The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It would be for newer games like Skyrim and stuff like Defiance, so anything I buy would have to be able to cope fairly well with these at a decent level. There is really no point in buying a CPU and Graphics Card that will only play recent games on the lowest settings. I reckon an A8 would do the trick, though.
Put it this way, up until a week ago, AMD were giving away sim city with the A series processors.
That is (and I speak from experience; I bought it for my wife) a very demanding game.
Benchmarks are skewed. I don't know how many times I've run one and been surprised at how "poor" my kit looks, only to find that it runs everything at stupidly high framerates. I ran BI on ultra using a dual core AMD of much lower spec than the A4.
That is (and I speak from experience; I bought it for my wife) a very demanding game.
Benchmarks are skewed. I don't know how many times I've run one and been surprised at how "poor" my kit looks, only to find that it runs everything at stupidly high framerates. I ran BI on ultra using a dual core AMD of much lower spec than the A4.
pete_21 wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
But surely these tests must give some kind of indication? That processor does look good for the money and I'm sure it would be more than adequate in most family PC's, not convinced it would be all that suitable for serious gaming though. My old Intel Core 2 Extreme (which was basically the most powerful thing around in its day) would actually run HD encoding jobs fine, the thing is a project that took 14 hours can be done in about 3 on my current i7 set up.[/i]
Yes, they will, but a game will often say requires 3.4Ghz processor to run and those results show that many 3.4Ghz processors fall below the speed of much lower speed processors in tests, so how to you gauge how well a game will run?
pb wrote:
[i]I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
But surely these tests must give some kind of indication? That processor does look good for the money and I'm sure it would be more than adequate in most family PC's, not convinced it would be all that suitable for serious gaming though. My old Intel Core 2 Extreme (which was basically the most powerful thing around in its day) would actually run HD encoding jobs fine, the thing is a project that took 14 hours can be done in about 3 on my current i7 set up.[/i]
Yes, they will, but a game will often say requires 3.4Ghz processor to run and those results show that many 3.4Ghz processors fall below the speed of much lower speed processors in tests, so how to you gauge how well a game will run?
pb wrote:
I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
But surely these tests must give some kind of indication? That processor does look good for the money and I'm sure it would be more than adequate in most family PC's, not convinced it would be all that suitable for serious gaming though. My old Intel Core 2 Extreme (which was basically the most powerful thing around in its day) would actually run HD encoding jobs fine, the thing is a project that took 14 hours can be done in about 3 on my current i7 set up.
I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
But surely these tests must give some kind of indication? That processor does look good for the money and I'm sure it would be more than adequate in most family PC's, not convinced it would be all that suitable for serious gaming though. My old Intel Core 2 Extreme (which was basically the most powerful thing around in its day) would actually run HD encoding jobs fine, the thing is a project that took 14 hours can be done in about 3 on my current i7 set up.
pete_21 wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]Are you sure the A4 will play anything? I mean, properly. It seems fairly low-spec.
Benchmark result for it doesn't look that amazing.[/i]
I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
pb wrote:
[i]Are you sure the A4 will play anything? I mean, properly. It seems fairly low-spec.
Benchmark result for it doesn't look that amazing.[/i]
I always find that a bit slanted, but tend to rely on what others who own them had found.
chasfh wrote:
[I]PC's will always be technically superior (if you keep them updated with the latest components), the thing is most casual gamers probably can't be bothered. You can buy a 360/PS3 for about £150 these days, one component for a decent spec gaming PC could cost you that.
Cheap PC components that'll play all the latest..
Considering that's the majority of a new system, and it will work with bits cannibalised from your old system (case, power supply, monitor, keyboard and mouse, disc drive, hard drive..), that's a full upgrade for pretty much nothing.
It'll play the latest games at full spec too.
I still maintain that overall, I spend far less on my pc than anyone does on consoles.[/i]
Are you sure the A4 will play anything? I mean, properly. It seems fairly low-spec.
[I]PC's will always be technically superior (if you keep them updated with the latest components), the thing is most casual gamers probably can't be bothered. You can buy a 360/PS3 for about £150 these days, one component for a decent spec gaming PC could cost you that.
Cheap PC components that'll play all the latest..
Considering that's the majority of a new system, and it will work with bits cannibalised from your old system (case, power supply, monitor, keyboard and mouse, disc drive, hard drive..), that's a full upgrade for pretty much nothing.
It'll play the latest games at full spec too.
I still maintain that overall, I spend far less on my pc than anyone does on consoles.[/i]
Are you sure the A4 will play anything? I mean, properly. It seems fairly low-spec.
Currently on Amazon the Xbox One and PS4 consoles are being pre-ordered at £599.99 and the games are £89.99 each. I'm sure Amazon had fun in making up such crazy estimates and I'd expect them to drop to something reasonable when they are officially announced.
Actually, I'd probably spend a bit more and go with the A8 quad core.
Overclockers is good, but that offer is great even by the usual standards. Now all I've got to work out is if my case is a standard size...
Page: