Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
well i haven't read the whole thread and i probably will sometime soon though, as of all of you saying you've been losing faith in the ps3 rethink the specs, 1: it has cell processors, cell......... you cant even buy those in a computer store yet 2: i get weekly newsletters from some websites and one of them said my ps3 blew my 360 away, now im not saying the 360 is bad it is a good gaming console but for a professional newsletter author to say something like that its gotta be great, 3: yea its expesive but that will change the only reason the damned thing is so expesive is the blu-ray disc technology once that gets all done being hyped up and becomes more common you can expect a price drop of at least 200 big ones if not more, 4: the graphics....... right now you cant say anything about the graphics because it has 9 count them 9 processors one is the cell processor the other 8 are for other various things, now not counting the cell, there are 8 other processors, as of right now the games for it only utilize 2 of the other 8 imagine what your ps3 will be capable of when it uses all 8 of the other processors.
|
I couldn't careless if the specs said it was the best console 50 years from now. Right now it's to expensive for what you get. 90% of the PS3 library is offered on the 360 and/or the Wii. As for the other 10%? Nothing I want to play. In the end it's about the games not the power under the hood.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
sony hasnt lost anything yet, hardly anybody right now owns high def tvs but give it twelve months and you will for sure see that at least 50 pervent of the us population will own a high def tv. I'm a big fan of the socom series, i own them all except socom 2, my friends bought a high def tv and a ps3 in the same day, i helped him hook it all together and first thing we did was get on socom combined assault, on the socom 3 maps in combined there are some where you cant see beyond because of a haze, generally 200 feet on a hig def tv and with a ps3 you can see almost all the way across the screen.
|
Moot point, 360 offers hi def too. Good games are not about eye candy. Eye candy is merely a bonus. I'm happy with Wii level graphics and solid game play.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
Online: you can buy old ps1 games you havent played in years and download them to the system sure you have emulators and such nowadays but why play on a computer which tends to freeze scenes for a moment before playing them.
Online: It's free, not like xbox where you have to pay to play online more people play ps2's/ps3's online then they do xbox or xbox 360.
|
I have a PSX if I wanted to play PSX games I'd dust it off and pop in some games. I will not spend $600 plus tax, plus an additional fee to download said PSX games to play on my PS3.
As for the cost of Live, it's $50 a year. A year... That is less than one game, Playstation, Xbox or PC once you include tax. For that $50 you get a very stable framework for any and all Live games plus lots of other stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
Online: I have it from an inside source who works at the sony near where I live that multi-player games on ps3 will no longer be limited to 32, whats the most for xbox and the 360 16? now for socom 4 when it comes out it will be on the ps3, sony's talking maps bigger than any youve ever seen in a multiplayer game before. AT LEAST 60 people in one game room and with the biggest maps ever makes it easier to hide and more lifelike.
|
Sorry but I'm calling B.S. on this one. Who wants 60 players when all you can manage is a lag fest? If I wanted lag out the ass I'd play a MMO and sit in the main city all day. I'd rather have smaller rooms with a solid connection.
Several companies making games for both systems and the PC have stressed this as the reason for not having 60 player death matches in certain games.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
You can be effing garenteed (cant speel tonight sorry)when this system uses all of its processors your characters are going to look act and feel lifelike as you control them and im not talking 3d real im talking actually person real and the 3d they do use with it will blow everything away.
|
I've seen the games released by first party Sony studios and no B.S. shots of some up coming games. Nothing is mind-blowingly better than PC or 360 graphics. Sorry, but PS3(same for any current console) is not going to produce photo realistic games. Pretty games, yes. Photo realistic and life like, no.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallenleaf
Now for those of you who wonder why there are two ps3 versions the answer is fairly simple i read it in game informer or something, FFXIII takes place where the world is balanced and there are no crystals(i think thats what it said) the balance thing i know for sure. FFXIII Versus is completely the opposite of FFXIII so its speculation for me here in FFXIII the main character is female, in FFXIII Versus the main character could be male, what i do know is that Versus takes place in a chaotic world and has crystals(im actually pretty sure of this crystals part)...
|
There will be numerous FF 13 games because Square has invested a lot of money into the universe is trying to milk the cash cow as long as they can. They mentioned in a press release they plan on making FF 13 based games for ten years.
At the end of the day if the PS3 doesn't have a large enough installed base for Square Enix's taste the game will be ported to some other market. Of course the game is not due out any time soon. When FF13 is finally ready to go gold, PS3 could be the #1 console on the market or all but dead like the N-Gage.