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