Paul_Warren said: "the kinds of products that need to be developed by third party publishers to make these systems more attractive (to people who are not interested in them) are not being produced for these platforms." Then what platform are they being developed for? Certainly not the Wii with its flagging sales in Japan and one of its two supposably biggest holiday games (but only according to those yahoos that put on Nintendo's worthless press conference at E3) turning out to be one of the biggest failures of the year a trend that I predict will be followed by its other big holiday title. And at Zen, yeah, IGN has only been the best game site on the internet for over 10 years. I guess that really makes their opinions of no value when commenting upon the quality of games. Not.

 

That's your opinion.

What makes it ignorant is that you take their word as law, and even a miniscule difference of .1 in score, you chalk up to games completely and absolutely being better or worse, despite having different reviewers. This is a sign that you lack understand of the review system. IGN is not infalliable, and they dont' even have a high success rate with their reviews, imo, nor do most other websites.

Before the Gerstman-gate scandal, Gamespot had more hits, and was more highly regaurded in the gaming community for their reviews than IGN. More hits despite the fact that they are a VG review site, only, and IGN is not.

Like the Wii, IGN isn't necessarily the best, just because it's the most popular. That assumption makes me realize that you don't even understand the talking points you yourself stand by. Instead of listening to others opinions, you are only trying to think what you'll say next. It's pointless replying to you, because it's always, always, always, feeding a troll. A bot could do your job better Paul. Good day, sir.

bouzane said: The Anarchyz said: Onyxmeth said: The Anarchyz said: Again, someone build a PC with $400 that outperforms the PS3, that's the only fair comparison, I know it can be done but i'm curious of the combinations, i won't do it because my gaming rig cost wayyyyy more (too much power there)... That's not a fair comparison. A $400 PC needs to be built. If it's built that means you are buying the parts at a premium. They aren't being sold to you at a loss. The PS3 is sold at a loss until we are told otherwise.     Fair enough... let's say the price is $500 to $600, What combination of Motherboard, Processor, RAM, Video Card, Sound Card, Blu-Ray player and Hard Drive (With a legal version of Windows), outperforms the PS3... I'm checking the combinations i can do, because it's interesting to do that with a limited budget...   Subtracting the ATX case and OS which I already have, I'm looking at spending between $500 and $550 (including S&H and taxes) on my new PC hardware. I've selected a 500GB Hard Drive, 2.2GHz Dual Core Processor, GeForce 8800 GS, 2GB DDR2 RAM, a reliable 500W power supply, a good CPU fan, a good DVD burner, and a mother board to support it all. My PC should easily outperform the PS3 in any game and provide more storage and superior multimedia capabilities. I haven't checked the prices on Newegg yet, I might be able to shave $50 or more off of the price.

 

The point was with the OS, the case (sorry i missed that) and a Blu-Ray player (i saw one that burns CD/DVD and reads CD/DVD/Blu-Ray, i'm planning to get it for my gaming/multimedia rig)...

I made a combination for 460 dollars, it took me a while, but it was done... I maybe recommend it to my cousin who's looking to spend that kind of money on a PC...

"Like the Wii, IGN isn't necessarily the best, just because it's the most popular. That assumption makes me realize that you don't even understand the talking points you yourself stand by. Instead of listening to others opinions, you are only trying to think what you'll say next. It's pointless replying to you, because it's always, always, always, feeding a troll. A bot could do your job better Paul. Good day, sir."

No, you're wrong again. The thing is I have over 35 yearsof experience being the craftiest cat on the planet it all walks of life not just gaming instead of being some youngster that wants to worship Sin City characters. I've lived the life Bruno.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3807071&CatId=28

this is just one part for pc that is 2x more powerful then a 8800 ultra which the ultra chip is more powerful then a rsx chip your comparing pc to consoles then saying the pc has to be less then $400.00?????

Games on a console are optimized for a console they dont have all the background crap running still there are ways to make games run better on pc's

Crysis is known as a scalable game depending on what computer hardware your using if you have ever scene it on very high settings on a top of the line computer with all the effects You would know theres nothing like it on a console period.

also quit already with the when PS3 programmer figures it out the P3 will be amazing! 2 years in this what you get ths cell offers more background action not better graphics, like 1000 AI soldiers or birds flying on the background more can be going on with the cell.

Still the rsx has its limits and nvidia is a pc parts maker first they didnt develop a product for sony that would destroy thier pc chips period just look at the individual chips the rsx was 2x more powerful then a 6800 ultra.

the latest specs for nvidia cards are way more powerful why do you think a graphics card stand alone runs up to $500.00 by itself?????

hell the PS3 was paying $125.00 for its gpu originally and its probably less now.

Paul_Warren said: "Like the Wii, IGN isn't necessarily the best, just because it's the most popular. That assumption makes me realize that you don't even understand the talking points you yourself stand by. Instead of listening to others opinions, you are only trying to think what you'll say next. It's pointless replying to you, because it's always, always, always, feeding a troll. A bot could do your job better Paul. Good day, sir." No, you're wrong again. The thing is I have over 35 yearsof experience being the craftiest cat on the planet it all walks of life not just gaming instead of being some youngster that wants to worship Sin City characters. I've lived the life Bruno.

 

WTF are you even talking about?

Right...

Lets think about this logically, the ps3 is fixed hardware that cannot be upgraded whereas the pc is a constantly evolving beast. If you've got the money you can easily make a pc (or mac for that matter) thats much faster then the ps3. By its very nature the pc will always been potentially faster.

Pc > ps3 in terms of performance. And lets not talk about costs because sony just defers the cost of ps3 onto itself, see sony's financial's if you want to see just how expensive the ps3 is.

CGI-Quality said: @ rocketpig On the contrary the PS3 has 512mb of RAM. It just splits 256mb of it for dedicted video memory (textures and such) and the other 256mb is dedicated to helping the SPEs with physics, animation, and AI... ala Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, MGS4, and Heavenly Sword.

 

 to be honest when i play it i saw that Heavenly Sword dont have that great graphics and its have some animation issues.

scottie said: Ahh RedDevils :P Ok, Sony's biggest mistake this generation was the Cell processor. In a current gaming PC, the limitation on performace is usually the ram and graphics card. Old computers have an adequate processor to play Crysis, but don't come close to having the ram or graphics card. The PS3 has a more powerful processor than many computers, but much less ram and a worse graphics card. Why?? because Sony isn't actually very good at making hardware PS: I don't know if you are wrong, or simply lying to make a point. but the way your post reads seems to be implying that the PS3 has 256 mb of video ram, and 2x256 mb of ram. This is not true, you counted the video card's ram twice.

 

err...what? Sony has made hardware for years.

If they suck so badly, why are they still around?

Spankey said: scottie said: Ahh RedDevils :P Ok, Sony's biggest mistake this generation was the Cell processor. In a current gaming PC, the limitation on performace is usually the ram and graphics card. Old computers have an adequate processor to play Crysis, but don't come close to having the ram or graphics card. The PS3 has a more powerful processor than many computers, but much less ram and a worse graphics card. Why?? because Sony isn't actually very good at making hardware PS: I don't know if you are wrong, or simply lying to make a point. but the way your post reads seems to be implying that the PS3 has 256 mb of video ram, and 2x256 mb of ram. This is not true, you counted the video card's ram twice.   err...what? Sony has made hardware for years. If they suck so badly, why are they still around?

 

Actually, it's not that they suck at making hardware, making a console is different than making a PC, even when they try to emulate one... they have to build something that brings to us video games out of the box, it needs to have a reasonable price (Wii and 360 have it, but the PS3 Blu-ray player and the Cell made for them inevitable to have the high price tag, and it's understandable because Sony put a lot of money in R&D of the Cell along with IBM and Toshiba, while Microsoft didn't do the same with the Xenon and Nintendo with the Broadway), and it needs to have some physical specs worthy of a console (dimensions, weight, power consumption, etc.), in conclusion, the consoles have a lot of restrictions while the PCs have more freedom, Sony decided to sacrifice things in favor of putting others, they suffered from it, but they won a fight (Blu-Ray), now let's see if they can win the others (HD-Console War and recovering from the tremendous losses)...

BTW, i thought abouth the comparison, and it was unfair again, PS3 hardware was made years ago, and at that time the price of making it was between 800 and 900 if my memory is right, and the more i think it, the more things i have to add to make the comparison close to fair, so i decided to stop thinking about it and comparing from web sites, and now i'm using that time to play Fallout 3 on PC...

@ The Anarchyz

People like you will have to wait for a slimline version, for me the PS3 fits my media cabinet easily and looks pretty slick in there, I don't carry around a console with me as I imagine most people won't. I use it a lot instead of my power hungry PC nowadays and my HDTV draws more power as well, which would still be the case if I would be using a Wii or Slimline PS2 instead.

Technically the PS3 hardware is very slick, they didn't cut too many corners on the device. For the long run the PS3 will and already does benefit greatly from its feature set, without a Blu-Ray drive and the Cell processor the long term outlook for the console wouldn't be as good as it's now. There's a lot of growth potential in there.

I am glad the PS3 is geared towards HDTV gaming / multi-media and supports things like awesome lossless 7.1 audio, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, a default harddrive, etc by default.

It's a bit like many more people owning shitty PCs in the 80s and me and my friends owning awesome pre-emptive multitasking Amiga systems. Would I have wanted to trade systems with my jealous neighbour? Of course not!

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E