Posted: 22 September 2006 at 9:32am | IP Logged

err the SNES and its games were well over priced.

Acutally the downloadable games have not been confirmed to be region locked.

Epic games on the PS3??? So you've played them have you, do tell us what they are- seeming as the launch line un is still unconfirmed I doubt you can.

The Wii is not overpriced, its in line with market rates for similar products- if you feel its over priced dont buy one, I doubt Nintendo will care.

As for the core 360 system being so cheap I wa sunder the impression you had to buy a harddrive to download games, and have a Live subscription, plus you might need to buy a DVD remote to play DVD's, oh and some extra for wireless pads, oh and a Wi Fi adaptor.

Finally, the Wii control system is not an evolution of the GC pad its a revolution- hence the console codename.

I'd like to point out I'm not a 'fanboy' I own every console of this gen and play my PS2 most, I just object to you calling a machine overpriced based on its graphics.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 10:48am | IP Logged

i think they are all over priced, but then again we all still buy them....

if you think it's over priced then don't buy it wait till it comes down. i had a PSP within the week it was realease but now its only half of what i paid for it.

the PS2 costs a tenner on ebay and new slims ones cost about 50/60 quid

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 12:39pm | IP Logged

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/22/sony_20gb_ps3_hdmi/

Sony have confirmed HDMI on the 20GB PS3.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 3:01pm | IP Logged

Please provide evidence for your twice as powerful remarks...when and only when you provide this proof can I take your comments seriouly...as it looks to me that you are just bitter that the console doesn't cost a pittence...dispite the fact that it is the cheapest new release console for alot of years...I think you are talking sh*t, based on pre-released screenshots, which mean nothing. Based on what i have sen for all 3 consoles the Wii is the only one worthi its cost as it's the only one that actually does anything new and inovative worth a mention...oh and it's still the cheapest of the 3...

Edit: While were on the subject would you like to show me where Sony and Microsoft have made any real innovation with this generation? So far all I see is last years games with a new coat of paint.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 5:01pm | IP Logged

Oh dear as I thought you are talking speculative crap based on screenshots, and not actual processing power of any kind. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about...out the window goes all credibility of your comments.

Rosalie wrote: Quote: Edit: While were on the subject would you like to show me where Sony and Microsoft have made any real innovation with this generation? So far all I see is last years games with a new coat of paint. That doesn't matter. As far as the actual consoles themselves are concerned, they're better value.

I see for you value for money only stems as far as how pretty a game is and not actual gameplay value...oh well again shows how credible your comments are. A poweful console isn't worth sh*t, if the games on it are worthless.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 5:04pm | IP Logged

I see innovation as an integral part of a console's value, at the stage we're at with games. We've had a number of console generations with incremental steps forward in terms of graphics and so on- now it's time for gaming's equivalent of 'colour TV' to kick in.

EDIT: Bloody hell, I'm crap at quotes.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 5:04pm | IP Logged

joshlowe wrote: Anzati wrote: the Wii is the only one worthi its cost as it's the only one that actually does anything new and inovative worth a mention...oh and it's still the cheapest of the 3... Edit: While were on the subject would you like to show me where Sony and Microsoft have made any real innovation with this generation? So far all I see is last years games with a new coat of paint. That's as much to one extreme as some are to the other. But to answer your question. The 360 gave us the achievenemt system. This doesn't phsycially change the way you play the game like the Wii, but it does change the way you play psychologically. Or it can. In the SNES days a game had to last for months in some cases as they were so costly. I personally remember completing Mario World in a week. Then completing it again. Then completing it again. Then trying to get to Bowser in the shortest amount of levels. Then trying to do each level as fast as possible. Then trying to get the highest coin score per level. With the PS1 all that changed. Kids started getting more, many gamers had grown and were spending earnings on games. It became a case of buy a game, complete it, enjoy the CG ending, buy or trade in for another game. The only exceptions were multiplayer games and a handful of games with built in challeneges or earning systems like PS1 Soul Blade or Dreamcast Capcom fighters. Now, thanks to the achievement system, I'm playing each game more than I did. A few years ago I'd all but lost interest in games, and this innovation has made me a gamer again. Of course it depends on the game developer to actually take advantage of that and offer the best challenges possible, but Microsoft gave them the platform to do so. On top of that they've refined the custom soundtrack feature (which can make a huge difference in gaming experience), the live service, and the live arcade games service to the point where it's much more accessible and worthwhile, giving these prior innovations to some for the first time. I dunno about the PS3, but in my opinion the 360's innovations are doing as much to make for a more involved gaming experience, a more fun experience as much as Nintendo's are.

Great a real answer, thanks.

Posted: 22 September 2006 at 5:05pm | IP Logged

[QUOTE=Rosalie] Please provide evidence?

Have you seen any of the screenshots lately?

[quote]

Screenshots arent evidence of anything. You keep wittering on about how the graphics are evidence of the machines power.

Not so, early PS2 graphics are far inferior to modern PS2 games, so how does that show the power of the machine is poor?

Different games, different levels of graphics.

Graphics count for nothing in this day and age, if they ever really did, its all in the gameplay and the innovations the Wii is looking to have will guarantee that the gameplay is very high. In fact thats one thing that Nintendo have always done right.

I'm not a ninty fan-boy either by the way, don't intend on getting a Wii, but a PS3 when the price drops, I just think your argument is ridiculous.