Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sony suffers a minor setback/MS gains an arguably might-be-large-but-maybe-not win
- Thread starter sikkinixx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Nintendo said a few things which weren't true. You proved me more right
If we are going to get delusional and read things totally the wrong way then.. SONY IS WINNING, weeeeee.... Yea, you sound like that
Nintendo said what they said, live with it, don't try to justify an obviously bad PR job. It happens... To every company.
That's not very acurate. You picked two lousy screen shots. Go back and actually 'play' the game on a HDTV and you will see for yourself the game is indeed graphically impressive still 2 years later.
You should not judge a book by it's cover, or try to bolster a struggling premise with misleading screen shots.
But I'm not saying anything like that! I'm saying Nintendo lied about 3 things.
Wii is a Gamecube (faster chips after all)
Wii to have enhanced GC games
DS being the Third pillar.
I'm not defending Nintendo in the slightest. I'm calling them out for BSing us, even when they make claims about their own hardware.
Wii is a Gamecube (faster chips after all)
Wii to have enhanced GC games
DS being the Third pillar.
I'm not defending Nintendo in the slightest. I'm calling them out for BSing us, even when they make claims about their own hardware.
Microsoft bullies their way into gaming......
Sony lies their way to tons of hype for gaming.....
Nintendo can't compete graphically with MS/Sony........
I prefer an Xbox over a Playstation. But we need both systems to continue to be strong so they can compete with each other and drive costs down. Without the other these would cost a lot more. We need Nintendo to provide us with a gaming system that is about more than just graphics and media-extensions.
Hooray for all 3!!!!
Sony lies their way to tons of hype for gaming.....
Nintendo can't compete graphically with MS/Sony........
I prefer an Xbox over a Playstation. But we need both systems to continue to be strong so they can compete with each other and drive costs down. Without the other these would cost a lot more. We need Nintendo to provide us with a gaming system that is about more than just graphics and media-extensions.
Hooray for all 3!!!!
That's not very acurate. You picked two lousy screen shots. Go back and actually 'play' the game on a HDTV and you will see for yourself the game is indeed graphically impressive still 2 years later.
You should not judge a book by it's cover, or try to bolster a struggling premise with misleading screen shots.
I just go lucky and picked IGN first. Their entire gallery makes the game look like vomit;
http://insider.ign.com/dor/objects/...dtable-171-dead-rising-20060817104957429.html
This gallery fairs the game better on a few shots;
http://reviews.cnet.com/xbox-360-games/dead-rising-xbox-360/4528-11457_7-31414818-3.html?tag=nav
See, the Cube shots look about the same, just tinier;
http://www.videogamer.com/wii/dead_rising/screenshots.html
Screen shots rarely do a game justice and when motion doesn't cover it up either, I rely on FUN or good story telling to cover up the flaws. I'm just overly critical as usual.
<]=)
Which is good! One of the best reviewers of recent times has been Yahtzee since he's so brutally honest about games. I don't trust a single reviewer out there now, it's even possible to doubt the big Y since he likely says some points to get a few laughs.
The world needs more critical gaming critics. Maybe we'll see a drop in the 90%+ rated hyped games.
I disagree. He looks for cheap laughs and doesn't really say much about the games themselves.
Having said that, brutal honesty is important for reviews, which is why i always check out a game's score on Metacritic, and read the lowest scores first.
I just go lucky and picked IGN first. Their entire gallery makes the game look like vomit;
http://insider.ign.com/dor/objects/...dtable-171-dead-rising-20060817104957429.html
This gallery fairs the game better on a few shots;
http://reviews.cnet.com/xbox-360-games/dead-rising-xbox-360/4528-11457_7-31414818-3.html?tag=nav
See, the Cube shots look about the same, just tinier;
http://www.videogamer.com/wii/dead_rising/screenshots.html
Screen shots rarely do a game justice and when motion doesn't cover it up either, I rely on FUN or good story telling to cover up the flaws. I'm just overly critical as usual.
<]=)
The wii version completely lacks lighting. Actually look at the difference from a technical standpoint, not an artistic one. The 360 version also isnt very impressive visually because it cant be, it has to render hundreds of dynamic characters on screen which is a different ball game than just a few enemies in a room.
wake me when a Wii game looks like this in SD http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/830/830258/mass-effect-20071025095931783_640w.jpg
I wouldn't use the term "lies." That's a bit extreme. The word "lies" assumes that Nintendo said one thing but knew the truth was absolutely something else and wanted to maliciously and actively deceive consumers and shareholders...which I seriously doubt was/is the case (Miyamoto doesn't seem the type who would go back to his secret lair and rub his hands together while laughing maniacally at his evil, deceptive plans...does he?).
I think Nintendo originally fully intended to rerelease Cube games with "Wii enhancements." I don't know about you...but I'm kind of glad they didn't. It would distract from producing new games.
In regards to the "3rd pillar," I think Nintendo never thought the DS would take off like it did and intended to have two handhelds on the market. The PSP is almost like what the Gameboy probably would have been. Had the DS only been marginally successful, I could see another Gameboy having been released by now.
And Nintendo never said that the Wii is a Gamecube. Just that it's "like a Gamecube." Kind of like you can say that a 2008 MacPro is like a 2006 Macbook. You can use many of the same development tools to develop for both but the MacPro is faster and has some new features.
As for lies, would you say that SquareEnix lied when they said that Final Fantasy XIII would be PS3 exclusive? Does a changing business environment, forcing a company to change it's plans, make that company a liar? Now, SquareEnix would have lied if they officially stated that FFXIII was PS3 exclusive but in actuality was developing it for the 360 (or intended to when they made that statement. People use the words "lies" and "liar" too liberally.
That explains it, you've been sleeping.
Close enough. But you wouldn't know, because you've just gone into a coma.
Not bad for a x1600-step-brother, but still dated like the Wii's visuals. I'm waiting for this game to drop in price on the PC. I've read a mix of reviews, mostly negative from PC monkeys like me -- mainly that it's a console port -- but since it's a modern version of Starflight and Star Control 2(Played with a Gravis GamePad), I'm going to give it a go. Just like BioShock.
Dead Rising's art looks lazy and rushed. I notice the bosses have more care, but the rest of the game is mixed.
Lack... Naaa. If DR is like RE4, which it should be, since it's being built on the same Cube engine, it will have a cross between baked and dynamic lighting. Prime 3 didn't use any baked lighting, nor does Mario Galaxy. Even Zelda TP.
Even this cheese-ball has lighting.
The Wii can render mobs of enemies using that thing that ALL 3D engines have used since the early days, LOD. Of course with less polygons than the 360 to state the obvious, but it's not like the 360 is a technical beast. And we all know that a lower resolution, equates to a less power needed. The 360 was required to push 720p, where as the Wii's only requirement is EDTV.
<]=)
He's my favorite.
I trust all of his reviews so far. As long as they don't clamp him and he can continued to be as vulgar as needed about ANY game, I'll continue to watch his videos.<]=)
^ uh, nope.
They're both very visually impressive games. One uses a fantasy art direction, one uses a more realistic one. Both are comparable since they're both very well done, use techniques to hide polygon edges, have dynamic lighting and use of shaders. Galaxy is a modern day work of art direction.
"just"
Besides, the Cube had a bit of a 3D blit manipulator going on which I'm assuming the Wii version does (considering that Strikers has a fully 3D crowd). This means it can blit multiple instances of a 3D model without adding much to the CPU or GPU. Games like Dead Rising are perfect fodder for this.
It's all rather good really.
They're both very visually impressive games. One uses a fantasy art direction, one uses a more realistic one. Both are comparable since they're both very well done, use techniques to hide polygon edges, have dynamic lighting and use of shaders. Galaxy is a modern day work of art direction.
"just"
Besides, the Cube had a bit of a 3D blit manipulator going on which I'm assuming the Wii version does (considering that Strikers has a fully 3D crowd). This means it can blit multiple instances of a 3D model without adding much to the CPU or GPU. Games like Dead Rising are perfect fodder for this.
It's all rather good really.
Art isnt the same as graphics, I was looking for a graphic comparison not something subjective like art. There are many games that look great because the art style was designed to look good with the system's abilities in mind, it doesnt mean they are graphical powerhouses (in which case Wind Waker would be considered a graphical powerhouse, which is absurd).
Throw in use of lens effects, soft lighting, soft particles, specular and normal maps. Just Galaxy doesn't have AA and is in SD resolution, a trick which doesn't require as many polygons on screen and fake rim light shader adds an extra glossy layer.
For extra readage.
The screenshot I showed was already in SD, and its still in a different league than Galaxy, the shadows in Galaxy arent anywhere near as sophisticated as the shadows in Mass Effect (which has self shadowing, something the Wii could never dream of doing without skimping on everything else). What the Wii's gpu is capable of is different than what they can do in a game. My crappy 7600gt can do this http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/8958/crysis1pd0.jpg but it can only do it at 5fps.
The Wii can do motion blur and all kinds of other effects, but it cant do them all at the same time if it wants to maintain playable framerates. The 360 does not have to make those sacrifices, it can handle many more effects while still mainting high framerates at 720p.
The Wii can do motion blur and all kinds of other effects, but it cant do them all at the same time if it wants to maintain playable framerates. The 360 does not have to make those sacrifices, it can handle many more effects while still mainting high framerates at 720p.
Thing is the Wii runs these games at 60fps, where most of the big Xbox games in higher resolutions only manage 30. I'm guessing that by removing "self shadowing" (something the Wii, Cube and even N64 can do) and AA they could push into 60fps territory.
And it does manage to keep up framerates. Many of the visor effects in Prime 3 utilise motion blur, radial blur effects, normal mapping and still manages to run at 60fps. I'm not sure where you're getting this info from. Clearly the Wii's graphical capability is akin to the Cell processor - there are a couple of titles utilising the technology that hasn't been adopted by most developers yet.
Oh - and the 360 does sacrifice resolution and FSAA in many titles. Try getting Halo 3 or GTA IV to run natively (without the aid of a scaler) in 720p.
And it does manage to keep up framerates. Many of the visor effects in Prime 3 utilise motion blur, radial blur effects, normal mapping and still manages to run at 60fps. I'm not sure where you're getting this info from. Clearly the Wii's graphical capability is akin to the Cell processor - there are a couple of titles utilising the technology that hasn't been adopted by most developers yet.
Oh - and the 360 does sacrifice resolution and FSAA in many titles. Try getting Halo 3 or GTA IV to run natively (without the aid of a scaler) in 720p.
Not all wii games run at 60fps, just as not all ps3 and 360 games run at 30fps.
Your all basing arguments on flawed positions.
And using 'prime 3' as a bolster to your statement is a weak choice. The game has generally poor muddy looking textures throughout.
When we finally get a Wii HD (wii 2) you will be able to compare like for like, until that day your all just churning out FUD and hyperbole.
Besides what happened to all of you guys? JackAxe, Jimmi.. you all once declared that graphics are not important and that gameplay is what matters the most.. and here you are now trying to somehow jizz up the power of the wii graphically
time has made graphic whores out of all of you.... S-E said the game is still in early development.... yeah makes no sense I know. So don't expect this game for a long time + the PS3 version for NA/EU get delayed and stay in factories until the 360 version is done.... thanks S-E.
Good - XBOX 360 gets the port, Sony has it exclusive in Japan.
Bad - Early development still, 360 gets started after PS3 is done meaning PS3 version delayed (shouldn't be long), Microsoft payed S-E.
Good - XBOX 360 gets the port, Sony has it exclusive in Japan.
Bad - Early development still, 360 gets started after PS3 is done meaning PS3 version delayed (shouldn't be long), Microsoft payed S-E.
Microsoft paid Square Enix? Why do some people honestly think this? There are almost double the number of 360's to PS3's out there, if anything Sony might have paid Square Enix to keep exclusivity in Japan. Since games are taking longer and costing more to produce it's not surprising at all that more games are going multiplatform.
Theres a 4.6(around that) million difference between the 360 and the PS3....currently at 14.4-15 to 19-20 million...Thats not half. SE wants that combine money and you honestly can't blame them...I would too if I was a share holder.
Its the best move SE could of made seeing as production cost are sky high and Sony didn't seem to put in on it so it went multi.
But never fear PS3 RPG/MMO fans.....NCsoft has 3 games for you and one of them might be this bad boy.
http://games.plaync.co.kr/
Bless
Its the best move SE could of made seeing as production cost are sky high and Sony didn't seem to put in on it so it went multi.
But never fear PS3 RPG/MMO fans.....NCsoft has 3 games for you and one of them might be this bad boy.
http://games.plaync.co.kr/
Bless
Okay, so all Wii first party games run 60FPS, but that's better than Sony and Microsoft. And gameplay mechanics on Wii are still better than those of either competitor.
And it looks like complete ass while doing those things. They would have been better off focussing on a few effects and making those look good rather than doing too many effects and making them all look extremely bad. Plus the NPC's dont even cast shadows.
And ya the Wii can do self shadowing, any GPU that can render cast shadows should be able to do it. My 7600GT can do it. The downside is that there will never be a playable game with self shadowing on the Wii since that would pretty much require a single character with a single light source in an empty room to get more than 2fps, or maybe they could just remove all textures to achieve self shadows.
half way through i got bored reading this thread but you are either a xbox fanboy or a console hater (i guess).
the ps3 and xbox each have their own upsides, although at the moment the PS3 has many more - the only thing that people ever go on about on the 360 is games this and that and oooo gears of war. big deal. same for PS3 with oooo bluray and oooo resistance this and that. but the thing is that the PS3 is a much better entertainment system overall. it can be used as a very good home media system. and you arent stuck to only MS products. have a samsung headset with a hp wireless mouse and keyboard and logitech steering wheel. same applies to number of controllers connectable (7) but mainly the life span of the console.
when people try to defend one thing, normally the one that they own - as ive just done - they will focus on the one point that is best about the machine. for example, someone who knows about computers, and has a quad core PC with dual sli and 1gb, and someone who doesnt, with a laptop with awful graphics and slow CPU but 4gb of ram, will aruge because the one with the crap laptop will keep on saying the 4gb is a lot better than 1gb
some people that aruge over which console is best have probably never experienced any other console. personally i believe that the 360 is rubbish - although i will not force others to agree with me (although it is pretty restricted, i mean you cant even use your own hard drive, it has to be a MS one - whereas with my ps3 ive got a 300gb hard drive in it, cost me £50 or about $100)
tbh i have no idea where im going with this