deleted scene, art, storyboards, commentary, etc.).
Blu-ray certainly won't be replacing DVD, thats for sure. Not with less than 1/4 of US households owning an HDTV. Most people will definitely be going for those LCD sets that are only 720p at Wal-Mart for $400 or so. Same as their old 27" SDTV was when they bought it. For them, blu-ray or HD-DVD will present absolutely no quality increase over an upscaled DVD. And with the majority of blu-ray discs using bad prints and MPEG-2 compression at low bitrates (for MPEG-2 at 1080p) their upscaled DVDs might just look better.
And honestly, how often does the average person actually watch the extra features on a DVD? The last time I listened to a director's commentary was in 1999. I've had the "Extended Editions" of the LOTR trilogy for years now and I still have yet to watch the extra features on TT and ROTK. I haven't watched any of the extra features for the Star Wars series since the Episode 1 bonus disc.
I would rather pay $10 less for a DVD and have it be MOVIE only, with a simple menu for selecting audio tracks (no animated menus) and no extra features in a very basic case with bland artwork.
How do you figure? An XBox 360 + 1 year of XBox Live (required to play online) = $399. A PS3 = $399. Seeing as the PS3 doesn't require you to pay to play online, they come out to the same price.
If you want WiFi, suddenly, the PS3 becomes the CHEAPER system. And it has Blu-ray as an extra bullet point in the feature list.
Except that blu-ray is useless, even for gaming. PSN will NOT always be free, according to Sony. And if you must have an awful WiFi connection, the Xbox360 is perfectly capable of using some cheap $15 bridge to connect.
And the $399 PS3 isn't backwards compatible. Why would I throw money away on that? Why would I throw away the investment in PS2 games I've made?
Oh so now I have to buy another $129 PS2 to be able to continue playing PS2 games past the life of my current PS2. Gotcha.
Let's not forget that the Xbox360 Premium also has component cables and a headset in the box.
Fair enough; I am not in possession of a high-def TV (usually I play my 360 on a flat-screen CRT 21" monitor)
Hook it up via VGA and you'll get proven (google it, Engadget did a test) better image quality than any other way of playing games, including the PS3 connected to a 1080p TV.
It can't be due to the hyped-up superior hardware, as we've not seen this supposed superiority demonstrated in any actual games thus far, at least from a technical standpoint.
Yup! And we've also had developers come out and say that in a real world situation, the Xbox360 architecture is better and will produce better overall results. Let's not forget that famous quote from a certain HL2 developer that said that the only thing you'll learn about the PS3 is how to hate the awful architecture.
One game: Metal Gear Solid 4
So....Sony.
Either way, Sony always lasts longer. It's been proven twice...PS1 and PS2.
Sony always "lasts longer"? Tell that to the people who filed a class action lawsuit against Sony for PS2 failures. Tell that to the people who had to turn the original Playstations upside down after a year of ownership to get them to play right!
Sony's "10 year life span" is a load of BS too. It's only been a year since the PS3 was released and PS2 games are drying up. After 2000, the original Playstation only had a handful of major releases. Most of them ports (Capcom Vs. SNK, Final Fantasy remakes, Madden). Same thing with the PS2 now.
Oh and I'll pass on MGS4 thank you. After the snooze fest that was MGS 2 (what was it? about 10 minutes of talking for every 3 steps taken in the game?) I have no desire to play MGS3 or MGS4.
And after the crap that Square tried to pass off as Final Fantasy in FFX and FFXII, I have absolutely no reason to even think of trying FFXIII. Which is sad, because I used to be one of the biggest FF fanboys.
1. The game has seen major success on Nintendo platforms. RE 4 and RE: Umbrella Chronicles are already on the Wii.
2. RE 5 will be released on the PS3, but contrary to tradition, RE 5 will be multiplatform on release
Don't forget that RE4, which, according to Capcom, would ONLY ever be on the GameCube ended up on the PS2 and PC as well as the Wii.
Though, those of us who had an N64 never really saw any Sony dominace
I had an N64. It came in the second shipment from Nintendo. October 16, 1996. I bought a Playstation a year later, because the N64 had nothing to play other than Mario 64 and Mario Kart (oh and Wave Race and Doom! hah). The last game I purchased for my N64 was Zelda: OoT time. I sold my N64 in 1999.
Sucks to be you then, you're really missing a lot by not playing Mario Galaxy.
Not really. He could go play Ratchet 2. He'd get a better game out of it too
You know the Wii controls also add immersion, right? I've been more immersed and focussed on certain Wii games even more than my beloved Orange Box.
Heh. The funny thing is, most Wii games would play better with a real controller.
I also like how you can turn the sensitivity up and flick your wrist and still get the same affect as if you were flailing your arms around like an idiot.
Funny how people talk about immersion like it's something new. Quake in 1997 in 320*240 was the single most immersive PC shooter I played till HL2 came along.
Quake came out in 1996
And most of us played it at 640x480 on a 3dfx card or better.
You also missed out on some games that were much better than the original Quake. Like Half-Life, Unreal, etc.
GTA3 and above are more immersive than that game was.
I'd even put Doom 3 well above Quake and anything you'd find on the Wii.
How about Adventure games a la Zelda? MP3?
Metroid Prime is anything but an adventure game. Its a very simple FPS with bad controls and far too much scanning (or other stupid things, like not being able to move freely around and being confined to areas that are "safe".
Zelda is an adventure in ones patience with dealing with the same puzzles over and over again (move a block, shoot an eye on the wall, light a torch) as well as the lack of enemies and generally empty world.
