kber81 said: ckmlb said: I expect backlash to this, but someone claiming the entire library of PS3 games current and future are crap is totally a valid point... Nah... I'm here for a while and members know my preferences so most of Wii supporters will just ignore me... That was just an explosion. @ Ray007 Nope. I didn't play. It's visual disappointment.

I believe the quote Nintendo used was, 'Playing = Believing'

Anyways, I thought the movie Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was a fantastic game......... why? ...... because it was visually pleasing

Why?

Napalm is an advanced Dune II-clone for 68k Amigas like Starcraft:
http://www.clickboom.com/napalm/amiga/scr16.shtml

Quake is more advanced than Dark Forces, so why wouldn't an Amiga being able to play Quake also be able to handle Dark Forces technically? You lost me there...



ID Software isn't?



You have an opinion and I have an opinion, we may never agree on who's right, even if PS3 games starting pushing further, unless Crytek would of course allow Sony to port the game and if needed rewrite / redesign its game engine (to a more suitable multi-threaded design) and add improvements.

Anyone who is in love with the ps3 or 360 just won´t love the Wii until they try a game that fully exploits the wiimote and is made ground up for Wii. The same thing happens with a friend of mine, he thought it was ok, but he is 100% a RPG and shooter fan, and owns a 360. And well, theres no game like the one in mentioned yet. If a SW game or something in that level was made, and worked, I think even the biggest hardcore gamer would love it.

The Wii IS NOT the greatest consumer electronic product ever..... I had an electronic vaporizer in college that could hold a dime and fry the entire delta lodge

Seriously though, there are a ton of products that are far more widely used and relied upon, the 1st radios, telephones, tvs, the sony walkman, cell phones, DVDs, PS2  heh. This guy is a dolt.

MikeB said: And I'd say you're engaging in wishful thinking. You can name one game that ended up being succesfully ported -- it's a famous one, at that. I can name dozens that claimed they couldn't be ported... and they couldn't. Tie Fighter Dark Forces World of Warcraft Starcraft Why? Napalm is an advanced Dune II-clone for 68k Amigas like Starcraft: http://www.clickboom.com/napalm/amiga/scr16.shtml Quake is more advanced than Dark Forces, so why wouldn't an Amiga being able to play Quake also be able to handle Dark Forces technically? You lost me there... And so on. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. Crytek is considered one of the leading developers of graphics engines in the industry; they say it's not possible. ID Software isn't? I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that there is a single game I can name that it can't handle. You have an opinion and I have an opinion, we may never agree on who's right, even if PS3 games starting pushing further, unless Crytek would of course allow Sony to port the game and if needed rewrite its game engine (multi-threading design) and add improvements.

We're talking about any developer claiming, at any point, that their games can't be ported. We aren't specifically talking about the Amiga, to my understanding. Any example of any developer saying: "My game won't work on System X" will work just fine. None of those games were ever considered for the Amiga, to my udnerstanding, simply because the user base was too small (Maybe Dark Forces?)

At different points, people wanted ports of Tie Fighter (to the SNES/Genesis), Dark Forces (to the n64/PS1), World of Warcraft (to the PS2/Xbox) and Starcraft (to the N64/PS1). The only one of these that saw any implementation on these consoles was Starcraft, which was ported to the N64 in a very, very limited form.

In other words -- you can name one example of a developer saying a port wasn't possible on one system, and then someone showing it was. Fine, it's a famous "in your face" example. But I just showed you four developers who said a port wasn't possible -- and they were right. You show me one more example, I will show you four more counterexamples.

Most of the time, when a developer says a game isn't possible on a specific console, they're right. You suggest we should take the word of these developers with a grain of salt; you also said we should take the opinions of 360 owners with a grain of salt in another thread about 360 failure rates. Apparently, anyone who says anything negative about the PS3 -- or positive about the competition -- is suspected of bias. The most amazing thing is I actually largely agreed with you, but you insisted on picking on the one thing I said that was negative about the PS3, even though you are -- again, by all evidence at hand -- quite wrong. 

Please consider that the Crytek 2 engine will be available for use on the 360/PS3, it's just this specific implementation of the engine that the systems can't handle. They have nothing to gain at all from saying their game won't work on the 360/PS3; in fact, given their multi-platform goals, it's specifically against their own interests.  In my experience as a PC gamer, I'd say somewhere between 75 to 90 percent of games that supposedly cannot be ported really cannot be ported without some cut backs. 

"Don't believe the makers of an important and highly advanced game engine, they can't be trusted" isn't really compelling. Look at the system specs for Crysis: it requires -- at minimum -- 1.5 GB of RAM, and recommends 2 GB+. It uses DirectX10, which PS3 obviously lacks. The designers of the game and the engine say it won't work; the specs say it won't, too. There is no evidence that it would other than your claim that we should be suspicious. 

Again, why this bothers you so much, I don't know. It's one game, thus far, that the PS3 can't handle. Obviously PC is going to be stronger than the PS3 long term, so what's the big deal? 

kber81 said: Best product? Few days ago I was able to meet this awesome machine. Yes, I'm biased etc. but I was thrilled because this all stuff looks even worse than I thought... On lcd tv it looks horrible. Wii sports is a joke. I haven't seen such crap since PSX. It's an insult for gamers. Yes, I do know about simply look idea but... shit... this isn't a cute apeal... it looks messy. Actually, now I agree it's pandemia... why people buy it? I'm telling you only asset of this machine is price. People buy it because they want to believe it's a next gen. No it's not. It's a joke. Horror... ok, now I'm ok. I didn't spam this forum with my feelings earlier but... this thread is too much.

Good to see your opinion... here is mine!

1/ Its been widely reported that Wiis look crap on LCD tv - especially large ones. Actually try using a medium sized, CRT - and it will look a lot better (like most people are running it on).

2/ Wii Sports would never win awards for gfx - although I do think they are excellent, and perfect for the game.

3/ Try playing the game. The reason the Wii is popular is because its FUN TO PLAY. This is actually what consoles are about, remember? Not watching fancy graphics while you are waiting for the next game segment to load ;)

4/ I have now had a Wii for about 6 months. In that same time, I have lost all anticipation or interest in the PS3 (what little there was). The PS3 controller is so antiquated, I can't even consider the console - ever. Its so last-gen ;)

In a couple of years, when the PS3 is dead and buried, and Sony have released the "PS4" (i.e. an underpowered PS3 with a Wiimote), I may look at a Sony console again.

 

 

I have watched the Crysis videos and it's surely an amazing game, all I am saying is that I believe anything I have seen so far can also be done on the PS3 in 1080p. With regard to memory requirements the PS3 has an enormous amount of memory for a console, a PC running this game will have the beast Windows Vista running as well eating up resources. Memory constraints can be bypassed by changing the game engine, for instance by streaming the data off the disc when needed.

MikeB said: With regard to memory requirements the PS3 has an enormous amount of memory for a console, a PC running this game will have the beast Windows Vista running as well eating up resources.

Yeah, Vista will be eating 1.25gigs of those 1.5 required, 2.0 recommended - right. Next you'll show a screenshot were Vista is using 4gigs RAM all for nothing and actually believe that too. Seriously, get over your issues with the PS3 not being able to run one damn game. Powerful as it may be, it is not the be all, end all of computing, you know!?

ckmlb said: It also cured cancer and AIDS.

 No that will be Wii 2

MikeB said: Again, why this bothers you so much, I don't know. It's one game, thus far, that the PS3 can't handle. Obviously PC is going to be stronger than the PS3 long term, so what's the big deal? I have watched the Crysis videos and it's surely an amazing game, all I am saying is that I believe anything I have seen so far can also be done on the PS3 in 1080p. With regard to memory requirements the PS3 has an enormous amount of memory for a console, a PC running this game will have the beast Windows Vista running as well eating up resources. Memory constraints can be bypassed by changing the game engine, for instance by streaming the data off the disc when needed.

I think Crysis already has graphics surpassing R:FoM; vegetation is exceptionally hard to get right but it looks spectacular in Crysis, and on top of that you can actually "mow" down trees with your weapon of choice. Achieving this requires complex calculations and demands the best from your hardware.

If Far Cry is anything to go by, in terms of AI, overall polygon count, visual effects and physics complexity Crysis will handily trounce R:FoM.

R:FoM cannot handle 1080p; what makes you think that a game which is more hardware-demanding in virtually all aspects, especially in graphics and physics will be able to run at 1080p on the PS3?