Carmack's Final Verdict: XBOX 360 > PS3

DarkSeraphin, I hope you enjoy Final Fantasy 17, Halo 4, Gran Turismo 8, and Quake 7.
The only 2 franchises on Isaac's list that are even close to 20 years are Metroid and Zelda, and they've evolved a great deal since their conception so many years ago.
 
TheAmazingXemo said:
Carmack is the law. Xbox360 pwns.

QFT

XOR != OR said:
If John jumped of a bridge, would you?

Of course! Knowing him he found a space/time rift beneath the bridge that leads to a land of Ferraris :)

The guy is a graphics programmer, and the best damn one there is. His Doom 3 engine rivals that of engines made by whole teams of people. Also hes a fuckin rocket scientist. He doesn't make the key gameplay decisions and all that in his games so if an id game sucks its not his fault :p.
 
Carmack can suck a dick. He is a traitor to the industry that made him what he is. Any way he hasn't made a descent game in ages.
 
he didnt code that engine by himself.

he did the basis for the tech but the other id programmers did the bulk of the work so he could spend more time on the x project and armadillo aerospace which garnered him the award of big fat loser
 
Isaacav2 said:
Shigaru Miaymoto San > John Carmack


Seriously, buy whatever system has the games you like.

Super Smash Brothers ONLINE!!!
Mario Kart ONLINE
Mario Party ONLINE
Metroid ONLINE
Zelda next gen..

drools...
Wow welcome to this generation every other system had online games, and now your excited because nintendo finally got their heads out of their asses? Shoulda been done with the gamecube.
 
So it wasn't... didn't matter to me, because I refuse to pay a monthly fee on top of the purchase fee to my games to play them - now I don't have to :D

Though I'll be honest... playing games online is so impersonal, despite the fact that I occasionally enjoy it on PC/PS2's horrible service. I'd rather invite a bunch of *gasp* friends over, crack open a case of beer, and enjoy some 4-player FPS, mario karting/partying, and other general videogame mayhem in person. It's more fun that way. Donkey Konga is surprisingly fun when hammered :)

PS Google the following for Gamecube: Warppipe, X-Link Kai, ControllerSim, for those of you who want to play some cube games online.
 
Json23 said:
Anyone will tell you that the PS3s memory is faster. (XDR)
.

Yes.. BUT.. there is a delay in the accessing when using that memory due to sony's kludged architecture.. which M$ designed out for xb360... they can use cheaper, slower memory and get similar performance in _some_ scenarios..

in short.. there is actually little in it.. being fast is no good when u have hurdles to jump when the other running doesn't.
 
Its friggin hardware!!!!!

one uses a PPC chip the other uses the CELL chip (although the CELL has a PPC-core)

he will say the Xbox is better since he can use its functionalty immidiatly since he has coded for MACs

CELL is completly different and it will take some time to get around the benefits of it.
Have a look at the PS2, it is old now but it was in the final 2years the developers were able to fully understand and take advantage of the CPU used (be it an ASIC or some other chip??)

the Xbox 360 seems it will be showing off its full power from day1 or month3 (when hte games come out). BUT the PS3 will mature and get more and more diverse and wont be for abt a year that its power will be fully shown

The question that will really determine what is sussesfut is the software in this first year

As I said Xbox360 pretty much 100% of its power will be shown very soon.
The power that devels can use on release of PS3 will show how sussessful it is.

IF it can rival the Xbox360 then in the long run PS3 will win.
IF it provides something that ppl then look at Xbox and see it is better (in the 1st year) then Xbox will win cause ppl want something good NOW!!!


On the whole both are good bits of HARDWARE but hardware is nothing without decent software to utilise it

PS3 most potential (from a hardware engineer prospective)
 
steviep said:
DarkSeraphin, I hope you enjoy Final Fantasy 17, Halo 4, Gran Turismo 8, and Quake 7.
The only 2 franchises on Isaac's list that are even close to 20 years are Metroid and Zelda, and they've evolved a great deal since their conception so many years ago.

Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft/Sony are actually making new franchises in addition to sequels to their old ones.

I hope you enjoy playing next overhyped iterations of Mario 64, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, and Metroid Prime.
 
steviep said:
DarkSeraphin, I hope you enjoy Final Fantasy 17, Halo 4, Gran Turismo 8, and Quake 7.
The only 2 franchises on Isaac's list that are even close to 20 years are Metroid and Zelda, and they've evolved a great deal since their conception so many years ago.

Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft/Sony are actually making new franchises in addition to sequels to their old ones.

I hope you enjoy playing next overhyped iterations of Mario 64, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, and Metroid Prime.

FTR, the Mario franchise has been whored just as long as either of the other two you mentioned. Go ahead and deny it though. Those of us who aren't consumed by ridiculous loyalties see that Nintendo has been going in circles for years now. Welcome to the world of online gaming as well...console gamers have been doing that in large numbers since the Dreamcast.
 
steviep said:
DarkSeraphin, I hope you enjoy Final Fantasy 17
I don't have a problem with anything on your list except FF. Considering SquareEnix totally reinvent the FF world for every game (not counting X-2) and aren't afraid of totally revamping the character building system, it's not fair to lump FF with those other games.
 
eeyrjmr said:
the Xbox 360 seems it will be showing off its full power from day1 or month3 (when hte games come out). BUT the PS3 will mature and get more and more diverse and wont be for abt a year that its power will be fully shown
Dude, your kidding right? Even the much easier to code for xbox was still showing great improvements in graphics over YEARS. CliffyB even stated that Gears of War (the best looking game) only uses 1 cpu.
 
what does it matter which one will dominate anyway?

I just hope one will come out on top and there will be no more console wars. I dream of a day with only one system and good games for all!
 
I love how every thread that even remotely relates to the game consoles will inevitably degenerates into an e-peen size comparison between individuals from the various console camps. Of course the true irony is that probably nobody has even seen, much less played on any of the aforementioned systems.

My take? Microsoft will continue bleed Sony and Nintendo out of money. A billion dollar loss on xbox is easily absorbed by MSFT, but not so easily swallowed by Sony, and downright painful for Nintendo. In a couple more years, Micro$oft will buy Nintendo for its software library, and GG Sony soon after.

the end.

cheers,

scheiss
 
Yassarian said:
I love how every thread that even remotely relates to the game consoles will inevitably degenerates into an e-peen size comparison between individuals from the various console camps. Of course the true irony is that probably nobody has even seen, much less played on any of the aforementioned systems.
The real irony is you go on to take sides in this "e-peen size comparison":
My take? Microsoft will continue bleed Sony and Nintendo out of money. A billion dollar loss on xbox is easily absorbed by MSFT, but not so easily swallowed by Sony, and downright painful for Nintendo. In a couple more years, Micro$oft will buy Nintendo for its software library, and GG Sony soon after.

the end.

cheers,

scheiss
 
XOR != OR said:
The real irony is you go on to take sides in this "e-peen size comparison":

Actually I was referring to the idiots who would argue till the end of time on the merits and defects of systems that they haven't even seen, much less played on.

On the other hand, the financials of MS, Sony, and Nintendo are widely known. :rolleyes: MS can throw money at a problem for as long as it takes -- they've done it in the past and it's a luxuary that not many of their competitors can afford to do. I believe in the first year of xBox's existance, MSFT was in the hole for over $1b. To put that in perspective, in 2003 Nintendo reported a net income of $640mil, and in 2004, a net income of $316mil. the TOTAL assets of Nintendo is only less than $10billion. To put that into perspective, MSFT has about $37billion of cash/short-term assets alone!

I'm not saying that one system is better than another -- merely making the observation that really, in the end the winner will be the one who can sustain its business the longest, and in this game of 3 players, MS has by far the deepest pocket.

Maybe the phantom will pwn them all... :D

cheers,

yass
 
That's still conjecture though. Microsoft doesn't have 37billion of cash/short-term assets that exist soley to boost Xbox. Their primary focus has been and still is Windows, followed by Office. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by making games. Many of its other projects have been perennial losses (as was MSN, for the first seven or eight years of its life it was just their very, very expensive loss-leader testbed for web initiatives) so it's not as if all their profits just get funneled into Xbox; they have other babies to take care of.

Sony is also in the same boat as Microsoft, as they are HUGE but they do have other things to take care of aside from PS3.

How much MS and Sony are willing to funnel into their respective consoles is completely conjecture at this point. All we know is that:

1) Nintendo will put 100% of its assets to the game business while Sony and MS will not, whether this is overall more than one competitor or another is another matter entirely.
2) In the past, Sony spent less than on PS2 and still outsold them even during the height of Xbox's sales (opening holiday), so it's not as if more money equates to bigger gains in this industry.
3) Nintendo is the one actually making profit quarter after quarter, whether or not one company has deeper pockets is moot if Nintendo is still successful. If you are looking at this by longevity, it doesn't really matter how deep MS' pockets are if Nintendo keeps posting profits as their assets aren't going to diminish.
 
finally an intelligent post! Yep MSFT's core business is their OS and there productivity suites. But it's pretty well known that they really want to break into some other segments -- hence the foreay into consumer electronics/gaming in the first place. I bet they are willing to continue to pump money into the xbox for as long as it takes... Of course their 37bil isn't for xbox -- but the firepower is there. Either they sink that money somewhere, or more Europe nations will want to sue them to get a piece of it, lol. Sad thing about Sony is that their gaming segment constitutes more than 50% of the company's operating income. Sony electronics is operating at a major LOSS. While not desparate, I wouldn't put Sony to be in the same financial situation as MSFT. MS can afford to grind it out, taking losses year after year, from an operations perspective, gaming IS Sony's core business -- it's where Sony gets more of their money. They will feel the pressure a hell of a lot more than MS.

Sony outsold xbox shouldn't be a big surprise -- as the xbox has only been around a couple of years. Remember Netscape? hehe Not saying that Sony will go that route, but really only time will tell.

Even if Nintendo puts 100% of their assets and effort into gaming, it still wouldn't match the shear clout of Sony and MS. Nintendo is still trying to be a hardware/software company. I think they'd be a lot more successful if they just focus on software only. 4 player Mario Party on HD xbox360? sign me up!

cheers,

yass

Neurofreeze said:
That's still conjecture though. Microsoft doesn't have 37billion of cash/short-term assets that exist soley to boost Xbox. Their primary focus has been and still is Windows, followed by Office. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by making games. Many of its other projects have been perennial losses (as was MSN, for the first seven or eight years of its life it was just their very, very expensive loss-leader testbed for web initiatives) so it's not as if all their profits just get funneled into Xbox; they have other babies to take care of.

Sony is also in the same boat as Microsoft, as they are HUGE but they do have other things to take care of aside from PS3.

How much MS and Sony are willing to funnel into their respective consoles is completely conjecture at this point. All we know is that:

1) Nintendo will put 100% of its assets to the game business while Sony and MS will not, whether this is overall more than one competitor or another is another matter entirely.
2) In the past, Sony spent less than on PS2 and still outsold them even during the height of Xbox's sales (opening holiday), so it's not as if more money equates to bigger gains in this industry.
3) Nintendo is the one actually making profit quarter after quarter, whether or not one company has deeper pockets is moot if Nintendo is still successful. If you are looking at this by longevity, it doesn't really matter how deep MS' pockets are if Nintendo keeps posting profits as their assets aren't going to diminish.
 
Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft/Sony are actually making new franchises in addition to sequels to their old ones.

Really? OK, name me the original IPs that Sony made. And then the ones that Microsoft made. MADE.

I hope you enjoy playing next overhyped iterations of Mario 64, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, and Metroid Prime.

See, the problem here is that you consider each iteration of a Nintendo franchise the same as before. Therein lies the problem. Unlike, say, Grand Theft Auto for instance, more than 90% of Nintendo's sequels carry such things as new ideas, new ways of playing, new control methods, just plain new experiences. I know these concepts may be foreign to you, but try to digest it for a moment. Anyone who is multiplatform, like myself, knows that most of the time - when I pick up a Nintendo-made sequel, I can expect something new. Not something old. To continue:

FTR, the Mario franchise has been whored just as long as either of the other two you mentioned. Go ahead and deny it though. Those of us who aren't consumed by ridiculous loyalties see that Nintendo has been going in circles for years now.

I agree with you. The other 5-10% of Nintendo sequels (Mario Party, Metroid Prime 2 comes to mind) have been whored franchises that have been mostly rehashed, like Halo, like Grand Theft Auto, etc etc. Yes, they are proper sequels because they are different from the last (new levels, new items, new play methods, vs new levels, new weapons, more vehicles, etc), but much like Halo, GTA, Quake, they are glorified rehashes with pretteir visuals. THAT SAID, I own some Mario sports titles, and let me tell you - EA Sports' franchises don't hold a candle to Mario Baseball (it actually makes baseball fast and fun) and Mario Tennis, etc. I don't mind playing with Mario, Luigi, Hammer Bros, Birdo, etc etc if the game is fun - especially in a party setting. To deny yourself fun because of pastel colours is immature.

I don't have a problem with anything on your list except FF. Considering SquareEnix totally reinvent the FF world for every game (not counting X-2) and aren't afraid of totally revamping the character building system, it's not fair to lump FF with those other games.

I grew up on Square. I own a PS2 and a GBA because of their fantastic games, and their wonderful storytelling. And I agree with you that the FF series is a much more prominent contender for originality than the other games I listed. Much like Nintendo, they aren't afraid to give you something new. I have much more respect for them than I do for... say, Bungie for instance. What I don't like about recent square is that I believe they are putting too much effort into making a game into a movie. I LOVE Square's storytelling - what I don't love is sitting and watching for 15 minutes and playing for 5. Lately, they've been far too focused on cinematics - but I still buy and enjoy their games. What I don't understand is how a game like San Andreas and Doom 3 can sell millions of copies... yeah, they're alright to play - I won't deny it - but it's not like I haven't played it before! The reason I still own Nintendo consoles, despite the fact that more third parties are on the PS2's bandwagon, is that when you look at the evolution of these "whored" franchises, you realize that they keep trying to reinvent themselves.

Quake 2 -> Quake 4 - how much difference between 2 generations?
Super Mario 3 -> Super Mario 64 - how much different between 2 generations?

Grand Theft Auto 3 -> Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - how much difference?
Super Metroid -> Metroid Prime - how much difference?

Halo 1 -> Halo 2 - how much difference?
Ocarina of Time -> Wind Waker - how much difference?

In a couple more years, Micro$oft will buy Nintendo for its software library, and GG Sony soon after.
Nintendo will never sell out their software library, like Sega. They've gone on record saying that it will never happen ("the day we leave the hardware business is the day we cease making games"). In fact, Microsoft already tried it, and Nintendo said no. Even if the Revolution is a complete flop, which I do not think it will be at all, Nintendo can survive on the handheld market alone. Sony won't be pushing them out of more than 25-35% marketshare there. That said, I believe that Microsoft and Sony will continue the console pissing contest that they are engaged in - and that thanks to Sony's immense marketing and hype machine, and the Playstation name, they're not going anywhere. As for Nintendo, I intend on purchasing their next system due to the sheer amounts of good exclusives that it gets. For the pissing match between MS and Sony, I'll wait out on which one gets better games, and won't cost me an arm and a leg. I just wish they'd stop pissing on how good they will look, and instead focus on things that relate to gameplay.
 
steviep said:
Really? OK, name me the original IPs that Sony made. And then the ones that Microsoft made. MADE.

God of War. Mech Assault. I'll amend the list to add more later.

steviep said:
See, the problem here is that you consider each iteration of a Nintendo franchise the same as before. Therein lies the problem. Unlike, say, Grand Theft Auto for instance, more than 90% of Nintendo's sequels carry such things as new ideas, new ways of playing, new control methods, just plain new experiences.

...have you ever played two games from the Grand Theft Auto series to even be qualified to make such statements? Each GTA has added something significant to the mix.

I understand if you haven't though...it's not like Nintendo ever gets the cream of the crop in regards to multiplatform games.

steviep said:
I know these concepts may be foreign to you, but try to digest it for a moment. Anyone who is multiplatform, like myself, knows that most of the time - when I pick up a Nintendo-made sequel, I can expect something new. Not something old. To continue:

You mean like Mario Sunshine? Mario Kart? Mario Tennis? Mario *insertsportstitlehere*? The multiple handheld Mario titles that were nothing more than ports of SNES games?

Methinks you're pulling that 5~10% number out of your ass.

steviep said:
To deny yourself fun because of pastel colours is immature.

To deny innovation due to a more realistic pallette is as well.

steviep said:
Quake 2 -> Quake 4 - how much difference between 2 generations?
Super Mario 3 -> Super Mario 64 - how much different between 2 generations?

Impressive. You make an extreme example to exaggerate the difference for Nintendo and make a biased example to underplay that of another company. A more fitting transition would have been Mario 64 -> Mario Sunshine. The difference? A water-concept and the lack of a few environments.

steviep said:
Grand Theft Auto 3 -> Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - how much difference?
Super Metroid -> Metroid Prime - how much difference?
steviep said:
Same thing again, except you did it backwards. The only fitting comparisons would be Metroid Prime -> Metroid Prime 2: Echoes or Grand Theft Auto 2 -> Grand Theft Auto 3. Of course, that would completely illegitamize your argument, which is why you didn't do it.

steviep said:
Halo 1 -> Halo 2 - how much difference?
Ocarina of Time -> Wind Waker - how much difference?

And here, your third strike. Ocarina of Time -> Majora's Mask.

steviep said:
Nintendo will never sell out their software library, like Sega. They've gone on record saying that it will never happen ("the day we leave the hardware business is the day we cease making games").

When Sega was bull-headed and thought they were untouchable, they probably said the same thing. I've yet to see a single company that always stayed true to it's word. Nintendo isn't your friend; they're a business. When their current business model begins to fail, they will adapt to survive because money is what they're after. If that transition means "selling out", they'll do it.
 
Back
Top