I too have to call fakie here. If you use a regular controller instead of the guitar you dont even have to press any buttons on the controller to hit the notes, it just plays perfectly automatically. No matter what song. Does this have any evidence that the controller is even plugged in? No. And again, I too am a very experienced played and unless thats the only song that kid plays theres no way he could memorize all those chords. I dont know, fake or not, its highly unlikely and there are too many factors in this one that make it feel fake to me. Nuff said.
You know, I'm trying not to get too excited about this but did anyone notice the NUMBER 1 THING said in this quote:
"We have no plans at this time of porting to or developing for another console as this would potentially dilute the final product."
DILUTE THE FINAL PRODUCT?!
I may be over reacting...but is this a hint to the PS3 ability to create graphics as well as the Xbox 360? Just porting alone wouldnt dilute anything...unless the console want WEAKER than the one it was originally on...makes me think...I mean, its already known that the Xbox360 DOES INFACT have a better GPU...CPU power set aside as theyre pretty even in alot of fields. But like I said...this makes me wonder...
One thing about people saying you need a top of the line computer every year are full of it. I have a 2+ year old computer that uses a 3400+ AMD64, X800XT, 1gig of RAM...this stuff today is worth maybe $400 today? And I can still play most if not all games today at more than acceptable settings...only thing giving me a slight issue is Oblivion, and even then its only in heavily dense out door areas. The 1.7ghz Celeron vs. Xenon thing I still call BS. OK, even if the Xenon was a Pentium 2, the raw 9.6ghz of power alone would out do a 1.7ghz Celeron by a wide margin despite the lack of SSE and 64-bit instruction. I find this claim completely unheard of, as I said, the ram ghz power alone will out do any Celeron. Look here for some good info on the Xenon: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars
But like others here have said, this is already an issue on behalf of gaming consoles. As I said in my other post, 512mb should be enough if the game is coded and optimized correctly. But also keep in mind that the PS3 only has 256mb allocated for video where as the 360 can use as much of the 512mb of RAM as the developer sees fit, ontop of its few DX10 features.
But as with all things envolving consoles these days, we can only say so much...we havent seen anything yet.
This is a very interesting post on Joystiqs behalf. For one it shows already that both consoles seem to have limitations already (which I think most of us knew 512mb wasnt going to cut it when the specs for each console were released) preventing us from playing next-gen games. But you also have to take into consideration that the 360 does have some DX10 instructions and at current time is one of the best GPU's on the market...maybe not as fast but alot more ADVANCED. I feel that with alittle tweaking Crysis shouldnt be an issue. I mean, perfect examples are Oblivion and Mass Effect...both massive games but 512mb of RAM doesnt seem the hinder performance any. In my honest somewhat professional computer hardware opinion, if optimized right, Crysis shouldnt be too much of an issue. Look at a game even like Halo 2...that game only ran on 64mb of RAM...
And to the guy that said the 360 CPU is comparible to a 1.7ghz Celeron, I want to fuck you right in the ear after hearing that. Show me an PC no matter what video card, amount of RAM, etc that could run COD2 or hell, even Burnout Revenge for that matter on a 1.7ghz Celeron.
For one lets talk about 1080p and all these FMV that people are talking about that take up so much space. Personally if the PS3 is as powerful as people claim it is, then who needs FMV? Couldn't similar graphics be easily done on the powerful PS3? I agree with others here that Id rather see a bad-ass ingame cutscene that you know could happen in ingame play instead of watching a FMV that shows happenings, enviroments and stuff of the like that arent possible ingame...kinda takes the whole immersion feeling away from the game.
Second people are talking about the amount of RAM and textures space that these sytems can hold. As its been said on joystiq in the past...the 360 can use as much RAM in the system as it wants for graphics, say 50mb for system and 400mb+ for graphics. The PS3 is split 50/50 for the RAM...256 for system, 256 for graphics...first off what game system needs 256mb for system resources? At most after the minimal OS thats on the system, I would say 50mb MAX. The 256mb for video is EXTREMELY restrictive. Also, think of this. 1080p is 1920x1080 resolution...we know that. Show me a badass game (such as Crysis FOR EXAMPLE) that could run on a 7800GT at a 1080p resolution without sacrificing graphical options such as HIGH RESOLUTION TEXTURES (isnt that what alot of you are saying blu-ray is for?) and other things such as draw distance, shadows, FRAME RATE, etc. And no longer is the RSX GPU comparible to a 7800GTX due to the speed drop of the chip, was 550MHz Core/700MHz memory, but has been downgraded to 500MHz Core/650MHz memory, so even with 24 pipes the low clockrates make it not nearly as fast. Any PC gamer or overclocker can tell you that 50mhz on the core can make a big difference.
So personally the argument about the blu-ray disc holding more high res textures is irrelivent as the PS3 hardware it self TECHNICALLY cannot produce such high res graphics and still be able to maintain a solid playable framrate 90% of the time.
Also think of this. People here have said that audio and textures take up alot of space, thats why the bluray is needed. But this too is not so. All of Oblivion fit onto a single layer DVD. Half of that space was audio alone, meaning that only 2gigs or around there was space for graphics...still going to argue that 9gigs is not enough space? Get real people.
These are just my opinions as we all know, but bluray currently IS NOT NEEDED for gaming at this point in time...maybe 5-8 years from now 20+ gigs may become the norm...but only because hardware by that time will be able to handle the high res textures and audio thatll come from 20gigs of information, something current hardware, especially the PS3, cannot handle. Rant over.
This is my first post here at Joystiq and I feel I had to make it because of the flaming here.
First off its all ready been proven by mulitple sources that the ATi graphics chip in the Xbox360 is more superior to the PS3. Thats fact. Google it and youll see many a site that proves this. Also on for the CPU's in each...the PS3 has the Cell which just like the GPU (graphics processor) has been said to be nothing that special. And need a remind the PS3 fanboys here that the Xbox360 does have 3 3.2GHZ CPU'S!? Thats 9.6ghz of 64-bit processing power, thats plenty for ANY game. So hardware in my opinion has nothing to do with graphics in consoles at this point...maybe on down the road when the Cell has come to terms on being easier to develop on we might see an improvement, but for now, PS3, 360, it doesnt matter.
Second media format has nothing to do with the better graphics. Look at the demo for Just Cause that just came out...its 500mb and the ENTIRE game will fit on a single DVD. A tennis game will not have better graphics due to the format used. 9 gigs on a dual layer DVD will be more than enough to store even high-def textures that enable extra quality such as blood veins.
And also thats been said here many times, its made by two totally different companies. Im sure that if the game were made by the same company youd see the feature in both versions for the 360 and PS3.
I know its Joystiq's job to report gaming news, but it seems to me more and more that useless posts like this are made just to start flame wars.
PS3? 360? In my opinion its too early to tell at this point. Just remember that even now, neither console compairs to a top-end PC. So if anyone wants to talk about a platform that has better graphics, stop whinning about consoles as PC already has top rank.
Eight-year-old is better than you at Guitar Hero
Jan 16th 2007 3:52AM (Joystiq)Lost Planet is 360 exclusive and will be out in January
Sep 1st 2006 9:37AM (Joystiq)"We have no plans at this time of porting to or developing for another console as this would potentially dilute the final product."
DILUTE THE FINAL PRODUCT?!
I may be over reacting...but is this a hint to the PS3 ability to create graphics as well as the Xbox 360? Just porting alone wouldnt dilute anything...unless the console want WEAKER than the one it was originally on...makes me think...I mean, its already known that the Xbox360 DOES INFACT have a better GPU...CPU power set aside as theyre pretty even in alot of fields. But like I said...this makes me wonder...
Crytek says 360 and PS3 can't handle Crysis
Aug 30th 2006 2:19PM (Joystiq)Look here for some good info on the Xenon:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars
But like others here have said, this is already an issue on behalf of gaming consoles. As I said in my other post, 512mb should be enough if the game is coded and optimized correctly. But also keep in mind that the PS3 only has 256mb allocated for video where as the 360 can use as much of the 512mb of RAM as the developer sees fit, ontop of its few DX10 features.
But as with all things envolving consoles these days, we can only say so much...we havent seen anything yet.
Crytek says 360 and PS3 can't handle Crysis
Aug 30th 2006 1:11PM (Joystiq)And to the guy that said the 360 CPU is comparible to a 1.7ghz Celeron, I want to fuck you right in the ear after hearing that. Show me an PC no matter what video card, amount of RAM, etc that could run COD2 or hell, even Burnout Revenge for that matter on a 1.7ghz Celeron.
Kaz says Blu-ray is the best choice for gamers
Aug 29th 2006 6:00PM (Joystiq)Second people are talking about the amount of RAM and textures space that these sytems can hold. As its been said on joystiq in the past...the 360 can use as much RAM in the system as it wants for graphics, say 50mb for system and 400mb+ for graphics. The PS3 is split 50/50 for the RAM...256 for system, 256 for graphics...first off what game system needs 256mb for system resources? At most after the minimal OS thats on the system, I would say 50mb MAX. The 256mb for video is EXTREMELY restrictive. Also, think of this. 1080p is 1920x1080 resolution...we know that. Show me a badass game (such as Crysis FOR EXAMPLE) that could run on a 7800GT at a 1080p resolution without sacrificing graphical options such as HIGH RESOLUTION TEXTURES (isnt that what alot of you are saying blu-ray is for?) and other things such as draw distance, shadows, FRAME RATE, etc. And no longer is the RSX GPU comparible to a 7800GTX due to the speed drop of the chip, was 550MHz Core/700MHz memory, but has been downgraded to 500MHz Core/650MHz memory, so even with 24 pipes the low clockrates make it not nearly as fast. Any PC gamer or overclocker can tell you that 50mhz on the core can make a big difference.
So personally the argument about the blu-ray disc holding more high res textures is irrelivent as the PS3 hardware it self TECHNICALLY cannot produce such high res graphics and still be able to maintain a solid playable framrate 90% of the time.
Also think of this. People here have said that audio and textures take up alot of space, thats why the bluray is needed. But this too is not so. All of Oblivion fit onto a single layer DVD. Half of that space was audio alone, meaning that only 2gigs or around there was space for graphics...still going to argue that 9gigs is not enough space? Get real people.
These are just my opinions as we all know, but bluray currently IS NOT NEEDED for gaming at this point in time...maybe 5-8 years from now 20+ gigs may become the norm...but only because hardware by that time will be able to handle the high res textures and audio thatll come from 20gigs of information, something current hardware, especially the PS3, cannot handle. Rant over.
IGN says PS3 aces 360 in Virtua Tennis
Aug 25th 2006 3:42AM (Joystiq)First off its all ready been proven by mulitple sources that the ATi graphics chip in the Xbox360 is more superior to the PS3. Thats fact. Google it and youll see many a site that proves this. Also on for the CPU's in each...the PS3 has the Cell which just like the GPU (graphics processor) has been said to be nothing that special. And need a remind the PS3 fanboys here that the Xbox360 does have 3 3.2GHZ CPU'S!? Thats 9.6ghz of 64-bit processing power, thats plenty for ANY game. So hardware in my opinion has nothing to do with graphics in consoles at this point...maybe on down the road when the Cell has come to terms on being easier to develop on we might see an improvement, but for now, PS3, 360, it doesnt matter.
Second media format has nothing to do with the better graphics. Look at the demo for Just Cause that just came out...its 500mb and the ENTIRE game will fit on a single DVD. A tennis game will not have better graphics due to the format used. 9 gigs on a dual layer DVD will be more than enough to store even high-def textures that enable extra quality such as blood veins.
And also thats been said here many times, its made by two totally different companies. Im sure that if the game were made by the same company youd see the feature in both versions for the 360 and PS3.
I know its Joystiq's job to report gaming news, but it seems to me more and more that useless posts like this are made just to start flame wars.
PS3? 360? In my opinion its too early to tell at this point. Just remember that even now, neither console compairs to a top-end PC. So if anyone wants to talk about a platform that has better graphics, stop whinning about consoles as PC already has top rank.
Look here for IGN's response to the hardware...you can see that raw numbers alone provide the 360 better graphics:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html