X-Box 360.

[Guest MrFill]

We're getting Blu-Ray and HD-DVD whether we want it or not

You seem to be missing a rather big point here

 

With technology advancing they have to push the resolution up, and a standard TV has only got 625 lines for PAL or 525 lines for NTSC - this is VERY limiting on the resolution as you're talking a total resolution of 833x625 for PAL and 700x525 for NTSC

 

You might be satisfied with that resolution for your games, but if you're running a PC game, it's a LOT easier to play the games up the resolution to 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (sometimes 1600x1200), which are a LOT higher resolution that your standard TV set

 

So, without HDTV, you're basically restricting what a game can look like - same goes for DVD playback - our DVD player runs in HD (since we have a 1024 capable HDTV), and it looks a LOT better than our other TVs do when playing back DVDs (apart from some which are designed for the lower resolutions)

Edited May 16, 2005 by MrFill

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest MrFill]

So what are you saying about getting Blu-Ray and HD whether we like it or not?

 

Since you know nothing about the games industry, you must be talking only about the DVD play-back

 

If you are, then you really should buy just a DVD player with the features you require and get a games console for games and nothing else

[wyndorf 389]

I'm a big fan of consoles, but I don't really know what a blu-ray hd jungle happy disk is or what difference it makes. I can't be the only one who want's a console to errr....play games, can I?

 

I've got a DVD player, and anything else I might want along those lines, is in the box below my computer screen, just give me the games.

[Guest MrFill]

Simultaneously wrong on both opposing view points on HD' date=' now that's impressive. Maybe you two should argue amoungst yourself.[/quote']

I'm trying to understand on how we are both "wrong opposing view points on HD" when we both explained different things, he explained about DVD playback and I explained about TV resolutions

 

Somehow I think that you've mis-read what we had written and decided that you're right, no matter what

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest MrFill]

Blu-Ray = Compression = More stored per disk = less swapping or cheaper games since the developers can get more onto the disk (only one disk to reproduce)

 

HD-DVD = DVD play-back is improved, therefore **** ALL to do with games

 

HD-TV output = better visual quality on the games = better looking games

 

 

Simple, innit?

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest MrFill]

It's down to the designers of the games to make the games better

 

If they decide to make a pile of tosh (see Spice World, the game), then it's up to them, it's your choice whether you buy the games or not

 

In my opinion, graphics can add to a game, but they cannot MAKE the game (which a lot of PS2 developers believe it can) - so, the console manufacturers aren't to blame if a game isn't very good, the programmers of the game are

 

The technological advancements can make a game look better and run faster, but not necessarily mean that it's a better game

[Guest voice of reason]

It's not the designers fault entirely, per se, but that of suits higher up who decide that FIFA Street is A Really Good Idea, and the public who see it elevated to number one on the back of ad campaigns targeted solely at the (very large) chav market and think "it's at number one, so it MUST be good".

I've been reading UKResistance a lot recently. Cynicism rules.

[Guest MrFill]

It's still the designers and programmers fault for coming up with a rubbish game

 

Look at Tetris, really simple graphics and gameplay, yet addictive game

Pro Evolution, looks great and has good gameplay

Halo 2, fantastic graphics and great gameplay

 

If you WANT to build a game that looks great and plays great, then it's possible, but if you're lazy then you end up with something that is unplayable and looks rubbish

[Guest voice of reason]

Yeah, but... imagine that you've always wanted to do something groundbreaking, or even been an industry vet who has, and then some guy form the publisher tells you "drop what you're doing and make another fishing game- we're really breaking through the 35+ demo here". This happens all the time. The developers are small cogs in an industry driven by market research, focus testing and all kinds of other depressing things.

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest Anime Otaku]

The PS3 looks VERY cool, the Controller looks a bit like a skinny GC/PS1 hybrid and i like it.

[Guest Feenix]

The XBox360 can get 1TFLOPS while the PS3 has a grand 2.18 TFLOPS.

 

Whilst this might be true Sony have manipulated their tests a little to get better results. The PS3's processing power is the only thing that's ahead of the X360. The X360 has better RAM, much better graphics, and it can do around 3 Trillion floating point operations per second, despite what it says there.

 

As any PC geek will tell you, processing power doesn't mean a lot right now. A 3.2 Ghz Processor in a machine capable of 1TFLOPS is more than enough to handle anything we can throw at it at the moment, and for years to come. The X360 has a graphics processor which is a generation ahead of the very top graphics cards at the moment. It also has more memory as far as i'm aware. This will allow it to actually accomplish more believe it or not, developers will just have to optimise certain things for the X360 if they say, want to put 20,000 people on the screen at once.

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest voice of reason]

Aesthetically, PS3 is dreadful. A fat blobby printer ish counterpart to XB360's sleek, high end dvd player, Sony's offering is disappointing. Controller wise, things are particularly bad. Why drop the iconic shape and functionality of Dual Shock for a pad that looks like a bad third party rendition of an xbox controller, especially when it does nothing new? That looks incredibly uncomfortable to use, even though accomodating seven via bluetooth (and thus wireless) is great- bet bluetooth makes new ones cost a mint though.

The thing that makes XB360 a potentially more attractive proposal (apart from being easier on the eye) is that it's shooting first. November worldwide compared to March/April Japanese, means a headsatart for MS to attract the casuals. Launch price will be important here too, but I say first blood to Microsoft right now, in the west at least. The processor speed and power will mean naff all in reality, except on first party and console exclusives. Just as now where XB is so comfortably ahead of PS2 in terms of graphical punch, multiformat titles will rarely look all that much different, so it comes down to marketing.. Again. Yawn.

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest Anime Otaku]

i think thats what the blue ray discs are trying to prevent, the Revolution will supposedly keep the tiny GC discs which i think were hard to crack so i see X box 360 getting cracked first

[Guest Feenix]

Yes well, there would be a lot less piracy if we were charged fair price for games. I point you to http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/ (which ya'll have probably forgotten all about by now)

It sickens me the price of new games. That's why i'm all for piracy of games, it doesn't harm developers a lot, cause most of them have millions which they just aren't using. What harms developers is overpriced games which the consumer doesn't want to buy unless they're absolutely sure it's going to be well worth it. So, new, unknown games crash and burn, when they could be so much more.