PS3 price cut coming.

It took all of 5 minutes to talk to everyone in town and figure out everything that needed to be done. Get the cat back to the shop keeper for the sling shot, shoot down the beehive in front of the guy's house, get the basket back for the fishing rod. In the same time, you find out that the cat will only come back if it catches a fish, which means that you have to catch the fish for it; so getting the rod comes first.

When you did the required first summoning of the hawk, a cross hair appeared, which means you could shoot it at stuff. Another five to ten minutes of exploration, something that you should already know to do if you've ever played any non-sports game ever made(which I found right after learning about the hawk for the first time), and you find the second set of hawk grass(there's a third on top of the mayor's house too, guess you didn't find that either). It took me maybe one minute max to figure out what I had to do.

You could see the monkey from the second set of hawk grass, which was the only reason it was even there. They don't put shit like that in a game for no reason. You're an idiot for getting stumped by such a simple puzzle and then trying to say there was no way to solve it by yourself. Of the entire series of events, the only part even remotely hard to get is that you can shoot the hawk into something. Since you already knew you could hit things with the hawk, but apparently didn't want to explore about 30 feet from the first hawk grass or bother to think; no wonder you got stumped. Just get over the fact that you, personally, and solely failed and stop blaming the game that no one else had any problems with.

And Kingdom Hearts doesn't look much better than Mario Party 8 does. The only difference is that KH has better skins, because it was a game with a plot and action and it was made by SE, a company renown for great graphics in their games. Mario Party 8, is a fucking party game, graphics aren't nearly as important as the mini-games being fun, as long as the graphics do not in any way hinder the game play. I don't think even your graphics-whoring-moron self could say that the MP8 graphics actually hurt the game play.

It required jumping over something that was not blatantly visible and not apparent if the camera didn't automatically roll over it. Being that you have no camera control via Zelda, a well made layout of important things that are not obvious will be there(e.g. a place to jump from one rooftop to another), is important. If the camera never swerved over it, and there was no clue that entire platform would even be there, there's no reason for me to find the place.

Couple it that from the original place where that showed the place with the bird, if you try to shoot that goblin thingy there was no angle to do it and they put a set of islands near towards him for no goddamn reason which led me to believe that's how to get to him.

It was just a bad design, and after I skipped over the rooftop area I spent a long time try to find different possible ways to go past.

Here there is no logic, no method or puzzle. Don't hype it up more than it is, it's just a question of finding a platform that there's no way to know is there unless you search in some specific spot.

As for Kingdom Hearts 2.

It came out on a system that was launched SEVEN YEARS AGO. Any Wii game that looks worse than it is a disgrace, which is unfortunately, most of them.

Maybe good looking visuals aren't a requirement for a party game, but it's a popular franchise for Nintendo, they could have put a little bit of fucking effort into it. It's just really sad and pathetic, almost as much as the fact you just overlook it and keep buying that shit year after year.
 
Quite frankly neither of these systems interested me until Soul Calibur 4 was announced as being for those systems.
Wii prettymuch bends em over and inserts the wiichucks up thier exhaust pipes while being able to promise more games coming out that people will be playing for years to come.
 
Quite frankly neither of these systems interested me until Soul Calibur 4 was announced as being for those systems.
Wii prettymuch bends em over and inserts the wiichucks up thier exhaust pipes while being able to promise more games coming out that people will be playing for years to come.

I think the most sad thing is that the Wii is still popular due to a gimmick. Sure it's a good gimmick, but once the novelty wears off of using a wiimote, there won't be as much demand for them compared to the increased depth and gameplay of a PS3's title. At least that's how I'm figuring it. The Wii and PS3 both are going to have a really long life, compared to the 360 which is going to be phased out in about a 5 year lifetime. Microshaft will come up with a replacement to keep up with the PS3's untapped power likely in 2010 or so. So in that respect, PS3 is more worth my money now of the three, since Wii rarely gets good single player games.

I don't hate the Wii, in fact I fucking love Res Evil 4 for it. It's by far the most fun I've ever had in a RE game. I can't wait to see how RE5 plays out on the PS3/360 though, should be fun but I'm going to miss the point and shoot techniques.
 
It required jumping over something that was not blatantly visible and not apparent if the camera didn't automatically roll over it. Being that you have no camera control via Zelda, a well made layout of important things that are not obvious will be there(e.g. a place to jump from one rooftop to another), is important. If the camera never swerved over it, and there was no clue that entire platform would even be there, there's no reason for me to find the place.

Couple it that from the original place where that showed the place with the bird, if you try to shoot that goblin thingy there was no angle to do it and they put a set of islands near towards him for no goddamn reason which led me to believe that's how to get to him.

It was just a bad design, and after I skipped over the rooftop area I spent a long time try to find different possible ways to go past.

Here there is no logic, no method or puzzle. Don't hype it up more than it is, it's just a question of finding a platform that there's no way to know is there unless you search in some specific spot.
Looks like you didn't figure out the controls after all. Hitting the C button puts the camera behind you. The rooftop that leads to the second hawk grass is in plain view, you run straight from when you find the first hawk grass and you're on the roof. You seriously fail at exploring or even looking around if you missed a fucking building right next to you.

You're also contradicting yourself. You're saying there wasn't any way to know you could get over to the second hawk grass, but you also saw the islands and figured that's where to go.

Of all of the people who have played TP on these boards, you are the ONLY one who had problems with this puzzle. That says it's a problem with you, not the game.
 
I think the most sad thing is that the Wii is still popular due to a gimmick. Sure it's a good gimmick, but once the novelty wears off of using a wiimote, there won't be as much demand for them compared to the increased depth and gameplay of a PS3's title. At least that's how I'm figuring it. The Wii and PS3 both are going to have a really long life, compared to the 360 which is going to be phased out in about a 5 year lifetime. Microshaft will come up with a replacement to keep up with the PS3's untapped power likely in 2010 or so. So in that respect, PS3 is more worth my money now of the three, since Wii rarely gets good single player games.

I don't hate the Wii, in fact I fucking love Res Evil 4 for it. It's by far the most fun I've ever had in a RE game. I can't wait to see how RE5 plays out on the PS3/360 though, should be fun but I'm going to miss the point and shoot techniques.
The Wiimote isn't a gimmick, a gimmick is a unimportant feature that's used to try to make the product seem different than other substitutes. Something isn't a gimmick when it's the primary feature of the product. Also, you're ignoring how almost every single third party developer in the world is building stuff for the Wii, so there's very little chance of it fizzling out when everyone is making games for it and millions are playing them.

The last thing you're forgetting is that the Wii isn't only for hardcore gamers; parents and the elderly are all playing the Wii exclusively, they're not going to pick up a PS3 controller, ever. Hardcore gamers will have another console, because you're right; the Wii doesn't have as much single player content at the moment(although there is TP, Super Paper Mario and Harry Potter). There's more single player games coming out, but Nintendo went for the games that would demonstrate the motion sensetive features of the console

PS3 also doesn't have any more depth than PS2 does, just better graphics.
 
Arguably, the PS3 does have at least one advantage that could be exploited by Sony at some point in the future: The PS3 can, in theory, be a Wii. Since all the systems have hard drives, and it's got tons of bandwidth for its controllers anyway, you could, again in theory, release what is functionally a Wii-style controller (full motion sense and accelerometer, etc) for the PS3, along with a disc containing any necessary drivers etc.

Thus far, the latest console war isn't over yet. 2008 will see most of it, 2009 will probably be the decisive year, and probably not be all that decisive.
 
PS3 also doesn't have any more depth than PS2 does, just better graphics.

If you truly believe that they won't extend game length and depth with all the extra resources, then feel free to make comments like that.

I don't mean that the Wii will fizzle out of popularity, I mean that it won't be the most highly demanded system forever. The motion controls for most Wii games I've played seem like an afterthought, or they were just annoying. PS3's motion controls will also catch up once developers learn more about them and use them to their advantage. I've never felt that waving the Wiimote in Zelda was any more fun (read: less fun) than just pushing a button.

Games that really use the motion controls are the winners for me, but they're few and far between. Wii-sports, Elebits, and RE4 were great because they gave a sense of immersion in the game you were playing by making the controls directly relate to what happens on the screen. Zelda was like, sure you can wave the Wiimote, but it doesn't change the speed/angle/direction of the sword swing. Games like Warioware and Mario Party 8 were plain not fun to me after the first few rounds of the exact same gameplay repeated to me.

You have a good point about the not for hardcore gamers, but I think that's a poor classification. "Hardcore" gamers go for the 360 because that's what they think is hardcore. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play Halo think they're hardcore gamers. Nobody who plays a console based game exclusively is really that hardcore, since most of them have assistance to make up for lack of range of motion. Keyboard and Mouse will always win vs controller in skill required.

Wii is a great system, and really won the worldwide race to the top, but I feel that in the long run, the PS3 will catch up and make Wii at least sweat a bit about its lead. Gamecube had a better graphics engine than the PS2, but the capacity of the PS2 disks made it win. The same can't be said about Wii vs PS3, but there's potential for balance in the market. PS3 vs 360 is a different story altogether but that race isn't even fair since the 360 is a sprinter, and PS3 is a marathon runner.
 
If you truly believe that they won't extend game length and depth with all the extra resources, then feel free to make comments like that.
Game length, maybe, but doubtful. PS2 games were already plenty long, depending on the game; but the capacity for bluray is primarily for accommodating the HD graphics or has been already shown, letting you waste space with uncompressed sound.

What depth could the PS3 possibly add? The games still control, act, feel exactly the same as on the PS2, they just look a lot better. Actually, the feel a hell of a lot less, since there's no rumble anymore; although they'll be bringing that back soon. Better graphics will make the games more enjoyable(provided the game doesn't suck to begin with), but they don't add any depth to the games. A cell processor doesn't automatically improve the story, the voice work or make the game fun to play, that's all done through the software and exists on every single console; so where is this improved depth you're talking about?

I don't mean that the Wii will fizzle out of popularity, I mean that it won't be the most highly demanded system forever. The motion controls for most Wii games I've played seem like an afterthought, or they were just annoying. PS3's motion controls will also catch up once developers learn more about them and use them to their advantage. I've never felt that waving the Wiimote in Zelda was any more fun (read: less fun) than just pushing a button.
There's only been maybe 3 games that the Wiimote controls were actually tacked on near the end. Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and maybe 1 other I'm forgetting. Everything else was built for the Wii specifically, or was multi-platform and had it's own team designing the Wii controls during the development.

Games that really use the motion controls are the winners for me, but they're few and far between. Wii-sports, Elebits, and RE4 were great because they gave a sense of immersion in the game you were playing by making the controls directly relate to what happens on the screen. Zelda was like, sure you can wave the Wiimote, but it doesn't change the speed/angle/direction of the sword swing. Games like Warioware and Mario Party 8 were plain not fun to me after the first few rounds of the exact same gameplay repeated to me.
So you've played 6 games, 2 of which you don't seem to like the genre period, and another with the tacked on controls. There's still a bunch of games out there with well built wiimote controls, just because you haven't played them doesn't mean they don't exist.

You have a good point about the not for hardcore gamers, but I think that's a poor classification. "Hardcore" gamers go for the 360 because that's what they think is hardcore. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play Halo think they're hardcore gamers. Nobody who plays a console based game exclusively is really that hardcore, since most of them have assistance to make up for lack of range of motion. Keyboard and Mouse will always win vs controller in skill required.
No, they're still hardcore players, they're not oldschool gamers, but they're under the classification of hardcore. Hardcore is synonymous with a serious gamer, they're the ones who would buy a PS3/360 as well as a Wii. They're the ones who are comfortable with a controller and playing games; they don't have to play 10 hours out of every day to be classified as hardcore.

Saying you have to play on PC to be a hardcore gamer is just wrong. Hell, that'd mean my mom is hardcore since she plays spider solitaire. Keyboard + Mouse doesn't require any more skill, it's just significantly easier to use. Hell, the Wii setup for FPS is better than using a normal controller and is the closest thing to mouse+keyboard.

Wii is a great system, and really won the worldwide race to the top, but I feel that in the long run, the PS3 will catch up and make Wii at least sweat a bit about its lead. Gamecube had a better graphics engine than the PS2, but the capacity of the PS2 disks made it win. The same can't be said about Wii vs PS3, but there's potential for balance in the market. PS3 vs 360 is a different story altogether but that race isn't even fair since the 360 is a sprinter, and PS3 is a marathon runner.
PS3's going to have to work pretty hard just to make it to second place at this rate. The price drop will help, but it's not going to be nearly a big enough difference when the gaming library is still so lacking. In another year, PS3 will have the games to justify the price tag, but 360 and the Wii will keep gaining ground that will become difficult to catch up.
 
Why can't everyone be happy thinking the PS3 is an extremely cheap BluRay player and will have FFXIII in it "soon". The ones who don't already have it, if they buy it will do so at $100 less that what I bought mine for...
That's winning straight from the start. lol
 
Why can't everyone be happy thinking the PS3 is an extremely cheap BluRay player and will have FFXIII in it "soon". The ones who don't already have it, if they buy it will do so at $100 less that what I bought mine for...
That's winning straight from the start. lol
By extremely cheap, you mean around the same price as almost every other blu-ray on the market, right? It's still a lot of money to throw down for a single game, especially since HD movies aren't going to take hold for a few years.

I could spend 1/5 of the money on any blu-ray player on a upscaling DVD player and get a 1080p picture. Sure it wouldn't be quite the same quality, but blu-ray wouldn't be $400+ better.
 
Why can't everyone be happy thinking the PS3 is an extremely cheap BluRay player and will have FFXIII in it "soon". The ones who don't already have it, if they buy it will do so at $100 less that what I bought mine for...
That's winning straight from the start. lol

Fairly simple answer there: People hate Sony.

With some folks, they've hated Sony for a long time. They got into gaming either fairly late and went directly to Xbox, or they jumped ship to it after they got tired of their PS1. They've made a lifestyle out of deriding Sony and see no reason to change now. They feel resentful that Sony won the last console war by an overwhelming margin, and probably think that Halo represents the pinnacle of human achievement. Alternately, there's a subset that wound up buying the Xbox, sticking with it, and regretted not buying a PS2 instead. Now, after buying their 360, they're hoping they haven't made the wrong choice again, and are perfectly willing to cry sour grapes for the next 6 years.

With other folks, they were Sony fans. They felt confident that Sony would win this console war based on all the pre-launch hype. Then the delays set in, Microsoft forged ahead with a flawed product and took a commanding lead, Nintendo tapped into a new demographic and took the country by storm, and PS3... sold reasonable numbers. So now they feel let down by Sony for not living up to their expectations, and bash the company and its products at every opportunity.


The fact of the matter is that each console has its virtues and vices. The 360 has a very slight edge in certain graphics issues, is easy to program for, and has a significant lead over the other consoles. On the down side, its got less overall power than the PS3, has fewer capabilities, and is significantly less reliable at the moment. The Wii has a new controller concept (since its fanboys hate hearing it called a "gimmick"), and a well established demographic of casual and party game players. On the down side, it has the lowest graphics potential of any system this generation and is limited by the innovation that is also its biggest selling point. The PS3 is the most powerful, the most versatile, and definitely possessed of the most potential of the three. It's also the most expensive, programmers find it difficult to tap that potential, and its a latecomer to the market that the 360 has taken a commanding lead in.

I repeat that we'll probably be waiting until 2009 to see how this finally turns out, and I wish everyone could just shut the fuck up and be happy with their own fucking systems.
 
Really, hoping for longer games, from a developers point of view, is awful. Development budgets keep going up - the price of games, not as much to even remotely reflect it. Flops are extremely painful to a company these days. While some companies will sink the extra money in to producing a long title, due to guaranteed success through name recognition(MGS/FFXIII,) the only true advantage Blu-Ray has to most companies, is the ability to avoid compression.
 
But get a fucking clue what you're talking about first.

Same could be said for you. Both sides are pure speculation, you should treat it that way. PS3 can have all the hardware advantages in the world and still flop. Dreamcast anyone?

Negorissimo said:
Why can't everyone be happy thinking the PS3 is an extremely cheap BluRay player and will have FFXIII in it "soon". The ones who don't already have it, if they buy it will do so at $100 less that what I bought mine for...
That's winning straight from the start. lol

Because Blu-ray is stupid. Why should I pay $30 bucks for a movie I can buy on DVD for $15-20? Maybe when it's cheaper but even then Blu-ray players will go down too and so will DVD things. A movie is a movie is a movie. It's suppose to be a video game system but instead is thought of as a "cheap Blu-ray player" and Sony is right there supportin' it, you don't see a problem there?
 
Last edited:
The Wii has a new controller concept (since its fanboys hate hearing it called a "gimmick")
That's because by definition it's not a gimmick. It's pretty weak to call someone a fanboy just because they know what the word means and you don't. If the Wiimote is a gimmick, then so is blu-ray and the cell processor.

I'm not liking sony, because they're trying to sell me shit I don't want, don't need, and then treat me like I'm an idiot for not wanting to waste my money. The games for the PS3 have yet to impress me, in any way, aside from their graphics. I've got almost no reason to buy a PS3, but the sony fanboys are acting like it was developed by god himself, cures all disease and even increases your penis size to boot.

Sony's realized that the PS3 is not doing well as a gaming console(that's the main purpose, by the way), which is why they're pushing so hard for people to consider it a cheap blu-ray movie player. Well, that and they're desperate for the blu-ray to not fail as a format. While blu-ray is more likely to win the format war; both formats are failing so horribly that it's equally possible they'll just both lose and people will stick with DVD until we move to direct downloads.
 
Last edited:
I dunno what to say about all this... but the only system i've seen on the public news is the Wii.. and then 360 for the 3 year warranty thing. I just think their wiimote is expanding their range of players. On nbc news i saw an article of old ppl in retirement homes playing Wii sports (bowling). On ABC news they were showing the Wii in public places like bars and etc.. having their own mini tournaments and etc if i remember. I think the Wii is successful at this moment because of this: that their controller isn't 'traditional,' that it's different and that has made ppl of all ages more interested in the system. I could be wrong.. but that's just my theory. I live in dallas and i still see "Wii temporarily sold out" signs in the front of stores.

As for games being the same thing over and over... I think that's more of something a player who hates said game series would say possibly. Like I think the Grand Theft Auto Series is the same thing... but adds new mode of transportation (from 3 to where ever it is now). Just using that as an example. Sports series games are all the same but with different modes and stat/player updates. The traditional Mario games are platformers that are simple to pick up. I won't go into zelda since I think that has been covered.

If games were about the best graphics and/or gimmicks then Wii's virtual console would be worthless. There's more to a game than graphics and gimmicks otherwise ppl wouldn't go back to the old school. People would prefer FFX over FF7, mariokart DD over the original mariokart, the latest starfox (dunno what it's called) over Starfox 64... and so on.

Give me a good plot, with good music and good gameplay and I really couldn't care about the graphics... It could be stick figures for all I care. I think the effect of eye candy lasts like a day or so because when I look at a game, I look at the graphics but then in the long run, they really don't matter to how fun the games are. Gameplay keeps your interested... the music of a game gets you into it, and the plotline makes you want more.. that's my theory upon games. No matter how beautiful the game is... if you're not having fun and if it doesn't make you want to play more... it's a bad game in your eyes.
 
Last edited:
The Wii controller is a gimmick. It's a very clever gimmick, but it still qualifies as a gimmick. You can feel free to disagree, but it's a gimmick in the same sense that rumble is a gimmick, that the Sixaxis is a gimmick, that the Eyetoy is a gimmick, that the fucking POWER GLOVE was a gimmick.

I might add that I BOUGHT a Power Glove.

It's a different way of doing things, that's not essential, is frequently impractical, but when properly applied is quite brilliant. I call it a gimmick.

1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

My definition is technically correct. But FANBOYS don't like the word because they think it's somehow demeaning to the Wii.
 
there - is - nothing - wrong - with - gimmicks

isn't that what developers or etc are trying to come up with to make whatever they want sell? would SNES using L and R on their controllers be called a gimmick? Because when SNES came out.. i was fascinated by the L and R buttons. XD Back when I was a crappy gamer, I was fascinated by how many buttons you could put on a controller... I'd say "My ______ controller has more buttons than your _________ controller." Genesis vs. SNES anyone? >.>

I'm not a wii fanboy or whatever.. i don't even own a next gen system... I'm just trying to stay on neutral ground and try to call it like i see it. In the end.. I hope each system finds a way to survive this 'console war' which shouldn't even be a 'war' in the first place. Why can't it just be friendly competition like the old Sega and SNES days...
 
Last edited:
The Wii controller is a gimmick. It's a very clever gimmick, but it still qualifies as a gimmick. You can feel free to disagree, but it's a gimmick in the same sense that rumble is a gimmick, that the Sixaxis is a gimmick, that the Eyetoy is a gimmick, that the fucking POWER GLOVE was a gimmick.

I might add that I BOUGHT a Power Glove.

It's a different way of doing things, that's not essential, is frequently impractical, but when properly applied is quite brilliant. I call it a gimmick.

1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

My definition is technically correct. But FANBOYS don't like the word because they think it's somehow demeaning to the Wii.
You left out cell processor and blu-ray.

Gimmick has a negative connotation to it, most often with this definition:

to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, esp. in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc.

Feature is a far better word for what you're intending. Gimmick is associated with almost worthless features that are only added to say that you have them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top