PS3 General Discussion

Oh...oh...OHHHHHHH gotcha. Well Halo is the game of the devil anyways so I'm not surprised.
 
You know, with these higher capacity Blu Ray discs coming will they be able to be played on the PS3's drive? (would the lazer be compatible) Because that would truely mean its future proof as far as storage goes! :crazy:

Robin
 
Robin.
You know, with these higher capacity Blu Ray discs coming will they be able to be played on the PS3's drive? (would the lazer be compatible) Because that would truely mean its future proof as far as storage goes! :crazy:
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the article and Pioneer are saying. If their claim is accurate, and this new BD-ROM disc can be read by a 405nm pick-up head, then yes.
 
400 GB!!! WOW on single disc.. get a HDD with 4 discs like that and its 1600 GB!!! lol

Now We can finally see good HD 1080p movies with only ONE disc.. I'm tired we still seeing 2 disc specials on Blurays.. Seinfeld 1080p on one disc here we come!

By the way.. PS3s drive are multi layer ready right?
 
NoxNoctis Umbra
400 GB!!! WOW on single disc.. get a HDD with 4 discs like that and its 1600 GB!!! lol

Now We can finally see good HD 1080p movies with only ONE disc.. I'm tired we still seeing 2 disc specials on Blurays.. Seinfeld 1080p on one disc here we come!

By the way.. PS3s drive are multi layer ready right?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, the majority of movies and some games out on Blu-ray today are already on dual-layer 50GB BD-ROM discs.
 
NoxNoctis Umbra
400 GB!!! WOW on single disc.. get a HDD with 4 discs like that and its 1600 GB!!! lol
Click to expand...
It is only really going to be feasible for backup storage. BD read times are not fast enough to replace a HDD. These would be fine for media files like music and movies, but games would have to be worked properly to make it work. BD already has that issue with 50GB. Developers have to structure the data a certain way to make it read fast enough or do a HDD install.

My point is, you wouldn't want to run a PC off that kind of setup.
 
FoolKiller
It is only really going to be feasible for backup storage. BD read times are not fast enough to replace a HDD. These would be fine for media files like music and movies, but games would have to be worked properly to make it work. BD already has that issue with 50GB. Developers have to structure the data a certain way to make it read fast enough or do a HDD install.

My point is, you wouldn't want to run a PC off that kind of setup.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't run a PC off it, but that doesn't mean it's only useful as backup storage. Not only is a 400GB BD-ROM just as fast as a 25GB BD-ROM, but they already have 8x speed BD drives, which have a constant transfer rate of 288 Mb/s - that's nearly 50% faster than 20x speed DVD drive.

Next year we will likely sart to see 12x speed BD drives with 432 Mb/s transfer speeds, far exceeding any DVD drive. 👍
 
Digital-Nitrate
I wouldn't run a PC off it, but that doesn't mean it's only useful as backup storage. Not only is a 400GB BD-ROM just as fast as a 25GB BD-ROM, but they already have 8x speed BD drives, which have a constant transfer rate of 288 Mb/s - that's nearly 50% faster than 20x speed DVD drive.

Next year we will likely sart to see 12x speed BD drives with 432 Mb/s transfer speeds, far exceeding any DVD drive. 👍
Click to expand...
The main problem with games are that, so far, the only games using BD are PS3 games and those will not get a faster drive.

Third -party developers have defended HDD installs due to the reading speed of BD with that large amount of data. Sony's response has been to say that with proper organization it will work fine.

For comparison look at MGS4 (50GB BD - 4GB HDD install) vs LBP (40GB BD - 600MB install). LBP is obviously utilizing the disc structure better.

Understand, when I comment on the read speeds in games I am not complaining about the technology. I am complaining about the developers who are willing to take advantage of more space for data, but not willing to keep it organized. It's almost as if they have all gotten so used to programing for Windows that they forgot you can have a system that utilizes proper resource management.
 
FoolKiller
The main problem with games are that, so far, the only games using BD are PS3 games and those will not get a faster drive.

Third -party developers have defended HDD installs due to the reading speed of BD with that large amount of data. Sony's response has been to say that with proper organization it will work fine.

For comparison look at MGS4 (50GB BD - 4GB HDD install) vs LBP (40GB BD - 600MB install). LBP is obviously utilizing the disc structure better.

Understand, when I comment on the read speeds in games I am not complaining about the technology. I am complaining about the developers who are willing to take advantage of more space for data, but not willing to keep it organized. It's almost as if they have all gotten so used to programing for Windows that they forgot you can have a system that utilizes proper resource management.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. I was thinking in terms of future and more broad use, and not just on the PS3.

Anyway, it's nice to see Moore's Law is still applicable and going strong. :)
 
OK, I wasn't even letting Killzone 2 on my radar, but after reading this and watching the two vids and seeing the screenshots included in the article (follow the link) I am officially interested, and possibly excited.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/04/hands-on-with-killzone-2s-single-player-campaign/

Joystiq hands-on: Killzone 2 single-player campaign
by Andrew Yoon Dec 4th 2008 2:00AM
Filed under: Sony PlayStation 3, First Person Shooters


The cynic inside of me didn't want to believe the hype. How could I forget that the original Killzone on PS2 was backed by an overwhelming hype machine, powered by vocal drones declaring it a "Halo-killer?" When it was released in 2004, critics were impressed by the technical presentation but found very little substance in the gameplay. Four years later, with an early version of the single player game, I wondered if Killzone 2 would repeat history.

Let me be as clear as I can. Killzone 2 is a fantastic game, easily deserving the hype its earned so far. Considering the expectations surrounding Killzone 2, that means quite a lot. From what I've played so far, Killzone 2 delivers on all fronts. The gameplay is incredibly visceral and nuanced; the graphics are unparalleled.

Obviously, a lot must be said about the visuals in Killzone 2. The debut CG trailer was supposed to be representative of what the PS3 could possibly do. While perhaps not as flawless as the original trailer, Killzone 2 is without a doubt one of the most beautiful games ever created. The attention to detail is quite impeccable: textures are crisp; character models move with complex, lifelike animation.

In spite of its clear sci-fi setting, the world of Helghan is grounded in realism. Weapons have a real sense of weight to them. Each bullet feels impactful, and important. Watch as the casings leave your gun. These aren't canned animations -- they are real objects controlled by the in-game physics engine. Enemies appear to feel every bullet, staggering when hit, rolling and dodging as they struggle to survive. The reload animations are slow and meticulously detailed. The flash of your gun's muzzle is appropriately blinding, adding to the feel of combat. Gun nuts will notice the subtle differences between weapons, as some work much better at short range, others at long. These aren't the weapons you'll find in Resistance or Halo -- and that's what makes Killzone so refreshing.

While the assault rifles feel great, a special note must be made about the flamethrower and the sniper rifle: The former is the most beautiful rendition of the weapon I've seen in a game so far. You can actually see it shoot sticky liquid fuel, a detail lost to most other shooters. The sniper rifle uses subtle, but clever SIXAXIS tilt controls. Keep your hand steady as you aim, or else your sight will become incredibly unsteady.

Other than being a first-person shooter, comparisons between Halo and Killzone 2 seem thoroughly invalid. A more apt point of comparison would be Call of Duty. With the exception of the occasional flying robot and massively armored supersoldier, Killzone 2 evokes the harrowing feel of modern warfare. However, the gunplay of Killzone is slower and more meticulous than the arcade-inspired controls of the CoD series. You won't auto-aim at enemies when using your sights, for example and you won't be singlehandedly mowing down hundreds of enemies. Your aim and movement is noticeably slower than most other FPSs.

An important component of Killzone's core gameplay mechanic is its cover system. It may take a few minutes to get used to, but it won't be long until you're leaning around corners and shooting over cover. Just like in Gears, you're vulnerable when out of cover. Of course, being in first-person, you won't be able to magically blindfire like Marcus and the gang. Peeking out to take a shot will leave you exposed -- and you will die in just a few hits, even in the default difficulty.

The enemies of Killzone 2 are just as varied and realistic as the weapons. It's hard to predict what will occur in a gunfight. The Helghast will take cover, throw grenades, and attempt to flank you. But don't be surprised if a more powerful enemy kills a few of his allies just to get a clean shot at you. Some enemies will rush at you with a knife -- an unfortunate proposition if you're not quick to react. There were more than a few times I was caught completely off guard, and enemies appeared behind me. (And no, they didn't randomly spawn there.)

The odds are overwhelmingly against you, and the viciously intelligent AI doesn't make it any easier. This is a challenging game -- perhaps one of the hardest in recent memory. A generous checkpoint system alleviates most frustrations, but this is still a nail-bitingly difficult game. Some of the game's uglier aspects are apparent later on. For example, your partner can be quite the knucklehead, brashly rushing into enemy territory. (Note: Don't rely on the AI to cover your back.) Killzone 2 is begging for a co-op mode. I want to use these weapons and get some crossfire tactics going.

February is still a long time away, and I'm confident that Guerrilla can fix some of the nagging issues I have. The shotgun, for example, could be a bit more powerful. Some of the objectives run a tad bit on the long side, with too many waves of enemies. But these are small issues in an otherwise thoroughly polished game. It's an incredible vote of confidence on Sony's part to send such a complete build of a product so many months before its release.

It's taken quite a number of words to detail the simple fact that Killzone 2 is a terrific shooter. Undoubtedly, there are still questions many of you may have about the game, and I welcome you to ask them in our comments section. I'll try my best to answer them (perhaps in a separate Q&A post?). PS3 fans have a lot to look forward to when February rolls around. Who knows? Perhaps next year we won't look for the next "Halo-killer," but rather the next Killzone-killer.
Click to expand...
 
<--- just can't get excited about heavy metal shooters.

Unreal Tournament, Gears of War, Killzone... I'm not even a fan of the more realistic military variety shooters like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Mercenaries, etc.

I must admit, I'm starting to warm up to the possibility of getting MGS4, only because I hear the emphasis is on the story and instead of non-stop blood baths that are so typical of these kinds of shooters, tactical stealth and avoidance plays just as much, if not more of a role... and that intrigues me, but even so I'm still undecided.

I'm also warming up to the idea of getting Dead Space as well as Resistance 2, but just barely.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the violence as much as the constant shoot outs that I dislike so much. That, and the fact that I like games that offer a lot of strategy and problem solving. For instance, the GTA games are full of violence, but they offer not only a decent story, and an open game environment, but they also allow for quite a lot of variety in terms of strategy and problem solving.

I won't dismiss a game just because it's a genre I mostly dislike, so I'm not going to dismiss KZ2 easily... but right now it's off my radar screen. :indiff:
 
Last edited:
Digital-Nitrate
I must admit, I'm starting to warm up to the possibility of getting MGS4, only because I hear the emphasis is on the story and instead of non-stop blood baths that are so typical of these kinds of shooters, tactical stealth and avoidance plays just as much, if not more of a role... and that intrigues me, but even so I'm still undecided.
Click to expand...
Give it a rent at least. You can go all the way through without killing anyone. In fact it has in-game emblems that you get at the end of the game and there is a reward for not killing anyone. There is also a reward for not being seen, which would require no shootouts. Even the boss fights can be finished using only tranquilizer darts. That said, you can also jump in the middle of a battle and take sides or wipe everyone out too. It really is your choice.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the violence as much as the constant shoot outs that I dislike so much. That, and the fact that I like games that offer a lot of strategy and problem solving.
Click to expand...
Definitely, check out MGS4, then after you like it go out and buy the MGS: Essentials Collection so that the story will make sense. If you like a good story this is one of the few games to be seen as more of an interactive movie than a game.

On top of all that I have not had a game that sounds or looks better to me yet. Even in the between level mission briefings you can move around in a little robot and a surround sound system will have the main audio coming from whatever direction it is in relation to your POV. Just as an audio-videophile you owe it to yourself to pop this game into your PS3.

And to give you an idea of how little shooting and killing you can do, on my first play through of MGS4 I killed a total of three men. One was an accident, and the other two was a result of my curiosity getting the better of me when I wonder if my RPG could shoot down the patrolling helicopter. I had no reason to shoot it down as I could avoid detection by putting on my water camo and swim through a stream.

And if you want strategy: camo, octo-camo, and disguises. There is even one level where you just have to stalk a guy undetected in a very noir-like atmosphere. I had on a mask and a trench coat. And with your octo-camo you can also save a camo look the adaptive sensor picked up when you were leaning against something.

Then if a guard is getting close you have to decide: Do you distract him and then hide somewhere else, hope your octo-camo will keep you hidden well enough, try to sneak up on him and knock him out, or jump out guns blazing. Guns blazing has the highest likelihood of failure. I prefer sneak up, stun him, search his pockets, and then hide his body. He'll wake up in a few minutes.

Sometimes you have to be careful because they will call the guy on a radio and if they don't hear from him they come investigate. If you make a noise they start looking for you.

To be completely honest, I would compare MGS4 more to Uncharted than I would to Resistance. In fact, after I finished MGS4 I started Uncharted and the feel was so similar in gameplay (minus the heavy stealth - although Uncharted 2 is supposed to have more) that I kept getting angry when Nathan Drake wouldn't lay down and crawl under something to hide.

Oh yeah, in MGS4 there were levels where I spent long periods of time under a truck picking off guards in the direction I needed to go with a tranq gun. I think I even did that for most of a boss fight. Could I have done it differently? Yep, but my strategy was minimal blood and path of least resistance. My goal was to not be seen when I could help it and to kill as little as possible.


I am like you. I am not a big run N gun shooter kind of guy. I like Warhawk (which is best done with a good team strategy) and Resistance is OK. It has a good story and decent gameplay, but nothing groundbreaking. I played the first Halo and enjoyed the story, despite being a total ripoff. Then I ditched the series when Halo 2 gimped the story to increase the multiplayer. Standard shooters need to be special to get my attention.

I want Bioshock (story and objectivist reality) and will rent Resistance 2.

But this Killzone 2 preview and the videos are making me think it may be one of those above and beyond games.
 
I convinced my friend to buy a PS3 instead of a 360 Elite (:eek:) for her boyfriend. Blu Ray, better exclusive games, free PSN, integrated WiFi/Bluetooth, compatibility with PS2 Rock Band gear...

Sony owes me compensation. You hear me, Sony?!!!
 
Spaceships and farm animals. I think I might have to show this to my kids. Might very well be a purchase!

And please tell me I'm not the only one laughing at cows launching sheep into the water! :lol:
 
Digital-Nitrate
What the flock is FLOCK???

Click on the link to the article for more info and to watch the trailers:

Exclusive FLOCK! Winter Demo on Qore!

Never heard of it, but the videos look like it could be a lot of fun. 👍
Click to expand...
Basically it will be a puzzler with a fun interface.

Unless they changed their mind last night, that demo is only for annual subscribers to Qore. It is how they justified giving away a free episode and not giving annual subscribers and extension on their subscription.
 
FoolKiller
OK, I wasn't even letting Killzone 2 on my radar, but after reading this and watching the two vids and seeing the screenshots included in the article (follow the link) I am officially interested, and possibly excited.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/04/hands-on-with-killzone-2s-single-player-campaign/
Click to expand...

I've been playing the Beta for quite a while now and can definatly say I am more than interested and excited.

This one I'm buying on day one, the on-line alone is simple stunning and it looks and sounds better than anything else I;ve played on the PS3.

👍

Scaff
 
GT4 genius
Hey, just wondering something here for a Christmas present for someone, would this Sony threatre system http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/1176290/art/sony/dav-dz260-home-cinema-sys.html work with the PS3 and a Panasonic Viera TV, I've noticed it has optical input, but does the TV need optical input too??
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
No. The only reason you would ever need to connect an audio cable to your TV is if you want to use the TVs speakers to play back the audio from other sources... which you wouldn't if you have a dedicated external audio system, like the product you are asking about.

I'm not personally familiar with that HTS (home theater system), but if the specs are correct, then it has no HDMI input. This means you will not be able to take full advantage of the HD audio quality of the PS3. Instead, you will have to connect the PS3 to that HTS via a digital optical (TOSLINK) cable. For the video, you'll connect the PS3 to the TV via an HDMI cable. Then in the PS3 Settings menu, set the Video Output Settings to HDMI, and the Audio Output Settings to Digital Optical. After you select Digital Out, it will then allow you to select all the audio formats that that HTS supports.

If they own a Panasonic Viera TV, you might want to consider getting a Pansonic HTS with Viera Link... although it's not necessary, it can make installation and control easier, especially if they are not going to be using a dedicated universal remote that they are already familiar with.
 
Digital-Nitrate
No. The only reason you would ever need to connect an audio cable to your TV is if you want to use the TVs speakers to play back the audio from other sources... which you wouldn't if you have a dedicated external audio system, like the product you are asking about.

I'm not personally familiar with that HTS (home theater system), but if the specs are correct, then it has no HDMI input. This means you will not be able to take full advantage of the HD audio quality of the PS3. Instead, you will have to connect the PS3 to that HTS via a digital optical (TOSLINK) cable. For the video, you'll connect the PS3 to the TV via an HDMI cable. Then in the PS3 Settings menu, set the Video Output Settings to HDMI, and the Audio Output Settings to Digital Optical. After you select Digital Out, it will then allow you to select all the audio formats that that HTS supports.

If they own a Panasonic Viera TV, you might want to consider getting a Pansonic HTS with Viera Link... although it's not necessary, it can make installation and control easier, especially if they are not going to be using a dedicated universal remote that they are already familiar with.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for that, this whole market seems kind of confusing with so many connections and products. We decided to buy that one anyway, the Panasonic ones at a similar price only had 330W power and no optical input, which I thought was the best way to connect the PS3 to a sound system? But I'll probably be the one setting it up and showing them how to use the whole thing so it shouldnt cause too much hassle with a second remote, hopefully!
 
So pissed off right now... I have a video file which is AVI Mpeg 4 which should play on the PS3, it doesnt! So now I have to PS3 Video 9 it to Mpeg 4 on its own for it to play and its going to take like 2 hours! add file size and probably degrade quality:grumpy:

When Sony say DIVX/XVID support and AVI support it should mean every codec under the sun... the thing is still so hit and miss. Where is the VLC level of codec support!

Heres what gspot said about the file... why doesnt it play!!! It plays fine in WMP.

14531761gq5.jpg
 
Solid Fro
I convinced my friend to buy a PS3 instead of a 360 Elite (:eek:) for her boyfriend. Blu Ray, better exclusive games, free PSN, integrated WiFi/Bluetooth, compatibility with PS2 Rock Band gear...

Sony owes me compensation. You hear me, Sony?!!!
Click to expand...

Don't you mean commission?
 
Robin.
So pissed off right now... I have a video file which is AVI Mpeg 4 which should play on the PS3, it doesnt! So now I have to PS3 Video 9 it to Mpeg 4 on its own for it to play and its going to take like 2 hours! add file size and probably degrade quality:grumpy:

When Sony say DIVX/XVID support and AVI support it should mean every codec under the sun... the thing is still so hit and miss. Where is the VLC level of codec support!

Heres what gspot said about the file... why doesnt it play!!! It plays fine in WMP.
Click to expand...

It's a mystery sometimes.
I have backed up 2 of my dvds to an external HDD last week.
Both use the same audi and video codec, but only 1 works on the PS3.
The other one gives only a black image, but with working sound.
The video plays fine on my laptop, but not on the ps3
 

Similar threads

Famine
F1 Manager 2024 Announced for Summer 2024 Launch, With New "Create a Team" Mode
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Spacegoat
Spacegoat
Famine
RIDE 5 to Launch August 24 for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series
6 7 8
Replies
225
Views
36K
Speedster911
Speedster911
Terronium-12
PlayStation 5 "Long-Term Supply Issues" Are Resolved, says Jim Ryan
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Veinz
Veinz
Scaff
Retro Rewind - Retro Racing Titles Reviewed and Revisited
2 3
Replies
71
Views
10K
Scaff
Scaff
Famine
Free “My First Gran Turismo” Demo Coming Later This Year
5 6 7
Replies
209
Views
30K
Kriptical
Kriptical

Latest Posts

Back