http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKia22tulUg
It's interesting how the hardware of the new PS3 Slim was implemented into a laptop case, it really looks good and I'm really impressed, what do you guys think? =P
ID:181752
 Oct 2 2009, 10:17 pm
|
|
I think it has been done before for almost every other system and it's pretty pointless for the PS3. You can polish a turd as much as you want, but in the end it's still a turd.
| |
Ham Doctor wrote:
I think it has been done before for almost every other system and it's pretty pointless for the PS3. You can polish a turd as much as you want, but in the end it's still a turd. lol insulting the ps3 for its hardware is about as idiotic as you can get. Since it hands down owns the other 2 consoles in that category. Game-wise on the other hand, not so much. If you think the ps3 itself is a turd, what would you consider the wii? | |
Ben Heck is pretty well known in the console modding communities. He does good work. His work shows up on Engadget a lot because he puts such a level of polish on it.
| |
OK, without getting into too much of a console war here:
PS3: Super over Hyped, super over priced, so much so that some companies even threatened to stop support for it unless the price dropped on the hardware. They completely fail at backwards compatibility, which is insane considering if you have a PS2 with YDL on it, you can still get the PS3 to boot PS1 and PS2 games. The hardware for the PS3 is impressive. No one can argue that, if they try to, they are ignorant. Yet you can have the most power in the universe, but if you are using it to make crap, it's still crap. Their game library is laughable at best. Their exclusives are usually horrible (given one or two titles) everything else almost always shows up on the Xbox 360. And the fact that the Xbox 360 can run the stuff (somtimes even better in some rare cases) or still look almost as good is ridiculous, considering the PS3 almost dwarfs the Xbox 360 in hardware power. ---------------------------------------------------------- Nintendo Wii: Nintendo is good at making money and they are good at revolutionizing the game industry. They did it with the Nintendo 64 (they did it with the controller and apparently the N64 could do some stuff the competitors couldn't.) They did it again with the Wii. Their concept of control was so unique and interesting that even Sony tried to follow suit. The Wii's hardware is underpowered compared to the rest, granted, but it also won't break the bank. I've played plenty of games I've enjoyed greatly, but unfortunately I find a majority of their games lacking. I still have a blast when I have a group of people come over and play Smash Brothers, Mario Kart or Mario Party and I honestly think Nintendo is on the first few steps to a very real concept of virtual reality. I feel that if Nintendo would have put a bit more power behind their system and had a better selection of games (not just a lot of mini games), then there couldn't be any complaints about it. --------------------------------------------------------- Xbox 360: They got the power, they have the price point and they have the game library. I used to be a Xbox hater, and I still dislike Microsoft, but I love my Xbox 360. They dish out fantastic games and also offer a wide vareity of games, something the other competitors have been failing to do. The only downfall is, I have to pay for Xbox Live Gold, but I feel that XBL is still superior to the other competitors. I really wish they would have went with a portable right now too, since I feel the others are doing a poor job on it. I'd like to add, I've owned all three systems. But due to disinterest I sold my PS3. If the price of the PS3 drops even more in the future I may even pick it up again. But it's still a little too expensive for me. | |
The ps3 and 360 are now the same price ($300) so I don't know what you're babbling on about. The wii is only $100 cheaper, which is completely unacceptable. That console is basically a ps2 with a horrible controller and different games. I've only played about 5 games on the wii, but wii sports was by far the best of them. You'd be better off buying a ps2 than a wii, unless you have a constant stream of friends over to play party games with.
And the N64 controller what? That thing was like the worst controller ever. The wii-mote may be awkward, poorly designed, unresponsive, and hard to control, but at least it added new motion-sensing functionality. The ps1 controller was better than the N64's in every way. And its basic design is still used, and still superior to the other consoles controllers. Also, the hardware fail rate on the 360 is completely unacceptable and one of the top reasons I'm still not buying one. How many years has it been out now? Why have they not been able to create a console that doesn't have a 60+% death rate? The ps3 resolved their issues within the first few months, if even that long. The first ps3s had backwards compatibility, I'm not really sure why they removed it. Though its not like the 360 is fully backwards compatible either. And as far as I know the wii isn't at all. | |
The PS3's started off around $600.00 for the top of the line model. And I don't even feel the $300.00 is even justified for it. That I admit is a personal bias against it.
Don't go talking about failure rates to me, because from personal experience my first model Xbox 360 lasted years longer then the PS3 I got. I didn't have any problems with it when I sold it 8 months ago because I needed money for rent. I have a newer one now with the nicer Jasper chipsets. The N64, while a bit clunky was actually one of the first to introduce a thumb-operated analog stick on their system. True Atari was the first to ever introduce analog sticks in the early 80s, but it was unreliable and unresponsive. I don't know what you are going on about the Wii controls sucking. I haven't had any problems with any of the games I've played. Besides the lack of more buttons, the Wii remote is a fantastic controller. PS3 lacks any backwards compatibility now. The Xbox 360 releases updates from time to time increasing it's compatibility and the Wii has 100% backwards compatibility with the Gamecube. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you, I am not going to sit here and try and argue with you and justify my personal beliefs with you, because you obviously have your own personal bias as do I. | |
Ham Doctor wrote:
PS3: The hardware change when moving from the PS2 and the PS3 was tremendous---so much so that it is incompatible. The first versions of the PS3 included hardware-based emulation for compatibility, and the price reflected this. Later versions included software-based compatibility to lower the price some, but it still required certain elements of the hardware configuration that kept the price up, with issues remaining on some titles anyway. The slim versions tossed those elements to make the price minimal. That said, the slim also received very, very good reviews---it held the #1 best-seller spot in video games on Amazon.com for 15 consecutive days. The Xbox 360 has shoddy backwards-compatibility anyway, so I think this is a moot point. Their game library is laughable at best. Their exclusives are usually horrible (given one or two titles) everything else almost always shows up on the Xbox 360. And the fact that the Xbox 360 can run the stuff (somtimes even better in some rare cases) or still look almost as good is ridiculous, considering the PS3 almost dwarfs the Xbox 360 in hardware power. The non-exclusive titles almost always look better on the PS3, a testament to Blu-ray. I'd like to see some of these "rare cases" where Xbox 360 variants run better. They do well enough with exclusives, and in the future have some really good releases coming up. I, for one, am pretty excited for Final Fantasy Versus XIII. Nintendo Wii: You basically summarized anything I'd say about this. I don't mind the lack of power or visual appeal, but they really just don't have many good games besides the proven formula ones---Smash Bros., Wii Sports [Resort], etc. Xbox 360: They got the power, they have the price point and they have the game library. They have the price point...at the same price as the PS3 Slim. They dish out fantastic games and also offer a wide vareity of games, something the other competitors have been failing to do. Many of the "fantastic games" for the 360 are also on PS3---often in a better quality. The only decent exclusives I can think of are Halo and Gears of War. | |
Ham Doctor wrote:
Don't go talking about failure rates to me, because from personal experience my first model Xbox 360 lasted years longer then the PS3 I got. That's only a valid point if one or the other failed on you. "But due to disinterest I sold my PS3." ([link]) | |
Kuraudo wrote:
I, for one, am pretty excited for Final Fantasy Versus XIII. True dat Many of the "fantastic games" for the 360 are also on PS3---often in a better quality. The only decent exclusives I can think of are Halo and Gears of War. 360 has a lot of RPGs that the ps3 didn't get. Which seems to be the opposite of last gen, when the xbox was pretty much nothing but crappy FPS games, and the ps2 had a large variety of games, highlighting RPGs. But vast majority of games that are xbox "exclusives" end up on the PC sooner or later anyway (both of your examples for example). | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Yeah, the PS3 also has other good looking games coming up, like MAG. HMMM, I got a beta invite to MAG, but never used it. The ps3 doesn't get along with my router, and that seems to be an online only game. | |
Haywire wrote:
Also check out his channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/benheckdotcom You should check out his forums. I've been hanging around there for years. The users have made some pretty nifty mods as well. There was one in particular that I can no longer find. A guy made a NES in a controller for his girlfriend's birthday. The thing had 72 games built in, a slot on the back for any other games, a controller port on the side, and, of course, an LED behind the Nintendo logo. | |
Sorry, I won't buy all that bull crap about hardware or software based compatibility for the PS3. It's simply a excuse. If someone can mod the PS3 with Yellow Dog Linux and get it to play PS1 and PS2 titles, then there shouldn't be any excuse for Sony to have just included it.
They threw out backwards compatibility a long time ago. Even before the Slim Line PS3, that isn't saving them any money and if you believe so, you are a fool. The fact that older 160GB models that support backwards compatibility is selling for more and better then newer models of the system is just a proving point that it's a feature people wanted. The Xbox 360 might have shoddy backwards compatibility, but it's still there. And it didn't cost them any extra money. It isn't a moot point. It's very valid. Anyways for the Xbox 360 in some cases, some games actually did run better on the Xbox 360 then on the PS3. Oblivion actually had better frame rates on the 360 then it did on the PS3. You are right, most of the fantastic games on the Xbox 360 are also on the PS3, the funnest part being they showed up on the Xbox 360 first, run better on the Xbox 360 and usually have more download-able content then the PS3. And most of the exclusives still blow's Sony's sad excuse for exclusives out of the water. You are right about the price point though, it's about where the Xbox 360's is now, except it took way too long to get there. The price point should have been around that to BEGIN with. As far as I am concerned the PS3 is dead. Even standard Blu-Ray players are cheaper now adays then the PS3, the only game I even want to play on it right now is Little Big Planet, so I simply can't justify paying the $300 for the PS3. Also, the Wii had another price drop this week. Awesome. | |
The Wii has 100% Gamecube backwards compatability, hardware-implemented.
And *shrug*, some things come down to personal preference. Personally, I've enjoyed a lot of the stuff on the Wii - Brawl, Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Little King's Story, Metroid Prime 3, and some other stuff. | |
Jp wrote:
The Wii has 100% Gamecube backwards compatability, hardware-implemented.*laughs* Did you play Melee or SSB64 at all? | |
*laughs* Did you play Melee or SSB64 at all? Yes, actually, quite a lot. I think Brawl is better than both of them by far - SSB64 is too slow, way too unbalanced, and L-cancelling is crazy-good. Melee was pretty good, but it's got a helluva lot of 'gotchas' where you can accidentally kill yourself - pressing L after just getting knocked of the ledge is the classic one (Traditionally when you're just a bit too slow to get to it to shield in time). Plus, I'm not Serious Business enough to get the timing for L-cancelling and wavedashing and chaingrabbing down. Brawl fixes a lot of those issues pretty well, I think, although it's got some balance issues - see Metaknight, Snake, Dedede infinite chaingrab, everyone's infinite on Ness and Lucas, and Ganondorf/Falcon's general crapitude - and it really is a bit too floaty. It's still a goddamn good game. This is to a large extent personal preference material, though. I won't claim that Brawl is objectively better than Melee, but I will claim that I, personally - and a number of my friends - enjoy it more than Melee. | |
Wait wait, your calling SSB64 unbalanced, but you like Brawl? Is this bizzaro-world? Brawl was not balanced when 50% of the characters are rehashes of the previous one with such sloppy controls and horrible online play (which is the only selling point).
| |
I mean character balance - as in, which characters are most effective. In the original, if you weren't Kirby or Pikachu, you could go home. In Melee, if you're not Sheik, Fox, Marth, or Falco, you'll have a hard time. In Brawl, you better know how to fight Metaknight. Other than Metaknight and Snake, the top ~10 or so characters are reasonably close.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that "50% of the characters are rehashes of the previous one"? Do you mean "50% of the Brawl characters are rehashes of the Melee characters"? If so, well... uh... yes? I don't see the problem. It's a series, people expect characters to continue on and to be pretty much the same. And I'd say that the Melee -> Brawl jump changed as much character-wise as the N64 -> Melee jump. Don't know what you're talking about re: sloppy controls. The biggest issues I've had with the controls are that if you set the C-stick to tilts, c-sticking in some situations will make you jump, rather than do nothing as one would expect. I've heard some people complain about the way the move-queue works - apparently you can enter an attack and then have it happen a teensy bit after you enter it, which can cause problems in some situations - I'm not sure whether it's a valid criticism or if it's just people being whiny and trying to excuse a loss. Horrible online play I'll agree with, to a point. The "Online match with randoms" thing could work a helluva lot better, but player-to-player online works alright - lag isn't too much of an issue in my experience, though I've heard it has been for some. Personally, I find the selling point to be the expanded range of items, characters, and stages, but maybe that's just me. We really shouldn't continue this here - it's way off topic. Should probably go to blogs if you would like to continue discussion on the issue - assuming you want to actually 'discuss' and aren't just trolling. | |
He has a videos of him creating it too.