Which CONSOLE!?

[Mechafan]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.  I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW.  If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480.  WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg.  You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do.  I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC.  If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then?  I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade!  But that went down the toilet.

The nex gen consoles will be much better. I Have the Nvidia 6800GT and on Doom 3 it stutters on Ultra High, Ultra High is for 512 MB cards or the SLI setup. The PS3 GPU will be more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. I am not sure were the Xbox's GPU fits in the scale but the next gen will be better than anything on the market now even for PC at least till Nvidia brings out the G70 GPU or 7800. The 6800 Series is better in performance then the FX series. Plus they fixed alot of the DirectX 9 issues in the 6800 series that the FX series had.

Right now the 6800 Ultra Extreme is the hightest Nvidia card. It is 2 cards above mine. I have no issues with the latest PC games.

AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6800GT. Both are overclocked.

I am looking forward to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 since they will be better than the 2 best PC cards right now, ATI 850XT PE and Nivida 6800 Ultra Extreme. So rest assured the next gen consoles are going to be beasts. They are going to be at least 22 cards ahead of the GeForce FX 5200. The 6800 GT is 19 cards ahead of the FX 5200.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Mechafan

[Abombz!!]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.

Of course you do. The FX 5200 is a poorly rated, low end video card. That's not to say you can't do decent graphics on a budget, that's just a really shitty card.

If I remember well the FX5200 was comparable to a high end GeForce 3

I don't know, were the GeForce 3's crap, too? Seriously, though, the FX 5200 is considered to be a fairly poor video card. From performance to cooling, its gotten some pretty bad reviews.

The GeForce 3 was the last well rated Nvidia card. Compared to anything ATI had back then, it was da bomb. The Ti series Geforce 4 were pretty good, even putting most of the FX series to shame.

The pre-rendered/not pre-rendered mystery that came out of the PS3's "demo" of Killzone 2 was pretty underhanded as well.

Killzone and Unreal 3 were the only demos running in real time, everything else was prerendered. Thats one thing people will get tired of, Sony lies. I remember how they claimed the PS2 could run the FF8 dance scene in real time... did it ever? Nope. Now they show the FF7 intro and claim its in real time, when the hell are they going to learn?

and I find it really funny that some of the high profile games announced for the PS3 are considered launch titles. Honestly, I find that highly unlikely.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Abombz!!

[Oihan]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.  I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW.  If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480.  WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg.  You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do.  I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC.  If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then?  I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade!  But that went down the toilet.

The nex gen consoles will be much better. I Have the Nvidia 6800GT and on Doom 3 it stutters on Ultra High, Ultra High is for 512 MB cards or the SLI setup. The PS3 GPU will be more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. I am not sure were the Xbox's GPU fits in the scale but the next gen will be better than anything on the market now even for PC at least till Nvidia brings out the G70 GPU or 7800. The 6800 Series is better in performance then the FX series. Plus they fixed alot of the DirectX 9 issues in the 6800 series that the FX series had.

Right now the 6800 Ultra Extreme is the hightest Nvidia card. It is 2 cards above mine. I have no issues with the latest PC games.

AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6800GT. Both are overclocked.

I am looking forward to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 since they will be better than the 2 best PC cards right now, ATI 850XT PE and Nivida 6800 Ultra Extreme. So rest assured the next gen consoles are going to be beasts. They are going to be at least 22 cards ahead of the GeForce FX 5200. The 6800 GT is 19 cards ahead of the FX 5200.

So say I didn't want to spend more than $150 for a new video card, what would you or anyone else recommend? I bought my computer 2 years ago thinking that I'd be okay for at least 5 years before I had to upgrade again. It's year two and I'm having to already upgrade my video card.

[Abombz!!]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.  I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW.  If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480.  WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg.  You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do.  I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC.  If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then?  I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade!  But that went down the toilet.

The nex gen consoles will be much better. I Have the Nvidia 6800GT and on Doom 3 it stutters on Ultra High, Ultra High is for 512 MB cards or the SLI setup. The PS3 GPU will be more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. I am not sure were the Xbox's GPU fits in the scale but the next gen will be better than anything on the market now even for PC at least till Nvidia brings out the G70 GPU or 7800. The 6800 Series is better in performance then the FX series. Plus they fixed alot of the DirectX 9 issues in the 6800 series that the FX series had.

Right now the 6800 Ultra Extreme is the hightest Nvidia card. It is 2 cards above mine. I have no issues with the latest PC games.

AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6800GT. Both are overclocked.

I am looking forward to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 since they will be better than the 2 best PC cards right now, ATI 850XT PE and Nivida 6800 Ultra Extreme. So rest assured the next gen consoles are going to be beasts. They are going to be at least 22 cards ahead of the GeForce FX 5200. The 6800 GT is 19 cards ahead of the FX 5200.

So say I didn't want to spend more than $150 for a new video card, what would you or anyone else recommend? I bought my computer 2 years ago thinking that I'd be okay for at least 5 years before I had to upgrade again. It's year two and I'm having to already upgrade my video card.

If you look hard enough you could get a better card for cheap. I bought my ATI radeon 9800 Pro for $280 back when it was the new thing, I don't think it should go for more then $150 now a days since ATI has already rolled its new line. Its a pretty damn good card.

[Mechafan]

So say I didn't want to spend more than $150 for a new video card, what would you or anyone else recommend?  I bought my computer 2 years ago thinking that I'd be okay for at least 5 years before I had to upgrade again.  It's year two and I'm having to already upgrade my video card.

I could not recommend a good card under $300. The cheep ones are allready outdated. I would get a card with at least 256MB of RAM. One that I did find under $150 is the Geforce 6200 256MB card. That should run Doom 3 better that what you have. For a little more you could get the Geforce 6600. If you have the money get at least the Geforce 6800 series or ATI 800 series.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/ca...&Sort=0&Recs=30

[Duke Togo]

I'd recommend the Radeon 9600 XT 128Bit/256MB.

[Duke Togo]

While we are on the subject, I just upgraded my CPU, mobo, and VPU on Monday. I'm now running a Powercolor Radeon X800 XL 256Bit/256MB VIVO PCI-E card. Love it.

[Noriko Takaya]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

Should I point out that "Pong" isn't available on the Atari?

Just Video Olympics.

And personally, I say Warlords is the best. Particularly if you get 3 friends crowded around the console.

Dude, I still have my original Atari system from back in the late 70's. Pong was the first game made for it.

No, it wasn't.

The pack-in for the original 1977 "heavy sixer" decks was Combat, as it was with all VCS/2600s until PacMan replaced it in 1983.

And you will NEVER find a cartridge called simply "Pong."

The closest you will get is a TeleGames cart labelled "Pong Sports," which is the Sears-branded version of "Video Olympics."

You ARE half-right, however. Pong is present in Pong Sports, and PS/VO was one of the original nine games available at launch.

I'm getting my consoles mixed up. I have the stand alone deck which played only pong. My goof. I stand corrected.

[Abombz!!]

While we are on the subject, I just upgraded my CPU, mobo, and VPU on Monday. I'm now running a Powercolor Radeon X800 XL 256Bit/256MB VIVO PCI-E card. Love it.

I avoid powercolor cards like the plague. I owned 2 9800 Pros from them, and both had bad fans. I moved to pure breed ATI cards, and have never looked back.

[JB0]

All this talk about video cards reminds me that I have a Quadro FX sitting on a shelf.

Would be a nice change of pace from the GeForce2 I'm running right now.

I laugh at all your girlie men with your single-slot graphics cards.

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

Should I point out that "Pong" isn't available on the Atari?

Just Video Olympics.

And personally, I say Warlords is the best. Particularly if you get 3 friends crowded around the console.

Dude, I still have my original Atari system from back in the late 70's. Pong was the first game made for it.

No, it wasn't.

The pack-in for the original 1977 "heavy sixer" decks was Combat, as it was with all VCS/2600s until PacMan replaced it in 1983.

And you will NEVER find a cartridge called simply "Pong."

The closest you will get is a TeleGames cart labelled "Pong Sports," which is the Sears-branded version of "Video Olympics."

You ARE half-right, however. Pong is present in Pong Sports, and PS/VO was one of the original nine games available at launch.

I'm getting my consoles mixed up. I have the stand alone deck which played only pong. My goof. I stand corrected.

No prob.

I just find it amusing how many people remember owning Pong for their 2600 when no such beast exists.

Edited May 26, 2005 by JB0

[Radd]

I think I had one of the Pong games. I recall being able to switch between regular Pong and Pong Hockey and things like that. Whether it was PS or VO I couldn't really say. Sometimes I consider paying my parents a visit and rescuing the old 2600 and 5200 they have sitting around. I'd have to track down some wires for them though.

[JB0]

I think I had one of the Pong games. I recall being able to switch between regular Pong and Pong Hockey and things like that. Whether it was PS or VO I couldn't really say. Sometimes I consider paying my parents a visit and rescuing the old 2600 and 5200 they have sitting around. I'd have to track down some wires for them though.

Mmmmm, 5200...

The VCS/2600 has all standard parts. You can get everything you need to set it up out of Radio Shack.

5200 is a bit more complex.

Most notably, there's 2 diffrent designs, and one has the power coming in through the antenna cable. This version uses a proprietary auto-switchbox.

[F360°]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.  I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW.  If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480.  WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg.  You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do.  I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC.  If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then?  I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade!  But that went down the toilet.

The nex gen consoles will be much better. I Have the Nvidia 6800GT and on Doom 3 it stutters on Ultra High, Ultra High is for 512 MB cards or the SLI setup. The PS3 GPU will be more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. I am not sure were the Xbox's GPU fits in the scale but the next gen will be better than anything on the market now even for PC at least till Nvidia brings out the G70 GPU or 7800. The 6800 Series is better in performance then the FX series. Plus they fixed alot of the DirectX 9 issues in the 6800 series that the FX series had.

Right now the 6800 Ultra Extreme is the hightest Nvidia card. It is 2 cards above mine. I have no issues with the latest PC games.

AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6800GT. Both are overclocked.

I am looking forward to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 since they will be better than the 2 best PC cards right now, ATI 850XT PE and Nivida 6800 Ultra Extreme. So rest assured the next gen consoles are going to be beasts. They are going to be at least 22 cards ahead of the GeForce FX 5200. The 6800 GT is 19 cards ahead of the FX 5200.

So say I didn't want to spend more than $150 for a new video card, what would you or anyone else recommend? I bought my computer 2 years ago thinking that I'd be okay for at least 5 years before I had to upgrade again. It's year two and I'm having to already upgrade my video card.

For PC, you'll be upgrading forever. but you will need to upgrade your videocard if you want to play the latest game with everything at high setting. You can try the nividia 6600GT or the 6800 you can probably find them around the $150-$200 range. Or the ATI 9800 pro around $130, which is still a very good card. If you always play the latest games on your pc then the normal upgrading period of a videocard is about 2 years. But if you just play it once in a while and don't care too much about setting everything at high then your videocard should last you much longer. The ATI 8500 lasted very long for me 4-5 years, it was even able to play Half life 2 pretty well. The ATI 8500 was the best $200 I have ever spend on a videocard. Rgiht now that card is about $50? but still better than the 9200

[Abombz!!]

http://1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3141034

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

[mikeszekely]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.  I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW.  If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480.  WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg.  You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do.  I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC.  If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then?  I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade!  But that went down the toilet.

The nex gen consoles will be much better. I Have the Nvidia 6800GT and on Doom 3 it stutters on Ultra High, Ultra High is for 512 MB cards or the SLI setup. The PS3 GPU will be more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. I am not sure were the Xbox's GPU fits in the scale but the next gen will be better than anything on the market now even for PC at least till Nvidia brings out the G70 GPU or 7800. The 6800 Series is better in performance then the FX series. Plus they fixed alot of the DirectX 9 issues in the 6800 series that the FX series had.

Right now the 6800 Ultra Extreme is the hightest Nvidia card. It is 2 cards above mine. I have no issues with the latest PC games.

AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6800GT. Both are overclocked.

I am looking forward to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 since they will be better than the 2 best PC cards right now, ATI 850XT PE and Nivida 6800 Ultra Extreme. So rest assured the next gen consoles are going to be beasts. They are going to be at least 22 cards ahead of the GeForce FX 5200. The 6800 GT is 19 cards ahead of the FX 5200.

So say I didn't want to spend more than $150 for a new video card, what would you or anyone else recommend? I bought my computer 2 years ago thinking that I'd be okay for at least 5 years before I had to upgrade again. It's year two and I'm having to already upgrade my video card.

For PC, you'll be upgrading forever. but you will need to upgrade your videocard if you want to play the latest game with everything at high setting. You can try the nividia 6600GT or the 6800 you can probably find them around the $150-$200 range. Or the ATI 9800 pro around $130, which is still a very good card. If you always play the latest games on your pc then the normal upgrading period of a videocard is about 2 years. But if you just play it once in a while and don't care too much about setting everything at high then your videocard should last you much longer. The ATI 8500 lasted very long for me 4-5 years, it was even able to play Half life 2 pretty well. The ATI 8500 was the best $200 I have ever spend on a videocard. Rgiht now that card is about $50? but still better than the 9200

See, this is why, while I have nothing against PC gamers, I've always tended to lean toward consoles. $300 every five years on hardware sound fair to me.

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

[Abombz!!]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

[mikeszekely]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

The way I understand it is that there are different levels of dev kits, with the earliest kits being little more than PCs with approximate hardware and tools that they can use to get started. As the hardware gets closer to release, finalized dev kits are sent out so the developers can finish tweeking their stuff and finalize it for the actual hardware.

This is, incidentally, the reason why a lot of the 360 games looked so unimpressive. The final dev kits were late shipping, and the demos weren't designed with the final hardware in mind.

[Abombz!!]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

The way I understand it is that there are different levels of dev kits, with the earliest kits being little more than PCs with approximate hardware and tools that they can use to get started. As the hardware gets closer to release, finalized dev kits are sent out so the developers can finish tweeking their stuff and finalize it for the actual hardware.

This is, incidentally, the reason why a lot of the 360 games looked so unimpressive. The final dev kits were late shipping, and the demos weren't designed with the final hardware in mind.

Well without a solid GPU an early dev kit could be completly different from what the system is actually going to be. Isn't that sort of irresponsible to ship it with a "your guess is as good as mine" metality?

[JB0]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

The way I understand it is that there are different levels of dev kits, with the earliest kits being little more than PCs with approximate hardware and tools that they can use to get started. As the hardware gets closer to release, finalized dev kits are sent out so the developers can finish tweeking their stuff and finalize it for the actual hardware.

This is, incidentally, the reason why a lot of the 360 games looked so unimpressive. The final dev kits were late shipping, and the demos weren't designed with the final hardware in mind.

Well without a solid GPU an early dev kit could be completly different from what the system is actually going to be. Isn't that sort of irresponsible to ship it with a "your guess is as good as mine" metality?

It's standard practice.

The first SNES dev kits were Apple 2GS computers, because they shared a CPU.

Later, of course, the SNES hardware was finalized, and they shipped REAL dev kits. But the early "dev kit" let programmers start getting used to the processor.

And they can make educated guesses about how the system will interface with it's peripherals.

The fact that most developers nowadays use a high-level language like C++ makes it easier. Sony can have the graphics libraries ready to go before the hardware is. The libraries can be updated as the hardware changes, thereby ensuring that code generated on the old kit is still good.

On the other hand, it's nice to see nVidia confirm what I was already pretty sure of.

That wasn't real PS3 footage, and the only indication we have that it's indicative of what the PS3 can do is Sony's word.

But then, Sony said it was all real PS3 footage, so how much can they be trusted?

Edited May 26, 2005 by JB0

[mikeszekely]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

The way I understand it is that there are different levels of dev kits, with the earliest kits being little more than PCs with approximate hardware and tools that they can use to get started. As the hardware gets closer to release, finalized dev kits are sent out so the developers can finish tweeking their stuff and finalize it for the actual hardware.

This is, incidentally, the reason why a lot of the 360 games looked so unimpressive. The final dev kits were late shipping, and the demos weren't designed with the final hardware in mind.

Well without a solid GPU an early dev kit could be completly different from what the system is actually going to be. Isn't that sort of irresponsible to ship it with a "your guess is as good as mine" metality?

I suppose you could look at it that way. But I'd say think of it more like making and outline before you write a research paper. When a developer starts working with a dev kit that's "close" to what the expected final hardware will be, they're really just setting up the framework and getting a headstart, and then they can clean, tweek, and finalize after they get the final kits. I guess it takes too long to make a game to wait for the final dev kit before starting if you want to have something for launch.

EDIT: JB0 beat me to it.

Edited May 26, 2005 by mikeszekely

[Abombz!!]

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

You're almost making me wish MGREXX was still around to read this!

Kind of odd though, if the GPU doesn't exist how can they have dev kits already out? Something smells real fishy in all this.

The way I understand it is that there are different levels of dev kits, with the earliest kits being little more than PCs with approximate hardware and tools that they can use to get started. As the hardware gets closer to release, finalized dev kits are sent out so the developers can finish tweeking their stuff and finalize it for the actual hardware.

This is, incidentally, the reason why a lot of the 360 games looked so unimpressive. The final dev kits were late shipping, and the demos weren't designed with the final hardware in mind.

Well without a solid GPU an early dev kit could be completly different from what the system is actually going to be. Isn't that sort of irresponsible to ship it with a "your guess is as good as mine" metality?

I suppose you could look at it that way. But I'd say think of it more like making and outline before you write a research paper. When a developer starts working with a dev kit that's "close" to what the expected final hardware will be, they're really just setting up the framework and getting a headstart, and then they can clean, tweek, and finalize after they get the final kits. I guess it takes too long to make a game these days to wait for the final dev kit before starting if you want to have something for launch.

Takes to long is something that is up to interpretation since some devs can pull a half decent game in less then a year. Unless we are talking Duke Nukem Forever here LOL

From what I heard, the PS3 dev kits are shipping with a copy of the unreal 3 engine, so I guess it shouldn't be too hard to start working on games without something concrete.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Abombz!!

[Mule]

The fact that most developers nowadays use a high-level language like C++ makes it easier. Sony can have the graphics libraries ready to go before the hardware is. The libraries can be updated as the hardware changes, thereby ensuring that code generated on the old kit is still good.

I agree.

The early dev kits probably just include the API's and documentation for the C/C++ programming interfaces. You don't need to know exactly what the hardware can do until you start optimizing, you just need an approximation so you can start coding. I believe the Play Stations use OpenGL or something close for their graphics API, and Nintendo has said that the Revolution will be using the same API as the Game Cube. The X-Box will no doubt be using DirectX. Point is, early dev kits don't need to exactly reproduce hardware performance, just the software interfaces.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Mule

[mikeszekely]

Factor 5 developing exclusively for PS3

I guess whether or not you consider that a big plus for Sony's new console depends on how good you thought the Rogue Squardron games were... I personally liked Starfighter and Jedi Starfighter better, myself, as the Rogue Squadron games lacked even basic targeting functions.

[Abombz!!]

Factor 5 developing exclusively for PS3

I guess whether or not you consider that a big plus for Sony's new console depends on how good you thought the Rogue Squardron games were... I personally liked Starfighter and Jedi Starfighter better, myself, as the Rogue Squadron games lacked even basic targeting functions.

LOL.... Factor 5 was more a technology developer then a game developer. The Rogue Squadron series get progressively bad, and they are more a tech demo then anything, really. So.... meh *shrugs*

[Mechafan]

http://1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3141034

I find it funny how some people have orgasm over the PS3.... when its GPU DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!! LOL

If the thing doesn't even exist, how can we be sure the games are going to look as good as those tech demos?

Now that is interesting. I am guessing the new Nvidia product would be the Geforce 7800 GTX. Out of the 3 new cards they are making the 7800 GTX is the only one that can do SLI. If that is the case then the PS3 will not look as good as that. Do not get me wrong the PS3 Will still look Awesome. I just heard that the next gen PC cards from Nvidia will be better then the one in the PS3. The PS3 will have like the power of one of the 7800 GTX cards. But SLI means you have 2 running together combining thier power. One 7800 GTX is still more powerfull than 2 6800 Ultra's in SLI mode Which would match Sony's claim.

[mikeszekely]

Bioware is doing two for the Xbox 360.

This is great news, as far as I'm concerned. Bioware is rapidly becoming one of my favorite developers.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Okay, I read almost 14 pages of an interesting thread. Wow. MGREXX...wow, so blind. Anyways, I picked "More than one" or whatever that choice was. Me, I started with Nintendo and I might end with Nintendo. I am pretty open, the only reason I'd see getting an Xbox 360 is for Halo 3, but Xbox has nothing to offer me unlike Nintendo and Sony with their machines. Gamecube has offered me Rogue Squadron 2 and 3 and it started with Rogue Squadron 1 on the N64 which I loved. N64 also had Smash Bros., Star Wars Shadows of the Empire, Diddy Kong Racing, Golden Eye, Aero Fighters Assault(not that great but challenging, good enemy aircraft AI), Star Fox and a few other games that slip my mind. Gamecube continued with Smash Bros Melee, and Rogue Squadron 2 and 3, and some damn good shooters and the Gamecube is the one console from Nintendo that finally let me beat a Zelda game in the form of Wind Waker which was awesome. PS2 is good too, I own 2, an American, old school one and a Japanese Thin for Japanese games since I'm in Japan and game stores are up the ass here in Yokosuka. PS2 offered me MGS2 which made me wanna get a PS2 after playing it, MGS2 was my first Metal Gear game, and it had Ace Combat(which Gamecube lacked) and some bad ass shooters to go with it. Both offer quality soccer games so that's not a problem, I'm having fun with Fifa Street.

Now, I will go with the PS3 mostly for Metal Gear Solid, and I hope an Ace Combat 6 and for Gundam games and whatever shooters make their way onto it. As for the Revolution, it will work with all my Gamecube games which are back home, and you will have the ability to download every NES, SNES and N64 game ever released in the US. The fact that I might be able to play Golden Eye or Star Wars Shadows of the Empire on the Revolution gets me pumped up, I would like to see remakes of those for sure. What I also hope for is that Factor 5 will provide us Nintendo gamers and Star Wars fans with a Rogue Squadron 4 because I feel that Rogue Squadron 3 flopped in a few areas, and maybe have it extend beyond the movies and into the X-Wing series novels. It'd also be great if Revolution got an air combat game with the same quality as Ace Combat 4 and 5 and I hope RE5 makes it to the Revolution. I care about graphics and I was impressed with the Gamecube when it had a company like Factor 5 pushing the limits of the machine to produce a game that runs incredibly smooth that brims with details(Rogue Squadron 2 and 3). The new Zelda on the Gamecube looks awesome and I don't see why so many people say Nintendo can't have good looking graphics when it's the exact opposite. I think people are also narrowminded in the sense that Nintendo is all for kids. Super Smash Bros. may seem like it's for little kids, but EVERYBODY plays it because the game is so damn fun, hell Pokemon was fun and I often found myself jacking my little brother's Gameboy Color with Pokemon Gold in it and taking it to school(9th grade) to play because it was time consuming and fun. Price also matters so if anything, I'll see myself getting the Revolution before the PS3. Anyways, those are my views/opinions, but in the end, I think I'm more of a diehard Nintendo fan than a Sony fan simply because of the way I was brought up. Hell, I predicted a Nintendo Ultra when I was a kid in the days of the SNES, low and behold, the N64 came out a few years later and was called "Nintendo Ultra 64" or something to that effect and I worked my ass off in the 6th grade for an N64. Games were expensive, but that's why you wait for the prices to drop, like 40 bucks for Star Wars and Golden Eye.

[mikeszekely]

What I also hope for is that Factor 5 will provide us Nintendo gamers and Star Wars fans with a Rogue Squadron 4 because I feel that Rogue Squadron 3 flopped in a few areas, and maybe have it extend beyond the movies and into the X-Wing series novels.

I guess it's easy to miss a few posts when you read through 14 pages... but if Factor 5 does another Rogue Squadron, it'll be for PS3, since Factor 5 announced they will be developing exclusively for PS3.

and I hope RE5 makes it to the Revolution

I think Capcom hinted that they're working on an RE5, but someone how I don't see it turning up on the Revolution. The reason they went Nintendo exclusive in the first place is because of Shinji Mikami's displeasure with the qualilty of the PS2. Since then, though, almost every exlcusive that Capcom made for the Gamecube has or will have a PS2 version, due to the fact that Sony's much larger audience meant more profit. Now, especially if Sony's machine turns out to be as powerful as people are saying, I'd predict that an RE5 would turn up on the PS3 before any of the other next-gen consoles.

[Black Valkyrie]

May be in the end I`ll stick with Nintendo no matter. 3 days ago I wanted to buy the slim PS2 but suddenly I stopped and the problem with me and Sony is their quality of the console or may be I`ll get me another NGC as a collectors item since it has the advantage to play Gameboy games on TV with GB-Player.

PS: Did any of you played Castlevania- Aria of Sorrow, its the best game I`ve played in years.

[Zentrandude]

I did. thats a great game.

I hope dawn of sorrow is as great as aos

Edited May 27, 2005 by Zentrandude

[mikeszekely]

PS: Did any of you played Castlevania- Aria of Sorrow, its the best game I`ve played in years.

Absolutely. The upcoming sequel is the only reason I haven't sold my DS.

[Wes]

What I also hope for is that Factor 5 will provide us Nintendo gamers and Star Wars fans with a Rogue Squadron 4 because I feel that Rogue Squadron 3 flopped in a few areas, and maybe have it extend beyond the movies and into the X-Wing series novels.

I guess it's easy to miss a few posts when you read through 14 pages... but if Factor 5 does another Rogue Squadron, it'll be for PS3, since Factor 5 announced they will be developing exclusively for PS3.

and I hope RE5 makes it to the Revolution

I think Capcom hinted that they're working on an RE5, but someone how I don't see it turning up on the Revolution. The reason they went Nintendo exclusive in the first place is because of Shinji Mikami's displeasure with the qualilty of the PS2. Since then, though, almost every exlcusive that Capcom made for the Gamecube has or will have a PS2 version, due to the fact that Sony's much larger audience meant more profit. Now, especially if Sony's machine turns out to be as powerful as people are saying, I'd predict that an RE5 would turn up on the PS3 before any of the other next-gen consoles.

I'm glad that you put these two together, because it makes me wonder, what actually keeps games exclusive, a hand-shake or paper-work? Capcom is obviously backing out of it's prior agreement in the later editions.

And yes, I enjoyed Aria of Sorrow. Too bad Castlevania games are so short.

[Skull Leader]

What I also hope for is that Factor 5 will provide us Nintendo gamers and Star Wars fans with a Rogue Squadron 4 because I feel that Rogue Squadron 3 flopped in a few areas, and maybe have it extend beyond the movies and into the X-Wing series novels.

I guess it's easy to miss a few posts when you read through 14 pages... but if Factor 5 does another Rogue Squadron, it'll be for PS3, since Factor 5 announced they will be developing exclusively for PS3.

and I hope RE5 makes it to the Revolution

I think Capcom hinted that they're working on an RE5, but someone how I don't see it turning up on the Revolution. The reason they went Nintendo exclusive in the first place is because of Shinji Mikami's displeasure with the qualilty of the PS2. Since then, though, almost every exlcusive that Capcom made for the Gamecube has or will have a PS2 version, due to the fact that Sony's much larger audience meant more profit. Now, especially if Sony's machine turns out to be as powerful as people are saying, I'd predict that an RE5 would turn up on the PS3 before any of the other next-gen consoles.

I'm glad that you put these two together, because it makes me wonder, what actually keeps games exclusive, a hand-shake or paper-work? Capcom is obviously backing out of it's prior agreement in the later editions.

And yes, I enjoyed Aria of Sorrow. Too bad Castlevania games are so short.

I actually thought Castlevania III and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night were quite lengthly.... It takes a great deal of time to discover absolutely everything there is to SotN.

[mikeszekely]

what actually keeps games exclusive, a hand-shake or paper-work?

Anymore, it seems the best way to keep a game exclusive is to buy the developer.

In Capcom's case, I'm not sure how much of an arrangement it was. I don't think Nintendo offered Capcom anything, and I don't think any papers were signed. I'm pretty sure it really just began with RE creator Shinji Mikami being pissed off at Sony. He was even quoted as saying something along the lines of PS2 was selling the best because people had to buy two or three. But as influential as Mikami might be, he's not really the guy in charge, and Capcom, who'd been running in the red for awhile, just saw more money in the PS2.

In Factor 5's case, I'm not 100% sure what their deal is, and why they'd developed almost exclusively for Nintendo. But their decision to work entirely with the PS3 seems personal... no paperwork, and they could change their minds later. I'd assume that decided to develop solely for one console has to do with focusing their resources and pushing the limits of one console.

I could be wrong, though... and for some odd reason, I have a feeling that JB0 would know more than I do...

Edited May 28, 2005 by mikeszekely

[JB0]

I opt to speak up for the opposing viewpoint again.

I hated Aria of Sorrow. It was too easy, fairly dull writing, and the only decent ending was the "bad" one.