D
Deleted_171835
Guest
>1800GFLOPS
lol not even close. That would mean the GPU would be 1.8TFLOPS.
Oh and the PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM. There's a reason the PS3 version of Skyrim was shit.
lol not even close. That would mean the GPU would be 1.8TFLOPS.
Oh and the PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM. There's a reason the PS3 version of Skyrim was shit.
Did you read what I said?! PS3 had 512MB of RAM, but 256MB were exclusive for GPU use, that's why this memory is called VRAM
Some developers have hard times with this separation, but PS3 GPU is just fine, and nothing worse than X360.
You will never find a game in X360 that has better graphics than Uncharted 3!
Trolling?! No I'm not!
Wii was just a gamecube with a odd controller
PS3 had:
Blue-Ray Support
Bluetooth Controller with Dualshock 3, Motion, but not forcing this to the gamers
Compatibility with lots of videos and audio formats
Good Online Service and Gameplay
Outstanding Graphics
Outstanding CPU
A Good Hard Drive
and many other things that Wii lacked
I really thing Wii was bullshit made for grannys and casual gamers, and PS3 was the real deal
I had a X360 once, but it destroyed itself, form overheating and gave me 3RL.
Even if X360 were better, I would not buy again a console that destroys itself
I'm interested in the Wii-U and if the developers are excited about it then thats the last piece of the puzzle.
People keep saying that but I've never seen any actual fact to support this.
Also Gearbox isn't even bringing the game I care about to the Wii U so IDGAF. Yeah sorry I care leagues more about Borderlands 2 than Colonial Marines.
I'm not trolling!
Just because I think that Wii is bullshit, and fail to see what is so revolutionary in it, it doesn't mean I'm a troll!
WiiU had a different controller, so what? I don't want to play DKCR or NSMBW looking like a monkey!
I want to play them the old fashioned way!
For me, the points I said, do not just make PS3 strong, but also makes it revolutionary!
Using Blue-Ray, or using such a advanced CPU, was much more revolutionary than the terrible controller Wii had!
I think that you are wrong,if the things you have just written were true...wait,lemme do some calculations:
there are 96 millions of WIIs sold so far,so let's say that a family is composed of just 2 guys,k?
96*2=192 MILLIONS OF HUMANS ARE MONKEYS!!!
Even if I like some trolls(the funny ones) I think that we should just:
The PS3 is not revolutionary. It was strong, that's it. But really, it was just a highpowered console that'll...in the long run...not change jackshit. The Wii, though, started the motion gaming. It's controller far from sucked, as it can be used in so many ways(I don't mean the accessories, either). Otherwise Microsoft and Sony would not've tried to copy and Make-It-Better(tm).
Just as the DS was revolutionary by popularizing touchscreens on handhelds(arguably I'd say it even managed to affect the smartphone scene.), the Wii was innovative, and revolutionized the game industry(for better or worse, depending on who you ask.)
I didn't say people that play Wii are monkeys, I said that these games use the motion in a stupid way.
The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword uses it in a good way, but for DCKR and NSMBW they are just useless and anoying.
Just because my opinion is different from yours I'm a troll?!
I still fail to see why peoĺe thing that!
Wii had a control that made success, that's right, and that's why Sony and MS are trying to copy it.
If you played the previous 2D sidescroller Mario or DKC you may understand how boring and annoying it is to use Wii motion to play DKCR and NSMBW
The controller motion is mostly used in bad and unnescessary ways, the same happens with DS.
Why can't I just use select to use the store item in NSMBDS instead of touching the bottom screen?
Why do I have to play Zelda PH and ST just using the touch screen, why can't I use the DPad and XYAB?
PS3 was one of the first Blue-Ray Players, if not the first!
People try to separate graphics of fun when they can and usually are together.
A better hardware do not just improve graphics, it improves the AI, number of enemies, size of the map, duration of the game.
Why do you think third parties abandonned Wii.
Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVor_LvQlo
Where is the police?
Why do people struggle on the wall?
Why people act so calm when there is shooting so next to them?
For me Wii controller doesn't make it revolutionary.
The new technologies applied in PS3 that made it revolutionary
A product beyond it's time!
Seriously. I think you need to look up the definitions of eveloutionary and revolutionary.
The Wii brought gaming to a whole new audience who'd never played video games before. It also brought back a lot of gamers who had grown tired of what gaming had become. This has every right to at least be debated as a revolution in gaming.
The PS3 had better graphics, faster processors, more storage that its predecessors. These are all upgrades of exisiting technology. Evolution, my friend.
It doesn't matter if you or anybody else think the PS3 was awesome. It may be to you, and many others. That is not the subject of debate here. That fact is it was natural (expected) evolution of gaming tech. Not necessarily a bad thing. It's still a 'veloution. Just a different kind of one.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 122
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 36
- Location
- Leiden, The Netherlands
- Website
- www.thulinma.com
- XP
- 543
- Country
Of course there is no such thing as a "limit" in this regard - it's just that it has been getting harder and harder to increase processing speed in the ways we used to be able to, so new ways need to be found and this is (at least right now) a slow process. As for "actual fact to support this", look up Moore's law and you'll see that recently speed increases have not been what they have have been the last 50 years. You may also have noticed computer parts getting cheaper in stead of faster the last few years: more work is being done on making existing technology smaller and less power consuming than is being done on making it faster.
So, in short: it will be hard for any console of the next generation to surpass another "by miles" (who measures processing power in miles, anyway?) since the low-end and high-end hardware are getting pretty close together. In addition, we have been using hardware a lot less efficiently lately. Check out what developers were doing with the older, more limited, consoles: they were *really* pushing the hardware to get that little bit of extra juice out of it. In newer consoles, I noticed developers don't even try to do that kind of optimization anymore, which is quite sad since that is part of the whole "making a game" thing, in my opinion (and produces crap-looking games on good hardware, which makes no sense).
You probably already have heard a lot of Apple being revolutionary, but why?!
Apple rarely invents new technology, that's not why!
Apple usually gets a technology that already exist, and use it in a new, elegant and user-friendly way.
Blue-Ray is now a standard of disc media, online gaming is now a standard of current consoles.
How many years do you think we will use Blue-Ray?
When everybody compares rumours of next gen, they compare them with PS3.
Sony did elevate the parameters and create tendencies with PS3
A product beyond it's time sure is revolutionary!
Wii was something trending, it most public are non-gamers.
What can we say about a console that it's best selling game is Wii Sports?!
What can we say about a console that almost don't have third party games?!
Wii was somewhat different, but I hardly call it revolutionary!
Which is why they use their own OS and their own CPU/GPU combo in all of their devices?
BluRay is used en-masse only on the PS3 and for High Definition videos, DVD is still the standard for now.
Until we figure out something better, because BluRay is really slow.
It's the best of the lot.
Agreed!
Only because it's bundled with the console. If you have a Wii, you have WiiSports by proxy.
It was revolutionary due to the motion controller... and that'd be that.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
