PDA

View Full Version : gekko plays PS3 in T-35 days


gekko
11-27-2005, 04:12 AM
http://www.playfuls.com/news_0251_Sony_Will_Present_PS3_At_CES_2006.html

Looks like Sony is having quite the presence at CES next year. Can we say new controller and playable PS3? I think so :)

*kisses CES badge*

Jonbo298
11-27-2005, 11:17 AM
Sony has said their controller is basically whats gonna be in the final product or something like dont expect much if any to change because of it (blame the lawsuit)

Teuthida
11-27-2005, 01:18 PM
Take plenty of pictures. And if they stick with the boomerang, give it a throw...have to make sure my purchase will be justifiable.

DarkMaster
11-27-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't know if we'll get to play it, that seems like something that would be better reserved for E3. Maybe under an NDA or behind closed doors, but I think it'll pretty much just be tech demos, like how Nintendo let a few of us fool around with the Rev controller at E3.

I do hope they've reconsidered the controller design though. Not necessarily because of the boomerang aspect, but the thing was freakin puny at E3, like way too small methinks.

Neo
11-27-2005, 02:13 PM
They gotta shorten those prongs. Otherwise it will be difficult to rest your hands in certain positions.

Crash
11-27-2005, 04:12 PM
gekko... you dont have perfect dark? I hate you


btw, where did you get the badge?

gekko
11-27-2005, 05:49 PM
I have Perfect Dark. It sucks, but I have it.

I work for Revolution Report, so I got myself a press badge to CES. Thing is, Nintendo was in talks to exhibit, decided not to. Talked with ATI, they're not allowed to show Hollywood. Long story short, I'm going to a show without anything to cover. Thought it was going to be a Xbox 360 fest for me, but now it looks like PS3 might take up most of my time.

Crash
11-27-2005, 06:19 PM
do you honestly think the PS3 will have anything different than the xbox? I mean it can' t possibly get any more powerful, it comes down to the developers programming a good game, or a good engine.

I dont think the ps3 games will look ANY better by the time the xbox 360 is in the second generation of software

that's where the revolution comes in, the clear alternative to the super expensive graphics battle between sony and microsoft.

Null
11-27-2005, 06:46 PM
um, it always comes down to developers making a good game. thats no different for MS Sony or Nintendo.

Jonbo298
11-27-2005, 07:20 PM
Crash you opened another can of worms ;)

Swan
11-27-2005, 07:38 PM
do you honestly think the PS3 will have anything different than the xbox? I mean it can' t possibly get any more powerful, it comes down to the developers programming a good game, or a good engine.

I dont think the ps3 games will look ANY better by the time the xbox 360 is in the second generation of software

that's where the revolution comes in, the clear alternative to the super expensive graphics battle between sony and microsoft.
Well, we always think that the graphics can't get any better when we first see them. Once you get used to them you start to not care about the graphics as much. And then the next gen comes out and the graphics are even better. I honestly don't think that we will ever reach the limit.

Bond
11-27-2005, 07:41 PM
I honestly don't think that we will ever reach the limit.
I think that opens the question do we really want totally realistic graphics? I'm not really sure I'd want to play a game that looks totally realistic.

Swan
11-27-2005, 07:50 PM
Yes, I agree with you on that one Bond. Playing a truely realistic game COULD really warp some peoples minds. It would be an interactive snuff film.


I think that the graphics will continue to get better, but I don't believe they will go in the direction of realistic, they will still have that cartoony feel to them.

Null
11-27-2005, 08:11 PM
i beg to differ, graphics will always evolve for more realistic looking. that doesnt mean every game has to use that way.

but i believe most people would love to eventually be able to step into a Virtual reality system and have it look and be just that... virtual Reality.


thats not saying we want every game to be realistic life like blood and gore, a game could be as simple as getting into a virual reality system and playing sports games like you were really there, standing in an arena with thousands of people all around you cheering as if you were really there. (and as i said, with thoes graphics theydont have to use em to look realistic, you could step into a perfect looking Cartoon Virtual Reality)

i never liked star trek much, but the virtual reality systems on that show, is what computer / graphics are ever striving to achieve... who knows if we'll ever get there, but thats what each generation of new computer graphics is steping closer to.

at that point, there may have to be some much stricter rules on gore and things not sutable for children, but untill that day when they become perfect.. graphics will always get better and better.

gekko
11-28-2005, 04:05 AM
I still don't believe PS3 can run a game, in real-time, at 1080p and keep a decent framerate. Sony is promising they can do it, and on two screens. Trust me, I have to see this ;)

MuGen
11-28-2005, 11:54 AM
to add a rebuttle to crash's little slew of words..... what I truly believe is that the graphical difference between the ps3 and the xbox 360 will probably be little to none. But that doesn't say the ps3 won't be more powerful. IF, and thats a big IF..... IF the Cell processor is capable of doing what they intend to have it do, you could have a lot more going on in the game at the same time without a sacrifice of frames or lag. You may have the same game visually between the ps3 and x360 but the key to winning the console war (via MGS4) is the Cell processor.

In any case, if CELL is what Sony claims... that is the obvious difference maker in the 2 consoles. Other than that, your right... PS3 and Xbox 360 could possibly be on par with each other in terms of graphical power.

gekko
11-28-2005, 12:37 PM
Yes, but the more things going on in the game also leads to longer development time, and higher costs.

And to add on to my earlier statement, just found out Sony is promising dual-monitor 1080p at 120fps. This has to be good!

MuGen
11-28-2005, 12:44 PM
Sony also promised Toy Story graphics with the ps2. I take Sony's promises with a grain of salt.... in the end I'm just hoping PS3 will be able to deliver the graphics shown in tech demo's. With the added bonus of dual monitor 1080p 120fps of course...

still.....................

Professor S
11-28-2005, 01:08 PM
PS3 has its Cell processor, while the 360 runs 3 provenly sick-ass processors concurrently. Thats the way that NASA structures its supercomputer. Even if the Cell does what it says it can do, I'm starting to think the difference will be small.

As for the dual screens, who really cares about that? How many people do you think will actually be setting up two monitors to run games? To consider that a selling point is absurd to me.

I still think that the PS3 will be the superior system in the end, unless any last minute cost cutting measures are made. But I also don't think it will be the end-all of gaming or even close to photo-realism.

Jonbo298
11-28-2005, 02:19 PM
Sony says that to make their e-peen this much larger ----------------------------------------3> Its called hype ;) :p

MuGen
11-28-2005, 08:50 PM
PS3 has its Cell processor, while the 360 runs 3 provenly sick-ass processors concurrently. Thats the way that NASA structures its supercomputer. Even if the Cell does what it says it can do, I'm starting to think the difference will be small.

As for the dual screens, who really cares about that? How many people do you think will actually be setting up two monitors to run games? To consider that a selling point is absurd to me.

I still think that the PS3 will be the superior system in the end, unless any last minute cost cutting measures are made. But I also don't think it will be the end-all of gaming or even close to photo-realism.

I'm sorry but if NASA is built around 360's DUAL-CORE processor, not 3... then I highly doubt their Supercomputers are super at all..

Unless you do you research and find out that NASA's Columbia supercomputer has 10,240 Intel Itanium-2 chips racking up a whopping 36 teraflops.

The supercomputer, provided by SGI of Mountain View, Calif., consists of 20 tethered SGI 512-processor Altix systems. It runs a total of 10,240 Intel Itanium 2 processors and has 20T of memory. The system will use a 440T SGI InfiniteStorage storage area network.

Article: http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27745-1.html

...pwned