Moderator: EG Members
It was an important factor for Sony too.Starnum wrote:Well, I guess if you're not worried about backwards compatibility, then it doesn't matter. My old PS2's had one foot in the grave for a long time, so the BC was an important factor to me. *shrugs*
and you forgot Capcom's blog.We crafted a comic on the subject, more out of a sense of civic duty than of any genuine feelings of betrayal. This is precisely the sort of thing that gets hauled out to show the 360 in a bad light, but until I pick the game up at lunch I couldn't say if pulling the game off the DVD is actually onerous. For me, the graphical tearing of the 360 version (put forward by this 1up preview) is more dire. I'll buy both versions when I head out later today.
There's no way to transform "faster load times" into a black eye for the Playstation 3 version. It's an incredible option, and I'd love to see this option present on the 360, seeing as I paid more for a fixed disc. I'd love to do more with the peripheral than buy movies I can never own. At the same time, I'd like installs to be something I'm empowered to do, as opposed to something that is made a necessity. It's something we discuss briefly in today's podcast - committing a sizable portion of my console to each game is not something I want to become a standard practice. For me, it's not consistent with the role of a gaming appliance. That's not what attracts me to those platforms.
Wah! The game takes 20 minutes to install the first time. Wah! Have you ever played a PC game? At least we aren’t making you shuffle multiple discs into a ROM drive, or continuously click “Yes!” on a series of endless Windows dialog boxes. Installing on a console may seem like a weird idea, but there’s a real benefit. Unreal Tournament also has an option to install files onto your PS3; I’ve done it and it makes a great game even better.
Once installed — once, mind, not every time you play, as I’ve seen “reported” on certain web sites less interested in facts than in OMG histrionics — the PS3 version of the game has near-Super Nintendo speed load times. You’ll be amazed how fast levels load, the virtually instantaneous transition from cut scenes to action and that you’re continuously playing the game, as opposed to staring at loading screens of a door opening every time you move from one room to the next.
Anyone play DMC4 yet? Impressions?halfnhalf wrote:the real kicker woudl eb the people that have the 20 gig ps3, though of course they can always just out a new hd in it.
Yeah, no doubt.Femto wrote:I would wait 20 minutes for better load times.
Easily.
People are just constantly looking for stupid shit to whine about.
Femto wrote: I love how the Halo 3 thing became such a huge issue when nobody in a million years would've noticed it unless someone had pointed it out to them.
I just checked on mine and it just said hd 1080.War Machine wrote:The highest possible resolution for the PS3, as far as I know, is 1080i (or maybe 1080p, not sure). But no one has ventured into that realm yet.
Back when my computer was messing up, I tried to play WoW one day, and I was only getting like 3 fps or less. That's really terrible, because it's like my character was only taking 1 step per second or less. It would've taken me like maybe an hour to get out of town. Thankfully my computer is better now.halfnhalf wrote:Also if anyone of you play online games, the more frames you are able to have, the quicker you see your enemies during online gameplay.
well said bro and you forget it has blu-ray BLU-RAY@_@ which means longer games more advanced a.i and better graphicslon3vvolf wrote:Commence rant!
WTF is up with everyone complaining about the price of the ps3?
When it came out it was 600 and 700. People said "I'll wait till they drop it down to 500... then I'll get it."
So they dropped it to 600 and 500. People said "I'll wait till they drop it down to 400... then I'll get it."
Now the damned thing is 400(neutered though, no ps2 games) and people still bitch and moan.
Ok, I've had it. The original Playstation cost $299 when it came out, and no one complained.
Take into account inflation and what cost $299 in 1995 would cost $413.28 in 2007.
I'm not going into detail about how much more the ps3 does than just play games so in short I'll say this.
If you're complaining about the price of the ps3, your too fucking poor to afford one. Even if you did get one, you'll need an HDTV ranging from 40-60 inches to enjoy it. 399 or even 499 is not that much money nowadays. And if your under 16ish then get yourself a Wii because the ps3 isn't aimed at the younger demographic.
End rant
I feel so much better now.
fujinsan wrote:
well said bro and you forget it has blu-ray BLU-RAY@_@ which means longer games more advanced a.i and better graphics
Shit, I've been playing my PS3 wrong since I only have a 26" RCAlon3vvolf wrote:If you're complaining about the price of the ps3, your too fucking poor to afford one. Even if you did get one, you'll need an HDTV ranging from 40-60 inches to enjoy it. 399 or even 499 is not that much money nowadays. And if your under 16ish then get yourself a Wii because the ps3 isn't aimed at the younger demographic.
I wasn't directing that at anyone here in particular, but where ever I go to look up some ps3 stuff (ign, 1up... you know... even gamespot sometimes) theres a ton of people whinnying about how much the thing costs.Grahf wrote:who was complaining about the price?
Well, you're wrong. 20 gigs? Thats worthless. Didn't Sony already stop making a 20 gig? Stop pulling shit out your ass. The more likely prediction is they might drop the price of current models, but more likely let you get an extra game, when they come out with the 120 gig with the dual shock 3 around spring time. Thats my prediction and there are tidbits out there supporting it.darkdarkasian wrote: Theres a rumor that a $299 PS3 20gig is coming. I have no sources backing me up though...
