[jjacob]

http://www.playsyde.com/news_2734_en.html

I'd have to say I'm extremely disappointed. The only remotely interesting tech demo is the "raycast_demo.avi" which is clearly running at 15 frames per second I'm usually not one to judge too early, but it seriously looks like MS is beating Sony hands down. If this is what Sony thinks will make us change our minds, they're clearly insane. Compare this with the Killzone tech-demo (which turned out to be fake/pre-rendered). Next-gen my ass.

[Dasilva]

Okay, now I know Im getting a Xbox 360.

[insane_cobra]

All the demos I've seen so far and all available gameplay footage only prove what experts have been telling us all along - PS3 and Xbox 360 games will look very similar. That's great, maybe now this silly pissing match can come to an end. The real battle should be fought with next gen ideas, not just sharper graphics, better physics and more enemies on screen.

Speaking of Killzone, a part of me is sad we won't be seeing visuals of that quality anytime soon, but another part gloats remembering all those Sony fanboys screaming "nooo, they lied to us before, but this is for real!!!1!" after the last year's E3.

[tabacco]

Yeah, they showed the fish one at GDC. nice looking, but who cares?

[artwking4]

It's not like they have two years to work on it and clean it up and make it look like a real game. What exactly were you expecting? Why would you think that the purpose of the tech demo is to convince gamers whether or not to like a console? I thought was the job of the games themselves.

[tabacco]

Didn't say it was supposed to convince gamers. Most of the GDC tech demos were to show off the ability to offload certain tasks to different SPUs. And that's cool, but if all they have to show about the console is "check out how powerful it is" then as a gamer I find myself yawning. Especially compared with Iwata's speech the next day, where it was all about "check out the awesome new ways we can create gameplay!"

[Dasilva]

I knew the PS3 coulden't be as powerful as some older videos I've seen, at least the 360 tech demos are more realistic, and not portraid as a CG movie.

[artwking4]

Originally Posted by tabacco

Didn't say it was supposed to convince gamers. Most of the GDC tech demos were to show off the ability to offload certain tasks to different SPUs. And that's cool, but if all they have to show about the console is "check out how powerful it is" then as a gamer I find myself yawning. Especially compared with Iwata's speech the next day, where it was all about "check out the awesome new ways we can create gameplay!"

I was actually commenting on what jjacob said, but okay.

I do agree, these clips alone don't really get me too excited either. I don't think the general gaming public is the intended audience for these demos. Although I kinda like the fish one.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Dasilva

I knew the PS3 coulden't be as powerful as some older videos I've seen, at least the 360 tech demos are more realistic, and not portraid as a CG movie.

Oh. Took me a second to realize that was a misspelled version of 'portrayed'.

[Dasilva]

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Dasilva

Okay, now I know Im getting a Xbox 360.

Okay, now I know I'm going to spend my money on a better PC

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

All the demos I've seen so far and all available gameplay footage only prove what experts have been telling us all along - PS3 and Xbox 360 games will look very similar. That's great, maybe now this silly pissing match can come to an end. The real battle should be fought with next gen ideas, not just sharper graphics, better physics and more enemies on screen.

Speaking of Killzone, a part of me is sad we won't be seeing visuals of that quality anytime soon, but another part gloats remembering all those Sony fanboys screaming "nooo, they lied to us before, but this is for real!!!1!" after the last year's E3.

I agree, and so far, Nintendo is winning. They may not have specs anywhere near as powerful as either of its competitors, but atleast they've got some fresh ideas and a "revolutionary" control scheme. Seriously, the possibilities for games with that new controller are near endless (yes, I know that's an April fools joke ).

Originally Posted by artwking4

It's not like they have two years to work on it and clean it up and make it look like a real game. What exactly were you expecting? Why would you think that the purpose of the tech demo is to convince gamers whether or not to like a console? I thought was the job of the games themselves.

Well, something better than this. Ofcourse the games ultimately convince gamers if they like the console or not, but a tech demo's purpose is to show off the technical capabilities. I simply expected the (hyped) Cell processor to be a lot more capable than this. 15fps on the raycast demo which didn't look THAT complicated is not really impressive and certainly doesn't succeed in impressing me as a gamer, and it'd probably have thesame effect on a developer, methinks.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I agree, and so far, Nintendo is winning. They may not have specs anywhere near as powerful as either of its competitors, but atleast they've got some fresh ideas and a "revolutionary" control scheme. Seriously, the possibilities for games with that new controller are near endless (yes, I know that's an April fools joke ).

I think people are getting excited about a control based on a gyroscope(Microsoft had one of those, right?) and "ideas" that have not been shown yet based on the "ideas" found on the GameCube must really be something( that something being dog poo).

Yeah, sure there might be a fishing game that uses the control, and other games that purely use the controller as a gimmick. I'm hardly excited about what that controller could do for any games.

[Thrik]

I take it you haven't played on the DS then, AJ.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Seriously, the possibilities for games with that new controller are near endless (yes, I know that's an April fools joke ).

That's the keyword, "possibilities". Until someone actually comes out and makes a game for it that is not a Mario or Zelda or Metroid, I'll just sit and yawn.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Thrik

I take it you haven't played on the DS then, AJ.

It has a stylus that is mostly used in predictable ways, which is great, because it's very easy to see how beneficial one could be. Gyroscopes on the other hand... what have you got? Donkey Konga and Bass Fishing?

[Thrik]

Don't forget that the controller is designed so it can be tilted and held the other way around, and comfortably used in a similar fashion to the (S)NES control pads; it's not like it's limited to being used like a stick. Add to this the fact that it'll undercut the other consoles' going rate by a considerable margin, and it suddenly becomes a very desirable piece of kit — if it's supported by developers.

I think you're thinking a little too literally about how it could be used in games, though; you almost seem to think that a game could have to be based around the controller, instead of the other way around. This is also what many people thought about the DS, which it turned out to not be the case, and it has become an incredibly successful machine.

At the most basic level, the controller could be used just like a regular controller, except instead of having a million buttons on it bound to various things such as "open inventory" and whatnot, you could do simple gestures with the controller. Subtle, but it frees up your fingers so that they can fully concentrate on the action.

But still, until the thing comes out and developers/publishers (of which many have showed interest, incidentally) get their teeth into it, it's impossible to say just how much of an impact it will have.

When it comes to Nintendo and control pads, though, it's worth reserving a little faith: remember, it was they who brought d-pads and analog sticks to the masses, which ultimately led to their standardization. I'm sure people were saying similar things about how using a tiny "joystick" instead of a d-pad or a real joystick was pointless back then, too.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Thrik

I think you're thinking a little too literally about how it could be used in games, though; you almost seem to think that a game could have to be based around the controller, instead of the other way around. This is also what many people thought about the DS, which it turned out to not be the case, and it has become an incredibly successful machine.

Like Mark Rein said, there are going to be a tonne of games released built around the controller, and they'll be lame. There are some DS games that have gimmick gameplay based around the stylus that could have been on a PC or Tablet, but weren't because it's lame.

At the most basic level, the controller could be used just like a regular controller, except instead of having a million buttons on it bound to various things such as "open inventory" and whatnot, you could do simple gestures with the controller. Subtle, but it frees up your fingers so that they can fully concentrate on the action.

And it'll be lame, the current pads are great, Microsoft already did a gyroscopic pad with limited number of buttons, it sucked, no one bought it.

When it comes to Nintendo and control pads, though, it's worth reserving a little faith: remember, it was they who brought d-pads and analog sticks to the masses, which ultimately led to their standardization. I'm sure people were saying similar things about how using a tiny "joystick" instead of a d-pad or a real joystick was pointless back then, too.

Yeah, they'd never make a mistake involving a controller. I never liked the N64 controller, but apart from the analog stick, also I believe it had the first "rumble" of any console controller.

[tabacco]

Yeah, the power glove! Oh wait, that was made by Mattel.

Whatever.

Buy your PS3 or 360, I'm preordering a revolution.

[Thrik]

Of course there will be a tonne based around it at first; it's a novelty. The machine isn't going to vanish after six months, and after the developers have gotten the initial fun out of their system, they can start to work on using it in ways which truly complement the gameplay.

And you think the concept of using gestures instead of pressing buttons is lame? What? How is shifting your fingers across to hit buttons to do stuff preferable to just waving your controller sharply to the left?

It's not stripped of buttons, either. There are five buttons to use, not including the start button; adding buttons upon buttons is not the answer, it over complicates the experience, and generally makes getting into a new game more daunting than it should be; a better designed in-game interface can easily make up for less buttons, with the buttons themselves used for actual interaction with the game; gestures could be used for less common stuff.

As for Microsoft already giving this a half-arsed attempt in the past: so what? Nintendo weren't the first to the punch when it came to designing the NES controller either, but because they were the first to get it right and push it strongly as — and here's the defining factor — a mandatory peripheral, people were largely forced to give it a try, developers had a blast with it, and it ultimately became standardized. The same goes for the N64's analog stick.

Perhaps Nintendo no longer have the weight to make something that's been done before become a standard, or perhaps they do; as I said, we won't know until it's out. Outright saying that it'll be lame and/or suck before even trying it is just daft, though, and really kills my desire to bother taking you seriously.

[tabacco]

Not to mention the impact of a pointable controller on FPS games.