Page 3 • PS3 BluRay to be slower than DVD? • Gaming • PS3 • Eurogamer.net

Deleted user 16 February 2006 16:21:32

paulf wrote:
not sure that either bluray or HD-ROM will really take off, I reckon Hi Definition Video on Demand (which is already available on Telewest) will win out. Also I see digital distribution of games being more common as well. Maybe the real probelm with the whole hd thing at the moment is the cost of the monitors, and that people don't upgrade their teles that often if at all, so couple that with high cost of the players to make say a couple of grand to view a film you already have on DVD in hi-res mmmm its good but not that good

You bastard! That's what I was going to say... :-)

Spot on man...

Deleted user 16 February 2006 16:22:09

megastar wrote:
Re- enters room

"scrabble anyone"

(awkward silence whilst everyone stares at him like hes a piece of dirt)

"No?? Okay"

(leaves room again)

But, I thought... :-(

/Puts away scrabble board

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 16:22:47 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

Furbs wrote:
ROFL. Look what google brings up for "crappest"

Carlo, what 360 games are "dire"?
You don't seem to understand... they're going to become dire.

Why do you buy new consoles, or new games? Is it because they are better as time goes on, or something else?

A game comes out 10 years ago, and gets a 8/10. Meanwhile, back in the present, a game just comes out, and also gets 8/10.

Are they both the same?

Edited by Carlo at 16:25:26 16-02-2006

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:31:00 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Carlo wrote:

wasp wrote:

Furbs wrote:
ROFL. Look what google brings up for "crappest"

Carlo, what 360 games are "dire"?
You don't seem to understand... they're going to become dire.
Why do you buy new consoles, or new games? Is it because they are better as time goes on, or something else?

A game comes out 10 years ago, and gets a 8/10. Meanwhile, back in the present, a game just comes out, and also gets 8/10.

Are they both the same?

Edited by Carlo at 16:25:26 16-02-2006

Nope.

I remember 1 mag gave mario 64 100%.
Which if that applied for ever and ever then that would imply that there was no room for improvement surely.

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:32:40 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

Carlo wrote:
Actually, I don't have the inclination to sit here and squabble with you over if you think the word 'dire' was too stong a term insted of 'strong' for the launch games on the 360 when comparing it with some imaginary games that are in the future based on past performances of previous console games, and their initial launch games.

Whatever.

The 360 launch titles are not 'dire', and the best games in there like PGR3 and CoD2 will never be considered 'dire' either. Either way I disagree with what you're saying.

I wouldnt say Dire, but less than stellar is certainly fair

P.s. i dont wanna argue with anyone so dont be mean to me.

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:32:47 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

The consoles may get better. That does not mean the games do.

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:33:16 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

megastar wrote:
P.s. i dont wanna argue with anyone so dont be mean to me.

Yes you do

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:33:48 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

ssuellid wrote:

megastar wrote:
P.s. i dont wanna argue with anyone so dont be mean to me.

Yes you do

hides

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:41:13 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

megastar wrote:
Nope.

I remember 1 mag gave mario 64 100%.
Which if that applied for ever and ever then that would imply that there was no room for improvement surely.

But is Mario 64 now dire ?

Heres the way I personally see the marking system.

If "Yie ar Kung fu" on the spectrum got 8 out of ten - that means its an 8 out of ten game FOR THE SPECTRUM!

It doesnt however, due to obvious technological advances in both graphics and gameplay, make it on a par with an 8 out of 10 game on the amiga.

Shadow of the colossuss is aparantly a 10 out 10 game.
But in 15 years time an 8 out of 10 game on the playstation 6 will be far superior to shadow.

but that doesnt stop "Shadow" being a 10 out of 10 game"

You get me, coz I've lost myself.

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:45:12 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

100 hurrah

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:46:38 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

megastar wrote:
100 hurrah

depends if anyone has deleted any posts - iirc it still counts them.

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 16:47:11 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

Carlo wrote:
Actually, I don't have the inclination to sit here and squabble with you over if you think the word 'dire' was too stong a term insted of 'strong' for the launch games on the 360 when comparing it with some imaginary games that are in the future based on past performances of previous console games, and their initial launch games.

Whatever.

The 360 launch titles are not 'dire', and the best games in there like PGR3 and CoD2 will never be considered 'dire' either. Either way I disagree with what you're saying.

And that's the point where we part company. I think the games on the 360 will improve so much during it's lifetime, that you'll look back on PGR3 and wonder WTF it was you thought was so good about it. You'll also conclude that having owned a 360 for it's entire lifespan (which might be shorter than what we're used to with consoles, but that's another point) the cost of it was pretty damn good value for money overall.

So when people question why they have to fork out the 'extra' for cutting edge stuff that might not get used for 2 or three years now, that is how I'd answer it.

Technologies like BD for the PS3 aren't being put in there for the games of 'today', it's going in there for the games for the next (say) 10 years. You only have to look at how games improve (in all terms from graphics to complexity) from initial lineups to the 'swan-song' games to see this.

You don't think you'll look back and think they're dire, you don't share my hopes for the future.

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:47:23 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Post deleted

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:49:59 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Fundamental flaw in your argument is that some old games are still excellent - changing technology has not magically made them bad games.

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:50:27 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:
Yes, but we're talking about games on the same platform, a couple of years apart.

OH!!

\gets coat.

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 16:51:51 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

Carlo wrote:

wasp wrote:

Furbs wrote:
ROFL. Look what google brings up for "crappest"

Carlo, what 360 games are "dire"?
You don't seem to understand... they're going to become dire.
Why do you buy new consoles, or new games? Is it because they are better as time goes on, or something else?

A game comes out 10 years ago, and gets a 8/10. Meanwhile, back in the present, a game just comes out, and also gets 8/10.

Are they both the same?
If I enjoy it as much, yes. I still enjoy games from over 10 years ago. Don't you? Why are you so excited about the Revolution Virtual Console if you don't?

I never had a NES, SNES, or any Nintendo other than a GBA (for a short time) and a DS so I'm looking forward to trying out these 'legendary' games you guys talk about like Zelda, the original MGS, Mario, Goldeneye and the likes.

I'm also opimistic that the new controller will bring new genres.

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:52:49 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp do you remember the first batch of games that came out on the PS2 - they were shit!

I've often played release titles and thought jesus the PS2 has come a long way since then.

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 16:53:12 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

ssuellid wrote:
Fundamental flaw in your argument is that some old games are still excellent - changing technology has not magically made them bad games.

Oh, did you think I was somehow making a 'perfect' argument?

This *is* a discussion isn't it?

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:54:12 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

megastar wrote:
wasp do you remember the first batch of games that came out on the PS2 - they were shit!

They were shit when they were released tho. Shit from day 1 - time or technology has not made them shit games.

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 16:55:07 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Carlo wrote:

ssuellid wrote:
Fundamental flaw in your argument is that some old games are still excellent - changing technology has not magically made them bad games.
Oh, did you think I was somehow making a 'perfect' argument?

This *is* a discussion isn't it?

Its nowhere near a perfect argument. In fact its not even much of an argument unless your a graphics whore.

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:55:29 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

ssuellid wrote:

megastar wrote:
wasp do you remember the first batch of games that came out on the PS2 - they were shit!

They were shit when they were released tho. Shit from day 1 - time or technology has not made them shit games.

LOL, do I have anything valid to offer to this discussion.

leaves

megastar 16 Feb 2006 16:56:28 17,238 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Post deleted

Deleted user 16 February 2006 17:05:51

How come any discussion turn into a mud fight regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the 360 technology and its games? Do people feel threatened by that machine? Seems to be a lot of 'defensive aggressivity' around if I may call it that...

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 17:06:31 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

LeDilettante wrote:
How come any discussion turn into a mud fight regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the 360 technology and its games? Do people feel threatened by that machine? Seems to be a lot of 'defensive aggressivity' around if I may call it that...

You obviously did not read the thread. It has relatively little to do with the 360. Just a 'new games make old games crap' debate. not platform specific.

Edited by ssuellid at 17:07:26 16-02-2006

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 17:09:19 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

wasp wrote:

Carlo wrote:
And that's the point where we part company. I think the games on the 360 will improve so much during it's lifetime, that you'll look back on PGR3 and wonder WTF it was you thought was so good about it. You'll also conclude that having owned a 360 for it's entire lifespan (which might be shorter than what we're used to with consoles, but that's another point) the cost of it was pretty damn good value for money overall.

So when people question why they have to fork out the 'extra' for cutting edge stuff that might not get used for 2 or three years now, that is how I'd answer it.

Technologies like BD for the PS3 aren't being put in there for the games of 'today', it's going in there for the games for the next (say) 10 years. You only have to look at how games improve (in all terms from graphics to complexity) from initial lineups to the 'swan-song' games to see this.

You don't think you'll look back and think they're dire, you don't share my hopes for the future.
I am honestly speechless.

All I can say is I look forward to this point in time where this genre that has barely changed since I played Porsche Challenge on the PS1 will suddenly make me think PGR3 is a pile of shit.

Dire='pile of shit' now?

Steady... Don't want to be accused of being inaccurate round here. You'll get lynched!

Why are you taking everything I say and blowing as far out of proportion as possible?

EGBartonFink 16 Feb 2006 17:10:24 914 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

ssuellid wrote:

Carlo wrote:

ssuellid wrote:
Fundamental flaw in your argument is that some old games are still excellent - changing technology has not magically made them bad games.
Oh, did you think I was somehow making a 'perfect' argument?

This *is* a discussion isn't it?

Its nowhere near a perfect argument. In fact its not even much of an argument unless your a graphics whore.

+1

ssuellid 16 Feb 2006 17:11:11 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

dire = very bad

'pile of shite' is a perfectly acceptable replacement imho.

Deleted user 16 February 2006 17:11:14

ssuellid wrote:

LeDilettante wrote:
How come any discussion turn into a mud fight regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the 360 technology and its games? Do people feel threatened by that machine? Seems to be a lot of 'defensive aggressivity' around if I may call it that...

You obviously did not read the thread. It has relatively little to do with the 360. Just a 'new games make old games crap' debate. not platform specific.

Edited by ssuellid at 17:07:26 16-02-2006

I did read the thread. It all started getting all heated up when Carlo spouted out that 360 launch games were dire. So it has something to do with it.

BartonFink 16 Feb 2006 17:13:16 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

LeDilettante wrote:

ssuellid wrote:

LeDilettante wrote:
How come any discussion turn into a mud fight regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the 360 technology and its games? Do people feel threatened by that machine? Seems to be a lot of 'defensive aggressivity' around if I may call it that...

You obviously did not read the thread. It has relatively little to do with the 360. Just a 'new games make old games crap' debate. not platform specific.

Edited by ssuellid at 17:07:26 16-02-2006

I did read the thread. It all started getting all heated up when Carlo spouted out that 360 launch games were dire. So it has something to do with it.

And you just had to lower to it didn't ye

Carlo 16 Feb 2006 17:13:48 21,801 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

I cannot believe you guys are effecting saying the quality of games on a *console* stays mostly the same right the way through it's lifespan.

I think I need to take a break from you lot.

Edited by Carlo at 17:16:13 16-02-2006

PS3 BluRay to be slower than DVD? • Page 3