PlayStation 3 - A Losing Battle for Sony?

I agree with PrecuiusRoi.

(i know you know this) but, Nintendo have been around 4 a very long time they know there craft & market place, i don’t always agree with what they do but i'm always interested. For me Nintendo have seen what Sony & Microsoft are doing & have carved there own niche out, will it pay off who knows?, but you've got to respect them for trying something different?

For me Nintendo have seen what Sony & Microsoft are doing & have carved there own niche out,

it depends on seen what sony and microsft are doing because nintendo have been developing the wii for about 7 years and i dont tink nintendo new what sony and microsoft were up to at the start of the wii

yes it could be a total disaster, but it could be brilliant. thats the nature of risk, of which far too few are taken these days. most brilliant things in life are born from someone taking a risk. a lot of s**t stuff too



just my view, calm down. top notch sarcasm by the way



just british



good grief, there wouldnt BE the unique software without the unique hardware. of course im waiting for the games that are taking innovative measures to use the hardware,

but it is the hardware that will make the games able to be brilliant and original, more so than an identical counterpart using a standard controller, so saying it is the big thing (especially to a spectator, pre-launch) is of course correct.

im obviously not waiting to play fifa 07 on the wii with the controller in its NES configuration. that kind of standard gameplay (standard sequel too) is what the other consoles are for



we know that all 3 consoles do or will have good, great, terrific games on them. the wii will have mario, the 360 will have halo 3, the ps3 will have mgs4. but the wii will have that controller. its the big thing, it sets them apart, its the reason i am getting a wii.

Actually...the hardware of the Wii is not new by a long shot...its the combination of several "old" techs in such a way they complement each other in achieving a new way of playing.

Like the DS really.
If the DS was only a beefed up GBA with the screen being a touch-screen...impractical gimmick.
If the DS was a beefed up GBA instead of one screen it has two screens and that's it...rubbish.
If the DS was a beefed up GBA with only a added mic on...great they can port Hey You Pickachu over and...that's it...

now combine all those three and BAM! Best Handheld Ever get!

So it isn't the hardware perse, it's what you do with it. Combo-wise and gameplay-wise...it's all a big machinery, remove one liitlepiece and it falls apart!

youre right, its not as if nintendo invented the accelerometer themselves 6 months ago, and if there was just one interesting piece of tech incorporated into the controller it may seem gimmicky or tacked on (cough - ps3 controller, directional sensor tack on just before E3, warhawk developers given 10 days to add the functionality).

but i think its fair to look at the hardware as a whole, and say 'goddamn, that controller is why the wii is called the wii and not gamecube 2.0'

assuming it is as fabulous as it seems, that controller is going to inject the fun back into lots of videogames, which just like hollywood movies and pop music has grown stale

Thats Nintendo's thing. Look, unlike you I'm adopting a "wait and see" approach to the Wii'troller and its success. But looked at in a sincerely objective light, the potential downside is greater than the potential upside edit:thats not to say I don't think it will be a success, I do, but the danger is there






Then you shoulda just said "I'm more excited about this than I was about the GC." Instead of trying to make it sound cooler.




I disagree. You can have innovative games without wacky hardware, but wacky hardware without innovative games is worthless. So saying that you are wrong is of course more correcter.


So you automatically concede that the Wii is suitable only as a 2nd console? Gee, I dunno, I'll have to disagree. edit:OK thats not fair, really only j/k



I woulda used Zelda and Gran Turismo for Nintendo and Sony, respectively...I'd say the Wii being 1/2 the cost of Sony sets it apart without the duplicable controller. Not to mention the Ninty mystique.

eh? i was talking about the 64, which was nintendo's leap to 3d (if you dont count a handful of snes games) and despite what you may think of the way i worded the sentence, it was the last console to get me as excited as i am now about the wii.



but we already know for sure we'll get the games, i can sleep easy in that knowledge. so this hardware with its new method of control becomes the main focus surely

and yes, innovation can be done without strange controllers, but not many people are doing it. and if the realm of possible innovation isnt confined to whats on the screen, thats a really great thing



i shall not be buying ports with tacked on controller functionality is what i am saying.

and yeah, if iwata and the lads achieve what they are aiming for, like no crappy ports, just games designed for the hardware from the ground up, it may well be significantly different enough to inspire a wave of 2 console households. now the wii doesnt have to be second best in that pair

No, I understood you perfectly. I'm just not sure you understood yourself. I reiterate, all you're saying is that the GC didn't excite you as much as the Wii.


we do? based on what evidence? I think you're making an unsubstanstiated assumption here.
As I pointed out its the hardware thats the done deal, the software is the unknown, therefore, the logical main focus. And don't call me surely.


Thats what you meant by:?
OK, if you say so...'cuz I didn't get that, I thought you were saying "If I wanted a standard console I'd buy one."

i wasnt very excited about the GC no. i was eager to see mario with an even more rounded hat, and it did have some great games. but it was just an upgrade

i thought the N64 was a huge thing, maybe you didnt. i even like the controller

there is going to be a bunch of awesome wii games, that is in the bag - this is nintendo were talking about! theyre making a last stand in the console market and theyre pulling out all the stops - their own game developing skills are at the top of their field, and they are getting in bed with plenty of decent 3rd party developers. it is going to be brilliant (my favourite word at the moment)

It's interesting how preferences are different between everyone.

I didn't find the N64 exciting at all (as everyone on here knows to death :p) because of the poor controller, poor control in most games and, generally unexciting game line-up (with a few exceptions).

I found the Gamecube very exciting. For the first time, Nintendo had a lot of third party support and some great games as a result - Mario Sunshine, Resident Evil, Viewtiful Joe, Tales of Symphonia, Metorid Prime, The Wind Waker et al. And a few disappointing, dodgy N64 style ones - Mario kart, Wario World spring to mind. These games were accessible and brilliant - they were the best of their genres upon release (as opposed to "N64 betas").

But I think the overall quality and quantity of games for Gamecube was a big improvement over N64.

N64 = revolutionary.

And liek most revolutions it was mesy and poorly orchastrated, but it had alot of good ideas.

GC = Evolutionary.

Basicly took all that they got wrong on the 64 and fixed it (storage media, controller lay out etc...). No incredible new features, nothing out of the ordinary, just a good solid system. Probably the most well designed of the previous Gen. (except for the nipple stick which is retarded)

I love em both but the swtich from 16-bit to 64 was huge, the jump to the GC was "nice".

___________

i stayed with my snes until the N64, i couldve bought a psx but it didnt have the games i wanted to play, LoZ, M64 etc in full 3d. i was even hot under the collar for turok!

i thought the console was really cool, and i played it most of the time until i got a dreamcast years later. it had enough great games to keep me going, most of them coming from nintendo and rare probably as 3rd party support was thin on the ground, the gamecube was relieving in that respect, like you said adam

i thought the controller was very comfortable, and that the analogue stick was fantastic. i loved the feel of using the middle prong and z trigger during FPS's like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark

the only issue id take with the n64 controller is that some mysterious crap kept collecting in the recess which the stick protruded from

The gamecube was/is a great console, and although ive never compared a list of the great games from both the consoles, id accept it if the gc won. but the N64 blew my socks off

we should start a great n64 and gc games list, for a laugh

Reads "laugh" as "argument" ;) ;) ;)

Nice synopsis on the N64 :).

it was a "nice" in the sense of "owh look a steady fps of 30...eey, Goldeneye??" (Ok Halo and Halo2 has a problem of having a steady fps at 25...but we're talking GC here, the champion of 60fps-ness! kinda) and in a sense of "wow now i can't count the polygons of the main characters".

That's why HD is such a BAD idea. Goldeneye-like framrates returns woohoo! While virtual every game on the Wii played in wide-screen, in prologic scanning and 480p locked at 60fps...framerate over shinyness anyday people.