Xbox 2 == Gc2

[Luke]

Bad idea, and asking for trouble. The absolute last thing anyone wants to happen is for the console to turn into a PC.

I agree.

I was trying to suggest a solution that would prevent that but that would also keep the graphics whores happy.

The difference is that with a PC you can release a game whether it's compatible with an old system or not. With the StandardConsole you would not be able to release a game unless it was compatible with a base-line system.

I wouldn't really be 100% happy with that solution myself though as the danger would still be there.

[___]

I think kensei's going to explode if you don't start actually getting his point soon, Sprite Machine

[Luke]

try not getting all flustered. i am paying attention i just don't agree with you.

If you're paying attention why do you keep on asking the same things that have been covered over and over again. I'm getting flustered as I'm annoyed at having to repeat myself.

If you know what we think and don't agree then fine, just say so.

However, you said:

"not one person has suggested why anyone would invest in this format over PS"

when people had, and:

"so this new format would never require upgrading?"

when nobody had claimed that.

That is different to not agreeing with what they have said.

[kensei]

Do we know it won't be?

Why wouldn't it be a big jump? If it goes from [where we are now] to [absolute photo realism] then isn't that a big jump? I mean, any so-and-so on the street will be able to notice the difference, right?

You get an idea and hold on to it like a pit bull, don't you?

We are not talking about NOW. We are talking either the next gen or the one after. It will be self apparent how much more room there is graphically, because there will be more technologically advanced stuff out there, but not at affordable prices.

I still don't see real-time LotR battle scenes.

Graphics have a loooooong way to go. Surely I'm not the only one able to see that. Surely Joe Public also realises there is a huge visible, tangible difference between what he sees at the movies and what he sees from his games machine?

But the next gen after the standard, still won't approach the movies close enough. It won't be that much different from the last to most people's eyes. So it might take 15-25 years to make that leap, assuming no revolutionary breakthroughs in processing power. THEN it's upgraded.

[Sprite Machine]

I think kensei's going to explode if you don't start actually getting his point soon, Sprite Machine

I see his point. I don't agree with it.

He's suggesting there will not be a tangible enough difference between this gen and the next (or the next and the next, next) to be noticeable to your average Joe.

I would disagree based on current graphics being quite literally no-where near approaching 'believably real'.

This is why I'm waiting to see what the next gen can bring.

[Andy_Tanner]

If you're paying attention why do you keep on asking the same things that have been covered over and over again. I'm getting flustered as I'm annoyed at having to repeat myself.

If you know what we think and don't agree then fine, just say so.

However, you said:

"not one person has suggested why anyone would invest in this format over PS"

when people had, and:

"so this new format would never require upgrading?"

when nobody had claimed that.

That is different to not agreeing with what they have said.

i'm not asking you to repeat anything. don't bother if it's too frustrating, i could care less either way.

this a debate about MS & N joining forces to establish a single format which we all know isn't going to happen. no point getting upset about it.

[Luke]

i could care less either way.

could you?

[kensei]

I see his point. I don't agree with it.

He's suggesting there will not be a tangible enough difference between this gen and the next (or the next and the next, next) to be noticeable to your average Joe.

I would disagree based on current graphics being quite literally no-where near approaching 'believably real'.

This is why I'm waiting to see what the next gen can bring.

I never mentioned this gen to the next. There will be a big jump. The one after? I dunno. the one after that? I seriously doubt it.

[squirtle]

I really hope we do get to realism soon: then everyone will realise how dull these games actually are.

Nothing wrong with realism in games. Halo looks real for what it's doing. I found that game a lot of fun. Metroid was fairly realistic in it'w own world. PGR2 is looks realistic and is a lot of fun.

Don't knock realism.

Should gaming come over all Nintendo again then fine, but a game dripping in sacharine is not guaranteed to be better than a game dripping with realism.

[Sprite Machine]

We are not talking about NOW. We are talking either the next gen or the one after.

Yeah, that's fine. We're not there yet, so I'm waiting to see what it holds.

But what I'm trying to get at, is that even if someone made a game (say, a one-on-one fighting game) that looked to everybody's eyes to be indestinquishable from reality, does that mean we've reached a limit?

No. Because then what if you wanted to expand the game idea to no longer be a one-on-one fighting game, but a free-roaming GTA type game? You now need even more power to get the same look, because there's more stuff to handle all at once.

So, say the next generation after that brings us more power and the ability to do the same indistinguishably real looking graphics on the sort of GTA scale we're talking about here - is that then the limit?

Well no, because you could take the idea even further and feature 'Shenmue'-levels of detail, meaning even more to handle and even more power needed. So we wait for the next gen after that one and then that becomes possible. So then is that good enough? Well no, what if we want even more from the game? What if we now want the exact same look but now with fully destructable environments that break down into individual pieces and still look perfect? Move onto the next gen, etc, etc.

As far as I'm concerned there can be no limit as long as there are still new ideas.

However, I am most certainly not against waiting 15 years or so for the generation jumps. So in effect I'm both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

[Sprite Machine]

I never mentioned this gen to the next. There will be a big jump. The one after? I dunno. the one after that? I seriously doubt it.

We shall see.

[Luke]

He's suggesting there will not be a tangible enough difference between this gen and the next (or the next and the next, next) to be noticeable to your average Joe.

I would disagree based on current graphics being quite literally no-where near approaching 'believably real'.

So, because we're nowhere near now, then that means we will be significantly nearer in 10 years time?

I don't quite follow your flow of logic. Just because I don't have a million pounds now it doesn't mean I will have a million pounds in five years time (despite the fact that some people have way more than a million pounds). Infact, given the curent advances in the amount of money I have, I doubt I'll be significantly nearer having a million pounds in five years time.

There may be a fluke: but it's unlikely.

[squirtle]

Yeah, that's fine. We're not there yet, so I'm waiting to see what it holds.

But what I'm trying to get at, is that even if someone made a game (say, a one-on-one fighting game) that looked to everybody's eyes to be indestinquishable from reality, does that mean we've reached a limit?

No. Because then what if you wanted to expand the game idea to no longer be a one-on-one fighting game, but a free-roaming GTA type game? You now need even more power to get the same look, because there's more stuff to handle all at once.

So, say the next generation after that brings us more power and the ability to do the same indistinguishably real looking graphics on the sort of GTA scale we're talking about here - is that then the limit?

Well no, because you could take the idea even further and feature 'Shenmue'-levels of detail, meaning even more to handle and even more power needed. So we wait for the next gen after that one and then that becomes possible. So then is that good enough? Well no, what if we want even more from the game? What if we now want the exact same look but now with fully destructable environments that break down into individual pieces and still look perfect? Move onto the next gen, etc, etc.

As far as I'm concerned there can be no limit as long as there are still new ideas.

However, I am most certainly not against waiting 15 years or so for the generation jumps. So in effect I'm both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

You're such a geek.

[Sprite Machine]

Nothing wrong with realism in games. Halo looks real for what it's doing. I found that game a lot of fun. Metroid was fairly realistic in it'w own world. PGR2 is looks realistic and is a lot of fun.

Don't knock realism.

That's more authenticity than realism.

Realism is looking out of your window and seeing the dull greyness of London traffic whizzing past on a rainy afternoon.

Halo, on the other hand, was colourful and quite lovely most of the time. And full of aliens. With silly voices.

And I only mention 'realism' as the limit of technology because it is arguably the most difficult thing you can do.

[kensei]

Yeah, that's fine. We're not there yet, so I'm waiting to see what it holds.

But what I'm trying to get at, is that even if someone made a game (say, a one-on-one fighting game) that looked to everybody's eyes to be indestinquishable from reality, does that mean we've reached a limit?

No. Because then what if you wanted to expand the game idea to no longer be a one-on-one fighting game, but a free-roaming GTA type game? You now need even more power to get the same look, because there's more stuff to handle all at once.

So, say the next generation after that brings us more power and the ability to do the same indistinguishably real looking graphics on the sort of GTA scale we're talking about here - is that then the limit?

Well no, because you could take the idea even further and feature 'Shenmue'-levels of detail, meaning even more to handle and even more power needed. So we wait for the next gen after that one and then that becomes possible. So then is that good enough? Well no, what if we want even more from the game? What if we now want the exact same look but now with fully destructable environments that break down into individual pieces and still look perfect? Move onto the next gen, etc, etc.

As far as I'm concerned there can be no limit as long as there are still new ideas.

However, I am most certainly not against waiting 15 years or so for the generation jumps. So in effect I'm both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

You are making some horrile assumptions there for a start. I can't be bothered.

[Sprite Machine]

You are making some horrile assumptions there for a start. I can't be bothered.

Some what?

[squirtle]

That's more authenticity than realism.

Realism is looking out of your window and seeing the dull greyness of London traffic whizzing past on a rainy afternoon.

Halo, on the other hand, was colourful and quite lovely most of the time. And full of aliens. With silly voices.

And I only mention 'realism' as the limit of technology because it is arguably the most difficult thing you can do.

Don't mix semantics with me. Within it's remit, Halo was realistic. My point was that fans of Nintedo's cute aesthetic (not fanboys) are constantly knocking 'realistic' games and it's just as boring as people knocking cutesy games.

But that's another thread, and I'll stop hijacking this one.

[___]

Don't mix semantics with me. Within it's remit, Halo was realistic. My point was that fans of Nintedo's cute aesthetic (not fanboys) are constantly knocking 'realistic' games and it's just as boring as people knocking cutesy games.

Halo wasn't "realistic" just because it had detailed textures and had nice physics (and space marines) - the gameworld was a fun and consistent place where things mostly behave how you expect them to, much like "cute" Nintendo games (leaving aside the fact that when you jumped from a moving object in SMS, you went straight up ).

[Barnard]

hold on, why would Nintendo or Microsoft bother getting together?

Microsoft might want it but I don't think Nintendo does or ever will.

Nintendo are not in it to get the best market share, they're here to make profit for themselves and are doing a very good job of it, well maybe not so in europe but the rest of the world they are.

The cost of making a console can't be much more than it was in the early nineties due to inflation, they probably sell as many consoles aweek as they were back in the SNES days, selling them to all the console lovers that bought machines back in the day, back when gaming was considered an anoraks passtime.

The playstation is a different, it sells due to the word on the street, the thing thats needed to look cool and with it. Theres no point of the other two companies trying to beat Sonys market share.

All Nintendo and Microsoft need to do is concentrate on making things that are only available on their own boxes, Nintendo do a good job of this already. Microsoft needs to get its finger out and do the same, get some exclusive content on its box to get people talking and buying the bloody things (though i think the chipping and emulation scene has done a good job ). Thirdparties and cross platform games are not the be all and end all of everything.

[Ste Pickford]

yadda

yak yak

AARRGGHH!!!!!one!!1111oneoneoneONE!!!!

[Guest]

Maybe this is crazy but I reckon the Xbox 2 and the GC2 will be the same machine.

Both Nintendo & MS have gone with IBM for the next CPU

Both Nintendo & MS have gone with ATI for the next GPU

Strong rumours of no HD in XBOX 2.

Stronger rumours of no backward compatibility for XBOX 2.

MS set out to take Sony market share. They only took some of Nintendo's.

Nintendo know how to make a powerful machine profitably. MS don't.

MS know how to market a machine to the (older) gamers. Nintendo don't.

Nintendo have great content that needs a wider audience.

I reckon Nintendo and MS will release different looking machines that are compatible with the same software (& GC1\GBA games).

MS will release a LIVE2 pack which contains an 80gig HD.

Working together is the only chance these two have of knocking Sony off the top spot. Halo 3 & Mario 128/256 on the same machine.

The new machine will be the beginnings of a 'Standard' which will be made available for license to other manufacturers.

Crazy?

[marlonharewood]

Pwned. Disciple you have a memory like an elephant

[Guest]

Pwned. Disciple you have a memory like an elephant

To be honest I was searching for something else, this popped up, and I had a read...

[BeeJay]

I'm glad you did as there was a little segment on this on 1up yours the other week. I think Luke said that MS and Ninty were in discussions but, unsurprisingly in hindsight, decided against the idea.

I'd like to raise the conspiracy theory that MS knew what Ninty were up to a long time ago. It just seems a little odd to me that the 360 and wii compliment each other so well.

I wouldn't be surprised if MS sat down with Ninty and said "we're making this fuck off powerful beast centered around live and HD". Nintendo said, "well we're going for a completely different tack".

And they decided not to step on each others toes.

Whatever the truth, their virtual or real alliance is definately bearing fruit against Sony's market dominance from last gen.

I have a wii and a 360 and right now see no reason to go down the PS3 route.

[Silence]

Maybe this is crazy

Quoted for truth.

[Roboplegic Wrongcock]

Lol loads of old threads are getting upped today.

[M.M.S]

I wouldn't be surprised if MS sat down with Ninty and...they decided not to step on each others toes.

Riiiight, yea that's just what happened.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

At least they're both white. That must mean SOMETHING right?

[Guest]

I have a wii and a 360 and right now see no reason to go down the PS3 route.

Play all your old PS2 games...hang on LOLZ!!11

[Ste Pickford]

I'd like to raise the conspiracy theory that MS knew what Ninty were up to a long time ago. It just seems a little odd to me that the 360 and wii compliment each other so well.

I wouldn't be surprised if MS sat down with Ninty and said "we're making this fuck off powerful beast centered around live and HD". Nintendo said, "well we're going for a completely different tack".

And they decided not to step on each others toes.

Whatever the truth, their virtual or real alliance is definately bearing fruit against Sony's market dominance from last gen.

I have a wii and a 360 and right now see no reason to go down the PS3 route.

Nintendo and Microsoft are actually next door to each other in Seattle....