I have one of those Dell monitors at work. It has an S-Video input. (It may have RCA, too, but it's been a while since I've poked around behind it.) One of my coworkers had a DVD player hooked up to it. It was very nice. :)
As for the 16:10 ratio, there's a setting that'll set the image to the correct scale. At least in DVI mode it does this. I suppose it's possible the S-Vid doesn't support that, but I'd actually be surprised by that.
My gf saw the Rubick's commercial and made a comment like "Umm.. couldn't computers from the 80's solve a Rubick's Cube faster than that?"
I can't say I have a very high opinion of these ads. They're great for rallying the fanb^H^H^H^Htroops, but to an outsider they're sophomoric. "Wow! A creepy baby! I can see its deeper meaning!! My mind operates on a higher level!!!" I see lots of eye rolling when these commercials air.
a. I am not a Sony Fanboy. I'm actually a Nintendo fanboy. (I'm also a GTA fanboy, hence why I have a PSP.)
b. I'm not in denial about ghosting on the PSP. My point is simply that Liberty City Stories has a feature that makes it look like it's ghosting really bad. If other games ghost, I have nothing to say about it. I haven't played them. LCS, however, ghosts because the game is set up to. All one has to do is watch the game for a bit (and notice the non-ghosting bits of the game, like the Rockstar logo flying onto the screen.) and go "Oh, yeah, it's the ghosting feature the original PS2 version of GTA3 had."
Even though I'm a Nintendo fanboy, I am not going to spread untrue bs about Sony's products. Sony's doing a great job of destroying their own PR without my help.
20: Chris: I'm not saying the screen doesn't ghost at all. You are, however, incorrect that the trails aren't on in Liberty City Stories. Look more closely as the behaviour of the trails when the game slows down. You'll notice that they're visible longer when the frame rate drops. Also notice that the PSP's menu system doesn't ghost like that at all. Rockstar forced that feature to be on. I don't know why they elected to do that, but that's the majority of what you're seeing.
9.) Agent Moo: That's not ghosting of the screen. It's the game. The original GTA had some strange motion-blurry ghosting feature that for reasons I cannot fathom they force on you with no way to turn it off. I agree, it sucks, but it's not the hardware's fault.
> nintendo has changed their controller every time the made a new system, mainly cuz they all sucked,
Nintendo changed their controller to support a new type of game. Sony often copied their ideas, usually by adding two of whatever Nintendo added. (Analog stick, shoulder buttons...)
> and it is true that sony had been considering motion sensing for quite some time now
Oh yes, I'm sure they had been considering it a long time. That's why they waited until after Red Steel was shown to start adding the feature.
> yeah sonys controller is meant for a completely different style of play than the wii's
Really? Because the basic design is over 10 years old, and there's not much to it that the Wii Remote couldn't do. Heck, there really wasn't much that the Game Cube controller wouldn't do. Two shoulder buttons on each side.. woOOooOOooOOoo.
> so take your gay wii controllers and shove them up ur ass'.
Heh. Yeah. But first, let's take some of the functionality from the Wii remote and put it in the PS3 controller, THEN we can shove it up our asses.
I've read this argument a few times, and I'm sorry, but it's bunk. Whether the idea is new or not isn't relevent. If Sony was going to do this ages ago, not only would there have been >1 games supporting it, but it would have been built into the controller... earlier than two weeks ago. Sony didn't even have a compelling demo to drive it. Even Eye Toy had that.
Re: The Wii-remote is not new because I've seen stuff like this before.
Yeah yeah. I can imagine people in the olden days saying television isn't anything special because radios already existed. "But it's just taking signals from a radio wave and interpreting them into something we can see and hear. Heck, we can already hear just fine with radios! THIS IS NOTHING NEW!!!"
There is no controller out there with two-handed motion sensing and a speaker built in standard on any console out there. Nintendo didn't claim to invent technology here. They created a unique controller and encouraged developers to find new ways to use it. It is not a Power Glove. It is not a U-Force. It is not that Microsoft controller from yonks ago. The games are different. Big big important difference.
You don't play U-Force or Power Glove games like you play with the Wii-Remote.
> Nintendo allways tries something new with their hardware. Unfortunately they stop supporting their own hardware shortly after its released.
"Allways"? I suppose you might be thinking of the GC-GBA link. Ok. What about analog sticks? Four joystick ports? Wi-Fi and Touch Screen on the DS? Shoulder buttons and Mode 7 on the SNES? I think by 'always', you really meant they've let you down a couple of times.
> You make it sound like WII is reinventing the entire first person perspective gaming.
Just a nitpick, arcade shooters are not FPS's. You do not run around in Time Crisis. You basically just point and shoot. Terrible example. In any event, Nintendo's controller is far better for first person perspective gaming than what you can do with a traditional console controller, and it has some strengths (and weaknesses, I'll concede) with the standard keyboard and mouse. Part of me wants to go into a long-winded explanation of why you're wrong, but I'm not going to. Go read up on Red Steel. Watch the trailer. The people ya-hooing over the Wii are excited because they've been shown they can do more in a game. It's not because they're all smoking narcotics.
> I wonder how motion sensing technology is going to work with such a wide variation of screen sizes and televison designs.
This is an amusing comment for a couple of reasons. 1.) They had a show floor FULL of them at E3 and they worked well. 2.) They use a sensor bar that has absolutely nothing to do with the crappiness of their TV. The controller doesn't see the TV, it sees the sensor bar. You can even use a projector with it and it'll work just fine.
> Yes it is very expensisive but it doesn't matter.
Uh, yes it does. There are people out there that will buy it, I have no qualms with anybody saying that. However, the price will most assuredly affect it's market penetration. When people start having to figure out if they need to sell blood or max out their credit cards, doubt will settle in as to whether they'll actually find it worth buying or worth waiting until the price comes down. Some will even say "screw that, I'll get an XBOX or a Wii".
That said, there is something smart about what Sony's doing. Microsoft couldn't produce enough 360's to satisfy the market, and they sold them at a loss. By raising the price, Sony is lowering demand, and making the supply problem easier on their end. Let's say they can sell 1 million units at $600 and 5 million units at $300. If they only have 1 million to sell, the smart thing to do is price it at $600. It was rough on Microsoft having a high demand product with no units to sell. Sony will likely fare better. They are, however, going to have a very difficult time continuing to sell the PS3 to the mass-market at that price, primarily because of the competition they're facing. I can tell you right now that I had no interest in the XBOX 360 until Sony announed their price tag. $600 is too much.
> Most of the games coming out for XBOX 360 with the exception of Halo 3 will be ported on PS3.
That works against you. The 360 is cheaper. Why pay the premium for the PS3 if you can play the same games on the XBOX 360?
> I doubt Wii will be able to recieve those same ports. When the next gen GTA hits store shelves once again, Nintendo owners will be left out.
That's life in the game market. Stick with one system, leave a few games out. It works the other way, too, as you've admitted with Halo 3. Niether Sony nor Microsoft will have Nintendo's games. Worse, you'll be able to play Nintendo's games more affordably.
> I'm betting on PS3 and XBOX 360 once again.
Erm, okay. So this is about who sells the most consoles, right? Though I'm confident in Nintendo, I do not know who will sell the most units. The thing is, though, these companies are trying to make a profit, not trying to make the numbers spin. Nintendo clobbered Sony and Microsoft in terms of profit. Nintendo could be in third place this round and STILL make more money than both of them combined. That shouldn't matter much to you though, all it does is make you look like you were lucky in guessing. You should be worried about whether or not the money you spent on these games yielded valuable entertainment. If you spent $600 on a PS3 and bought a few games, and had fun with them thus making you feel like it was money well spent, you win! You made a wise decision! Bravo! I'm serious, no sarcasm here. But if you used weak rationale, like you're doing right now, to avoid a system that might actually have been better for you, what then? You end up with less entertainment in your life. Oopsie.
Are Wii saves portable? Manual says yes, system says no [update 2]
Nov 12th 2006 6:27PM (Joystiq)As for the 16:10 ratio, there's a setting that'll set the image to the correct scale. At least in DVI mode it does this. I suppose it's possible the S-Vid doesn't support that, but I'd actually be surprised by that.
Fanboys hijack Nintendo Wikipedia entry
Nov 9th 2006 9:00PM (Joystiq)a. It's video game related. Vandalizing Michael Jackson's page isn't.
b. Console zealots are a big part of gaming culture.
c. It's a perfect example of how idiotic this latest round of fanboyism is getting.
New PlayStation 3 commercial breaks a few eggs
Nov 9th 2006 1:58PM (Joystiq)I can't say I have a very high opinion of these ads. They're great for rallying the fanb^H^H^H^Htroops, but to an outsider they're sophomoric. "Wow! A creepy baby! I can see its deeper meaning!! My mind operates on a higher level!!!" I see lots of eye rolling when these commercials air.
PSP LCD FTW over DS LOL
Oct 27th 2006 2:27PM (Joystiq)b. I'm not in denial about ghosting on the PSP. My point is simply that Liberty City Stories has a feature that makes it look like it's ghosting really bad. If other games ghost, I have nothing to say about it. I haven't played them. LCS, however, ghosts because the game is set up to. All one has to do is watch the game for a bit (and notice the non-ghosting bits of the game, like the Rockstar logo flying onto the screen.) and go "Oh, yeah, it's the ghosting feature the original PS2 version of GTA3 had."
Even though I'm a Nintendo fanboy, I am not going to spread untrue bs about Sony's products. Sony's doing a great job of destroying their own PR without my help.
PSP LCD FTW over DS LOL
Oct 27th 2006 1:52PM (Joystiq)PSP LCD FTW over DS LOL
Oct 27th 2006 1:19PM (Joystiq)Controller showdown: PlayStation 3 vs Wii
May 15th 2006 10:10PM (Engadget)> nintendo has changed their controller every time the made a new system, mainly cuz they all sucked,
Nintendo changed their controller to support a new type of game. Sony often copied their ideas, usually by adding two of whatever Nintendo added. (Analog stick, shoulder buttons...)
> and it is true that sony had been considering motion sensing for quite some time now
Oh yes, I'm sure they had been considering it a long time. That's why they waited until after Red Steel was shown to start adding the feature.
> yeah sonys controller is meant for a completely different style of play than the wii's
Really? Because the basic design is over 10 years old, and there's not much to it that the Wii Remote couldn't do. Heck, there really wasn't much that the Game Cube controller wouldn't do. Two shoulder buttons on each side.. woOOooOOooOOoo.
> so take your gay wii controllers and shove them up ur ass'.
Heh. Yeah. But first, let's take some of the functionality from the Wii remote and put it in the PS3 controller, THEN we can shove it up our asses.
Heh. This has been amusing.
Controller showdown: PlayStation 3 vs Wii
May 14th 2006 7:04AM (Engadget)I've read this argument a few times, and I'm sorry, but it's bunk. Whether the idea is new or not isn't relevent. If Sony was going to do this ages ago, not only would there have been >1 games supporting it, but it would have been built into the controller... earlier than two weeks ago. Sony didn't even have a compelling demo to drive it. Even Eye Toy had that.
Re: The Wii-remote is not new because I've seen stuff like this before.
Yeah yeah. I can imagine people in the olden days saying television isn't anything special because radios already existed. "But it's just taking signals from a radio wave and interpreting them into something we can see and hear. Heck, we can already hear just fine with radios! THIS IS NOTHING NEW!!!"
There is no controller out there with two-handed motion sensing and a speaker built in standard on any console out there. Nintendo didn't claim to invent technology here. They created a unique controller and encouraged developers to find new ways to use it. It is not a Power Glove. It is not a U-Force. It is not that Microsoft controller from yonks ago. The games are different. Big big important difference.
Controller showdown: PlayStation 3 vs Wii
May 14th 2006 6:18AM (Engadget)You don't play U-Force or Power Glove games like you play with the Wii-Remote.
> Nintendo allways tries something new with their hardware. Unfortunately they stop supporting their own hardware shortly after its released.
"Allways"? I suppose you might be thinking of the GC-GBA link. Ok. What about analog sticks? Four joystick ports? Wi-Fi and Touch Screen on the DS? Shoulder buttons and Mode 7 on the SNES? I think by 'always', you really meant they've let you down a couple of times.
> You make it sound like WII is reinventing the entire first person perspective gaming.
Just a nitpick, arcade shooters are not FPS's. You do not run around in Time Crisis. You basically just point and shoot. Terrible example. In any event, Nintendo's controller is far better for first person perspective gaming than what you can do with a traditional console controller, and it has some strengths (and weaknesses, I'll concede) with the standard keyboard and mouse. Part of me wants to go into a long-winded explanation of why you're wrong, but I'm not going to. Go read up on Red Steel. Watch the trailer. The people ya-hooing over the Wii are excited because they've been shown they can do more in a game. It's not because they're all smoking narcotics.
> I wonder how motion sensing technology is going to work with such a wide variation of screen sizes and televison designs.
This is an amusing comment for a couple of reasons. 1.) They had a show floor FULL of them at E3 and they worked well. 2.) They use a sensor bar that has absolutely nothing to do with the crappiness of their TV. The controller doesn't see the TV, it sees the sensor bar. You can even use a projector with it and it'll work just fine.
> Yes it is very expensisive but it doesn't matter.
Uh, yes it does. There are people out there that will buy it, I have no qualms with anybody saying that. However, the price will most assuredly affect it's market penetration. When people start having to figure out if they need to sell blood or max out their credit cards, doubt will settle in as to whether they'll actually find it worth buying or worth waiting until the price comes down. Some will even say "screw that, I'll get an XBOX or a Wii".
That said, there is something smart about what Sony's doing. Microsoft couldn't produce enough 360's to satisfy the market, and they sold them at a loss. By raising the price, Sony is lowering demand, and making the supply problem easier on their end. Let's say they can sell 1 million units at $600 and 5 million units at $300. If they only have 1 million to sell, the smart thing to do is price it at $600. It was rough on Microsoft having a high demand product with no units to sell. Sony will likely fare better. They are, however, going to have a very difficult time continuing to sell the PS3 to the mass-market at that price, primarily because of the competition they're facing. I can tell you right now that I had no interest in the XBOX 360 until Sony announed their price tag. $600 is too much.
> Most of the games coming out for XBOX 360 with the exception of Halo 3 will be ported on PS3.
That works against you. The 360 is cheaper. Why pay the premium for the PS3 if you can play the same games on the XBOX 360?
> I doubt Wii will be able to recieve those same ports. When the next gen GTA hits store shelves once again, Nintendo owners will be left out.
That's life in the game market. Stick with one system, leave a few games out. It works the other way, too, as you've admitted with Halo 3. Niether Sony nor Microsoft will have Nintendo's games. Worse, you'll be able to play Nintendo's games more affordably.
> I'm betting on PS3 and XBOX 360 once again.
Erm, okay. So this is about who sells the most consoles, right? Though I'm confident in Nintendo, I do not know who will sell the most units. The thing is, though, these companies are trying to make a profit, not trying to make the numbers spin. Nintendo clobbered Sony and Microsoft in terms of profit. Nintendo could be in third place this round and STILL make more money than both of them combined. That shouldn't matter much to you though, all it does is make you look like you were lucky in guessing. You should be worried about whether or not the money you spent on these games yielded valuable entertainment. If you spent $600 on a PS3 and bought a few games, and had fun with them thus making you feel like it was money well spent, you win! You made a wise decision! Bravo! I'm serious, no sarcasm here. But if you used weak rationale, like you're doing right now, to avoid a system that might actually have been better for you, what then? You end up with less entertainment in your life. Oopsie.
Enjoy whatever system you get.