Are sony and microsoft trying too hard to impress us gamers? Look at nintendo. They are rolling in it right now because they were smart. They decided to target a different audience. To widen the range of people who play games.
Right now I don't agree with Ninty's games. There aren't any that I would actually play right now, however, they are making a ton of money.
Turn to Microsoft and Sony. Each of which are saying "OH! Look at our graphics!" If I want high graphics I'll go into the country and play paintball. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop me dropping my jaw in amazment when games like Killzone 2 come out with what I might say as the best graphics of the year so far. But that's about where the good bits end. Single player was horrible and multiplayer was incredibly inorganized.
The PC doesnt have this type of thing happen but it's still turning into a "Oh look my 50 core 5 hyperbollilion terabyte computer is better than yours." So? Mine still runs the game and that's all that matters.
Talking about sony now let's look at the machine. It's a PC without an OS. It's what all consoles are. But the PS3 is so similar to a PC you can install linux on it.
Talking about sony now let's look at the machine. It's a PC without an OS. It's what all consoles are. But the PS3 is so similar to a PC you can install linux on it.
Dude. PS3's architecture is very, very different from a PC's. VERY different. You can install linux on some cell phones among lots of other really weird, nothing-like-a-PC things.
Nintendo was really smart this generation. They started out as a toy company before they ever made consoles and they've decided to embrace that market. They make products for families, not just for men 14-34. Most people here would say that The Wii isn't really a next-gen console because the architecture is just an upgraded Gamecube. Other could argue that it's the only next gen console because of the innovation of the controller.
Sony got into the race too late and made some really poor marketing decisions. They marketed the PS3 as a luxury item that not everyone can afford or even deserves. Very poor image branding during a recession.
Microsoft is doing well because they had no competition for so long, they threw tons of money into marketing, and the Xbox brand is highly regarded by rednecks and fratboys all over the US in the same way that Ford and Chevy.
Back to your question, are they trying too hard? I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you mean are they trying too hard to make hardware that pumps out good graphics?
No, they're not. No one would play Halo if it wasn't pretty. Sony made some serious design errors with their hardware, but I wouldn't say that's because they weren't trying.
Yes, and I think they are and thats a very good thing, but I wouldnt just limit it to graphics alone in areas they are trying harder. Im reminded of that hilarious Penny Arcade comic about E3, and Nintendo's presentation was something like "We are rich as FUCK. Here is a bunch of shit you dont care about."
I hate sound like an elitist prick, and I love to sound like an elitist prick, but Microsoft and Sony are trying hard because they arent really appealing to the brainless masses. They "widen the range of people who play games" while "shortening the time said range of people play them". At least from my experience, MS and Sony are offering things with a little more staying power than Wii gimmicks, and that requires more effort, and more effort means trying harder.
Talking about sony now let's look at the machine. It's a PC without an OS. It's what all consoles are. But the PS3 is so similar to a PC you can install linux on it.
Dude. PS3's architecture is very, very different from a PC's. VERY different. You can install linux on some cell phones among lots of other really weird, nothing-like-a-PC things.
Nintendo was really smart this generation. They started out as a toy company before they ever made consoles and they've decided to embrace that market. They make products for families, not just for men 14-34. Most people here would say that The Wii isn't really a next-gen console because the architecture is just an upgraded Gamecube. Other could argue that it's the only next gen console because of the innovation of the controller.
Sony got into the race too late and made some really poor marketing decisions. They marketed the PS3 as a luxury item that not everyone can afford or even deserves. Very poor image branding during a recession.
Microsoft is doing well because they had no competition for so long, they threw tons of money into marketing, and the Xbox brand is highly regarded by rednecks and fratboys all over the US in the same way that Ford and Chevy.
Back to your question, are they trying too hard? I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you mean are they trying too hard to make hardware that pumps out good graphics?
No, they're not. No one would play Halo if it wasn't pretty. Sony made some serious design errors with their hardware, but I wouldn't say that's because they weren't trying.
I'm not a redneck or a fratboy. All the people I know that have xboxs are neither. I am not saying that rednecks and fratboys don't own xbox's, but I'm sick of people stereotyping 360 users like that. Its stupid to say that the success of the 360 is only because of America's Redneck/Fratboy population.
Rednecks don't over populate the whole country btw. There is a small percentage in the south. that's it.
Talking about sony now let's look at the machine. It's a PC without an OS. It's what all consoles are. But the PS3 is so similar to a PC you can install linux on it.
Dude. PS3's architecture is very, very different from a PC's. VERY different. You can install linux on some cell phones among lots of other really weird, nothing-like-a-PC things.
Nintendo was really smart this generation. They started out as a toy company before they ever made consoles and they've decided to embrace that market. They make products for families, not just for men 14-34. Most people here would say that The Wii isn't really a next-gen console because the architecture is just an upgraded Gamecube. Other could argue that it's the only next gen console because of the innovation of the controller.
Sony got into the race too late and made some really poor marketing decisions. They marketed the PS3 as a luxury item that not everyone can afford or even deserves. Very poor image branding during a recession.
Microsoft is doing well because they had no competition for so long, they threw tons of money into marketing, and the Xbox brand is highly regarded by rednecks and fratboys all over the US in the same way that Ford and Chevy.
Back to your question, are they trying too hard? I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you mean are they trying too hard to make hardware that pumps out good graphics?
No, they're not. No one would play Halo if it wasn't pretty. Sony made some serious design errors with their hardware, but I wouldn't say that's because they weren't trying.
I'm quite aware of the difference in architechture but the majority of people don't care so I'm not going to start bogging down people with information they don't need/want to know.
By trying too hard I mean that they are trying too hard to make something that they can't. They are trying to catch up nintendo by suddenly releasing slightly different games aimed at different markets. (ie little big planet). It's not just the graphics it's the whole:
"Oh lets make a console. Now lets put an internet browser on it. Now lets include a drive that will be obsolete in a couple of years (bluray). Now lets brag about our custom RSX chip. Now let's overprice our console and sell it as a media luxury."
That type of thing. I'm not trying to hit on one company but Sony is the worst of the two. In my opinion it doesn't matter the company as long as it plays good. But do I really want all that on a console? No. I'll buy a computer for that.
To be fair the Xbox didn't come with any of that but it's microsoft and I hate corporate monopolies. They've taken to advertising anywhere there's a space and it's really annoying.
Competition between the two should mean a constant improvement - yes they're both trying too hard but the end results are normally good so I can't complain.
i dont think there is a such thing as trying "too hard" to make fun games. and as for nintendo yea they may be making money but they have completely lost my respect and honestly as a gamer whats important to me isnt who has sold the most units, it who has the better games and i think both sony and microsoft are doing a great job...except for ps3 not having party chat wtf.
i dont think there is a such thing as trying "too hard" to make fun games. and as for nintendo yea they may be making money but they have completely lost my respect and honestly as a gamer whats important to me isnt who has sold the most units, it who has the better games and i think both sony and microsoft are doing a great job...except for ps3 not having party chat wtf.
The graphics are the reason S and M lose money with each console sale due to hardware prices and games have gotten an average length of ten hours with development becoming much more costly.
Look at Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Mario Galaxy, they look as good as any 360 game but are done with the Wii's graphics processor. Art trumps pixels and polygon shaders.
The graphics are the reason S and M lose money with each console sale due to hardware prices and games have gotten an average length of ten hours with development becoming much more costly.
Look at Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Mario Galaxy, they look as good as any 360 game but are done with the Wii's graphics processor. Art trumps pixels and polygon shaders.
I hate to bring up World of Warcraft, but it applies here. Amazing environments can be made with very, very outdated graphics systems. Visit Outland, especially Nagrand, and tell me that you have to have amazing graphics processors to have an attractive landscape.
Art direction can beat any manner of bump mapping.
I'm quite aware of the difference in architechture but the majority of people don't care so I'm not going to start bogging down people with information they don't need/want to know.
By trying too hard I mean that they are trying too hard to make something that they can't. They are trying to catch up nintendo by suddenly releasing slightly different games aimed at different markets. (ie little big planet). It's not just the graphics it's the whole:
"Oh lets make a console. Now lets put an internet browser on it. Now lets include a drive that will be obsolete in a couple of years (bluray). Now lets brag about our custom RSX chip. Now let's overprice our console and sell it as a media luxury."
That type of thing. I'm not trying to hit on one company but Sony is the worst of the two. In my opinion it doesn't matter the company as long as it plays good. But do I really want all that on a console? No. I'll buy a computer for that.
To be fair the Xbox didn't come with any of that but it's microsoft and I hate corporate monopolies. They've taken to advertising anywhere there's a space and it's really annoying.
I'm not convinced you're aware of the difference in architecture, but I'll take your word for it. People do care about sort of thing and if they don't, they should. Especially here on a gaming forum. if you're worried about talking over people's heads, then post links or brief explanations to educate those who are interested. Even if no one here does care about hardware specs, it's detrimental to spread total bullshit misinformation like: "PS3 is similar to a PC."
I still don't really understand what you mean by "trying too hard". Are you implying that Nintendo is kicking ass this generation because they didn't try?
I kinda like that my Wii and PS3 have web browsers. Sure it's better on my PC, but if you wanna just look something up real quick to show a group of people, a bigscreen in the living room is much more convenient than having people crowded around my desk in my bedroom. I also let anyone use the browser on my consoles. I'm a bit more finicky about who uses my computer.
Technology tends to incorporate the functionality of other devices. It's normal and common. Nowadays, you're behind the times if your phone can only call people and send text messages. We even made a spork.
You're crazy if you think Blu-Ray is a passing fad. Amazon had almost 4000 Blu-Rays for sale and the selection is growing fast. People are buying HDTVs and they want HD media to watch on them. I think we both agree that media isn't going to be HD-DVD. If you think it's going to be something else, please tell me all about it.
Istickell said:
DrunkenKitty said:
Microsoft is doing well because they had no competition for so long, they threw tons of money into marketing, and the Xbox brand is highly regarded by rednecks and fratboys all over the US in the same way that Ford and Chevy.
I'm not a redneck or a fratboy. All the people I know that have xboxs are neither. I am not saying that rednecks and fratboys don't own xbox's, but I'm sick of people stereotyping 360 users like that. Its stupid to say that the success of the 360 is only because of America's Redneck/Fratboy population.
Rednecks don't over populate the whole country btw. There is a small percentage in the south. that's it.
1- I didn't call you a redneck or a fratboy. I own a Wii. You wouldn't be calling me old if you said that senior citizens are more likely to buy a Wii than some other console.
2- The people you know with Xboxes is irrelevant. Do you know any rednecks with PS3s? It doesn't matter because that would be irrelevant too.
3- I'm not stereotyping Xbox users. I'm stereotyping rednecks and fratboys. There are a certain group of people that would choose to get an Xbox over a PS3 simply because it's made by an American company. The same way they would only buy a Ford or Chevy pickup even though Toyota makes way better pickups. Rednecks are generally racist and Sony is Japanese.
4- You're right. It would be stupid to say that the success of the 360 is only because of America's Redneck/Fratboy population. I didn't say that. I listed two other reasons that are probably more significant.
5- You're right rednecks don't populate the whole country, but you're wrong about them being a small percentage in the south. Sure, there's some rednecks in urban areas, but rednecks primarily populate the rural areas of every state that has a rural area.
6- I didn't mean to offend you. If you don't like the stereotype, then do what you can to change it.
The graphics are the reason S and M lose money with each console sale due to hardware prices and games have gotten an average length of ten hours with development becoming much more costly.
Look at Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Mario Galaxy, they look as good as any 360 game but are done with the Wii's graphics processor. Art trumps pixels and polygon shaders.
I hate to bring up World of Warcraft, but it applies here. Amazing environments can be made with very, very outdated graphics systems. Visit Outland, especially Nagrand, and tell me that you have to have amazing graphics processors to have an attractive landscape.
Art direction can beat any manner of bump mapping.
I wish more developers would drop of the race for "most realistic" and focus more on making their shit look cool. It's not detail that makes great art. It's framing and color and contrast and symbolism and meaning.
Look at how awesome Killer7 looks and this is on Gamecube!
I'm quite aware of the difference in architechture but the majority of people don't care so I'm not going to start bogging down people with information they don't need/want to know.
By trying too hard I mean that they are trying too hard to make something that they can't. They are trying to catch up nintendo by suddenly releasing slightly different games aimed at different markets. (ie little big planet). It's not just the graphics it's the whole:
"Oh lets make a console. Now lets put an internet browser on it. Now lets include a drive that will be obsolete in a couple of years (bluray). Now lets brag about our custom RSX chip. Now let's overprice our console and sell it as a media luxury."
That type of thing. I'm not trying to hit on one company but Sony is the worst of the two. In my opinion it doesn't matter the company as long as it plays good. But do I really want all that on a console? No. I'll buy a computer for that.
To be fair the Xbox didn't come with any of that but it's microsoft and I hate corporate monopolies. They've taken to advertising anywhere there's a space and it's really annoying.
I'm not convinced you're aware of the difference in architecture, but I'll take your word for it. People do care about sort of thing and if they don't, they should. Especially here on a gaming forum. if you're worried about talking over people's heads, then post links or brief explanations to educate those who are interested. Even if no one here does care about hardware specs, it's detrimental to spread total bullshit misinformation like: "PS3 is similar to a PC."
I still don't really understand what you mean by "trying too hard". Are you implying that Nintendo is kicking ass this generation because they didn't try?
I kinda like that my Wii and PS3 have web browsers. Sure it's better on my PC, but if you wanna just look something up real quick to show a group of people, a bigscreen in the living room is much more convenient than having people crowded around my desk in my bedroom. I also let anyone use the browser on my consoles. I'm a bit more finicky about who uses my computer.
Technology tends to incorporate the functionality of other devices. It's normal and common. Nowadays, you're behind the times if your phone can only call people and send text messages. We even made a spork.
You're crazy if you think Blu-Ray is a passing fad. Amazon had almost 4000 Blu-Rays for sale and the selection is growing fast. People are buying HDTVs and they want HD media to watch on them. I think we both agree that media isn't going to be HD-DVD. If you think it's going to be something else, please tell me all about it.
Istickell said:
DrunkenKitty said:
Microsoft is doing well because they had no competition for so long, they threw tons of money into marketing, and the Xbox brand is highly regarded by rednecks and fratboys all over the US in the same way that Ford and Chevy.
I'm not a redneck or a fratboy. All the people I know that have xboxs are neither. I am not saying that rednecks and fratboys don't own xbox's, but I'm sick of people stereotyping 360 users like that. Its stupid to say that the success of the 360 is only because of America's Redneck/Fratboy population.
Rednecks don't over populate the whole country btw. There is a small percentage in the south. that's it.
1- I didn't call you a redneck or a fratboy. I own a Wii. You wouldn't be calling me old if you said that senior citizens are more likely to buy a Wii than some other console.
2- The people you know with Xboxes is irrelevant. Do you know any rednecks with PS3s? It doesn't matter because that would be irrelevant too.
3- I'm not stereotyping Xbox users. I'm stereotyping rednecks and fratboys. There are a certain group of people that would choose to get an Xbox over a PS3 simply because it's made by an American company. The same way they would only buy a Ford or Chevy pickup even though Toyota makes way better pickups. Rednecks are generally racist and Sony is Japanese.
4- You're right. It would be stupid to say that the success of the 360 is only because of America's Redneck/Fratboy population. I didn't say that. I listed two other reasons that are probably more significant.
5- You're right rednecks don't populate the whole country, but you're wrong about them being a small percentage in the south. Sure, there's some rednecks in urban areas, but rednecks primarily populate the rural areas of every state that has a rural area.
6- I didn't mean to offend you. If you don't like the stereotype, then do what you can to change it.
Blu ray is not a fad that's correct but the times of optical disc's and disc drives of any kind are nearing there end. The way the internet and technology as a whole moves forward is a way to innovate and expand the current technologies. There was an announcment not so long ago where they were going to release a "console" that you didnt buy games for. You downloaded them and streamed it in a lag free environment. Everything was held server side meaning that you didn't need any graphics capability at all everything was streamed at max quality. Thus eliminating the disc. If it's done right then it will change the way we play games.
Now as for the chipset/architecture difference I'll take your advice and go look up some links for people to take a gander at when they can be bothered.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
