@BrianK

I went to Toys R Us yesterday with my cousin to buy Madden 11 on the PS3 and we looked at Move. Atleast the balled ended up smaller than those videos made it look.

It doesn't look like it will be as comfortable in the hands of children below 12.

I spent the night playing Madden 11 on the PS3 beating my cousin 4 games to 1. Other than some better lighting I still don't see the models superior to the last edition on the original Xbox. I imagine the 360 version looks similar. However, I feel they are good enough...as they also were good enough on the Wii 2007 and 2008 versions I have.

I actually don't like the direction Madden has take with the ball carrying controls. There is definite lag in throwing stiff arms, jumping and diving as well as spinning.

I think they spend so much time on AI that it takes away from the feel of the game and directly affects the user in control responsiveness. It affects the timing of when to do just things just like motion controls introduce lag when having to determine when a motion was recognized.

On the Wii, waggling left or right was responsive for stiff arms. It was responsive for throwing motions. Spins and jumps were still mapped to buttons.

I'm not faulting the PS3...or the 360...but it seems to me graphics haven't improved on that game since 2006 and the fact that they are spending more time on AI only slows the game down and makes it less fun...and personally, I don't notice the AI...

@Lou

Madden? It seems to me it has been the same core game for the last 4-5 years. What's changed is graphics and the players (retirees came out, newbies in).

I'm part of the 360 Beta for the new interface. Microsoft has publically said that the new audio codec was coming this fall. Sticking to the disclosure rules I'm not commenting on the interface as much as my usage... The new audio code doesn't talk to the old audio codec. Now this won't be a problem as all users move to the new audio in a month. However, having part of our group in Beta is a headache. Out of game and cross game chat doesn't work with the non-Beta users. One quickly learns what they miss when a feature isn't quite fully there yet. My expectations are different for the PS3, as it's not available it doesn't seem missed. The Beta experience, since a few things are 'broken' until everyone gets the new interface, highlighted how one can get used to a service and not realize there's more unless they go and try it. I'd say users who never had a feature don't even realize they're missing something.

@Celbin

Did you see a company announced a connector for the PS3 controller and the PSP? They also linked the two with Bluetooth. LINK Nice idea. Certainly other platforms could take advantage of this idea, such as phone gaming.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Oct-2010 at 07:29 PM.

In the beginning of Jan 2009 I shared an Ars Technica article as a source to illustrate the PS3 was likely to provide stereoscopic 3D support. Meanwhile this has become a reality for both PS3 gaming and 3D Blu-Ray playback support.

Later I also shared my personal views on the need for shutter glasses with the at the time existing 3DTV solutions. I stated I preferred future 3D displays which would not glasses. Meanwhile this has also become a reality with Toschiba's Cell processor 3DTV:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/05/toshiba.3dtv.no.glasses.cnet/index.html

The extremely powerful and flexible Cell processor should allow Toshiba's future 3DTV releases to provide unparalled features to enhance image quality, for the long term it looks to me to have the potential of becoming a very great option for stereoscopic 3D gamers!

@MikeB

Quote:

In the beginning of Jan 2009 I shared an Ars Technica article as a source to illustrate the PS3 was likely to provide stereoscopic 3D support. Meanwhile this has become a reality for both PS3 gaming

Not surprising, IMO. We have the 360 which shipped 3D games first and is getting a Call of Duty 3D games, just like the PS3. Since the PS3 is more powerful I'd think it could do it too. Though the PS3 isn't powerful enough to maintain 1080p gaming in 3D. So far all games, KZ3 for example, downgrade the graphics to 720p to provide 3D.

Quote:

The extremely powerful and flexible Cell processor should allow Toshiba's future 3DTV releases to provide unparalled features to enhance image quality, for the long term it looks to me to have the potential of becoming a very great option for stereoscopic 3D gamers

Meh! Other GPU and CPUs can do the same image quality enhancements as the Cell. Since Toshiba was part of the Cell consortum it makes sense that they do something to recoup some investment.

@BrianK

Quote:

We have the 360 which shipped 3D games first

Stereoscopic 3D gaming originates from at least the 80s. We have seen various early stereoscopic 3D games with a 3D engine for various platforms before there was a proper standard for the PS3. This including for the PS2 (Sly Cooper 3 for example), PS3, 360 and Wii, the 360 most definately wasn't first.

Quote:

Though the PS3 isn't powerful enough to maintain 1080p gaming in 3D. So far all games, KZ3 for example, downgrade the graphics to 720p to provide 3D.

That depends on the game, like the PS3 is able to output Blu-Ray movies in stereoscopic 1080p this unsurprisingly can also be done with PS3 games.

Killzone 2 was already being rendered in 720p (like most top console games this generation so far), I am not sure if the 2D 3D-engine will support 1080p, but for some games this will be the case. Likely they are moving more stuff over to Cell processing with their engine. 1080p in 2D and 720p for 3D, or alternatively 60 FPS in 2D and 30 FPS (30 FPS per eye) in 3D. Such features will be optional in the bulk of cases.

Apart from the increased immersion with regard to enhanced details there is also potential, as both eyes get to see different images. Amongst the big three home console makers, only Sony is fully behind stereoscopic 3D support for its current home console. IMO keep an open mind, I am sure there is many more cool stuff to come.

Last edited by MikeB on 06-Oct-2010 at 03:29 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 06-Oct-2010 at 03:18 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Stereoscopic 3D gaming originates from at least the 80s. We have seen various early stereoscopic 3D games with a 3D engine for various platforms before there was a proper standard for the PS3. This including for the PS2 (Sly Cooper 3 for example), PS3, 360 and Wii, the 360 most definately wasn't first.

Your statement is true. Though it appears my statement was unclear... Let me rephrase - We have the 360 which shipped 3D games first..this generation."

Quote:

That depends on the game, like the PS3 is able to output Blu-Ray movies in stereoscopic 1080p this unsurprisingly can also be done with PS3 games.

Perhaps? To date, as you stated, only lower than 1080p resolution or lower than 60fps 3D games have been shown. It appears, at least so far, the PS3 cannot maintain high graphic quality and 3D at the same time. Might be a good PS4 feature.

Quote:

Amongst the big three home console makers, only Sony is fully behind stereoscopic 3D support for its current home console

By 'fully behind' I assume you mean that the some Sony games will come 3D but so far there's no Microsoft nor Nintendo games that come 3D. For the 360 this appears to be an optional feature that some 3rd party manufactures are choosing to support, and of course Microsoft is fully behind the 3rd party doing so. It's not as if they're saying NO.

More cool stuff to come? Hopefully not as niche or campy as 3D graphics.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: In the beginning of Jan 2009 I shared an Ars Technica article as a source to illustrate the PS3 was likely to provide stereoscopic 3D support. Meanwhile this has become a reality for both PS3 gaming and 3D Blu-Ray playback support. Later I also shared my personal views on the need for shutter glasses with the at the time existing 3DTV solutions. I stated I preferred future 3D displays which would not glasses. Meanwhile this has also become a reality with Toschiba's Cell processor 3DTV: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/05/toshiba.3dtv.no.glasses.cnet/index.html The extremely powerful and flexible Cell processor should allow Toshiba's future 3DTV releases to provide unparalled features to enhance image quality, for the long term it looks to me to have the potential of becoming a very great option for stereoscopic 3D gamers!

As the article states, this is for Toshiba laptops...no release for the 56" yet but if a 20" laptop costs $3000, I can safely pass on 3D TV's until a standard emerges and the price comes WAY down.

@BrianK

Quote:

Your statement is true. Though it appears my statement was unclear... Let me rephrase - We have the 360 which shipped 3D games first..this generation."

Which game are you referring to and when was it released? In any case the 360 was released a year before the PS3, you could also make pointless statements the 360 for example introduced FPS games this generation...

On the other hand the PS2 is still selling well, occassionally beating 360 sales which therefore can be viewed as a current gen console like the technically weak Nintendo Wii.

Quote:

To date, as you stated, only lower than 1080p resolution or lower than 60fps 3D games have been shown. It appears, at least so far, the PS3 cannot maintain high graphic quality and 3D at the same time.

Framerate and rendering resolution is only part of achieving "high graphic quality". For example Uncharted 2 looks so much better to me than for example the much overhyped Crysis 1 looks on my PC with max settings.

30 FPS can look and feel butterly smooth (which often depends largely on the pacing of the game). But also for fast paced games like Vanguish can look smooth, many people thought that game is running at 60 FPS by looking at (sub 30 FPS) video captures and the demo. If a game is running at a solid 30 FPS in the bulk of cases there will not be much if any difference in terms of experience, this has to do with human perceptive limitations.

720p can also look very detailed, often rendering in 1080p will not yield much improved results. As you pointed out as well your screen has to be big enough and your distance to the screen shouldn't be too much to notice a significant improvement. Also important is that the assets are of good enough quality, low quality textures rendered in high resolution doesn't make much of a difference. High quality assets take a lot of space for which the Blu-Ray / harddrive combo in the PS3 provides superior potential compared to the XBox 360's capabilities and developing procedural synthesized assets take a lot of additional effort to generate and often are inferior compared to fully handdrawn artist expressions, but in any case the PS3 Cell processor is far more powerful for processing such data than the XBox 360.

Quote:

By 'fully behind' I assume you mean that the some Sony games will come 3D but so far there's no Microsoft nor Nintendo games that come 3D. For the 360 this appears to be an optional feature

With Sony PS3 titles it is and will be an optional feature, with so many games you will be able to choose between 3D and 2D modes. Microsoft stated they rather concentrate on that hideous Kinect instead.

Sony's efforts pushes 3rd parties to jump on board, not Microsoft. Of course it makes sense for such 3rd parties to introduce these efforts in versions for other systems as well (already done work).

@MikeB

Quote:

On the other hand the PS2 is still selling well, occassionally beating 360 sales which therefore can be viewed as a current gen console like the technically weak Nintendo Wii.

The PS2 occassionally beats the PS3 too. We've gone through this silliness before. Simply because the PS2 is still selling does not make it a current, aka 7th gen, console. It's a 6th gen console with a long life.

Quote:

Framerate and rendering resolution is only part of achieving "high graphic quality".

I agree it's but part. Though it is an important part and when the game makers reduce resolution and framerate is does impact, even if only partially as you state, the graphic quality of the game. I'd recommend you search out some KZ3 3D reviews and read how the reviewers do find a noticeable reduction in quality when they switch from 2D to 3D.

Quote:

Microsoft stated they rather concentrate on that hideous Kinect instead.

Nice to see your opinion is made up without trying the system. The Kinect has some advantages over the Wiimote/Move type of controllers. Such as detecting joint movement. Exercise and dance games can more accurately track a person and therefore be more realistic.

I think it's clear that Microsoft intends to go after the casual gamer. The 3D gamer is a minimal part of the market. If 3D catches on in the home I suspect the 3rd Xbox will be pushing the boundaries there. I see the 8th gen starting in 2-3years.

@BrianK

Quote:

Did you see a company announced a connector for the PS3 controller and the PSP? They also linked the two with Bluetooth. LINK Nice idea. Certainly other platforms could take advantage of this idea, such as phone gaming.

That's nice! You can't beat using a genuine console joypad. I still prefer the compactness of the other design, but frankly, not adding analogue sticks is plain stupid.

The d-pad worries me as besides Nintendo or Sony seems to make them properly (the PlayStation d-pad being the best for my money)

Chris

_________________
AROS - verb (Welsh) - To wait, to await, to stay, to abide.
- Clebin Games - www.clebin.co.uk -

@BrianK

Yes - it cannot be seen as current generation, any more than the Gameboy could be seen as current generation even though it was sold alongside the DS.

Regardless of technical differences between them, ALL of the current generation are more powerful than ALL of the previous generation.

When you turn on a Wii, you have a customisable home-screen where you can browse and download games and applications, surf the web, maybe stream some TV programmes from the BBC or somesuch.

This is the current generation experience and, to me, it distinguishes the new from the old as much any graphical advance. Only the original Xbox even contemplated what features were to come this generation. When you turn on the 10-year-old PS2, you basically get the option to insert a disk. How very Atari 2600, how very GameCube.

As you've said many times I'm sure, PS2 is NOT current generation, nor is it like the Wii.

Chris

_________________
AROS - verb (Welsh) - To wait, to await, to stay, to abide.
- Clebin Games - www.clebin.co.uk -

@BrianK

Quote:

Simply because the PS2 is still selling does not make it a current

It absolutely, 100% certainly a current console. Like the original Gameboy was a current handheld games console when released despite is measly black & white graphics and low specifications compared to other handhelds already sold prior to its release.

Quote:

aka 7th gen

There are no real objective criteria for what this means nowadays, only that a console replaces a previous main games console from a big console manufacturer.

So with such criteria it means a WiiHD despite if providing fewer features and being less powerful than a PS3 would make the WiiHD a 8th gen product and the PS3 a 7th gen product, even if the PS3 would outlast a WiiHD on the market.

So I think these gen clasifications are rather meaningless at this point. In the past you had the 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, etc eras. Such criteria isn't used anymore to clasify console eras.

Quote:

Though it is an important part and when the game makers reduce resolution and framerate is does impact

But framerate and resolution become less of a factor or even a non factor at some point. For example 60 FPS vs 120 FPS vs 240 FPS is meaningless as we can't distinguish the difference with regard to motion (for games as well as movies). Similar with regard to resolution, if your screen is not big enough and you aren't using a magnifying glass at some point higher resolution can't be distinguished. I don't know the exact ratio for this, but the noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p should be near neglectable for smaller TVs.

Quote:

read how the reviewers do find a noticeable reduction in quality when they switch from 2D to 3D

Would be strange if there was no difference, considering you the PS3 has to render twice as many frames in 3D. Killzone 2 was already a demanding game, it's not a pacman clone or something like that.

Quote:

The Kinect has some advantages over the Wiimote/Move type of controllers. Such as detecting joint movement. Exercise and dance games can more accurately track a person and therefore be more realistic.

Note Playstation Move includes a much faster camera compared to Kinect. As the Playstation Eye can perform some good face tracking it probably is capable performing some proper body tracking as well.

@MikeB

You are one of the few that consider the PS2 a 7th gen console. The gaming press, bloggers, etc. (read vast majority) do not treat the PS2 in such.

Quote:

There are no real objective criteria for what this means nowadays, only that a console replaces a previous main games console from a big console manufacturer

I disagree. All 3 present consoles are more powerful than their previous consoles from the same manufacture. All 3 present consoles are more powerful than any of the 6th gen (Gamecube, PS2, Xbox) consoles. There definitely is an object criteria in that sense. And certainly the 3 7th gen consoles (360, PS3, Wii) have features which the prior generation do not.

Quote:

So I think these gen clasifications are rather meaningless at this point

The gaming world disagrees with you and continue to use the 6th or 7th generation console classification.

Quote:

But framerate and resolution become less of a factor or even a non factor at some point. For example 60 FPS vs 120 FPS vs 240 FPS is meaningless as we can't distinguish the difference with regard to motion (for games as well as movies).

Most TVs don't do 240fps. TVs can do 60FPS and 30FPS. And this rate is often distinquishable. Above 60FPS is fairly indistinquishable due to limitations of the human eye.

Quote:

I don't know the exact ratio for this, but the noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p should be near neglectable for smaller TVs.

Ahh good to see you've figured this out. All well in good. Though it doesn't change that the present 3D games of the PS3 reduce quality of graphics compared to their 2D counterparts. My prediction is the 8th gen we'll see little difference here. The reason is the TV should be the limiting factor by that point instead of the consoles. As TVs are changing little (eg they are still at 1080p) vs the graphics quality of the newer GPUs.

Quote:

Would be strange if there was no difference

One's best always is limited by the weak point in the chain. Again I predict for the 8th gen GPUs that push 3D at the highest rates of the HDTVs. This moves the weak point from the console to the set. Because of this change it's likely that visually to the end user there will be difference in graphics between 3D and 2D.

Quote:

Note Playstation Move includes a much faster camera compared to Kinect. As the Playstation Eye can perform some good face tracking it probably is capable performing some proper body tracking as well

Perhaps but so far Sony has failed to display or advertise that for Christmas 2010. If this feature you claim exists really does it's clearly not ready for the end user.

@BrianK

Quote:

You are one of the few that consider the PS2 a 7th gen console

IMO I don't think in such narrow minded manner. I don't think in terms of generations, just in terms of currently sold products. I think that simplifies things a lot, if some company releases an underpowered console (for example barely more powerful than a Snes or Amiga 500) there's no need to clasify the console in its "generation" box. It's then simply a very weak platform technically from a modern perspective.

Quote:

There definitely is an object criteria in that sense

Sorry but I think the tech gap between the XBox 360 or GameCube with the Nintendo Wii is much smaller than compared to a PS3.

Quote:

Most TVs don't do 240fps. TVs can do 60FPS and 30FPS.

Higher refresh rates can be beneficial to lessen screen flicker, but that depends on the used technology. 120 Hz or 240 Hz displays have no relation to smoothness experience. Many PC gamers don't understand this or at least didn't in the past. A 30 FPS game can easily look as smoothly animated as a hollywood movie production (24 frames per second) and far superior compared to most animated movies (some low budget series going as low as 3 - 6 frames per second).

Quote:

Ahh good to see you've figured this out

Trying to be funny? I always said this (reread my handheld debates for example)...

Quote:

My prediction is the 8th gen we'll see little difference here.

Still technically you would still be able to do more nomatter which generation. It's simple to understand that drawing 30 frames per eye (or 60 or whatever) is more demanding than just drawinng 30 frames for both eyes.

I think we will already see good advances on the PS3, 3D adds a lot of immersion and potential to gaming, well worth some sacrife in terms of resolution if the game still renders 30 frames per second for both eyes in HD. I think for the bulk of future PS3 games users will simply prefer the 3D experience if they experienced both and have the means.

Quote:

highest rates of the HDTVs

I very much doubt that and would IMO be total overkill for gaming.

Quote:

Perhaps but so far Sony has failed to display or advertise that for Christmas 2010.

They have done tech demos for body tracking (but facial tracking as demoed was more impressive to me). Some of such stuff is even being implemented in some big titles.

Wired UK on the Kinect An interestingread.

@MikeB

Quote:

In any case the 360 was released a year before the PS3, you could also make pointless statements the 360 for example introduced FPS games this generation...

Oh yea the 360 was released first blah blah blah. If you want to play that the Move was surpassed by the WiiMote as that was released first this generation. Or one might argue the PS3 was released last as that would easily ensure they had the most powerful console. The point here is Sony is jumping up and down excited about 3D and their competition beat them to it.

Quote:

I don't think in terms of generations, just in terms of currently sold products. I think that simplifies things

Simplistic thinking? I agree.

Quote:

Higher refresh rates can be beneficial to lessen screen flicker, but that depends on the used technology. 120 Hz or 240 Hz displays have no relation to smoothness experience

Compared to 30Hz displays they certainly do. 30Hz displays are the weak point in the visual equation. When moving to 120Hz the TV isn't the weak link, the eye is. Though as I stated today's TVs only take 60FPS input. The 120Hz TVs take 60FPS input and write their own frame between the two true frames to create a 120Hz effect. Your console device outputing more than 60Hz isn't going to give any benefits there.

Quote:

Still technically you would still be able to do more nomatter which generation.

I agree the console could do more. However, the more doesn't matter as the 60FPS is displayed as the slower object is the TV, which only handles 60FPS. Go ahead and do 120FPS 2D and 60FPS 3D and the result will be the same as the TV only accepts 60FPS no matter 2D or 3D. To the end user there is no degration in quality as both are now 60FPS and a full 1080p.

Quote:

I think for the bulk of future PS3 games users will simply prefer the 3D experience if they experienced both and have the means.

And there's the rub since the bulk of PS3 users won't have the means. 3D TVs are selling ok but hardly anywhere near overthrowing HDTV penetration. Also, 3D introduces more motion sickness than 2D. My wife for one won't be 3D gaming.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Oct-2010 at 04:31 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Oh yea the 360 was released first blah blah blah. If you want to play that the Move was surpassed by the WiiMote as that was released first this generation.

Both the Eyetoy and Wii-mote predate Playstation Move. Technically Playstation Move surpasses both including the Wii Motion Plus addon.

In various technical regards the Playstation Eye camera is superior to the yet to be released Kinect (for example in terms of range and speed).

Quote:

Though as I stated today's TVs only take 60FPS input.

That's incorrect. 3D ready 3DTVs must allow a minimum input (and output) of 120 frames per second.

Quote:

The point here is Sony is jumping up and down excited about 3D and their competition beat them to it.

Sony is a movie company, 3D advances has been their agenda for a long time. The PS3 was designed with this in mind.

Quote:

Simplistic thinking?

Complex thinking can result into simplified conclusions when that makes more sense.

For example what if the Wii was released instead of the GameCube for example 1 year after the XBox? It would simply get clasified as a last gen console despite it would be technically the same. And the Wii-mote was originally designed as an addon for the GameCube.

Quote:

However, the more doesn't matter as the 60FPS is displayed as the slower object is the TV

Old PC games were already ready to output in HD and high frame rates yet they look like crap compared to today's top titles. Other factors seem to play a far more important role at this point. A 30 FPS can look butter smooth in terms of animation and 720p can look very detailed, enough so that a game can look like a movie-like experience with such specs.

Quote:

3D TVs are selling ok but hardly anywhere near overthrowing HDTV penetration.

It's new technology, such pointless discussions would again lead to "Blu-Ray will fail" type discussions from a few years ago.

This is nothing new compared to past technology introductions. But again the long term outlook is very solid according to analysts.

Last edited by MikeB on 08-Oct-2010 at 06:54 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

That's incorrect. 3D ready 3DTVs must allow a minimum input (and output) of 120 frames per second

Here I tracked down a page that might be a good read for you on this. LINK While a 120Hz TV does output 120fps it inserts it's own frame between the two received frame from the device. 60FPS in, software in the TV to simulate a transition that doesn't truly exist on the originating device, then output of 120FPS.

Quote:

Sony is a movie company, 3D advances has been their agenda for a long time.

As has Blu-Ray. This enables them to recycle their movie/tv content twice. They don't stop to think that studioes don't want this, many are against 3D. Nor do consumers. Avatar is the only 3D movie success story. IMO 3D will catch on when all sets ship with it and it's no additional cost to consumers. Read years away. Even Sony doesn't plan more than 50% of their TV models to have 3D until after 2013.

While I have a PS3 so am ready for 3D in that aspect, there are no games I'm excited for in 3D, nor am I replacing my existing TV sets due to 3D. Again when prices come down and content is widely available, then let's talk.

Quote:

But again the long term outlook is very solid according to analysts

Long term outlooks are always solid. Certainly companies are banking on it. Until there's a killer app in 3D (perhaps Avatar in 3D is released), until prices come down, and companies ship the majority of their TVs with 3D it won't be a factor for the general public.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Oct-2010 at 12:30 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Technically Playstation Move surpasses both including the Wii Motion Plus addon.

Actually you have yet to technically prove this at all.
In coming Wii Remotes, it's built-in, fyi.