SilverStar

You can get WAY more detail into the sprites if you use 3D sprites, plus you can do a lot more with subtle lighting effects using 3D cell shaders, to give it a way more interesting look.

2D metroid with 3D sprites, damnit! Sorta like Super Paper Mario.. but not so flat.

So. Anyone think Nintendo should at the -very- least, get off their lazy, collective arses, and start doing something fun, like packing demo DVDs in with Nintendo Power or something? Especially with the ever-growing audience who otherwise wouldn't have ever been interested? It's a bloody no-brainer.. DS and Wii demos, plus high resolution, lag-free trailers and everything. Let some gamers actually experience some of these glorious demos they keep showing at E3, for 3 years before the game is even released!

Considering it would mean they would just have to have the emulator once and save a ton of space? It'd be a much smarter move.

The only place where it makes any sense at all, is in saying it prevents piracy, solely because it means you can't create an -easy- SD loader. Of course, if someone were to hack the Wii anyway, they could make an SD loader that would let you load it from there anyhow. I also wish I could save GC games to a virtual card, and copy them to the system for backup. But, at the very least.. they could say that WiiWare games have a limit of up to 512MB. Though, I think 128MB would be more than enough, when you look at what they managed with XBLA, when it was under the 32MB limit, and what they're doing now with the 64MB limit. When you take those into consideration, even if Nintendo imposes a 64MB limit for WiiWare games, it won't be bad at all. Especially since you don't actually need a ton of SD cards to store stuff, if you just have an SD slot on your computer. You can store everything there when not in use, without any problems, then move it back when you want to play again. Or just re-download if needed, since the history is stored anyway, allowing you to freely download any stuff you already paid for.

Er, yeah. Game console. And if you really think about it.. this generation is already going about as well as one can expect, so far. It's been 8 months, the trends have continued pretty stable(X360 has seen slow but steady sales, outselling EVERYONE in games, PS3's sales have honestly sucked, both hardware and software, and Wii is selling out for hardware, but is struggling to do even 2:1 over Sony for software). I'm kinda surprised at how slow every has been, getting their first AAA-class exclusive titles out, for both PS3 and Wii, though. Even if you say no one expected it from Nintendo, they still had since TGS to get stuff hacked together. Without having to put even half as much manpower into graphics, they could easily have started having some solid, fun games out, within 6 months of starting development. And with PS3.. a lot of those titles were already IN development, for well over a year before launch, and since then they've just gone multiplatform, or dropped their entire existing PS3 code. Honestly.. it doesn't look good, from a gamer's perspective, unless you have a 360. Even within the first year, they were pumping out top shelf games that still sell nicely. However, this holiday season could turn out to be VERY odd, because Sony will be releasing some of the more anticipated casual things(Home, LBP, etc...), while Nintendo and MS are more fighting for the hardcore crowd(Halo, MP3, Smash Bros, Mario, etc...). Talk about a hell of a shake-up. And if nothing else, Home should start drawing the innumerable masses of digitally unwashed out of Second Life, and into their 3rd one. Poor Sony.. stuck with all those furries.

Wonder if next gen will see a game with the openness of the PS3(custom selected HDD, Linux), the online gameplay of X360(Live!), and the generally fun, wacky, and all-ages aim of the Wii. And if so, who's gonna be the one to pull it off?

^^ What Coop said. I wasn't sure about the price of the Live membership. Nintendo.. has the most to catch up with. Even nintendo fanboys admit, Nintendo has been half-assing it at best, when it comes to online. If it were at least as good as DS is, for Mario Kart for example, then it'd be a great, casual online experience. Just get in there and play. If, however, it turns out to be more splash and no substance, like Pokemon Battle Revolution, then it'll be dead in the water. (load times between text menus? what?) But, the reviews of Mario Strikers Charged seems to indicate that it'll be decent, for actual play. Just won't be as fleshed out as Live or PSN.

Monthly subscription for Live! Gold is 15 dollars, I believe. This enables you to play the games online. PS3, so far, offers the features for free. But it seems to be more a game-to-game offering, where some may charge you for the access if they wish. Wii's online offering is like a free version of Xbox Live. The online play will be free(so far, as with PS3), plus it offers other free online things, of varying worth(not much, really). For both PS3 and X360(since they have examples already), game patches are free(even with standard Live! Silver membership, that costs nothing). There's limited free content to enhance games across both, and some premium expansion content on X360 for some games, which costs money to obtain. As I said, PS3 is currently free to play online, as is Wii. X360 and PS3 both include more community-based features than Wii does, which is a heavy kick to the stomach for Nintendo. Generally, what it winds up boiling down to is, do you want a system to play games in a new way, or stick to the tried and true that has done well for over 20 years? And if you want the old way, do you want to pay for superior online gaming, or stick to what's free and have it be up to each developer how to implement it all? With X360, even if you don't want to pay for the Gold subscription, you'll be able to still get game updates and patches, but you won't play online. With PS3, you'll play online, but the quality is questionable at this stage in the game. In time, there's a chance PS3's method will improve dramatically, since it's more open to the developers to change, but this could also lead to some odd quirks showing up when you try to add it to older titles.

Pretty much, yeah. Mostly, the games actually worth owning for GC were first/second party titles. They alone made the system worth buying. That it was a relatively low price compared to what else was there, made it a bonus. That's the one thing Sony doesn't have going for it.. the entry price is just to damn high, even for first party titles. If it's still around in 3 years, and gets down to $249 or so, then everything considered, especially the first-party stuff, it would be worth a purchase. Edit: Here's an aside for why I would figure PS3 would be worth it at 249. Imagine if you only had $1000, right now, to spend on a console, for the entire span of its shelf life. But, you currently don't have any games or systems at all. You can go ahead, have HDTV sets, massive stereo systems, whatever. But no consoles, no handhelds, and no games. Now, let's say you can only look at what's currently available, or has been officially announced, at this point, for sale by the end of next year. And, you can only buy the goods new. If you can get them brand new for really cheap, such as through clearance sales or on eBay, then it still counts as buying it new. What systems would you be willing to invest that $1000(each) in? You won't have any access to anything past the end of next year, so if any games you want are delayed until 2009, it's a write-off and you lose the money allocated to it. Would you even be considering spending that $500 on a PS3, and only have $500 left to buy games from a selection that is currently, pretty much utterly shit, but with a few real gems coming out in the next year and a half? Would you go for a Gamecube, at about 100 bucks, and hit up eBay and clearance sales, where you can buy games for $10-$20 each, to flesh out the rest of the grand? Maybe spend more on the hardware, to have access to some new stuff that looks promising, at the cost of a handful of older games? Personally, I'd probably go for a PS2 if I had that cash, in a lump sum. Buy the PS2, then go hit up for games at $35-50 each. Why a PS2? Because as I see it, it hits the value mark($1 per hour invested in the system, enjoying the games and gameplay, all-inclusive) at about $750. For 750 bucks, I could get a PS2, memory card, and games enough to last me 750 hours without it becoming tedious to continue playing. Gamecube doesn't quite have enough games that are long enough, to normally warrant the full-price purchase. I've been lucky, able to buy a bunch of brand new games, for 15 bucks each, since the local Blockbuster is clearing out their Gamecube library. Picked up Killer 7 and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow for 15 each, with a few more I'm interested in. X360.. well, for what's there right now, it'd be damn close, except for the cost of the online service. That would also have to be factored in, and would end up draining the funds very quickly. Wii.. It has a lot of promise for great, AAA titles right now. It has games from series I'm actually familiar with and enjoy. It's largely the gamecube support it has, that pushed it over the edge for me, when everything else was nebulous. PS3, from a value perspective, just doesn't have what it takes. With games starting at 60USD, and a buy-in of 500 bucks, you could get 8 games and a pizza, plus the system. And play it through the included composite cables. You could at least get 14 new games for Wii(50 bucks each) and the hardware, with enough titles available between both Wii and GC to flesh out that selection at full price, and the graphics would still wind up looking the same general quality, since you won't be playing that PS3 in HD, without sacrificing a game to get the cables for it.

The way things are sitting right now, it's exactly the Gamecube of this generation. For the most part, the only exclusive games are coming out of Sony, or sony-controlled companies, while both MS and Nintendo are getting loaded down with 3rd party games. Unfortunately, with Wii being the one in the lead, a lot of the games coming out for it are utter trash, just like they were for PS1. All those games, but only about 1 in 10 of the games were honestly worth paying money to play, and less worth actually owning. So, look on the bright side: Sony fans will know this generation, what Nintendo fans knew the past 2: first party titles are what sell hardware. Third party titles are largely just low-quality cash-ins, poorly spun sequels, sports games, or licensed garbage. Enjoy the new Dreamcast.

Unfortunately, I don't know, because I live in Canada and MTV can suck my hairy, sweaty balls, for region-locking their videos.

My latest reason for hating on sony, is because of Blood Diamond. Fucking movie wouldn't run in my DVD player OR on my computer, until I ran it through a ripper to strip it of the DRM. Yes, that's actually the reason why it wouldn't play(3 player programs all said the same thing). Thank god it was just part of my rental queue, so I didn't actually spend money specifically to rent it.

It almost sounded like it might have been some sort of WiiConnect24 frebie online game. I dunno about you.. but I think I'd actually really enjoy if they released Wii Monopoly or something, for free. Complete with real Dice Rolling Action!

http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=7252&pg=1&comments= List of exclusives, announced and released, across all 3 platforms. PS3 has the fewest.

Hey, after reading the latest bit of Sony heel-eating, I realized something. Those of you in Australia should be -happy- the PS3 is a grand, a full 50% markup, even after everything is taken into consideration, beyond what it is in the US! Why? Because those of you foolish enough to actually pay those prices, are the very ones who are showing Sony that they actually COULD sell the machine for a profit(since that's what it's working out to, now), and people would still buy it! Gee, aren't the aussies so lucky? They actually get to tell Sony, with their pocketbooks, that their customers really are the rabid fanboys who would take a second full-time job and sell their soul to buy a unit, just like they suggested back when the $599USD price was announced! Hell, I bet the Aussies love buying DRM-laden movies from Sony that won't work on even their legit players(if things are down there for it, as it is up here.. When you have to actually rip a movie from the original DVD in order to watch it, you know someone's drinking their own kool-aid).

Well, BWII is supposed to be online.. so right there, that negates most of the shortness of the game.. as long as there's a good selection of maps, and the ability to download more in the future.

That's the thing that bugs me, too. They said they would look at upgrading/improving the games. Now, they don't even touch them. I fucking want games improved in the same vein as the ones on XBLA, or even what's going to come out for PSN. Just fucking do SOMETHING special with the games.

Maybe they're going for more of an FFX-style game, where for the most part it's linear, until you are given the ability to actually move around freely, late in the game? At that point, you have an airship anyway, so why not make it as easy as possible?

I just wish they'd stop with the damn double standard. If you're going to make changes to SOME games, to "improve" them, then damn well do it to all of them. Touch them up. Fix up the sprite draw issues, get rid of the damn slowdowns, and fucking make them how they should have been, instead of keeping the cheap games cheap.

I suspect it's a lot like it is with PC emulators.. it took years for the emulation scene to do anything that actually ran 100%. But given that we're actually paying cashmoney for these things, you'd think Nintendo would be pounding out a 100% emulator a lot faster.

Well, that part was probably added by the emulator itself.

It was exposed shortly after the launch of Wii, and was more or less confirmed since then. The emulator used for Ocarina of Time on Gamecube, was hacked open and had other N64 roms injected into it, way back when. Only a small list of games actually worked properly, with others having some level of visible glitch to the emulation. So far, every N64 game released on the VC(perhaps with the exclusion of Paper Mario?), have been games on the "work" list. As it is, each game through the VC comes wrapped in its own emulator, adding at least a few MB to the filesize for N64 games.

I noticed the load screen, too. I guess there might well be a really good reason why PC emulators seem to have issues with this particular game.. they might have done things that don't emulate well. But.. doesn't this mark the final N64 title that actually worked near 100% through the Zelda emulator?