Post by: Aussiedude on June 14, 2006, 12:31:56 PM
- A “Massively Multiplayer” Burnout is currently being planned by EA;
- Third Party companies are shifting many of their projects from the PlayStation 3 to the Wii;
- Harmonix is working on a new music game;
- LucasArts is developing a Star Wars game for Nintendo's Wii, in which there are fights with a light sabre;
- Star Wars Battlefront is being worked on for Next Generation consoles, yet Pandemic is not involved this time.
Source
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on June 14, 2006, 01:01:01 PM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on June 14, 2006, 01:20:17 PM
Quote
- Star Wars Battlefront is being worked on for Next Generation consoles, yet Pandemic is not involved this time.
Offtopic, but perhaps this means the next one will have a UI that makes sense.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 14, 2006, 01:22:02 PM
My predictions for this gen:
Wii takes #1 with a comfortable lead in Japan. PS3 is a trailing #2, and 360 has less than 5%
Wii and 360 are within 10% of each other in N.America, not sure which one is #1. PS3 trails at #3
Wii is #1 in Europe, with 360 and PS3 dividing up the remaining market share evenly.
Post by: King of Twitch on June 14, 2006, 01:42:20 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2006, 02:19:45 PM
Considering the extra cost of development to switch the controllers this is very interesting. You figure it would be more worth it to finish the PS3 game and then make a Wii game that uses the remote later on. Transfering over would take a lot of work, unless the classic controller is standard issue and a bunch of these moved projects will use it as a replacement for the PS3 controller. I think if this is true it shows the third parties don't think the PS3 price is going to fly.
I figure if the remote was primarily attracting third parties it would be more that they were starting Wii projects instead of shifting PS3 games to the Wii. The remote seems more like it would attract third parties to the Wii but not attract them away from the PS3.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on June 14, 2006, 03:03:33 PM
Post by: willie1234 on June 14, 2006, 03:15:37 PM
a couple of things are coming together in my mind, that adds up to the low end hardware possibly being a stroke of genious.
1). The ps2 continues to have strong sales even beating out the 360 for much of the year in North America. This is a sign that the market is perhaps more sensitive than previously though to price point.
2). Nintendo is a game developer as well as a hardware maker. It is likely that development groups within Nintendo didn't want HD graphics because of the higher dev costs this would mean. We've seen developer houses say that Wii games could cost as little as 1/3 of other next-gen consoles. The Wii could be an out for 3rd parties as well to escape the high cost/high risk proposition that is the other hd consoles.
3). So we see the consumers wanting cheaper hardware, and game developers wanting to bring down cost. This could add up to be very good for the Wii, and a sign that it could follow the DS pattern.
My predicition is that the ps2 will be #1 out of the 360 and ps3 this year unless MS drops the price significantly.
The Wii has a great shot at taking over all #1 if consumers see the virtual library as competetive with ps2's library, and if the better hardware wrt the ps2 and extra features make it a compeling switch.
Post by: The Omen on June 14, 2006, 03:17:07 PM
Quote
Considering the extra cost of development to switch the controllers this is very interesting. You figure it would be more worth it to finish the PS3 game and then make a Wii game that uses the remote later on. Transfering over would take a lot of work, unless the classic controller is standard issue and a bunch of these moved projects will use it as a replacement for the PS3 controller. I think if this is true it shows the third parties don't think the PS3 price is going to fly.
Well, this could be happening for many reasons. It's cheaper to develop for the Wii, by leaps and bounds over the PS3. The games should come out quicker because of the differences in hardware power and there being less of a demand on third parties to make every Wii game look like Toy Story. The end result is the money gets in the hands of the third parties that much quicker. Tie this into the fact that the Wii is looking like a can't lose proposition, and the PS3 is becoming a huge financial pitfall, this makes a lot of sense.
Post by: capamerica on June 14, 2006, 03:50:38 PM
EGM has been wrong many times before so take this with a grain of salt. But on a side note they rarely promote positive Nintendo news let alone rumors and EGM is a very Pro Playstaion Mag so a negative comment like that is very unlike them.
Post by: OverHeat on June 14, 2006, 03:52:20 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 14, 2006, 04:46:35 PM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on June 14, 2006, 05:14:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
The only difference is that, unlike Nintendo, Sony will have an uphill battle like none other if they start losing 3rd party support. Even with Nintendo's similar stance in the past, they at least made profits from their own games, Sony does not have that luxury if they start losing third parties. If Sony falls behind this generation, it may be almost impossible to get back into the market due to lack of exclusive 3rd party games.
It certainly also doesn't help that a lot of the profits made by PlayStation are being diverted to the other money-losing parts of Sony (basically everything else). Nintendo on the other hand has other money-making divisions (handhelds), and no money-losing divisions.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 14, 2006, 05:41:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Guitar SmasherQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
The only difference is that, unlike Nintendo, Sony will have an uphill battle like none other if they start losing 3rd party support. Even with Nintendo's similar stance in the past, they at least made profits from their own games, Sony does not have that luxury if they start losing third parties. If Sony falls behind this generation, it may be almost impossible to get back into the market due to lack of exclusive 3rd party games.
It certainly also doesn't help that a lot of the profits made by PlayStation are being diverted to the other money-losing parts of Sony (basically everything else). Nintendo on the other hand has other money-making divisions (handhelds), and no money-losing divisions.
Great points, I forgot about them diverting money to other divisions. I do have a chuckle though when people become concerned that Wii will be NIntendo's final console, besides VB and N64 DD I do not believe ANY Nintendo console has lost them money, even GC. Nintendo is probaly one of the healthiest out of the big 3 in the video game market, MS is still trying to recoup their losses and I don't believe Sony is making much more in profits (especially taking into consideration all the losses through advertising) than Nintendo. Unless Nintendo has a huge financial bomb for a system, they can handle a few bumps.
Post by: Ceric on June 15, 2006, 06:24:57 AM
Why do I think this? God of War 2 is being released next year for PS2. PS2, just in case it didn't register. God of War, the only game I can think of off the top of my head that really pushed every sound and graphics feature of the PS2. It had surround sound and Progressive Scan. Plus its more mature orient. I mean it's a perfect fit for a flagship titles for the PS3 but, it's coming for the PS2. It's made by Sony. Internally. I mean this aught to tell you something.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 15, 2006, 06:43:20 AM
Though it could have just as easily been that the God of War 2 had already been in production for a few years and the code had already been mostly completed.
Post by: Athrun Zala on June 15, 2006, 07:23:11 AM
Quotethat should've been a launch game, but oh well, at least it seems they're doing it
Originally posted by: Aussiedude
- LucasArts is developing a Star Wars game for Nintendo's Wii, in which there are fights with a light sabre;
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 15, 2006, 10:25:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I think if this is true it shows the third parties don't think the PS3 price is going to fly.
I'm not even a game developer and even I see developing for the PS3 as near-suicide.
1. The PSP demonstrated that an overpriced Sony console doubling as a movie player for a proprietary format is capable of failing.
2. The Wii had people running from the opening of the E3 floor to get to Nintendo's booth, running right past Sony's booth on the way.
3. Price always carries more weight than people realize. $200 vs. $600 is a colossal difference, especially in a crappy economy.
Moving games from the PS3 dev to the Wii dev, IMHO, isn't wasting money on the porting, it's abandoning a sinking ship.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 15, 2006, 03:09:13 PM
If I was a Japanese 3rd party. I would be looking at Nintendo and showing them ideas, and see how supportive and helpful they are willing to be with develop for a Wii game. Sony I would look to support later once the price drops or the sales figures proved people are willing to support the system in mass.
When you have to spend millions of dollars on a single game, is when I stop developing those types of games, and figure a means to cut costs.
Post by: eurai on June 15, 2006, 03:43:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I'm not even a game developer and even I see developing for the PS3 as near-suicide.
1. The PSP demonstrated that an overpriced Sony console doubling as a movie player for a proprietary format is capable of failing.
2. The Wii had people running from the opening of the E3 floor to get to Nintendo's booth, running right past Sony's booth on the way.
3. Price always carries more weight than people realize. $200 vs. $600 is a colossal difference, especially in a crappy economy.
Moving games from the PS3 dev to the Wii dev, IMHO, isn't wasting money on the porting, it's abandoning a sinking ship.
1. The PSP is hardly "failing." The UMD format isn't at all nearing expectations, yes, but it also is inherently limited by its implementation in a single platform. Sony is attempting to market Blu-Ray as a more universal standard; UMD is nothing more than a facet of a portable entertainment device.
2. Doesn't guarantee success of the Wii or failure of the PS3; of course those attending a trade show are more interested in unique or at least buzz-heavy products. The American market has proven repeatedly in its ridiculous buying habits, though, that more of the same is quite capable of selling very well.
3. Agreed, at least in principle; a "crappy economy" certainly hasn't slowed sales of the relatively expensive Xbox 360, though (not in the United States, anyway). $600 is 50% increase over $400, yes, but it won't stop early adopters of both the PS3 and of the Blu-Ray format (considering how steep prices of individual Blu-Ray drives are set to be). I do believe that both face a steep uphill battle, though, once that honeymoon period is over. If increased developer anxiety is to surface, it'll probably occur around then.
I'd love for this rumor to be true, but I simply don't see it happening unless sluggish sales of the PS3 prompts it.
Post by: Strell on June 15, 2006, 04:16:16 PM
Cuz the $120 PS2 isn't outselling the $400 Xbox 360 or anything.
Post by: Magik on June 15, 2006, 04:48:25 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 15, 2006, 05:53:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Magik
This rumour looks more like its based on Japanese developers since Western developers would look towards the 360 rather than the Wii.
What western developers really matter much though? Rockstar and EA?
Post by: Galford on June 15, 2006, 06:38:22 PM
The one thing no one has mentioned is Square-Enix.
Square-Enix is king maker in Japan. As long as the PS3 is Square-Enix's primary platform,
the PS3 won't go away.
On the other hand, the PS3 by far is going to be the most expensive platform to develop for next generation.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 15, 2006, 06:49:14 PM
Post by: Galford on June 15, 2006, 07:01:04 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 15, 2006, 07:19:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I hear what you're saying BlackNMild, but the canon games, the ones that go multi-platnium are on the PS3. Wii is getting it's annual console title from Squeenix so it can continue to make DS games.
That is not set in stone, if PS3 starts to struggle Square may move to another console for the "canon" games.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 15, 2006, 07:24:43 PM
QuoteAnd I think we all know who is being buttered up for that switch.
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
That is not set in stone, if PS3 starts to struggle Square may move to another console for the "canon" games.
Post by: Frozen Atlantic on June 16, 2006, 07:15:25 AM
Graphics are the major selling point of the Final Fantasy series. I don't see it leaving PS3.
Post by: Ceric on June 16, 2006, 11:14:22 AM
I agree in Japan I could see a shift to Wii. Here in the States I see them going to 360.
God of War didn't come out to much before the PS3 announcement. I seriously doubt God of War 2 was far enough down it's developement plan to not be able to switch.
Post by: JonLeung on June 16, 2006, 11:34:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
The "old" blood would move if they changed. Plus didn't they do, I think it was, Chrono Cross. It's one of those SNES games that everyone says I should play but I haven't.
Chrono Trigger was the Super NES one, Chrono Cross was the confusing/convoluted PSX one.
And yes, you SHOULD play Chrono Trigger.
Square's best days were on the Super NES, IMO. Secret Of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI...now those were some good spring breaks, let me tell you.
Yeah, in junior high I didn't go to beach parties. I spent the week off of school finding a game that I didn't think I could finish in a weekend and rented it for a whole week. Square provided some good, non-beachy week-long fun.
I hope they don't think the GBA rereleases of the FFs prevents them from coming to the VC. I really didn't like how A Link To The Past was left off of The Legend Of Zelda Collectors Edition disc was that the rationale was that you can play it anyway if you had a Game Boy Player and the GBA version of the game.
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 16, 2006, 11:34:53 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 16, 2006, 11:35:44 AM
In fact, I daresay that PS1 games would be dramatically more tempting for 3rd parties to sell on the Nintendo console because Wii owners are categorically less likely to have owned these games and are more likely to play them on the Wii than many games which appeared on Nintendo consoles which Nintendo gamers have already experienced.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 16, 2006, 11:37:20 AM
Chrono Cross is a Playstation game and is the sequel to Chrono Trigger, the SNES game you're thinking of. Chrono Trigger should be on the VC.
Edit: Oooops. Beaten. I take too long to type.
"One of the reasons Nintendo is truly onto something with the virtual console is that anything pre-GC era could be sold over it, PS1 games included."
How could they sell Playstation games? I figure emulation of a competing Sony console wouldn't legally be allowed so they would have to port everything which costs a lot more. They would probably have to sell it as a higher price. Part of the advantage of the VC is that all it takes is a quick emulation job and the game can be sold for cheap. Plus Playstation games are all on CDs which isn't too download friendly (I wouldn't be surprised if TG 16 CD games aren't available). In Square's case some of their most popular PS games are on 3 CDs and apparently a lot of that is overlap since the core game has to be on each CD. They would either have to download the whole lot which is inefficient for storage and bandwidth or they have to sort through the three discs which might be a hassle (I don't know that for sure).
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 16, 2006, 11:40:32 AM
Post by: JonLeung on June 16, 2006, 11:42:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
In fact, I daresay that PS1 games would be dramatically more tempting for 3rd parties to sell on the Nintendo console because Wii owners are categorically less likely to have owned these games and are more likely to play them on the Wii than many games which appeared on Nintendo consoles which Nintendo gamers have already experienced.
Oh, man, tell me about it. While I was never averse to playing non-Nintendo console games and in fact played quite a few, I would bet that many Nintendo fans haven't. And HOW many ways can I play the original Super Mario Bros./The Legend Of Zelda/Metroid? Sheesh. If I'm willing to spend money to play them again (and I'll admit it, I have and I do) then I'd be more likely to spend money on something I've (re)played less or never played at all.
I was ecstatic when the VC was announced to have Sega Genesis and Turbo Grafx-16 games. MONOPOLY ON THE CLASSICS! Anyone over 20 HAS to buy a Wii if only for the nostalgia, once the selections become large enough, if they do. I think they should also secure the Master System, as well as lesser-known systems that are still really good like the Neo-Geo. (Good thing the Metal Slug Anthology is coming to the Wii but the Neo-Geo has more than just that and KoF, you know.)
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 16, 2006, 11:58:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: eurai 1. The PSP is hardly "failing." The UMD format isn't at all nearing expectations, yes, but it also is inherently limited by its implementation in a single platform. Sony is attempting to market Blu-Ray as a more universal standard; UMD is nothing more than a facet of a portable entertainment device.
"Not nearing expectations" is a kind way of saying that Wal-Mart and many other retailers are dropping support for UMD movies altogether.
Sony tried to market Betamax and Minidisc as "universal standards" and yet we both know where THOSE wound up. Minidisc might have caught on had mp3s not come along to kill it. As for Betamax, it was higher in quality and storage capacity, but it was killed by VHS because, that's right, VHS was cheaper.
Quote
2. Doesn't guarantee success of the Wii or failure of the PS3; of course those attending a trade show are more interested in unique or at least buzz-heavy products. The American market has proven repeatedly in its ridiculous buying habits, though, that more of the same is quite capable of selling very well.
I'm not saying that guarantees anything, but when was the last time people broke into an E3 and all simultaneously charged for one specific booth? It's the best reaction Nintendo could have hoped for with their innovation: morbid curiosity. Now all they have to do is have the system refined and ready to go for launch and they should be golden.
Quote
3. Agreed, at least in principle; a "crappy economy" certainly hasn't slowed sales of the relatively expensive Xbox 360, though (not in the United States, anyway). $600 is 50% increase over $400, yes, but it won't stop early adopters of both the PS3 and of the Blu-Ray format (considering how steep prices of individual Blu-Ray drives are set to be). I do believe that both face a steep uphill battle, though, once that honeymoon period is over. If increased developer anxiety is to surface, it'll probably occur around then.
Actually, according to Game Sales Charts, the 360 is underperforming. For being the only next-gen system out, it's nowhere near capitalizing on the lead like the PS2 did with its lead.
The GC experienced its most dramatic sales leap when it dropped to $99. At that point, it was flying off shelves for a period of time because it verged into the range of impulse buy for many. Before then, it had only been $149, the difference being the price of one single game. If a mere $50 can make the difference between low sales and flying off the shelf, imagine what $500 will do for people's desire to buy the console. That's right: slaughter it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 16, 2006, 12:02:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang And also the space requirement for multidisk CD games would be horrible. I don't want to buy several 1GIG SD Cards to purchase downloaded games.
*Cough*
$168 for a 300GB memory card which can also be connected to any PC to move data around.
Post by: JonLeung on June 16, 2006, 12:06:04 PM
I don't even know WHY people still have 56k modems. Well, I guess some people don't have a choice BUT dial-up. The whole world really should be enveloped in high-speed WiMAX.
I heard about this experimental thing called "Internet2" or something to that effect a while ago. Something they're testing with universities and the like right now. Hope the whole Internet can be converted to that system - it's supposedly 10000 times faster than the current Internet is. While I'm currently content to download things at 100 kb/s, I would be absolutely ecstatic (and in need several new hard drives) if I could download at 1 Gb/s. At that speed, even full PS3 games could be on some kind of download service (if I cared to do massive damage to giant enemy crabs in feudal Japan).
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 16, 2006, 12:07:35 PM
(I don't care what Iwata said, because often Nintendo has double spoke before.)
And still I would be paying $168.00 to download games, that I am already going to pay for. It is a little discouraging to me.
Post by: Ceric on June 16, 2006, 12:30:47 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 16, 2006, 02:34:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
We don't know if harddrives will really be supported by Nintendo or not. The only thing we definately know is SD cards.
(I don't care what Iwata said, because often Nintendo has double spoke before.)
That's a pretty big goddamn deal for him to have "double spoke" about it. USB storage is pretty universal anyway so I'm not entirely surprised if the Wii's USB ports could connect to most USB storage devices, massive or otherwise.
I'd expect that you'd have to format whatever USB device you connected in a type of proprietary storage format that Nintendo uses.
Quote
And still I would be paying $168.00 to download games, that I am already going to pay for. It is a little discouraging to me.
Then go buy a PS1 and buy the games separately. It's not Nintendo's fault that these games are around 700MB in size (in fact, they went the other way on THAT decision...).
Either you meet Nintendo half way here or you don't get to play the games. It's that simple.
Post by: Arbok on June 16, 2006, 05:17:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Minidisc might have caught on had mp3s not come along to kill it.
...Had Mp3s not come along to kill it... Minidisc was introduced in 1992.
The format was killed by, yep, CDs. Sony messed up hard on that format, as it held less than CDs (unless the music was compressed) and the only advantages were that it was harder to damage and smaller. That's not good enough reason to get people to rebuy their music collections and get all new players.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
As for Betamax, it was higher in quality and storage capacity, but it was killed by VHS because, that's right, VHS was cheaper.
Incorrect. VHS was larger in capacity than Beta, which is why it was the format of choice for home videos.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 16, 2006, 05:52:26 PM
NACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo............................................."
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 16, 2006, 08:02:05 PM
To me I will have enough great games already with:
NES,
SNES,
GENESIS,
NINTENDO 64,
TURBO GRAPHICS 16,
NINTENDO GAMECUBE,
And of course Wii games.
I don't care to play low poly and resolution PSone games.
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 16, 2006, 08:05:28 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 17, 2006, 02:30:08 AM
Plus on the subject with multidisc games; not all the content on the second + discs were new there is a lot of repetitive data that can be removed so in reality a three disc game could only contain less then 1GB of information.
Post by: getter77 on June 17, 2006, 04:42:02 AM
Time wise? Not a problem. 'Always on" means while ya sleep at night it could download. All they need to do is add support for pausing/resuming of downloadable content and even a multi CD game is reduced to nothing more than a night or 2 worth of sleep. I don't even think 56K and below is supported.
Abundant variety is the trump Nintendo needs to play versus LIVE Arcade...to hold back would be suicide.
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 17, 2006, 08:26:28 AM
One the other hand does anyone think that Nintendo will bring back its BS Sattleview model for the Wii's service?
Post by: Jin-X on June 17, 2006, 09:09:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeungI don't even know WHY people still have 56k modems. Well, I guess some people don't have a choice BUT dial-up. The whole world really should be enveloped in high-speed WiMAX.
See crappy economy. And not everybody gets the deals on broadband that you (in the US I assume) get. Hmm that would be a good topic, how much do you pay for Broadband?
Post by: Kairon on June 17, 2006, 09:20:39 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on June 17, 2006, 09:34:15 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 17, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Minidisc might have caught on had mp3s not come along to kill it.
...Had Mp3s not come along to kill it... Minidisc was introduced in 1992.
The format was killed by, yep, CDs. Sony messed up hard on that format, as it held less than CDs (unless the music was compressed) and the only advantages were that it was harder to damage and smaller. That's not good enough reason to get people to rebuy their music collections and get all new players.
I own Minidisc products.
No one had to rebuy their music collection because CDs could be recorded quickly and easily onto Minidiscs and you could take them with you.
It was an easily rewritable format which worked excellent for making "mix tapes" which have CD quality without actually having to burn a non-rewritable CD.
Minidisc was built from the ground up to coexist with CDs, but it was the onset of mp3 players that slit its throat because mp3s offered everything MD did without the hassle of having a player with discs which needed to be changed to access all of your music collection when most people can fit it all in one iPod.
Quote
Incorrect. VHS was larger in capacity than Beta, which is why it was the format of choice for home videos.
Fair enough, but its real reason for taking off was that all the studios were supporting it because it was indeed cheaper.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 17, 2006, 11:24:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I don't care to play low poly and resolution PSone games.
Umm, congrats?
That doesn't change the fact that the PS1 had a number of games which Nintendo fans never played and would more than likely play if they could download them for a few bucks.
I can't help but note that the classic controller has a strikingly "dual shock" setup to it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 17, 2006, 11:48:26 AM
Really, it's a stab in the back after so many fond years (2 generations!) of having a left-analog taking priority over the D-pad by being designed to naturally line-up with your thumb.
BURN IT
BURN IT
BURN IT
Post by: Luffy1Piece on June 17, 2006, 01:04:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Therefore making it a sacrilegious way to play N64 (and maybe gamecube?) games.
Really, it's a stab in the back after so many fond years (2 generations!) of having a left-analog taking priority over the D-pad by being designed to naturally line-up with your thumb.
BURN IT
BURN IT
BURN IT
With 4 systems vs. 1 where the D-Pad is the only one supported, of course it should be given greater importance and placed in that position. N64 games look like they'll play terribly on the controller anyway which is why I'm hoping there will be a replica N64 controller and then I'd that and then use the classic controller for the other systems' supported games. I really wish the classic controller would've had 6 face buttons. It would've made a number of other supported games a possibility without the need for another controller and wouldn't have crippled N64 controls nearly as much.
Also, Hudson has already confirmed PC-Engine CD games will be supported on VC though it wasn't specified whether that included Super CD-Rom titles too. I would hope so since that's where the majority of great PC-Engine software was as opposed to the Hu-Cards and regular CD games.
Post by: Magik on June 17, 2006, 05:48:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I don't care to play low poly and resolution PSone games.
Umm, congrats?
That doesn't change the fact that the PS1 had a number of games which Nintendo fans never played and would more than likely play if they could download them for a few bucks.
I can't help but note that the classic controller has a strikingly "dual shock" setup to it.
Nintendo fans and fanboys will never admit to wanting to play a game from the PlayStation.
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 18, 2006, 01:55:41 PM
On the topic of the last post, I'm a Nintendo fan have been since the NES and I own and play the other systems which include the Playstation line of products.
Post by: Zach on June 18, 2006, 02:09:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I can't help but note that the dual shock controller has a strikingly "SNES" setup to it.
fixed
Post by: EasyCure on June 18, 2006, 02:10:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MagikQuote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I don't care to play low poly and resolution PSone games.
Umm, congrats?
That doesn't change the fact that the PS1 had a number of games which Nintendo fans never played and would more than likely play if they could download them for a few bucks.
I can't help but note that the classic controller has a strikingly "dual shock" setup to it.
Nintendo fans and fanboys will never admit to wanting to play a game from the PlayStation.
actually there has never been a playstation game that i've wanted to play. i owned a Saturn becuase my stepfather bought one thinking it was the next big thing (he gets duped by sales man often) but i never touched it, i had much more fun with my SNES. by the time i was done beating every game in my collection the n64 came along and i never even had to look at sony's offerings.
though as a mega man fan, i was saddened to not be able to play games like mm8 or mmx4+, but that was at a time before the internet and simply thought "maybe one day it will come out for n64". i never wanted them that bad though because i still hadnt played mmx3 and i have a weird thing about games, i have to play them chronilogically(sp?). that was all fixed when X collection came out.
and to speak the truth, there's still no game on either playstation 1/2/3 or xbox/360 (even saturn/dreamcast) that i envy to play. nothing has ever interested me the way nintendo projects do.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 18, 2006, 05:36:14 PM
I am a very traditional gamer. I like the older games...and I want games to get more sophisticated without getting more complicated. So I think I can understand exactly where you are coming from.
Post by: Ceric on June 18, 2006, 07:35:31 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 19, 2006, 06:44:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Magik
Nintendo fans and fanboys will never admit to wanting to play a game from the PlayStation.
Irrelevant.
Nintendo isn't trying to market this system to players who were going to buy one anyway. They're trying to market it to those who didn't intend on buying one and PS1 games add more pull to the VC.
It's all speculation, but it doesn't change the fact that it would give many people one more reason to own the Wii.
Quote
Originally posted by: ZachQuote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I can't help but note that the dual shock controller has a strikingly "SNES" setup to it.
fixed
I do not recall the SNES controller having dual analogue sticks.
Post by: JonLeung on June 19, 2006, 09:16:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Magik
Nintendo fans and fanboys will never admit to wanting to play a game from the PlayStation.
You're probably kidding, but I've played a number of PSX games, and am actually halfway through Legend Of Mana which I started on the weekend, so hah!
There's nothing wrong with a good (or decent) game anywhere. Most of the PSX/PS2 games I've played or are meaning to play are Square-Enix's, though, even if Final Fantasy isn't as good as it once was.
If Square-Enix started putting their main-series FFs on the Wii, let me tell you, a lot of people I know would be switching camps for sure.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 19, 2006, 10:27:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung If Square-Enix started putting their main-series FFs on the Wii, let me tell you, a lot of people I know would be switching camps for sure.
Precisely.
Being able to play OoT via download isn't going to bring over any non-Nintendo fans.
But Final Fantasy on tap would turn some non-Nintendo heads.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 22, 2006, 05:31:02 PM
Post by: Magik on June 22, 2006, 05:39:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeungQuote
Originally posted by: Magik
Nintendo fans and fanboys will never admit to wanting to play a game from the PlayStation.
You're probably kidding, but I've played a number of PSX games, and am actually halfway through Legend Of Mana which I started on the weekend, so hah!
There's nothing wrong with a good (or decent) game anywhere. Most of the PSX/PS2 games I've played or are meaning to play are Square-Enix's, though, even if Final Fantasy isn't as good as it once was.
If Square-Enix started putting their main-series FFs on the Wii, let me tell you, a lot of people I know would be switching camps for sure.
For the most part, I was kidding. But, there are Nintendo fans who really do hate any games that is on the PlayStation that is considered by others, 'good' games since they believe nobody but Nintendo can make 'good' games.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 23, 2006, 11:56:28 AM
Post by: JonLeung on June 27, 2006, 09:37:38 AM
Will the Wii be the "cool" console with the largest variety and quantity of games?
Or will it be more even? Or heading in that direction? Nintendo gaining ground that was lost with the GameCube?
For some reason as a die-hard Nintendo fan, something still seems "forbidden" about Nintendo being #1. Or maybe because it's been a while that I almost forget what that was like, when Mario was on top of the world.
But as has probably already been said, if the $599 ($649 Canadian!) price tag of the PS3 keeps most people away, then third-party developers would be better off developing Wii games in the mean time. Since Wii game development is much cheaper, too, well, it would be stupid for most developers to not at least try.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 27, 2006, 10:06:28 AM
There was little truth in Nintendo actually dying...just perception. But a vast number of Nintendo fans now believe that not only are they the minority, but the image of Nintendo is so tarished that true game fans hate Nitnendo's work.
Its a powerful lie, that has Nintendo fans always looking at the situation through pesimestic eyes. We never look at the good news first, but analysis every aspect of negative.
So when rumors of good new for Nintendo comes out we immediately dismiss it. When positive press is everywhere, we don't see silver lining, but we see thunderstorms of how Nintendo is going to mess it up.
In short, although we are fans, we have been crippled into believing we will forever be a minority gaming group, and Nintendo will continue to fail.
The truth is each new generation is literally a new beginning for every company. And this time around we have a very interesting situation with the three consoles. Instead, of being negative, lets watch and just see what happens. It is going to be a fun fourth quarter.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 27, 2006, 10:13:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung But as has probably already been said, if the $599 ($649 Canadian!) price tag of the PS3 keeps most people away, then third-party developers would be better off developing Wii games in the mean time. Since Wii game development is much cheaper, too, well, it would be stupid for most developers to not at least try.
We're just gamers and we see it as a bad idea. Imagine you're a game developer and your financial future hangs in the balance: do you think all of the immensely positive press the Wii has been getting and the insanely BAD press the PS3 has been getting won't influence their decisions?
The Wii is promising to be the cheapest console with a revolutionary new controller and a broader appeal to a market beyond gamers. Sounds like a much safer bet to me than a console which will cost $600, shares most of its library with a competitor who has already launched and will not even launch with anything worthwhile.
If the Wii vs. PS3 will be anything like the DS vs. PSP, then what more proof would I need? We can already see, plain as day, that the PSP has one of the worst software tie-in ratios of any system in history.
Now, Sony is touting the "The PS3 isn't a console, it's a computer!" bullsh*t, just like they passed off the PSP as "Not a console, but a movie player, mp3 player, etc." and the result is that newly launched software for the console doesn't even make it into the top 10 for the week whereas the DS's games remain at the top for weeks at a time.
Why would I, as a developer, develop for a company which has already demonstrated that selling games is not their priority?
Also, a theory floating around is that, because Sony is cracking down on graphical "standards" for the PS3 by not allowing games to be on the console without a certain graphical standard being met, these companies (like SNK) are jumping ship for the Wii where Nintendo won't force them to make their games to any graphical standard at all.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 27, 2006, 10:19:12 AM
Probably not. As much as Sony is mentioning that about graphical standards...they would make exceptions for top proven developers. Sony is completely all talk and BS. I never believe anything they say.
(I also only believe half of what Nintendo says...but atleast that is half.)
Post by: cubist on June 27, 2006, 10:22:20 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 27, 2006, 10:33:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Probably not. As much as Sony is mentioning that about graphical standards...they would make exceptions for top proven developers. Sony is completely all talk and BS. I never believe anything they say.
Actually, from what I've heard, the only reason a 3D Megaman game was ever made on the PS1 is because Capcom wanted to make a 2D Megaman for the console but Sony would not allow them to do so without first releasing a 3D Megaman.
They are VERY anal about 2D graphics and graphical standards. SNK's falling out with them is proof of this.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 27, 2006, 10:35:03 AM
The DS is.
Just look at the SOFTWARE sales of the DS verse PSP for that proof.
The fact that the hardware sales also show the DS is a nice lead is double confirmation.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 27, 2006, 01:33:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: cubist
I agree...the PSP is hardly failing as a system. It may not have DS numbers, but the PSP is still the preference of the mainstream gamer.
I believe Sony is losing money on each PSP, coupled with the fact that UMD is dieing and their games are selling like crap, I think that statement can be easily disputed.
Post by: Kairon on June 27, 2006, 01:39:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Cubist: The PSP may be the preference of the mainstream.
I hardly believe that the mainstream is equivalent to the market of gadget hungry tech addicts who need a multimedia player... and even in that market, I think that apple has the PSP beat.
Don't let Sony confuse you with the term "mainstream" here, the people who buy PSPs are really a niche.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on June 27, 2006, 02:44:26 PM
Quote
Don't let Sony confuse you with the term "mainstream" here, the people who buy PSPs are really a niche.
But that would mean the people who buy DSes are niche too....
Post by: Kairon on June 27, 2006, 03:05:54 PM
I was trying to say that the term "mainstream" does not describe the PSP buyer AT ALL.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on June 27, 2006, 10:39:34 PM
I'd call the PSP buyers mainstream. After all they aren't bothering with niche products like games.
Post by: thejeek on June 28, 2006, 12:49:17 AM
Quote
especially since that'd have to be redone for each resolution
Couldn't they just draw their 2D artwork using a vector package (e.g. Illustrator or similar) and then they can produce as many raster versions as they need for the different HD and SD target resolutions?
Post by: wandering on June 28, 2006, 12:59:51 AM
QuoteI'm still confused. How can the PSP be a "niche" product and the DS be a "mainstream" product when they have comparable sales?
Oh, sorry. I see where you're confused.
I was trying to say that the term "mainstream" does not describe the PSP buyer AT ALL.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 28, 2006, 01:29:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuoteI'm still confused. How can the PSP be a "niche" product and the DS be a "mainstream" product when they have comparable sales?
Oh, sorry. I see where you're confused.
I was trying to say that the term "mainstream" does not describe the PSP buyer AT ALL.
Because PSP isn't selling any games (or UMDs for that matter) and DS is.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 28, 2006, 04:46:51 AM
Sad but true.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 28, 2006, 05:28:45 AM
If they wanted to do vector graphics, yes. But vector graphics aren't as flexible as full sprites, partially because the shading isn't nearly as elaborate and partially because you don't have as much pixel control (which is crucial for details like the head, unless you want to make these parts extra large).
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 29, 2006, 07:01:00 PM
My friend who's a 3D modeler once thought that sprite-based gaming was wussing out until he actually tried making a sprite set himself.
Once a 3D model is completed, you can generally edit it to do whatever you want, in whichever pose or animation you choose. In the case of sprites, you need to create sometimes hundreds of sprites for every animation.
Now imagine being forced to create HD sprites for every animation. Case closed.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 29, 2006, 08:37:08 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 29, 2006, 09:07:50 PM
Also, each sprite animation would likely need to be done by the same person/group, whereas many more people could work on a single texture.
Take Leon from RE4, for example: there were probably separate people working on his hair, face, clothes, and all of his animations. I'm not the best one to be guessing this, but I don't see how multiple people could work on the sprite animation of, say, Chun Li being knocked backwards without some inconsistencies arising.
Like I said, I'm REALLy guessing about the whole process now so if anyone knows what ACTUALLY happens, feel free to enlighten me.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 30, 2006, 07:27:50 AM
Cell Animation, and thus Sprite animation us head animators that animate the extreme animation positions.
Then "Inbetweeners" come in animate the character inbetween the two states. So a head animator doesn't have to draw all 24 frames or what not for a single reaction. Just the beginning and end results.
It takes alot time still. But you don't have to have your head artists stuck animating every single sprite of every single character.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 30, 2006, 07:58:19 AM
Post by: The Omen on June 30, 2006, 08:17:29 AM
Quote
I own Minidisc products.
No one had to rebuy their music collection because CDs could be recorded quickly and easily onto Minidiscs and you could take them with you.
I do too. They're a great way to record sound for movies.
Post by: thejeek on June 30, 2006, 10:30:22 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 30, 2006, 11:06:59 AM
Post by: thejeek on June 30, 2006, 11:17:17 AM
Quote
cel shading = win
Cell shading is cool but I was thinking more of the sort of software that's used to make modern 2D animated series and movies - it lets you do stuff like draw key-frames and then it will fill in the intermediate frames for you. The result would still be 2D sprites drawn offline by artists, but the drudge work of animating the individual frames could be done with animation software.
