well I have only been here a little while so I decided to make a thread. I want your opinions on the better consol x-box or ps2.

They're better than each other in different ways. If you want a wide selection of games, and prefer RPGs and beat-em-ups, you'd be best off with a PS2. If you're more into FPS games specifically, then Xbox would likely suit you better, Halo or not.

I would mention the Gamecube, but of course GAEMCUBE MORE LEIK GAYCUBE ROFLZ!!~

personally like ps2 better for the rpgs.

But x-box has the better graphics and has halo.

I own both so I win.

I didn't mention gamecube cuz I HATE them

PS2 and XBOX equal each other, I suppose PS2 has better games variety. But XBOX's Halo rocks so much. Dnt knw about the Gamecube, never played one.

PS2 has much more exclusive games, so my vote goes to PS2..

There are very few games on the X-box that I can't get on another console or on the PC... so I have never had any reason to purchase one.

I would say Gamecube is better than X-box also for the same reason. There are plenty of great exclusive titles for the Cube... plus the cube has the best multiplayer games to play when you can get all your friends over with ya. It's a great little system :(

I think the main reason PS2 is the leading system right now is because Sony is the only one that currently has the rights to Final Fantasy. It has been rumored that Square-Enix is talking to Microsoft, but that's all it is for now.

The games make the system, so that is why PS2 is #1 right now. Gamecube is #2, and is getting closer to taking the top spot away. Nintendo has several games coming out within the next few months or so, which should be excellent. And this may give Reggie and company the top honors. Xbox only has, basically, two attractive games to the system. Halo, and KOTOR. That is a big reason why Microsoft has been in last for the majority of it's release.

I own all three major consoles, and I wouldn't want it any other way, really.

Like MMM said, it really depends on what kind of games you play and stuff like that.

Since I play pretty much everything but sports games, I'm happiest owning every system.

Yeah.

Originally posted by Ndi
I own all three major consoles, and I wouldn't want it any other way, really.

Like MMM said, it really depends on what kind of games you play and stuff like that.

Since I play pretty much everything but sports games, I'm happiest owning every system.

Yeah.
But you should say Gamecube, because it has Tales of Symphonia.

X-Box really had the potential to be the best system with its technological power. However, it has some of the worst rated games on it and a limited library. Its a pity.

I would have to say the PS2 is a better system, not just because of Final Fantasy but because of all the other games that are good in quality entertainment. Hell look at Sony's games (Gran Turismo series, Sly Cooper, Dark Cloud,etc) you can't beat at what developers bring to the Ps2.

Xbox is alright in terms of graphics and online playing, butothers have pointed out, their game library is limited and pretty crappy. The only games that are worth it on the Xbox is Halo and Dead or alive 3 but Halo is also available on the PC and DOA used to be on the playstation. So Xbox =great graphics but crappy games.

Originally posted by Ex-SeeD
<B>I would have to say the PS2 is a better system, not just because of Final Fantasy but because of all the other games that are good in quality entertainment. Hell look at Sony's games (Gran Turismo series, Sly Cooper, Dark Cloud,etc) you can't beat at what developers bring to the Ps2.</B>
Dark Cloud? No, sorry.


<B>Xbox is alright in terms of graphics and online playing, butothers have pointed out, their game library is limited and pretty crappy. The only games that are worth it on the Xbox is Halo and Dead or alive 3 but Halo is also available on the PC and DOA used to be on the playstation. So Xbox =great graphics but crappy games. </B>
Xbox technically is capable of having the best graphics of the three. It's online play has really sparked interest in the company, but then again, there are not enough quality games for the system.

Originally posted by Smokey

Dark Cloud? No, sorry.


Dark Cloud was a great game considering the time it was released. Dark Cloud 2 is a great game regardless of when it was released.

Oh I meant Dark Cloud 2. The first one sucked ass, the second one alot better.

Originally posted by Ex-SeeD
Oh I meant Dark Cloud 2. The first one sucked ass, the second one alot better.
Well, I guess the gist of what I was trying to say, is that the Dark Cloud series isn't what most people think of when they mention headlining games for the PS2.

Ps2 has many more games. the games are good in general.

I soppose I only play a few games on x-box

namley halo

Originally posted by Ex-SeeD
Oh I meant Dark Cloud 2. The first one sucked ass, the second one alot better. Dark Cloud 2 rocks. Still haven't completed the eighth chapter yet :(

I played the first dark cloud and I didn't like it so I didn't bother with the second one.

Maybe I'll try it sometime

After playing the sequel, I bought a second hand copy of the original Dark Cloud, and couldn't get into it.

At first, I couldn't get into DC2, but perseverence is your friend.

Oh yeah, and having hate for an inanimate object such as a Gamecube is disturbing. Please fix.

Theres nothing wrong for hating an inanimate object like game cube

Originally posted by Mickrulz
Theres nothing wrong for hating an inanimate object like game cube
Well, there is when you don't explain why you do hate Gamecube.

Fine I'll exploain

I don't like gamecube cuz of their graphics.
Like some of there game have really childish graphics.

Not all games but alot of them. Anyways I just don't like them.

the pont is that I like ps2 and x-box better

Originally posted by Mickrulz
Fine I'll exploain

I don't like gamecube cuz of their graphics.
Like some of there game have really childish graphics.

Not all games but alot of them. Anyways I just don't like them.

the pont is that I like ps2 and x-box better

Such an ignorant opinion.

The gamecube has better overall graphic quality than the PS2.

Of the games I've played PS2 has a much better selection, Romance of the three Kingdoms, Dynasty Warriors, Gran Turismo, Castlevania to name a few. I aslo much prefer the playstation controller, even if it is just a SNES controller with two extra shoulder buttons and little its bitsy tumb joysticks.

The only game I've played for XBOX and enjoyed was Ninja Gaiden (and yes I have played Halo).

The only game I've played and enjoyed on Gamecube is Super Smash Brothers.

Of course I'm still playing Chrono Trigger and Sacrifice, so I'm a bit behind the times.

I have both a PS2 and a Xbox, and I prefer the PS2.

Why? Well, the Ps2 has a more thorough library of games than the Xbox (In Australia that is), and from a couple of the store owners I've spoken with, their customers prefer the PS2 more.

I'm not dissing the Xbox, far from it, as there are some games on it that I do like. Halo, Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball, Xmen 2 : Wolverine's Revenge, Shenmue II (Even though I have the Dreamcast version, which I consider to be far better than the Xbox version, but that's just my opinion.), amongst others.

The Xbox does have advantages over the PS2, better graphics, sound, etc, etc. But one of the things I don't like about the Xbox, is the need for the DVD remote to use the DVD feature of the Xbox, but that's just one minor thing which annoys me.

Unfortunately, the only games I have for the Xbox, are those I've listed above. Which, while good games which I enjoy, I'm in no big rush to buy anymore Xbox games... YET!

While the PS2, has a heap of games which I love and enjoy playing (Dynasty Warriiors series, Romance of the Three Kingdoms VIII, Kessen series, Legaia 2 : Duel Saga, Shadow Hearts, Escape from Monkey Island, as well as many others.).

So, my vote goes for the Playstation 2.

listen loki I'm not saying Gamecube has good or bad graphics I'm just saying that some of there games have chilish graphics.
And I don't like game cube. Don't know why just dont

in my opinion the ps2 is far superior to the xbox, why, for one it has a huge library of games, several really nifty, though otherwise quite useless, add-ons and periphirals. yes the xbox has much more number crunching power and ram than the ps2, this does not make up for poor games. im not saying all xbox games are bad, nor am i saying that all ps2 games are good, far from it...they both have their good and bad sides, but in the end it comes down to which games do you want to play/own.

and yes the gamecube is nice, and has some very slick and smoothed visuals, it still cannot compete with the ps2 or xbox for sheer power. the gamecube has many games with childish graphics because thats who the games are oriented to and marketed to. nothing wrong with that, in fact i like some of the more childish looking games, gives em a certain feel, like pikmin, love that game.

we all have our own opinions

indeed, and that is all ive seen here, respectfully and tactfully presented.

Exactly. I'm not saying anything like if ya like this consol you suck or anything i'm just voicing my opinion. and everone else can too.

Originally posted by Mickrulz
listen loki I'm not saying Gamecube has good or bad graphics I'm just saying that some of there games have chilish graphics.
And I don't like game cube. Don't know why just dont
There isn't anything wrong with childish graphics, except for WW. I actually really like games that have these kinds of graphics. And yeah, Gamecube really can't compete much in terms of sheer power with the other two. But still, it is safely in second place in sales. So obviously they are doing something right.

into those childsh graphics and thats my opinion and an opinion is all it is nothing more

Originally posted by Mickrulz
into those childsh graphics and thats my opinion and an opinion is all it is nothing more
Have you ever had grammar school?

sorry i'm bad at gramma

Sorry, did I hear someone say the PS2 is more powerful than the Gamecube?

Originally posted by TCK
Sorry, did I hear someone say the PS2 is more powerful than the Gamecube?

well I don't know if it's more powerful but I think it's better

Originally posted by Mickrulz


well I don't know if it's more powerful but I think it's better Nah, it wasn't you, it was Smokey and cid127637019576

I think the main reason PS2 is the leading system right now is because Sony is the only one that currently has the rights to Final Fantasy.
AHAHHAHA.
Ohh, mercy.
Gotta love ardent FF fans. The main reason is not that FF is on the PS2. The reason is, Sony has a great deal of companies making them exclusive, very good games, at a steady rate. God of War, Killzone, and MGS3 are all coming.

Sony also has the backing of Konami - which means they have every DDR fanatic by the balls. Yes, you can get DDR on the xbox, but from what I hear, the dance steps are out by a few miliseconds, and this interferes.

They lack the inhouse power of Nintendo, but have a huge library of games, and while lacking graphical power, have more 3rd party developers behind them than microsoft do.

Stylistically the PS2 is also marketted with a very different demographic. People are happy to have a PS2 alongside their hifi and TV, as it's modelled to look all moody and black/silver. This is how sony has marketed it, and this is how it has worked.

It has very little, if anything to do with Final bloody Fantasy. Though one of the FF games sells millions, other games also sell millions, enter the matrix and doom 3 for example. Just one game selling millions is not going to set a console ahead from another. If this was the case, one could argue that the Gamecube has Mario and Zelda, thus it is the best console, as both of these franchises have millions of fans.

That, and Microsoft really don't have that many original games. You've got Halo - a game they stole from the Mac/PC at first - that isn't actually that amazing. You've got Fable, Ninja Gaiden, and Jade Empire.

However, as Loki said, there really isn't much on the console that you can't get elsewhere. Halo and KOTOR are on the PC. They do have fantastic online support too, though.

The Xbox is a fine console. Graphically, it's the finest. But it just doesn't have too many really, really great individual games.

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
<B>AHAHHAHA.
Ohh, mercy.
Gotta love ardent FF fans. The main reason is not that FF is on the PS2. The reason is, Sony has a great deal of companies making them exclusive, very good games, at a steady rate. God of War, Killzone, and MGS3 are all coming.</B>
Yes, I know that Final Fantasy is not the only reason Sony is #1. But you have to admit, that if the series shifted to either Nintendo or Microsoft only, then one of those two respected companies would certainly rise, and maybe to #1.


<B>It has very little, if anything to do with Final bloody Fantasy. Though one of the FF games sells millions, other games also sell millions, enter the matrix and doom 3 for example. Just one game selling millions is not going to set a console ahead from another. If this was the case, one could argue that the Gamecube has Mario and Zelda, thus it is the best console, as both of these franchises have millions of fans.</B>
Well, Final Fantasy is without question one of the most successful series ever. Zelda is up there too, along with Mario. But, if you look at it, Mario is aimed more at kids. Gamecube is known for being a kiddie system with all the non-mature games and "kiddie" graphic games they release. Zelda games have been the exact same for years now, just with a mild adjustment to how you power up the Master Sword, or an extra item or two. Pretty lame, which is why the Zelda franchise has been slipping since OoT. When you compare the fans of PS2 and Gamecube, there are far more mature gamers flocking to the PS2. People want to play these mature games that give them blood and violence and hate, and anything else you can think of. And they are really not going to find much of anything with Nintendo.


<B>That, and Microsoft really don't have that many original games. You've got Halo - a game they stole from the Mac/PC at first - that isn't actually that amazing. You've got Fable, Ninja Gaiden, and Jade Empire.</B>
That's one reason why Microsoft is in dead last between the three: the lack of a library of original games. PS2 has them, and Gamecube has a lot of exclusive titles. But exclusive titles doesn't guarantee a spot at #1. You just have to know what sells to the community. And obviously, Sony is doing something right.

BTW: Anybody who disagrees with mrmonkeyman or I in this thread is wrong.

the other thing about x-box is that alot of the games you get on computer anyway. Like Halo. after awhile it went on computer (I own it). game cube and ps2 have more exclusive games. And like alot of people on this trad are saying thats whats makes them more popular

Originally posted by Mickrulz
the other thing about x-box is that alot of the games you get on computer anyway. Like Halo. after awhile it went on computer (I own it). game cube and ps2 have more exclusive games. And like alot of people on this trad are saying thats whats makes them more popular

... God, you're slick.

Originally posted by Loki


... God, you're slick.

Yeah and...

Originally posted by Mickrulz
Yeah and...
Just stop while you are ahead.

That's one reason why Microsoft is in dead last between the three: the lack of a library of original games. PS2 has them, and Gamecube has a lot of exclusive titles. But exclusive titles doesn't guarantee a spot at #1. You just have to know what sells to the community. And obviously, Sony is doing something right.
Uh.
Gamecube and Xbox are just about equal.
There's no "dead last" about it. Get your facts straight.


Well, Final Fantasy is without question one of the most successful series ever.
Not...really? Check sales. The Final Fantasy series only really picked up at six, to my knowledge, and I think it only started doing the million selling act with 7, because of the marketing jazz behind it - until the PSX, gaming was heavily reserved for


But, if you look at it, Mario is aimed more at kids.
Play super mario world, and then play Metal Gear Solid 2. Tell me which is the harder game, and then you'll see that here, you are wrong. Mario is aimed at the platform purist and nintendo fan. It's a franchise now. That's how it is. Like FF, marios will sell to mario fans, regardless of what the content of the game is.


Gamecube is known for being a kiddie system with all the non-mature games and "kiddie" graphic games they release.
Such as Eternal Darkness. The Gamecube is probably the only console out there that's trying to have games made for it, rather than attempting to be a home entertainment system.


Zelda games have been the exact same for years now, just with a mild adjustment to how you power up the Master Sword, or an extra item or two.
And final fantasy games have been pretty much "oh no, the big bad is there, let us gain a party of braggards, rogues, princeses, and card sharks to go and kill them, with a few healthy plot twists in the middle." Yes, they have fine design teams behind them visually, but FF's are really not the most complex of storyline arrangements, and FFX-2 proved that they are now going heading the way of zelda - buck-making.


When you compare the fans of PS2 and Gamecube
Excuse me? I think you'll find far more immature morons heading straight for the PS2, because they think "LOL THE GAMEUCBE IS LEIK FOR KIDDIES FAGGOTS I BUY PS2 AND BE COOL." And where do you do your comparisons? This forum? If you do, guess what, you're wrong too.


People want to play these mature games that give them blood and violence and hate, and anything else you can think of. And they are really not going to find much of anything with Nintendo.
Congratulations on your sweeping generalisations. Check out Nintendo's E3 lineup this year. Their display, their lineup, their PR and their efforts made Sony look awful. What did the PS2 have? God of War - golden axe with funky graphics. Killzone - still not halo, and definitely not Doom 3. MGS3 - a good game, undeniably.

Nintendo had Starfox, Metroid Prime: echoes, paper mario (OH NO KIDDY GAME WHAT), Baiten Kaos, Tales of Symphonia, Four Swords Adventures, Resident Evil 4 (But...but...that's a sony franchise...?), and Geist. If we're talking about "not much of anything," we're talking Sony.

Now, to why Sony is outselling the GC.

The GC has the stigma of being a games console. Not that it's kiddy or anything, but just the fact that it's a games console. A surprising amount of people buy PS2s purely because they are sony products - to them, it is a PSX, a PS2, and a DVD player, which is a nice piece of kit to go with the amplifier and DAB radio they just picked up. It is, as I said, a home entertainment system. It is sexy and black and fits beside your �4000 TV.

It's not a "games console." I doesn't look like one, even though it is one. It's not sold as one. It's sold as a piece of kit.

Oh, and to those of you screaming that Sony has a huge back catalog of games...count how many of those are asstastic. Really now. Quality over quantity, people.

The GC is badly marketed, but I think that's part of Nintendo's ethics - they don't want to compromise it being a games console, or take away from the gameplay of the games.

As was said at the press briefing by Reggie, the industry is stagnating through bigger and better graphics. Morons who just buy for the big visual jizzfest are going to kill it, and that's what makes me sad. I can only hope the Nrevolution does something for us.

The stigma given to consoles is also eroding the industry too. Nintendo are "kiddy," no matter what they do.

Remember the dreamcast? Does nobody else realise how much better it was than everything out there at the time, and even in many ways the PS2? SC1 was genius. As was chuchurocket. Samba De Amigo was amazing. Dream On was essentially doing what xbox live only just started doing, but several years before it. However, the DC was killed by poor advertising. It had the stigma of being "not the playstation," - not that it wasn't as good, but because it wasn't sony and their cockwallets behind it, it wasn't good enough for it's demographic, so it died.

It was sega's last console. And trust me, that makes me really sad. I need to dig up my DC sometime.

I challenge you fuckers to try and argue that the DC wasn't good. I really do. I will fight tooth and nail.

It saddens me that good consoles, and good developers die because they don't want to make a game that's all blood, tits, guts, gore, action, guns and hot chicks killing everything, or because it's not on a sony console, or because it isn't by EA, or squaresoft. Few of you are really willing to try anything remotely different, because you're so uncomfortable with yourselves that playing a kiddie-looking game would be considered degrading.

You saw shrek, so why not try monkey ball. But you won't, because it's on that there kiddy console, and that's only for losers and wimpy girly men. I mean, that must be how it is. Sony are the most financially successful, so they must be the best.

Right?

Somebody hates Sony...

Seems to me like most of your rant there MMM really should have been geared towards X-box instead of PS2. X-box to me seems to be trying harder to be a Home Entertainment system. Microsoft seems more focused on trying to be the next "big visual jizzfest" as you so elloquently put it. And X-box really seems to have the worst good game to bad game ratio (I don't know this for sure, but just from what I have seen).

I do agree with everything you've said about the Gamecube however. It is an extremely under-rated console, and Nintendo is an extremely good company (much better at making GOOD games than Sony or Microsoft, although not as good with marketing).

One thing I would like to note is that, in my opinion, one of the main reasons the Dreamcast failed as a system was because the price tag was about $100 higher than any system released before it. It was a great system however, and if I had the money to purchase it before Sega went out of the console market, I would have.

I thought the Dreamcast was a good system and it had good games on there too. I did'nt own one but I would go to my freinds house and play Sonic and Soul Caliber. But the reason I think it failed was because it came out a little too late in the market (I think it was before the Playstation's lifespan ended) ad everyone was preparing for the next-gen consoles.

Now as for what Loki said I think the X-box is more of a wanna-be in the video game industry becasue Microsoft is trying to advertise it as the "next best thing" and throw in all it's online and graphical capibilites. But what Xbox lacks are good and orginial games. There the ones using all these tactics to try and sell their console, like DoA Xtreme Beach Volleyball. My girlfreind saw that in a store and she was pissed that some VG company could make a "sexist" game like that (she's a gamer too).So I would'nt say Sony is a bad company or trying to break the VG industry down. I think Microsoft is alot worse than Sony or Nintendo (Not that I think the X-box is bad, it could've been better).

Originally posted by Loki
Somebody hates Sony...

Seems to me like most of your rant there MMM really should have been geared towards X-box instead of PS2. X-box to me seems to be trying harder to be a Home Entertainment system. Microsoft seems more focused on trying to be the next "big visual jizzfest" as you so elloquently put it. And X-box really seems to have the worst good game to bad game ratio (I don't know this for sure, but just from what I have seen).

It's for both of them, but more for Sony. Sony are, for me, not really attempting to make a "games system." It's the image. When a person hears "microsoft," they'll think windows. When a person hears "nintendo," they'll think mario, or the gameboy. When a person hears "sony," they'll think of hifis and stereos, and in general, something they're not so ashamed to be walking home with.

To me, Sony are losing the plot. Their great library of games comes from the amount of money they have behind them, not from a genuine enthusiasm to make fun games. Once you play Killzone, you will see how they are just trying to make games that'll sound good to advertise - it's jerky, it's samey, and it's pretty much every other shooter you can play right now on the PC. God of War is fun, but, again, samey.

The reason that I'm focusing on these, is because these are the games that they really, really hyped for the show.

I'm not confident that Sony are really in it to make...well, fun games. They don't sound like they're game-makers anymore. And maybe that's not what they're trying to be.

Microsoft, on the other hand, are still seemingly trying to make games. I have respect for the Xbox, because it's huge, and green, and relatively unashamed that it is what it is - a games console. Yes, it's microsoft, so the ethics really isn't there, and their backcatalog is poo-poo-poo-poo, yeaah, but at least they're willing to admit it's a console. They're trying to enter as a gamer's console. They're not pushing it as part of a home entertainment setup.

Sony are going for an entirely different demographic. They want monopoly over the entire home entertainments industry, in a similar way to how microsoft want it over the IT industry through the use of operating systems, longhorn, palladium, etc. With Atrac, they're trying to revolutionise and dominate personal CDs - they're bringing out an iPod equivalent too. Televisions? The new Wega range. To my knowledge they've patented blue ray, the next step up from DVD which the PS3 is intending to use.

I don't like Sony in a very much similar manner to how a lot of people don't like Microsoft. Their consoles may have a "great back-catalog," but I don't see much, if any inhouse development beyond the eyetoy (I'll be honest, I've met the developer/producer, and he's a really nice guy. Sat next to him on the way to E3 actually). While they don't neccessarily release terribly buggy software, anyone who makes any attempt to kill import gaming is, in my eyes, worse than Hitler. I hate the fact that they do so well, with so little innovation behind them.

Or maybe hate's too strong a word. I just feel really sad, as this industry is going to die on it's ass eventually, when they realise that they can't improve the graphics forever. As I said before - The NRevolution may be great. I like the NDS, a lot more than the PSP (not that I've played on one, but the potential library suggests it's just gonna be a smaller PS2), and hope that it blows it out of the water.


My girlfreind saw that in a store and she was pissed that some VG company could make a "sexist" game like that (she's a gamer too).
HAH! Your girlfriend obviously ignored Tomb Raider, then. Or Leisure Suit Larry. Or singles: flirt up your life, maybe. The Xbox isn't the only, wasn't the first, and definitely won't be the last to attract people with sex. I mean, jesus christ, Tecmo did it with Dead or Alive on the PS1.


Now as for what Loki said I think the X-box is more of a wanna-be in the video game industry becasue Microsoft is trying to advertise it as the "next best thing" and throw in all it's online and graphical capibilites.
And sony are advertising the PS2 in a similar way, except it's modelled differently, to appeal to a wider demographic. They didn't advertise their online stuff that heavily, because, at present, it's crappy. Microsoft have advertised their live services, and it DESTROYS anything that Sony can bring to the table onlinewise. The less said about Nintendo's the better. They don't know their asses from their earholes online-wise.

What do you really expect from MS though? That they'll say "well, okay, our console doesn't really have the library of the PS2, or the creative talent of nintendo...nor anything really amazing going for it apart from Ninja Gaiden. Uh. Wait! It can go online!"

If you haerrang a company for advertising it's console's good points, then you're a fool. I admit that Sony have an effective business strategy. I just don't like it that they do so well, when the NGC obviously has a lot more creative talent behind it. PS2 has a library of good games, but I don't see any that really push the boundaries of gaming, or give a new concept, beyond as I said, the eyetoy. Which becomes boring after a while anyway.

I guess I just don't see how you could say that Nintendo is pushing the boundaries on gaming and sony isn't. Nintendo really hasn't done much of anything except interactivity between gameboy and gamecube, which is really just a gimmick to get people to buy more of their stuff.

Nintendo may be focused more on making good games, but sony is more focused on making a good gaming system and buying good game developers.

What i'm saying is, while not pushing the boundaries (though the DS is interesting), they are dedicated to making good games.

Sorry if i'm slightly off with these release dates - they may be from the very end of last year.

However, with Sony, these people that they've bought or paid aren't really pulling their weight.

Point to me one really, really good game that's come out on the PS2 in the last year. There isn't anything that could reasonably compare to Warioware, or Tales of Symphonia, in sheer creative and gameplay weight. FF:CC, four swords, Mario Golf and Pok�mon colloseum all made an effort to increase connectivity, and were still great games to go with it.

Sony don't seem to be so dedicated to making a good console, nor making good games. These third party developers aren't doing so well, are they? The PS2's killer apps have been sub par for a while - GTA3 was out on the PC along with the xbox pretty sharpish. True Crime was fun, but lacking. Devil May Cry 2 was a trainwreck. MoH: Rising Sun was godawful. Kill.Switch fell on it's arse. If they're so dedicated, why are we seeing such a constant influx of mediocre, uninspired crap?

The PS2's lineup has been middling at best for a while. There have been few games that have piqued my interest, and definitely no exclusives that have impressed me.

This may be because they're focusing on the next step up. Who knows.

I think I see your point on how Microsoft and Sony are the same in advertising. But back to the games. Xbox does'nt have a good variety of games. They mostly have FPS or action games and maybe an RPG or two.

PS2 has a very good collection of games (RPGs, racing, action, etc), as well as being able to play PS1 games on there you can find any game you want to play on the PS2.Yes I noticed there have been a lack of games coming out that sparked interest but maybe that's because the anticipated games are coming out till the end of the year and next year like Grand Theft Auto: SA, Gran Turismo, Suikoden4 and FFXII.

Gamecube has it's trademark franchises like Mario and Zelda, and I've noticed how there trying to get more mature games in thier system (like Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, and Metroid Prime) and I think that's reason for why Gamecube is selling well now. As far as Nintendo's games, they should try to get more 3rd party support that way there game library will be open to a larger demographic.

I think I see your point on how Microsoft and Sony are the same in advertising.
That wasn't my point at all. What the hell. I said that both of them are trying to take over two different industries, but the xbox is marketed as a console rather than a home entertainment system, a la the PS2.


Grand Theft Auto: SA, Gran Turismo, Suikoden4 and FFXII.

FFXII is an awful MMORPGish attempt.
GT is just another racing game.
Suikoden 4? Eh. Not seen anything about it.
And I've always thought that GTA has been an overrated series since it went 3D. SA could be interesting, but I'm sure you'll see it soon after on the xbox/PC.


they should try to get more 3rd party support that way there game library will be open to a larger demographic.They already do, but usually they just get the games that come out on all three. The only way they can widen their demographic is through changing the name of their goddamn company beyond recognition, so that nobody can say "oh a games console."

I'll admit that this has been a very slow year for the PS2, but the years before have been much better.

This year still has some great games released:

Star Ocean: Til the End of Time
Champions of Norrath
Maximo vs. The Army of Zin
Fatal Frame 2

Xbox has

Chronicles of Riddick
Rainbow Six: Black Arrow
Splinter Cell 2
Ninja Gaiden

The only thing I can think of for Gamecube this year is Tales of Symphonia.

Admittedly, PS2 and X-box also released more bad games than Gamecube, but if Nintendo want to make good games and still keep up with the competition, they are going to have to start trying to release a bit more than one great game per year.

Also, Nintendo made a pretty bad choice in using mini disks rather than dvd's. They should have took the opportunity like everybody else to make a dvd player within. If they were going to use minidisks, they should have at least used smaller cases so it would take up a bit less deskspace, or made their console even smaller, rather than having the top be the size of a regular CD anyways.

FF:CC, warioware, four swords, Mario Golf and Pok�mon colloseum.

Now we're getting to opinions again, and a stalemate.


Also, Nintendo made a pretty bad choice in using mini disks rather than dvd's. They should have took the opportunity like everybody else to make a dvd player within. If they were going to use minidisks, they should have at least used smaller cases so it would take up a bit less deskspace, or made their console even smaller, rather than having the top be the size of a regular CD anyways.
Very true, and I concede that by not having dvd compatability they may have shot themselves in the foot.

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
FF:CC, warioware, four swords, Mario Golf and Pok�mon colloseum.

You can look at this list of games and see why most adults have a problem with Nintendo.

FF:CC: Looks like a kiddy game, has a silly generic story, nearly forces you to use a GBA.

Four Swords: Also very childish looking, also nearly forces you to use a GBA.

Mario Golf: Again, childish.

Warioware: It's a party game geared towards young people mainly.

Pokemon Colloseum: Please.

One thing I think Nintendo needs to get away from is requiring so much from it's players. A player should not have to have a gameboy to enjoy the gamecube. I just wish they would get away from the GBA/GC integration and just make a good console with good console games, and quit relying on a silly gimmick... which is really all the DS is also.

Originally posted by Loki
BTW: Anybody who disagrees with mrmonkeyman or I in this thread is wrong. So much for that, then.


Originally posted by Loki
silly gimmick... which is really all the DS is also. Isn't that what the Eyetoy is? Singstar?

Point being, if we stick to the usual formula, the market will stagnate. Anything new will simply be called a gimmick.

To be honest, pretty much all the games for all three consoles have been lacking this year. I've bought quite a few games this year, but out of all of them, Beyond Good And Evil is the only one that came out this year (in actual fact, it might of been last year, I don't remember). All the rest of them have been older games I never picked up when they came out.

I can't see the next generation of consoles doing too well, if all they do is improve graphics. Add that to EA's statement that next generation games are likely to cost up to double the price, due to increasing costs in production, and I don't see gaming penetrating much further than it has.

And again, that goes back to my original point of why Nintendo is viewed as childish: They have a lot more games that are kiddish.

For one, I thought Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles was a very bad game. I'm thinking Nintendo just wanted a FF game for the GC really quickly, and this game was the result. FF:TA was a lot better than CC, and that may be why FFI and FFII are being re-made for the GBASP.

The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords was a lot better than I expected it to be. That's probably because I was majorly disappointed with WW. But still, Four Swords was a game that I found to be fun. Yes the graphics aren't top-notch, but it really didn't bother me that much.

Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour is one of my favorite games for the system. Granted, it is golf, but I found it really enjoyable. And I don't understand how they could make the game any less childish than you think it is? The game has Nintendo characters, environments, and such. So, it's going to look like that.

Warioware: I can't say anything about this yet.

Pokemon Colloseum: I played Pokemon Stadium, and thought it was alright. This game is pretty much a gimmick to buy more Pokemon games for the GBA.


<I>Originally posted by TCK</I>
<B>To be honest, pretty much all the games for all three consoles have been lacking this year. I've bought quite a few games this year, but out of all of them, Beyond Good And Evil is the only one that came out this year (in actual fact, it might of been last year, I don't remember). All the rest of them have been older games I never picked up when they came out.</B>
Yes, they have been lacking, because they are putting more and more time into the next-generation consoles. But when you look at it, Nintendo decided to release their stash of good games in the fall and winter seasons. Yes, that is going to bring in a lot of cash, but they could have at least thrown in one or two more good games this summer. The only great one thus far has been ToS.


<B>I can't see the next generation of consoles doing too well, if all they do is improve graphics. Add that to EA's statement that next generation games are likely to cost up to double the price, due to increasing costs in production, and I don't see gaming penetrating much further than it has.</B>
If you were able to listen to Nintendo's E3 briefing about their next-generation console, you would see where they are going. They admitted that just beefing up the graphics is not going to be enough. So, Nintendo is going down the path of innovation, instead of renovation. And yes, I'm sure the prices will all go up, but that is to be expected. If Sony and Microsoft would concentrate more on making a gaming console, instead of a console with everything but the kitchen sink, the production costs would be a lot less.

Pokemon Colloseum: I played Pokemon Stadium, and thought it was alright. This game is pretty much a gimmick to buy more Pokemon games for the GBA.
So, what, you played stadium and marked colloseum according to that?


If you were able to listen to Nintendo's E3 briefing about their next-generation console, you would see where they are going. They admitted that just beefing up the graphics is not going to be enough. So, Nintendo is going down the path of innovation, instead of renovation. And yes, I'm sure the prices will all go up, but that is to be expected. If Sony and Microsoft would concentrate more on making a gaming console, instead of a console with everything but the kitchen sink, the production costs would be a lot less.
That's pretty much what I think too. Except I was there and personally shouted "DANCE FOR ME SHIGSY, DANCE FOR ME" and made some american guy laugh coffee through his nose :(

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
So, what, you played stadium and marked colloseum according to that?</B>
Well, you can say that, if that's what you believe. What I should have said is that I think Stadium is better than Colloseum, and that Colloseum is nothing more than a gimmick to spend more money on Nintendo products.


<B>That's pretty much what I think too. Except I was there and personally shouted "DANCE FOR ME SHIGSY, DANCE FOR ME" and made some american guy laugh coffee through his nose :(
And you also agree that Reggie is the man, which makes you the man, as well.

Ahh.
I dunno if I agree - I thought Colloseum was great fun, with the RPG bit and all.

And one day I will meet Reggie and pledge that I become his personal assistant. Like a PDA, with legs, that swears constantly.

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
I dunno if I agree - I thought Colloseum was great fun, with the RPG bit and all.
Well, I didn't like it too much. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The sad thing is, no matter which way you look at it, GameCube is losing ground in the market, because it's losing third party support.

The first big loss was Rare to Microsoft - name three of your favourite 64 games, and I bet that at least one, if not all of them, are Rare developed.

Next, they lost Factor 5 - the Rogue Squadron games might not have been perfect, but they were among the most beautiful graphics on the machine. Not to mention the only way to fly an X-Wing until LucasArts releases Jump to Lightspeed - and then, you've got the MMO hitch.

And, most recently, they lost Silicon Knights - which means no more Eternal Darkness, and no more stunning ports like MGS: The Twin Snakes.

That leaves the GameCube with Nintendo and Capcom - and so far, the only really good game looking to come out of that line up is Resident Evil 4. Which means you've got one game aimed at the largest gaming market in the world (18-25 year olds), and Nintendo's first party stuff - which is brilliant, but to the casual gamers, 'kiddie stuff'.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that Nintendo has the most creative design teams on the planet. I'm playing Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga at the moment, and i'm amazed at how seamlessly they blended platforming and RPG. Not to mention a well written, entertaining story. But the fact is, because it can be enjoyed by kids, and Nintendo's market always HAS been that age range, the GameCube is always going to be the 'kid's console', while Dad has his PlayStation2 or Xbox. Whether the games are actually any good or not is irrelevant to the mass market - it's what's marketed to them.

Which is why, ultimately, Sony is so successful - where people used to go around someone's house to play 'Nintendo', they now go to play the 'PlayStation' - it has become synonmous with gaming. And although the Xbox is looking to jar Sony a bit, ultimately, for the last two generations, they have been ultra successful.

In terms of hardware, XboX is better then the PS2.

But looking in choice of games I'd say PS2 is the big winner. I muchly enjoy RPGs so it's perfect for me.

Which is why, ultimately, Sony is so successful - where people used to go around someone's house to play 'Nintendo', they now go to play the 'PlayStation' - it has become synonmous with gaming. And although the Xbox is looking to jar Sony a bit, ultimately, for the last two generations, they have been ultra successful.
I maintain that the PSX/PS2's success comes from the brand name. People associate Sony with hi-fis and such, so they don't feel so ashamed to say "oh, I have a sony playstation," because it's something associated with DVDs and such.

Seriously, people are just that fickle.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Except, around my friends, Nintendo and Xbox lovers that they are, I get jeered constantly for my PS2 - even though i've got the Xbox and a GameCube as well ;_;

I seriously doubt that name association alone can explain the success of the PS2. Nowadays when most people think of Sony they think of playstation and not hi-fis. Also anyone who obsesses over name brands in electronics should realize they're geeks and not be ashamed to bring home a nintendo product.

What's probably a bigger factor in the success of the PS2 is that it was released to the public a year in advance of the Gamecube or Xbox, so when those consoles were released a lot of people were like "but I already have a PS2"

Also the PS2 has had at least one great game in just about every genre for quite awhile now. Something that can't be said about the Gamecube or Xbox.

And then there is of course the marketing, which you see a lot more of for PS2 than Xbox or Gamecube (unless you go to the movie theatre).

Originally posted by Loki
One thing I would like to note is that, in my opinion, one of the main reasons the Dreamcast failed as a system was because the price tag was about $100 higher than any system released before it. It was a great system however, and if I had the money to purchase it before Sega went out of the console market, I would have.

Actually, the Dreamcast debuted at $199; $100 cheaper than the ps2 and xbox.

Also, the Dreamcast was an excellent, excellent system. In it's short lifespan, it brought tons of innovation and overall great games to the market. Thank you sony and your $$$ for killing such a good thing. The ps2 didn't have a great game until a year after it's release (MGS 2), yet, people bought it in droves, completely ignoring the Dreamcast and it's huge lineup of superior titles.

As for the Playstation/Xbox debate, the Playstation is obviously better. The Xbox has Ninja Gaiden and Fable...essentially every other game the system has to offer is also available for another console or the PC.

Even though I own more games for my PS2, I'd have to say that the gamecube is superior. I highly respect Nintendo. They are all about making FUN GAMES, even though it costs them sales because, you know, unless your game has blood, tits and fuck, it isn't bout dat goodness. I love when people say OMG NINTENDO SUCKS COS FOR KIDS. Ironically, most of the ones saying this are prepubescents/early teens.

MMM, I agree with everything you have said.

Also, the greatness of the GBA eclipses all three consoles IMO.

I seriously doubt that name association alone can explain the success of the PS2. Nowadays when most people think of Sony they think of playstation and not hi-fis.

Actually, you're probably being biased in that - being a gamer, and all. Sony is still well known in the 'world at large' for their Home Entertainment systems and uh... Camcorders. The PlayStation is just a small part of their consumer empire.

Also anyone who obsesses over name brands in electronics should realize they're geeks and not be ashamed to bring home a nintendo product.

Actually, 'geeks' are less likely to obsess over brand names - brand names have always been the herald of the status quo. It's the 'cool crowd' that will want a PlayStation2 because it's got Sony - because 'Nintendo is for kids' and 'Microsoft is for geeks'.

What's probably a bigger factor in the success of the PS2 is that it was released to the public a year in advance of the Gamecube or Xbox, so when those consoles were released a lot of people were like "but I already have a PS2"

Then why isn't the Sega Dreamcast ruling the world?

Also the PS2 has had at least one great game in just about every genre for quite awhile now. Something that can't be said about the Gamecube or Xbox.

Okay, these are just my opinion, but consider these few examples -

RPGS:
PS2 - Final Fantasy X
Xbox - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
GC - Tales of Symphonia (I refuse to acknowledge Wind Waker! Or any Zelda, for that matter!)

Racing:
PS2 - Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec
Xbox - Forza Motorsport
GC - Mario Kart: Double Dash

First Person Shooters:
PS2 - Exclusives? None spring to mind.
Xbox - Halo.
GC - Metroid Prime

Seriously, I challenge you to find a genre that is under represented in any console - except the FPS, and that's unrepresented by SONY.

And then there is of course the marketing, which you see a lot more of for PS2 than Xbox or Gamecube (unless you go to the movie theatre).

True. That Human Pyramid ad is kinda funky.

*strolls away humming 'Get Onboard'*

Originally posted by Raidenex
Actually, you're probably being biased in that - being a gamer, and all. Sony is still well known in the 'world at large' for their Home Entertainment systems and uh... Camcorders. The PlayStation is just a small part of their consumer empire.

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I've just found that when it comes to electronics consumers tend to look at a few key specs (i.e. screen size for tvs or monitors) and the price with name brand being a distant third in their purchase choice.


Then why isn't the Sega Dreamcast ruling the world?

Because a good majority of sega games lacked mass market appeal (Seaman anyone?). That and Sega lacked the financial backing of Sony or Microsoft

And I did say Sony had games in nearly every genre for quite awhile, meaning around year before the other consoles got their great games in the respective genres, and I never said they needed to be exclusives.

RPG - TS is a new game while KOTOR is a year old.

Racing - I've yet to play Forza and Mario Kart is more like vehicular tag than racing.

FPS - as I recall Timesplitters came out when the PS2 was still new and Red Faction is a great FPS.

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I've just found that when it comes to electronics consumers tend to look at a few key specs (i.e. screen size for tvs or monitors) and the price with name brand being a distant third in their purchase choice.

Maybe. But you'd take a Sony over a Telefunken, wouldn't you? (And uh... no, I didn't make that up. Telefunken is a cheap Korean TV manufacturer.)

Because a good majority of sega games lacked mass market appeal (Seaman anyone?). That and Sega lacked the financial backing of Sony or Microsoft

Ah, there you have my point - it was the marketing that affected sales. The PlayStation2, Xbox and even Nintendo to a point suceeded where Sega didn't because they had the funds to market their product. And i'm sure you'll find a number of people here who will argue about mass market appeal - never having played a Dreamcast myself, I couldn't tell you.

And I did say Sony had games in nearly every genre for quite awhile, meaning around year before the other consoles got their great games in the respective genres, and I never said they needed to be exclusives.

But uh... if they're not exclusive, you can't use them in an argument. Because they're on all consoles anyway - unless you're arguing a game like Max Payne 2, which is brilliant on the PC, good on the Xbox, cool on the GameCube, and awful tripe on the PS2.

RPG - TS is a new game while KOTOR is a year old.

Yes - but they're there. 'Who got in first' doesn't matter in gaming, as shown by the Dreamcast.

Racing - I've yet to play Forza and Mario Kart is more like vehicular tag than racing.

You've played Mario Kart and can still call it vehicular tag? MK:DD is RACING AT IT'S MOST HARDCORE. Just because the presentation is different don't mean the physics aren't up to scratch, and you'll still need to drive well to beat the opposition.

FPS - as I recall Timesplitters came out when the PS2 was still new and Red Faction is a great FPS.

Timesplitters is no longer PS2 exclusive - the fact that TS2 was released on all consoles shows that the publisher would have done the same with the first one.

And they released Red Faction on the N-Gage for crying out loud. That game is NOT a great FPS.

Yes it would seem that ps2 is more successful cuz of more games on the shelf.

But what would happen if X-box had as many games as ps2 would X-box be a better seller than

<I>Originally posted by mrmonkeyman</I>
<B>I maintain that the PSX/PS2's success comes from the brand name. People associate Sony with hi-fis and such, so they don't feel so ashamed to say "oh, I have a sony playstation," because it's something associated with DVDs and such.</B>
I don't believe it's not solely because of the brand name. I believe that people pretty much started associating Playstation with Sony, right after PS2 came out. When Playstation was still selling well, people were still thinking Sony was more along the lines of televisions and hi-fi stuff. It's only when PS2 hit the shelves that people started to notice the company as more than one that produces t.v.s


<I>Originally posted by Durendal</I>
<B>What's probably a bigger factor in the success of the PS2 is that it was released to the public a year in advance of the Gamecube or Xbox, so when those consoles were released a lot of people were like "but I already have a PS2"</B>
Yes, that is a valid point. PS2 got a huge jump over the competitors by releasing earlier. And it is still doing really well for making that move.

Microsoft has pretty much stated that they are trying really hard to release their next-generation console before Sony and Nintendo. I don't like this move at all for them. It gives PS3 and Revolution a chance to be altered to what more gamers will not be satisfied with in X-box Next. Although, It really doesn't matter when Nintendo releases Revolution. They have already stated that their next-generation console's main attraction isn't going to be the better graphics, like Sony's and Microsoft's most likely will be. I believe they have an advantage, in that they are innovating themselves, instead of renovating.


<B>And then there is of course the marketing, which you see a lot more of for PS2 than Xbox or Gamecube (unless you go to the movie theatre).</B>
Well, Nintendo has recently started running more new adds of their "Who Are You?" view. This is going to help them, because arguably the Gamecube's best lineup is coming within the next several months.


<I>Originally posted by Transexula</I>
<B>Even though I own more games for my PS2, I'd have to say that the gamecube is superior. I highly respect Nintendo. They are all about making FUN GAMES, even though it costs them sales because, you know, unless your game has blood, tits and fuck, it isn't bout dat goodness. I love when people say OMG NINTENDO SUCKS COS FOR KIDS. Ironically, most of the ones saying this are prepubescents/early teens.</B>
I believe that Nintendo is superior when it comes to making fun games. And besides, isn't that what games are meant for, to be fun?


<B>Racing - Mario Kart is more like vehicular tag than racing.</B>
Oh come on! The object of the game isn't to tag your opponent or whatever you are trying to say. It's to win the race. Nintendo did that, and also added a heck of a lot of fun into your strategy at the same time.

I seriously doubt that name association alone can explain the success of the PS2. Nowadays when most people think of Sony they think of playstation and not hi-fis. Also anyone who obsesses over name brands in electronics should realize they're geeks and not be ashamed to bring home a nintendo product.

Then you sir, underestimate the fickle nature of the consumer electronics industry. A lot of people buy electronics to make up for things, or just to have that big bang for their buck in their living room. People see Sony, and they don't immediately think "oh no a games console I'm such a nerd." They think that it's a sony product, so it's not THAT nerdy, and buy it. It's that simple.


What's probably a bigger factor in the success of the PS2 is that it was released to the public a year in advance of the Gamecube or Xbox, so when those consoles were released a lot of people were like "but I already have a PS2"

This is a factor, but not the factor, and definitely not a bigger factor. What people buy these days can be seen as status symbols - I mean, check this forum. People boast about having completed FF whatever and (some) people are impressed by that. In the same way, if some guy says "I have a sony TV" someone is going to be more impressed than them saying "I...have a grundig."

And let's be honest. Would you buy the grundig playstation?


And I did say Sony had games in nearly every genre for quite awhile, meaning around year before the other consoles got their great games in the respective genres, and I never said they needed to be exclusives.

RPG - TS is a new game while KOTOR is a year old.

Racing - I've yet to play Forza and Mario Kart is more like vehicular tag than racing.

FPS - as I recall Timesplitters came out when the PS2 was still new and Red Faction is a great FPS.
Okay, let's not be so hasty.

Did you play RF on the PS2? Did you see how HORRIBLE it looked, to the point that it was so jerky that it was unplayable?

Mario Kart is a racing game first and foremost. Don't try and pin it down from the small experience you've had with it.

Timesplitters was a limited, boring blaster. Yes, you could get some fun out of it with friends, but take it in as a whole and you'll see that it lacks a lot. Fun and fast, yeah, and just the sort of game that the PS2 needed to start, but NOT genre defining and NOT perfect.

However, KOTOR is better than TS.


And then there is of course the marketing, which you see a lot more of for PS2 than Xbox or Gamecube (unless you go to the movie theatre)
I'll be honest - I don't see a lot of advertising for any of the consoles at all. Anywhere, apart from of course in the pages of magazines, which sort of defeats the point for me.

This topic makes me want my dreamcast back. It makes me want it back bad. I want to play samba de amigo and space channel 5, or maybe Marvel Versus Capcom 2 or Sonic Adventure.

OH GOD.

SEGA.

COME BACK TO ME DARLING.

Originally posted by Smokey

I believe that Nintendo is superior when it comes to making fun games. And besides, isn't that what games are meant for, to be fun?


Obviously not, otherwise the Gamecube would be the numero uno console.

Originally posted by Transexula


Obviously not, otherwise the Gamecube would be the numero uno console.
Eh. People have proved time and time again all they want is the same recycled crap with tits and ass. Fifa 2000 and whatever, The Sims: Ridiculous Expansion, and Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness have all proved this.

Originally posted by Transexula
Obviously not, otherwise the Gamecube would be the numero uno console.
No, you are wrong again. I said games are <I>meant</I> to be fun, and that Nintendo does the best job at bringing fun games to the shelves. Ever since Super Mario Bros. came out, games always have, and still are, supposed to be fun. But that doesn't necessarily mean that is what Sony and/or Microsoft is doing. They just add sex, violence, and whatever else these "non-fun" gamers are looking for.

GAMEGEAR=TEH WIN!

What's not fun about attaching a C-4 charge to an unattentive guard's back and sneaking a safe distance away and detonating it and watching the chaos (a la MGS/MGS2)?

Different tastes in what is and is not fun does not necessarily dictate what is the "better console" between X-box and PS2.

So, I ask, why was the Gamecube even brought up in a discussion of whether the X-Box is better than the PS2, or vice versa? It is not a factor in the whole discussion given the question, now is it?

Originally posted by Smokey

No, you are wrong again. I said games are <I>meant</I> to be fun, and that Nintendo does the best job at bringing fun games to the shelves. Ever since Super Mario Bros. came out, games always have, and still are, supposed to be fun. But that doesn't necessarily mean that is what Sony and/or Microsoft is doing. They just add sex, violence, and whatever else these "non-fun" gamers are looking for.

GAMEGEAR=TEH WIN!

What was I wrong about before?

Anyways, of course games are meant to be fun. My comment was sarcastic, as the general consensus seems to agree that a game can't be fun unless it involves killing, boobs, intestines, and jung. It is common knowledge that Nintendo is one of the best -- if not THE best -- game developer out there. And because their games do not include the aforementioned, they are billed as "FOR KIDS ONLY" and generally not like by the "HARDKORE." I guess that shows what society has degraded to.

I still believe the PS2 coming out a year before the Xbox is a big factor. Yes people in our society are big on status symbols, but a good sized chunk of the gaming market is still teenagers that simply can't afford to buy 3 consoles and games for all of them.

Yes did play Red Faction and I enjoyed it.

I'm not saying mario kart is a bad game, far from it I love mario kart, just that it's not a racing game. You fire projectiles at people in front of you and get in front of them, people in the back of the race get the choice items much more often than the people in the front of the race so they can stay in competition. This makes for an extreamly fun game, but not a racing game. Also I've spent many hours playing the SNES, N64, and Gamecube versions of mario kart, so I do have more than a "small experience" with the game.

As far as Timesplitters goes, fun and fast is the name of the game when it comes to shooters.

Just because a game is no longer an exclusive does not mean it didn't help sony sell more units. Look at Grand Theft Auto 3, it came out on PS2 far before the Xbox or PC versions, and in that time period if someone wanted to play GTA3 they had to buy a PS2.

fun and fast is the name of the game when it comes to shooters.
Just like Doom 3, halflife, and Red Faction.

Methinks you shat that point out.

in defense of fast n fun shooters, serious sam was fun for a while and ut is still fun on small maps with lost of bots/people. but they get old after a while. also, gta3 came out on xbox and pc, but were seriously messed. the pc version was good, had some cool addons and stuff. lost my conviction and thought process here.

X-Box for me, better games, better gameplay, better everything. Don't post a console comparison thread on a FF site, you know it's filled with Sony fanboys.

Originally posted by Safer Sephiroth
<B>better games, better gameplay, better everything.</B>
Such as?

Originally posted by Safer Sephiroth
X-Box for me, better games, better gameplay, better everything. Don't post a console comparison thread on a FF site, you know it's filled with Sony fanboys.
Better graphics? Yes.
Better online support? Yes.
Better games? Well, if we count everything that's exclusive to xbox, all I can find is...uh...Riddick? Jade Empire? Sudeki? Most of the games are on some other console or PC. Not that I don't value my xbox, but you're more of a fanboy than anyone else here if you seriously believe it has all the best games/better games.

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
Riddick Riddick will soon be on PC as well.

Originally posted by TCK
I would mention the Gamecube, but of course GAEMCUBE MORE LEIK GAYCUBE ROFLZ!!~

LAMEPUBE LOLZ

I vote for ps2 over XBox, because the game are much better. But GC owns all, obviously.

Ps2 over x-box yes x-box has better graphics but for me graphics dont make a game story,gameplay,sound and all that is what makes a game and sony does all that and thats why its ps2 over x-box P.S check out my thread in general gameing its called Next Generation P.S again i even say that gamecube is better then x-box but ps2 over both of them lozers:p

Well, X-box is clearly more powerful.

But there is no way to say that either system is "superior" because they are machines intended for entertainment. That's like trying to judge beauty or intelligence.

Congratulations.

You're a dipshit of massive potential.

You have got to be shitting me.

Don't revive 5 year old threads. Stick to the threads on the first page of a given forum.