PlayStation 3 Owners?

[Zidane24]

MGS3 chronicles the story of Big Boss from back in the 60's and his rise to become America's greatest soldier and hero (The Perfect Soldier that Solid Snake was cloned from...Snake still considers him his dad). Liquid Snake is a clone also (hence being Snake's brother). Solidus Snake is also a clone(I know....clone clone clone....even though Solidus was a 1:1 clone). MGS1 chronicles Solid Snake's adventure into Shadow Moses Island to confront his brother Liquid. MGS2 takes place a bit after MGS1 and chronicles Snake and Raiden's infiltration of GW to stop Solidus' ambitions. MGS4 takes place after MGS2 in 2014 and portrays how the world has erupted into proxy wars

BTW Raiden isn't a clone...he was outfitted with cybernetic enhancements (most noticeable being his exoskeleton)

....whew I hope that clears things up a bit

Kojima couldn't have picked more confusing character names, they all sound the same to me. It's been so long since I played MGS1. But aren't you all forgetting the first 2 of the series on NES and SNES?

Those names (except for Raiden) are code names...Solid Snake's real name is actually the name of his English voice actor: David Hayter

MGs from NES and SNES are in the time line but their significance are not negligible compared to the PSX-PS2 ones. You can play MGS1-MGS4 and do some light reading in the database to comprehend the entire story

I read the entire MGS Database that is provided as a download on PSN...one of the best reads I have ever done

It takes a certain kind of person to appreciate Kojima's brilliance

 

[Zidane24]

Twin Snakes is the gamecube remake of the first one (on ps1) with more stuffing. Portable Ops is the 'sequal' to MGS3, and P.O.Plus is like a mutiplayer expansion of MGSPo (its standalone).

Metal Gear Ac!d (aso on psp) is the only one i dont know too much about. it's a turn based card game, type thing.

confussed yet? i am.

I know Twin Snakes is a remake of MGS1 since I was freaking excited about it when I first heard of it coming out when I had a GameCube, but since it's a different game alltogether from the original first, there has to be new tidbits for the story?

It isn't a different game altogether....it is just a remake. Most people don't like it due to game play mechanics that don't suit MGS1's original mechanics plus the original voice cast was changed (I loved MGS1s voice cast)

 

[AlexT2889]

Sweet , where is this download you speak of? I've made multiple PSN Accounts for Europe/Japan so I could access demos and downloads that aren't available in America.

 

[Zidane24]

Sweet , where is this download you speak of? I've made multiple PSN Accounts for Europe/Japan so I could access demos and downloads that aren't available in America.

When you go to PSN look up PS3 Disc Downloads and then browse to MGS4...it is a free download. Please note that you have to play and beat MGS4 COMPLETELY to unlock the information for MGS4 in the database

 

[Zidane24]

Like I said a bit back MGS4 was the reason I got a PS3 and MGS1 still remains dear in my heart. I have played MGS1 on all difficulties and did everything possible many times...I have over 100 COMPLETED EVERYTHING saves (I used to be hardcore PSX+Metal Gear Solid)....hell I used to be able to recite the entire script of MGS1 and detail every enemies movement in the game. The only person I know of who has played more MGS1 than me is my friend Matt...he has 150 saves under his belt

 

[AlexT2889]

God damn....lol. I'm playing the MGS4 Demo right now, I'm used to the face down/side ways crooked scrolling design from MGS1. But graphics on my regular 26 TV look amazing.

 

[BruhthaKuga]

You mean the ps3 plays games? ? ? ?

YOU MEAN THAT ALL THIS TIME MY PS3 PLAYS GAMES, MAN.. .. ..YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY YEAR, I know it plays a mean BluRay movie and DVD and CDs. Heck I can even surf the internet but Games to boot.
HOO DA THUNK?

 

[AlexT2889]

You never knew it play games...I don't know if you're being sarcastic or living under a rock* for past 15 years.

 

[Zidane24]

You never knew it play games...I don't know if you're being sarcastic or living under a work for past 15 years.

He is just a troll....ignore him

 

[AlexT2889]

LOL, well I got my "2nd" baby secured at Wal-Mart, a Sony BRAVIA L-Series) Model: KDL 32 5000, I like the 4000 better because it's curvy and has see through plastic bit on bottem but it's outdated now. $498 tax-free . Oh it's 720p because I've made up my mind spending the extra money on useless resolution that is barely noticeable is stupid, now I have money left over for Sony 6ft. HDMI cable and GTA4, let the battle begin in a week and half!

 

[Orbital Shark]

LOL, well I got my "2nd" baby secured at Wal-Mart, a Sony BRAVIA L-Series) Model: KDL 32 5000, I like the 4000 better because it's curvy and has see through plastic bit on bottem but it's outdated now. $498 tax-free . Oh it's 720p because I've made up my mind spending the extra money on useless resolution that is barely noticeable is stupid, now I have money left over for Sony 6ft. HDMI cable and GTA4, let the battle begin in a week and half!

Does it still look outstanging on 720?

I've got a 43" Pioneer that is only 720 but still want a PS3

 

[AlexT2889]

Well the 4000 model of the L-Series was on display, we did have the TV I originally planned to get in 1080p the S-Series (5100) model but it was a 40 inch display model and I started noticing the defects I read about in reviews like the corner of the screen being dull and darker. The 4000 looked outstanding though, but I getting the updated model which looks kinda dull on the aethestic department. The (L-Series) 5000 model was still back in the stock room on shelves, we have 6 currently. I'm glad I work at Wal-Mart, I get to see what we have and don't, sure beats worrying about availability

TV Orignally planned to get: (KDL-32S5100) 1080p http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665746334
TV on display currently: (KDL-32L4000) 720p http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665370677&XID=O:kdl%2032l4000:dg_tv_gglsrch
TV definitely getting: (KDL-32L5000) 720p http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665746294

I AM confused about one thing, the TV's native resolution is 720p, but Sony says if I use a HDMI cable for PlayStation 3 or BluRay player, I get uncompressed 1080/60hz picture. What gives? Does it mean I'll get 1080p only on HDMI?

 

[Orbital Shark]

I'm thinking that Sony mean that HDMI has the capabilities of 1080p and not that you will be recieving 1080p. If your display is 720p then it will only display 720p, I think it will be a scaled down 1080p

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Well the 4000 model of the L-Series was on display, we did have the TV I originally planned to get in 1080p the S-Series (5100) model but it was a 40 inch display model and I started noticing the defects I read about in reviews like the corner of the screen being dull and darker. The 4000 looked outstanding though, but I getting the updated model which looks kinda dull on the aethestic department. The (L-Series) 5000 model was still back in the stock room on shelves, we have 6 currently. I'm glad I work at Wal-Mart, I get to see what we have and don't, sure beats worrying about availability

TV Orignally planned to get: (KDL-32S5100) 1080p KDL-32S5100 | 32" Class BRAVIA S Series LCD HDTV | Sony | Sony Style USA
TV on display currently: (KDL-32L4000) 720p KDL-32L4000 | 32" Class BRAVIA L Series LCD HDTV | Sony | Sony Style USA
TV definitely getting: (KDL-32L5000) 720p KDL-32L5000 | 32" Class BRAVIA L Series LCD HDTV | Sony | Sony Style USA

I AM confused about one thing, the TV's native resolution is 720p, but Sony says if I use a HDMI cable for PlayStation 3 or BluRay player, I get uncompressed 1080/60hz picture. What gives? Does it mean I'll get 1080p only on HDMI?

I'd assume you'd only get 720p since its the low of the two.

If 720p TV's could display 1080p quality what would be the point of even differentiating the two? (sorry if I misunderstood what you said )

 

[pparks1]

If 720p TV's could display 1080p quality what would be the point of even differentiating the two? (sorry if I misunderstood what you said )

Why differentiate the 2???? It's because the manufacturers were able to come out with new products and people bought into the hype and decided to upgrade their existing sets. And people walked into a store and wanted to ensure that they would be more "future proof", so they spent the extra and got the 1080p for good measure.

What it boils down to is the source itself. Meaning that obviously a 1080p bluray disc itself contains more data and thus presents a far superior picture over a DVD. If you take this outstanding picture quality source (blu ray disk) and play it back on a 1080p display that is properly calibrated or a 720p display which is properly calibrated, the human eye doesn't really have the ability to discern the difference between the two from any reasonable viewing difference. Thus, they end up looking the same.

Now, the opposite isn't true with lower source materials. A standard DVD for example is 480 lines of resolution...so when played back on a 720p display it has to upconvert a fair amount and when upconverting to 1080p it has to upconvert quite a bit. Therefore, if you watch lower quality source material more often, there is an actual advantage to having 720p over 1080p...because there are simply fewer lines to have to upconvert into and generally speaking the results are better.

So, I classify the 1080p "True HD" or "Full-HD" malarky as a bunch of bologna when it comes down to the television display itself. It's the quality of the components within the television that make the most difference and not simply that resolution. For this reason, I choose and still would choose a higher end 720p display over a lower end 1080p display because I am getting more quality for the same amount of money, rather than a higher specification which doesn't amount to something that the human eye can perceive.

So, I hope that's clear. It's the source material that matters...not the # of lines of resolution in the display.

I've got a 43" Pioneer that is only 720 but still want a PS3

For the reasons states above, the 720p is nothing to be sad about. I just recently upgraded my living room TV to a Panasonic Plasma and went for a 720p on purpose. It looks the same for less money. Therefore, I spent the saved money on the 1080p on something else.

 

[Orbital Shark]

For the reasons states above, the 720p is nothing to be sad about. I just recently upgraded my living room TV to a Panasonic Plasma and went for a 720p on purpose. It looks the same for less money. Therefore, I spent the saved money on the 1080p on something else.

Ah that's good, i'd hate to think that i'd wasted £3,995* on a crap telly

*price correct as of 2006

Additional: nice bit of info there mate

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

If 720p TV's could display 1080p quality what would be the point of even differentiating the two? (sorry if I misunderstood what you said )

Why differentiate the 2???? It's because the manufacturers were able to come out with new products and people bought into the hype and decided to upgrade their existing sets. And people walked into a store and wanted to ensure that they would be more "future proof", so they spent the extra and got the 1080p for good measure.

What it boils down to is the source itself. Meaning that obviously a 1080p bluray disc itself contains more data and thus presents a far superior picture over a DVD. If you take this outstanding picture quality source (blu ray disk) and play it back on a 1080p display that is properly calibrated or a 720p display which is properly calibrated, the human eye doesn't really have the ability to discern the difference between the two from any reasonable viewing difference. Thus, they end up looking the same.

Now, the opposite isn't true with lower source materials. A standard DVD for example is 480 lines of resolution...so when played back on a 720p display it has to upconvert a fair amount and when upconverting to 1080p it has to upconvert quite a bit. Therefore, if you watch lower quality source material more often, there is an actual advantage to having 720p over 1080p...because there are simply fewer lines to have to upconvert into and generally speaking the results are better.

So, I classify the 1080p "True HD" or "Full-HD" malarky as a bunch of bologna when it comes down to the television display itself. It's the quality of the components within the television that make the most difference and not simply that resolution. For this reason, I choose and still would choose a higher end 720p display over a lower end 1080p display because I am getting more quality for the same amount of money, rather than a higher specification which doesn't amount to something that the human eye can perceive.

So, I hope that's clear. It's the source material that matters...not the # of lines of resolution in the display.

Did I offend you in some way..?

 

[Orbital Shark]

Did I offend you in some way..?

I don't see his response being within the 'I was offended' category

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Did I offend you in some way..?

I don't see his response being within the 'I was offended' category

Lol okay, usually when people make big responses it means I offended them. :|

 

[Zidane24]

Alex I hope you didn't get an HDMI cord from walmart....any generic one works for the PS3 or 360. My HDMI cord was 99 cent plus $1 shipping from Hong Kong....have had it for two years now

Walmart ones are OUTRAGEOUS