Similar to the PS3 lineup, I see a lot of stuff I don't care about, or the ones I DO care about are all cross platform or "Release date TBD", which knowing programmers means "may not show till next year"
I don't see 2009 being the year that shoves people one way or another with the console "war".
There are a scant handful of PS3 games I want to play eventually (White Knight Story, Valkyria Chronicles) and if the PS3 were:
around $200
and
backwards compatible
I would happily replace my old PS2 under the TV with a PS3 this coming x-mas. Instead, I think I'll stick with my 360 and my aging PS2.
I've moved my 360 while a disc was spinning and I heard the laser head strike - it's a very distinctive noise.
It didn't harm either my disc or the 360 in any way, but had I moved it more violently or not stopped when I heard that noise, I could imagine getting a nice ring or scratch in my disc.
The GameCube and PS1 were both designed to be able to be moved a bit while the disc was spinning, but the PS2, Xbox1, PS3, Wii and X360 are all more sensitive bits of equipemnt that don't handle movement while spinning discs well.
Personally, I would swap Fable 2 and Fallout 3's places - Fable 2, while groundbreaking, was RIDDLED with bugs. And not just little bugs, but game breaking ones.
Fallout 3 is a brilliant piece of storytelling and branching plotlines.
The bigger question (for gaming) is: what's the transfer speed from it?
That's commonly why PS3 games use more of the disc for unencoded data or need a lengthy install process - the info doesn't stream off of the disc fast enough to accomodate many games in a traditional compressed format.
When the bottleneck becomes disc speed and not disc size, you're merely trading one issue for another.
Network now...
Fireballof3's Comments
Similar to the PS3 lineup, I see a lot of stuff I don't care about, or the ones I DO care about are all cross platform or "Release date TBD", which knowing programmers means "may not show till next year"
I don't see 2009 being the year that shoves people one way or another with the console "war".
There are a scant handful of PS3 games I want to play eventually (White Knight Story, Valkyria Chronicles) and if the PS3 were:
around $200
and
backwards compatible
I would happily replace my old PS2 under the TV with a PS3 this coming x-mas. Instead, I think I'll stick with my 360 and my aging PS2.
I've moved my 360 while a disc was spinning and I heard the laser head strike - it's a very distinctive noise.
It didn't harm either my disc or the 360 in any way, but had I moved it more violently or not stopped when I heard that noise, I could imagine getting a nice ring or scratch in my disc.
The GameCube and PS1 were both designed to be able to be moved a bit while the disc was spinning, but the PS2, Xbox1, PS3, Wii and X360 are all more sensitive bits of equipemnt that don't handle movement while spinning discs well.
Personally, I would swap Fable 2 and Fallout 3's places - Fable 2, while groundbreaking, was RIDDLED with bugs. And not just little bugs, but game breaking ones.
Fallout 3 is a brilliant piece of storytelling and branching plotlines.
The bigger question (for gaming) is: what's the transfer speed from it?
That's commonly why PS3 games use more of the disc for unencoded data or need a lengthy install process - the info doesn't stream off of the disc fast enough to accomodate many games in a traditional compressed format.
When the bottleneck becomes disc speed and not disc size, you're merely trading one issue for another.
All Fireballof3's Comments