Congratulations, Sony!

[quote=Aioros][IMG]http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg[/IMG]
[COLOR=yellow]Jesus, we have a bunch of whiney monkeys in here.

No, they didn't do it first, and no, they didn't do it perfect. But they did lead the 3D revolution by putting it in most people's homes and therefore making it acceptable as the next step in gaming. And for that they are pioneers and deserve this award.[/COLOR]

Are you sh[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]tting me? Regardless of their total half-a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]sed attempt at 3D, they're pioneers because they sold more?

Alright then, by your logic the Game Boy is the pioneer of portable digital music, because it plays music and sells better than all music players combined. If Sony pissed in a cup you'd call it lemonade.

[COLOR="Yellow"]Not just because they sold more Speedfreak but like i said, because they made it acceptable. Alone in the Dark was a great survival-horror game, the first of it's kind and some say it's still the best of that genre. But if Resident Evil hadn't come into play and popularize it, survival-horror as a genre would not exist today.

If Nintendo asked you to tatoo the words "I'm George Bush's bit[COLOR="Yellow"]c[/COLOR]h on your butt cheeks, you would gladly accept.:p: :p: [/COLOR]

But it didn't "make it popular". I'll use your analogy. If Alone in the Dark sold 4 million units, basically MAKING survival horror and making it popular, then RE went on and sold 7 million, by your definition RE would've pioneered it. It's not like the N64 sold a whole 10 units compared to the PS1s ten billion, the N64 was actually an extremely successful console. This isn't like Sega Saturn doing 3D before PS1, the N64 sold by the truckload! So because it wasn't as successful as PS1 that means its accomplishments account for nothing? I'm not buying it. Though, to be honest, I can't say I'd care that much if Nintendo did win the award. I've never cared for award ceremonies, especially not ceremonies that have nothing to do with games yet give games awards. It holds as much value as MTV giving PS1 the same award.

I wonder what the sales for true 3D games were for both systems. Were 3D games more popular on the playstation, or just games in general?

[quote=Lord of Spam]OH NOES, IT DOESNT HAVE A SPECIFIC CHIP TO MAKE IT 3D!!! DOESNT COUNT!!!

Seriously, just let the PlayStation have its day. It may not have been the best, or even the first, but it was more popular. It opened 3D gaming up to more people than the N64 did, so just accept it.

You know what's funny?

It wasn't even more popular when the N64 was doing 3D.

It took a while for the PS1 to exert total dominance, Nintendo was still a massive brand name by then, remember. Sony was the newbie in the industry, Nintendo had owned it for 2 generations straight.

Sorry for daring to question Sony's absolute omnipotence, though! I really should know better!

[COLOR="Yellow"]Yeah, you should.[/COLOR]

Didn't see that coming. No, honestly, I really didn't. Totally blew me away. So much so that I'm writing this in Russia.

I must admit I really dont give a crap. Sony fanboys are sucking this like collage whore when smashed. And the nintendo fanboys are that much better.


But It does remind me of a story. When the the first (non-counting game and watch) handel held came out their were two competitors for the christmas sales.

1. The original game boy

2. Atari's attempt at a hand-held.

Now we all know which one won. The game boy recived many awards for their Gameboy, so they were better right?

Oddly enough thats wrong.

Atari's machine already had COLOR (nice color too) And alot more power.
So why did Nintendo get the awards? Becuase it won, not because it was the best.

Great story huh?

well I will give sony one thing...

They did attract alot more gamers into the market. Giving it the industry power to exspand to what it is today.

But with that it brought in more idiots and dick heads then I can handle. But atleast they didnt come here (most of the time)

The Gameboy won because it had a better battery life and better games. I sincerely doubt GameBoy won any awards for "Best Colour Screen" or "most powerful handheld", which is the equivalent of what PS1 is winning now.

Well, I suppose Sony can recieve an award for pioneering 3d games. Of course to do that, they had this special approval board for the PS1. This approval board frowned greatly upon 2d games, even the good ones, and only let the most popular 2d franchises be released. While they just about let any crap on a sitck get released as long as it was in 3d. Hence the flood of crappy PS1 games.

Yeah, so they get an award for ramming 3d down our throats, when clearly there was still life left in 2d gaming goodness.

I beleve i was playing Snes until N64, i didn't even tuch the Playstation before Gamecube came.

So i didn't know so much of Playstation1 before that.

(And the only games i've ever played on PS1 is FFVII, and FFVIII.)


Personally i think Snes is the winner here, awards are just stupid.

They should have given this award to the "Vectrex".
The what? Who? Okay... perhaps not.

I didn't think an "Emmy" was given out for stuff like this. Although, I agree it's a "popularity" award, it's fitting for Sony seeing how they were on top during the years video gaming became a mainstream medium.

I liked 'Ape Escape' for 3D platforming though (probably the best example of how to make a fun game of that kind for PS1).

Wow i come back after months of playing world of warcraft and things haven't changed, lol. Speedfreak , Prince Shondronai etc are still showing there hate and dislike for sony. Has any good games come out for the game cube last few months?

What a bullshit award. Speed's right, it wasn't true 3d nor was it the first.

IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT WAS TRUE THREE D OR NOT, OR EVEN IF IT WAS THE FIRST.

IT. WAS. MORE. POPULAR.

It brought more people into 3d then any other system. Nobody is saying it did it first, or it did it better. Hell, I myeslf accredited both to other systems. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SHUT UP AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. The PS sold more, and introduced more people to 3d gaming. So take Nintendo's cock out of your mouth for five seconds and just deal with it.

I still hate the Playstation. And on top of that, wtf? An EMMY?

pi

Yes, but I still stand by my point that they rammed it down our throats when 2d games still had some life left in them.

2D may still have had some life in it; so what? That's what pioneers do. They venture out into unknown territory, i.e., three dimensions.

[quote=Lord of Spam]pi

First of all, the second definition is the only one that is applicable, as no video game system has settled anywhere to my knowledge, nor is it a plant or animal.

That being said, under the definition given, the PS still fits the criteria for the award. It pioneered the realm of 3d. Look at American history. The first person to travel accross North America pioneered America. But what do we call the swarms of people that traveled across the country in the mid 1800s? Hmmm... let me see-OH WAIT IT WAS THE PIONEERS. Were they the first? Nope. Where they the most numerous? Yup, so they get the title. They may not have been the first, but since they pioneered it in the sense of making it more accesible and open to the rest, they deserve it.

Its the same with Sony. There were 3d options out. They came first, and there may have even been a true 3d system out before it (I say may here as I dont whack off to console stats), but guess what? The PS was still the popularizer.

Another example. There had been people playing music that was basically rock for decades, but when Elvis made it accessable for large audiances, he was credited with pioneering rock.

So who cares if the PS didnt have "true 3d", or if it was first. It brought what looked a hell of a lot like 3D (to me anyway) to millions of people. It opened up (see how #2 comes in there nice and neatly?) something that wasnt really all that accessible before it. So just chillax on the sony hatin', k?

I don't know about anyone else, but the first 3D game I ever played was "Roll the ball to mommy" when I was about 1.

[quote=Lord of Spam]First of all, the second definition is the only one that is applicable, as no video game system has settled anywhere to my knowledge, nor is it a plant or animal.

That being said, under the definition given, the PS still fits the criteria for the award. It pioneered the realm of 3d. Look at American history. The first person to travel accross North America pioneered America. But what do we call the swarms of people that traveled across the country in the mid 1800s? Hmmm... let me see-OH WAIT IT WAS THE PIONEERS. Were they the first? Nope. Where they the most numerous? Yup, so they get the title. They may not have been the first, but since they pioneered it in the sense of making it more accesible and open to the rest, they deserve it.

Its the same with Sony. There were 3d options out. They came first, and there may have even been a true 3d system out before it (I say may here as I dont whack off to console stats), but guess what? The PS was still the popularizer.

Another example. There had been people playing music that was basically rock for decades, but when Elvis made it accessable for large audiances, he was credited with pioneering rock.

So who cares if the PS didnt have "true 3d", or if it was first. It brought what looked a hell of a lot like 3D (to me anyway) to millions of people. It opened up (see how #2 comes in there nice and neatly?) something that wasnt really all that accessible before it. So just chillax on the sony hatin', k?

Bad analogy. The first person to discover America was a pioneer. He pioneered the Atlantic and discovered America. The people that arrived to America were also pioneers because they explored America, the first guy just discovered it. It has nothing to do with numbers. One person could've mapped the whole of America by himself and he'd be considered a pioneer. Again, you seem to be missing the point that 3D was old news by the time PS1 did it. PS1 did nothing new and it was already popular when it did it.

Elvis got credited as being the king of rock and roll, not the pioneer of it. Your analogy could actually be seen as offensive, by the way, as black people (I'll be d[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]mned if I ever use 'African Americans' or 'Hispanics' or 'Caucasians') were the original pioneers of rock and roll. They invented rock and roll, they made it popular. It got so popular that white people started liking it, but they had white people sing the songs instead of the people that wrote them because...well, racism. Quite a few people could be offended by the fact that you think a newcomer to the rock and roll scene who is also white is the pioneer rock and roll.

And again, you're breaking your own arguement. #2 says nothing about opening a new field up to new people, just opening it up. The fact that it isn't true 3D does, in fact, matter because otherwise SNESs Mode 7 would count as the first 3D graphics, which is total bollocks.

About that last little comment about Sony hating, well thanks for proving my point, you whiney baby.

[quote=Prince Shondronai]I don't know about anyone else, but the first 3D game I ever played was "Roll the ball to mommy" when I was about 1.

Oh, way to break the whole freakin' thread!

Uh, not all games for the PS1 had pre-rendered backgrounds like Resident Evil (from what I remember...?) or Final Fantasy games. I guess using the first definition is best, since Sony "claimed" the territory that Nintendo had. The games really were 3D. The difference between the N64 and PS1 is that the PS1 uses pixel-shading.

Fate. What the F[COLOR=lightgreen]U[/COLOR]CK are you talking about? Not even the Gamecube or PS2 have pixel shading, and Xbox has ONE. Shaders weren't even around when the PS1 was released.

The difference between the N64 and PS1 in terms of 3D was the N64 could render more polygons and render them properly in hardware, put biliniar filtering on textures and have more detailed textures, and had enough processing power to do lighting effects. PS1 could draw a polygon in software (which produced innaccuracies, as you might notice in PS1 games where the walls or floor look like theyre rippling our out of line with eachother), put a texture on it and move it around. That's about it.

And who the hell mentioned pre-rendering?

From what I remember, the polygons on the PS1 had pixel-shaded textures. I'm sure you've seen it. I mentioned pre-rendering because you kept saying the PS1 wasn't fully 3D. :/

Um, you must be mixing up pixel shaders with something else. The Xbox was the first home console to have a pixel shader in it. PS1 having a pixel shader in it wouldn't make any sense at all. It'd be like the original Game Boy being able to display more colours than a SNES but still having a black and white screen.

As for pre-rendered games, the models are 3D, so that doesn't mean anything. The first PS1 game I saw ever was Ridge Racer, anyway. I'm saying PS1 can't do true 3D, because it has no hardware capable of doing it. Developers had to write a program that would simulate a 3D chip which would then run on the PS1s main processor. The result you got was PS1s attempt at polygons, it couldn't draw them properly so you ended up seeing them move for no apparant reason and the textures put onto it wouldn't stay in line with eachother. It's about as true-3D as those GBA games with polygons in them. It just looks crappy and inaccurate.

the ps1's graphics are pretty bad compared to the n64. but some buddies disagree. what i noticed was how the graphics were poorer for ps1 games depending on the company that released them. i mean, ubisoft games had moderately decent graphics, but games like ape escape [scea] just continuously flickered. that was crappy.

3D was perfectly "opened up" and "accesible" to people when it was first invented. It's just that it wasn't marketed on mtv by the sorts of losers and morons that the blind masses identify with. Nothing was stopping people from buying the systems that actually did have the first 3D games on them, or playing the first 3D games in arcades.

[quote=Lord of Spam]At least I can admit that I favour a certain system.

Who said I couldn't admit it? All I did was say you're an assumptive fuckwad because you think that because I prefer one system I'm rendered incapable of seeing the merits of another one.

The fact that the first slew of 3D games you saw were on PS1 proves my point, you know jack shit. I first saw 3D on the SNES, then in Arcades and on PCs. Fact is 3D was done even before the NES with crappy vector graphics, and there were quite a few of them.

[quote]If you arent opening it up to new people, I'd like to know how you are opening it up.

You aren't. My point is opening something up to new people doesn't equal pioneering. 3D was already opened up to plenty of people, PS1 just opened it up to more people, just like the N64. My whole point is PS1 didn't make 3D, it was done way before that. It didn't make 3D popular, it was popular years before PS1. It may have brought more 3D games into people's homes, but that doesn't mean pioneering 3D in the slightest. It didn't do anything special with 3D (in fact, as I've pointed out, it did it badly), it wasn't popular because it was 3D, otherwise the N64 would've whipped it's ass. It was popular AND 3D. That's it. Annoying thing is there's nothing else I can compare it to. NES did ACTUALLY do new things with 2D, as did the SNES. Difference is I wouldn't say either pioneered 2D gaming.

Sony = crap

Care to explain?

Lol, your everywere aren't you?

[quote]Sony = crap
leme guess. xbox is the only console that holds to your standards based on your friends 600 games and 10 consoles right?

However whenever you say something it is false or it is an opinion based on nothing reliable. All you have been doing is making up reasons of why xbox is better than everything else. Now I am not going to argue with you unless it has to do with the topic becuase it is just spamming the topic.

I don't believe xbox is better then the other systems I simply prefer it over the rest.

People, people, these awards really arent much of a big deal. In fact, if it is such a big accomplishment, why did Microsoft get the same award for XBox live?

The reason is because they give out awards to the people the media wants them to give awards to. There's no 200 IQ panel of experts debating over what companies get awarded or not. The point of these awards is free advertising, plain and simple.

But if it was Nintendo, you certainly wouldn't say that, would you?

Pioneering gaming, yes, pioneering 2D, no.

[quote=Fate][COLOR=skyblue]But if it was Nintendo, you certainly wouldn't say that, would you?[/COLOR]

Actually, I would, Nintendo often annoys me just as much as the other console companies do. How ironic it is that no console maker today actually started with video games.

No, that would be a bit difficult for Nintendo considering they started in the 19th Century. They did start with games, however.

[COLOR="Yellow"]Card games.[/COLOR]

Yup, then toys, then electronic toys, then little games like Game and Watch, then arcade games, then ColecoVision, then NES and onwards. They've always been a game-centric company.

Well, then, mabey they should get an award.

I don't think any awarding body have an award for "single handedly revitalising a stagnant, dying industry".

[quote=Speedfreak]I don't think any awarding body have an award for "single handedly revitalising a stagnant, dying industry".

I wish they did.

I don't, because Sony would get it, what with how Sony pretty much owns the entire film and music industry, and it's those kind of people that hand out awards.

Awards suck, anyway. "We mighty 10 people of the industry think our opinion is greater than everyone elses". Arragont pricks.

At least those people are even in the industry, though. There are often reports on IGN and Gamespot about "financial analysts" predicting dire circumstances for Nintendo's immediate future, none of which have ever come true. Those analysts have never held a controller in their lives.