360, Wii, or PS3

[lukevanoort]

I must say the hardware on the PS3 is entirely out of this world. A few years ago (or less ago) one PS3 would've probably made the Top 500 Fastest Supercomputers in the world. 220 gigaflop/s is ungodly out of just one processer. (Really 7, but it's one chip anyway) A one year head start is nothing to sneer at either, the XboX 360 is a nice system, with some cool features. The wireless controllers are especially nice, but the power converter is enormous, and it seems to get quite warm during extended play. IMHO, it'll really come down to games, the systems are nice, some nicer, but the differences aren't enormous, like the GameCube and Dreamcast vesus the XboX and PS2.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

A one year head start is nothing to sneer at either, the XboX 360 is a nice system, with some cool features. The wireless controllers are especially nice, but the power converter is enormous, and it seems to get quite warm during extended play. IMHO, it'll really come down to games, the systems are nice, some nicer, but the differences aren't enormous, like the GameCube and Dreamcast vesus the XboX and PS2.

Correct me if I'm wrong but won't the PS3 have wireless controllers (I guess not all of them but I figure they would have some considering the Bluetooth)? The Wii will certainly have wireless control, that's the whole concept! I think what really makes the PS3 stand out in my mind is seeing some of the screenshots from E3. The graphics are really amazing. They're so lifelike, I can't get over it. Add to that the Blu-Ray storage capabilities and you're gonna get some really ridiculous games. I don't know if the XBox will be able to match what we're going to see with PS3, especially considering the huge selection of games for both Playstation and PS2 in the past.

[Morgan Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Adam Shapiro

I think what really makes the PS3 stand out in my mind is seeing some of the screenshots from E3. The graphics are really amazing. They're so lifelike, I can't get over it.

What screenshots? From what I heard all PS3 had to show was CGI movies.

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Elder Scrolls are all, IMHO, really good.

VIVA OBLIVION

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Mercury Rising

What screenshots? From what I heard all PS3 had to show was CGI movies.

There are a number of screenshots on a variety of sites (IGN, GamersHell, and a bunch of others). The original shots I saw were of London scenery, from the game The Getaway (they can be seen here). Truly impressive rendering.

[IraJason]

This E3 kind of changed my mind a bit on the PS3. I'm not really a playstation nut, but I was definitely interested in where the PS3 was going after last years E3. But after the price annoucements (500 and 600 dollars... ouch!) and the addition that the 500 dollar one doesn't come with Wi-Fi, HDMI, and the controllers don't have rumble, I'm a bit disapointed, especially after Sony made all these claims last year.

I already have an Xbox 360, so at this point, I see no reason to spend another 800+ (System + Games + Controllers) on something that will provide a pretty similar experience. Sure, the PS3 has the 6 degrees of freedom, but apparently the Warhawk developer, the only one with a game capable of using the motion sensors, claims they were only given the tech a few weeks ago, finishing up the code a few days before the show... not a good sign. Yes, the games were impressive looking, but quite a few of those games are also coming out on the Xbox 360 as well. (Assassain's Creed, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Unreal Tournement 2007...) Overall, I would have to say that Sony's showing was a bit of a disappointment

Nintendo easily took the show this year, with the showing of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda: Twilight Princess, ect. The controller looks like it's going to be awesome with a bit of tweaking, as some report that it is a little over sensitive. With a little bit of work, that can be fixed.

Microsoft did a good job this year, showing Live Anywhere, which connects Vista games, 360 games, and cellphone games, allowing you to take your profile anywhere and play people over different platforms. Gears of War looks like it will be the next blockbuster title, with other big titles like Fable 2, Forza 2, GTA IV, and most of all Halo 3 annouced or shown for the system. It looks like it will be Gears of War holding 360 owners off during the holidays while the wait builds up of whenever Halo 3 comes out. There were also a whole bunch of add ons shown, such as a racing wheel, wireless usb port for using wireless 360 components for a computer (Being able to use the wireless controller for the PC), the 360 camera, the HD-DVD drive (for movies only for now, connects through USB, seems to be standard HD-DVD computer drive in a 360 themed case), and for the technology nuts (which should be all of you) HDMI cables for crazy High Definition goodness.

It's going to be a fun holiday season this year.

Sorry for the huge post and sounding a bit like an analyst. That's what happens when you check at least three different videogame sites for up to the minute news about everything going on at E3 for the last week and a half... basically I have too much time.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

I must say the hardware on the PS3 is entirely out of this world. A few years ago (or less ago) one PS3 would've probably made the Top 500 Fastest Supercomputers in the world. 220 gigaflop/s is ungodly out of just one processer. (Really 7, but it's one chip anyway) A one year head start is nothing to sneer at either, the XboX 360 is a nice system, with some cool features. The wireless controllers are especially nice, but the power converter is enormous, and it seems to get quite warm during extended play. IMHO, it'll really come down to games, the systems are nice, some nicer, but the differences aren't enormous, like the GameCube and Dreamcast vesus the XboX and PS2.

So, you keep spitting this stuff out, any independent verification about gigaflop performance?

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

So, you keep spitting this stuff out, any independent verification about gigaflop performance?

Not really possible since it is sort of hard to test it, since it really isn't in the market in a testable situation yet. It's also power can't really be used in full since it is sort of specialized. Regardless of whether or not it gets the 220 gflop/s speed, it'll be fast, and there are 7 cores, so you'll be able to run a lot of things in parallel.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Not really possible since it is sort of hard to test it, since it really isn't in the market in a testable situation yet. It's also power can't really be used in full since it is sort of specialized. Regardless of whether or not it gets the 220 gflop/s speed, it'll be fast, and there are 7 cores, so you'll be able to run a lot of things in parallel.

So you pulled the numbers out of your $@#$@#$@#, it can't be in the 10 ten super computers, and even though the thing has power, it's specialized for multimedia.

The cell is cool, but I think everybody is hyping this up beyond belief. The cell is a high optimized processor for multimedia that is scalable.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

So you pulled the numbers out of your $@#$@#$@#, it can't be in the 10 ten super computers, and even though the thing has power, it's specialized for multimedia.

The cell is cool, but I think everybody is hyping this up beyond belief. The cell is a high optimized processor for multimedia that is scalable.

I totally agree that the PS3 Cell is completely optimized for multimedia use, and that, though it is powerful, it's certainly not a supercomputer. I can't attest to lukevanoort's numbers, however the numbers that I quoted are indeed from a bit of research. That's not to say that they could be wrong though. The wikipedia article on Cell processors is a rather interesting read, and does in fact provide you with some numbers that could be used to get a good sense of the power of the machine. Again though, everyone should remember (as you did Joe Matt) that this machine is designed for gaming. Part of the power of the Cell is going directly to graphical computations.

[Clark Gilbert]

It's also fair to say that you can't directly compare the PS3 cells to the XBOX360 cells.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_vs_ps3.asp

Does anyone here actually own a XBOX360?

[Jeff Rodriguez]

All the power in the world means diddly if the gameplay isn't there.
Right now, it looks like Nintendo will have some amazing gameplay with its innovative controller.

[Mike]

I don't plan on buying any of these systems. I don't really play video games anymore, just the occasional Halo killing spree. The only thing that would ever make me consider spending $475 (Xbox Premium + Game + Tax) would be Halo 3. I spent about $300 on my Xbox setup, which I used primarily for Halo 1/2. That seems like a lot, but I logged upwards of 5,000 games. Yeah... I didn't have too much of a life at that time.

Even at that, I'd wait for it to come down in price. The Wii looks like a fun system. Only downfall I can see is you "reeling" in your fish on your brand new Bassmaster 3000 game... and wacking your friend (whos sitting next to you) in the face.

[Kristian Calhoun]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

I must say the hardware on the PS3 is entirely out of this world. A few years ago (or less ago) one PS3 would've probably made the Top 500 Fastest Supercomputers in the world. 220 gigaflop/s is ungodly out of just one processer. (Really 7, but it's one chip anyway) A one year head start is nothing to sneer at either, the XboX 360 is a nice system, with some cool features. The wireless controllers are especially nice, but the power converter is enormous, and it seems to get quite warm during extended play. IMHO, it'll really come down to games, the systems are nice, some nicer, but the differences aren't enormous, like the GameCube and Dreamcast vesus the XboX and PS2.

i dont know if you were trying to say that the gcn<ps2, but since we're on the topic of gigaflops, the gcn has 10.5 gflops and the ps2 only has 6.5

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by calhounian

i dont know if you were trying to say that the gcn<ps2, but since we're on the topic of gigaflops, the gcn has 10.5 gflops and the ps2 only has 6.5

But, the PS2 and XboX could play standard optical media, the PS2 could also play PS games. The GameCube couldn't. Anyway, the GameCube different.

[Kristian Calhoun]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

But, the PS2 and XboX could play standard optical media, the PS2 could also play PS games. The GameCube couldn't. Anyway, the GameCube different.

ok, i see your point. but that is also another reason why i like the Wii better than 360. 360 can only play certain xbox games, while on the Wii you can play NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, and TurboGrafx 16, and gamecube games.