A tale of two consoles

[Strid]

So because the PS3 is better at pushing polygons than the Wii, it's more advanced, but because the Wii has better motion controls than the PS3, it's not more advanced?

Strid has presented us with a paradox.

How do you feel about HDR lighting vs. Bloom lighting? HDR is better, therefor is "more advanced," but they're both features for 3D Lighting. Does that nullify the fact that both of them are advancement over normal lightmapping?

Well, if that's not the case let's step back and rethink what advancement makes -of- somethin'. Does it even matter what it makes? Can it make a useless item good for nothin' and be advanced? Is it a simple upgrade and therefore doesn't deserve another term? Is advancement mostly an opinion that only sometimes can be in a factual light (for more meaningful items, i.e. advancement of civilization)? Technically it's not better, technically it's not new, it's definitely not because it has more features, so then, what is it in meaningless entertainment items? Nothing (probably), and if anything just opinion?

Personally, the term advancement should not have been used for the Wii mote. It didn't change anything, it's not goin' to change anything, and it didn't make motion sensing the end all of be all in game controls. Poorly placed term is all it's lookin' to amount to. While the motion sensing may be "advanced" in the thing, due to bein' the best of its kind, that doesn't make the controller the most advanced, it still does nothin' more than control somethin' on a screen, the same thing the Atari stick did oh so long ago.

But you see where this is goin' right? A simple opinion on a console, I deem, not worth even ownin', has drug out into a few week long conversation that will amount to nothin' in the end. It's worthless, and all because some people get butthurt over another thinkin' their holy grail isn't so holy. What was this thread about again?

 

[Skaw]

Personally, the term advancement should not have been used for the Wii mote. It didn't change anything, it's not goin' to change anything, and it didn't make motion sensing the end all of be all in game controls. Poorly placed term is all it's lookin' to amount to. While the motion sensing may be "advanced" in the thing, due to bein' the best of its kind, that doesn't make the controller the most advanced, it still does nothin' more than control somethin' on a screen, the same thing the Atari stick did oh so long ago.

Then none of the consoles are advanced, since computers have been able to do what they consider "new" for years before they were released. The exception being the use of Blu-Ray, which could only be done by other technology for a little bit before PS3 was released.

 

[Strid]

Then none of the consoles are advanced, since computers have been able to do what they consider "new" for years before they were released. The exception being the use of Blu-Ray, which could only be done by other technology for a little bit before PS3 was released.

Don't stretch it like taffy now. We're talkin' about controllers. But if you want to get into somethin' more, then you're right, computers "advance" first then the consoles. No reason to argue that nor even bring it up, only an idiot would deny that.

Let's take into consideration this train of though: The PS3 is not advanced (though it's an advancement above the PS2), the cell processor inside of it, may be (may not be, I don't know), but that doesn't mean the entire PS3 is advanced. That's the kind of thing I'm gettin' at. Here is an easier example. Let's take a Street Fighter character, Sagat. Let's say I do somethin' really good and badass to benefit my Sagat play that no one else ever did that boosted my tourney play, say like a new way to use FADC's or somethin' that no one though of with him before. Sagat didn't become a more advanced SF character, he's still the same Sagat everyone else uses.

Tricky stuffz. There are definin' things I think we can all agree are pure advancement and others just not so much. I'm glad someone is able to keep a cool head and have a conversation about it though.

 

[Skaw]

Let's take into consideration this train of though: The PS3 is not advanced (though it's an advancement above the PS2), the cell processor inside of it, may be (may not be, I don't know), but that doesn't mean the entire PS3 is advanced. That's the kind of thing I'm gettin' at. Here is an easier example. Let's take a Street Fighter character, Sagat. Let's say I do somethin' really good and badass to benefit my Sagat play that no one else ever did that boosted my tourney play, say like a new way to use FADC's or somethin' that no one though of with him before. Sagat didn't become a more advanced SF character, he's still the same Sagat everyone else uses.

Okay, so how is the PS3 and advancement from the PS2 if it doesn't change anything? Using the logic you've given us, more polygons doesn't mean a new dimension of gameplay and more detailed physics doesn't mean new physics. But you consider the machine an advancement from the PS2, while condeming the Wii remote as not being an advancement over your standard D-Pad and Dual Analog setup? You can come out and just say you don't like the direction, but that doesn't make it any less of an advancement. I don't like how hand drawn animation has been nearly completely replaced by Flash animation, but it's still an advancement.

 

[masterorion]

im going to throw something in there for added value for wii mote technology being better over playstation by submitting the ps3 lightgun that is given for use with time crisis. discuss....

keep in mind, it basically does all functionality(that i can tell) that a wiimote does. IE all buttons of a normal ps3 controller plus on screen cursor movement. only difference that i am concerned with, is that it is a gun and used for shooter purpose on ps3. thats pretty much it. but it does function as a normal Dpad controller as well.

 

[Strid]

Okay, so how is the PS3 and advancement from the PS2 if it doesn't change anything? Using the logic you've given us, more polygons doesn't mean a new dimension of gameplay and more detailed physics doesn't mean new physics. But you consider the machine an advancement from the PS2, while condeming the Wii remote as not being an advancement over your standard D-Pad and Dual Analog setup? You can come out and just say you don't like the direction, but that doesn't make it any less of an advancement. I don't like how hand drawn animation has been nearly completely replaced by Flash animation, but it's still an advancement.

Hmm, I don't get where you're goin' with this. I think I've lost you. You're usin' logic I never used, therefore it's not my logic, and I never said the PS2 and PS3 were the same. I also never condemned the Wii mote, I just don't agree that it's the MOST advanced console controller. I've given explanation why further up, find it all yourself.

This thing I said a while back that you conveniently missed comes to mind again so I'll say it again.

Well, if that's not the case let's step back and rethink what advancement makes -of- somethin'. Does it even matter what it makes? Can it make a useless item good for nothin' and be advanced? Is it a simple upgrade and therefore doesn't deserve another term? Is advancement mostly an opinion that only sometimes can be in a factual light (for more meaningful items, i.e. advancement of civilization)? Technically it's not better, technically it's not new, it's definitely not because it has more features, so then, what is it in meaningless entertainment items? Nothing (probably), and if anything just opinion?

This too.

Tricky stuffz. There are definin' things I think we can all agree are pure advancement and others just not so much.

If we're goin' to continue down the way you want to take this we might as well argue over which color is the best between red and blue. Does that make any sense to you?

 

[TheOsyris]

The PSP is the most advanced remote by far if you want to get technical. Boooyaaaaaah!

Other then that i would agree with Strid. Kinda shares my view of an advancement.

 

[Bajaratt]

Personally, the term advancement should not have been used for the Wii mote. It didn't change anything, it's not goin' to change anything, and it didn't make motion sensing the end all of be all in game controls.

If you're going to define advancement as making a change to something, then the Wiimote's done that. It's created a new way to play games, you may not care for that method of control, but to deny that it's a success(or that it hasn't had an impact on the industry) only means you've paid almost no attention to the industry over the last 2 years. The controls themselves can add either an additional level of immersion, or make it easier for non-hardcore gamers to actually want to play the games. For some types of games, it's no different than a normal controllers, for others it is.

It's created a whole new market for video games; it's also helped make video games more mainstream, by bringing in that untapped market.

The Wii(via the Wiimote) isn't the end-all, greatest thing ever, but you're acting like the thing bombed on launch day and never got a single sale. Motion controls aren't the ultimate(but then no one ever said they were), but again, you're acting like they never worked and have been completely abandoned by the industry.

Advancing is moving forwards, in terms of technology it's either evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary is just upgrades, something getting better as time goes on(PS3/360). Revolutionary is an actual change, doing something different(Wii). Both are legitimate forms of advancement, whether you're willing to accept it or not.

 

[Firestreak]

I look at advancement with technology in a sort of chain structure. While the wii-mote is moving, it's moving side-ways. If you consider the controllers as a sort of a equation, and you're trying to try to find their limit, so to speak, there's no target. The wii-mote doesn't have a perfect form, and the controller doesn't either. If we're looking at the "perfect control scheme" in some futuristic setting, it's probably something that isn't held in your hand. Rather it's something that interacts more directly with your brain, or, possibly, it's your entire body, in some sort of "holo deck" esque environment. Or it's the simulation of that, via a virtual reality environment.

The point being, the wii-mote is a false promise, in that it's, in action, a step toward that direction, by giving you more direct control. You play trauma center and you hold the "scalpel" in your hand. However it's a false promise in that it's not a link in the chain of present controllers to our ideal control scheme. Though perhaps it does allow for games themselves that move in that direction.

Talking about processor power, graphical output and storage space it's a more measurable quantity here. We don't know what the ideal machine looks like, but we know it has enough processor power to calculate anything that the player would be able to experience. We know it has enough graphical prowess to show anything that could be possibly shown in a pure photorealistic fashion. In those ways, the PS3 and 360 advance.

I'll also point out, we really don't know if the Wii is actually less prone to tech difficulties than the PS3. We can only guess based on our sample which is fairly small. I myself have had to have both replaced, and my Xbox 360 still runs fine. So if I tries to guess based on personal experiences, I feel I've have a skewed view of the situation.

 

[Skaw]

I look at advancement with technology in a sort of chain structure. While the wii-mote is moving, it's moving side-ways.

Side-ways to what though? Console controllers haven't really changed since the NES. The only difference between now and then are additional buttons and directional inputs.

 

[Strid]

If you're going to define advancement as making a change to something, then the Wiimote's done that. It's created a new way to play games, you may not care for that method of control, but to deny that it's a success(or that it hasn't had an impact on the industry) only means you've paid almost no attention to the industry over the last 2 years.

Not just a change, it's more than a change. Like I said before, I could add a magazine holster to change a fishin' rod to be more entertaining, to some, but is that really advancement? I don't know personally, but I think it shouldn't be. I honestly don't think the Wii mote has changed the way we play games either but who to more of an extent. Before the Wii mote we had the Light Guns and things of that sort, they worked the same durin' gameplay, though specific to their genre. As for other games it's like a DS' touch screen stylus combo except you don't have to touch the screen, it's essentially usin' the Light Gun to break out of a specific genre into a more open realm of usage. That's an advancement, but does it qualify it as the most advanced controller? I think that's purely an opinionated matter. I never said it wasn't a success, though I didn't enjoy my Wii, it's definitely a success, all the way around.

The controls themselves can add either an additional level of immersion, or make it easier for non-hardcore gamers to actually want to play the games. For some types of games, it's no different than a normal controllers, for others it is.

This is where we're most likely to bust heads. I don't see how the Wii mote adds immersion. From my perspective it always took away from the game I was playin' and if a game had other controller options I always, always used it. Not only was the comfort an issue for me but at times my hands get rather unsteady. Where the other controls can act as an anchor, the Wii mote and how it works does not, for me at least.

It's created a whole new market for video games; it's also helped make video games more mainstream, by bringing in that untapped market.

It did do that, for sure. However that can't be caused by the controller, that'd be more on the games, imo. If you consider the majority of the content on the Wii and its price you really have the best deal of any new console I, personally, have ever seen. It really leans toward the more family oriented bunch and with the recent fitness lifestyle trend goin' on it totally did what other consoles could have done, but didn't, by deliverin' on that front as well.

The Wii(via the Wiimote) isn't the end-all, greatest thing ever, but you're acting like the thing bombed on launch day and never got a single sale. Motion controls aren't the ultimate(but then no one ever said they were), but again, you're acting like they never worked and have been completely abandoned by the industry.

Absolutely not and if I projected that attitude I apologize but I can't re-call ever sayin' the system and the remote was a failure, though I attempted my best to show my disgust with the controller, which inevitably led to me sellin' the system for a PS3. The content had a lot to do with it as well but it all just added up on me. The only thing I was tryin' to get across is that I don't think it's the most advanced controller out there.

Advancing is moving forwards, in terms of technology it's either evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary is just upgrades, something getting better as time goes on(PS3/360). Revolutionary is an actual change, doing something different(Wii). Both are legitimate forms of advancement, whether you're willing to accept it or not.

See, I just can't see the Wiimote as that. It's true that the motion controls in the thing are spectacular. But it's like I said to Skaw earlier, no matter how advanced my techniques are for a Street Fighter character that doesn't make the character more advanced, just my play style. The Wii didn't really do anything more than do something different on it's own. It's like the Goth kid of consoles (let's only consider why one considers themselves Goth and stay away from mental aspects and more on clothing/appearance) I wouldn't exactly call the Goth kid, of now, revolutionary, just different. The Wii so far hasn't changed the way we play games totally, which I would see as Revolutionary. I think the Wii sparked with a lot of people because it was different, yes, but somethin' revolutionary is a movement. Maybe if it totally re-defined the way we play games as a majority I could buy it. Like I've already make clear though, it's an opinion based argument from my standpoint and the fact that I do not enjoy the Wii may carry a lot of bias, though I really wanted to like it especially since the Trauma Center games are some of my favorite titles. However, it's hard for me to see it as more than a wireless and lazor DS.

Back on a controller stand-point, both the Xbox controller and Wii has something unique and the PS3 has Blu-ray/Bluetooth. They are all different and I can't see them outside of the same light no matter how hard I try. One has an exquisite motion sensing system, the other an on-board comm. port, and the PS3's already listed. Then we could go on with opinions like though they did this are they still comfortable, etc, but that's not worth gettin' in to really to see my point. Sure comm. ports are not some fancy technology but it does make the Xbox controller different, in a less exquisite manner. See where my heads at on this?

Maybe there are some holes in all of that and I'd be glad to carry this on in this sort of manner. I'm in no mood to fight about it though despite my somewhat investigative manner earlier.

 

[Firestreak]

Side-ways to what though? Console controllers haven't really changed since the NES. The only difference between now and then are additional buttons and directional inputs.

Sideways towards a movement away from controllers as a physical entity, I presume. In present, we're dealing with a temporary technology, and as such, you can look at features like rechargable, built in batteries(one of the ps3 controller's best features), wireless technology, motion sensing, tilt sensing, rumble, ext, and you can try and pit them against each other and question which is more advanced. The answer is none, because "advanced" is not the word to use here in a comparative form.

You can compare the PS3's controller against the PS2's controller and declare advancement, if they are identical form and one simply has more features. You can't compare the Xbox 1's controller against the wiimote because then you hit the wall of preference. I can more easily compare polygon counts and processing power, because it's not a matter of preference there. I can display Final Fantasy 7 on my PS3, I can't play Ninja Gaiden 2 on my Wii. It's not an advancement it's a change, which aren't always the same thing.

This is not an attempt to derive a value in this change, or justify one person's preferences over another, rather to clarify where I think the word "advancement" is fairly usable in an abstract semantic argument.

 

[Strid]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Grandphoenix]

You guys are all wrong the DDR Pad is the most advanced controller for a next gen console.

 

[Strid]

The NES Track and Field mat comes to mind.

 

[Skaw]

Sideways towards a movement away from controllers as a physical entity, I presume. In present, we're dealing with a temporary technology, and as such, you can look at features like rechargable, built in batteries(one of the ps3 controller's best features), wireless technology, motion sensing, tilt sensing, rumble, ext, and you can try and pit them against each other and question which is more advanced. The answer is none, because "advanced" is not the word to use here in a comparative form.

Yeah, but shouldn't a split off still be considered an advancement? It's not really sideways progress as much as forked progress. Aren't steps towards a buttonless interface still advancement? Their execution might not be this gigantic leap, but the progress towards the eventual goal is still there.

Take NASA for example. The goal was to land on the moon. Does that mean the manned orbital flights weren't advancement because they weren't moon landings?

And Strid, I was getting at that what you consider advancement contradicts what you also don't consider advancement.

 

[Strid]

And Strid, I was getting at that what you consider advancement contradicts what you also don't consider advancement.

I got that, which I why I posed more questions than answers. I don't have all the answers, but then again, who does?

I'm interested in this:

Yeah, but shouldn't a split off still be considered an advancement?

In regards to somethin' I said earlier:

The Wii didn't really do anything more than do something different on it's own. It's like the Goth kid of consoles (let's only consider why one considers themselves Goth and stay away from mental aspects and more on clothing/appearance) I wouldn't exactly call the Goth kid, of now, revolutionary, just different.

 

[Skaw]

Ofcourse a Goth kid today isn't revolutionary, but what about the Gothic subculture when it first hit? I'd say a music style and fashion trend are pretty revolutionary things to make successful, even if I myself don't like either of them.

Regardless, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Just because you see Nintendo as trying to be different doesn't mean they're trying to be individualists.

 

[Strid]

Ofcourse a Goth kid today isn't revolutionary, but what about the Gothic subculture when it first hit? I'd say a music style and fashion trend are pretty revolutionary things to make successful, even if I myself don't like either of them.

But is/was it a revolutionary trend, Or just different? What exactly did it do? Rebellion isn't always revolutionary, not even most of the time.

Regardless, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Oh? You're loss for seein' it that way then. If that's the case, why are you tryin' to justify either? It's pointless, like I said in the beginning, yet, here we are still chattin'.

 

[Skaw]

But is/was it a revolutionary trend, Or just different? What exactly did it do? Rebellion isn't always revolutionary, not even most of the time.

Where did you get Rebellion out of this? The Industrial Revolution wasn't rebellious either.

Oh? You're loss for seein' it that way then. If that's the case, why are you tryin' to justify either? It's pointless, like I said in the beginning, yet, here we are still chattin'.

Because it's an advancement despite all the "NO IT ISN'T!" and terrible comparisons going on. If it isn't an advancement in a direction you favor or even care about, or isn't heralded as a life changing evolution, that doesn't nullify it from being an advancement. Baby steps are still progress. Even new uses for old concepts are still advancements.