Hahahahaha @ PS3 news

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 11 Sep 2006, 18:13

Caydr wrote:Recent article I read, probably at TH or a similar benchmarking site, found that a physics processing unit only increases the performance of things like cloth simulation. Yes, it's dramatic, but on the other hand, ATI claims you can buy a X1600 or a similar-pricepoint next-gen card and use it as a PPU eventually, and come of with better performance.

Take it with a grain of salt naturally. But it seems like the more I hear about these physics cards, the less impressed I am. Essentially all they do is take a load off the CPU, but virtually anything with a few hundred million transistors, like any modern graphics chip (even a cheap one), can do the same job.

Specialization is all well and good, but if you can get just a generic graphics card and have poor efficiency but a lower price point, where's your money going?

Indeed. Also, It won't be long before someone makes some software which allows a dual core CPU to run as a single CPU with a PPU added on. Taking into account that most games can't use two proccessors, That'll kick ass.

Also, My X1600 Rules. ATi cards ftw, But to hell with their BUGGY AND SHIT DRIVERS.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 11 Sep 2006, 18:15

neddiedrow wrote:Remember though, the Nintendo policy then was enacted to control quality and avoid the pitfalls of Atari.

Very true, many people here weren't even alive when that problem happened so they don't realize. I'll give everyone the short version:

Atari basically lost the ability to control what "game" designers (there was a "game" from quaker oatmeal, so I'm not sure if I can properly use that term) made and released to the public. So basically, everyone and their grandmother decided to make games, and every single one of them sucked, and add to that big-name titles that began the legacy of anything based on a movie sucking ass. Back in the day, there was no Gamespot or PC Gamer or anything like that, so you had to go down to the store and decide what you wanted based on a 2-inch wide cartridge sticker, which, if you were lucky, had a picture on it. Consumers couldn't easily differentiate between high priced crap games and low priced quality games and everything in-between. This culminated in the great video game crash of the 80s.

Nintendo singlehandedly pulled the gaming scene back into the limelight by limiting how many games a publisher could make per year, a brilliant strategy IMO. One that the modern-day Atari still hasn't learned... They did this by using a very simple encryption chip on the cartridge that the NES would read and, if it wasn't a nintendo-certified game, it wouldn't load the game.

As draconian as it would sound if Microsoft put something like this in Vista, I'd heartily endorse it. It would mean 10 (or whatever) games per publisher per year. And each one would be AAA or it would be a major hardship for the publisher. No more of this "13 games per week" Atari/Infogrames nonsense...

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 11 Sep 2006, 18:33

However, that excuse was invalid during the SNES days and in non-US territories.

And Caydr, if MS could control who can make games for Vista you wouldn't see Spring for Vista.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 11 Sep 2006, 18:42

Well, naturally it wouldn't apply to all software. I just mean that there'd be a limit of "Games for Windows"-branded stuff from major publishers.

I just want to go back to the days where patches were virtually unheard of. A game was STABLE at release because it had actually gone through QA and beta testing and the developers actually wanted feedback, it wasn't just a form on their site to give customers the false impression that they mattered.

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 11 Sep 2006, 19:09

Part of the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" Certification System was that a game was given a score, and if a company produced games that met their criteria they were allowed to release more games that year.

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 11 Sep 2006, 19:59

Caydr wrote:Well, naturally it wouldn't apply to all software. I just mean that there'd be a limit of "Games for Windows"-branded stuff from major publishers.

I just want to go back to the days where patches were virtually unheard of. A game was STABLE at release because it had actually gone through QA and beta testing and the developers actually wanted feedback, it wasn't just a form on their site to give customers the false impression that they mattered.

Heh, And usually if people did find exploits or bugs, They'd try not to use them. Whats the point of buying a game only to find you can complete it in 2 minutes by jumping through a wall?

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 11 Sep 2006, 20:17

Drone_Fragger wrote:Whats the point of buying a game only to find you can complete it in 2 minutes by jumping through a wall?

Well... Seeing the ending quick... finding all the holes in the walls... showing off to your friends etc... etc...

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 11 Sep 2006, 22:03

Drone_Fragger wrote:Whats the point of buying a game only to find you can complete it in 2 minutes by jumping through a wall?

This?

GrOuNd_ZeRo · Post by **GrOuNd_ZeRo** » 11 Sep 2006, 23:52

lol what game was that?

How in the hell do you know so much shit about consoles and their hardware, do you read books on it or what? god...I couldn't care less what's IN a console, I just care how it performs.

I think i'd go with the PS3 since I like my PS2 games, esspecially the Metal Gear series of games.

I never have been a fan of Nintendo, the X-Box is my second choice...BUT...it's too expensive to me.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 13 Sep 2006, 19:42

EA pulls support for PSP:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?optio ... 7&Itemid=2

How in the hell do you know so much shit about consoles and their hardware

Gotta make informed decisions when the stuff is so expensive. It's not what you make, it's what you spend.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 13 Sep 2006, 21:19

I think i'd go with the PS3 since I like my PS2 games, esspecially the Metal Gear series of games.

lol...

I think i'd go with the PS2 since i like my PS2 games (although i think MGS is utter crap)
In fact instead of buying a new PS2 to play my PS2 games, or buying a PS3, i think i'll KEEP my old PS2 and play PS2 games on it! call me a cheapskate but i can't afford to buy a console for no reason.

PS3 games don't have any winners lined up yet IMO anyway, and if i DID buy a third gen console i think it would be the nintendo, but if i was buying a console i'd go with the old nintendo one, that akruega game is worth a lifetime of gaming (complete the game without firing a SINGLE SHOT ^^) and theres loads of other innovative and great games on it.

3rd gen console look worse than 2nd gen did at the time >.>

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 13 Sep 2006, 21:26

"There's no doubt that EA has historically bet more on PSP," said Garner. "I think we were excited by the technology, but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."

"The consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 13 Sep 2006, 21:29

what? really? Holy crap, EA's ahead of the game.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 13 Sep 2006, 21:35

It is completely surprising. All this time, their stance apparently was that the consumers didn't want fun! It explains so much...

I still haven't bought into that generation of handhelds. I have a list of thirty titles I like, twenty-eight of which are DS exclusives, but I won't get a DS until I have the time to use one to greatest effect.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 13 Sep 2006, 22:13

GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:I think i'd go with the PS3
[..]
the X-Box is my second choice...BUT...it's too expensive to me.

No comment.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 13 Sep 2006, 22:18

Aye, looks like Sony is on course to lose Console Wars III as badly as Nintendo lost the sequel, at least in business terms. Especially funny since Nintendo essentially declared themselves out of the game, going in a different direction. Looks like the public will drag them back in after all.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 13 Sep 2006, 23:15

While PC players laugh themselves silly at the futility of the Console wars.

I mean why bother when the PC's are going to win in the end through sheer greatatude.

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 13 Sep 2006, 23:23

Macs all the way!!!

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 13 Sep 2006, 23:25

With that Intel thingamabobber Macs and Pc's will be able to stand, one aside another with their distant cousin, Linux, and defeat the console hoards!

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 13 Sep 2006, 23:28

For many, many years, general games of a number of genres not focused on graphical overload have been better on consoles. Yes, PCs have a few places they excel at... Mech games, RTS, Mech RTS...

Spring RTS Engine

Hahahahaha @ PS3 news