Rumor: Nintendo's Project Cafe to Cost $400
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, the N64 is two generations ago. I'm comparing the PS2, not the PS1. PS2 games are already dated rubbishy feeling.Daedalus1942 said:
The thing is, with the rush to produce technologically advanced games, Sony left a lot to be desired on the play side of things. Now the graphics and engines are dated, they have little redeeming feature.
You can look at certain games, even games on the SNES and NES, and still enjoy them. Super Mario Bros 3 doesn't suffer from it's graphics, and is still an incredibly playable game. Hell, I was playing it today, and it's on a console 4 generations old!
The N64 suffered loads, sticking with the single analogue stick on an awkward controller was it's bane, but I maintain that the better games on the Gamecube are better to play in this day and age than the better games from the PS2 era, especially as all of the good games on the PS2 were revamped and improved for the PS3! Nintendo may not change much with their IP's, but it's largely a case of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". How many main titles on the Sony/Microsoft systems have had sequels that try to improve on the originals, and have received a fan backlash? Most of them.
Look, I ain't saying that the Wii is the greatest console ever, but it doesn't deserve the bashing from "hardcore" gamers that it gets. It's incredibly successful, even if some of the games behind that success aren't the ones that you personally like.Fronzel said:
As I said before... the PS2's games have aged, and aren't as playable nowadays as their current gen counterparts. Nintendo have had poor third party support for over 15 years now, but their own games are pure quality all the way through. The Playstation only really has Metal Gear Solid, and Gran Turismo to call its own, that are in any way consistent.
Anyway, now we've all had our say, it's going to boil down to personal opinion. I doubt I'll buy the next Playstation, because it's going to be more of the same, and with the choices that Sony make, plus their seeming lack of interest in games mean that the next release probably will, and should be, their last. I reckon Microsoft can keep their console going, if for no other reason than the limited funds behind it. Nintendo are the only real innovators who seem bothered abut making a games machine, as opposed to a multimedia all-in-one machine, and so I'm more interested in what their next more will be. Admit it, MS and Sony's new machines are going to be achingly predicable. Nintendo's won't.
Although I'd love to see a former company jump back in with a new machine, like Atari
Well you wouldn't care, because it doesn't back up your point, it backs up mine. It does prove that there are more popular games than the ones you like though. In a democratic sense, that makes them better than yours.Fronzel said:
The fact that you threw Silent Hill in there shows that you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Critically acclaimed game series that have had no bad instalments? I'll allow Ico, but the others don't fit into that category.
For sure. However, what about the people who swear by Wii Fit, or Wii party? Cooking Mama and Harvest Moon? Solid games that people love, and generally sell well. I assume you don't count these as "good games" when you're criticising the Wii of having a poor back catalogue, but that's just personal taste. I don't play many FPS or RPG's. Does that mean that the back catalogue of the other two consoles is incredibly thin and un-noteworthy?Fronzel said:
You could say what you want. I never used Metroid as an example. You're right, Silent Hill 2 was a good game, I enjoyed it. As a series, Silent Hill has been pretty lacklustre, and it was series to which I was referring.
Either way, I reckon we're just arguing now over principle. The PS2 wasn't a bad console, but then neither was the Wii. Honestly, considering the successes of the Wii, the next console (if Nintendo play their cards right, which they probably won't) should be a generation owner. They've updated power and graphics, committed to a regular(ish) controller again (if rumour is to be believed), and will not only be pulling some older franchises back from retirement, but will include some new ones. I still see more reason to be intrigued about this than any announcement from the other two.
What's that nintendo, did you hit your head and finally remember that you're a game company again, and that your console shouldn't whore itself out to 5 year olds and retirees?
I'm here to say that across the board, if you were to pick up a PS2 game it would be a game aimed at a core gamer audience. It might not be a great game, but it was trying. Yes, there are some casual PS2 games, but it was well-mixed in with a great deal of core games.
Wii games are largely casual. It's this that makes me and I think many others reject Wii overall, while we think back fondly on the PS2. Yes, it had a lot of subpar titles, but even those had appeal, and fun for us. I liked Summoner, BloodRayne, Hunter the Reckoning, Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance, SSX, Twisted Metal, Xenosaga. These aren't games a lot of people remember, or maybe even like at all, but I ask you, what are the hidden gems of the Wii?
As far as I can see, Wii is a desert. The games "aren't for me". There's Metroid Prime, a Resident Evil, Zelda, Mario Galaxy, and just possibly a couple more I can't think of before you sink into a deep deep ocean of unfamiliarity. I look at the offerings on the shelf, they are clearly meant for a young child, bright and colorful.
That's fine, as far as that goes, but I don't think many would agree that the Wii library is remotely as good as the PS2 library.
Wii games are largely casual. It's this that makes me and I think many others reject Wii overall, while we think back fondly on the PS2. Yes, it had a lot of subpar titles, but even those had appeal, and fun for us. I liked Summoner, BloodRayne, Hunter the Reckoning, Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance, SSX, Twisted Metal, Xenosaga. These aren't games a lot of people remember, or maybe even like at all, but I ask you, what are the hidden gems of the Wii?
As far as I can see, Wii is a desert. The games "aren't for me". There's Metroid Prime, a Resident Evil, Zelda, Mario Galaxy, and just possibly a couple more I can't think of before you sink into a deep deep ocean of unfamiliarity. I look at the offerings on the shelf, they are clearly meant for a young child, bright and colorful.
That's fine, as far as that goes, but I don't think many would agree that the Wii library is remotely as good as the PS2 library.
hehehe... wii then stream, for some reason i have a feeling Nintendo locks away its employees in a room with no bathroom until results are proven.
TheComfyChair said:
Potentially faster, but PC is always going to be held back by developers having to cater for lower spec machines that are out there.
Console games can be optomised for the hardware, so the realistic difference between a brand new console and the PC's isn't actually that wide on release.
The optimisation across PC hardware is a lot better nowadays though as the basic architecture between AMD and Nvidia is a lot closer than it used to be. Which is why a game like portal 2 runs at 240fps on my PC at 1920x1080 compared to the xbox running it at 30fps at 1280x720. Even terrible ports like black ops runs at around 120fps or so at 1920x1080 maxed compared to 40-60fps on consoles at the meagre 1024x600 at the equivalent of low.climbsyke said:
The performance difference between consoles and PC's is definitely there right now, even despite the 'optimisation' of consoles. If PC hardware is twice as powerful is can effectively expect to pull in about 80-90% better performance in a game than a console.
The main illusion of consoles performing significantly better with the same hardware comes from just how castrated console versions of games are. Bad company 2, for example, uses settings lower than the very lowest option available on PC and at a resolution most PC users will never ever use (1280x720 is abysmal nowadays too).
These controllers with screens gave me an idea. Wouldn't it be cool if the 3DS could be used as an optional controller?
Honestly, though, those controllers look too blocky and unrefined to be authentic. I think we shouldn't accept anything as truth except for news straight from Nintendo itself.
As far as prices go, though, $400 sounds pretty reasonable. The 360 launched at that price, and its far from the initial $599 for the PS3.
Honestly, though, those controllers look too blocky and unrefined to be authentic. I think we shouldn't accept anything as truth except for news straight from Nintendo itself.
As far as prices go, though, $400 sounds pretty reasonable. The 360 launched at that price, and its far from the initial $599 for the PS3.
There is no doubt that PC's are currently well ahead of consoles. I was merely saying that when a console first hits the market the gap between it and PC is not that wide.TheComfyChair said:
I also agree with you that Nvidia and AMD are much closer than they used to be, but there are still relative strengths and weaknesses in the architecture of both. The only way around this is to programme your code taking into consideration the limitations of each.
Clearly that wouldn't be the case with a console because its a closed system and the specs are set in stone.
1280x720 is more than adequate for a piece of equipment designed to run on the average television, and to be fair your reservations about consoles are based on 5 year old consoles vs current PC's.
Indeed, although i wish they'd stop calling 720p high definition. It's not. It's standard nowclimbsyke said:
