Curse

Dark178 · Jun 04, 2005, 08:18 PM // 20:18

I'm getting both kuz i am a fan of both systems and the different types of games they have on both systems...

xbox360 is cool kuz of live and all the shooters ^^ and ps3 and its RPGs w00t

Rajamic · Jun 04, 2005, 09:05 PM // 21:05

I bought a PS2 at launch and really, it wasn't worth it. So I'll wait till at least all 3 systems are out.

Currently, I'm most interested in the Revolution. What makes it so special? I don't know, but the downloadable full library of Nintendo's NES, SNES, and N64 games (they are negotiating with other companies to expand past Nintentdo's games) and GC backward compatibility is a good start! And Nintendo has always been WAY ahead of the game. Remember Power Glove? U-Force? The SNES modem? I'm still very optimistic that they will do something impressive.

I don't see the point of the 360 or PS3. Sure they are more powerful, but how many games are going to take advantage of that power? Most of today's games don't even use 80% of the systems' power, simply because the more time you put into squeezing it out, the bigger the budget has to be. Sure, games like Halo 2 and Final Fantasy 10 were incredible, but that's only because they could count on HUGE sales when figuring the budget. How many games do you think will look like those tech demos? Tech demos always go farther than any game ever will on that system. With how lackluster the first Killzone was, I can't imagine they will gamble the kind of money it would take to make a whole game look like that demo.

thegr33k · Jun 04, 2005, 09:40 PM // 21:40

I might get the Xbox360 if Halo 3 looks like its going to be good. If Microsoft pushes to get it out early to combat the PS3 launch then it will suck. Halo 2 was an unfinished game in my opinion, and if they try to rush out Halo 3 it will be horrible. Other than that, I don't care about any other Xbox games. I despise Bill Gates and Micro$oft and I don't care to put more money into their pockets.

The PS3 looks good from what i've seen, aside from the controller. I wouldny mind getting it because I never had a PS1 or PS2. However, the system is expected to cost nearly $600. I already have an awesome computer, I don't really need another one.

The Nintendo Revolution, to me is the best choice. I'm a Nintendo fan, but I don't blindly believe that everything with the Nintendo name or Mario on it is amazing. The system simply has the most potential in my eyes. Nintendo is the only company making systems who also makes games, they arent just fighting a technology war like the two mega-corporations Sony and Micro$oft.

So...while Halo 3 might be good, and the new Final Fantasy and GTA might be good, I can almost guarantee that the new Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and whatever else Nintendo suprises us with will rock.

Ardus Shadowmane · Jun 04, 2005, 10:48 PM // 22:48

I like all of those things that you mentioned which were put out by Nintendo and were apparently far ahead of their time. I do remember the power glove, u-force, and the snes modem. I also remember the complete lack of support or use for any of them and that they were basically a money pit. Sega was also always ahead of the game, and look where it got them? They got their act together and quit making consoles that sold for less than cost and stuck to making games.

thegr33k · Jun 04, 2005, 11:13 PM // 23:13

in response to the last post:

True, Nintendo doens't always follow up on its support for things. Gameboy Camera rings a bell even though that thing was tons of fun while in school. However, if Nintendo didn't try these things would we have force feedback controllers, anolog thumb sticks, well-working first party wireless controllers? The answer is probably no.

Mj Is Scary · Jun 04, 2005, 11:53 PM // 23:53

I am not sure at the moment I own an Xbox and I love it but the PS3 looks like it is going to kick the 360's ass so... I am still thinking...

blythe · Jun 05, 2005, 12:20 AM // 00:20

I'm buyin both. However, the only reason to buy X360 is because of Halo 3 and Gears of War. Nothing else looks that great, not even the new Perfect Dark.

However, my PC will rule my soul for all time.

PieXags · Jun 05, 2005, 12:22 AM // 00:22

PS3 most definately.

Playstation between the two will have an insanely large game library compared to the XBox, being backwards compatible all the way to the original. It's more powerful as a whole, and the only game I've liked that was XBox was Halo, which isn't even XBox exclusive (no I didn't really like Halo 2 as much). All the other games there's an equivilent or the exact same game for the PS3.

I'll problably buy the PS3, and then the Nintendo Revolution simply to be able to download all the old Nintendo games.

XBox? Pfft, Halo and that's about it. Well I've got Halo for PC, also got Doom 3 and intend to get Quake VI for the PC as well. What else is there for XBox?

Not a whole hell of a lot...I think I'd rather play the hudreds of other games I've got for Playstation and PS2 along with those on the PS3.

*edit*

In response to the post about the PS3 being over $600, not according to this.

"The new machine, which will have a higher performance capacity than personal computers and provide sophisticated movie-quality images, will be priced at less than 50,000 yen each, according to officials."

Which is about $465.

blythe · Jun 05, 2005, 12:43 AM // 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

PS3 most definately.

Playstation between the two will have an insanely large game library compared to the XBox, being backwards compatible all the way to the original. It's more powerful as a whole, and the only game I've liked that was XBox was Halo, which isn't even XBox exclusive (no I didn't really like Halo 2 as much). All the other games there's an equivilent or the exact same game for the PS3.

I'll problably buy the PS3, and then the Nintendo Revolution simply to be able to download all the old Nintendo games.

XBox? Pfft, Halo and that's about it. Well I've got Halo for PC, also got Doom 3 and intend to get Quake VI for the PC as well. What else is there for XBox?

Not a whole hell of a lot...I think I'd rather play the hudreds of other games I've got for Playstation and PS2 along with those on the PS3.

*edit*

In response to the post about the PS3 being over $600, not according to this.

"The new machine, which will have a higher performance capacity than personal computers and provide sophisticated movie-quality images, will be priced at less than 50,000 yen each, according to officials."

Which is about $465.

$465 is still stupid expensive.

Also I agree, Halo 2 wasn't quite as good as its predecessor (sp?)

Inde · Jun 05, 2005, 04:25 AM // 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yojinj

Well none of the now systems died. When gamecube came out in japan and sold bad i thought it would die after one year and PS2 and Xbox would keep on.
Learned my lesson from that

I think he meant hardware died (XBox power cord and PS2 hardware deaths).

Ardus Shadowmane: Sega made horrible hardware. That is what killed them. Game Gear, 3DX, Saturn - all were crap hardware. Dreamcast was good, but unfortunately the PS2 hype killed it.

And the PS3 hype train seems to be going now heh.

Rajamic · Jun 05, 2005, 07:51 PM // 19:51

Systems are always a bit more expensive outside of Japan. If that price in Yen holds true, expect $500 in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegr33k

in response to the last post:

True, Nintendo doens't always follow up on its support for things. Gameboy Camera rings a bell even though that thing was tons of fun while in school. However, if Nintendo didn't try these things would we have force feedback controllers, anolog thumb sticks, well-working first party wireless controllers? The answer is probably no.

This is true not from the perspective of Nintendo stuff, but all unique peripherals. Look at one of the most successful peripherals in history, the GunCon (which is itself a less accurate version of Nintendo's own Zapper). How many games have GunCon support? About a dozen on the PSX and PS2 combined (and about a third of them are Time Crisis games). It's all a matter of business.

If I can make a game on system X, I'll be able to potentially sell to everyone who has system X. If I make it for peripheral Y on system X, since not everyone who has X will have Y, I'm limiting my audience. Everything from unique controller designs (light guns and dance pads) to system upgrades (like the N64 memory pak or Sega 32X) holds true for this, and you'll see that invariably, all peripherals don't do well. This is one big reason there was no support for the PS2's network adapter and Hard Drive. In order for a company to justify using the peripheral, they have to establish that it is required for the game to function well.

It boggles my mind why companies still make several of them for every system.

The Revolution is different. It is the system itself. The same dynamic applies to the systems to a degree as well, which is why games were few here in the US for GameCube, and for XBox in Japan. The systems didn't sell up to the levels third-parties wanted in order to justify developing for them.

Phenron Omega · Jun 05, 2005, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Nintendo Revolution. :|

Madjik · Jun 06, 2005, 04:00 AM // 04:00

I'll be waiting. I've bought systems at release and regretted it almost immediatly all too many times to be fooled into it again. I want a game selection, and a darned good one, before I decide.

I never liked x-box or ps2, the game selection never seemed to fit my style of play. I may be stuck gaming on PC for a long time to come who knows. All I know is I'm gonna have to wait and see what the game selection is like before I even try it.

Shinsei · Jun 06, 2005, 04:49 AM // 04:49

The only thing I'd use a console for would be to go nuts in large rts battlefield games, such as Dynasty Warriors and Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders (which is why i have an xbox, including Fable). I'm crazy about these type of games, and to get what is supposedly going to be the master of these games; Ninety Nine Nights, I'm probably going to have to go for an Xbox 360 on this one. Ofcourse, I haven't fully decided if I'm going to get it, or if I'm going to get a console at all. I don't buy anything big without trying it first really.

Tur713 · Jun 06, 2005, 04:57 AM // 04:57

Viva La Revolution!

Anyway, I'm sticking with Nintendo and the PS3 (Is I get 2 systems) I never found much interest in the X-box and the 360 doesn't send me any new things that will lean me toward it. I really don't care about graphics, sure you've got prettyful games, but it doesn't matter if the gameplay's poor. We wouldn't stick to our old systems if all we cared about was graphics. Anyway, I think that Nintendo and Sony have delivered in this department in the past and will continue to do so. For all those out there who are about to jump on it, I know that x-box had some great games too, just none I would go out and buy, but that's just me. Trust me, I had all kinds of fun playing halo with my friends and I'm sure my Halo-maniac friend will buy the new x-box, I'll play that with him, and I'll put him gently back in his cage. (the cage has nothing to do with the gaming, rather, he has a fierce case of rabies)

Trenchsoul · Jun 06, 2005, 06:04 AM // 06:04

I don't like XBox games too much. They're all geared so seriously and "mature," if you want to call them that, that I I wonder if anyone playing xbox plays to get away from reality or get closer to it. I say this as an outsider looking in, so I could be completely wrong in saying that. I just don't find photo-realistic intestines to be a major selling point. Playstation has always served me well with Naughty Dog pumping out quality platformers and Squaresoft seems to be staying loyal to it. Fighting games, another one of my staples, are generally released on all consoles so I don't have to worry about missing out on anything.

Besides, why would I want that probe setup in my house? Who knows what it does when I'm not around. At least I know the Japanese are putting a giant robot in my house so that they can conquer America with ease in the year 2010. Sony CD players, consoles, and PSPs unite for great justice!

Ardus Shadowmane · Jun 08, 2005, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Inde--Sorry, in rereading my post you responded to, I realized it sounded like I was promoting Sega. I whole-heartedly agree with you on the Sega issue. What I meant was that Sega was always ahead of the game, jumped the gun if you will, and look where it got them? They had to stop making hardware entirely for the most part and stick with just doing games. Sorry for any confusion.

Madjik · Jun 08, 2005, 07:24 PM // 19:24

heh, funny how that worked out. SEGA shot out of the red and back into the black within the first 4 or 5 months of focusing on thier games and dropping out of the consoul market. Thier games have always been good. most of 'em at any rate.

Ardus Shadowmane · Jun 08, 2005, 11:32 PM // 23:32

I agree, Sega has always made really good games. They didn't do so great with their systems (except for the DC in my opinion, I still play mine constantly, even though I have the XBOX and PS2) due to trying to push things out before other companies got a foothold. But based on their games, Sega deserves every penny they get (always a few exceptions of course).

Inde · Jun 08, 2005, 11:56 PM // 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardus Shadowmane

Inde--Sorry, in rereading my post you responded to, I realized it sounded like I was promoting Sega. I whole-heartedly agree with you on the Sega issue. What I meant was that Sega was always ahead of the game, jumped the gun if you will, and look where it got them? They had to stop making hardware entirely for the most part and stick with just doing games. Sorry for any confusion.

Right - my point was that while Sega was on the cutting edge, the quality of the hardware was crap - 3DX, Saturn, etc - it was of poor quality.

Again, comparing Sega to Nintendo is pointless. Sega was bleeding money, Nintendo is not even close to it.

Perception is reality distorted. In the case of game consoles, its reality warped.