Do I sense Mii-esque profile images? If you watch the video, all the profile faces have that same simplistic style to them, as if they were put together by little pieces kind of like PSO's face emotes. If so, I'd dig it.

If anything, Nintendo is taking the cue from Sony given we saw these rounded icons way back in '05. And again before we even knew what the Wii's interface looked like. One common complaint it's getting is that it's sterile and soulless, even though the solution to that is just put up a wallpaper.

The video basically showed us a rather intuitive and responsive setup.

Actually I read that kiosk is for Wal-Mart. I thought the Best Buy one was supposed to be bigger (7.1 home theater connected)?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...rce/PS3--3.jpg

It's nice that you can choose the TV and Audio input from the start (and I assume, makes it the default setting for all PS3 games), but where's the widescreen option? I'm really hoping that setting widescreen on the console=widescreen for every single PS3 game.

HD resolutions are widescreen by nature, SOLDIER. And there's another screen floating around that shows the resolution list goes from 480i all the way up to 1080p and then it says "Custom" after that.

I know that this is a bit off topic, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

I myself love the OS menu of the PS3. I like it for a couple of reasons, and for lack of a better example of what not to do I'm going to use the 360's dashboard to show what Sony has done well, even though there are good sides to the 360's dashboard too.

First is how easy it is to get around the PS3's menus. Unlike the 360 that has an animation that you have to watch to get from one area to the next, while it looks cool, it eventually becomes annoying and uneeded. Where the PS3 is straight to the point, and still looks good doing it.

Second is the fact that like the 360 you can bring it up at any time, but because it's not as animation loaded it's not going to freeze and cause slowdown do to memory shortages like the 360. This is also one of my largest problems with the 360.

Third, no adds. It's one thing to have adds when you're online, but when you're offline I don't want to be seeing some companies efforts to sell me crap stuck in my face every time I want to just go and listen to music or what have you.

Lastly is the continuation of FULL mouse & keyboard support. Even though you'll more then likely be using your headset for messages to your friends, when it comes to the web browsing you can surf the web just as though you were on a computer. Unlike the Wii, where if you want to do ANYTHING on the net, you have to pick and poke with the damn Wiimote... also the PS3's browser is free unlike the Wii's.

Well that's my rant. Others can elaberate onto this in case there's other points that I have missed.

Oh, the web isn't free, your more than paying for it. Thats one of the things I DONT like about sony. I just want a damn game system. Stop selling me other crap ;.;

Wii browser will be free for the first 6 months or so, not that I'll be using it, just saying. While the Wii also seems to have alot of extra crap in it, I don't mind so much, because it doesn't feel like I'm really paying for it.

Huh? The web isn't free, period. Just because Nintendo is more adept than Sony at pulling the wool over your eyes by making you feel like you aren't paying for it, doesn't mean that's actually the case.

And comparing the features of the two, it's painfully obvious which one is duping you. BTW, what resolution does the Wii's browser run at?

Yes, I'm aware of what I was saying.

600 usd to play fun games, no game included
250 usd to play fun games, wii sports included

yep.

$550 (for the standard)is more then worth it to me. I paid $500 for the PS2 when it came out and I have 85 games for it now and have beaten 76 of them, and am still playing it 4X more then my 360 and NGC put together.

This is due to the fact that I like fighting, music and RPG games... as well as the odd shooter. Therefore the Wii's platformer and sports games have no appeal to me what so ever.

Also I don't feel that the Wii is worth $300. Seeing how the NGC launched at $200 and the Wii is just a NGC with some more RAM and an overpriced controller with it as well as a game that I'll never play, the Wii to me is just a total rip.

In the end it all comes down to what kind of games you play. And when it comes to the types of games that I like, there's no contest.

I waited for price drops on the PS2, not only due to not wanting to spend the money, but also not wanting to recieve a unit that'd be messing up within a year or two.

Hardwares nice and all, but really I just want games I'll enjoy. Which is the reason why I still buy old PS1 games when I run across one I want and dont have. A good game is a good game is a good game, and should remain a good game even with the graphics become pathetic in comparison to modern graphics. Amazing graphics are only a plus, not a requirement.

And since the Wiis graphics are pretty nice to start with, spending all that extra is very hard for me to justify for the graphical improvement which I really don't care about.

Seeing how the PS3 is just a fancy PS2, without rumble, but borrowing nintendo's newest idea, as well as a marketing ploy to try and force Blu-ray... The PS3 just seems like a total rip to me.

You want to know something?

I think that audio doesn't matter.

Shocked? Why's that?
Is it because you think that good audio makes a better experiance?

Same goes for graphics my friend. Though gameplay is what keeps you in the game, it's not the part that creates emotion, and without emotion there is no "experiance". Audio and video are the only two components that game developers have to work with. No smell, no feel (slightly with rumble) and no taste. Therefore saying that graphics don't matter is like chopping another limb off of the ability to create feeling. Sometimes art style can counter this (ex. Okami) but when it comes to things like Gears of War and Call of Duty, art style doesn't work. For my final example if I were to play a game like Condemed but on the PS3 with graphics like the Suffering I can tell you that it wouldn't have even been half as scary. Therefore graphics matter.

As for the motion detection, both companies announced it at the same time so I don't know how people think that Nintendo came up with it first. It's a technology that's been around for years, and long before Nintendo. Therefore motion detection is just simply the next logical step. It's like saying that the Ps3 copied the 360 by having better graphics then the last system, it makes no sense.

PS3 announced it at the same time? thats intresting, because no one knew about it till earlier this year. I knew about nintendo's developement in technology for I think nearing two years now, maybe longer, I can't even recall anymore when I first heard nintendo talk about it.

I really don't care that much about audio either...

Silent Hill 1 still creeps me alot, despite its archaic graphics. If you can't get into a game with lower specs, that due to your own limitations.

Also, there comes a point where you reach a threshold, where it costs significantly more to make minor improvements. We are rappidly approaching that threshold. Theres also a threshold, where the improvements are no longer worth the money required to improve the more minute ammounts. We are also nearing that threshold I believe.

You do realize that more power doesn't only mean better graphics... right?

Examples;

AI:
FEAR has some of the best AI to this day. They actually use tactics like distract and flank. As well as other manuvers that are quite impressive. To do this though you need more power.

To make levels larger and more interactive you need more power.

To do proper movements like the sword fighting in Assasin's Creed and White Knight Story you need more power.

Seeing a theme here? What's also interesting is how all these things are key to gameplay. You did say that you like great gameplay right? So why should we settle for the crappy collision detection and the ally AI that get's us killed if we can eleminate these things? Perhaps we are coming to the pinicle where graphics may not be able to advance much further. However there are many other things that have a long way to go.

When we get to the point where all these things have been mastered then I'll agree that we won't need to go any further, but until then, there are still many things that need to be done.

P.S.
About your question "Why does the PS3/you need a Blu-Ray player?". Resistance is already clocking in at about 20GB, therefore if it wasn't on Blu-Ray, you'd already have your first 2 DVD game... at LAUNCH.

P.S.S.
Metal: The Wii is maximum 480P, with a resolution of 640*480.

Unforunately, when you throw in the $500 unit into the mix, it just makes the Wii look that much worse. It's also the one to be used in comparisons given the barebones nature of the Wii.

You pay twice as much, gain over twice as many features present in the Wii, it's easily more a value. And if the rumors pan out, it may well include a PSP-like demo disc.

I care about having fun first and foremost.

If I can have the same fun at 250, why pay 500-600 usd for it?

Dual Double Layered Capactiy DVDs can hold upto 17gig according to wiki. Yes, that would still require two discs though, as it is currently. Also, coding is small in comparison to the graphic aspects. The game is so big because of the graphics. Blu-ray is not required for making Resistance a great game (if it is turns out to be a great game).

Paying _merely_ twice as much to have the same ammount of fun does not equate as making the Wii look bad. The feature that matters to me is enjoying playing games, have to pay twice as much for that does not sound like a good deal to me.

It actually is required, because to make it fit on a DVD would mean removing current things in the game. Which could lead to gameplay changes. Which could totally change the game's experiance. Also if a launch game is just using 20GB, imagine what better looking and more interactive & feature filled games like MGS4 will be.

But hey if you can stick with a Wii for 2 - 3 years and then get a PS3 later on when it's cheaper then go for it. I myself can't stand sports games for if I wanted to play sports I'd just go play them with my friends. And platformers are the least changed genre of ALL game genres, and I find then pointless, repetative, and boring. I'm not saying that they ARE these things. This is just how they are to ME.

You wouldnt have to remove anything, you could tone down the graphics. A less pretty game should not make the game less fun.

Who said this was anything but fun? I'm just pointing out, that approaching this just looking at what you get with each machine, one is the better value.

Your opinion is valid, regardless of the conclusion of that approach.

Much of that is redundant space, but why are we talking about DVD capacity?

Resistance, to be honest, is only 22GB because of the uncompressed 7.1 channel audio they have stored there. Its not high resolution textures because that would accomplish nothing, since the bandwidth would remain the same. The game, proper, is probably just a few gigs.

Okay avanent, that's enough. Come back to Mario's Warp Room for that stuff. Your argument against the PS3 has no chance in hell working here.

As for the PS3, I find it funny that public attention has turned the opposite direction from the beginning. It seems as if public opinion just keeps getting thrown back and forth. It seems that everytime a huge announcement is made for one system, everybody rushes to the other one. Before PS3 and Wii were announced officially, the opinion originally sided with the PS3 because of it's brand name. The Revolution gets announced and everybody flocks to the Revolution, PS3's announcement of Blu-Ray and other stuff is announced, everybody runs back. Public opinion will always change depending on announcements. I personally had no interest in the PS3 whatsoever. But now, it's looking more and more enticing by the minute. Ironically, the opposite seems to be true for Nintendo, who, as long as they don't make any official announcements, they get tremendous support. With each successive announcement, PS3 is going up and Wii's dropping.

The $500 pricetag now becomes justifiable with all these extra features.....

Wanting better graphics is also a valid want. Its just not one I can see myself spending much money on... I focus more on value generally, and it can be hard for me to really rationalize spending so much for graphical improvements. Of course, then again, I don't play that many games, I'm just looking to have some fun between other things. If I was more serious about it, I could have a different outlook.

Wow, I didnt realize sound was that big... I know graphics are huge compared to coding, btu I had no idea where sound fit into that.

May I ask a question?

What do you get with the Wii that couldn't have just been a new accessori and better online support for the NGC? So what if you lose the Wii channels, thoes arn't worth $300 either.

P.S.
For the record I play about 5 - 6 hours a day, so perhaps that's why I have, play and have come to liking more games on the PS1/2 then any other system. Also though, I want to note that I have every system from the NES to the 360 as well as some earlier machienes at my grandparents, I'm not bragging I'm just trying to convey that there are things that I like on EVERY console, I'm not just viewing this from a single viewpoint.

Jesus Christ man, just stop already, This is definitely not the place to talk about Wii vs PS3. We all know the PS3 looks amazing and the Wii boils down to a Juiced up Gamecube with innovative controls and Wifi capabilities and what not. They're not even in direct competition, so exactly why are we arguing here?

A new way to play games and hopefully a system with a large ammount of third party support that is actually willing to experiment a little and focus more on gameplay. I don't care at all about the Wii channels. I'll probably look at them the moment I take it out of the box, and never again.

I play consoles maybe only around 5-6 hours total a week. I think thats the fundamental difference in our perspectives. It makes it hard fo rme to consider that much money with my more limited usage.

Just because I support nintendo's new system doesn't mean I'm not interested in the PS3. I just happen to vehemently dislike Sony's current marketing strategy and the high price. I remember when 360 first came out, I laguhed and laughed. In a few months, sony will announce their more powerful system at a lower price the the 360. 360 is doomed, haha. Instead, Sony announced their system will actually cost more. All I could think is... Sony, where's your head? Instead, Sony has actually given the 360 a fighting chance. Instead of Sony dominating the market, they are allowing everyone to take large ammount of ground against them. I've actually considered buying a 360, something I never did with the original xbox.

I love my ps2. Because its an everybody system. Everyone owns the damn thing, and as such, it has tons of games because the potential market is huge. This was done by Sony providing a decent price and relatively low production costs. Which is not at all what I see them doing with the PS3. Instead they are following the PSP model, which makes me concerned for the PS3's future; not in whether it will do ok, but whether or not it will do great.

Yeah... I was typing that post before you made your last one there and things generally boiled down. I noticed it after the page updated that everyone left and I was the only one swinging my sword at nothing but the wind.

Therefore my apologies to all and don't respond to my last post unless you really want to.

Avanent: Don't take this personally for I have ALWAYS thought like this. I don't care about marketing, what's hot & what's not, money can be made & spent but experiances last forever (a bit cheesy, but true non the less). Therefore if I'm going to get a better experiance by spending a mere $200 more then I will, I don't like to settle. (No I'm not rich, I work part time and make $8 an hour)

I really don't believe this to be the case. The developers of Lair are also claiming around 25GB for their game as well as stating that each level runs at about 4GB each.

The uncompressed argument is stupid because developers are well aware uncompressed textures will take a long time to load, plus we aren't dealing with large backbuffers or texture memory on the PS3. Simply put textures aren't uncompressed. The PS3 simply does not have the Blu-Ray-to-memory bandwidth or the memory capacity to deal with uncompressed 1500x1500+ textures.

Same deal with uncompressed sound. I'm willing to bet they don't have the optical disc bandwidth leftover to be streaming 3Mpbs for 7.1 uncompressed audio, and they sure as hell don't have the system memory to be loading that kind of audio in memory.

What is most likely is eating up the space is texture variety. Normally we are used to seeing developers re-use textures. For example the rock texture in level 1, 3 and 10 are really just the same texture being reused. With these larger games I imagine the rock textures for level 1, 3, and 10 will all be different. Another example is enemy textures. Games have a tendency to just reuse the same models for the same enemies in each level. I'm willing to bet the enemy soldiers in level 1 of Lair will be using a completely different texture set from the enemy soldiers in level 2 of lair.

Give them the space and developers will use it. No doubt we will see a nice variety of different looking areas in most PS3 games since developers can afford to create a completely new texture set for each area with the capacity Blu-Ray offers.