DefineReality

Screw it. ;)

The point? DID ANYONE /NOT/ READ THE PART POSTED SIX MONTHS AGO AND NOW HERE THAT THE GAME IS MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES?

You can't compare them. Two seperate resources. Two seperate teams. Two seperate experience levels. The only thing they have in common is the license, guidelines, and minimal expectation levels. Oh, and motivation. For all we know, the PS3 or 360 development team was simply lazy and never utilized their console of choice's full potential.

When DMC4 comes out, a game that I personally think was developed for the PS3 first, then we can compare. It'll either be dumbed down or it'll be equal or it'll be better on the 360. That's a far better comparison of capabilities.

Oh...One more thing: I've never played DMC 1, 2, or 3. Super-duper acrobatics and unbelieveable combos are hard to immerse myself in, especially when it's split between cutscenes and gameplay. But, I can appreciate how popular it is...

In yo' face, Sony boys! When 360 gets FFXIII, something you might think is impossible (Didn't you say that about DMC, too?), I'll be back to rub it in. ;)

PS3 exclusives (or reasons to spend $600): Resistance: FoM (Wait, it wasn't all that? Take it off the list), Devil May Cry 4 (Oh...It's not an exclusive? Take it off the list.), FFXIII (Please don't bail on us!), MGS4 (Please stay or they'll all carry out seppuku.), LittleBigPlanet (Okay...This really does look like a fun game. I am utterly jealous of PS3 owners).

Reasons to get a 360 (or why I saved $200): Oblivion a year early (C'mon, y' gotta give it to me there.), Gears of War ('nuff said),... We're still waiting on the good 360 exclusives to arrive later this year and next (Please don't fail me or I'll have to commit seppuku!), all the former PS3 exclusives.


Ooh, that was longer and far more biased than I had intended.

-DefineReality

Trying this again...

1) I am a closeted 360 fanboy. Meaning, I don't want to be (I want to be fair, dammit!) but deep down, I am.

2) The PS3 version does look better. But only by a marginal difference. Arms seem better defined and realistic, the skirt flaps around unrealistically (a lack of developers understanding physics, not the machine's), the colors seem to 'pop' on the PS3 (be through inputs or console, who knows), and general textures seem to be shinier ... texturier (

Okay... Real quick here.

1) I am a closeted 360 fanboy. Meaning, I don't want to be (I want to be fair, dammit!) but deep down, I am.

2) The PS3 version does look better. But only by a marginal difference. Arms seem better defined and realistic, the skirt flaps around unrealistically (a lack of developers understanding physics, not the machine's), the colors seem to 'pop' on the PS3 (be through inputs or console, who knows), and general textures seem to be shinier ... texturier (

Mind you that also in the PC world, a vast majority of games allow player hosted servers.

I was referring to the earlier online game experiences where you'd have to go through a central hub like Brentwood's C&C interface for random, casual gaming that didn't involve ISP/Direct links.

LaughingTarget,

Sorry for the dual posts so soon.

The point about the reason why developers do this sort of thing is 100% accurate. You're absolutely right and, truth to be told, they're allowed to and /should/ do it.

It saves money. It makes sense. But that's a model that's accepted in the PC world, for the most part.

Consoles are a different breed. Newer and better looking games come out but it's playing on the same rig. My library of games, therefore, is still compatable and still relevant. Especially to a new purchaser who may buy some of the older library games because they've yet to enjoy them.

With backwards compatability seemingly a huge motivator for most people (Especially with the PS2's formidable library), it seems rather anti-customer (You) to make a business model of online play that all of your customers, present and future, will be subject to.

That's why LIVE, so far, appears to be the only valid console online service. Aside from a few games where the developer shoe horns you into buying a sequel, LIVE can't be beat.

If I ever get around to buying PS3 (Admission: I never owned a PS2. Not for any real loyalties, mind you), I'd certainly want to have the option to play the various SOCOMS and other early PS3 online-enabled games.

If I buy a PS3 two years from now? I might not be able to.

LaughingTarget,

That could very well be the case. I'm not too sure. As I said, I've never personally played a game on XBox LIVE.

To be fair, though, I've never personally owned a Madden title, either (bring back Joe Montana's Football and Bases Loaded, baby! Oh yeah, Blades of Steel, too) so I can't speak for how EA handles things for their series of games.

Seeing as how football is a yearly progressive game and EA is the devil incarnate, I wouldn't so much blame the LIVE experience for the changes or lack of support after a single year as I would the developer themselves. Afterall, EA spelled backwards is Money.

Okay,

(Preface: I do not subscribe to Xbox LIVE and have, infact, never used its service for anything other than demos and downloads.)

Isn't this a clear indication of the flaw in PS3's online service? If I'm not mistaken, I can play any LIVE enabled XBox game today. Right now. This second. Just pop it into my console of choice and off I go.

The PS3 and Sony's online offering is reliant on developers to maintain the servers for their games. Which is a key reason why they've yet to have a friends list that's cross-game, etc.

As the server gets too costly to upkeep and maintain, the game disappears from online play. Granted, the server was made for thousands of players to play on. But what happens in two years to that dedicated couple hundred that're still enjoying Resistance: FoM online play when the developer decides to pull the plug because the server is no longer cost-effective?

Does anyone else have a problem with this model of business? I'd rather pay a couple bucks a month (Again, I don't. There's just not enough time these days, sadly) to have a consistent online experience than one that's here today, gone tomorrow.

I don't know.

In my opinion, Firefly could make an interesting MMO. The key here would be to obviously make it far less complicated than Eve or something similar that involves space flight. Your 'Clans' would be ship crews or somesuch and instances/dungeons could be planetside or space side.

But then there's the issue of every player would want to be the 'star'. If you can't be the star, the theme loses its appeal rather quickly. The series focused on crews and their interactions. How do you convey that in a game where a majority of players would want to level and have their own goals in mind?

Will this game see the light of day? Probably not, I think. Just like I seriously doubt the Star Trek MMO (As much as I'd love the idea of it) will see any real success.

A quick search of the web, however, shows several text-based MMO's on Firefly that appear to be successful. "Into the Black: A Firefly MUSH" appears to be the oldest and most successful and there's "Serenity MUX" and a couple others that seem to have closed up shop but still have websites.

Of course, you'd have to be very old school to enjoy those games. No graphics, etc. Hard to get involved in that sorta stuff since MMO RPG and text-based RPG are radically different creatures. Let alone I seriously doubt any of them have level or any other goals except for cooperative story telling.

Here's to hoping the graphical MMO does at least come out. But if it's going to embarass the awesome television series, then I'd rather it not.

I'm slightly curious why Joystiq, with their inevitable press kit and the release of the Japanese PS3 to the public masses, is not publishing impressions.

Sure, in the Land of the Rising Sun, someone out there owns both systems and can tell us which is a better choice?

Meanwhile, we have to scratch up tidbits that set no definitive line such as:

http://dreamgamers.blogcindario.com/2006/11/00018-rr-6-xbox-360-versus-rr-7-ps3.html

Now, I would've thought RR7 was supposed to be /superior/ to RR6, regardless of which system either game is on. Isn't that the natural order of things?

Come on Joystiq, stop teasing us and release your own opinions of which is superior. Some of us are sitting on cash for either/or. ;)

Okay.

Chances are, when I post this, it'll be number fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen. Or ten thousand. The rabid fanboys will respond to this fast.

To clear the air about myself: Playstation (The original white block, not the later sexy version), Xbox (The original (ie. only) black block), and Xbox 360 (With that weird concave "breath" design). That's what I've owned in the past and what I presently own. Obviously, by my own admission, I'm pro-Microsoft so anything I've got to say may as well be written off the instant it's typed.

Stay with me here...

Do I care if 2nd Gen 360 titles look better than 1st Gen PS3 titles? Hell yes! Makes me feel good about my purchase. What will I do if PS3 2nd Gen titles look better than 3rd Gen 360 titles? I'll probably reassess my standings.

Why did I not buy a PS2? Because at that point in my life (Early-twenties), I wasn't stable enough to devote time to the wonderfulness that is games. That and as my original Playstation reached the end of its life, I had a slightly sour taste in my mouth since I had to turn the thing upside down or put a book on its lid just to load a disc with those weird blue colored CDs. Those annoyed the living hell out of me.

Why did I get an Xbox? Sony Fanboys, take a look at PS2 games and XBox games. There's a difference in graphical power. Maybe not in the selection of games, but a definite difference in graphical power between those two systems. If you can't see it, go to the optometrist. He'll hook you up so you can.

Yes. Yes. I know. PS2 has a /huge/ library of games. I know this. I admit it. It's one of the regrets of never owning a PS2. However, I'm a professional adult now and things like family, outdoor activities, etc. take priority over my game playing. The relatively meager offerings of the XBox were enough to sedate me when I had the time to actually sit down and play for a little bit.

Why did I get an XBox 360? Confident in my first MS purchase, I jumped (Probably too early) into the "Next Generation of Gaming" and got one. At first, I wasn't happy with the purchase. Not enough games at launch that interested me (Keep in mind that I'm an /adult/ now) for my precious free time. As Summer '06 came around and left, I found myself with quite a few more games available and a few that even 'addicted' me.

I, like almost every 360 owner, eagerly await Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, and Halo 3. I frothe at the mouth waiting for them.

But what happens if the PS3 /is/ better. Given Sony's track record as of late to produce anything substantial by way of actual gameplay of a finished game (Fishy considering it's almost launch day, eh?) and their track record with the PS2 pre-launch, I'm finding it hard to believe. But if the PS3 /is/ better, I have to then weigh another small fact of gaming goodness out:

Cross-platform games. Soooo many games this generation are going to be cross-platform that I honestly believe that with rising production costs (not to be confused with production values), both versions of the games will be essentially the same graphically. Hence, why buy a PS3 at all if it is indeed the superior console?

Also, this whole sixaxis controller gig? I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a tense game, I shift around alot. I go from the edge of my seat to the back of my seat, to my feet. The controller never remains still. What'll happen to my in-game self when I make those moves? Does it forgive me for that?

Remember I said I was an adult? I don't have time for the Final Fantasy franchise, the Metal Gear Solid franchise...Okay. Truth be told, I haven't /finished/ a video game in /ages/. No time. Plain and simple truth of it. I play them casually out of necessity and stop playing them when something better comes along.

So, those are my negatives against PS3. The obviously solution would be to buy all three new systems and proclaim that 'I can afford it' like so many of you on here evidently can. Yeah. I probably could afford all three quite easily. Probably in one huge purchase if needed. But guess what? Adult, remember? I've got bills, cars, family, pets, real life, furniture, etc. My life doesn't revolve around video games. They're just another facet of it.

So...If you're getting all three, thank your mommy and daddy for the money, the well paying job (Which oddly gives you enough time to enjoy all three consoles) or good for you for having drastically different priorities than the rest of the world.

My ultimate choice of console goodness? I'll wait til the consoles actually launch. I wont listen to the PR or look at the specs (How many of you guys out there have a Cell-based PC? Anyone...Anyone?) and proclaim early victory for either of the three giants.

If Nintendo fails: MS and Sony owners will have something to rejoice for. Their games will be available for the masses for the other two systems (ala Sega)!

If PS3 fails: It'll be tough for Sony to comeback from such a beatdown. But with its rabid fanbase, it also will be highly unlikely that it'll fail at all. You know what they say about certain types of people in large groups...

If 360 fails: This is the most likely of all three. If 360 fails, Microsoft shrugs it off and builds another consoles with lessons learned. One things for sure, if they stay on par with Sony, it's only good news for them. New fans, new loyalists, new franchises.

It'll be interesting to watch. Just please wait til the damn things launch, people. It's hard a hell logging into Joystiq to listen to your moronic declarations of anyone's superiority.