Well, I was really looking forward to Odin Sphere, partially from the graphics and such, up until I started reading a few reviews that seemed to imply that the slowdown issues in the games are so bad at points as to make some of the boss battles practically unplayable. Unless these issues aren't as bad as some are making them out to be (as was the case in, say, Shadow of the Colossus), it might keep me from picking this up early on.

Skylock00

I've only seen that in the GameSpot review.  And I've stopped reading GS reviews for JRPGs a long time ago, because the bias is painfully evident.  In looking at GameRankings, the game is averaging 83% (at last check), which - as is typical for the genre - is way above GS's score.  I read the first two published reviews on Odin Sphere from Play Magazine and Game Almighty, and neither mentioned slowdown.  Play's score was a perfect 100, which I hardly doubt is accurate, but three other sources gave it in the high 8s, so it's not drastically far off in comparison.

I'm not saying the reviewer for GS is lying, because I'm sure it does exist, but I do question how severe it actually is.  I'll be interested to see IGN's review, which is a far more trusted and objective source for these types of games.

Unfortunately, if Odin Sphere doesn't sell well - and it probably won't - it's exactly the opposite: it reinforces the reason why 2D is dead and Konami won't bother to do any more 2D Castlevanias for consoles...no matter how much we may want them.

Casual gamers aren't interested, which tends to hurt the industry. 

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="spiltmilk"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]With the sales of the PS3 latley its entirely possible it could be obsolete by this time next year, wait and see if Sony can save their machine first. There are a bunch of games coming I want, but im not comfortable buying a system that looks like its dying.GodModeEnabled

Dying? My god, people get real. A minority group makes a lot of noise about the PS3 being a failure and people believe it. The PS3 will be fine as more great exclusives start rolling out. I don't think it is a surprise the PS3 will take awhile for things to pick up, no games at launch does that.

With the amount of money Sony dumped into the PS3, it's highly unlikely they're just going to abandon it. Furthermore, a price cut is almost inevitable this year due to the recent PS3 production cost-cutting, and the 2008 prediction for the fiscal year caused investors to respond in a positive light. Sony stock hit a five-year high about six weeks ago, so perhaps you might want to actually read some real news rather than give in to the constant Internet BS. Do you have ANY idea what kind of catastrophe the PS3 would have to suffer for Sony to consider a discontinuation? Any idea at all? There isn't a chance in hell the PS3 will be "obsolete" nor is it even remotely close to "dying."

Unless you have something besides personal opinion to support your outlandish claim, I doubt the topic poster can take you seriously.

It's even funnier when you make assumptions that aren't true.  That's first.  Sony is in no way my "favorite system/company" and if you think my opinion is that Sony is "high and mighty," that's another screw-up on your part.  I've been one of the bigget and most outspoken critics of how Sony handled the PS3; just because I defend it against naive nonsense like your words doesn't indicate bias.  YOUR words indicate bias.  Your "negative spin" is bullcrap, and I'm here to stop you from lying to someone asking a legitimate question.  Your advice here is NOT your advice in your initial post, which is basically, "don't bother because the PS3 might not even make it."  And that's a lie.

I looked at the NPD figures.  I report on them on a very frequent basis.  Gamers are in no way "abondoning" the system.  The PS3 smashed all sales records at the European launch, did fine in Australia, and while I'm at it, compares VERY favorably to Xbox 360 sales at the same in 2006.   The stock is up.  The production costs will be cut by $100/system, which is why a price cut is almost beyond "likely" and is now closer to "inevitable."  The PS3 and 360 have about the same number of games scheduled for 2007, and while the 360 has the edge in exclusives for this year, the same cannot be said for 2008 and down the road.  Sony's first-party blockbusters are still on the way, and if you honestly believe games like Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII can't push systems the same way Halo or Bioshock can, you're out of your mind.

The Blu-Ray factor is rapidly becoming more and more important, or perhaps you also ignored the news stories that place Blu-Ray far ahead of HD-DVD.  Maybe you don't care that 80% of all TVs sold last Christmas season had HD capacity, and major film studios ('cough' Disney 'cough') have already agreed to EXCLUSIVELY side with Blu-Ray.  Maybe you don't care that the PS3 is the cheapest and most diverse Blu-Ray player out there (also the only hybrid player), and maybe you don't care about the upcoming lineup of games, PlayStation Home, and the 41 Network games scheduled for this year.  Maybe you refuse to acknowledge the extreme similarity between the 360 and PS3 sales in the months immediately following each console's launch, but none of that is my problem.  Your assessment of the situation is not an opinion; it's blatantly incorrect because you list no facts to help your argument, and nothing you say is even remotely close to truth.

Sony is not abandoning the system.  The PS3 is in no way "dying," as you said it was.  That is complete and utter nonsense, so please don't spread lies throughout the forum, and do us all a favor, and gain SOME semblance of an education on the issue. 

In response to the original question, the answer is easy: of course it would make sense. It may not make much sense NOW, but to not have both systems in the future would be voluntarily depriving yourself of great games. Plain and simple. If you have any interest in a Blu-Ray player - the only BD player on the market that can also play DVDs, by the way - it might be worth it right now, but if you're only interested in the games, you might want to wait for the price cut. And that cut is probably coming this year; perhaps even this summer.

That way, you'll have it for when the best games start to arrive. But to not have both a few years from now makes absolutely no sense if you're an avid gamer.  Both the 360 and PS3 will have their fair share of amazing games; to say otherwise is just being naive.  It's just a matter of whether or not you deem a PS3 purchase to be worthwhile at this moment in time...and it very well may not be.

[QUOTE="spiltmilk"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]With the sales of the PS3 latley its entirely possible it could be obsolete by this time next year, wait and see if Sony can save their machine first. There are a bunch of games coming I want, but im not comfortable buying a system that looks like its dying.GodModeEnabled

Dying? My god, people get real. A minority group makes a lot of noise about the PS3 being a failure and people believe it. The PS3 will be fine as more great exclusives start rolling out. I don't think it is a surprise the PS3 will take awhile for things to pick up, no games at launch does that.

With the amount of money Sony dumped into the PS3, it's highly unlikely they're just going to abandon it. Furthermore, a price cut is almost inevitable this year due to the recent PS3 production cost-cutting, and the 2008 prediction for the fiscal year caused investors to respond in a positive light. Sony stock hit a five-year high about six weeks ago, so perhaps you might want to actually read some real news rather than give in to the constant Internet BS. Do you have ANY idea what kind of catastrophe the PS3 would have to suffer for Sony to consider a discontinuation?  Any idea at all?  There isn't a chance in hell the PS3 will be "obsolete" nor is it even remotely close to "dying."

Unless you have something besides personal opinion to support your outlandish claim, I doubt the topic poster can take you seriously.

In terms of time, it was probably Super Mario Bros., but I can't even begin to estimate an hour amount. 

Next to that would be Final Fantasy Tactics, with about 500-600 hours total play time over the past 10 years or so.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

I will guarantee, right here and now, that unless Nintendo can bring out the software, the novelty of the Wii will wear off. Rapidly. I'm just waiting on the games, that's all. If they can push them out, they'll be fine; if it's another deal like with the GameCube - a serious lack of top-notch software - the Wii will absolutely end up in third. Plain and simple.

Games still sell systems, even now. Even with all the claims of "multimedia centers." Whichever system ends up with the best and the most is the system that wins.

dvader654

Well its Nintendo and they always bring the software. The question is will others bring it, and porting old games should not count. But I must saying we are seeing a lot of franchises appearing on the Wii one way or another, Sonic, RE, FF, Nights, Soul Calibur, DQ, Manhunt, Tomb Raider sure many of those are side games but its a start... right...

No, they don't always bring the software. That was the problem with the GC, and why it ended up a distant third. Every single year of the generation, the PS2 and Xbox were able to produce more "AA" and "AAA" games than the GC until finally, at the end, the GC was greatly outpaced. Nintendo "brings the software" at a very slow rate. The GC's library was paltry in comparison to any other platform, and if the Wii follows that same path, I guarantee it ends up in the same place as the GC...which is to say, last. Already this year, the 360 and PS3 have far more titles scheduled for release than the Wii. Last time I checked, I think the Wii was at around 80 while the 360 and PS3 were around 130 and 140.

And those games for 2007? I see titles like Halo 3, DMC 4, GTA IV, Mass Effect, R&C: ToD, Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, and either late this year or early next, MGS 4, FF XIII, GT 5, and more. Now...in that same time frame, the Wii has that new SSBM, Mario Galaxy, and the new Metroid, right? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems painfully clear that Nintendo is absolutely lagging behind yet again in terms of software, and we just started this generation. Here's the bottom line, I believe- the Wii grabbed the lead NOT because of software (obviously), but because of innovative hardware. And in the end, THAT is NOT what will win a generation. Only games can do that. And this is why I have serious doubts about the future of that system, despite the current rosy picture.