Xbox360, PS3 and Nintendo Wii - The next generation of console gaming

[slim]

Some people. :)

Besides, if you really mean kick arse, then you're talking a lot just for the graphics card & processor. Even my modest 7800GTX & AMD 64 is still about £400 and that's not near top of the range any more.

I agree PCs are better though.

[Purple Tentacle]

Ha, well obviously my expectations of 'kick' and 'arse' are a lot lower than yours! To be honest, I'm still impressed by shiny keys being jangled in front of my face.




Now THAT'S table tennis!

[AlexS]

Nintendo are specifically trying to get people who have never played video games before and wouldn't know where to start  with upgrading their pc. Easy online gaming and market place, offline multiplayer, and a gurantee (almost) that games will just work out of the box for the nest few years without additional cost is why people will pick next gen consoles over pc.

Also, i still haven't seen where it says Wii will be £150 in UK

[Tibetan Singing Bowl]

Its also a tribal thing, isn't it? Whether you choose SNES or MegaDrive, PlayStation or N64, X Box or PS2, and so on. And that, to a lot of people, is more exciting and attractive than simply buying a boxy PC.

Consoles are shiny pretty units, with release dates and news reports and queues round the block at Virgin Megastore. It marketing. Its feeling a part of something.

And thats why people buy consoles.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

I will always prefer consoles because I prefer using a joypad, and I hate the massive complexity and expense of PC gaming. With PC gaming you have to have the latest processor, graphics card, memory etc. These are all very expensive and it's much more of an ongoing expense than with a games console where you buy it and you're done for several years. You have to keep your eye on the specs that upcoming games will require, the new hardware coming out, endure the pain of seeing your very expensive top of the range hardware become outdated and crap. Then there's the complicated settings, compatibility, all that sort of thing.

With a console you buy the machine, you buy a game, you put it in and it works. That's all there is to it, you don't have any hassle beyond that. It's not that I'm incapable of dealing with PC games, I just don't want the hassle or the expense.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Plus with a console you can sit around with your mates playing mutiplayer games. Networked multiplayer on a PC just isn't the same.

pop-up afflicted, slowdown-ed, buggy

These are the things I'd like to see dealt with by the new generation of consoles. Photorealistic graphics can go hang for all I care.

[hoverdonkey]

Much less fucking about downloading Direct X 84.6 and patch 7.4 to get the thing to work with a console too. I was going to say there is none of that, but with online capability becoming standard, it's only a matter of time before games are rushed out and then patched

[slim]

Much less fucking about downloading Direct X 84.6 and patch 7.4 to get the thing to work with a console too.

Erm... the other reasons I can understand, and I do know why people play consoles (despite my deliberately following PT's antagonistic line) but in my experience this is balls. I've never had to do that to get a game working, never in all my years of PC gaming. If a DX update is needed, it's on the disc, and every game I've bought has been playable without a patch.

[hoverdonkey]

Well your experience is different to mine then. Besides, I was being a little facetious. It's more to do with the general point about installation, PC specs and the general fannying about needed. I much prefer getting a game out of the box knowing that it's going to run fine and I won't have to turn down graphics levels and I'm seeing the game as it is meant to be seen and everyone online is seeing it the same. All just my preference you understand.

I used to upgrade my PC every couple of years to try to keep up with games but simply can't be arsed anymore.

[Purple Tentacle]

PC games are a hell of a lot cheaper too. Brand new and second hand.

[Mr. Analytical]

They're also arguably better...

*waiting for excuse to upgrade to a macbook*

EDIT :  Oooooh XBox Live getting a shiny new upgrade

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17304

[terminallyrelaxed]

Starting from scratch, consoles are by far the cheapest option. I'd love a fully specc'd PC to play games on, but it would cost me a damn sight more than £279, and within 18 months I might need to get another graphics card to run the latest games at their best. If I'd had one at the time HL2 came out I'd probably have had to get a faster motherboard by now. The console games are more expensive but you know they will work with your hardware straight out of the box, even in three years time. I gather from what slim says that PC games these days are less likely to need tweaking to run at best quality, but console games are guaranteed to be optimized for my 360, I know they won't run any better than they are.
If I was a PC person rather than a Mac person I'd probably do PC gaming though, as for my job I have to have a fairly capable machine (I very rarely do any work at home but have to keep up to spec in case) so I'd probably spend money on the machine every six months or so. There's no way I could afford a really good graphics card more than once every couple of years (but that's probably enough isn't it?), I never spend any money on my Mac and it runs the latest everything despite being quite old. As it is, though, I do everything on that and play games on my 360.
Its all very well saying you can hook your PC up to your telly, but how many people are going to do that, and unless you want to keep moving it you'll need more than one PC (unless your other half likes to listen to you typing on CaB while she's watching desperate housewives).
I'm trying to think of an anology here, I dunno, take cooking for example (think of the time spent as money spent on hardware):
We all know that life seems better when you've cooked yourself a wholesome meal using fresh ingredients and the proper utensils, theres a  definite feelgood factor to sitting down to morroccan chicken and couscous that you've cooked yourself, and can taste the charred peppers that came off out of the pan two minutes ago, as opposed to a probably quite tasty but microwave meal from Sainsburys local (shut up, think of it as bad Gonzo journalism). We all know this. I know this. I can cook a very nice moroccan chicken and couscous. But I can't be arsed. I'm only cooking for myself, why would I want to spend an hour preparing and cooking it and ten minutes cleaning it up afterwards? Granted there are time when I could be bothered, when I feel like treating myself to the full home-cooked meal experience, but I can get the moroccan chicken experience from sainsury's for £2.99, have eaten it and got nutrition and binned the remains and have an extra hour to do what I want that evening. Granted, I could have probably made myself moroccan chicken and couscous (look, I don't know, I just like typing 'moroccan chicken and couscous' now) for less than £2.99, a packet of couscous for the cupboard would probably be a quid, the accumulated spices would probably be more but over time their use is obviously economical, and a packet of 10 chicken breasts in the freezer would mean the one I'd use that evening would cost me less than a quid, the only thing I'd need to buy is couple of peppers, maybe an onion - but that would necessitate keeping a stock of couscous, and chicken breasts, and spices, that would all (possibly excepting the spices) have to be used before they went off, meaning I'd have to cook sometimes (actually quite a lot of the time) when I can't be bothered, to not waste these things. Seeing as I fancy treating myself to home-cooked moroccan chicken and couscous maybe twice a year, it seems far more sensible to just cough up for a microwave meal. And its not that the microwave meal is crap, its been designed and prepared by professional chefs to give me the best possible moroccan chicken and couscous experience that I could possibly have from a pre-prepared meal. I just know that if I'd cooked it myself with fresh ingredients it would have tasted better. Alright, its not the best analogy in the world.
Basically you'll always get more out of your games if you play them on a fully specc'd PC, but you have to be able to afford to do that (and then you probably have other reasons for wanting a good machine, whereas a lot of people just want to play games that are optimized for their console), and considering the differences for a lot of people its just not worth it.

[hoverdonkey]

well we got there in the end

[Mr. Analytical]

I agree TR but I wasn't so much thinking of FPS and the graphic-card melting games of that ilk.  I was just thinking about all of those great god and management games you just don't get on console but you do get on PC.

[hoverdonkey]

I think that will change with the advent of console hard drives though. We already have FM on the 360 and hard drives will help make that leap I think

[terminallyrelaxed]

I was just thinking about all of those great god and management games you just don't get on console but you do get on PC.

Ah. I have absolutely zero interest in those games, so neglected to consider  them at all. There must be loads of genres that don't make it to console though, and if you were gaming-mad about all kinds then you'd be an idiot not to have a PC. A few driving and shooting games, a bit of adventure and the odd thing out of leftfield every now and then and I'm happy, making the console a perfect solution for me...

[Go With The Flow]

The thing is with any video games - genuine fans actually don't care about graphics - it's all about the gameplay. Of course, the game looking great only helps. But the thing is, the majority of people just want a graphically better version of the same old shit. This is why Fifa xx always the biggest selling game, and this is why Microsoft/PS3 want to make their HD-super consoles in order to appeal to the gadget wanker.
Whereas Nintendo, they seem to care about the gamer, and instead spend their time on creating new ideas (such as the remote control), and creating great games with less emphasis on graphics (Wario Ware, etc). Nintendo are also bothered about getting other people to play (not just the 18-30 Males, or whetever) and creating games that appeal to everyone, not just a pink version of a normal game.
The fact that Nintendo appeals to families on a budget helps too, mind.

I'll do what I normally do with the next gen - wait until the PS3 has a decent game base, and a decent price - and buy the Nintendo as soon as Super Smash Bros comes out.

[Mr. Analytical]

The problem is two-fold.

1) joypads don't replace mice.
2) the mainstream public don't like those kinds of "complicated" games.

CM was on Xbox from launch and nobody played it.  The Codemasters LMA one was a bit better but they've been lazy with the franchise and haven't done anything with it since it arrived on PS2 other than make it slower.

They even made a version of Civ2 for PS1 and it flopped.


EDIT : No... I disagree.  Hardcore gamers have shown themselves to be horribly prone to hype and technological glitz.  This is why they tend to be early adopters.  The same is true on PC... it's the hardcore gamers that are upgrading their graphic cards every 6 months, not the general public or the casual gamers.

 People who don't care about graphics are either liars or so statistically insignificant that they might as well not exist.  Ask any gamer if graphics are important to him and he'll say no but they're the first to drool over pictures of new games.

[terminallyrelaxed]

The problem is two-fold.

1) joypads don't replace mice.
2) the mainstream public don't like those kinds of "complicated" games.

I hate gaming with a mouse and keyboard, much prefer a joypad in my lap on the sofa. Its a matter of preference, not replacement. Same for 'complicated' games, if they're entertaining, people will buy them.

[mattc_187]

The problem is two-fold.
People who don't care about graphics are either liars or so statistically insignificant that they might as well not exist.  Ask any gamer if graphics are important to him and he'll say no but they're the first to drool over pictures of new games.

Oh come on, that's a right load of shit ... it might apply to yer EA loving mainstream gamer but to anyone who is really into their gaming then i think you're very wrong.

[hoverdonkey]

I would put it the other way matt. Graphics don't matter to a small minority of hardcore gamers who pine for the old days, but 98% of people who play games count the way a game looks as important. Which is just fucking obvious, since its a visual medium. Of course it's not the only factor, but a good looking game obviously helps.

Your ' EA loving mainstream gamer' was beautifully patronising though.

[Go With The Flow]

People who don't care about graphics are either liars or so statistically insignificant that they might as well not exist.  Ask any gamer if graphics are important to him and he'll say no but they're the first to drool over pictures of new games.

Because they can't play the games. They only previews they have are the pictures. I'm impressed with the new MGS, it looks ace, but that's only because that's the only thing I do at the moment. I prefer gameplay to graphics, but the graphics are still important.

[Garfield And Friends]

Joypads == best for most arcade game types
Keyboard'n'mouse == best for FP shooters + multifunction real-time strats
Arcade joystick == best for 2D fighters
Powerglove == best for cyber shandys

[hoverdonkey]

I think its fair to say that the whole package counts. Audio, visual, gameplay, longevity etc and all contribute to a game's appeal, with the slider between the importance of visuals and gameplay varying between every gamer.

This argument's all a bit tired aint it?

[Go With The Flow]

I think its fair to say that the whole package counts. Audio, visual, gameplay, longevity etc and all contribute to a game's appeal, with the slider between the importance of visuals and gameplay varying between every gamer.

This argument's all a bit tired aint it?

but arguing is more fun than agreeing! (Having said that, I agree with your 'slider' summary.)

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I really don't know what console I'll get out of this new bunch, I know I'm going to get a DS when I've saved some pennies but out of the Wii, 360 and PS3 I've not really got any idea at the moment. The only game I'm really after is the next GTA, so I'll definitely be waiting for that to come out before buying a console. It'll probably be the 360 I suppose, I can't afford the PS3, haven't got any reason to get one anyway and though I'd love a Wii it's all about GTA for me and if the Wii won't be getting it for an age after the 360 then I'll be getting the 360. Halo 3 would be nice too, as would PGR3.

[Mr. Analytical]

Because they can't play the games. They only previews they have are the pictures. I'm impressed with the new MGS, it looks ace, but that's only because that's the only thing I do at the moment. I prefer gameplay to graphics, but the graphics are still important.

 I was speaking of gamers in general, and in general gamers protest all the time that what they care about is gameplay but in truth what they want are the shiny-new graphics as long as the game-play isn't completely hideous.

 Personally I categorically do not give a shit about graphics and I think you're a bit of a divvy for being impressed with the MGS4 preview... they're fucking pre-rendered cut scenes! um-nuuuh!

[RHX]

Got Table Tennis today and it's fucking fantastic! Anyone fancy a matchup tonight?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Speaking of graphics, this article raises an interesting point.

Games journalists emerged from E3 sharing one whispered anecdote: next-generation graphics were still falling short of all that wild pre-release hype...

...Unable to rely on looks, developers are turning to brains or physics. For years, programmers have been working on physics models to create authentic collisions and destructible environments, but limited processor resources have reined in ambitions. Freed of those constraints and with new hardware to push, studios and console manufacturers have turned physics into the new battleground.

[hoverdonkey]

Yeah me. As long as its sitting on my doormat when I get home in half an hour