Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I own a ps2 and I always thought that people purchase systems for

the games they are familiar with. Features and functionality is all

cool, but ps2 proved you didn't need the nicest "specs" to be

ridiculously successful. It was the success of the PS that made the

Ps2 right? My theory is this, lets say the other two systems this

generation had all the games in the ps2 library. Wouldn't the

playground be around equal? Or do controllers, online play,

backwards compatibility, and memory make a significant

difference?

Seeing all the hype going into the systems (PS3/Xbox360) makes

me ask the question; aren't said systems capable of generating the

same type of power? If so why does that seem to be the main

focus? Talk about something else. I'm not here to bash, it's just my

belief that in a nutshell (regardless of the long post) Sony got

lucky. Technology is not the difficult task people seem to think it is.

It's innovation.

Mainstream titles always do well, but to the more knowledgeable

members, what happens when/if all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's,

Resident Evils and so forth are put to rest? Am I wrong for thinking

all Sony has is its sequels? Or is it the developers, who-know-

where-to-go-for-some-dough?

what makes PS3 so serious? sony was the leading competitor in the last 2 gaming console generations...with a WIDE variety of titles

Originally posted by SlimYout
I own a ps2 and I always thought that people purchase systems for

the games they are familiar with. Features and functionality is all

cool, but ps2 proved you didn't need the nicest "specs" to be

ridiculously successful. It was the success of the PS that made the

Ps2 right? My theory is this, lets say the other two systems this

generation had all the games in the ps2 library. Wouldn't the

playground be around equal? Or do controllers, online play,

backwards compatibility, and memory make a significant

difference?

Seeing all the hype going into the systems (PS3/Xbox360) makes

me ask the question; aren't said systems capable of generating the

same type of power? If so why does that seem to be the main

focus? Talk about something else. I'm not here to bash, it's just my

belief that in a nutshell (regardless of the long post) Sony got

lucky. Technology is not the difficult task people seem to think it is.

It's innovation.

Mainstream titles always do well, but to the more knowledgeable

members, what happens when/if all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's,

Resident Evils and so forth are put to rest? Am I wrong for thinking

all Sony has is its sequels? Or is it the developers, who-know-

where-to-go-for-some-dough?
I see that Sony and Microsoft are focusing only on graphics now and that's great and all but I'm glade that Nintendo has the balls to try something new.

But that the point. Isn't that all they deliver? Noboody wants everything to be the same because it would boring/similiar etc. Hence why Nintendo sticks to its well-known titles instead of a wider variety. Xbox is american made so they don't get too much support from Japan. All I'm saying is if you replace Sony with the other competitors, wouldn't the outcome be the same?

Originally posted by Jaro
I see that Sony and Microsoft are focusing only on graphics now and that's great and all but I'm glade that Nintendo has the balls to try something new.

you know, a lot of people can argue with that..."balls (confidence) or stupidity?"

i think sony and microsoft are just focusing on enhancing the present gen consoles...better graphics, more power=more gameplay (environments/can handle a lot of stuff) like a city in Spiderman 3 that doesnt hafto be streamed in....might be possible

Originally posted by Silverstein
you know, a lot of people can argue with that..."balls (confidence) or stupidity?"

Personally I don't frown on people not being afraid to try new things.

Coldplay are afraid, look at them. Very popular, selling well....shit music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Personally I don't frown on people not being afraid to try new things.

Coldplay are afraid, look at them. Very popular, selling well....shit music.

-AC

ya i hate coldplay

I think the question being asked here is- why is Sony the most successful despite its lesser hardware?

For me, it all comes down to marketing, as with anything which dominates its field without a concrete reason for that state of affairs.

It shouldn't phase people that the graphics are so realistic. It should all be expected. Every single last detail that could not be achieved on current hardware should be done with ease. Yeah the controller is innovative but it might no be that user friendly. Also, isn't the main selling point of a game always its graphics over its game-play?

Everyone makes strong points. Getting to Doom's response your saying that there is no concrete reason for it. Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore, the games, considerably the best controller, the success of its predecessor, and I could be wrong, but people who consider the ps2 to be unmatched and have no flaws.

Playstation has yet to change its controller design.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Everyone makes strong points. Getting to Doom's response your saying that there is no concrete reason for it. Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore, the games, considerably the best controller, the success of its predecessor, and I could be wrong, but people who consider the ps2 to be unmatched and have no flaws.

very well said. although i consider xbox to be a big competitor against sony for the current gen, and the next...i also think a lot of people target sony vs microsoft.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore

If anything this backs up what I was saying. Controller and games being the best is subjective. Least reliable hardware isn't.

It's always marketing, as with anything that is the most popular in an oligopolistic market.

Damn right Silverstein. People always ***** an moan and say Nintendo is for Goo Goo Gah Gahs, Waaaaaahhhhh (SMACK). If you don't like it don't buy it. It pretty much seems be all about Sony vs Microsoft. Understandably, we are more mature gamers. But do people even play games to have fun. Or is it, "THE PINKY FACTOR?" You know pinky from cartoon show who was impressed by everything. But yeah Sony truly acknowledges Microsoft much more. That being said what do you guys/gals thinks is going to be the main selling point in the upcoming gen?

New words are nice Victor. Your up to times. Oligopolistic, can you give a brief definition?

Originally posted by SlimYout
New words are nice Victor. Your up to times. Oligopolistic, can you give a brief definition?

A market consisting of a few big forces, where the actions of any of them will affect the others.

Thanks. Good to learn a new big word. One which I can impress people with.

Originally posted by Jaro
I see that Sony and Microsoft are focusing only on graphics now and that's great and all but I'm glade that Nintendo has the balls to try something new. When was sony a graphic whore, it won the last 2 races (I know many don't care), with the lowest specs.

I say the massive library, games that appeal to all ages, options, and controls appeals to sony fans.

C-Master love the heads exploding. Anyway when you say options, you mean backwards compatibility, dvd, etc? And out of the things you listed, which two contributed most to Sony's winning of the race

Hm. I hate arguing from ignorance, so I'll just stick to what i know about the last gen systems.

Nintendo didn't come out swinging, but I think it's easily a great system. I loved the NES, and SNES was easily the best system and selection of games. N64 had some good titles, but was primitive. GameCube I think is a very capable system (I mean, it sports an ATI Radeon chipset and plays games like the RE series which rival games on Xbox) The controller seemed awkward at first, but I don't mind it... much.

PSII is the cheapest system out. Breaks easier than a glass toothpick, and that controller is "comfortable" for some, but the analog blows worse than the GC controller and the buttons seem to have gotten worse from the PS. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But the PS II controllers are archaic and continuing them would be moronic. And secondly, PS II has a lot of games, but face it- a lot of them aren't worth using as coasters. And any game on the PS would look and play ten times better on either GC or XBox.

Now, the MIcrosoft monster... I like the Xbox, but then again in the beginning I was the only one I knew who did. It's still a solid system with the best specs on the market for consoles, and a built in hard drive that's nigh-impossible to fill up.

If PS III is gonna be stale and just like an upgraded PS II, the company is gonna eat itself alive. Third party support or no, you need a flexible system that stands up to routine abuse, since all these baby boomers are buying their kids expensive video game consoles, and the older crowd drinks and smokes all the damn time. Backwards compatibility works, if you're cramped for space or have a tendency to break your old systems or sell them for drugs. But seriously, Sony needs to grow some balls itself and make a game besides Crash Bandicoot. Nintendo is infamous for classic games, and Microsoft is no slouch either. And considering that Microsoft bought both Bungie and Rare (Assuming Rare actually makes another game. They sure do like to sit on their hands) plus the success of Halo II, they are a big hitter with a large bank account behind them. And Nintendo has buried bigger competitors than Sony.

I personally wouldn't invest in a PS III, end of rant.

"Sell them for drugs"
Anyways, even if you don't like Nintendo you should give them some respect. What's pissing me off is the fact that these game developers/companies rely too heavily on sequels. I will do ten back-flips, elbow drop the ground, an......and just die when games like Shadow of the Colossus become mainstream. The Cube is tough. My friend glued RE0 back together and it works fine till this day. I should have went with my gut and got a Gamecube. Two final questions, by estimation how much content can be fit onto each individual systems disc? (Audio/Video) And getting back to my past post what do you believe will be the main selling of these consoles?

The current generation's discs? I can kinda sorta answer that.

The GameCube discs have a lower capacity than the others, but still significant to cram most games into no more than two discs.

PS games are usually between one and four discs.

Xbox games are almost always one disc.

Let me be clear. I was referring to the upcoming generations disc. But, its better I know what the current CD format capacity. PS or PS2 can hold between and four disc? A little confused? Also, does anyone know how to check for unused space on a game disc?

Originally posted by SlimYout
C-Master love the heads exploding. Anyway when you say options, you mean backwards compatibility, dvd, etc? And out of the things you listed, which two contributed most to Sony's winning of the race Library of games (games make the system of course), and the controllers.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Hm. I hate arguing from ignorance, so I'll just stick to what i know about the last gen systems. No problem, lets do that then.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Nintendo didn't come out swinging, but I think it's easily a great system.

Its a good system, but the current ones have been less impressive, and the N64 was less impressive than the playstation.

Anyways, the SNES was better, but in this day and age, the ideas may be getting less and less appealing, for the growing ages.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
I loved the NES, and SNES was easily the best system and selection of games. N64 had some good titles, but was primitive.

SNES WAS the best nintendo system, I agree 100%.

Thats when there were only 2 major consoles, and the nintendo didn't whore first party titles all the time, there were alot of interesting games to play.

Genesis was still a notch better IMO.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
GameCube I think is a very capable system (I mean, it sports an ATI Radeon chipset and plays games like the RE series which rival games on Xbox)

Capable?

Reiterate capable, because capable is too loose a term, alot of things are capable.

Saddam is Capable of being free, but nevermind.

The Gamecube didn't have to many breathtaking, revolutionary titles at all, metriod prime, and the resident evil, where the games people were bragging about.

Other games just appealed to long time fans, make a shitty zelda, and the people will still buy it.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
The controller seemed awkward at first, but I don't mind it... much.

Controller is good for the first party titles you play, not much else.

It was poor for fighting games, and decent for shooters, the buttons were all over the place, the size of them was different.

I don't care about the "cooL" arcade look of my controller, I need a balanced one that functions.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
PSII is the cheapest system out. Breaks easier than a glass toothpick, and that controller is "comfortable" for some

Playstation did have their hardware problems, and I was the blessed to have one that didn't.

Remember that it was the oldest system, and was out before the others though.

Controller is the best, not too big, not too small, and no stupid "gimmicky" buttons, you had buttons that were symmetric and the same size.

Parallel.

Easy to relate to the position, and play accordingly within a short time.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
, but the analog blows worse than the GC controller and the buttons seem to have gotten worse from the PS.

GC had a decent analog, sony was the analog system, the ps2 controller had nice quality to it, like the logitech.

The GC controller felt somewhat cheap.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But the PS II controllers are archaic and continuing them would be moronic.

Archaic, moronic?

A controller isn't a gimmick, its a controller, its not about looks, its about efficiency.

Fighting games and others worked best on it hands down.

Let me see, why did capcom vs snk 2 have to install extra controller options for the GC and Xbox, oh wait, dont tell me.

You could never play hardcore streetfighter alpha three, and do the advanced motions with ease, the dpad is miniscule, and moves too much, it feels cheap.

Playstation controller works fine, I hope it doesn't go for gimmick, but it really doesn't need to.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
And secondly, PS II has a lot of games, but face it- a lot of them aren't worth using as coasters.

I could counter this with the "kiddy" games logic, but I'm not.

What games?

Max Paine, GTA, Beyond good and evil, ?

Playstation had games for all ages and people, and the taste varied, because nintendo had very little third party support, just many games that appealed to long time fans of the system.

Though Tales of Symphonia was nice.

Xbox just had halo.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
And any game on the PS would look and play ten times better on either GC or XBox.

I guess, I'll just leave what you said here.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Now, the MIcrosoft monster... I like the Xbox, but then again in the beginning I was the only one I knew who did.

I knew it was quite overrated myself.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
It's still a solid system with the best specs on the market for consoles, and a built in hard drive that's nigh-impossible to fill up.

All xbox is was specs, it was little else.

Gamers aren't graphic whores yet, hence, playstation having the worst specs and still winning.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
If PS III is gonna be stale and just like an upgraded PS II, the company is gonna eat itself alive.

I thought you didn't like arguing from ignorance, the other systems will rely on celebrities and fanboys to sell and advertise at E3 like they had in the past.

Playstation just used developers.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Third party support or no, you need a flexible system that stands up to routine abuse, since all these baby boomers are buying their kids expensive video game consoles, and the older crowd drinks and smokes all the damn time.

I agree with that however.

Many older people liked the playstation, and found it well with their liking.

Gamecube had the best durability, and the games are aimed at kids, so that would lead me to conclude.

And while we are on the subject, gamecube didn't have online play, period.

Come now, get with the program.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Backwards compatibility works, if you're cramped for space or have a tendency to break your old systems or sell them for drugs.

No, backwards compatibility works because you can buy a new system and play more than one FIRST PARTY game, and keep your controllers, and memory etc.

I don't know the extent of the backwards compatibility, but I find it funny that when it goes to nintendo, the people see it as a blessing and original.

While playstations backwards support is shunned.

Surprised? No.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
But seriously, Sony needs to grow some balls itself and make a game besides Crash Bandicoot. Nintendo is infamous for classic games, and Microsoft is no slouch either.

Its the opposite way around actually, nintendo needs to grow balls and make more mature games.

Lets see, gran turismo, tomb raider is now mediocre, twisted metal is excellent, and the list goes on.

Games that break and innovate realism, nintendo is still stuck with pokemon apple, and mario party 18.

Also final fantasy, and let me get to my next point, the GBA was nintendo's moneymaker anyways.

Crash was cool.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
And considering that Microsoft bought both Bungie and Rare (Assuming Rare actually makes another game.

Rare had killer instinct, bungie has halo.



Originally posted by Deus Ex
They sure do like to sit on their hands) plus the success of Halo II, they are a big hitter with a large bank account behind them.

Halo was the same old thing, like many games, but the popularity overrated it, so when games came out in Halo/halflife season, they were underrated and underlooked.

We don't want to go into sales do we?
Originally posted by Deus Ex
And Nintendo has buried bigger competitors than Sony.

Like what, sega?

No sony buried sega, and nintendo may be on that road.

Funny thing is sega was what I grew up playing, and is still my favorite.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
I personally wouldn't invest in a PS III, end of rant.

No problem, but just be a little objective in your arguments...

A couple of questions:

Originally posted by Tha C-Master

The Gamecube didn't have to many breathtaking, revolutionary titles at all, metriod prime, and the resident evil, where the games people were bragging about.

Other games just appealed to long time fans, make a shitty zelda, and the people will still buy it.


I wonder if you're by implication saying the PS2 DID have many breathtaking, revolutionary titles- what would you say those were?

I don't think there are any 'shitty' Zeldas as well, so we can't really speculate on that.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master



Let me see, why did capcom vs snk 2 have to install extra controller options for the GC and Xbox, oh wait, dont tell me.

You could never play hardcore streetfighter alpha three, and do the advanced motions with ease, the dpad is miniscule, and moves too much, it feels cheap.



This just means the PS controller is best for those type of games though. Personally I think the SF style controls are outdated.

If you play any games which require precise analog movement, like Tiger Woods, or Max Payne blood lines bit, the character movements are about as predictable as an epileptic in a strobe light shop.

Actually that leads onto a whole other double analog debate, nevermind.

Anyway- what do you feel were the 'breathtaking, revolutionary' PS2 games?

(Apparently I only had one actual question)

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
A couple of questions:



I wonder if you're by implication saying the PS2 DID have many breathtaking, revolutionary titles- what would you say those were?

I don't think there are any 'shitty' Zeldas as well, so we can't really speculate on that.

Sure, let me clear that up.

It was more or less a satire against a comment about games, there were no bad zelda games to date, and I hope there won't be one, but I was implying more or less the fanboys who will buy one regardless.

As for breathtaking, you are asking the wrong person, I have an offbeat taste, you may want to ask draco.

Street fighter controllers were fine, I still appreciate them. You have depth and strength of attacks that add strategy into the game, unlike the button mashers you'll see today (mortal kombat I'm looking at you here).

The button setup was spry and fluid, allowing a combination of moves to be used, it wasn't for the rookies, but is preferred by the experts.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Sure, let me clear that up.

It was more or less a satire against a comment about games, there were no bad zelda games to date, and I hope there won't be one, but I was implying more or less the fanboys who will buy one regardless.


I guess we'll never know til they **** one up.


Originally posted by Tha C-Master


Street fighter controllers were fine, I still appreciate them. You have depth and strength of attacks that add strategy into the game, unlike the button mashers you'll see today (mortal kombat I'm looking at you here).

The button setup was spry and fluid, allowing a combination of moves to be used, it wasn't for the rookies, but is preferred by the experts.

I always preferred Tekken. (Which is one of the two games I prefer the PS2 controller for, the other being PES)

Tekken fan, who do you play as?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Tekken fan, who do you play as?

I don't really have a specific guy. I use a few. King, Heihachi, Paul, mostly I suppose.

You?

*ignore this*

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I don't really have a specific guy. I use a few. King, Heihachi, Paul, mostly I suppose.

You? I used the same guys myself.

I had always been more of a street fighter fan, or crossover fan.

What shooters do you play then?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I used the same guys myself.

I had always been more of a street fighter fan, or crossover fan.

What shooters do you play then?

I'm still devoted to the N64 Rare ones- haven't been beaten for me.

Halo was overrated to Hell. I didn't mind Half Life but I'm waiting for PD0 I suppose.

Metroid if you can call it one. Timesplitters I quite liked.

I agree with you so much its not funny.

Halo is solid, but alot of polish, whilst Half Life is innovative, but a tad easy.

I am a big timesplitters fan, but I like redfaction, killzone, and of course duke nukem, I can't hate the duke.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I agree with you so much its not funny.

Halo is solid, but alot of polish, whilst Half Life is innovative, but a tad easy.

I am a big timesplitters fan, but I like redfaction, killzone, and of course duke nukem, I can't hate the duke.

Wasn't keen on Red Faction- yet to play Duke Nukem actually.

Really!?!?

Its a bit old now, you may find it hard to get into, but 3d was a blast.

Why no love for red faction?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Really!?!?

Its a bit old now, you may find it hard to get into, but 3d was a blast.

Why no love for red faction?

I've seen it played and stuff, just never had a go.

Red Faction (1) I bought, I found it a bit formulaic.

I hold everything up against Perfect Dark though.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I've seen it played and stuff, just never had a go.

Red Faction (1) I bought, I found it a bit formulaic.

I hold everything up against Perfect Dark though. I have never played perfect dark, but it was perhaps the best game on N64 no?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I have never played perfect dark, but it was perhaps the best game on N64 no?

Probably. Maybe Zelda.

You're missing out man.

Someone took the time to dissect a post I really didn't even think twice about while typing.


No problem, lets do that then.

Indeed, let's.


Its a good system, but the current ones have been less impressive, and the N64 was less impressive than the playstation.

True. However N64 had its own set of advantages over the PS, such as a better analog stick, no load times, lots of party games, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, etc. Not much, but enough to consider buying an N64 certainly.


Anyways, the SNES was better, but in this day and age, the ideas may be getting less and less appealing, for the growing ages.

SNES was a time of innovation. Nowadays it's all about pushing up dates and making money without substance. It's that simple. You will never see another system with the overall quality of the SNES and its games.



SNES WAS the best nintendo system, I agree 100%.

Most people do.


Thats when there were only 2 major consoles, and the nintendo didn't whore first party titles all the time, there were alot of interesting games to play.

Genesis was still a notch better IMO.

Nintendo had the monopoly on third party games because they have been out since 1983 and by 1988 where the biggest name in console gaming, outstripping Atari, Sega Master System, and even some arcades all at the same time. Naturally, they had all the third party support in the world. When Nintendo put restrictions on how many games per year a company could make, many made ghost companies like Konami's Ultra, which made more games in their stead. If Nintendo hadn't nabbed all the third party support and featured it all under one banner and title, you wouldn't have as big a fanbase nor as big a business in console games. Nintendo's stranglehold seems almost tyrannical in retrospect, but tipped off a home entertainment revolution.

And I still like Genesis, but its sound was inferior to the SNES and it had maybe twenty worthwhile games in well over five or six years of making titles.


Capable?

Reiterate capable, because capable is too loose a term, alot of things are capable.

Saddam is Capable of being free, but nevermind.

You sure picked the silliest thing to get hung up over. I didn't think half a second when I typed capable. I suggest you don't think too long over it either. It's not gonna make or break my post, which was mostly opinion anyways. Kinda just like yours.


The Gamecube didn't have to many breathtaking, revolutionary titles at all, metriod prime, and the resident evil, where the games people were bragging about.

Define breathtaking? Revolutionary? I don't know where you went off on this for, but you just nitpicked me for using capable and then you toss around breathtaking and revolutionary like it's common knowledge and not subject to interpretation.

To answer your question, I wasn't even arguing that GC did make such titles, although to be fair the Resident Evil series is incredible in all aspects and is one of the reasons Nintendo is surviving.


Other games just appealed to long time fans, make a shitty zelda, and the people will still buy it.

That applies to Playstation, too. In a poll done by a gaming magazine, more than a third of the people who wanted a PS II when it came out chose it over other systems because they felt no one else had the third party support. This includes trickle down titles made buy companies that used to ally with Nintendo and Sega, like Konami, Capcom, etc. This resulted in a series of games that appeal to longterm fans of both the genres and the companies themselves. And even when they are shitty, people still buy them.


Controller is good for the first party titles you play, not much else.

It was poor for fighting games, and decent for shooters, the buttons were all over the place, the size of them was different.

I don't care about the "cooL" arcade look of my controller, I need a balanced one that functions.

And fighting games are a mere fraction of the different styles of gameplay available. Why keep a controller to appease fighting game fans when it's totally unwieldy for anything else? And who is talking about a cool arcade look of a controller? Not me.


Playstation did have their hardware problems, and I was the blessed to have one that didn't.

Blessed would be an understatement. You have a better chance of getting hit by a train after following out of a window in a barn in Iceland than you do finding a well-made Playstation.


Remember that it was the oldest system, and was out before the others though.

True, and I was going to bring this up but it's still not an excuse. Sega Dreamcast was a heavier hitter in graphics and whatnot and it was well ebfore PS II's time.


Controller is the best, not too big, not too small, and no stupid "gimmicky" buttons, you had buttons that were symmetric and the same size.

Parallel.

Easy to relate to the position, and play accordingly within a short time.

This is your opinion, of course. But some people (especially children) have small hands. I grew up with a Nintendo controller. Back then, my thumbs couldn't reach to touch one another in the center. Now, I can palm the entire controller. If anything, the PS controller strikes me as being horribly inadequate. I can use a Gamecube controller easily after only having the system for a week (Just bought one actually) and I used the Duke (Large ass protocontroller) for the Xbox for years, and I still prefer it over the S-model which I think is for PS fanboys and whiners who haven't reached past puberty.

But when it comes to making a standard controller for a system, it's a gamble. PSII controllers aren't in my opinion the way of future gaming, and they should be left behind in the dust.



GC had a decent analog, sony was the analog system, the ps2 controller had nice quality to it, like the logitech.

The GC controller felt somewhat cheap.

Yes, it did feel cheap. I agree. And the GC analog is touchy. The PS II one is worse, and I wouldn't use Logitech as a good example since I have several logictech controllers for PC and their analog is touchy and frustrating to work with. The best analogs I have seen in gaming history would be the N64 controller and the Duke for Xbox. They gave adequate resistance so you don't feel like you're trying to pin the tail on the jetplane with every motion.


Archaic, moronic?

A controller isn't a gimmick, its a controller, its not about looks, its about efficiency.

Fighting games and others worked best on it hands down.

Let me see, why did capcom vs snk 2 have to install extra controller options for the GC and Xbox, oh wait, dont tell me.

You could never play hardcore streetfighter alpha three, and do the advanced motions with ease, the dpad is miniscule, and moves too much, it feels cheap.

Playstation controller works fine, I hope it doesn't go for gimmick, but it really doesn't need to.

Why are you so hung up on gimmicks? Then you talk efficiency. The PS II controller is ONLY efficient for simple RPGs which involve next to no action and fighting games because of the importance of reliable cross pads and buttons. It's terrible to use with the analogs, and there simply aren't enough buttons in the long run to do anything but the most rudimentary of actions with. Tack that on to a system that is cheaply made (Not "before other systems", cheap. It breaks easily) which pumps out more titles of blah-quality than Tom Clancy does special ops novels, and mind you this system is for all intents and purposes inferior to the other two competitors, and you have a piece of crap. Why you would want to keep it on life support is beyond me.


I could counter this with the "kiddy" games logic, but I'm not.

What games?

Max Paine, GTA, Beyond good and evil, ?

Playstation had games for all ages and people, and the taste varied, because nintendo had very little third party support, just many games that appealed to long time fans of the system.

Though Tales of Symphonia was nice.

Xbox just had halo.

Wow, talk about biased.

Playstation does have games for all ages and all people. So do GC and Xbox, and hell, even Atari. But quantity should not overcome quality. And Max Paine, GTA, and Beyond Good and Evil exist on other platforms and perform much better there.

And if you think that Halo is all xbox has, you obviously only have a Playstation II. Actually, from what I've gathered from your entire post, you must not have a GC or an Xbox at all. I'd be surprised if you played more than a game or two for each, even.


All xbox is was specs, it was little else.

Gamers aren't graphic whores yet, hence, playstation having the worst specs and still winning.

All specs, eh? Uh huh. Spoken like a true Sonyitarian.


I thought you didn't like arguing from ignorance, the other systems will rely on celebrities and fanboys to sell and advertise at E3 like they had in the past.

Playstation just used developers.

You are the one talking ignorance here, son. Playstation used half naked Japanese dancers at the last E3. But then, did you even see it? I don't think so. Don't try to say that other systems rely on such methods when they all do. I know you're biased, by try to hide it a bit, okay?

Many older people liked the playstation, and found it well with their liking.

Gamecube had the best durability, and the games are aimed at kids, so that would lead me to conclude.

And while we are on the subject, gamecube didn't have online play, period.

Come now, get with the program.

First part, yes, older people liked the Playstation. It has more M-rated games than the other two consoles combined. Come now... get with the program. Please.... don't be a smartass. I was posting my opinion on the topic. If I wanted your poor accessment, I would have PMed this to you and given you a week's deadline.


No, backwards compatibility works because you can buy a new system and play more than one FIRST PARTY game, and keep your controllers, and memory etc.

I don't know the extent of the backwards compatibility, but I find it funny that when it goes to nintendo, the people see it as a blessing and original.

While playstations backwards support is shunned.

Surprised? No.

Funny, the grass is green on this side of the fence too, Bob.


Its the opposite way around actually, nintendo needs to grow balls and make more mature games.

Have you played the latest mature game for GC? If you have, then maybe you can spout off your opinion. If you haven't, you should consider putting your money where your mouth is and playing RE 1, 0, and 4. They're not only gory and mature, but they're well made and excellent games with some of the best console graphics and sound yet. And they're on discs smaller than the PS discs.


Lets see, gran turismo, tomb raider is now mediocre, twisted metal is excellent, and the list goes on.

Funny how you listed games that were A) big sellers in 1999, and B) not what I was talking about. Very well done. Nice redirection.


Games that break and innovate realism, nintendo is still stuck with pokemon apple, and mario party 18.

Also final fantasy, and let me get to my next point, the GBA was nintendo's moneymaker anyways.

Crash was cool.


Sony hasn't made hardly ANY games itself. I think you missed the point entirely. And FF wasn't a heavy money maker until it was already on PS. If you knew your games, you would know that. And Crash Bandicoot is a joke.


Rare had killer instinct, bungie has halo.

Obviously, you don't know a thing about the companies. Bungie made more than Halo (Although to be fair Halo I and II were their crowning glory) and rare made lots of great games, including the Goldeneye and Perfect Dark games, which in their heyday were the best games made. Killer Instinct is an obscure title, but thanks for pulling it out.


Halo was the same old thing, like many games, but the popularity overrated it, so when games came out in Halo/halflife season, they were underrated and underlooked.

We don't want to go into sales do we?

This is actually true. Halo and Halflife II overshadowed games I felt were far more deserving of attention. But that's marketing.


Like what, sega?

No sony buried sega, and nintendo may be on that road.

Funny thing is sega was what I grew up playing, and is still my favorite.

Sega was buried before it had begun. The sole reason Sega was able to even maintain its grasp for so long was Sonic and the Sega SPorts division. But that wasn't enough. Despite the fact that the Sega Dreamcast was one of the most amazing systems of its era, Sega couldn't keep up with Nintendo and the appearance and sudden third party support of Sony buried the company. Period.


No problem, but just be a little objective in your arguments...

Who ever said it was an argument? I was giving my opinion. If you want to do the same, please don't quote me and nitpick my posts. It's not a very welcome thing to do.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
The PS II controller is ONLY efficient for simple RPGs which involve next to no action and fighting games because of the importance of reliable cross pads and buttons. It's terrible to use with the analogs, and there simply aren't enough buttons in the long run to do anything but the most rudimentary of actions with. Tack that on to a system that is cheaply made (Not "before other systems", cheap. It breaks easily) which pumps out more titles of blah-quality than Tom Clancy does special ops novels, and mind you this system is for all intents and purposes inferior to the other two competitors, and you have a piece of crap. Why you would want to keep it on life support is beyond me.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
If I wanted your poor accessment, I would have PMed this to you and given you a week's deadline.

Found these two comments quite funny.

I'm glad someone else sees the PS2 in some kind of rational light.

Thank you. I had a good laugh writing those two myself.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Let me be clear. I was referring to the upcoming generations disc. But, its better I know what the current CD format capacity. PS or PS2 can hold between and four disc? A little confused? Also, does anyone know how to check for unused space on a game disc?

Erm, this would be better if I went and got you the exact specs.

Anyways, the GC disc have the lowest capacity, but not overwhelmingly so despite their size.

PS II is about average, though it does have some games that require a few discs.

XBox holds the most data. It's also not nearly as cheaply made as PS discs.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Someone took the time to dissect a post I really didn't even think twice about while typing.


No problem, lets do that then.

Indeed, let's.


Its a good system, but the current ones have been less impressive, and the N64 was less impressive than the playstation.

True. However N64 had its own set of advantages over the PS, such as a better analog stick, no load times, lots of party games, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, etc. Not much, but enough to consider buying an N64 certainly.


Anyways, the SNES was better, but in this day and age, the ideas may be getting less and less appealing, for the growing ages.

SNES was a time of innovation. Nowadays it's all about pushing up dates and making money without substance. It's that simple. You will never see another system with the overall quality of the SNES and its games.



SNES WAS the best nintendo system, I agree 100%.

Most people do.


Thats when there were only 2 major consoles, and the nintendo didn't whore first party titles all the time, there were alot of interesting games to play.

Genesis was still a notch better IMO.

Nintendo had the monopoly on third party games because they have been out since 1983 and by 1988 where the biggest name in console gaming, outstripping Atari, Sega Master System, and even some arcades all at the same time. Naturally, they had all the third party support in the world. When Nintendo put restrictions on how many games per year a company could make, many made ghost companies like Konami's Ultra, which made more games in their stead. If Nintendo hadn't nabbed all the third party support and featured it all under one banner and title, you wouldn't have as big a fanbase nor as big a business in console games. Nintendo's stranglehold seems almost tyrannical in retrospect, but tipped off a home entertainment revolution.

And I still like Genesis, but its sound was inferior to the SNES and it had maybe twenty worthwhile games in well over five or six years of making titles.


Capable?

Reiterate capable, because capable is too loose a term, alot of things are capable.

Saddam is Capable of being free, but nevermind.

You sure picked the silliest thing to get hung up over. I didn't think half a second when I typed capable. I suggest you don't think too long over it either. It's not gonna make or break my post, which was mostly opinion anyways. Kinda just like yours.


The Gamecube didn't have to many breathtaking, revolutionary titles at all, metriod prime, and the resident evil, where the games people were bragging about.

Define breathtaking? Revolutionary? I don't know where you went off on this for, but you just nitpicked me for using capable and then you toss around breathtaking and revolutionary like it's common knowledge and not subject to interpretation.

To answer your question, I wasn't even arguing that GC did make such titles, although to be fair the Resident Evil series is incredible in all aspects and is one of the reasons Nintendo is surviving.


Other games just appealed to long time fans, make a shitty zelda, and the people will still buy it.

That applies to Playstation, too. In a poll done by a gaming magazine, more than a third of the people who wanted a PS II when it came out chose it over other systems because they felt no one else had the third party support. This includes trickle down titles made buy companies that used to ally with Nintendo and Sega, like Konami, Capcom, etc. This resulted in a series of games that appeal to longterm fans of both the genres and the companies themselves. And even when they are shitty, people still buy them.


Controller is good for the first party titles you play, not much else.

It was poor for fighting games, and decent for shooters, the buttons were all over the place, the size of them was different.

I don't care about the "cooL" arcade look of my controller, I need a balanced one that functions.

And fighting games are a mere fraction of the different styles of gameplay available. Why keep a controller to appease fighting game fans when it's totally unwieldy for anything else? And who is talking about a cool arcade look of a controller? Not me.


Playstation did have their hardware problems, and I was the blessed to have one that didn't.

Blessed would be an understatement. You have a better chance of getting hit by a train after following out of a window in a barn in Iceland than you do finding a well-made Playstation.


Remember that it was the oldest system, and was out before the others though.

True, and I was going to bring this up but it's still not an excuse. Sega Dreamcast was a heavier hitter in graphics and whatnot and it was well ebfore PS II's time.


Controller is the best, not too big, not too small, and no stupid "gimmicky" buttons, you had buttons that were symmetric and the same size.

Parallel.

Easy to relate to the position, and play accordingly within a short time.

This is your opinion, of course. But some people (especially children) have small hands. I grew up with a Nintendo controller. Back then, my thumbs couldn't reach to touch one another in the center. Now, I can palm the entire controller. If anything, the PS controller strikes me as being horribly inadequate. I can use a Gamecube controller easily after only having the system for a week (Just bought one actually) and I used the Duke (Large ass protocontroller) for the Xbox for years, and I still prefer it over the S-model which I think is for PS fanboys and whiners who haven't reached past puberty.

But when it comes to making a standard controller for a system, it's a gamble. PSII controllers aren't in my opinion the way of future gaming, and they should be left behind in the dust.



GC had a decent analog, sony was the analog system, the ps2 controller had nice quality to it, like the logitech.

The GC controller felt somewhat cheap.

Yes, it did feel cheap. I agree. And the GC analog is touchy. The PS II one is worse, and I wouldn't use Logitech as a good example since I have several logictech controllers for PC and their analog is touchy and frustrating to work with. The best analogs I have seen in gaming history would be the N64 controller and the Duke for Xbox. They gave adequate resistance so you don't feel like you're trying to pin the tail on the jetplane with every motion.


Archaic, moronic?

A controller isn't a gimmick, its a controller, its not about looks, its about efficiency.

Fighting games and others worked best on it hands down.

Let me see, why did capcom vs snk 2 have to install extra controller options for the GC and Xbox, oh wait, dont tell me.

You could never play hardcore streetfighter alpha three, and do the advanced motions with ease, the dpad is miniscule, and moves too much, it feels cheap.

Playstation controller works fine, I hope it doesn't go for gimmick, but it really doesn't need to.

Why are you so hung up on gimmicks? Then you talk efficiency. The PS II controller is ONLY efficient for simple RPGs which involve next to no action and fighting games because of the importance of reliable cross pads and buttons. It's terrible to use with the analogs, and there simply aren't enough buttons in the long run to do anything but the most rudimentary of actions with. Tack that on to a system that is cheaply made (Not "before other systems", cheap. It breaks easily) which pumps out more titles of blah-quality than Tom Clancy does special ops novels, and mind you this system is for all intents and purposes inferior to the other two competitors, and you have a piece of crap. Why you would want to keep it on life support is beyond me.


I could counter this with the "kiddy" games logic, but I'm not.

What games?

Max Paine, GTA, Beyond good and evil, ?

Playstation had games for all ages and people, and the taste varied, because nintendo had very little third party support, just many games that appealed to long time fans of the system.

Though Tales of Symphonia was nice.

Xbox just had halo.

Wow, talk about biased.

Playstation does have games for all ages and all people. So do GC and Xbox, and hell, even Atari. But quantity should not overcome quality. And Max Paine, GTA, and Beyond Good and Evil exist on other platforms and perform much better there.



So you are talking culture how is that a gimmick?

Biased no, not really, you came off as the "sony sucks" nintendo rocks type.


All specs wouldn't be a sony argument guy, it would be an antisony argument.

How would I not know a thing about RAre? Because I didn't list the games you liked? Sorry it doesn't work that way, I was listing a few favorities.

Anyone who doesn't think bungie was the reason bungie got its name, is in serious denial here.

Nitpicking your argument, sorry if I offended you, but it came off as a biased argument.

For the record I have all the systems, thanks, lets not assume, which is what your argument "opinion" was.

Oh and for the record this was a thread about PS3, not the other systems, sorry if I was arguing on topic, that seems to be a crime around here.

So you are talking culture how is that a gimmick?

No, I'm not arguing culture is a gimmick. Where are you getting this from?


Biased no, not really, you came off as the "sony sucks" nintendo rocks type.

Again, more misperception on your part. I've been impartial compared to you. You are so deep in Sony's camp you've made their bed rolls and sorted their firewood.


All specs wouldn't be a sony argument guy, it would be an antisony argument.

You called Xbox all specs. This is a ridiculous statement to make unless you're strongly against Xbox and trying to say it is "just specs and nothing more". This is clearly not the case. If anything, Xbox is the most dyanmic system of the group, with a built in hard drive, cd burning feature, excellent online capability, and supports games that couldn't be be ported to PS II (But PS II games can be ported to Xbox and often are, although it's always a crime to make games initially multiplatform since they must always be as good as the weakest system, which is always PS.)


How would I not know a thing about RAre? Because I didn't list the games you liked? Sorry it doesn't work that way, I was listing a few favorities.

You listed Killer Instinct. You admitted in an earlier post you haven't even played Perfect Dark. PD is easily one of the best first person shooters of all time, and to be honest the only heir to its title in this day and age is Timesplitters III: Future Perfect. Rare also made GoldenEye 007, which was game of the year and still a solid classic almost ten years since. They made the popular Donkey Kong games for the Nintendo systems, and several other games whichi'm forgetting, i'm sure. Killer Instinct was hardly the pinnacle of their achievements and if anything (Bar the latest game, some stupid kiddish game of which I hated) it's their weakest one. To shoot down the company based on Killer Instinct would be like poo-pooing Squaresoft for Chocobo Racing, or Sega for Sonic Pinball.


Anyone who doesn't think bungie was the reason bungie got its name, is in serious denial here.

Pardon? This needs to be elaborated upon.


Nitpicking your argument, sorry if I offended you, but it came off as a biased argument.

It wasn't an argument for one. It was my opinion, as I stated I wouldn't argue from ignorance. Since I know relatively little about the new generation systems, I didn't go with them. I just related my opinion on the big three as of now. Of -course- it seems bias; it's an opinion. It's subjective. Nowhere did I say "omfg u guyz listen 2 me this is fact lolwtfbbq!!@!"


For the record I have all the systems, thanks, lets not assume, which is what your argument "opinion" was.

You just admitted to assuming I was a hardcore Nintendo fan and anti PS II. You assumed I was citing culture and gimmicks, and that I was actually arguing. Your entire post has been one long assumption when in truth it didn't need to be. I posted my opinion. You could have left it be or commented. But quoting everything and superanalyzing it was a bit much. And it totally ruined the thread topic.


Oh and for the record this was a thread about PS3, not the other systems, sorry if I was arguing on topic, that seems to be a crime around here.

And I was commenting on topic with what little information I had. My point was Playstation needs to really work hard to overcome the disadvantages it had during the PS II era. So yeah, sorry for having an opinion, since that seems to be a crime here, too.

do me a favor and copy and paste your quote tags, because this bold thing is troublesome.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
So you are talking culture how is that a gimmick?

No, I'm not arguing culture is a gimmick. Where are you getting this from?

Nevermind, you seem to have problems following trains of thought here, because everything you are complaining about, I elaborated over.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
Again, more misperception on your part. I've been impartial compared to you. You are so deep in Sony's camp you've made their bed rolls and sorted their firewood.

No you haven't, "playstation is shoddy" blah blah blah.

I'm not going into this mess here again, this thread is about sony pS3, and you people keep brining irrelevant mess into here that has nothing to do with the system at all, all these threads turn out the same.

So keep your petty assumpstions to yourself.

What else what I be talking about?

Sega?


Originally posted by Deus Ex
You called Xbox all specs. This is a ridiculous statement to make unless you're strongly against Xbox and trying to say it is "just specs and nothing more". This is clearly not the case. If anything, Xbox is the most dyanmic system of the group, with a built in hard drive, cd burning feature, excellent online capability, and supports games that couldn't be be ported to PS II (But PS II games can be ported to Xbox and often are, although it's always a crime to make games initially multiplatform since they must always be as good as the weakest system, which is always PS.)

No its not more dynamic, and its more power, like I said, this just proves that gamers aren't graphic whores.

Nowhere did it have the library, and the built in features, it had the most troublesome controller to boot.

Online, that supported halo.

You just contradicted your own argument at the end, and speaking of which sony usually gets the games first, and then they port, but whatever.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
You listed Killer Instinct. You admitted in an earlier post you haven't even played Perfect Dark. PD is easily one of the best first person shooters of all time, and to be honest the only heir to its title in this day and age is Timesplitters III: Future Perfect. Rare also made GoldenEye 007, which was game of the year and still a solid classic almost ten years since. They made the popular Donkey Kong games for the Nintendo systems, and several other games whichi'm forgetting, i'm sure. Killer Instinct was hardly the pinnacle of their achievements and if anything (Bar the latest game, some stupid kiddish game of which I hated) it's their weakest one. To shoot down the company based on Killer Instinct would be like poo-pooing Squaresoft for Chocobo Racing, or Sega for Sonic Pinball.

I didn't admit anything, I said what it was considered as, like I said taking questions out of context and adding things in there doesn't help your argument.

You are striking me as thick, I was not shooting down anything.

I love killer instinct, and was listing it as a game I appreciated, not shooting it down. It was my favorite rare game.

So again, don't take this out of context and assume.

timesplitters is a great series, but alot is subjective, so I wont dig there.




Originally posted by Deus Ex
It wasn't an argument for one. It was my opinion, as I stated I wouldn't argue from ignorance. Since I know relatively little about the new generation systems, I didn't go with them. I just related my opinion on the big three as of now. Of -course- it seems bias; it's an opinion. It's subjective. Nowhere did I say "omfg u guyz listen 2 me this is fact lolwtfbbq!!@!"

I didn't say you said that, and I apologized for coming off that way, I wasn't singling you out, in fact I liked that you did have an opinion.

And it had facts.

I admired that, but you took it the wrong way, so...

I'll just stop picking on you then.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
You just admitted to assuming I was a hardcore Nintendo fan and anti PS II. You assumed I was citing culture and gimmicks, and that I was actually arguing. Your entire post has been one long assumption when in truth it didn't need to be. I posted my opinion. You could have left it be or commented. But quoting everything and superanalyzing it was a bit much. And it totally ruined the thread topic.

No I said you struck me as, you assumed alot in your post as proven.

The same arguments ruin the topic, so lets drop this, because I offended you.


Originally posted by Deus Ex
And I was commenting on topic with what little information I had. My point was Playstation needs to really work hard to overcome the disadvantages it had during the PS II era. So yeah, sorry for having an opinion, since that seems to be a crime here, too.

no, I commend it, but the topic was on sony, and you brought everything else in there.

But whatever, I thought I was being light, people say my posts come off as harsh.

I apologize for that again.

Happy?

You got to cool it now
You got to cool it now
Ooooooh watch out
You're gonna loose contr......sorry
It's not wrong to bring in things from this generation is it? You could go off topic a little, so long you as get back to it. That being said, has anyone heard that the PS3 is removing some of its features? Sony came to the realization that with all the current features in place, the console would sell anywhere from $600-$700. Is it a business decision that was intended to save the consumer money or keep up with its competitors? Thoughts

Originally posted by SlimYout
Is it a business decision that was intended to save the consumer money or keep up with its competitors? Thoughts

They're inextricably linked.

the already huge gamer base of players. this is what makes the sony ps3 serious. microsoft have reported losses on the xbox, and never made profit from it. apparantly they're trying to break even with the 360 after 2 years.

am i one of the few people who hate the consoles versus thing? every console has good games, nintendo has zelda, res4 and mario....
sony has gta b4 the xbox, gran turismo, etc, xbox has halo. they're all good systems. do i have a favourite? i only own a ps2, but i have friends who have other machines and we all play on each others systems. i prefer the ps controller, and i find the xbox controller bulky. but thats just personal preference. just as it is with film, music, art and videogames. welcome the next systems and enjoy them.

Originally posted by darth_royke

am i one of the few people who hate the consoles versus thing? every console has good games, nintendo has zelda, res4 and mario....
sony has gta b4 the xbox, gran turismo, etc, xbox has halo. they're all good systems.

I think Nintendo is trying harder to escape that this time.

I thought ps had gran turismo.

What do I know.

That's what he said I think, the sentence is structured a bit poorly.

I want am getting a Playstation 3, Gamecube Revolution, and the Xbox 360.

They all have good graphics. They all have good games. They all are unique in their own ways and that's not necessarily a bad thing to be different from your competitors. What would be the point to buy them all if they all had the same graphics, same games whether they're good or bad and all the other functions and peripherals and add ons.

So I like them all. I am also talking about Playstation 2, Gamecube of course. I don't like the Xbox that is out now. That's why I don't own one. I do own a Playstation 2 though and Gamecube, along with a sega, DS, PSP, gameboy color, gameboy pocket, gameboy advanced, Orginal gameboy, Nintendo 64, Dreamcast, Original Playstation, Super Nintendo, Regular Nintendo.

I mean....did you have THEM throw in our face powerfulone1987? You had just about everything man. Anyway, I understand that the gamer base is what makes it tough to beat. Now, what I am saying is that if/when there comes a point where Sony doesn't have its exclusives what will drive drive it? For example if you take a lot of so called musicians today,strip away the ICE, HO'S, WHIPS, and tell them to entertain people they probably couldn't do it. PO1978 also touched on another point I wanted to make. Now that Xbox is getting more support from Japanese developers, (is that called third/first party support?) they will have a much wider appeal. I understand that the all the systems are unique , but the fact is people seem set in their ways. The stuff you know and love is great but, my question is why haven't people become of knowing what to expect from Sony?

I expect only the best from Sony.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
I want am getting a Playstation 3, Gamecube Revolution, and the Xbox 360.

They all have good graphics. They all have good games. They all are unique in their own ways and that's not necessarily a bad thing to be different from your competitors. What would be the point to buy them all if they all had the same graphics, same games whether they're good or bad and all the other functions and peripherals and add ons.

So I like them all. I am also talking about Playstation 2, Gamecube of course. I don't like the Xbox that is out now. That's why I don't own one. I do own a Playstation 2 though and Gamecube, along with a sega, DS, PSP, gameboy color, gameboy pocket, gameboy advanced, Orginal gameboy, Nintendo 64, Dreamcast, Original Playstation, Super Nintendo, Regular Nintendo. You getting all 3, damn thats dedication!!!!

I'm a poor college kid, but I'm sure all will be fantastic, so thats why I'm going to try to be more passive in my views again, I may be coming off harsh,lol.

You know, when you think about it. We are all kind of lucky because we grew up in an age where games started out and advanced. We have gotten to see the evolution of the game world.

The kids from the future won't be able to. And it will be as hard as heck for them to find all the old school systems, if they even know about them.

The ones kids from the past were either old or dead when games took off.

So it's like we grew up in the right time for games. There will never be another time like it because games are already here and it looks like they're here to stay. We are the ones who got to experereince the ride and we aren't finish by the looks of it.

All we can do is spread the word to our children, if we have any, and the future ages of how good it used to be and the original games that started it all like Mario and others.

We are like the Ultimate Gaming Age of People (UGAP). There will never be anothe age that can duplicate all of this.

I feel like I could of started a thread with this,lol.

Anyway we are lucky and I wish I appreciated back then as much as I do now because now that I am in college, I don't have time for games at all hardly.

It's like being independent and being a young adult was all thrown at me as soon as I was sent to college and everything has changed and I just am not granted the luxury of games anymore.

They need to hurry up and event that long awaited "time machine".........
........................................................

Agreed C-Master, PO1987 is down till the end. And we have definitely witnessed a stupendous amount of video game history. It's damn crazy tell you I. Do the programmers at Sony make it so their consoles have the most potential? I remember reading an article in a magazine saying something along the lines of, with time the inner workings of the system will be further utilized. Does that mean they are going to achieve AI and graphics that are precisely realistic? Or am I reading into it too much? Also, third/first party support is what again?

I would like to know what that support stuff is too? I thought I was the only one clueless.

I do wonder about the graphics.

How is it that some Game Makers such as Squaresoft, have awesome graphics unmatched by many and others don't. Is it a specific technology that Squaresoft has discovered or created that nobody else has or what.
Very confusing.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987

I do wonder about the graphics.

How is it that some Game Makers such as Squaresoft, have awesome graphics unmatched by many and others don't. Is it a specific technology that Squaresoft has discovered or created that nobody else has or what.
Very confusing.

Think of what you and Picasso could do with the same pen.

Also the ability to detail makes the aesthetics 10x better too.

i'll be chosing the revolution over the ps3 for my first purchase this time...simply for the free downloads of the nintendo back catalogue...

So does anyone know which company will produce the best in game and CG graphics on the PS3? Also, while reading a magazine it seems the 80 GB hard drive is the first feature being removed. It is up to the consumer whether he/she wants it or not. Definitely not good, but at least its still there. Also the the PS3's is no longer capable of being used as a wireless router. But is has a 802.11 wireless capability and at least one Gigabit port will remain. Also the Spiderman-font that reads PS3 is no more, to make it cheaper. Can anybody who is up to times, explain what a Gigabit port and 802.11 wireless capability means. Thanks

Originally posted by SlimYout
But is has a 802.11 wireless capability and at least one Gigabit port will remain. Also the Spiderman-font that reads PS3 is no more, to make it cheaper. Can anybody who is up to times, explain what a Gigabit port and 802.11 wireless capability means.

Actually burst out laughing when I read the end of that. Seemed inexplicably funny.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Actually burst out laughing when I read the end of that. Seemed inexplicably funny.

You have a lot to say but the other person gets completely nothing from it.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
I do wonder about the graphics.

How is it that some Game Makers such as Squaresoft, have awesome graphics unmatched by many and others don't. Is it a specific technology that Squaresoft has discovered or created that nobody else has or what.
Very confusing.

Squaresoft does have their own self-created software for rendering people, and the motion capture studio to animate them with... that accompanied by a team of very talented 2d/3d artists makes for quite a cinematic powerhouse

I prefer the cinematics of Blizzard entertainment personally.. but they are both very good companies that represent all that is good with art in computer games today.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
Squaresoft does have their own self-created software for rendering people, and the motion capture studio to animate them with... that accompanied by a team of very talented 2d/3d artists makes for quite a cinematic powerhouse

I prefer the cinematics of Blizzard entertainment personally.. but they are both very good companies that represent all that is good with art in computer games today.

Now that's the answer I was looking for. Thanks. (still mad about the spoiler incident though)

the ps2 controller was bad? i thought it was the best available, closely followed by the gamcube. the xbox controller was far too bulky and unweildy, whereas the ps2 controller is very versatile and comfy too hold. how do you mean breaks like a toothpick? what, do you swing it around your bedroom or living room? i've had mine since they were out ad i've had no problems. several friends, yes, thats more than 5, have had xbox's and they've broken down and had to be replaced or got rid of for a new system. thats breaking like a toothpick. the gamecube seems durable, i've only heard of one wearing down and that was from my game-a-holic nephew playing it too much.

what do people have against sony? are you americans and have to stand up for the xbox for pride? are you jealous that gta comes out several months later for your machines? they're not a bad system, but what have they got going for them apart from halo? and halo is an overrated game. the story isn't that great, and theres loads of fps that do the same job and offer as much multiplayer fun with better story than halo.

graphically, the ps3 is apparantly going to be on top in the next gen race, so will this mean a cost hike for games? perhaps if the 360 offers games cheaper then it will fare better. nintendo are always going to be around, for their innovity and ingame publishing of series like metroid, zelda and mario. sony already have a huge fan base, yet microsoft have still not made a profit from the xbox console. they've given themselves 2 years to make a profit on the 360. if not... then maybe they wont bother, which will be a shame as less compitition, less choice of game.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
You have a lot to say but the other person gets completely nothing from it.

Not providing a service.

what he said

Originally posted by darth_royke
the ps2 controller was bad? i thought it was the best available, closely followed by the gamcube. the xbox controller was far too bulky and unweildy, whereas the ps2 controller is very versatile and comfy too hold. how do you mean breaks like a toothpick? what, do you swing it around your bedroom or living room? i've had mine since they were out ad i've had no problems. several friends, yes, thats more than 5, have had xbox's and they've broken down and had to be replaced or got rid of for a new system. thats breaking like a toothpick. the gamecube seems durable, i've only heard of one wearing down and that was from my game-a-holic nephew playing it too much.

what do people have against sony? are you americans and have to stand up for the xbox for pride? are you jealous that gta comes out several months later for your machines? they're not a bad system, but what have they got going for them apart from halo? and halo is an overrated game. the story isn't that great, and theres loads of fps that do the same job and offer as much multiplayer fun with better story than halo.

graphically, the ps3 is apparantly going to be on top in the next gen race, so will this mean a cost hike for games? perhaps if the 360 offers games cheaper then it will fare better. nintendo are always going to be around, for their innovity and ingame publishing of series like metroid, zelda and mario. sony already have a huge fan base, yet microsoft have still not made a profit from the xbox console. they've given themselves 2 years to make a profit on the 360. if not... then maybe they wont bother, which will be a shame as less compitition, less choice of game. Agreed....

Originally posted by darth_royke
graphically, the ps3 is apparantly going to be on top in the next gen race lmao.. what bs

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Actually burst out laughing when I read the end of that. Seemed inexplicably funny.

Ha ha Vic. I thought some one would have known, but apparently I was wrong. What made it so funny though? I'm just curious. Also, what was spoiled for you powerfulone1987? Was it something I said? If it was, my fault. Anyone know how much memory will be offered on the PS3 memory stick?

Originally posted by SlimYout
Ha ha Vic. I thought some one would have known, but apparently I was wrong. What made it so funny though? I'm just curious.

I dunno, nothing's ever funny once it's explained. It was something about the way that you quoted all the features, then it became obvious you had no idea what the hell they were. I was also wondering the same thing, as well.

SaTsuJiN.....

about the ps3 being the most graphically enhanced, i've read several magazines and web sites state this. so i have looked into the matter before you go around saying its B.S. whether you like it or not thats whats happened.

Originally posted by darth_royke
SaTsuJiN.....

about the ps3 being the most graphically enhanced, i've read several magazines and web sites state this. so i have looked into the matter before you go around saying its B.S. whether you like it or not thats whats happened.

you must be one of them people that thought the renders at e3 were the real ps3 graphics.. lol.. too gullable..

Damn that was funny. Anyway, I just realized the same thing myself. Next time I should find out what the features are, then make a post. Graphically, aren't the systems going demonstrate the same ability? Similar to what we have now?

gullible? i'm just stating the facts that magazines have stated, thats all. none of it is opinion.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Damn that was funny. Anyway, I just realized the same thing myself. Next time I should find out what the features are, then make a post. Graphically, aren't the systems going demonstrate the same ability? Similar to what we have now?

I would imagine them all to have the same graphical capability at this point.. they will have to learn from their mistakes (by having too much of a graphical difference from one another) , or else they will recieve less buyer support. I mean seriously, whos going to pay like 300 bucks for a new system that still plays 2 year old graphics?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not providing a service.


Well than, stop trying to be a comedian.

Originally posted by slim_thug
what he said

Why are you even responding.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Ha ha Vic. I thought some one would have known, but apparently I was wrong. What made it so funny though? I'm just curious. Also, what was spoiled for you powerfulone1987? Was it something I said? If it was, my fault. Anyone know how much memory will be offered on the PS3 memory stick?

Wasn't referring to you.

The people who make GTA games are good at what they do. But is the reason why the graphics aren't that impressive because they don't know how to fully utilize the tech? From the looks of it the next gen won't have any games that deliver mediocre graphics. As far as quality goes, do you believe Sony developers will deliver the best games? When I say this I mean overall. Take sound, control, artistic direction, dialog/voice acting, re-playability, innovation/originality etc into consideration. People seem to think that when for example G4 has an award show, that is based on fan votes, that everyone agrees. Do you think votes and sales numbers always represent the majority or just fanboys?

Well I don't really know about the graphics, because everybody is saying the Xbox has better graphics than PS2. And the Gamecube has better graphics than the PS2. So whose to say that this status won't remain with the new consoles.
I don't own a Xbox because the game library sucks in my opinion.
So PS2 does have that over the Xbox the games are better.
The Gamecube is just kind of in a world of it's own. It has good games and good graphics that they say are better than the PS2. It's just an all around good system. I don't know if Nintendo are working on improving the graphics much for the Revolution or not since they are mainly focused on the innovative new way of playing games. I haven't really heard much about their graphics improvement, only about the new control. Which I have no comment on because I have no idea how it feels to play with it and how it will be and how it will work into certain types of games besides shooters. And since I dont play shooters I hope it does really well outside of shooting games. Especially since I am really looking for too Super Smash Brother's Melee 3.

xbox graphics are a lot better than the ps2, and so is the gamecube. but it shows that gameplay is more important than graphics. i think the nintendo will always be around, it has a faithful fanbase because of its zelda, mario and other series, and its always created a good console to play them on.

Nintendo are so much better than sony and microsoft, sure they have more games and stuff, but nintendo does what it wants dsnt make half as many games, and still gets the same amount of money, because its quality not quantity, especaily when you have something like mario kart double dash, which is where the gamecube shines, party multiplayer games. So each console has their best points, X-box good games and best hardware, PS2 biggest game libary and best for 1 player games, GC best for multiplayrer games cause they are so damn fun.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Well than, stop trying to be a comedian.

Or how about I just carry on posting, and so do you?

I couldn't care less what you post, maybe you should afford me the same courtesy.

Originally posted by darth_royke
xbox graphics are a lot better than the ps2, and so is the gamecube. but it shows that gameplay is more important than graphics.

It doesn't actually show that, that's one possible extrapolation from those facts.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Or how about I just carry on posting, and so do you?

I couldn't care less what you post, maybe you should afford me the same courtesy.

Well than don't quote what I say and respond to it with some little irrelevant non funny comment.

The breakdown was very well done.
Sony-Game Library
Microsoft-Hardware, on-line
Nintendo-Innovation, multi-player
I remember reading somewhere that graphics is the #1 selling point of a game. True or false? Why do people tend to gravitate towards the same type of game? Games that are in the vein of GTA, MGS, FPS, etc.

nintendo doesnt make as much money as sony or microsoft, because they have'nt sold as many consoles. but i doubt they're in as much debt as microsoft.

victor, i think it does that because of how popular the ps2 is and how successful its been with a less graphically powered machine.yet its still the most popular and successful console of this generation.

the playstayion2 is successful on the back of how big the ps1 was and the fact that it was the first console to cater for people who weren't really huge gaming fans

it managed to sell to the sports fans and hence EA sold and grew massively on the back of its FIFA, NBA, NFL liscences

the general consensus among those types of gamers is a "stick to what you know" attitude and hence the ps2 outsold the others

and its probably the reason the the ps3 will outsell the other this time around

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Well than don't quote what I say and respond to it with some little irrelevant non funny comment.

Is it your time of the month?

An irrelevant comment would be something like this-

'I think you mean 'then', and would a couple of commas hurt?'

While we're here though, let's see what made you throw your toys out of the pram.

You said:

Originally posted by powerfulone1987

I do wonder about the graphics.

How is it that some Game Makers such as Squaresoft, have awesome graphics unmatched by many and others don't. Is it a specific technology that Squaresoft has discovered or created that nobody else has or what.
Very confusing.

To which I replied:

Originally posted by Victor von Doom

Think of what you and Picasso could do with the same pen.

A pretty reasonable reply. It's not sarcastic, it just requires a slight amount of analogous thinking.

Just in case...

You- other game makers.

Picasso- Squaresoft.

The pen- whatever basic software is used to create games for the PS2.

Now go about your business.

Originally posted by darth_royke


victor, i think it does that because of how popular the ps2 is and how successful its been with a less graphically powered machine.yet its still the most popular and successful console of this generation.

There are many other factors to consider, because gameplay is subjective. I don't like any games on the PS2 as much as I like RE4, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and so on.

You have to consider marketing whenever something has a dominant position in a market.

And as I go on about my business, stay out of my business.

Why is PS3 so serious? They focused completely on it's specs. The new Xbox doesn't, and it will take a backseat in sheer power for the first time. Microsoft is more concerened with monopolizing media apparently, making the Xbox more of a media center than a game console.

PS3 on the other hand, is gearing towards hardcore gamers by making a friggin kick-ass supercomputer system.

*drools over Final Fantasy VII tech demo*

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
And as I go on about my business, stay out of my business.

Nah.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Nah.

Suit yourself.

I can afford another admirer.

Kewl.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Why is PS3 so serious? They focused completely on it's specs. The new Xbox doesn't, and it will take a backseat in sheer power for the first time. Microsoft is more concerened with monopolizing media apparently, making the Xbox more of a media center than a game console.

PS3 on the other hand, is gearing towards hardcore gamers by making a friggin kick-ass supercomputer system.

*drools over Final Fantasy VII tech demo*

Yet what happened with xbox and ps2??? why did the xbox not dominate the market???

I love the abuse of the term "hardcore" in here.. its so typical

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Kewl.

Everything works out then.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I love the abuse of the term "hardcore" in here.. its so typical lol

How many companies have access to the hardware that produces these great looking games? I'm sure no one has the ultimate graphics engine. They just keep evolving. Most of these people have the same hardware, some just utilize it better than others. People are impressed by different things. Some like the aesthetic, others like dialog, and those like artistic vision.

The PS3 will do well as expected. I just don't like the fact that when you ask people why, the first thing they mention is the games. Not saying they are wrong, but would it kill them to comment on the system. This is on response to Arachnoidfreak. Not saying that Microsoft is not monopolizing, but doesn't the PS3 seemingly want the same thing?

The PS3 will do well as expected. I just don't like the fact that when you ask people why it will be, the first thing they mention is the games. Not saying they are wrong, but would it kill them to comment on the system. This is in response to Arachnoidfreak. Not saying that Microsoft is not monopolizing, but doesn't the PS3 seemingly want the same thing?

Sony is the most popular because they invented and set the standard for all gaming consoles, even PC. They set the standard for controllers to have trigger buttons and force feedback, they set the standard of using CDs instead of carteridge, When PS2 came out they set the standard to be able to play DVDs and use DVDs for games, they even set the standard for having online play which in my opinion sucks for PS2 cause of the fact that connection speeds are mixed in ever of their server, you may have high speed while the person your facing has dial-up, so that sucks but still innovative. When XBOX came out they set the standard of having built in memory to store things even music, they set the standard of having a modem built-in. This may not be innovative but they used a third-party video card from NVIDIA which I thought was cool, PS2 created their own.

So these are the things I believe make PS2 number one. I like all 3 consoles, however Nintendo does need to bring more original games to their console apart from remaking best sellers.

this is the original sony console... an add on for the super nintendo or famicon. just in case anyone was interested.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/blainascum/snescd.jpg

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Everything works out then.

Yep, return to your life.

I never left my life.

If I did, I would return on my own time.

Know your place.

Cool EL NINO. It seems Sony was somewhat of a pioneer. So, that is the original design. It..um....roxwhorz. Thanks darth royke. I wonder how well Sony will implement on-line play?

That doesn't look like the Super Nintendo to me.

you, may have had a different look in the us or japan... squarer purple buttons? thats what ours looked like anyways. i know coz i can see mine on my shelf from here. but yeah, the playstation was going to be the addon for the snes, but other things happened and sonmy released the playstation on its own.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
I never left my life.

If I did, I would return on my own time.

Know your place.

'Know your place?'

I sincerely hope 1987 isn't your year of birth, because at 18-19 you should have grown out of such childish bravado.

I obviously irk you somehow- your pride doesn't allow you to admit that you are still holding a grudge on the basis of a misunderstanding.

Anyway, continue as you must. It's fun both ways.

Getting back to topic...

As long as the Xbox 360 lives up to the hype, it'll do fine.

But, if PS3 actually uses its full-power potential, it could probably do better than the 360.

And we'll just have to see how well Nintendo's new revolution controller works out.

Why are people so concerned with games. I would be more concerned with the quality of the machine running the games. Everytime I ask people about the PS3, all they mention are games and graphics. Here are some examples:

"Watch when MGS4 comes out Xbox360 is gettin' smacked again."
"Look at Ridge Racer 6, it doesn't even look as good as GranTurismo 4."
"Xbox360 better have more impressive games, cause (humph) they just stand no chance."

First of people need to understand that every game developer can't produce the same quality game. Even if they were given the same equipment to do so. Secondly, some people are easily impressed by graphics, not realizing that it is a given the visuals will improve.

Yeah the Revolution controller will hopefully be a welcome change. Again does comparing specs even make any real difference? Even Shigeru Miyamoto said while being interviewed on G4 that, "If you take all three systems. and connect them to same television, you will not be able to see the difference." Not an exact quote, but it is almost flawless. While Victor is correct that marketing is obviously a reason for the success of the playstation, could it also be said that it is the target audience who truly brings home the bacon? Before I continue this post can you guys throw out the various types of gamers?

Originally posted by SlimYout
While Victor is correct that marketing is obviously a reason for the success of the playstation, could it also be said that it is the target audience who truly brings home the bacon?

Can you explicitly state the point you are trying to make?

I'm not sure I fully know where you are coming from.

Differing demographics?

I think he means advertisements were the playstations strongpoint.. large marketing campaigns.. then when he goes on to say that target audiences bring home the bacon.... I think he means people that are stupid enough to actually follow the advertisements and buy the products mindlessly, or aiming for a particular audience can make the company alot of money..

I'm just pullin stuff outta thin air though.. /shrug

Yeah, that Mountain Dew commercial is makin' Microsoft big bux.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I think he means advertisements were the playstations strongpoint.. large marketing campaigns.. then when he goes on to say that target audiences bring home the bacon.... I think he means people that are stupid enough to actually follow the advertisements and buy the products mindlessly, or aiming for a particular audience can make the company alot of money..

I'm just pullin stuff outta thin air though.. /shrug

I don't think so, because that was my point. I think he was making an additional point to that.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Yeah the Revolution controller will hopefully be a welcome change. Again does comparing specs even make any real difference? Even Shigeru Miyamoto said while being interviewed on G4 that, "If you take all three systems. and connect them to same television, you will not be able to see the difference." Not an exact quote, but it is almost flawless. While Victor is correct that marketing is obviously a reason for the success of the playstation, could it also be said that it is the target audience who truly brings home the bacon? Before I continue this post can you guys throw out the various types of gamers?

the difference will be seen through the graphics engine...

another thing about welcoming the change. I asked a lot of gamers (at my skool) about what they thought about the revolution remote and lets just say they didnt like it and commonly ask "how the hell does it work?"

reminds me of 66, when the religions were scared about us angering god because of the moon landings.... look where we are now. learn new things and be a happier person, or learn new things and better them because they didnt work. simple as that

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Can you explicitly state the point you are trying to make?

I'm not sure I fully know where you are coming from.

Differing demographics?

My point is this, do companies have to promote well-known games? I mean Sony as a gaming console, is well-known across the board. Don't most people already know what Sony brings to the table? And you are right about the demographics. I want to do a quick breakdown of the different types of gamers;

Dedicated-Been playing since childhood with no end in sight
?
One Trick-People who play one, maybe two genres exclusively

Casual-Pickup a game here and there

Newcomers-Those who know what they like, but don't knows what to pick up

The Blind-People who don't quiet now what they want and just take suggestions from the higher ups. (Correct me, I think I'm wrong)

I am not angry. Just letting YOU know.

I'm not affected by little things such as this.

.

Why infamous?

Alright, Microsoft is still trying to establish its gaming library and work with more Japanese developers. Nintendo is established, but people want more third party and mature titles to be made. Playstation is already infamous, mainly because of their sheer selection of titles. Now, hypothetically speaking lets say Microsoft and Nintendo meet said requirements. And Sony losses their major players, will Sony have to work as hard as Microsoft did to somewhat reestablish themselves? Or will they thrive from the success of old titles? Simply put, does Sony even have to promote anymore?

Why infamous?

Originally posted by SlimYout
Simply put, does Sony even have to promote anymore?

I think I see your point.

To some extent they do have a cushioned, privileged position- fanboys alone will keep them going for a good amount of time. However, it is ever the case in a market that if the dominant force becomes lazy, they will plummet.

So yes, they do.

So, you really think that its possible for them to fall? Interesting. Not that I disagree, but roughly how long would it take? What do think will be the driving force in the next gen?

Originally posted by SlimYout
So, you really think that its possible for them to fall? Interesting. Not that I disagree, but roughly how long would it take? What do think will be the driving force in the next gen?

Definitely. Not sure how long though. To me, they are lucky to be in the position as it is.

It's hard to predict with the next gen. Xbox will do well, that's the only given I think.

Do you all think we've covered all there is to cover on this topic? If not, speak your piece. I figured I bring this back when the Xbox 360 is released. That way we can see how the new gaming market will develop and how Sony will respond. And thank you. You guys have contributed a diverse look on things to come.

Xbox360 will probably take the gold as long as they don't screw up the launch, or the PS3 comes around with a secret weapon.
But Microsoft DOES have most of the major developers working for them...which means never a shortage of good games.

I think that it is the Xbox's turn to make its place in history.

"IS THERE NO ONE ELSE." If so this topic will either make a return, or I will create a new one. Didn't know Microsoft had most of the major developers in their camp, interesting.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Why infamous?

Sorry, I took so long to respond. They are infamous because several people, along with fanboys/girls, biased/unbiased gamers, and bandwagoners believe this. Through the name alone, Sony is infamous. Hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by SlimYout
"IS THERE NO ONE ELSE." If so this topic will either make a return, or I will create a new one. Didn't know Microsoft had most of the major developers in their camp, interesting.

'Tis True. Look it up.