Author Topic: I played PS3 last night (Read 14320 times)

NWR_DrewMG · « **on:** November 15, 2006, 02:37:01 AM »

Target had a kiosk up and running, so I gave it a whirl.

The controller really is extremely light. It feels like they hollowed it out. Rumble must be heavy.

I played about 10 minutes of NBA 07. All in all, I have to say it was fun. The game felt a little more fluid than other NBA games I've played recently (NBA 2K5, NBA Live 06) and the graphics were pretty damn good - especially on the hardwood and in the player detail. But the players almost looked a little out of place. Like they were photographs pasted onto a video game.

The most obvious thing about it? Sweat. Apparently next gen sweats heavy. It was like someone dripped the players in oil.

But you know what stuck in my head as I played?

This is pretty much just like playing PS2.

Viva la Wii.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:55:19 AM »

The controller really is extremely light. It feels like they hollowed it out. Rumble must be heavy.

Well, yes. Never noticed that when you picked up your first rumble-capable controller?

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2006, 06:10:36 AM »

Honestly? No. I attributed the weight of PC/Xbox/PS2 controllers to the addition of buttons and analog sticks.

I guess I noticed it back in the day of the Rumblepak, but that was the first rumble on a console, so I didn't really put too much stock in it.

capamerica · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2006, 06:26:02 AM »

The GameStop in my area just got theirs in, I have to say I was not impressed at all with it at all.
Graphics where okay I guess, I mean their not that impressive since I've been playing the Xbox360 for over a year now. The whole better graphic thing has come and gone for me, but I bet the people who haven't seen the Xbox360... or a Xbox and have just stayed with their PS2 will see this as being a BIG deal. Infact I found the graphics to not be as impressive as some of the Xbox360 games I have been playing. Its going to be a lot like the PSP where the graphics are only going to be a big deal for a month then people will stop caring.

The controller did feel pretty light which also made it feel really cheap. Other then that its just a normal stupid PSOne controller. The ONLY thing I would have liked Sony to change about the PS3 was the controller but nope they left the system with the same crappy controller.

I really don't see anything special about the PS3 even more now that I have had a chance to play it. Its just the PS2 with better graphics. It looks a bit better but the games play just the same. This isn't a Next Gen system, hell even MS changed their controller a bit to make playing games a bit differnt the PS3 plays just like the PSOne and PS2.

vudu · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2006, 08:06:39 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: DrewMG
I played about 10 minutes of NBA 07.

I thought this game was cancelled?

couchmonkey · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2006, 08:29:00 AM »

There are like three basketball games, and one of them was cancelled. The EA one. I think this is the Sony one.

Edit: thanks for the impressions, guys!

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:31:32 AM »

I should probably say that "just like PS2" isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just nothing I'd pay $599 for.

WuTangTurtle · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2006, 03:08:55 PM »

2k7 Sega, NBA07 Sony, Live07 EA. EA did scrap their version for PS3 and already released their 360 version, which recieved incredibly bad reviews. 2k7 from Sega is the only decent basketball game. I wonder if Sega will ever make a NBA Wii game?

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2006, 03:41:04 PM »

I too have played the PS3 and well its just okay nothing special about it and the sixaxis IMO can get annoying to use in a long term purpose especially if developers just shoe horned it in as an optional substitution for a analog stick function. The graphics IMO were nice to look at but after that and playing the 360 for about half a year I really don't give a crap about them. I think Gengi was the game on the PS3 that proved graphics aren't everything especially if the gameplay blew and there was noticeable fix from the PS2 prequil.

capamerica · « **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2006, 04:50:20 PM »

ShaolinKilla Sega stoped making the 2k Sports games awhile ago. Their now made by 2k Sports which is owned by Take-Two Interactive.

And if I recall correctly their was talk that 2k Sports would be coming to the Wii.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:54:08 AM »

2k7 Sega

Sega doesnt make those anymore its Take 2 who makes them now. Sega Sold 2K Sports along with the studio that made them to Take 2, over two years ago.

Sega wil never make another psorts gaem they already stated this when they Sold 2K Sports and shut down Sega Sports.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2006, 05:31:16 AM »

I've always hated the PS controller layout so change would have been welcome for me.

But yeah, this isn't a "next gen" system by any stretch.

Sony seems to be banking heavily on the idea that SOMEONE will make a game with AI so great that it will absolutely HAVE to take advantage of the cell processors and be a reason to own the console.

I don't think that better AI in games is what people are truly looking for. I think you'll find that if the AI was actually good enough to regularly outsmart the player, people wouldn't enjoy the games at all.

Just look at games like World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs: people seem perfectly content spending hours and hours killing the same simple-minded monsters repeatedly. Much like blue ray, I don't think Sony is in touch with what customers want.

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2006, 05:54:25 AM »

One thing i just thought up is that Blu-ray has ONE big disadvantage and that is that the medium is not a huge leap above its predecessor.

The DVD offered MANY stuff that VHS tapes didn't have. It had neat menus, the video quality was VASTLY superior, it offered multiple language tracks, it offered multiple sound options, it offered extras and bonus features, you didn't need to rewind it, it lasts far more than VHS and if you got lost during a movie you can just skip a chapter instead of rewinding everything in order to find the scene you want.

What does Blu-ray (or HD DVD for that matter), offer that DVD doesn't? Better picture? True, the bigger capacity does allow it to store more video and info, but in the end, is it worth paying 800+ or more for it?

Even the average consumer will realize this.

Hell, even my parents, who are OBLIVIOUS to the world of technology, saw a news story on the PS3 launch and after hearing the price they said "What makes the PS3 so damn special that its worth 600+ dollars?".

Ian Sane · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2006, 05:58:30 AM »

"I don't think that better AI in games is what people are truly looking for. I think you'll find that if the AI was actually good enough to regularly outsmart the player, people wouldn't enjoy the games at all."

Co-op AI could be better though. In pretty much any game where the CPU in on my team half of the work is making sure they don't f*ck up as they seem to completely ignore enemies shooting right at them and spend their whole time wasting your rare items for stupid reasons.

I would also like intelligent AI that is hard because they're smart, not because they cheat. Usually "hard" just means the AI can do things you can't do behind the scenes like know what buttons you're pushings, being able to do hard moves at will without inputing anything, knowing where you are in a map, or teleporting when they're off-screen (damn cheating racing games).

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2006, 06:19:57 AM »

Your squads in Battalion Wars knew when to fire at enemies once they were in range (and each unit type knows how to apply its unique range), and they do fight back if fired upon.

I'm glad Nintendo is working closely with Kuju.

Of course, these topics are soooo last year and most of you probably haven't tried BW anyway -- realize there are devs, albeit low profile, that do succeed where the big boys fail (i'm looking at you, EA).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2006, 06:37:10 AM »

"One thing i just thought up is that Blu-ray has ONE big disadvantage and that is that the medium is not a huge leap above its predecessor.

The DVD offered MANY stuff that VHS tapes didn't have. It had neat menus, the video quality was VASTLY superior, it offered multiple language tracks, it offered multiple sound options, it offered extras and bonus features, you didn't need to rewind it, it lasts far more than VHS and if you got lost during a movie you can just skip a chapter instead of rewinding everything in order to find the scene you want.

What does Blu-ray (or HD DVD for that matter), offer that DVD doesn't? Better picture? True, the bigger capacity does allow it to store more video and info, but in the end, is it worth paying 800+ or more for it?"

This is reason #1 why I have no incentive to rebuy all my DVDs. DVD removes all that I didn't like about VHS. For home video it is exactly what I want and I have no reason to drop it. I'm content and satisfied. I figure the DVD format will not get replaced for quite a while because there isn't much point to it.

JonLeung · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2006, 07:03:16 AM »

Ian, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players will also be able to play DVDs. So it's not necessary to re-buy your movie collection, unless of course you want to always have the best quality version of every movie whenever possible.

I imagine that's why it seems like Disney has put out "Disney DVDs" of nearly every one of their animated films in a rather short period of time, so they can sell them all again in another format sometime soon. But like you said, Ian, everyone's more than content with DVDs so it will be difficult for either of the new formats to become popular with consumers. They're not just fighting each other, they're fighting DVDs.

Does the PS3 have something similar to the Wii's Photo Channel? I remember seeing that there was. Is it any good?

Ian Sane · « **Reply #17 on:** November 24, 2006, 07:54:38 AM »

"Ian, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players will also be able to play DVDs. So it's not necessary to re-buy your movie collection, unless of course you want to always have the best quality version of every movie whenever possible."

Fair enough. But I didn't replace any of my VHS tapes just because they didn't play in my DVD player. I saw a need to upgrade. Well honestly I haven't totally replaced my VHS tapes (though I didn't have many to begin with). Just Star Wars and I will eventually replace Indiana Jones. But the point is I made an effort to buy a DVD player and start buying DVDs as my new video medium. It wasn't like my VCR broke down or anything. But with this I don't see any reason to even buy a player for a new format unless my DVD player breaks. And even then if DVDs are cheaper I might stick with them anyway. Backwards compatibility would be a good idea IF there was a better reason to have a new format other than the obvious greed factor from the companies involved.

Edfishy · « **Reply #18 on:** November 24, 2006, 03:59:13 PM »

Unfortunately I do see a difference between the Blu-Ray and DVD, and will eventually opt for either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. But not for atleast another year. The "next gen" discs came out just a tad too early.

Kairon · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2006, 06:01:50 PM »

My uncle could see the difference between VHS and laserdisc...

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2006, 09:38:46 PM »

So can I.

Laserdiscs are GINORMOUS compared to VHS =D
(picture is tad better too)

I have one volume of Ranma 1/2 OAV series on LD.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2006, 05:28:16 AM »

but what ever happened to VCD? I know DVD killed it but what made DVD better than VCD?

KDR_11k · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2006, 07:01:05 AM »

Being able to hold more than 45 minutes per disc?

The Omen · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2006, 08:37:23 AM »

Quote
What does Blu-ray (or HD DVD for that matter), offer that DVD doesn't? Better picture? True, the bigger capacity does allow it to store more video and info, but in the end, is it worth paying 800+ or more for it?"

This is a typical Sony move, just like when they released the minidisc. Introduce a new product that nobody is even close to needing. Not to mention the fact that almost all of the Bluray discs are being reviewed below their hddvd counterparts, and neither format has been adapting the existing extras from dvd to their format. So what you're getting now is a medium that looks a little bit nicer than the very popular existing one, but that's it.

No way I'll bite on BluRay until they get all of the kinks out, and they stop releasing movie only discs, because all that means is that a double dip is coming.

Artimus · « **Reply #24 on:** November 26, 2006, 08:59:34 AM »

I don't think it's fair to condemn the idea of a new product as not being needed. In 10 years or so most people will own an HD TV and it makes no sense for DVD to still be the format. DVDs cannot display in HD, most people don't realize that. The reason for the new format is HD, and while it's not needed so much now it does make sense in the long run. The bad part is their refusal to decide on one format, which is almost exclusively Sony's insistence on owning the format.

News:

Author Topic: I played PS3 last night (Read 14320 times)