Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
It's finally here and I got it today, has anyone else bought it yet? Here's my online information: Account: PLECOS Friend code (ugh): 2492-3797-1605
Have to wait 2 months for the euro release
I'll be buying it when the "wii" drops to a reasonable price. I can't see myself spending $249.99 on a console that plays outdated games with a white stick for a controller, totally lacking any real special feature besides motion sensing which my PS3 already does. I think the real dealbreaker is the lack of HDTV support and 480p doesn't cut it on my 32"
Also I did not get it because I am not gay, and I do not like button mashers. Also I the Wii sucks, enjoy your shitty console. The only reason anybody cares is because OMG LOOK I CAN BE MARIO AND BEAT UP LINK LOLOLOLOLOLOL! So STFU your mouth!
lol Pwned! Im waiting for Grand theft Auto IV for XBOX 360
Viking wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 23:43 Also I did not get it because I am not gay, and I do not like button mashers. Also I the Wii sucks, enjoy your shitty console. The only reason anybody cares is because OMG LOOK I CAN BE MARIO AND BEAT UP LINK LOLOLOLOLOLOL! So STFU your mouth! lol what fighting game doesnt involve button mashing? and besides its the ssb arcade gameplay that makes it unique
We had it on Preorder so it arrived yesterday. We haven't played it yet, though...
MadRockz wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 22:46 lol Pwned! Im waiting for Grand theft Auto IV for XBOX 360 Isn't GTA IV Playstation Exclusive? From the trailers i doubt the xbox would be able to handle the graphics reasonably without some major degrading of performance, or visual quality.
Well they could dumb them down a little for the 360?
I have it, and it is totally insane. The SSE is much longer than I thought it be... I played it for 2 1/2 hours and I'm only 23% completed... Zion Fox Isn't GTA IV Playstation Exclusive? From the trailers i doubt the xbox would be able to handle the graphics reasonably without some major degrading of performance, or visual quality. No, actually. It is on the 360 as well. And I think that the 360 version gets extra features.
me and brother just got snake lol hes a beast straight usin rocket launchers and grenades
My brother got it. I really don't get it and think it's stupid when you keep getting hit and can't even move. Where's the skill in this stupid shit?
It actually takes a lot of skill. You said it yourself, when you get hit, you are stunned for a short period of time. If you keep getting hit, you won't be able to attack or evade. Which is why balancing evasion skills with hard hitting attacks is key. Jump in the air or hold down then press your shield button (depending on what control style you use) and you will do a dodge. (Move off the side scroll track and allow the attack to pass by you). Each character plays differently... extremely differently too. So you may end up doing well with one character, knowing how their moves work and the best way to string combos together while avoiding enemy attacks, but using someone else might throw you through a loop.
I got it, I beat the SSE. Mostly on normal difficulty. I'm not that great with the characters yet tho. So far great game. Will be nice to try out some online battles.
Played all night last night, and was a lot of fun. Pretty cool stages and everything, not to mention the new characters really do seem to be good additions. Can't wait to get more time to play around with it.
WNxBoMbZU wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 14:47 Have to wait 2 months for the euro release Import it from Canada, like I'm doing it!
DISREGARD THIS POST
Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 10 March 2008 09:37 Import it from Canada, like I'm doing it! Aren't Wii games region locked? Or do you have a hacked or North American console?
He ordered SSB and a Wii from Canada, will probably need to mod it for other games though unless he imports them all from Canada, which isn't a bad idea since they'll all be out here first anyway. I beat the SSE on the second day on normal. Didn't much care for SSE, it was just the fastest way to unlock most of the characters. All the other modes are just as awesome as the other games though.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 20:47 I'll be buying it when the "wii" drops to a reasonable price. I can't see myself spending $249.99 on a console that plays outdated games with a white stick for a controller, totally lacking any real special feature besides motion sensing which my PS3 already does. I think the real dealbreaker is the lack of HDTV support and 480p doesn't cut it on my 32" If developers spend less time making their games look pretty, they can spend more time on the story line and game play, I'd choose that any day over visuals, no matter how bad they look. Granted though, the Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life series both looked nice for there time and have great story lines and graphics.
Ryu wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 10:07 Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 20:47 I'll be buying it when the "wii" drops to a reasonable price. I can't see myself spending $249.99 on a console that plays outdated games with a white stick for a controller, totally lacking any real special feature besides motion sensing which my PS3 already does. I think the real dealbreaker is the lack of HDTV support and 480p doesn't cut it on my 32" If developers spend less time making their games look pretty, they can spend more time on the story line and game play, I'd choose that any day over visuals, no matter how bad they look. Granted though, the Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life series both looked nice for there time and have great story lines and graphics. You'd like Warzone 2100 then. The fisrt 3D RTS game and it's really great to play. So it has 32x32pix textures spanning a whole map, the gameplay and storyline is just too great that you don't really care.
I got it at the midnight release at my local GameStop. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to play much; I've only unlocked Marth, Captain Falcon, Sonic, and Luigi.
Ryu wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 06:07 If developers spend less time making their games look pretty, they can spend more time on the story line and game play, I'd choose that any day over visuals, no matter how bad they look. Granted though, the Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life series both looked nice for there time and have great story lines and graphics. You do realize that game developers have teams assigned to different parts of the game, right? Some people work on the art assets. Others work on programming. Another team works on the story and another may work on the gameplay as being separate from that. Graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. The "wii's" processing power is so terrible that if a game company can't produce a game that has better gameplay/story than its graphics, that company probably shouldn't be in business. There are a lot of games on my PS3 like Drake's Fortune, Warhawk, Folklore, Assassin's Creed, etc... that play really well and have great graphics on top of that. A competent studio manages to create both in a game. Even the downloadable games like High Velocity Bowling, Super Stardust HD, and fl0w manage to have incredible graphics and still have gameplay that destroys the "wii" experience. That's why (including the lack of HD support) I'm not buying it until the "wii" drops to $149.99, which won't happen until Nintendo stops creating artificial demand by shorting supply.
The Wii has sold double the amount of units as the PS3 and they were released at the same time. I would say that is good reason for a shortened supply. The DS probably has something to do with it as well, I'd imagine the DS takes priority in manufacturing over the Wii since they sell those by the boatload
Comparing "wii" sales to PS3 sales is like comparing Pinto sales to Ferarri sales. The targeted demographic of the "wii" is mostly different than that of the PS3 or the Xbox, so it's not surprising that the more expensive consoles with superior performance and quality would be outsold by the lower quality console with little in the way of features or true innovation. Just so you know, there's a lot of debate about how Nintendo shorts supply to create artificial demand. I think it's pretty obvious too. The "wii" was outdated the moment it hit the market. It has last generation graphics, processing power, etc... The only thing it has going for it is motion sensing, which the PS3 does really well (try HVB, Warhawk, fl0w, etc... and see if you can argue otherwise) and the PS3's price is only $149 more. The longer Nintendo creates artificial demand, the longer they can keep up the charade that is $249.99 for an obsolete console. Eventually they'll have to drop the price to a reasonable level (perhaps like how the PS2 is $129.99 now) and then I won't be complaining anymore. Also, as food for thought: in my store, cheap cables and products sell a lot more than expensive stuff that will do much more and last a lot longer. People buy what's cheap, not what works. I'll stick with my PS3.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 14:56 ... would be outsold by the lower quality console with little in the way of features or true innovation. I'm sorry... but what would you consider "true innovation?" The PS3?! All it is is a PS2 with better graphics, wireless controller and a bluray player... in·no·va·tion –noun 1. something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum. Seriously, if you don't consider Wii to have the best innovation of all the consoles, you need to check your definition on innovation. As for quality... I think Wii also shines there too. Depending on what you mean by quality, however. If you mean physical quality, than the Wii wins in that area. That thing is basically indestructible! If you dropped a PS3 or a 360 on a hard surface from a reasonable hight, I would be surprised if it didn't receive a dent or if one feature or component stopped working. However it probably wouldn't even leave a mark on the Wii. Ever watch those "Smash my <insert console name>" videos? If you're talking about software quality, it really depends on who you are talking about. The Wii's OS or games? Games from Nintendo somehow manage to take Wii's low processing power to make games that look like they shouldn't be able to run on the Wii (Mario Galaxy, SSBB, ect). As for the interface and OS, it isn't the greatest, but I feel it falls on par with both the 360 and PS3. (360 winning in options, PS3 winning in visuals, Wii winning in ease of use and innovativeness.) Finally if you are talking about quality in hard ware, than I wont deny that it lacks in graphics and processing power... but seriously, because of this reason games (good games) are forced to maximize their potential on the console. (If they don't optimize all of the Wii's capabilities, than the game will probably fail..) Also, there is backwards compatibility. Wii is compatible with most GameCube games, right out of the box, and has the ability to download even older console games. The 360 is backwards compatible with many of the Xbox's games.. but not all.. and it requires a hard drive. The PS3, from what I understand, is not very good with backwards compatibility. I know it does have backwards compatibility.. but as of what I know, it isn't very good. I'm not trying to argue that the Wii is the *ahem* "B3stes7 c0ns0l e\/ur!!111!1!1" I'm just trying to say all consoles have their strengths and weaknesses. PS3 - Best graphics. 360 - Best multiplayer, support, and has most games. Wii - Best innovation, best gameplay experiance, lots of "player choice"
The PS3 is for those of us who enjoy the technical side of computing. The xbox is for those of us who enjoy taking drugs and drinking. The Wii is for those of us who are not yet old enough to cross the road alone. Full stop.
Zion Fox wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 13:57 The PS3 is for those of us who enjoy the technical side of computing. The xbox is for those of us who enjoy taking drugs and drinking. The Wii is for those of us who know something is new when they see it. Full stop.
I also disagree with that "Wii is for kids" bit. It is not.. and I don't see why people think it is. It has the exact same look and feel of every other Nintendo console. The only difference is that it is "family oriented" It gets non-gamers to play games. Which brings me to another point. The price for it is not going to go down any time soon. It has been over a year and a half since the Wii launched and it is still sold out in stores. But you are actually able to go into stores and buy a 360 and a PS3. It tends to be that PS3s seem more sold out than 360s, which takes the idea of "It is sold out because it is cheaper" and throws it out the window.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 21:00 I also disagree with that "Wii is for kids" bit. It is not.. and I don't see why people think it is. It has the exact same look and feel of every other Nintendo console. The only difference is that it is "family oriented" With that in mind, yes it will get non gamers to play games, however who gives them the incentive to play said games? Their kids do... Thanks for proving my point. ^_^
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 15:48 I'm sorry... but what would you consider "true innovation?" The PS3?! All it is is a PS2 with better graphics, wireless controller and a bluray player... Okay, by your logic the "wii" is nothing more than one and a half gamecubes duct taped together in a small shiny white supremacist box. The only difference is that it has wireless wiinis controllers which sense motion when you jerk them. The PS3 is a gaming console and home multimedia platform. The "wii" has nothing but game capability for $149 less than a basic PS3 which has ten times the amount of features. With PS Home coming out in beta this month (releasing fall 08) plus the major titles coming out this year, you're going to see a lot less demand for the "wii" and a lot more attention focused on the PS3. Calling a PS3 an upgraded PS2 is accurate in the sense that Vista is a newer version of XP and MacOS Leopard is simply a new version of OSX. There's more to it than that. Quote: Seriously, if you don't consider Wii to have the best innovation of all the consoles, you need to check your definition on innovation. It's not that innovative. The wireless motion sensing is all it has going for it. Otherwise its price versus features is a gigantic ripoff. Quote: As for quality... I think Wii also shines there too. Depending on what you mean by quality, however. If you mean physical quality, than the Wii wins in that area. That thing is basically indestructible! If you dropped a PS3 or a 360 on a hard surface from a reasonable hight, I would be surprised if it didn't receive a dent or if one feature or component stopped working. However it probably wouldn't even leave a mark on the Wii. Ever watch those "Smash my <insert console name>" videos? Why would you put an expensive console up in a place where it would fall over easily? That's stupid as hell. Quote: If you're talking about software quality, it really depends on who you are talking about. The Wii's OS or games? Games from Nintendo somehow manage to take Wii's low processing power to make games that look like they shouldn't be able to run on the Wii (Mario Galaxy, SSBB, ect). As for the interface and OS, it isn't the greatest, but I feel it falls on par with both the 360 and PS3. (360 winning in options, PS3 winning in visuals, Wii winning in ease of use and innovativeness.) Wii games are mostly first party junk from Nintendo that's been recycled constantly over the past 10 years. I could play Mario on GC and get the same experience and feel that the "wii" gives. Quote: Finally if you are talking about quality in hard ware, than I wont deny that it lacks in graphics and processing power... but seriously, because of this reason games (good games) are forced to maximize their potential on the console. (If they don't optimize all of the Wii's capabilities, than the game will probably fail..) What major company are you going to see creating games for an obsolete system in the next year or two? What profits will be made from a game for a console that's already showing its age? Quote: Also, there is backwards compatibility. Wii is compatible with most GameCube games, right out of the box, and has the ability to download even older console games. The 360 is backwards compatible with many of the Xbox's games.. but not all.. and it requires a hard drive. The PS3, from what I understand, is not very good with backwards compatibility. I know it does have backwards compatibility.. but as of what I know, it isn't very good. Why the fuck would I want BC when I already own a PS2, a GC, a SNES, a NES, etc... I already have the consoles so I don't really care about BC. Quote: PS3 - Best graphics 360 - Best multiplayer, support, and has most games. Wii - Best innovation, best gameplay experiance, lots of "player choice" You really, really need to try out a PS3's lineup of games. Having a shit-powered system like the "wii" doesn't mean that all of its games are magically made better to play. Go try High Velocity Bowling, fl0w, Warhawk, etc and then tell me that those games aren't fun.
Zion Fox wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 13:57 The PS3 is for those of us who enjoy the technical side of computing. The xbox is for those of us who enjoy taking drugs and drinking. The Wii is for those of us who are not yet old enough to cross the road alone. Full stop. Maybe that's why my newest console is an SNES; manufacturers forgot about the 'fun' quotient, and left us casual gamers in the dust.
In my opinion, consoles keep getting more and more expensive for consumers, and developers alike. Soon enough, you are going to need a million dollar-budget and giant team to accomplish anything "acceptable" and "modern". If developers keep putting all their focus on nothing but graphics and visual polish, it's going to ruin the industry, as the only developers that can afford to make anything fancy-looking will be giant monstrosities like EA. Anything else will just be looked down upon by newer generations of gamers who will refuse to buy any game that doesn't look like Crysis.
/me renames the topic to "Wii versus PS3" Edit: Just to fan the flames... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFoyp71xw3w
Blazer wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 17:20 /me renames the topic to "Wii versus PS3" Edit: Just to fan the flames... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFoyp71xw3w This should be fun!
I just bought it won't be able to play it though until I get home(in Canada).
I don't want to pay for features my computer already handles far better than a console ever could. I bought my Wii mainly because in my opinion it has a far better multiplayer experience than the PS3 or Xbox, and that's all I use it for. I'm not sure what PS3 MP is like, but it was virtually non-existant in the PS1 and PS2, so that put it entirely out of the question for me.
PS3 MP works with usernames over the PS Network which is free unless a developer charges for game access, like FFXI on PS2. As for the PC handling media features, it's nowhere near as slick as the PS3 and you don't have to load different programs to handle photos, video, music, etc... Plus you're not limited by having to use a wireless keyboard/mouse and fiddle with display settings and/or buy a conversion box to output to TV format. I guarantee a PS3 makes video playback, photo viewing, and music playback a lot more immersive than a PC does when hooked up to a TV. I can't see myself having 10 people over and trying to use XP as a party machine like I did when we were using the PS3 for music playback on the Earth visualization. BTW: If you won't buy a console for a feature your PC shares, why get a "wii" when it plays games that look like Renegade's detail level? I have to say that the media server function is a great feature that the Xbox and PS3 share which allows for video/photo/music playback on the consoles over LAN. That alone is worth more than the "wii"
Just to add my thoughts in this I would buy a pc over the ps3 or xbox360 any day, most of the games are released on the pc anyways so why buy some extra thing when a pc can handle it and do lots more, does a ps3 or xbox 360 have the same expandable hardware as the pc? NO. Can they be used to store important files or word documents etc... NO. Can they be used to make games? NO. The Wii now sure in some ways is not as good as the other consoles but at least it is different, a pc can do pretty much anything a xbox360 and ps3 can do, a pc CANNOT do what the Wii does. Oh and BTW: You can hook a pc up to a tv.
Obviously. That's why I said "fiddle with display settings and/or buy a conversion box to output to TV format." Speaking generally, HDTV penetration hasn't come to a point where every PC user can hook up their PC via DVI-HDMI cable to a shiny new LG box. A lot of people are still using SDTV/EDTV sets which means you'll need a conversion box nine out of ten times (unless you're one of the consumers who has s-video output on your video card) so that you can convert the radically different PC video signal to analog s-video/composite video signals. In some cases people require RF adapters and honestly, at that point, it's not worth the conversion because of the digital-analog switching becoming a major kink in signal quality. A PC would need to be upgraded to a 7 core processor with a powerful video card to equal the power of the PS3. I doubt you have the money for that. While it's true that a PC can do more than a PS3/Xbox, bear in mind that Sony designs consoles with a 10 year lifespan. I'd like to see you run games on XP in ten years with your current hardware. With that in mind, you need to upgrade PCs to stay on the cutting edge. The upgrades themselves are rather expensive and can run over $1,000 if you're just buying video cards, RAM, and a new processor. Eventually the motherboard needs to be replaced when some fancy technology that evolves past PCI-Express comes out. I love my PC, so don't get me wrong. But don't presume to think that a PC does everything a console does. There's few games on PC that support motion sensing (or any you'd want to buy considering that a motion sensing controller would be expensive, adding to the cost of the game) along with the fact that PCs aren't dedicated gaming machines for most people. I use mine for 3DS Max rendering and scene design. I write research papers with it. I play CounterStrike Source with it, download music, and watch videos online. Most of that I can do with a PS3 if I upgraded to Linux and ran Windows on it. The "wii" sucks, if you want to waste your money on it - go right ahead. I think I'll slap down money on Burnout Paradise next. Or, perhaps I'll go with some extra controllers when we get more bowling tournaments going on over here. It's not like the PS3 doesn't support seven controllers at once or anything.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 03:38 BTW: If you won't buy a console for a feature your PC shares, why get a "wii" when it plays games that look like Renegade's detail level? I have to point out and make you realize that some of the things developed, graphical wise, in the Wii games (heck, even GameCube games) weren't developed in the Renegade engine, so please refrain from lying. If you need proof, just take a look at the vast ammount of detail on "StarFox Adventures" for the Gamecube. The detail on that, far surpasses anything Renegade will ever fish out (unless engine coders get the source).
Whee, console wars. I might aswell jump in for the hell of it. Anyways. Renegade actually can be used for decent graphics still. Look at Reborn and many of the mods and such nowadays. They have quite a bit of detail in them. Really, Renegade just lacks reflective materials and a few other things that make most video games "shiney". There's already bloom, detailed shadows, and other various things added in scripts 3.+. So using Renegade as a reference for a game with bad graphics isn't exactly the best thing. While I agree the graphics still could be upgraded (Mostly physics wise, like ragdoll physics), they're certainly not bad. Which brings me to another point. PS3 and Xbox360 games focus way too damn much on detail. I recall a game called "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Sonic Next Gen" as it's called by some people having VERY good graphics, and was one of the first "next gen" games. But a ton of people say the gameplay is shitty and it doesn't seem to focus on much outside the visuals. I've not played it myself so I can't really say, but it seems as if most games for the PS3/Xbox360 are given the ability to have high visuals. Which means gaming mega-companies like EA who seem to just care about visuals and detail are given the ability to continue to not have to care about gameplay aslong as they can max out the graphics. Wheras a game with the Wii, having a limit on the graphics is a good thing. Why? This means that game developers for the Wii are pretty much forced to have to make it have good gameplay. Take SSBB for example. I've not played it, but it looks jam packed with TONS of features and gameplay modes. Even the visuals looks acceptable, as it's not an FPS where you're right next to the battlefield and are going to notice if the pebbles in the dirt are bump mapped or modeled. As far as I'm concerned, if it has great gameplay with graphics that aren't ridiculously shitty, it's a decent game. Because games are meant to be about gameplay. I'm really dissapointed that so many games are about visuals nowadays than they were back in the Genesis and SNES days. I STILL will play the classic Sonic the Hedgehog games. Granted I've lost my Genesis, but I can still play them on things like the sonic mega collection pack for GC and PS2 (PS2 version for me since I've not gotten a GC), and they're still probably some of my favorite games. Partly why I really want a Wii is because it's still a video game system that emphasizes gameplay and innovation over insane graphics. While I'll agree that to a certain extent graphics also made a good video game, gameplay should be the most important aspect, THEN graphics. I've never felt you needed a million dollar budget video game story to make a decent video game either, but a combination of all 3 can always make it awesome (Half Life 2, anyone?). tl;dr: PS3 is if you like graphics, Xbox360 if you like multiplayer console games (And can't afford/don't want to spend the time getting a comp to run those games or just want Halo 3), and Wii is if you like innovative and awesome gameplay. PS: If the Wii isn't so innovative as you claim, why is it I've never seen a game on the PS2 that allows players to swing around a virtual sword using a virtual controller that has motion tracking? Or on the PS3 of Xbox360 for that matter.
Zion Fox wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 06:15 I have to point out and make you realize that some of the things developed, graphical wise, in the Wii games (heck, even GameCube games) weren't developed in the Renegade engine, so please refrain from lying. If you need proof, just take a look at the vast ammount of detail on "StarFox Adventures" for the Gamecube. The detail on that, far surpasses anything Renegade will ever fish out (unless engine coders get the source). I said detail level, not that it was running the Renegade engine. There's a big difference between perceived detail and actual capability. Since most every "wii" game is simplistic looking compared to anything out there for any other system, including PC, it's pretty easy to see how Renegade's lack of true detail is synonymous with the "wii" and its lack of graphics power. Believe it or not, some of us want to advance the capabilities of graphical power, not set it back every time a console comes out. Quote: Wheras a game with the Wii, having a limit on the graphics is a good thing. Why? This means that game developers for the Wii are pretty much forced to have to make it have good gameplay. No it doesn't. A game design team doesn't have programmers making graphics and the artists aren't programming, that's highly inefficient. If that's confusing to you, so is the concept ingrained in people's heads since the "wii" came out that a low powered system will suddenly revolutionize gaming because the developers can't concentrate on graphics. I got news for you kid: Lack of graphics makes developers stay away. Unreal 3 isn't coming to the "wii" and coincidentally, it's what my college uses as its engine of choice for game design. http://news.softpedia.com/news/No-UT3-for-the-Wii-46349.shtml I'm looking forward to playing against PC users on my PS3, since an update to UT3 will enable PS3/PC fighting. On a "wii"? Haha, not happening. Here's how the lineup really is for the consoles so the simplistic argument that the PS3 and Xbox are only graphical in nature: PS3: Graphics, gameplay, loads of fun Xbox: Graphics, gameplay, Halo 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc... Wii: Pseudo gameplay, Mario, Zelda, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... If you want to waste your money on an inferior system, go for it. Within a couple of years, it'll be obsolete and the two consoles I like will be up on top until Nintendo makes another underpowered console that they'll charge you, yet again, another $249.99 to play with. Enjoy having no multimedia playback, proper online gaming, or insane graphics to go with that oh-so-good gameplay, sucker. Oh by the way: I'm not a "fanboy" by any means of the word. I just prefer systems that don't suck. If Nintendo pulls their head out of their ass and makes a real contender for gaming, watch me pick it up.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 02:09 A PC would need to be upgraded to a 7 core processor with a powerful video card to equal the power of the PS3. Cell is not just a "7-core processor." It has a single main core, much like any normal single core CPU. This core runs the OS and feeds information to the 7 other "smaller" cores. Smaller probably isn't the right word for it, but you get the picture. These cores are for running mainly just applications, and don't contribute to running the PS3's OS. They handle one thing at a time like any normal CPU core, so unless the game is designed to use multiple cores it will use only one, all 7 of these cores don't magically work together to make games run super fast. I like the idea of Cell but it's certainly not the end-all be-all of CPUs. A capable dual-core and video card can also meet or exceed the PS3s performance for today's game's anyway. It might be able to keep up fairly well in the future, but probably at the cost of extra development time.
Actually, both Aircraftkiller and RenX are incorrect about the PS3's processor. It's actually an 8 core processor. 7 of these perform tasks, the OS for example runs on one, graphics on another, sound on another, the HDTV output on another, inputs on another, etc etc. The 8th core is used as a failsafe incase one of these other cores fails. How Stuff Works.com - Playstation 3 Article Howstuffworks.com The setup of the Cell processor is like having a team of processors all working together on one chip to handle the large computational workload needed to run next-generation video games. In order to understand how the Cell processor works, it helps to look at each of the major parts that comprise this processor. The "Processing Element" of the Cell is a 3.2-GHz PowerPC core equipped with 512 KB of L2 cache. The PowerPC core is a type of microprocessor similar to the one you would find running the Apple G5. It's a powerful processor on its own and could easily run a computer by itself; but in the Cell, the PowerPC core is not the sole processor. Instead, it's more of a "managing processor." It delegates processing to the eight other processors on the chip, the Synergistic Processing Elements. The computational workload comes in through the PowerPC core. The core then assesses the work that needs to be done, looks at what the SPEs are currently processing and decides how to best dole out the workload to achieve maximum efficiency. The SPEs used in the Cell processor are each SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data), 128-bit vector processors. Vector processors are designed to quickly process several pieces of data at once. They were commonly used in the 1980s in large, powerful, scientific supercomputers and were created as a faster alternative to the more common scalar processor. Scalar processors can only work one data element at a time. Despite this limitation, advances in scalar design and performance have made the use of vector processors very rare these days in most computers. However, because of the vector processor's ability to handle several data elements at once, IBM resurrected this design for the Cell. There are eight SPEs on the chip, but only seven of them handle processing. The eighth SPE is built in as redundancy in case one of the other seven fails. The SPEs each come loaded with 256 KB SRAM. This high-speed memory helps each SPE crunch numbers quickly. The SPE memory is also visible to the main Processing Element. This allows the PowerPC Core to utilize the resources of each SPE in the most efficient way possible. All of this amounts to unprecedented power for a piece of consumer electronics.
Well, as a not-so-serious hardcore gamer, I love the gameplay on the Wii and couldn't care less about graphics. Wii games are very innovative and unique. Heck, we got my stepdad to play Mario Party 8 and I don't think he's ever played a video game in his life.
Um, that explain exactly what I just said but with bigger words and less detail. A core is also disabled for the Cell in the PS3, so there is one PPE core and 7 SPE cores instead of 8 like in the normal Cell. The PPE core runs the OS, the rest run applications
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 09:15 multimedia playback, proper online gaming, or insane graphics There is a good chunk of us that find absolutely no value in those features. However, I have yet to find any real persuasive feature on the Wii, that really makes me want to buy one.
I find technical specs like that prettty boring so it's nice when someone puts up an abridged version of long technical information. I did know the eighth core was redundant in case of failure but the rest of it still makes the PS3 run very fast. Quote: very innovative and unique. Heck, we got my stepdad to play Mario Party 8 Two of those words don't belong in the same sentence as Mario Party and its continuing market spam of party games. It's fun, no doubt. Unique and innovative, far from it. Quote: There is a good chunk of us that find absolutely no value in those features. Have you ever tried viewing photos in 1920x1080? Movies? Or listen to music with intense visuals? If you don't find value in it, that's your thing I guess. I like having lots of people over partying so to each their own I suppose. I somehow doubt that you've tried a PS3's multimedia features much less played its games, but if you have then wow. It must be hard to impress you.
"Or listen to music with intense visuals?" That's more pointless than pointless could be. And if I want to look at high resolution images, I can use my PC for that.
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 15:57 "Or listen to music with intense visuals?" That's more pointless than pointless could be. And if I want to look at high resolution images, I can use my PC for that. PC? you mean your MACHINE!
PCs have visualizations too, so by your logic that's pointless. No one uses visualizations on a PC. Microsoft just puts them in for no real reason. I'm sure your PC does the same things. In fact, I think mine does too. I didn't know that until you told me Kane. I doubt you'll be using a 32" or higher monitor on your computer to view photos, and there aren't a lot of monitors that support 1920x1080. I guess you could always upgrade your PC and monitor for far more than the cost of a PS3. That's the way!
Because everyone has a huge plasma screen TV. EVERYONE.
I have a 32" LCD 1080i LG set. Plasma's a waste of money because of the high risk of screen burn. You can get a high quality HDTV that's 32" to 42" for less than $1,500 these days. With the analog conversion coming up TVs will be even more affordable while the "wii" will look less and less enticing as its dated graphics will often cause lag in response times due to HDTV upscaling the "wii" output. By that time the "wii" will be a footnote in the latest fad that people wasted money on.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 16:42 I have a 32" LCD 1080i LG set. Plasma's a waste of money because of the high risk of screen burn. Also, AFAIK, all plasma's come with deffinite pixel damage. For some strange reason, they do that naturally.
I must admit, playing my PS3 on a 28" CRT TV, and then on a 32" HDTV, there's a HUGE difference, and you'll like it, a lot. Also, RenX, that's where you're wrong. There are technically 9 cores, one is the PPC, and there are 8 SPE's, 7 to do the processing and one as a failsafe.
There IS a disabled core in the PS3 Cell. Stop diging your hole and go look it up.
I do most of my gaming on PC, but still enjoy playing Wii now and then. Regardless, can we get back on the fucking topic?
Canadacdn wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 19:52 I do most of my gaming on PC, but still enjoy playing Wii now and then. Same tbh.
I seen this and thought Aircraftkiller would get a giggle or two from it.
On topic: http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1736/Super_Smash_Bros_Brawl_Review.html
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Fri, 14 March 2008 11:47 On topic: http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1736/Super_Smash_Bros_Brawl_Review.html Wow, that guy has a really annoying voice.
My freeloader arrived today, so I finally got to play the game. It's a fucking great game. The freeloader is also very nice.
Sir Kane wrote on Fri, 14 March 2008 17:20 My freeloader arrived today, so I finally got to play the game. It's a fucking great game. The freeloader is also very nice. At some point I need to play you online.
I doubt it would work too well latency wise, since it's a rather large range.
I've played people from quite far away, and actually not had that much lag.
Pain stage!
Those were a couple of good matches, SK. Almost no lag at all.
Not me, but I blame the fact that I haven't played it for too long, yet!
If you have a ps3 and are still using the scart output then your missing out on a lot lol. By using the hdmi output the quality is far superior as you would expect lol.
[quote title=Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 16:42With the analog conversion coming up TVs will be even more affordable while the "wii" will look less and less enticing as its dated graphics will often cause lag in response times due to HDTV upscaling the "wii" output. By that time the "wii" will be a footnote in the latest fad that people wasted money on.[/quote] The Wii has the capability to have PS3 graphics, but thats a problem. It's now more about the graphics themselves than the game. If everyone focused on the graphics, then the game would have to suck to be affordable to the average gamer.Though, some games, like SSBB(What we are talking about)and TLoZ:TP have amazing graphics and gameplay. Speaking of which, I'm just checking the forums before I play Super Smash Bros. Brawl(SSBB). (TLoZ:TP stands for The Legend of Zelda:Twilight Princess.)
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 13 March 2008 14:44 Quote: very innovative and unique. Heck, we got my stepdad to play Mario Party 8 Two of those words don't belong in the same sentence as Mario Party and its continuing market spam of party games. It's fun, no doubt. Unique and innovative, far from it. They weren't in the same sentence. I'm not dumb enough to think that Mario Party 8 is unique. However I am consistently impressed with all the neat things that developers are coming up with to do with the Wii remotes.
Quote: The Wii has the capability to have PS3 graphics You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Quote: then the game would have to suck to be affordable to the average gamer. No, they wouldn't have to. Try Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Heavenly Sword, etc... The "wii" cannot run those games yet they play fantastic and look incredible.