@ gebx

You are probably talking about Heavenly Sword and Lair. Heavenly Sword provides some excellent visuals and has its impressive moments with thousands of troops on screen. I haven''t played Lair yet, but there are techically impressive moments in this game as well judging from videos. Also recently Warhawk was released which received many lofty reviews, it's a good multi-player game but unlike others on a larger scale as you can fight with Warhawks high up in the sky. I like game diversity and that's something I expect to see more on the PS3 than on the XBox 360.

However these are just some first generation exclusives, many more are yet to come. Please note that the development of high budget games often take huge development teams and multiple years to complete. For example mature dev kits weren't even available since a few months before the PS3 launched.

Yet IMO Super Stardust HD already shows off some great PS3 potential, I am currently ranked within the top 100 and I can say this game is very impressive!

MikeB said: @ Entroper Well, in your second paragraph about the Wii, you basically said it's not capable of playing deeper, more complex games. You've got to expect people to be upset about that. IMO I didn't and yes it can. I expect the Wii to be powerful enough to produce games at least as complex and visually pleasing as for example God of War 2 (or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) for the PS2. However the higher end consoles and PCs are more capable at producing more game complexity, like for instance having more complex AI for thousands of onscreen enemies. This combined with higher quality graphics and audio than is possible on the Nintendo Wii. Having realistic graphics is more relevant with regard to for example creepy games where high quality sound and graphics add greatly to the effectiveness of the user experience.

Come on, man.  Re-read what you wrote about the Wii.  It reads like "the Wii is a great system for your girlfriend, mom, or grandmother, but not a real gamer."  Maybe that's not what you intended, but it's certainly how it looks.

Entroper said: MikeB said: @ Entroper Well, in your second paragraph about the Wii, you basically said it's not capable of playing deeper, more complex games. You've got to expect people to be upset about that. IMO I didn't and yes it can. I expect the Wii to be powerful enough to produce games at least as complex and visually pleasing as for example God of War 2 (or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) for the PS2. However the higher end consoles and PCs are more capable at producing more game complexity, like for instance having more complex AI for thousands of onscreen enemies. This combined with higher quality graphics and audio than is possible on the Nintendo Wii. Having realistic graphics is more relevant with regard to for example creepy games where high quality sound and graphics add greatly to the effectiveness of the user experience. Come on, man.  Re-read what you wrote about the Wii.  It reads like "the Wii is a great system for your girlfriend, mom, or grandmother, but not a real gamer."  Maybe that's not what you intended, but it's certainly how it looks.

No, that's just selective reading, the exact quote is:

"For example Wii Sports and Wii Play are easy to get into party games, fun little games that will interest traditional gamers and probably more importantly your girlfriend, mom and maybe even your grandparents!"

Nice try.

 

he's not even discussing the Wii, what the f&ck is your problem? in the few sentences that he mentioned the Wii he praised it. this is a tech comparison b/w PS3 and 360, and the Wii is absolutely uncomparable to either, it does not stack up, hardware wise. go talk about brawl or something. i like the wii, as an entertainment system, but it will NEVER be my primary system of choice, as soon as N decided that more horsepower wasn't important it fell farther than the GC disappointed. hopefully some really good 3rd party titles come out, b/c mario and zelda are getting old, i really want to like it but the best game i've played on a Wii is super paper mario, and it would barely push the limits of a N64. i hate metroid now that 3D messed it up and i've been playing zelda for twenty yrs, it's time for something new.

elnino334:

 This was supposed to be a comparison of the *technical* merits of the two systems, not their sales numbers.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up.

I'll just say you're correct for most of the technical aspects though some are either incorrect or just inconclusive. The latter not really being your fault but that of incorrectly quoted developers or developers that must ride the nuts of the company they develop for. Many technical aspects are either too debatable or do not provide a clear case for comparison which is why we still have this debate continuing years after the tech specs have been revealed to the public.

Overall, I think the more valid debate is the experience offered by the two (or three as the Wii would then be relevant). Despite what appears to be a technically superior machine, the PS3 hasn't done much to prove that statement correct beyond paper.

While gamers do purchase a system with a 5-6 year mindset (if they bought at launch), they still purchase for the hear and now. Especially as the life cycle draws on. Case in point is that many more gamers purchased the technically inferior PS2 over the GC and Xbox. Though those both had more potential than the PS2, the entertainment experience available to the PS2 made it the superior console overall.

Obviously this PS3 book was written by a fanboy.

phil said: elnino334:  This was supposed to be a comparison of the *technical* merits of the two systems, not their sales numbers.

k

Can I get the reader's digest version?