The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

(http://dsmedia.ign.com/ds/image/article/672/672422/blog-images-20060424025026417.jpg)


http://blogs.ign.com/craig-ign/2006/04/24/14007/p2 (http://blogs.ign.com/craig-ign/2006/04/24/14007/p2)

Toys for Bob is designing the Tony Hawk launch game for the Revolution (using the unique controller and all).

Two questions:

1) Is this an indication that Star Control 2 (or even Star Control 1 of the Genesis) being available on the Virtual Console?

2) Will the true sequel to Star Control 2 be put on the Revolution? Revolution would be cheapest to develop for and the controller is a natural fit for 3d space ships.

I'm not even going to start with IGN's Nintendo T-shirt with "HMD" on it... (Head Mounted Display) as we all know where that goes.

Ahh, so that's the mysterious "other project" mentioned in recent news posts.

Interesting... I hope they decide to release the next starcontrol game for the PC, though. I'd think that most of the fans of the series would be primarily PC gamers, and TFB might lose a good portion of those fans if they decide to go console-only.

From what I hear from insiders, pc gaming isn't where the money's at anymore. If TfB feels they should go the console route in order to make the green then I'm ok with it as long as they release it for pc as well.

Fortunately, SC2 is a game that's very suitable for a console, so they wouldn't have to make any compromises to the game itself.

If buying a new console would be what it would take to play the sequel to SC2, then that's what must be done.

I have a hard time imagining that TFB would ever abandon the roots of the Star Control franchise by going exclusively console. They're far more likely to do a release for BOTH the PC and one or more consoles.

Might be difficult to port between the Rev and other platforms though... ?

I suspect it's a sacrifice they would be willing to make in order to get to make a new SC.

It depends somewhat on their initial plan. Generally, graphics are made for the highest end platform and then scaled down for the ones with small processors and video cards, etc. If they plan on jumping in and competing with games with engines like the UT2007 on the Xbox 360 and PC (PS3 too, if it ever comes out) then they build the games for these systems and then dumb it down for the rev. But, if they build for the rev, and then decide later to expand into the more powerful systems, it will not use the full power, or they'll have to build a lot of extra, enhanced content and such. This generally sucks, as the graphics of Defender or SWCW relatively sucked when ported to the Xbox.

Also, games on consoles are usually built very differently from PC games, because of the controller vs mouse/keyboard/joystick. The game would probably be more involved if it was designed for the PC. However, one good thing about console games (at least up until now,) is the developers are forced to put out a more stable product, because on consoles, you can't just tell people to download a patch in a few months that makes the game playable; the game disc is a stand-alone product. Of course, this may change with the more internet-savy, PC-like new consoles, but lets hope not.

Still, it would be better if the PC version was the primary version, and then ports were made to consoles from that. And let's really hope that it comes out for more than just the revolution, which would just suck (though it is a possibility.)

Yea, before it folded, the Starcraft Ghost project aimed exclusively for launch on consoles. This is part of the reason why I am happy that it was canceled.

If you look at the Xbox 360 and PS3 games, you'll notice that few if any (that I've seen thus far) are too far from being more realistic and dark themed than starcontrol (except that hypersonic rat game.) Yes, there's plenty of SciFi, but not like SC, by a long shot.

The revolution on the other hand, is supposed to be shooting for a younger crowd, with brighter more stylized graphics, and perhaps more gameplay diversity. So if it is heading for the next gen console market, it could easily be exclusive to the revolution.

Chances are they'd go for Renderware for their engine. Supporting different platforms wouldn't be a problem then.

Yeah, it just makes sense.

I'll support a new Star Control "by any means neccessary", even if that means console-only. But I can still hope for a PC version.  ;D

I don't think anyone could say that a console SC game would be horrible, since this entire forum is devoted to the porting of such a game. But if they went console, would it only be available for the revolution (which will otherwise be a platform with a high suckiness level, in my opinion?) I think it would have a better chance of coming to the PC, than the other two consoles.

Apparently you haven't heard about Red Steel, which is supposed to be a launch title for the Rev. Definitely not kiddie fare. I see from your other posts that you seem to have a heavy, sight-unseen bias against the Rev. What's that all about?

If TFB releases the next SC game for the Rev, that's probably good enough to sell me a console on its own. Anything else I might get for it would just be gravy (though all those classic Nintendo games certainly are tasty gravy).

I doubt we'll *ever* see a Star Control 2 sequel for the PS3 or Xbox 360. Developing for those consoles takes an insane budget. To give some context, the Revolution development kit is cheaper than the PSP development kit. Also, Toys for Bob is already working on the Revolution platform. They will be very familiar with its controller and how the system works.

Paul Reiche III has said that the big obstacle for a proper Star Control 2 sequel would be obtaining the development budget. With the PS3 and Xbox 360's development costs skyrocketing (just look at what is needed for the art assets, holy cow), the sequel would appear on either the PC or Revolution. My bet would be the Revolution due to more money being in console games and that the Revolution's controller might have finally solved the riddle of Ford and Reiche creating a solid 3d space shooter.

Before any sequel though, we should petition/spam/threaten Toys for Bob (and their publishers) to put Star Control 2 on the download services of the consoles. At first, I thought SC2 would appear on Xbox Live Arcade but the XBLA titles have been released at such a low rate. And I can't imagine anyone putting in the time to tie SC2 to Xbox Live's stats with updated HD graphics.

With the PS1/PS2 download service, hopefully we will see Toys for Bob's early games like The Unholy War or The Horde available. But I don't think Sony's download service will include games for systems other than Playstation.

The most likely spot for Star Control 2 to reappear on consoles would be the Virtual Console. If the Virtual Console can include NEC and Sega consoles, why not the 3DO? I would imagine that before a SC2 sequel, the waters would be tested to see how popular SC 2 still is.

But I am just speculating. Please Toys for Bob! For the love of Juffo-Wup! After E3, please talk to us!

Don't do it for us. Don't do it for yourselves. Do it for what really matters. Do it for Frungy!

Yes, it is number one on gamespot's current top 5 (yes, there's only 5, not 10) revolution games. . .right before SpongeBob Squarepants, Smash Brothers, Metroid, and Sadness (putting it in black and white is almost as good an idea as its title.) Not a real hardcore/impressive line up, IMO.

To answer your question, I suppose my underlying dislike of the rev is the direction it has taken (lower end, lower age group) seems boring and cheesy. Also, there's the Gamecube, which was a bundle of good ideas:

1) Hey, let's for no reason make it really small so that it will be much pricier/less-powerful than it could be.

2) Instead of using standard discs, lets make these cool little expensive ones that store less / cost more / probably won't be runnable on future systems, since. . .

3) . . .we already have designed the gamecube to not run any nintendo games cartridges from older systems.

4) Lets keep our price up there with the Xbox, even though the cube is half as powerful and has no dvd support.

What were you expecting from a system that's still mostly vaporware? I can't think of any console that's ever laucnched with more than a dozen games or so, at least not since the NES anyway.


Where's this info coming from? It sounds to me like you're just repeating the old, only partially deserved stereotype that Nintendo only makes "kiddie games," which is something they're clearly trying to move away from, at least in part. While you can't expect them to abandon their huge, "kiddish" moneymakers (ie. Pokemon, Mario), I wouldn't say they're going out of their way to stymie the development of more mature themed games, and it looks more to me like they're encouraging it (and have been for some time).


Where are you shopping? The 'Cube was always less than a PS2 or X-Box. It was $100 less at launch, and even now, is about $50 less. Call me crazy, but that figured heavily into my decision to early-adopt the GCN, and pass on both of the others for a long time. I didn't get a PS2 until it came down to $150 (and I had the entire amount covered in gift cards), and I still don't have an X-Box, and likely never will.

While I'm not sure what the thought process was behind the GCN minidiscs, I have a hunch it has something to do with the fact that the GCN is the only console not currently able to be emulated, as far as I know. This has always been something near and dear to Nintendo's heart (can't make money on old games if anyone can download them for free), and it seems like the minidiscs were successful in thwarting emulation of the console.

Speaking of emulation and backward compatability, you have heard that the Rev will support games from all previous Nintendo consoles, right? This means it will be backward compatible for GCN discs, and older cart-based games will be available for download. This is pretty unprecedented, as any other backward compatible console has always just supported its previous iteration. Also, why complain about the GCN's lack of backward compatability? No previous Nintendo console has ever supported it other than the handhelds. It would have been a nice feature, but it's not strictly necessary.

One last thing; you do realize the X-Box didn't have DVD support out of the box, and required a separate add-on (sold separately, of course), right?

About the same as I am getting from the still mostly vaporware PS3.



Something a nintendo spokesman/exec said a while back- that the rev was not going to compete with the PS3 or Xbox 360, but instead shoot for a lower end piece of the market, along with the handhelds market.

I'm not a big handhelds fan either. I'm more of a grouch who likes full blown systems. :)



Are you sure? I thought it was X=$300 P=$200 and G=$300 at the launch? I could be wrong, it was a while ago.



You missed out, if you grabbed the Xbox at $200, that would have been the best deal. Lot's of games that blow GC games away (both graphically and gameplay wise, IMO.) I'd recommend the same strategy if you plan on getting a PS3 or X360- wait until a couple years goes by and the price drops to $200, because that's when there will be plenty of good games (many in the $20-$30 range) anyway.



Well, as good as it makes the customer feel that Nintendo won't have to worry about a few pirates, that still doesn't justify having to pay for a non-standard, non-mass-produced, expensive mini-CD (just like cartridges were more expensive.) I mean, as warm and fuzzy as I feel knowing people won't rip Pokemon Diaper Changer, it doesn't do anything for me, so why should I pay the extra price, for less game?



Available for download for free, right? Or do you just get the amazing opportunity to re-buy what you've already bought?



Yea, I remember. It was $30 which was not much given the price of DVD players back then, but I think they could have just had the changer come with the system, for free (how much can a changer cost.) Though they were already making the XBs at a loss early on.

Revolution? What's that??

Oh! You mean the thing that used to be called Revolution, but is now called Wii? (http://revolution.nintendo.com/)

>_<

Worst. Naming decision. EVER!

Something as simple as the new name could be the death of Nintendo's new console.

I can't say I've seen much to get excited about over in that camp.


I admit, I'm not much of a fan of handhelds as well, but some of the GBA games really are very much worth playing (and tend to be much more affordable than games for the main consoles). You can imagine how pleased I was when I got a GBA player for my 'Cube, then. ;)

And I wouldn't take too much of what was said in the vapor stages too seriously; they're going to have to compete with the competition, whether they like it or not. That's sort of a no-brainer...


You have the prices of the GCN and PS2 mixed up. I got my 'Cube shortly after the release of Smash Bros. Melee (which was shortly after launch), and it cost me $200. The PS2 was still running at $300, because they didn't see any need to lower their prices until after their competition was launched and started taking a bite out of their market share, which hadn't registered with them yet.


See, that's the funny thing: I don't feel like I'm missing anything bgy not owning an X-Box. Anything I would want for it, I can get on either another console or the PC. So why bother? Also, a machine that stakes its life on a library of mainly FPSes and sports games really doesn't have much that appeals to me in the first place... Cap that off with the obsession over graphics above anything else, and I've lost interest entirely. Not to mention that I just can't get used to that F'ing controller. :P


I didn't mean to imply that it was something that helps the consumer, just that it was likely their justification. On the other hand, I don't see where the "less game" argument is coming from; nearly everything that comes out for all 3 consoles is pretty comparable on each, and one could easily make the "less game" argument for the PS2 version, since the technology is a year behind the other two and is more crude by necessity. Realistically, though, you're getting the same game in every instance.


The verdict is still out on that one, actually. Nintendo has been understandably quiet about their pricing plan in this regard.


The point being, for $300 then, or even $200 or $150 now, I would expect more for my money. You would be better served getting a PS2 for the same price (since both companies have been pretty much evenly priced throughout) and having that DVD functionality out of the box, if that's what you're after. The whole "pimp my system" mentality is a blight on the industry, as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't bode well for the consumer if it keeps up in the long run.

And I just saw that thing on renaming the system. Why do they want to make me cry? The Rev was a great name. Now it just sounds like piss, literally. >:(

Hehe, they've turned into apple. Good bye market share.



That was the case early on, but if you bought in two years after the release of the Xbox, like I mentioned before, you'd have the best system available. Then there were some interesting games.



The graphics obsession dwells within the entire gaming industry, leave alone the entire console sub-industry. The first controller was good, as it was the first that was actually big enough to be comfortable for an adult. Some button spacing could be reduced though. I never used a sega, but I think the dreamcast's controllers used a very similar layout.



Less size means (in the computer world) you either get less out of it or you have to pay more for it. This was a problem with gamecube as a whole, they made it _small. Most people can more easily spare an extra cubic foot over a $100, for a machine of approximately equal power. Sony made the same dumb mistake by making the PS2 half as tall (or wide, depending on how you stand it.) Don't make it half as big, make it half as much $$$ ! ! !



This would be cool if they allowed you to at LEAST freely download the games you already bought on older systems. If not, then this is just a way of squeezing more money out of their fanboys.


Just as a side not, I think the N64 had an advantage over the PS1, despite the inferior cartridges and controllers. N64 had four controller ports standard, less unholy masses of side scrollers and scaled down PC ports, and just a better feel to its games most of the time. Before that, it always seemed to have an edge over Sega. But with the development of the abomination that is the Gamecube, and the entrance of Microsoft into the competition, I think the company has passed by its golden age and will be passing on in a console generation or two.

Having finally purchased my first console, I can say that Nintendo still has one market:  Adults with young children.  Other than PCs, there aren't very many platforms with games that grown ups enjoy and can happily play _with_ their children (sometimes just with their children in the same room).

I don't see the logic in this argument. Even today, I still see nothing that would compel me to buy an X-Box. How would looking at the console at some point in its past help matters any?

It generally takes one or two standout titles to motivate me to buy a console, because I'm actually pretty reluctant to buy expensive hardware and software. For the 'Cube, that title was unquestioably Smash Bros. Melee. For the PS2, it was Katamari Damacy and the Nippon Ichi strategy games. You'll note that all of those are console exclusive to their respective machines. Extend that to the X-Box, and there's only one title that really stands out: KOTOR. And when that came out for the PC, I just didn't see the point anymore.


I know that there are a great many developers for all platforms that value flash over substance. Problem is, that seems to be all the X-Box has going for it. The 360 is a case in point, really; I can't think of anything actually worth playing for the thing, but it certainly does look pretty on the screen.

I was never much of a fan of the Dreamcast controller. It always felt unnecessarily large, but at least in that case, it had to be that big to allow the attachment of the VMU. However, there's no reason why the X-Box controller needs to be that large. All the space that was dedicated to the VMU in the Dreamcast model is just taken up by a big stupid logo on the X-Box version. Explain why that's a necessary function of the controller, please. To cap it off, I despise the button configuration on it as well. I much prefer the double trigger design used by Nintendo and Sony, over adding extra buttons to the face of the controller. It's hard enough trying to find the button I actually want to press as is, I don't need more (untextured) nubs to throw me off.

And I have no idea how you can reasonably defend the size of that thing. I've got big hands and long fingers (bad enough that I can't confortably use a GBA SP without feeling like I'm scrunching up), and I STILL find the damn thing unwieldy.


I shouldn't need to mention that this isn't the computer world, and consoles are an entirely different beast. As said, games for all three are generally pretty comparable. There are a few exceptions, sure, but they serve to prove the rule.

While I can't argue with the desire to have the PS2 cost less, I have to say I like the design of the "Slimstation." It mostly has a lot to do with the pop-top CD drive instead of the computer style motorized drawer; fewer moving parts means that there's less to break, and those drawers are a bit notorious for doing so. On the other hand, it drives me crazy that it can't support certain periperals that the full-size model can, and that the Sony spokespeople have the arrogance to write off anyone who complains about that as not being "hardcore" enough for them to care about. Also, a redesign of a current gen console has historically meant that it has one foot in the grave. The PS2 still seems to be OK in that regard, but we'll see.


Actually, I thought the N64 was the superior console as well. The library was a huge factor; the PS1 seemed to have only a small number of gems mired in a wasteland of crap, while the N64 had a much smaller library, but 90% of it was gold. And I don't think I need to mention that I think the SNES was probably the greatest console ever, just on the merits of its library alone.

Nintendo made a grave strategic mistake with the 'Cube, I must admit. Every console before it that they put out had something unique that made it stand out and shine above the rest: The N64 introduced analog controllers, the SNES had extremely impressive sound and visual effects, as well as a huge amount of buttons packed on the controller for the time (8!). The 'Cube was just a blatant attempt to follow the trends, and therefore the money they thought they were losing. There was nothing new or unique about it, and it was quickly overshadowed by the competition since Sony had the larger library and Microsoft had the more powerful machine. I think this is why they claim they're "not trying to compete" with the competition; they're striking out in a completely different direction in true Nintendo style, and they'll wait and see what happens. Every other time they've done it, it's taken the competition a year or more to catch up with their innovations (if they ever caught up at all). Time will tell if they can get back into a leading position again, but the machine-formerly-known-as-the-Revolution certainly seems like a promising vehicle for it... If they rethink that name, anyway. ::)

/me runs around like a maniac screaming the name of this console

Are you SURE this was a bad marketing decision?

Halo 1+2, Crimson Skies, Battlefront 1+2, Blood Wake, Metal Arms, etc., were good games. I don't see what would make them inferiors to Smash Bros. Maybe if the Covenant replaced its grunts with pikachus. . .



In KOTOR, your sith powers are greatly stronger when you play on microsoft hardware. ;)

Seriously, not all gamers can afford to ditch thousands of dollars in keeping up with PC hardware, if that PC does not pull its weight in other areas. So, they buy a machine that runs games for one, a couple or a few hundred dollars.



I don't like to have to scrunch (is this even a word?) in around a little controller. If possible, I'd like my hands to be at shoulder width, like when riding a bicycle, driving a car, or using a computer keyboard to play a game. The Problem with the XBox controller is that it is too long (buttons need to be closer to the sticks.) But the width is good.



Not in this respect, a smaller chip is still a pricier chip.



Yes, and I'd like it if it could be used as a personal jet pack and come stuffed with a million dollars, but I wouldn't want to have to pay a lot extra for these things. Price and Power are what I want from the machine. Size is a distant second, if you don't live in Japan.



I used to say the same sorts of things about Macs. But it was all propaganda-lies that they fed to us! We were never a match for Microsoft. And now it is coming for you. Run. Run while you still can. RUN!!!

I'll probably buy the Wi-er, console-that-was-called-Revolution ASAP, and having some Star Control goodness would only sweeten the deal. I just need to enlighten more people of SC's awesomeness with UQM-I can't be the newest person to experience it! Everyone must know about Frungy! Everyone must know about Fwiffo!

As far as the current-generation consoles, I got my GCN as a Christmas present on launch, with SSBM and some other game. Unfortunately, the library's grown quite stale.

As for my Xbox, which I didn't purchase until a few months ago...I could care less about Halo since both games are either on or are coming to PC anyway, but Steel Battalion: Line of Contact is unquestionably addictive. You'll have to bear with the stiff competition and learning curve initially, though. The only problem I have with the thing is that it's a 1.6 and therefore screws up my Panzer Dragoon Orta image in 480p mode.

Er, I don't want to try to decipher the garbled-quote mess up there, so...

Let's just say, I played KOTOR on a friend's PC, liked it a bit, but couldn't get into it much. Both Halos SUCKED (dons flame-retardant suit); I'd sooner play any Timesplitters game (which, incidentally, are available on all 3 machines). Of the rest of the games you mentioned, none even piqued my interest for more than a moment.

Now, just incase you wanted a counter-list for the 'Cube: Wind Waker, the Lost Kingdoms games, Baten Kaitos, Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door, Metroid Prime 1 & 2, etc. Plus the all-important GBA player mentioned above.

I grew up with an Atari joystick in my hands. I graduated fairly quickly to an NES controller, and then an SNES controller. I liked the design of the N64's controller much more than the PS1's (which was the first non-Nintendo system I ever owned since the 2600, and only because I got a friend's old one for ~$20). Out of the current gen, I prefer the GCN's controller to the other two. I think you have a good idea what sort of device I'm most comfortable with: It's got all the buttons in logical places, the controls where I would expect to be putting down my left thumb, and doesn't dig into or cramp up my hands. I've used the X-Box controller on several occasions. Every time, I find myself fumbling for buttons I can't seem to find (especially those extra 2 down at the bottom of the face), and having to put the thing down because it's cramping my hands after a while. It doesn't work for me.

Incidentally, I've never been all that comfortable using a keyboard to control games... Then again, I despise keyboard + mouse control for those FPS games even more. I tolerate the keyboard alone, and only play console FPSes. From what I've played on the PC, I'm convinced I'm not missing anything.

I don't see how you're paying extra for a "Slimstation" vs. an old-style PS2. The price didn't go down any, and even without the redesign, I can't imagine that would have changed. The machine is priced where the market will bear it, redesign or no. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't complain if it came packaged with a personal jetpack and a million bucks. ;)

I'm not saying Nintendo's "non-competition" statement is accurate. That's just the spin that I can see being placed on it, not that I'm buying into it. I just see that machine as having the greatest potential of the three, at least from what they're saying about it now. My impressions are sure to change by launch, for better or for worse, but only time will tell.

Sorry, I usually check over my posts to clear up these sorts of issues.



My great psychic prediction is that Nintendo will die out in the same fashion as Sega did in the generation after wii or the generation after that. It will still produce its classic software titles (mario this, pokemon that) but it will lose its console in the long run. Sony and Microsoft will battle it out for a long time to come, but in the end, Bill's juggernaut will steamroller Sony out of the console market. Unless something happens like a devastating bird flu mutation, or economic collapse in the USA, Japan getting overrun by China, or Gates getting secretly replaced by a sony infiltration cyborg. I base this on two things- Sony and Nintendo have displayed more erring strategies of late, and Microsoft always wins.

BTW, Halo will be a lot better if they add a lot more vehicles.

KOTOR was amazing, even on my cheap PC.

And the Wii... what the?!? :-X
"Dolphin" is to "Gamecube" as "Lame" is to "Cool"
"Revolution" is to "Wii" as "AWESOME" is to "Maybe makes sense in japan"

Also, what's all the fuss about the glorified remote control?

You mean the new controller? :o

"Wii"? How in the hell. At this moment I can clearly state that I'm willing to pay exactly half as much money for a Nintendo Wii compared to a Nintendo Revolution. If it costs as much as the PS3, I probably won't even buy it. Come to think of it, I don't think I can take any of these new consoles seriously. So far the Xbox 360 has Oblivion going for it, which is so easily trounced by the PC version due to the ease of modding it's not even funny.

I was actually joking when I said this, but I saw the other day, that this really is the controller. The controller translation/rotation detection would be very cool if built into sword and gun shaped controllers (or perhaps a transforming cross between the two,) but a nunchuk TV remote. . .well. . .not so much. At least they have a normal one as well.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6146540/p-2.html


Someone tell me if this is getting too far off topic for this forum. ???

Arrgh!

I think nintendo is very clearly positioning themselves for the kid and kid-parent markets. The gamecube did this to an extent, but at least it didn't have a stupid name.

The problem is, the most lucrative market for selling games is the teen-twentysomething age group! (At least last time I checked.)

Are we on the cusp of the greatest marketing blunder of modern console history? Only time will tell...  :(

(I'm relieved to see the "classic controller" accessory, though.)

Just a tidbit from E3

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060511/tc_nm/expo_nintendo_wii_dc_2

Shame it's such a glorified kiddie console. ;p

As for the name, I can't say I'm the biggest fan...but...seriously...don't you guys remember such gems as PLAYSTATION, MASTER SYSTEM, MEGA DRIVE, and...DREAMCAST?  Let's not forget the GAME BOY.  That's a brilliantly cool title!

In the end, does the name of a console really matter?  Playstation is the most juvenile sounding name of the lot (Were we to skip back a decade, wouldn't you assume it was some kind of kid's toy by the name?), but it hasn't stopped it from becoming the "it" console of the last two console generations.

Still, vast improvements over such working titles as HAPPYSTATION, SUPER GREAT SYSTEM, NOSE DIVE, GAME BRAT and DREAMCASTING.



Yes, because it is the simplest hurdle in a development process. If your company is too dum to come up with a cool name like Genesis or Xbox, how are they going to make intelligent tech and fuctionallity decisions. . .

. . .like designing a controller THAT IS NOT A GLORIFIED TV CHANGER!!!

Yes, the motion thing is cool (I think playstation 3 might have the same tech though) but you'd be better off building that into a sword, gun, joystick, etc., shaped chassis. You don't fight, shoot, fly or drive with a TV changer, you just make the screen flash in different ways on your idiot box, until you've found a program that isn't too boring to watch for half an hour. At least keyboards and controllers have good ergonomics for being used over extended periods.

If they made it into a sword, it would only be useful for sword games. If they made it into a steering wheel, it would only be useful for driving games.

Just USE YOUR IMAGINATION!

Sheesh.

The PS3 Motion Sensor tech, as displayed at E3, is a complete disaster.

Maybe they'll get it together, but as it stands, it's a shipshod copycat that is completely useless for playing games, if the flight sim tech demo they had is any indication.

Just give it time.  Judging a console before launch is a useless exercise.  If one is to compare the specs and look of the DS v. the PSP, one would assume the PSP would be the far and away winner.  (I own both.)  However, it's the DS that's dominating the scene world-wide.  The only reason the PSP is a blip on the radar is people buy it as a movie player.

WHY?!  BUY A PORTABLE DVD PLAYER.  PLAY REAL MOVIES, NOT CRAPPY UMD CUT UPS.</rant>

Nintendo has always been the forefront of gaming innovation.  Rumble Technology? Check. Analog stick? Check. The entire concept of a gamepad? Check.

Every time, the Nintendo has seemed ridiculous.  Why would you want your controller to rumble?!  What? What's up with that weird three prong controller?  WHAT?!  NO JOYSTICK?!

Besides, even if Wii somehow fails based on its own merits, surely there will be plenty of sales directly contributed to its virtual console.  I know how high resell value is on NES games...I wouldn't be surprised.

So instead they made it into a TV changer, so it is only good for TV-Changing games. Like Xtreme Channel Surfer Pro or Remote Hunter. :P

The whole Rumble Pack thing was an awful idea. If all three major console developers use it, that does not make the concept any less retarded. Nintendo peaked with the SNES. The N64 was good, but limited in titles compared to the PSX. During the most recent PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation, the GameCube was easily the worst of the lot. Actually, the best thing that could happen is that Nintendo is destroyed so utterly when the next generation of consoles come out that they are forced to go the route that Sega did, as game developers. I only buy Nintendo consoles to play their wonderful exclusive games, but it would be WAY more convenient if I didn't have to buy a seperate console just to play the next Mario, Zelda and Metroid games. Of course, this is impossible because Nintendo intentionally puts so little effort into hardware development (I'm told the Wii is slightly less "buff" than the original Xbox) that they rake in a good profit even as they sell in 3rd place. If their next line of games is better than the mediocre GameCube line, they won't make a profit. They'll make a killing.

The original Game Cube is actually a more powerful machine than the PS2, just to clear up that rhetoric.  A quick comparison of how Soul Calibur runs on the PS2 and the Game Cube will quickly establish that.

As for the controller, it will come with a "dock" that'll turn it into a normal controller, ala the VMU port on the Dreamcast controllers.  Stop bellyaching about it.

I'm actually kind of disappointed by the Wii's power.  I don't think it needs to be on par with the PS3 or the 360.  But better than Xbox would've been nice.

That said, there's a point in game development where the boost in graphics just doesn't matter that much.  Beefed up GameCube or no, Smash Brothers Brawl looks stunning.

Oh, and it probably won't cost $600 out of the box like a certain other console. -.o

Ouch, I thought it would be twice as powerful as the first Xbox.


No sword yet, but it looks like they have a gun. . .sorta. . .

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6150205.html

Sadly, the trigger is in the wrong place, a detail that would have been worth noticing back in the design phase.

Hey, at least it's not the Super Scope 6.  Did anyone notice the "Chiropractor Required After Use" sticker on the box? ;p

As far as power, the spec quote I heard was "twice as powerful as the Game Cube."

Now, though the Xbox is inarguably the most powerful console of its generation, I doubt it's twice as powerful as the Game Cube, which is what it'd have to be for the Revolution, excuse me, Wii to be not as powerful.

That said, two times is not that big of a jump.  I'd guess that first gen Wii titles should look like the Xbox at its best.

But who knows.  I've heard it uses almost identical architecture to the Game Cube...possibly resulting in some companies just doing straight ports of any GameCube games currently in progress.

So, uh, how about that Paul Reich III rumor, hmm?

I seem to remember it having about twice (perhaps 400mhz vs 768mhz) the processor as the Game Cube, so you may have doubted wrong. Assuming this is true, the Wii would probably be somewhere in the 80-150% power range, compared to the original Xbox (based on rumors of how powerful the Wii is compared to the GC.)



If you have any new info on the subject, please share. Otherwise, I think we'll just have to wait many months or until the next E3 for an update on this (assuming TFB started work on a SC game, they'd have to keep it under wraps for a while.)

A recent interview (http://randomnintendo.com/?rid=1234&c=articles) with Paul Reiche III has this quote:

Interesting. . .

Guess what?  Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all exist, and all three are making good profits.  It is possible for more than one company to make similar products: look at computer printers, or breakfast cereals, or any of a thousand other products that have three, five, or a thousand companies all making variations on the same thing.

For the previous generation, the XBox was hands-down the best console for online play, which I don't do.  The PS2 was the best for RPGs, of which I'm getting bored.  And the GameCube was the best for quirkiness and retro stuff, which I found most appealing.  But if you like RPGs, the PS2 was far away your best bet (that or the GBA, which is the most bizarre thing in the history of gaming).  And if you like FPS, sports games, or online play, the XBox would be the way to go.  And if you like more than one?  Just buy more than one console!

P.S.: I am simply APPALLED that a discussion of the merits of the various consoles has gotten this far without mention of Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, or Ico. ;)

Ico is my religion.

Is that enough mention? :3

Really? I recall Microsoft bleeding out cash like crazy to keep themselves afloat since they started. The Xbox sure doesn't sell too well outside of the US. Of course they can afford this, they're Microsoft. I just don't see how they'll ever be able to profit more than they spend if they can't strong-arm Sony out of business.


PCs have always been the only real way to multiplay anything. That's right, Goldeneye and Mario Kart are fundamentally flawed because you can see your opponent's screens. "Online play" and "consoles" do not belong in the same sentence. The Xbox would be a worthless console except for two things: 1) The best specs of all three systems making it the best choice for anything multi-platform, 2) Ninja Gaiden. The only fullscale RPG for the PS2 I remember playing was Final Fantasy X. Otherwise it was all about Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Prince of Persia or Grand Theft Auto. None of which are RPGs in the proper sense.


While fun, all three of those were way, WAY too short for me to bring into a serious discussion.

Gamecube and Wii use PowerPC processors; XBox uses x86.  Straight clock speed to clock speed comparisons between two different types of processors isn't exactly fair, since different architectures have different performance-per-MHz.

AFAIK, the actual (known) specs of the Wii place it roughly at twice the power of the GCN, which would put it well above the XBox.  And miles past the PS2, of course, which was less powerful than both GCN and XB.  I should note that the true specs of the Wii aren't fully known at the moment though, not to random people at least.

I don't see how the ability to see one's opponent's screen is a "fundamental flaw".  That's simply part of that kind of game.  Just because two things are different doesn't mean that one has to necessarily be better than another; personally, I find games where you can see the other person's screen more fun, because you can see and hear his reactions to what you're doing, which adds a certain malicious thrill.  But that's my personal preference; it doesn't mean that one way is better than another.

It's the same thing about length.  Ico packed more fun into its hour and a half, in my opinion, than the last four Final Fantasy games had in their collective 150 hours.  So, in my opinion, it was a better buy than all of them.

Yea, and now Sony has joined in. They both hope to make their losses back on game sales. Neither can afford to back down from this strategy at this point. Another interesting thing is Sony had originally tryed for more power, peripherals and size than the X360, which is what the Xbox did to its PS2. Now they've down sized it a bit to make it affordable, but it seems to indicate that at least in some markets, this power-over-spacesaving strategy is becoming more effective. So while it might not have any noticeable power advantage, the PS3 will have more cutting edge equipment, like blue ray and higher dpi support. The question is whether or not this will create too much unnecessary expense, in a system that would have been very pricy even at $400, like the 360. It's an arms race.



I don't think that is a "problem" but just the way they are played. In poker your opponents' moves are hidden from you (until the end) whereas in soccer (football) the whole field is openly visible. The problem was that screens divided in four didn't offer much resolution to anybody, but that will be fixed now with HDTVs, for those who have stacks of gold coins in their basements. :( (Someday they should be relatively cheap, though.)



If you don't like split-screen and you don't like the penny-pc original Xbox strategy, then I don't see why you don't consider all the consoles worthless. PS2 was an Xbox with half the controller ports, less than half the power (a third? a quarter?) but twice the PC game converts. GC had lots of cutsy cartoon animals and characters beating each other senseless (with the fall of sega, they now own this market.) I don't see a serious gameplay advantage in any of these systems. It seems like it is more a match between Power Vs Game Library Vs Nostalgia.

But if you can afford a capable PC, you'll find at lot more choices, with more in-depth if less intuitive gameplay. So I can see how one would consider it above the consoles in many ways. But the differences between PCs and Consoles is are still too many to really treat them as anything other than separate animals.

Just as a quick history footnote, almost every, if not every, console ever released has been sold for a loss.  It's the nature of the market.  PS3 may be taking more of a loss than usual, I haven't read the statistics, but it certainly is not a new strategy.

As for PC games...I'll agree there.  There are a handful of crossover genres (FPS cough), but the kind of games you play on the PC are usually radically different from the console games you can play.

I personally got bored with PC games shortly after Halflife...mainly because FPSes and RTSes dominated the market.  The former I don't care for...the latter I'm just terrible at.

Now I just play MMORPGs on occassion...mostly consoles and UQM though. ^_^

I didn't know that, but it does seem that a lot is being spent now. The last round was very interesting- Microsoft's entry into the market, the Sony powerhouse getting outmaneuvered on price and power in the end, Nintendo beginning its trek to develope a new market aside from Xbox/PS2 battleground, and Sega biting the dust. I consider that generation the setting of the stage. Now the first great battle is about to take place. I think it will result in one of the console makers getting kicked out in the next generation (from X360, PS3, and Wii) or the one after. That is to say no PS4 or no PS5, for example.

It's hard to predict things like this.  (As I've mentioned, the PSP had all the makings of completely clobbering the DS)

That said, there's several reasons why none of the current crop of consoles will drop out of the market.

Sony: The Playstation currently holds a vast majority of the world's home console dollar right now (more than all the competitors together, in fact).  It would take a major blunder for such a following to jump ship in the new generation.  Also, in ways, Sony cannot afford to lose, since not only is their gaming superiority at stake, but the success or failure of their Blue-Ray drive.

Xbox: Microsoft has so much money coming out their ears, they can take losses into perpetuity as long as there is some promise of a future profit.

Nintendo: Nintendo has the undefeated success of its handhelds to fall back on.  Even if the Wii fails to perform, the success of its handheld properties, and crossovers to home consoles of those properties, will keep it afloat.

Sega didn't have dominance of any market, nor did it have the money, to continue operations.

Again, though, one can never tell. ^_^  I would've balked at Sega ever quitting the market.

Microsoft and Sony are spending lots of money to try to force the other one out of the market. Whoever lasts longer can then start worrying about turning a profit from their games division. Nintendo, on the other hand, never sells at a loss for more than a few weeks. They might never get lots of market share, but I can't imagine them being forced out of the market. And as long as they have their talented first- and second-party developers, they'll have enough of a fanbase to ensure that they have a market.

Developers are really the most important part of the equation. Every game is a feature, and the machine with the most best features wins. The console that does the best is usually the one with the greatest number of high-profile exclusive titles. High-quality but low-profile exclusives are below that, and then you have higher-quality versions of cross-platform releases. Hardware features fit into the mixture based on how much hype they're getting.

This is where it gets confusing. A hardware manufacturer has to attract many developers in order to guarantee selling a console. But they have to sell their console in order to attract developers - they're both in it for money, and no developer will make a game if it can only sell to people who have Obscurebox 9000s (of which only ten were made). Most developers solve this problem by subsidizing developers who will make exclusive titles for them.




Regarding the last generation. The general consensus among developers is that if they can do it on the Xbox, then they can probably do it on the Gamecube, and they'll have to optimize it or maybe even scale it back for the PS2. The Xbox's edge over the Gamecube is very slight, and the only developers who really take advantage of that extra margin are the ones who wouldn't be making games for systems other than the Xbox anyway.

Joke: you've got a console, but you don't know which one it is. How do you identify it? Well, it's simple. Drop it off a building. If it still works after it lands, it's a Nintendo console. If it leaves a crater, it's a Microsoft console. If it disintegrates in the air, it's a Sony console.

I'm not sure how well this joke continues to apply since the PS3 is ever so slightly bigger than the original XBox.  :P

Hehehe



It is almost like they are trying to take over the strategy Xbox used against the PS2. Problem is, they don't have the tech edge the Xbox had over the PS2.

The PS3 is a really cheap Blu-Ray player that has the added bonus of being able to play PS3 games. Problem is that they're marketing it as a really expensive game console rather than a really cheap Blu-Ray player.