The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With today's announcement of the XBox One we now know all of the contenders in the next generation of the console wars!!!1 In the red corner we have the latest iteration of Sony's gaming powerhouse, the Playstation 4. Nothing original with the name, but why change a winning formula?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
Page:
chasfh wrote:
Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
I would say that it is different as a PS3 game will play on any PS3, stick the disc in and away you go, end of. Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.
Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
I would say that it is different as a PS3 game will play on any PS3, stick the disc in and away you go, end of. Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.
pb wrote:
PCs don't need to be desk based and can use Xbox or PS3 wired controllers, but its not really mainstream enough yet.
I could see a possible future where PCs were used in place of consoles, but the manufacturers would need to agree on standards and there would need to be a less fractured process with more standardised software. But surely that would just annoy most current PC gamers who like to tinker?
Been using my PC with my 40" TV for ages, from the comfort of my sofa, when I'm not using it on my 27" monitor from the comfort of an executive leather chair... I do like to be comfortable when I'm gaming!
I also use a 360 controller on some games; some games actually play better with a controller than they do with a keyboard and mouse. It works perfectly, no glitches.
And you can use wireless controllers for PC too, you know.
...and hasn't PC gaming been "mainstream" longer than consoles have? I do tinker with my PC, but that's not why I like PC gaming over consoles. Also, in terms of "standardisation", I have had two issues with PC games that I can remember in several years, both of which related to my own misunderstanding of the settings on my own monitor/ machine; that's what happens when you buy fancy new equipment and don't read the manual.
Funny thing is, I see an awful lot of complaints about PC games "not working", and nine times out of ten, the user is overclocking. Games designers often state that overclocking can cause issues.
And compatible hardware arguments? Come on, really, that's like arguing that you should be able to play your PS3 game in your 360. Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
What sort of standardisation would everyone recommend to make PC gaming more "user friendly" then?
PCs don't need to be desk based and can use Xbox or PS3 wired controllers, but its not really mainstream enough yet.
I could see a possible future where PCs were used in place of consoles, but the manufacturers would need to agree on standards and there would need to be a less fractured process with more standardised software. But surely that would just annoy most current PC gamers who like to tinker?
Been using my PC with my 40" TV for ages, from the comfort of my sofa, when I'm not using it on my 27" monitor from the comfort of an executive leather chair... I do like to be comfortable when I'm gaming!
I also use a 360 controller on some games; some games actually play better with a controller than they do with a keyboard and mouse. It works perfectly, no glitches.
And you can use wireless controllers for PC too, you know.
...and hasn't PC gaming been "mainstream" longer than consoles have? I do tinker with my PC, but that's not why I like PC gaming over consoles. Also, in terms of "standardisation", I have had two issues with PC games that I can remember in several years, both of which related to my own misunderstanding of the settings on my own monitor/ machine; that's what happens when you buy fancy new equipment and don't read the manual.
Funny thing is, I see an awful lot of complaints about PC games "not working", and nine times out of ten, the user is overclocking. Games designers often state that overclocking can cause issues.
And compatible hardware arguments? Come on, really, that's like arguing that you should be able to play your PS3 game in your 360. Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
What sort of standardisation would everyone recommend to make PC gaming more "user friendly" then?
I think the PC and console market are completely different, I have my console set up in a spare room with a wall mounted TV and couch, I sometimes disappear up there for an hour or so while my Mrs. watches her weekly supply of rubbish TV programmes. Suppose I could rig up a PC to that set up and use it with an Xbox controller but I honestly can't be bothered.
Nin wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Plus, on a PC, I get to play Total War: Rome 2, something console gamers will never experience....
* Rage *
Consoles are simply easier and in my experience more relaxing. I'm really not a fan of having to sit at a desk and play games if I can instead be on the settee with a much bigger screen. I much prefer gamepads to keyboards also, and the alternative gamepads for pc's are inferior in every way.
I'm hopeful that with the architecture of these new consoles being similar to pc's and HDTV improving resolution, porting across games like Total War 2 will be easier. It infuriates me when I hear Sid Meier saying console gamers aren't interested in strategy games and will remain pc only.[/i]
PCs don't need to be desk based and can use Xbox or PS3 wired controllers, but its not really mainstream enough yet.
I could see a possible future where PCs were used in place of consoles, but the manufacturers would need to agree on standards and there would need to be a less fractured process with more standardised software. But surely that would just annoy most current PC gamers who like to tinker?
chasfh wrote:
[i]Plus, on a PC, I get to play Total War: Rome 2, something console gamers will never experience....
* Rage *
Consoles are simply easier and in my experience more relaxing. I'm really not a fan of having to sit at a desk and play games if I can instead be on the settee with a much bigger screen. I much prefer gamepads to keyboards also, and the alternative gamepads for pc's are inferior in every way.
I'm hopeful that with the architecture of these new consoles being similar to pc's and HDTV improving resolution, porting across games like Total War 2 will be easier. It infuriates me when I hear Sid Meier saying console gamers aren't interested in strategy games and will remain pc only.[/i]
PCs don't need to be desk based and can use Xbox or PS3 wired controllers, but its not really mainstream enough yet.
I could see a possible future where PCs were used in place of consoles, but the manufacturers would need to agree on standards and there would need to be a less fractured process with more standardised software. But surely that would just annoy most current PC gamers who like to tinker?
chasfh wrote:
Plus, on a PC, I get to play Total War: Rome 2, something console gamers will never experience....
* Rage *
Consoles are simply easier and in my experience more relaxing. I'm really not a fan of having to sit at a desk and play games if I can instead be on the settee with a much bigger screen. I much prefer gamepads to keyboards also, and the alternative gamepads for pc's are inferior in every way.
I'm hopeful that with the architecture of these new consoles being similar to pc's and HDTV improving resolution, porting across games like Total War 2 will be easier. It infuriates me when I hear Sid Meier saying console gamers aren't interested in strategy games and will remain pc only.
Plus, on a PC, I get to play Total War: Rome 2, something console gamers will never experience....
* Rage *
Consoles are simply easier and in my experience more relaxing. I'm really not a fan of having to sit at a desk and play games if I can instead be on the settee with a much bigger screen. I much prefer gamepads to keyboards also, and the alternative gamepads for pc's are inferior in every way.
I'm hopeful that with the architecture of these new consoles being similar to pc's and HDTV improving resolution, porting across games like Total War 2 will be easier. It infuriates me when I hear Sid Meier saying console gamers aren't interested in strategy games and will remain pc only.
As PC Gamers we have always, yea grown up with it, had to understand its workings and work with them to produce our desired effect with all games. Console players ... no, stick it in and off we go!
(There are probably a lot of people that do this anyway in other areas ... so another thread?)
(There are probably a lot of people that do this anyway in other areas ... so another thread?)
There are plenty of console exclusives that the PC will never get and most people find the INITIAL cost of a PC restrictive, at least one that can match a console.
Obviously we're talking about an already set up device that can play and do everything from the word go, here, as many people would not have the time or knowledge to put things together or install operating systems.
What about the online aspect? I've rarely had a game on PC without someone seemingly doing impossible things or the online community seemingly being full of homophobic, antisocial racists. Yes, there are some of these on console but seemingly fewer.
If Pcs were to replace consoles, you'd need to have one unique interface installed on the PC and running from first purchase (possibly Steam), with the PC affordable to families and looking good enough to stick under the TV with HDMI and Optical out, guaranteed to work with any game marked PC and no complicated system specs.
Plug and play and Steam have gone a long way to make the PC more accessible, but its still not there yet.
And why should there be a single format?
Obviously we're talking about an already set up device that can play and do everything from the word go, here, as many people would not have the time or knowledge to put things together or install operating systems.
What about the online aspect? I've rarely had a game on PC without someone seemingly doing impossible things or the online community seemingly being full of homophobic, antisocial racists. Yes, there are some of these on console but seemingly fewer.
If Pcs were to replace consoles, you'd need to have one unique interface installed on the PC and running from first purchase (possibly Steam), with the PC affordable to families and looking good enough to stick under the TV with HDMI and Optical out, guaranteed to work with any game marked PC and no complicated system specs.
Plug and play and Steam have gone a long way to make the PC more accessible, but its still not there yet.
And why should there be a single format?
Plus, on a PC, I get to play Total War: Rome 2, something console gamers will never experience....
Hoorah :-)
Alfonse wrote:
PC gaming is just unlimited in it's purest form. I would only buy consoles for original ips which would be developed for PC instead if those consoles ceased to exist
Well put.. I am afraid I tend to agree, console games are by comparison "less" than PC games.
But then I am a PC gamer.
Used to talk to the Ubisoft rep a lot when I worked in the games retailers, and he categorically stated that the console versions of games were on average 10% slower than their PC counterparts; particularly relevant in first person games, as this helped to account for the fact that PC gamers could turn/ aim/ change direction with a mouse and keyboard much quicker than a console gamer with a pad.
This was certainly the case with Ubisoft games, and I must say I have noticed the difference on a number of occasions. My son has a 360 and plays many of the same games that I play on PC. He's noticed it, I've noticed it. So, I stick to PC; prettier, faster and on the whole more flexible.
And before I get "mauled" by console gamers harping on about the "extreme cost" of maintaining a gaming PC compared to the price of a console...
Over the past 8 years, I have spent approximately £450 on upgrading my PC. I won't need to do any more to it for at least another 3 years, unless I choose to. The price of my games is on average £10 to £15 cheaper than the equivalent console version...
So... at least 11 years use costing me £450, saving minimum £10 per game...
Not really that expensive, is it?
Build a PC, ditch the consoles, that's my advice.
PC gaming is just unlimited in it's purest form. I would only buy consoles for original ips which would be developed for PC instead if those consoles ceased to exist
Well put.. I am afraid I tend to agree, console games are by comparison "less" than PC games.
But then I am a PC gamer.
Used to talk to the Ubisoft rep a lot when I worked in the games retailers, and he categorically stated that the console versions of games were on average 10% slower than their PC counterparts; particularly relevant in first person games, as this helped to account for the fact that PC gamers could turn/ aim/ change direction with a mouse and keyboard much quicker than a console gamer with a pad.
This was certainly the case with Ubisoft games, and I must say I have noticed the difference on a number of occasions. My son has a 360 and plays many of the same games that I play on PC. He's noticed it, I've noticed it. So, I stick to PC; prettier, faster and on the whole more flexible.
And before I get "mauled" by console gamers harping on about the "extreme cost" of maintaining a gaming PC compared to the price of a console...
Over the past 8 years, I have spent approximately £450 on upgrading my PC. I won't need to do any more to it for at least another 3 years, unless I choose to. The price of my games is on average £10 to £15 cheaper than the equivalent console version...
So... at least 11 years use costing me £450, saving minimum £10 per game...
Not really that expensive, is it?
Build a PC, ditch the consoles, that's my advice.
Page: