220 replies to this topic

[Mik3]

From what I read you don not understand what he is saying. What he is saying that all this so called upgraded hardware is not appealing to him if the game play on the games is not special or more innovative than before. If you you don't have good games for it but all this fancy media hard ware for this console , it is not a console. you can get a DVD player or a a radio/ music player cheaper than a Play Station if you honestly want to watch DVDs or listen to music, or something else that has nothing to do with gaming. If you appreciate those things, that's your opinion and I hold nothing against you for it, only questioning why should getting a PS4 should matter to you just for being a media device if you already have a DVD player or MP3 or what have you that works perfectly fine at home.

Shadow Uzumaki listed the games that were shown, and a couple of them will be launch titles. The extra features on the playstation have always been the bonus. Nobody buys it just to play music or watch movies, they want to play the games exclusive to Sony and Sony has always had a number of excellent exclusives to play. I know that some people see better graphics and stat reacting like "Graphics are bad, mkay" but the developers are the ones who ask for the hardware to be that strong. The devs love the new specs, and seeing as they are going to make the games, that its a positive thing. Now if you want to say that none of the games they have interest you, that's fine, but its also just your opinion and not fact.

[Kyuudaime]

From what I read you don not understand what he is saying. What he is saying that all this so called upgraded hardware is not appealing to him if the game play on the games is not special or more innovative than before. If you you don't have good games for it but all this fancy media hard ware for this console , it is not a console. you can get a DVD player or a a radio/ music player cheaper than a Play Station if you honestly want to watch DVDs or listen to music, or something else that has nothing to do with gaming. If you appreciate those things, that's your opinion and I hold nothing against you for it, only questioning why should getting a PS4 should matter to you just for being a media device if you already have a DVD player or MP3 or what have you that works perfectly fine at home.

Well, first Mike just said something that I would have said and secondly, no, you don't understand. They announced the hardware along with a few small demonstrations of games to give us a view of what games could become like and these are just games being released at the beginning of the console's life. I never said that the system should only be used as a media device, you're taking my statement out of context. The point is integrating more features into a system so that consumers don't have to buy a DVD/Blu-ray player or some other media player. It's called convenience.

[shadow_Uzumaki]

Well, first Mike just said something that I would have said and secondly, no, you don't understand. They announced the hardware along with a few small demonstrations of games to give us a view of what games could become like and these are just games being released at the beginning of the console's life. I never said that the system should only be used as a media device, you're taking my statement out of context. The point is integrating more features into a system so that consumers don't have to buy a DVD/Blu-ray player or some other media player. It's called convenience.

It's also very convenient for those college-gamers or gamers who live alone. If you're a Sony fan, you can just buy a PS3 or PS4. No need to buy a separate DVD or Blu-Ray player and it can act as a somewhat okay internet browser in a pinch. I don't really dislike the extra features, it's just that the expression I got from the conference was that they focused too much on the multi-media, social networky stuff, but again, they just announced it. The lack of games is understandable.

Plus, they probably sent out the devkits awhile ago, anyway. New games are coming soon.

[Toasty Warrior]

The annoucement of the PS4 has me hyped, but I'm still wondering about the price point. I just hope it's not $599!

[shadow_Uzumaki]

The annoucement of the PS4 has me hyped, but I'm still wondering about the price point. I just hope it's not $599!

That would be a face-palm of Picard proportions....

[Kyuudaime]

The annoucement of the PS4 has me hyped, but I'm still wondering about the price point. I just hope it's not $599!

I heard from somewhere that it'll be less expensive than when the PS3 first came out. I'm hoping $500 max.

[Dreamer]

I've watched the montage trailer multiple times, still love it.

[Phantom_999]

Shadow Uzumaki listed the games that were shown, and a couple of them will be launch titles. The extra features on the playstation have always been the bonus. Nobody buys it just to play music or watch movies, they want to play the games exclusive to Sony and Sony has always had a number of excellent exclusives to play. I know that some people see better graphics and stat reacting like "Graphics are bad, mkay" but the developers are the ones who ask for the hardware to be that strong. The devs love the new specs, and seeing as they are going to make the games, that its a positive thing. Now if you want to say that none of the games they have interest you, that's fine, but its also just your opinion and not fact.

I know that it is my opinion and not fact. Plus many a time I see people who bought the PS marveling only at the wonder of how it is a dvd player, computer,etc. rolled into one, so that was not necessarily convincing to me that they bought the it for the games. The PS3 did have have really good titles to them but more often then not they were just graphic emphasized art jobs with little to no game play value. The games look good on this PS4 or whatever it's going to be called, but that's it. I have no idea on how the game play is going to be, So I can't realistically say that the games are good or bad, can you?

Well, first Mike just said something that I would have said and secondly, no, you don't understand. They announced the hardware along with a few small demonstrations of games to give us a view of what games could become like and these are just games being released at the beginning of the console's life. I never said that the system should only be used as a media device, you're taking my statement out of context. The point is integrating more features into a system so that consumers don't have to buy a DVD/Blu-ray player or some other media player. It's called convenience.

Again, why buy what you already have; aka a dvd player or a internet connection? You say that you don't think of it as a media device then justify it as a media device, just to point this out. That and the fact that you were arguing with James that some people would actually appreciate the so called features on it, so that is not helping your argument. Plus as I stated to Mik3 already The games only LOOK good so until the game play is actually viewed One can not say whether the games are good or bad.

Just to be clear, I am not hating or dissing the PS4. I do like Sony's gaming consoles and own the PS2 and 3. I am only stating that I personally prefer they use less flash and more substance to the games that they make. This has already happened with the PS3 and I don't want a repeat. Many of the games they have shown on the PS3 looked gorgeous yet the game play was overall just disappointing and much more than just that. So I am considering the PS 4 when there are games tat do not disappoint me in terms of gameplay

Edited by Phantom_999, 24 February 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[Kyuudaime]

Again, why buy what you already have; aka a dvd player or a internet connection? You say that you don't think of it as a media device then justify it as a media device, just to point this out. That and the fact that you were arguing with James that some people would actually appreciate the so called features on it, so that is not helping your argument. Plus as I stated to Mik3 already The games only LOOK good so until the game play is actually viewed One can not say whether the games are good or bad.

What? I didn't say that at all, stop making stuff up. You're wondering why a PS4 should matter to me for being a media device if I already have a DVD/MP3/whatever player. You made a poor assumption because I don't have a DVD/Blu-Ray player, I have my PS3 so that I can play games on it AND not have to buy a separate media player, which is once again called convenience. And how is acknowledging extra features on it that many have wanted not helping my argument? You missed the point of it, that even if there are people who do not care for the features, there are many who do and adding these features increases the value of the console to entice people into purchasing it. People aren't forced to use the features, why question them? Either you want the system itself or do not.

Secondly, it seems like you're under the impression of newer console equals just "better looking games." Wow at the fact that you don't understand that having a stronger console with a new (yet similar) controller can bring in things like larger worlds, more objects in the world to give it a more life-like feel, more inputs on the controller to give a user further.... control of a character and so much more.

[Dreamer]

I like the way the Vita touchpad controls are used in Uncharted Golden Abyss and i'm glad it's incorporated into the PS4 controller as well.

Edited by Dreamer, 24 February 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[Sakamaki Izayoi]

If you enjoy Mario and Zelda, and everyone practically does, I don't know why you would hope that Nintendo would fail. I'm sure they are looking into the next gen Naruto, but it won't be coming out in the next year at the least. And the new storm game doesn't look too bad, this coming from somebody who has grown sick of Ninja Storm's formula.

Yes and that's why there's an emulator and this is so true that it runs better on a PC than on the WII.
WIIU uses DDR3 it's has an hardware that was top on 5-6 years ago and when the games come it will still runs better on the PC than the WII-U, PS4 and XBOX720 will run better on the consoles than the PC version and they will be more cheaper than buying a PC top to run those games since it's almost impossible to emulate.

[shadow_Uzumaki]

I know that it is my opinion and not fact. Plus many a time I see people who bought the PS marveling only at the wonder of how it is a dvd player, computer,etc. rolled into one, so that was not necessarily convincing to me that they bought the it for the games. The PS3 did have have really good titles to them but more often then not they were just graphic emphasized art jobs with little to no game play value. The games look good on this PS4 or whatever it's going to be called, but that's it. I have no idea on how the game play is going to be, So I can't realistically say that the games are good or bad, can you?


Just to be clear, I am not hating or dissing the PS4. I do like Sony's gaming consoles and own the PS2 and 3. I am only stating that I personally prefer they use less flash and more substance to the games that they make. This has already happened with the PS3 and I don't want a repeat. Many of the games they have shown on the PS3 looked gorgeous yet the game play was overall just disappointing and much more than just that. So I am considering the PS 4 when there are games tat do not disappoint me in terms of gameplay

I've found that a lot of exclusive titles for the PS3 tend to be straight run-throughs. You've got Uncharted, InFamous, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, God of War etc. They're all single player that you play to experience the story and characters. On that short list, I found that MGS4 is the only one that has replay value that doesn't rely on multiplayer. InFamous has limited sandbox opportunity, but I found that [Prototype] was much more fun in that regard.

In contrast to multi-plats, we've got COD, Battlefield, Borderlands, etc. Those have replay value that's reliant on multiplayer. It's the same with the 360 exclusives, Halo and Gears of War.

That's why PS3's games lacked replay value. They're very single-player focused. Killzone and Resistance had decent multiplayer, but they didn't last as long as the usual Call of Halo Gears of Battlefield games that came out.

Especially when things such as extra costumes, New Game+, and other unlockables on older consoles are either DLC now or are phased out.

I don't mind, really. I play more single-player than multiplayer games, anyway. I'm exactly the market that PS4's hoping to attract, even if I did grumble about my perceived increase in social networking focus.

[Phantom_999]

What? I didn't say that at all, stop making stuff up. You're wondering why a PS4 should matter to me for being a media device if I already have a DVD/MP3/whatever player. You made a poor assumption because I don't have a DVD/Blu-Ray player, I have my PS3 so that I can play games on it AND not have to buy a separate media player, which is once again called convenience. And how is acknowledging extra features on it that many have wanted not helping my argument? You missed the point of it, that even if there are people who do not care for the features, there are many who do and adding these features increases the value of the console to entice people into purchasing it. People aren't forced to use the features, why question them? Either you want the system itself or do not.

Secondly, it seems like you're under the impression of newer console equals just "better looking games." Wow at the fact that you don't understand that having a stronger console with a new (yet similar) controller can bring in things like larger worlds, more objects in the world to give it a more life-like feel, more inputs on the controller to give a user further.... control of a character and so much more.

I am not making stuff up. your argument against James was that that he did not appreciate the new hardware on the PS4, and argued that some people "appreciate those things" as stated by by you (if not in those exact words). You not having blue-ray means you can just buy a blue ray DVD player to use with out a PS4. Second thing, WHY question putting one those multimedia devices, that people don't use? Do you see what you see what you just typed there? Why question "putting something in that some people if not most "don't use". Right. In other words if they already have it, Why buy it again? I am not complaining about the hardware of the console as I am wondering "why would people put on a pedestal something that they already own. "Why HYPE the new PS for its new DVD player, internet, mp3 player, and whatever else if you already own one, and not for the gaming console it's supposed to be?" is what I'm question. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, your last comment just summed up "better looking" graphics. Nothing about better game play, or something that reinvents the game play so you have yet to prove me wrong. I'm up for better graphics and specs and the like but if the game play is not up to the same standard, then as a gamer (personally), I just find it as aesthetic appeal rather than gaming. You are free to appreciate and justify what you believe in as a gamer, but you are not making the most convincing point of view here to me.

I've found that a lot of exclusive titles for the PS3 tend to be straight run-throughs. You've got Uncharted, InFamous, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, God of War etc. They're all single player that you play to experience the story and characters. On that short list, I found that MGS4 is the only one that has replay value that doesn't rely on multiplayer. InFamous has limited sandbox opportunity, but I found that [Prototype] was much more fun in that regard.

In contrast to multi-plats, we've got COD, Battlefield, Borderlands, etc. Those have replay value that's reliant on multiplayer. It's the same with the 360 exclusives, Halo and Gears of War.

That's why PS3's games lacked replay value. They're very single-player focused. Killzone and Resistance had decent multiplayer, but they didn't last as long as the usual Call of Halo Gears of Battlefield games that came out.

Especially when things such as extra costumes, New Game+, and other unlockables on older consoles are either DLC now or are phased out.

I don't mind, really. I play more single-player than multiplayer games, anyway. I'm exactly the market that PS4's hoping to attract, even if I did grumble about my perceived increase in social networking focus.

True. There were a lot of single player games. Well I like single players but it is even more fun with co-op ore multi-player for sure. While I do not exactly feel that is the sole perpetrator for the lack of gaming quality, I do hope that the PS4 makes up for this too.

Edited by Phantom_999, 25 February 2013 - 02:44 AM.

[Cloud]

I am not making stuff up. your argument against James was that that he did not appreciate the new hardware on the PS4, and argued that some people "appreciate those things" as stated by by you (if not in those exact words). You not having blue-ray means you can just buy a blue ray DVD player to use with out a PS4. Second thing, WHY question putting one those multimedia devices, that people don't use? Do you see what you see what you just typed there? Why question "putting something in that some people if not most "don't use". Right. In other words if they already have it, Why buy it again? I am not complaining about the hardware of the console as I am wondering "why would people put on a pedestal something that they already own. "Why HYPE the new PS for its new DVD player, internet, mp3 player, and whatever else if you already own one, and not for the gaming console it's supposed to be?" is what I'm question. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, your last comment just summed up "better looking" graphics. Nothing about better game play, or something that reinvents the game play so you have yet to prove me wrong. I'm up for better graphics and specs and the like but if the game play is not up to the same standard, then as a gamer (personally), I just find it as aesthetic appeal rather than gaming. You are free to appreciate and justify what you believe in as a gamer, but you are not making the most convincing point of view here to me.

Your arguments make no sense to me at all.

What was your original point..?

[Mik3]

I am not making stuff up. your argument against James was that that he did not appreciate the new hardware on the PS4, and argued that some people "appreciate those things" as stated by by you (if not in those exact words). You not having blue-ray means you can just buy a blue ray DVD player to use with out a PS4. Second thing, WHY question putting one those multimedia devices, that people don't use? Do you see what you see what you just typed there? Why question "putting something in that some people if not most "don't use". Right. In other words if they already have it, Why buy it again? I am not complaining about the hardware of the console as I am wondering "why would people put on a pedestal something that they already own. "Why HYPE the new PS for its new DVD player, internet, mp3 player, and whatever else if you already own one, and not for the gaming console it's supposed to be?" is what I'm question. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, your last comment just summed up "better looking" graphics. Nothing about better game play, or something that reinvents the game play so you have yet to prove me wrong. I'm up for better graphics and specs and the like but if the game play is not up to the same standard, then as a gamer (personally), I just find it as aesthetic appeal rather than gaming. You are free to appreciate and justify what you believe in as a gamer, but you are not making the most convincing point of view here to me.

Ive been working in retail for a few years now, and I'm going to share some of the things I have noticed when it comes to consumers who make a big deal about Playstation having multimedia capabilities. Playstation, Xbox and The Wii have more competitors then just each other. They are all battling for space in the living room. Why don't people just buy a Blu ray player if they want to watch Blu rays? Because by itself, they are expensive, and it just plays movies. People have budgets, and they are out to get the best possible value they can get. Nobody is just looking at PS3 or PS4 just because it plays Blu rays, stores music and etc. They know that Playstation is a gaming console. But they feel more justified making an expensive purchase when it has more than one capability. There are better Blu ray players out there, but if they can get their video game fix, and be able to watch High definition movies on the same machine, why shouldn't they? The reason why people might make a big deal about those features is because they don't miss out on another way to entertain themselves by making one purchase. That doesn't mean Playstation isn't about video games. They have a lot of great exclusives, with great reviews. And games don't succeed without good gameplay. Now, for a casual game player, who isn't attached to Mario, Halo, or Uncharted, they look at other things to decide on what to buy. They all play games, but Playstation has the bonus of Blu Ray . So that is what pushes them to get it. Now you asked why don't they just get a blu ray player then? Well, they still want to play games. Once again, its an added bonus. Maybe you you think that's wrong, but it makes sense.


And do you realize, you seem to have disregarded the last part of Kyuudaime's post? Where he explained that better hardware, means better games. Gameplay especially. Either you struggle with reading comprehension, or you just want to ignore it because you seemed hung up on your conviction, that aesthetics automatically degrade gameplay.

[Phantom_999]

*Sigh* Alright I'm making this VERY CLEAR, so listen up.

1) I view Video games as an experience for game play, and when someone emphasizes a game solely for its graphic appearance, it is something I do not understand or agree with. That is not to say I do not care about graphics or how great a game looks, I am saying as a gamer between judging a game on its appearance and its gaming play performance I personally prefer game play. I do enjoy graphics but I would not say that Graphics alone are what make a game great.

2) and specifically I am addressing Mik3 with this: I did not say that aesthetics degrade game play, my point on this is that if a new game comes out and everyone is only hung up about how it looks great but if the game play is not an enjoyable experience yet they still call it a great game, That is where I disagree; that a good game is based solely on appearances. Why I argue this is because ever since the Wii, X-Box 360, and PS3 came out, what I mostly heard is complaints about how the Wii's graphics potential is lame and not beefed up like the 360 or PS3, while I found that games on the Wii are usually more enjoyable (and by that I mean the games that are actually from Nintendo). And for the record I know that better hardware means more emphasis on what you can do with games. But does that make them better? I've played some pretty old games here that were irreplaceable to me for gaming experience as well as consoles. The N64, super Nintendo, PS2, and GBA just to name a few. These all had games that I consider irreplaceable and a fun gaming experience that can not be replicated. Now am I saying that old games are better and to stick to those old days? No. I am saying that old games have great gaming value too, and saying that more current generation consoles giving better games undermines that. Creating new consoles can create new gaming experiences for sure, but they are not better or worse than older ones. It is a matter of preference. So What I am saying is that Graphic appearance alone should not be what determines a Game's worth, but also the game play and over all fun and experience that comes with it should be considered. That is my stand with it as a gamer. Also how does having extra feature that most ordinary people have justify the price? You are paying extra for a DVD player, internet connection, and everything else,when you already own those things.So you see where I'm going with this. The multimedia thing does not justify the price if you just want to play games with it. Over all, I did not say the multimedia was a bad thing, just that over pricing it with ordinary media devices that everyone owns does not not make sense to me to buy, when as a gamer I just want to use the console to play great, and enjoyable video games.

3) You may think that I am not interested in the PS4 and am arguing here to degrade this console. I, however do like the PlayStation consoles. I am considering to buy a PS4, but only when I see games that attract my attention, same with the WII U. And just to be sure everyone gets this fact I own a PS2 and PS3 I got a PS3 that only cost $180.00 plus tax because I was mainly interested for the games I wanted. NO need for extra cash. Again I do REALLY like Play Station. I merely find the price Sony gives it questionable for things that people should be able to afford on their own if they are buying the PS3 already, and I do not appreciate the hype about Gaming graphics if people think the wonder of gaming is based only on how great or gorgeous it looks. 

Edited by Phantom_999, 24 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.

[Dreamer]

The controller just looks awesome. The new raised and curved triggers for shooters, the touch pad, built in speaker port for in game special effects, and the grip surface around the ends for long game play hours. cool design

Edited by Dreamer, 26 February 2013 - 04:23 AM.

[Phantom_999]

Yes, I confess. It does look very neat, though factually, it is identical to all PS controllers so far. Not that it's a bad thing.

[Toasty Warrior]

I wonder if they controller will feel any different from the DualShock 3 besides the obvious changes?

[Dreamer]

It's a little bigger and should be better for those who have bigger hands like myself.

Edited by Dreamer, 26 February 2013 - 11:15 PM.