Xbox 1.5: Sega'ed or not?

[trizzm]

My belief is that since Microsoft waited on purpose almost a full year after the release of the PS2 to release the Shitbox to ensure it would have the better hardware, Sony are arguably doing the same thing right now but multiplied by two. Anyone with common sense knows the PS3 will crush the Xbox1.5 to bits on the hardware level, which will only be fair and natural. I fail to see what popularized the original Shitbox except for mildly better graphics (they remained "better than PS2" for a year, then fell into the category "just as shitty as PS2 when compared to PCs"). A Xbox simply has no appealing features to distinguish it. I also say it wants to be a Playstation: just look at the new controller. please list the differences from a PS controller except inverting the d-pad and joystick. pretty much done, isn't it. It wants to be next-gen but it stalls in it's primitiveness. it limits itself to being a fast computer, which more and more people already have.

In short I forsee that Sony and Nintendo will do all in their might to kick the xBox1.5 out of the scene and take back their justly acquired market base, and end up in succeding. who's with me?
besides, the population is BOUND to wake up about halo being gay and having pink guns. it can't just last forever can it.

 

[Absinthe]

Take your biased poll and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, kid.

 

[Noobulon]

Voters: 0.

Keep it that way folks....

 

[Cole]

Actually the Xbox 2 is quite diffrent than a PC. Hell it's processor is made by IBM, thus having a totally diffrent way of doing this than a x86 intel\amd processor. It's GPU uses a very smart method for dedicated AA and AF processing.

I do believe the PS3 will be faster, but it will be hard to tell. Though either way, both there cpu's suck for AI and were made for graphics and physics. Don't get me wrong, there nice but.. there making it harder to give better gameplay and easier to give better graphics.

The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have both utilized very smart technologies..but what one will be better? Only time will tell. The PS3 will not be all that better than the Xbox 360 and vice versa depending on what ones better. They will be quite similar in terms of graphics.

 

[Stigmata]

I'd like to point out to you just how many times you exposed yourself as a complete, shameless Sony fanboy and MS basher. But I'd just end up quoting about half of your posts on Halflife2.net.

And I'm sure you're BOUND to wake up and realize you have an extreme case of homophobia. :thumbs:

Oh, and ^ what Minerel said. He sums up the neutral stance on this issue fairly accurately.

 

[<RJMC>]

something true is that microsoft acts like desperated
one reason is the name of the console that is suposed to sound more powerfull that the ps3 and all that stuff

still is sure that ps2 owners will buy a ps3 and xbox owners a x360

 

[Absinthe]

Microsoft? Desparate? Yeah, right.

So they decided to call their console something besides Xbox 2. That's not desparation. If you follow their logic, it's an attempt to maximize their sales. Who wouldn't want to do that?

 

[<RJMC>]

Microsoft? Desparate? Yeah, right.

So they decided to call their console something besides Xbox 2. That's not desparation. If you follow their logic, it's an attempt to maximize their sales. Who wouldn't want to do that?

still sounds a litle desperate

 

[DeusExMachina]

And I'm sure you're BOUND to wake up and realize you have an extreme case of homophobia. :thumbs:

He's just going through some sexual idenity problems .

Anyway, if any system is going to get Dreamcasted, its Revolution.

 

[smwScott]

Well, it does seem to be following a similar pattern to the Dreamcast, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The PS3 could have anything from somewhat better graphics (think the difference between PS2 and X-BOX) to significantly better graphics, but the current generation showed that having the graphical advantage isn't necessarily the key to success. The X-BOX Live system of charging you for small features (which will likely be withheld from the retail version to be released later at a fee - mark my words) could turn some people off, or maybe they won't realize it until they've already bought the thing.

However, the deciding factor is simply current installed fanbase. I predict that the PS3 will probably lose some of it's audience because they were too impatient to wait, but that because the installed base is so much bigger there's no way they could lose this next war - although the margin of victory get slimmer (ie. not be hysterically massive ).

 

[Cole]

I believe the Graphical Diffrence will be less than that of the Ps2 and Xbox. Though thats just me.

 

[trizzm]

I'd like to point out to you just how many times you exposed yourself as a complete, shameless Sony fanboy and MS basher. But I'd just end up quoting about half of your posts on Halflife2.net.

And I'm sure you're BOUND to wake up and realize you have an extreme case of homophobia. :thumbs:

Oh, and ^ what Minerel said. He sums up the neutral stance on this issue fairly accurately.

wow, a Sony fanboy. that's just great. all I put forward is that I believe they currently have the best console and do not see anything in xbox or anyone else for that matter to make me change my mind (good games would help, you know like more than two.). I hold nothing against Microsoft, but their Xbox division, i've baught shitloads of microsoft products in the past and if i'm a fanboy of anything it's of Windows. furthermore I don't think I touched my PS2 since I built my PC, it was just a placeholder until I could put up something nicer than my 500mhz together.

the reason for all this is that I can't help being reminded of the dreamcast when looking at the xbox1.5. all the dreamcast ever did is be there and look pretty. try to innovate a bit with peripherals that are doomed to failure. it's seemingly just there to be a competitor and steal market shares really. I really don't see what the xbox ever contributed to console gaming.

i'm sure you know better than attributing homophobia to the fact that I said "halo is gay" (I could have said "halo sucks chimp nuts" "halo *whatever*") because i'm frankly tired of having to explain why it sucks everytime I say it does because of some god-damned fanboys who would plain agree with me if they had discovered first person shooters when it was the time, just like everyone who did.

if it can please you yes I am a bit homophobic I really hate standing close to homos and when I see queers making out I nearly throw up and I am ashamed of nothing of that because these guys are ****ing gross and if that's not your opinion, too bad for you. but I am not one to go openly bashing them and try my best to let them live in peace.

wait, what the **** am I saying right here.

you like pink guns?!?

 

[Stigmata]

wow, a Sony fanboy. that's just great. all I put forward is that I believe they currently have the best console and do not see anything in xbox or anyone else for that matter to make me change my mind (good games would help, you know like more than two.). I hold nothing against Microsoft, but their Xbox division, i've baught shitloads of microsoft products in the past and if i'm a fanboy of anything it's of Windows. furthermore I don't think I touched my PS2 since I built my PC, it was just a placeholder until I could put up something nicer than my 500mhz together.

Okay, let's break down your original post, but only the most glaring problems that arise with your "but I'm not being a fanboy!" defense.

"Anyone with common sense knows the PS3 will crush the Xbox1.5 to bits on the hardware level, which will only be fair and natural."
Mm-hmm. Problem #1, calling it the Xbox 1.5. Now, if you were taking a neutral stance on this, you'd just call it by its actual name (Xbox 360, say it with me, you'll get the hang of it soon!). And what exactly is "fair and natural" about one hardware-proficient console utterly trumping another hardware-proficient console in the category of hardware? Somehow, that just doesn't make sense.

"I fail to see what popularized the original Shitbox except for mildly better graphics"
Okay, now you call the original console the Shitbox. I commend you on your non-fanboy comments. Also, the Xbox's graphical capabilities are pretty clearly not "mildly better" than that of the PS2. A simple hardware comparison might just show you what I mean.

"it limits itself to being a fast computer, which more and more people already have."
This isn't really a fanboy comment, I'll admit. But though more and more people are getting "fast" computers, they are nowhere NEAR the speed of the Xbox360 or the PS3. They're both clocking in at over 9GHz, whereas the standard PC will clock in at about 1.5GHz. And not to mention the fact that standard computers come with a low-end 64MB video card, which can barely handle HL2 or Doom 3 on decent settings.

i'm sure you know better than attributing homophobia to the fact that I said "halo is gay" (I could have said "halo sucks chimp nuts" "halo *whatever*") because i'm frankly tired of having to explain why it sucks everytime I say it does because of some god-damned fanboys who would plain agree with me if they had discovered first person shooters when it was the time.

I'll agree, some Halo fanboys go way overboard. I'm a Halo fan, and I love the original. The sequel was slightly worse. I know the underlying problems of each game, and if you care to wait, I could outline most of them. Legitimate arguments against the game will be taken politically with me, but when your criticism amount to what's essentially homophobia (i.e. "OMG pink guns HALO IS GAY"), you lose just about all credibility.

wait, what the **** am I saying right here.

you like pink guns?!?

What, you don't?

 

[DarkStar]

My belief is that since Microsoft waited on purpose almost a full year after the release of the PS2 to release the Shitbox to ensure it would have the better hardware, Sony are arguably doing the same thing right now but multiplied by two. Anyone with common sense knows the PS3 will crush the Xbox1.5 to bits on the hardware level, which will only be fair and natural. I fail to see what popularized the original Shitbox except for mildly better graphics (they remained "better than PS2" for a year, then fell into the category "just as shitty as PS2 when compared to PCs"). A Xbox simply has no appealing features to distinguish it. I also say it wants to be a Playstation: just look at the new controller. please list the differences from a PS controller except inverting the d-pad and joystick. pretty much done, isn't it. It wants to be next-gen but it stalls in it's primitiveness. it limits itself to being a fast computer, which more and more people already have.

In short I forsee that Sony and Nintendo will do all in their might to kick the xBox1.5 out of the scene and take back their justly acquired market base, and end up in succeding. who's with me?
besides, the population is BOUND to wake up about halo being gay and having pink guns. it can't just last forever can it.

Haha.....my God you are a dork.

 

[Stigmata]

Oh, I also just want to quote you on this.

just look at the new controller. please list the differences from a PS controller except inverting the d-pad and joystick. pretty much done, isn't it.

What did you expect, D-pad triggers and joystick ABXY buttons on the undersides of the handles?

 

[DeusExMachina]

if it can please you yes I am a bit homophobic I really hate standing close to homos and when I see queers making out I nearly throw up and I am ashamed of nothing of that because these guys are ****ing gross and if that's not your opinion, too bad for you. but I am not one to go openly bashing them and try my best to let them live in peace.

wait, what the **** am I saying right here.

you like pink guns?!?

This is the sexual idenity problems I was talking about....

 

[trizzm]

no I don't like pink guns. when I see a game being marketed to death as a bad-ass war on earth against deadly invading forces, then decide to give it a chance despite being extremely sceptic and rent it since my friend lended to me, an ignorant dweeb at the time, his Xbox against my PS2 (smart move champion), and find out that this is a repetitive, cut-paste little adventure composed of frequent but small skirmishes, a scenario that is miles from being even remotely called a story, AI that I don't even have to comment about, and to top it all off some neon PINK aliens and weapons, i'm gonna bitch about it in the forum of a glorious and near-perfect game all I want.

and if THAT is the leading vessel in the xbox's fleet i'm going to call it a shitbox all I want.

I want to make it clear that i'm not siding with any console maker because i'm totally convinced pcs will soon enter a phase of revolution not seen since 3dfx that will go far beyond besting the next gen consoles hardware. if anything i'll maybe get a revolution because there are some GC titles i've been wanting to play and 220 free games in my book is good.

thanks everyone by the way for the useless flaming, I believe my arguments are at least credible. if you guys are so sure that the xbox is the start of a 30 year saga despite having nothing at all in particular over anyone else, well that's an opinion.


to the guy below me: if I remember well, which I believe I do, at least half the guns I fired in Halo 2 gave off some pink lasers. there ARE "real weapons" but to me they are even less "gunish" than the alien ones.

 

[thehunter1320]

trizzm... WTF?

1. no one can say shit about either console yet because we haven't seen both actually running anything!! (PS3 was definately not real time... if it was i will eat my hat and the 360 wasn't running at the specs yet... just a G5 and an X800)

2. of you've read ANYTHING people in the industry has been saying about both consoles, you'll see that the 360 may be better or at least on par than the PS3. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/10/news_6127350.html)

3. you're sony fanboy... shitbox? xbox 1.5? do you know anything? in fanboyism, you lose what it is to be a gamer... which is the games! skewing something in favor of another console proves nothing except you suck at life.

4. xbox has no features to distinguish it? best graphics this console generation and xbox live aren't distinguishable?

and for the record, sega didn't fail because all it did was look pretty and try to innovate with periphorals bound to fail... the dreamcast failed because it didn't have a DVD drive, which drove PS2 sales through the roof because for a while it was the cheapest DVD player you could buy in the US or in Japan. the dreamcast was a great system and it's a shame it failed the way it did.

no I don't like pink guns. when I see a game being marketed to death as a bad-ass war on earth against deadly invading forces, then decide to give it a chance despite being extremely sceptic and rent it since my friend lended to me, an ignorant dweeb at the time, his Xbox against my PS2 (smart move champion), and find out that this is a repetitive, cut-paste little adventure composed of frequent but small skirmishes, a scenario that is miles from being even remotely called a story, AI that I don't even have to comment about, and to top it all off some neon PINK aliens and weapons, i'm gonna bitch about it in the forum of a glorious and near-perfect game all I want.

EDIT: WOW! you've just described what a FPS is like! also... what pink guns are you talking about?

 

[Stigmata]

no I don't like pink guns. when I see a game being marketed to death as a bad-ass war on earth against deadly invading forces, then decide to give it a chance despite being extremely sceptic and rent it since my friend lended to me, an ignorant dweeb at the time, his Xbox against my PS2 (smart move champion), and find out that this is a repetitive, cut-paste little adventure composed of frequent but small skirmishes, a scenario that is miles from being even remotely called a story, AI that I don't even have to comment about, and to top it all off some neon PINK aliens and weapons, i'm gonna bitch about it in the forum of a glorious and near-perfect game all I want.

and if THAT is the leading vessel in the xbox's fleet i'm going to call it a shitbox all I want.

I want to make it clear that i'm not siding with any console maker because i'm totally convinced pcs will soon enter a phase of revolution not seen since 3dfx that will go far beyond besting the next gen consoles hardware. if anything i'll maybe get a revolution because there are some GC titles i've been wanting to play and 220 free games in my book is good.

thanks everyone by the way for the useless flaming, I believe my arguments are at least credible.

Again, STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE ALIENS BEING PINK. Jesus Goddamn Christ, you're coming off as a religious-right "anything remotely gay is bad" spokesperson. Though it's good to see you've got some actual criticisms this time. And they're not unfounded either, which is a step up from most Halo-bashers.

Whatever the PS2's flagship title is, I've either got it, or I played it and didn't like it. I can only think of GTA, GT, and MGS. And lo and behold, one of them gets released on basically every system, the other is fairly mediocre when compared to the Xbox's competitor title, and the third is utterly trumped by Chaos Theory. I don't mean to bash the PS2 or Sony, but I'm just of the opinion that most PS2 software is either derivative, mediocre, or (eventually) cross-platform.

Also, looking at the skyrocketing costs of high-end computer hardware, I'm almost positive that the future of mainstream gaming will like in the consoles. Look at it this way: For over $2000, you can get a bleeding-edge PC, tricked out with every possible high-end addition, and for under $500 you can get a console that's easily five times more powerful than the PC. However, the more original and revolutionary games will be released on, or at least developed on, the PC and the Revolution (assuming it truly is revolutionary). SPORE is just one example, and we've likely only scratched the surface of possible gameplay revolutions with that.

 

[trizzm]

trizzm... WTF?

1. no one can say shit about either console yet because we haven't seen both actually running anything!! (PS3 was definately not real time... if it was i will eat my hat and the 360 wasn't running at the specs yet... just a G5 and an X800)

2. of you've read ANYTHING people in the industry has been saying about both consoles, you'll see that the 360 may be better or at least on par than the PS3. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/10/news_6127350.html)

3. you're sony fanboy... shitbox? xbox 1.5? do you know anything? in fanboyism, you lose what it is to be a gamer... which is the games! skewing something in favor of another console proves nothing except you suck at life.

4. xbox has no features to distinguish it? best graphics this console generation and xbox live aren't distinguishable?

and for the record, sega didn't fail because all it did was look pretty and try to innovate with periphorals bound to fail... the dreamcast failed because it didn't have a DVD drive, which drove PS2 sales through the roof because for a while it was the cheapest DVD player you could buy in the US or in Japan. the dreamcast was a great system and it's a shame it failed the way it did.




EDIT: WOW! you've just described what a FPS is like! also... what pink guns are you talking about?

1-I clearly stated that I was deducing this from logic after seeing microsoft releasing the xbox 1 year after PS2 because it was "not ready" (for what do you think, beat the ps2.)

2-the industry gave halo2 better overall rankings than hl2. they can suck my dick, whether you like hl2 or not halo2 is nowhere near and majestically overrated. the "industry" sold out long ago to the highest bidder.

3-i can call christians retarded sheep and that doesn't make me an islamist or whatever, does it. same damn thing here. also sorry but I miss out no games on Xbox. I have access to everything I need on PS2 and PC.

4-ok, they emulated a little internet for their games. but already having the internet, I see paying to play console games online as stupidity. leave it free like the ps2 and I can think of it as a cool feature, as it stands it's an extra. and as for better graphics, excuse me if I failed to notice when better graphics were what made a good game. as far as i'm concerned, need for speed: high stakes thoroughly beats Underground2.

I call not looking at what the population asks for when making your product's tech sheet, "standing there and looking pretty". the avenement of dvds was known way before the release of the DC.

and lastly, please play the half-lives, the Rare fps games, deus ex, and countless that i will stop enumerating because you know what I mean. a FPS is NOT like that. It was in the days of quake.

stigmata i'm strictly atheist. when i talk about pink guns i in no way refer to homosexuality. i refer to frailty, flowers and butterflies, girliness, peace, and loving. how the **** i am supposed to feel engaged and threatened by flashing yellow, green and pink monsters that make happy noises, that you must explain to me. HIGHLY unrepresentative of the image of the game if you ask me, and the main reason I bash this game. If they had put flying unicorns and rainbows on the cover, i sure as hell would have baught into the game more. oh and about those kind of zombies at the end that i guess must balance things out. they are by far the most annoying enemies I have ever faught in a game. I always tried running across the room up to where they can't get first to see if I could cross it alive without having to fight them. that so redefined fun.

Software is really opinion. Just because MGS was not very good does not make Splinter Cell any better. I have yet to see a more static, atmosphereless game. I didn't play Forza yet but seen people play and i'm pretty sure there's no "better than GT4" here, it's on par at best.

The PS2 has Jak and Daxter which many consider very close to on par with Mario 64. I also much prefer Jak 2 and 3 to the GTAs. The original SSX absolutely destroyed Amped. It's also on the PS2 that you can find good RPGs, certainly not xbox. there's also no denying that any PS2 games rack is three times the size of a xbox one, ensuring much wider diversity.

as for the controller. the reason why nintendo can differ from the PS controller, but microsoft can't, is?

 

[thehunter1320]

no platformer will ever be better than Mario 64... especially not that piece of shit jak and daxter. and MGS is one of the best damn games ever

and i'm sick of arguing with you... you're obviously just a 12 year old bitch looking for attention... it's not worth it

 

[DarkStar]

trizzm.....irrational hatred of a specific console just because you happen to own a competitor's console is not only incredibly dorky, it just makes no sense.

Fanboyism is so passe.

 

[Styloid]

I don't get it... what is wrong with the xbox360 in particular? The pros and cons of all the consoles so far *seem* to weigh equally between all of them.

 

[kupocake]

PS3 - Hardware is yet to be proven. Good chance that its superiority is a load of overblown lies.

X360 - Hardware proven, hasn't exactly blown everyone away but that's mostly because we've all known about Unreal Engine 3 for ages (and for that matter, there is no reported benefit from UE3 running on PS3).

Revolution - Clearly aiming at a totally different market to the two consoles. On the face of it, Revolution is the most likely to "pull a dreamcast" because it is reportadly underpowered (despite releasing after the other two). However, Nintendo's market strategy my actually pull off: they may tap an entirely new market and create their own kind of parallel success. The potential problem is image; PS3 and X360 are going to be seen as "the hardcore consoles for the big boys". Revolution is going to be seen as "the kiddy console for the very casual gamer".

I personally don't think we'll see anyone duck out because of this generation, though in the long term... Nintendo have always looked the most precarious "if anyone has to go". Sony are M$ have industries behind them so large that they could piss money into the pacific ocean for 80 years and still stay afloat. Nintendo have? Handhelds. PSP seems already to be the most successful competitor that Nintendo have ever had. That could be a problem for Ninty.

 

[trizzm]

just let this go. I can't be understood it seems, I have no hatred for any console I just wondered what drives the popularity of the xbox. mass marketing seemed to me to be the sole reason.
thehunter: what? Jak is a brillant game and was praised, but where do you get the idea out that it should "beat mario 64"? I know for sure as far as recent platformers go Jak is one of the best, certainly not a POS. MGS1 was great... and from then on it looks like Snoop Dog's career. you're the 12 year old reading my post diagonally. then there is that what I said at the end was not directed to you. anyways.

 

[Absinthe]

Have no hatred against any console? I find that hard to believe after your flagrant Xbox bashing and vote of no confidence in the Xbox 360.

 

[G-Dub]

This guy appears to be the biggest fanboy dick wad on the planet...

How the hell can he say he has no hatred against any console, LMFAO, get real KID! As already stated, it's the games that are important and who cares which company brings out the better piece of kit? Just buy the better one!

Oh, sorry I forgot, you can't, you hate the shitbox

 

[Cole]

Look, the consoles power will be similar. The PS3 has showed though that it can handle tremendous amounts of calculations with the water physics demo. Also the UE3 demo was quite nice for the PS3.

Though trust me folks, both consoles will have similar graphics, the diffrence between them wont be massive or anywhere near the word "big".
Though Sony and Microsoft both suck and made it harder for developers to make better AI....should burn in hell...

 

[OCybrManO]

all I put forward is that I believe they currently have the best console and do not see anything in xbox or anyone else for that matter to make me change my mind

The reason people still develop for the PS2 is that Sony has a HUGE market share carried over from the popularity of the original Playstation... which was only increased when they beat both Nintendo and Microsoft to the punch with the PS2. It has nothing to do with it being the "best" console. Both the Xbox and the GC are more powerful than the PS2. It's definately not ease of use. The PS2 was notoriously hard to write efficient code for, due to having to deal with the emotion engine and the specialized vector chips. PS2 games are made because it gets the developer maximum profit by appealing to the largest installed user base. It's that simple. You want extra features? The Xbox comes with a built-in 8GB drive on which you can store game saves from every Xbox title without making a dent. The Xbox Live service (about $4 a month) created a standard that helped push developers toward going online. It also allowed a first for game consoles: software upgrades and downloadable content. The Xbox supports four controllers without having to buy a multi-tap. With the last generation Microsoft did an "Anything you can do, I can do better."

the reason for all this is that I can't help being reminded of the dreamcast when looking at the xbox1.5. all the dreamcast ever did is be there and look pretty. try to innovate a bit with peripherals that are doomed to failure. it's seemingly just there to be a competitor and steal market shares really. I really don't see what the xbox ever contributed to console gaming.

and for the record, sega didn't fail because all it did was look pretty and try to innovate with periphorals bound to fail... the dreamcast failed because it didn't have a DVD drive, which drove PS2 sales through the roof because for a while it was the cheapest DVD player you could buy in the US or in Japan. the dreamcast was a great system and it's a shame it failed the way it did.

The Dreamcast failed because SEGA couldn't fork out the cash to keep it going. They had been fighting a losing battle for the past decade and didn't have the cash to see it through. The hardware was costing too much to produce (and sell at a decent price) and the software wasn't making up the lost funds. It was out before the PS2 and still was nearly equal in graphical power (its texture quality couldn't be matched by the smaller amount of texture memory on the PS2), it had 4 controller ports, the VMU, an online service right from the start, and an impressive lineup of launch titles. SEGA was just at the end of their console-producing days and couldn't afford to do it anymore. Coming off of the failure of the Saturn and a significant loss of market share in the last round didn't help their cause, either.

1-I clearly stated that I was deducing this from logic after seeing microsoft releasing the xbox 1 year after PS2 because it was "not ready" (for what do you think, beat the ps2.)

That has absoluetly nothing to do with what he said. There is no "logic" that says "If someone did this last time, they'll do it again." In fact, they are doing quite the opposite this time. They're using Sony's own strategy against them. They're trying to accomplish what Sony did last time by beating them to the punch with the PS2. So, you mentioning what Microsoft did with the Xbox (which was really just them trying to get their foot in the door) has no bearing on their actions in regards to the Xbox 360. It doesn't prove anything. He was right. We can't compare the X360 and the PS3, yet. Only the fanboys "know" who will win at this point.

4-ok, they emulated a little internet for their games. but already having the internet, I see paying to play console games online as stupidity. leave it free like the ps2 and I can think of it as a cool feature, as it stands it's an extra. and as for better graphics, excuse me if I failed to notice when better graphics were what made a good game. as far as i'm concerned, need for speed: high stakes thoroughly beats Underground2.

Sure, graphics don't make better games... but the same developer working on a more powerful system will (that is, unless the less powerful one can do something the big boys can't... as is supposed about the Revolution). What has Sony done with the PS3 that makes it have more than just prettier games (since you automatically assume it is the more powerful console)? Sony's consoles don't bring new features to the table. Sony copies as many ideas as Microsoft. If Nintendo didn't make the N64 controller you might still be using the original Playstation controller. Amazingly, Sony happened to magically come up with the idea for a controller with two analog sticks a short while after their competitor introduced them. Rather than integrating them into a completely new design Sony just slapped them on the bottom. Did they fix it in the next generation and properly integrate it into the new controller? No, they still left the d-pad in the primary position as if they thought it was a fad that was going to pass. Also, the shoulder pads make the controller more awkward than the analog triggers on the Xbox. All of the changes between the Dual Shock and Xbox Controller S are changes I agree with. It lets your hands stay in a more natural position. I can't play the PS2 for extended periods without my hands hurting.

Revolution - Clearly aiming at a totally different market to the two consoles. On the face of it, Revolution is the most likely to "pull a dreamcast" because it is reportadly underpowered (despite releasing after the other two). However, Nintendo's market strategy my actually pull off: they may tap an entirely new market and create their own kind of parallel success. The potential problem is image; PS3 and X360 are going to be seen as "the hardcore consoles for the big boys". Revolution is going to be seen as "the kiddy console for the very casual gamer".

I personally don't think we'll see anyone duck out because of this generation, though in the long term... Nintendo have always looked the most precarious "if anyone has to go". Sony are M$ have industries behind them so large that they could piss money into the pacific ocean for 80 years and still stay afloat. Nintendo have? Handhelds. PSP seems already to be the most successful competitor that Nintendo have ever had. That could be a problem for Ninty.

Nintendo has the most profit of the three systems even though it holds the smallest share of the console market. How is that a precarious position? I think I read that Nintendo as a whole has an average net profit of something like 20%. That's incredible. Little Nintendo makes about as much money as all of Sony combined. The Revolution would have to sell horribly for it to put them in a SEGA situation where they go purely software. As it stands they are a well-oiled, money-making machine.

 

[DeusExMachina]

no platformer will ever be better than Mario 64... especially not that piece of shit jak and daxter. and MGS is one of the best damn games ever

and i'm sick of arguing with you... you're obviously just a 12 year old bitch looking for attention... it's not worth it

Jak and Daxter is way better than Mario 64. Please, don't even try and give me some "classic" crap. Sure, its a classic. Fun time. But compared to Jak and Daxter series, Ratchet and Clank, Psychonauts....no. Not even close to the same amount of fun I have with those games than Mario. Mario was the precursor for platformers. Platformers have gotten better.


Now, you Mr. Trizzm....you are a tool. You have no idea what the hell your talking about. Your opinions are backed up with no proof of anything. Your simply a Sony fanboy and make people with PS2s look bad. Thanks a lot.

 

[bliink]

Trizzm, CALM THE HELL DOWN!

My god.. I've heard of anti X-box fanboys but you take the cake my friend!

If you can't make a logical argument that doesnt resort to silly name calling and stereotyping etc, then I'll close the thread.

 

[<RJMC>]

Trizzm, CALM THE HELL DOWN!

My god.. I've heard of anti X-box fanboys but you take the cake my friend!

If you can't make a logical argument that doesnt resort to silly name calling and stereotyping etc, then I'll close the thread.

you better listen to her she is dangerous

 

[SidewinderX]

Ok, I'm closing this because threads like this (console bashing, in any direction) really piss me off. (and it's turning into an abusive, flame ridden thread)

There is no decent way to debate the merits of different consoles. You can't even debate specs at this point, as they're all new, pretty much untested technologies. Yes, the cell processor is theoretically more powerful than anything else out there.... but no one know how to use it properly. Yes, a jackhammer is better for breaking up rocks than a small hammer is, but if you give a caveman a jackhammer, he's not going to know what the hell to do with it. Same with the cell processor. (and multicore in general...)

Anyway, this threads only purpose seems to be to slam xbox 360.
trizzm: You seem blinded by your ignorance and fanboyism. People like you are what make me hate internet forums. If you post another thread merely to flame a console or start and argument, you'll be banned. Additionally, our forum is populated by members of many ages, and if you continue to fill your posts with swear words, you'll be banned for that.

If anyone has any comments/questions, my pm box has free space.

(and geez, I thought I wouldn't see ignorance like this since I stopped regularly reading the politics board....)