First off, let me state that I am not a hardcore gamer. I don't really want games that I have to go super deep into. I like something I can pick up, play, and then shut off when I am done. I'm a 21 year old (in 16 days) college student who is interested in many things other than games. I don't even follow the videogame industry. The only reason I know anything about the Revolution, the 360 and the PS3 is because Speedfreak likes to send me links to articles.
If you consider yourself a hardcore gamer, who can spend 4 hours per day playing a videogame by yourself, who can read hardware specs and drool, you will probably like the PS3 or the 360 better. That's not me. I don't care. Nowadays, graphical differences are becoming less and less noticeable, and I guarantee that you can play a PS, a PS2 and a PS3 all in a row and notice what makes the PS2 stand out from the PS more than what makes the PS3 stand out from the PS2 (as far as graphics go). I'm all about games that are just fun.
Nintendo states that the Revolution is going to target the non-gamer, and is supposed to be for use by the whole family, not a solo venture. This is consistant with everything Nintendo has done in the last 2 years. Out of all 3 system manufacturers, Nintendo is obviously the one that puts more emphasis on multiplayer games.
A side effect of this emphasis is that great "family games" also make great party games. Beyond Halo and DDR (which isn't really that fun on the PS2 at parties unless you're a rich bastard who can afford two metal pads), what great party games are around on the PS2 and XBox? Between kids having sleepovers and drunk college students needing an excuse to cause riots, you're going to find a lot of Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Mario Party at multiplayer gatherings. You will find more Halo, but there is nothing on the X-box beyond that one series.
I'm a party gamer. I want multiplayer games that will make great entertainment when I invite friends over. I get bored off my @$$ within 20 minutes of playing a "deep" game solo, unless it's an old SNES favorite or a GBA game. I'd rather play Mario Kart 64/DD with 3 friends than play MGS3 or Final Fantasy X alone. If I'm alone, I'd rather go on the internet and interact online than play videogames.
I'm also a retro gamer. In those times when I do want to game alone, I will ignore my GameCube and PS2, and instead fire up the SNES and play old classics like Zelda: LTTP, Secret of Mana, Soulblazer or Chrono Trigger. Games that can be deep and involved yet are equally easy to just pick up and play. The only time I do not ignore my GCN is when I plug in the Game Boy Player and fire up a game like Golden Sun, Fire Emblem or Megaman Battle Network insert-sequel-number-here, all of which carry the retro-appeal of being easy to pick up and play yet have the ability to be deep and involving.
Because of the Revolution, I can now get rid of the clutter associated with keeping full collections of SNES, NES, N64 and GCN collections. I can take all that into Gamestop, trade it all in, practically get the Revolution for free after the value of my trade-ins is taken into consideration, then go home and get the retro games all over again. What's better for a party than having SSB, SSBM, Mario Kart 64 and Double Dash, Super Bomberman 1/2, etc. all one one system? And that's not even taking into consideration the possible release of retro Sega games (I'd kill for Shining Force II and Phantasy Star IV), and the new Revolution games.
Oh, and here's another reason why I'm buying a Revolution: Somewhere along the line, there is going to be full internet capability, and that leads to the possibility that amateur developers will be making ROMs off of NES or SNES or Sega engines. Who wouldn't love companies creating their own homebrews to download?
Plus, the Revolution will cost less money to buy, and I don't like spending too much money on ANYTHING. Between the price point, the social aspect, and the retro collection, The N has won me back.
----------
On why Nintendo will not die off.
Sure, the GCN is in third place in the console race. Sure, the PSP is finally giving the Game Boy Advance and the DS a run for their sales. Sure, more hype surrounds Sony and Microsoft. But what is the REAL mark of sustainability for any good company?
That's right, say it with me: THE BOTTOM LINE.
What that means is simple subtraction. You take the amount of money a company has earned in their fiscal year, and subtract it by the amount they have spent in their fiscal year. In this category, Nintendo absolutely crushes the competition.
The fact is, most companies lose money on the systems they sell. They make the money back with first-party games and peripherals. But what happens when they do not sell enough of those to make the money back? They lose it.
Nintendo wins for two reasons. First off, their systems are very inexpensive to make. Despite the low prices of the GBA, the DS, and (before price drops) the Cube, Nintendo turns a net profit off of the systems they sell. They sell at a gain, not a loss. Microsoft and Sony sell at losses. Nintendo, by downplaying the system-specs arms race that is turning Sony and Microsoft into a cold-war era America and Russia, is preparing gamers for system that is powerful, but not so powerful that they are selling it at a loss because of how much it costs to produce. Nintendo will focus on making the Revolution as powerful as they can at as low of a price as they can, the same way they did with the DS.
Second, they obviously produce and sell more first-party games than MS and Sony do. People criticize Nintendo for being too into its own games and less into third party games, but guess which makes Nintendo more money?
For number 1, we look at the handheld market in particular. Nintendo keeps the GBA itself profitable (and the Game Boy before it) by releasing new, improved versions (the GBA SP and now the GB Micro) at higher prices. In times of old, they did the same thing with the Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Color. In contrast, Sony has been selling the PSP at a loss ever since the day it was released, AND since they made it an all-in-one system for MP3s and movies too, they sell more PSPs but not enough more games to make up for it. Nintendo did the smart thing by leaving the MP3s to the iPod. The DS has the potential for movie conversion peripherals, but that should not have Nintendo worried at all, because their system is already sold at a profit!
Despite their underwhelming presence in the arms race, Nintendo has been ruling the videogame market for years. The GBA family, the DS, and the GCN have combined to consistantly sell almost as many units as the PS2 and the X-Box COMBINED. The PSP has thrown a wrench into that, but being as it is so expensive and sold at a loss, Nintendo should be seeing even more of a profit advantage over its rival.
Sega, before it turned third party, was losing billions on the bottom line. Nintendo's bottom line shows that they CONSISTANTLY pull in over a billion dollars per year, even after all the spending is done. In other words, Nintendo is sitting on a gigantic pile of cash that is growing faster and faster. Their conservative business practices are causing them to turn ridiculous profits. Sony and Microsoft have other ventures to fall back on when their gaming divisions lose money, but Nintendo does not, so Nintendo needs to have their game division be as profitable as possible. It's a matter of simple math: Lower development costs, and sell more units. Nintendo has their bases covered.
I can agree with pretty much everything except...
[quote=///Phantom]The only reason I know anything about the Revolution, the 360 and the PS3 is because Speedfreak likes to send me links to articles.
I fear your arguement may unravel at this point.
Y'know... That was a very nice post Phantom. I think when I saw the thread before I clicked on it, I presumed it'd be some biased statement that didn't give anything. But you gave your own reasons, and good reasons at that. I don't necessarily agree, but you definately made a good statement.
Good post. For some reason I expected less, but you made some good, valid points. *Thumbs up*
Heh, I'm just surprised you haven't been flamed yet. I remember bringing casual gamers into my arguments back in the day, and I can still remember the insults directed towards them by a few of the members here. But, I guess as long as you like Nintendo, you're safe in this forum.
Good post.
[quote=Lord of Spam]I can agree with pretty much everything except...
You do realize that you could most likely sell that to people over Ebay for FAR more than any store will give you, right? Not to mention that having it is worth it just from a collection stand point (kind of like how people buy Ferraris they never drive.)
Some of them are going to be EBay fodder (like the Square RPGs), but there's nobody who's going to pay any significant amount of money for stuff like Darius Twin or SimCity.
[quote=Vampiro]Good post. For some reason I expected less, but you made some good, valid points. *Thumbs up*
Probably because that was my longest post ever at VGC :P
My library of NES, SNES and N64 titles is pretty small compared to most other old-school fanatics just because I missed out on the gaming industry for quite a bit, but I'd never sell what I have. It's like being able to show your grandkids and old record collection, even if you could have the same music on tape, CD or mp3.
Im buying a Revolution because I BORED TO DEATH with games that are just games. How many fps, RTS's, racing sims and platformers do you need? I have a computer, it will play all the next gen games. I have no need for a console that does the same thing, less some graphics and minus about 110 buttons.
The Revolution is a breath of fresh air. Its different. I love the idea of somthing quirky, odd and charming. Nintendo is bringing somthing new to the table, no one else can. While Microsoft and Sony duke it out for the sales and graphics, I will be sitting back with my Revolution enjoying it. When I want to buy a game that has the graphics and all too familiar genre (now with slow mo and better graphics) Ill buy it on my PC.
TV consoles will never be as good as a PC. The 360 can not possibly have better parts in it then a computer only double its price. Nintendo can resign itself to this fact, and concentrate on fun. Computers will always be the prefered networked gamming hardware. Nintendo is looking at this, focusing on by being able to download whole games, getting rid of problems of lag, cheating, patches and cennection problems.
There are people out there who will not bring themselves to liking a game thats concept seems childish/easy or too simple. These people will never give themselves a chanch to relize how fun these games are. Im 18 and whenever I see Warioware in a store as a demo I get my friends over to play it. They all flame me for liking it, telliing me its a stupid game. Then they play it. It takes them a while, the negativty can be a stong emotion to overcome but most of them do. The other ones, the hardcore guys who would prefer to die then cry in public dont get it, and I pitty them for that.
Its time. Its been way too long sense 3D hit games, that was a major change that allowed differnt genres to be created. platformers had new levels of difficulty and fun, sports games became more then pong, fps.. didnt change that much. Now 3D is stale. No matter how many Gb of tetures you sqweeze onto a DVD Halo 3 will still be Halo 1 with new maps and guns, with more shinny and rounded helmets. The original of anything is always the best. Its a new idea, somthing you have never seen before. While Mario 64 was the best game ever, I have no need to see a sequal nearly 10 years on. Its time for a change, its time for a Revolution (Pun intended).
We can not compare the futre with the past. The new thing has always been different. Graphics have helped along the way, but that is not what changed the games. 3D is a developing tool, not a graphical upgrade. People thoght Mario 64 was so good because it brang a new dimention of playing, not because it looked pretty. The 3D enviroment created a new experence.
This is what the 360 and PS3 fail to see. They are not geetting inovation from looking lifelike. They are not getting inovation from making Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 or Project Gothem 3. They are not getting inovation from allowing online play (its been around for around 8 years now). No matter how many Mp3 players, DVD players or washing machines you put into a console it will never have the flexibility of a PC. For the price of a PS3 I could build a computer as powerful, put a decent hard drive into it, network it to another computer, connect it to a TV and have it be the ultimate entertainment system, suited to my needs.
Nintendo doesnt screw around with all this add on crap. Sure a DVD player was a selling point for the PS2. But who the hell doesnt have a DVD player these days? The next gen consoles simply dont need one.
Nintendo IS getting inovation from the DS, its getting inovation from a new way of interating with games. It is getting inovation from new ideas and game genre's. No matter how cool it is to play against someone on the other side of the world, nothing beats beats having a bash with 3 other mates in the one house.
/well thats my rant for the year. betcha no one reads it.
Awesome, a well thought out post and very interesting. Both of you, ///Phantom and Osic echoed alot of the very same sentiments I've been feeling towards the whole next-gen console wars idea. It's nice to see someone honestly state their opinion and why and do so in an intelligent manner.
Kudos to thee! :D
I've just been convinced that Nintendo is the ruler. Dedication = Nintendo now.
Very good post Phantom.
I agree with what you said about the clutter thats a big reason I'm geting the Rev. I get to stell play all the games I love without the cartridges taking up all that space.
Very good statements so far. Now let me make mine, thought they may not be as long. I am a Hardcore gamer, yet I will also be buying the Revolution. Why? Because Nintendo focuses on the quality of games, not just how flashy the graphics are. They provide games that will draw you in and have you playing for days on end if necessary. I will be buying Revolution because Nintendo's main focus IS GAMING, not to be an all-in-one super computer.
game nerds
Punk rock fag.
[quote=///Phantom]Out of all 3 system manufacturers, Nintendo is obviously the one that puts more emphasis on multiplayer games.
I have to disagree there. Notice how there is only 2 games for the GameCube that people actually play online. If they had more online games, the GameCube would sell more, it's as simple as that.
For the rest of the post, pretty nice. There isn't much to debate, unless we can find some fanboy PS2 users... Now, if you wanted an argument between which is better- the DS or the GCN, that would bring some controversy.
I don't know why I didn't read this thread sooner. I guess the title made it seem fanboyish. But, I'm glad I did give it a read. Many good points were made. I'm not surprised in the least that there is no flaming going on.
Phantom and Osic have good arguments. If I wasn't a Nintendo fanboy I'd buy a Rev due to what they said. But since I am a fanboy, I'll buy 2 Revs due to what they said.
I'd also like to thank you since I now have something to show all the Sony/Microsoft fanboys at school that go 'S/M is gonna put Nintendo out of business' to make them shut up.
[quote=Protoman]Very good statements so far. Now let me make mine, thought they may not be as long. I am a Hardcore gamer, yet I will also be buying the Revolution. Why? Because Nintendo focuses on the quality of games, not just how flashy the graphics are. They provide games that will draw you in and have you playing for days on end if necessary. I will be buying Revolution because Nintendo's main focus IS GAMING, not to be an all-in-one super computer.
Okay, I'm going to call fanboy on this. There are high quality games on EVERY system that you can play for days on end. There are also low quality games on every system. The setup of Nintendo's games, though, makes them easier to get into. That's why I dig Nintendo. Nintendo also makes games with VERY good graphics, using less all out hardware. Golden Sun, if you remember, did some absolutely incredible things with the GBA, and despite being a first-generation game, it still goes down as one of the best looking GBA games.
[quote=Protoman] Since when was Sim City ever a significant amount?
We're not discussing the MSRP of Sim City in 1993. The point is, I'm not going to get 30-40 dollars for it if I sell it on EBay.
[quote=GameMiestro]I have to disagree there. Notice how there is only 2 games for the GameCube that people actually play online. If they had more online games, the GameCube would sell more, it's as simple as that.
I was referring to traditional multiplayer, with 4 controllers plugged in, and 4 friends plugging away at SSBM, Mario Kart, or any other multiplayer game. I'm not big into the online scene.
[quote=GameMiestro]I have to disagree there. Notice how there is only 2 games for the GameCube that people actually play online. If they had more online games, the GameCube would sell more, it's as simple as that.
Hahahahaha. Wrong.
[quote=Speedfreak]Hahahahaha. Wrong.
So, you're saying they would sell less if they had online games? If thats true, then the DS is doomed, unless they quickly recall any Wi-Fi games in production. And lets pray that the Revolution does not have an online connection, otherwise, there's no chance of it getting much sales...
"Hahahahaha" yourself.
You said GC would've sold a decent amount more if it were online. I'm saying online has contributed sod-all to sales of consoles and the facts are on my side.
SO HAHAHAHA, YOU ARE WRONG.
[QUOTE=SomebodyRandom]
-I love playing massive Online Games
-I love my shooters and action games
Uh. Surely Revolution provides better support for that than the other two? At least - if the third parties join up, and it's pretty much guaranteed that EA will be, so that's all your James Bond shooters. In fact, can anyone name me a console-specific FPS of this generation apart from Halo (or Metroid, I guess) that's been a smash hit? All the main ones (like Timesplitters, for instance), have been multiformat AFAIK.
Also, NWFC has proven to be better than LIVE at launch, so far. Despite having a less catchy name. :)
[quote=Wings]Uh. Surely Revolution provides better support for that than the other two? At least - if the third parties join up, and it's pretty much guaranteed that EA will be, so that's all your James Bond shooters. In fact, can anyone name me a console-specific FPS of this generation apart from Halo (or Metroid, I guess) that's been a smash hit? All the main ones (like Timesplitters, for instance), have been multiformat AFAIK.
Also, NWFC has proven to be better than LIVE at launch, so far. Despite having a less catchy name. :)
As far as games go, anyway. Wi-fi connection is much less robust than Xbox Live for the most part, but it's still decent. Mario Kart DS kicks the crap out of any of th first gen Live games, though. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say the only remotely decent Live game so far is Halo 2, the rest are really nothing special at all. The cool thing is devs can add their own servers and give services that are just as robust as Xbox Live 3. The Tony Hawk DS game has clans for God's sake!
[quote=SomebodyRandom]
-I love playing massive Online Games
-I love my shooters and action games
-Nintendo doesn't have many RPG's
-I prefer graphics to go along with my great quality in games
-Both the 360 and PS3 are high definition
-Both the 360 and PS3 have more support from companies
-Recent Mario + Zelda series have gone downhill
- PCs are better for MMOs than any of the consoles are.
- All consoles have tons of shooters, Nintendo itself was built around action games.
- Golden Sun, Pokémon and Fire Emblem are all decent. If you count it as an RPG, Zelda is one of the best RPGs of all time.
- Nintendo has never not been up to par on graphics in home consoles. Ever.
- Amazing control easily outweighs 1.5x better resolution.
- Revolution has more support considering it's only just started out sending dev kits. At the same position PS3 and 360 were in no company expressed anywhere near as much enthusiasm. And not one single high profile games designer has praised either console for their technology, which is something Revo got in spades.
- I'm assuming you didn't like Sunshine or Wind Waker. I hardly think that a single game in the series that has features that you don't like is any reason to assume that the entire series has gone downhill. Still, I'd check out the new Super Mario Bros and Twilight Princess. If traditional Mario and Zelda fans aren't pleased with those games then they never will be.
[quote=Osic] -massive Online Games will always be best on the computer, for the simple fact people have been doing it for years and know how to do it right.
I'm gonna have to go with what Tycho of Penny-Arcade said, MMORPGs are just gloryfied chat rooms. They really aren't that fun.
[quote=Osic]-fps's for me, are only playable with a keyboard/mouse (unless you use a Goldeneye like control sceme or Metriod on the DS).
I agree with half of that. Mice are better for aiming than thumbsticks are, but analog sticks and face buttons beat the snot out of keyboards. They're just far more comfortable due to the fact that your hand is closer to resting position, use less digits (fingers and thumb, you need at least 2 and normally 3 fingers to move with WASD. With a stick you just need your thumb AND you get better movement.
[quote=Osic]-Graphics will always be better on the computer because it is the most upgradable. The PS3 "tech demos" were rendered with 2x 6800GT's not a PS3 video card. This shows that computers can easily beat the 360 and PS3 graphics wise, althogh personaly I like to turn down the eye candy a little in some games because there more playable with easier on the eye textures and stupid sun glare etc.
Uh, PS3s graphics card is better than 2 6800GTs SLIed anyway. PS3 uses a PC graphics card.
[quote=Osic]-Computer games go to insane resolutions, 1680x1050 compared to the measily 1280x720 on the 360 and PS3. And this is actualy rendered in this resolution oposed to the 360 and PS3 where some of the games are rendered at lower resolutions and scaled up.
Ha, tell me about it. Half Life 2 actually really got on my nerves because I kept stopping to look at the normal mapping.
[quote=Osic]-Mario and Zelda have not gone downhill. You obviously never played Wind Waker because of its childish graphics, in fact it was a great game, it was actualy fun to explore and stuff around. I spent countless hours sailing around basicaly doing nothing and it is way more fun then some of the games that are comming out now. Mario Sunshine wasnt that bad, it was an upgrade from Mario 64 and therefore couldnt be as good (read my other post, its the inovation that makes a game, not the graphics or brand name).
The problems Mario Sunshine had were the same problems Super Mario World had. Compared to Super Mario Bros 3 it wasn't that much of a change.
[quote=Osic]The 360 and PS3 are just watered down computers. You cant possibly get a computer for $500 that is decent, how can you expect to get a console to do the same things. Nintendo doesnt try this, graphics power doesnt matter, no one will be disipointed when the games come out and dont look like real life. However when people see the 360 and PS3 they will be thinking that, its just a Xbox with better graphics.
It's true that you get what you pay for, but there are also reasons other than being less powerful for the lower pricepoints.
Firstly, consoles are sold at a loss, PCs are sold for profit. It costs maybe $500 to make the $300 Xbox 360, whereas it costs about $300 to make a $1000 PC (I'll explain why in a second).
Secondly, Console prices come down due to mass production. The more you mass produce something the cheaper it gets. PCs aren't mass produced anywhere near as much as consoles are so they end up being more expensive to make. In fact, most PCs aren't mass produced at all. The components get mass produced, then sold for profit as OEMs, then people like Dell build PCs out of those components and sell those systems for profit.
Thirdly, consoles power is much more efficiently used than PC power is. When you run a game on a PC you're also running an Operating System and several background applications such as virus scanners, aswell as hunders of other small programs that you have no control over. Consoles run just one thing, the game. Every drop of it's resources is devoted to the game, and nothing gets wasted. So consoles can afford to be slightly under par compared to PCs whilst actually producing better graphics. You ever see a PC game that looked like Rogue Leader when GC came out? I don't think so.
Lastly, PCs can get upgrades. Consoles are closed systems and are stuck with their technology for 5 years or more, whereas PCs can keep up with every small and major advancement in technology. It's more fair to compare consoles and PCs at the beginning of every console generation.
Here we are. Clarity.
PSP: 62,000
DS: 44,000
GBA and MICRO: 34,000
So yes, combined, Nintendo are beating Sony by 16,000 units, fairly imnpressive. But PSP is beating DS by 18,000 units - not exactly a big difference, but it's still managing it. It all depends on how you view the figures.
I thought the DS was outselling the PSP? When did the PSP start outselling the DS?
[quote=Wings]Here we are. Clarity.
PSP: 62,000
DS: 44,000
GBA and MICRO: 34,000
So yes, combined, Nintendo are beating Sony by 16,000 units, fairly imnpressive. But PSP is beating DS by 18,000 units - not exactly a big difference, but it's still managing it. It all depends on how you view the figures.
Um, okay. Those figures are too small to be anything but weekly sales for a European country. The PSP is doing best in the UK out of all of Europe and it's still getting beaten by DS, so those figures must be soon after the PSP's launch.
No, they're last weeks UK figures.
I find this insanely hard to believe considering for October the figures were like this:
October 6-13:
NDS: 24,492
PSP: 18,723
GBA SP: 8,799
October 14-21:
DS: 23,035
GBA SP: 10,034
PSP: 8,000
October 22-29:
NDS: 30,000
GBA SP: 15,500
PSP: 12,900
Well, the fan boy calls are sometimes right... but the way I see the gaming world is this:
Nintendo: Good games as far as "innovation" *rolls eyes as speedfreak*, but too few of them and they're usually short as well. Leaving you less bang for the buck due to lack of replayability in some, not most, of the great games for its systems.
Playstion: Ugh... Too many games... Waaaaay too many games and only a small few of them are actually great. Even fewer are good, and the majority are meaningless kiddy games meant to entice the mindless.
Xbox: Call ME a fanboy if you wish, but I'd say that Xbox has the most games that are actually good/great. Although lately there's yet to be a really greate game... the 360 should change that. But still, it's got a good selection of good-to-great games which makes it the winner, in my book.
But if you want new ways of playing games, Nintendo's for you. And yeah... Playstation... only get it if someone's selling it for 50 bucks. In which case only get: All MGS, DMC (all 3), God of War, and some of the others that are rated high at Gamespot.
[quote=KoH]Nintendo: Good games as far as "innovation" *rolls eyes as speedfreak*,
He's just upset because we argued over whether PCs or consoles innovated the most, and every PC game innovation he mentioned actually came from Nintendo. :)
Here's why your opinions are all wrong.
Nintendo: You haven't played any Nintendo games long enough to say that they're short. You don't even own a Gamecube.
PS2: How is having too many games a bad thing?
Xbox: You like about 2 Xbox games, one of which is a PC port. The only reason you say Xbox 360 is great is because you're a Microsoft fanboy, you don't actually plan on getting any games that aren't FPS. And when you do get them you'll complain about them being better on PC.
oh, so that was just the amount sold in one single week? wow. But the DS is still beating the PSP worldwide, so...
Well, it's quite possible that I'm wrong, or that it's over a month and for the whole of Europe, or something. I don't know.
It doesn't really matter, in the long run. The market can support two handhelds quite easily.
Well, straying on topic sort of, IGN mentioned why you should wait for a Revolution instead of a 360.
[URL="http://cube.ign.com/articles/670/670078p1.html"]WhyRevolution>360[/URL]
[quote=Speedfreak]He's just upset because we argued over whether PCs or consoles innovated the most, and every PC game innovation he mentioned actually came from Nintendo. :)
Here's why your opinions are all wrong.
Nintendo: You haven't played any Nintendo games long enough to say that they're short. You don't even own a Gamecube.
PS2: How is having too many games a bad thing?
Xbox: You like about 2 Xbox games, one of which is a PC port. The only reason you say Xbox 360 is great is because you're a Microsoft fanboy, you don't actually plan on getting any games that aren't FPS. And when you do get them you'll complain about them being better on PC.
Shut up.
Nintendo: I don't, that's true... My sister does though. :) And although I don't play it as much as I play other things... (or with other things) I can honestly say that they're short. Unless she's a god at gaming, which she's not, she's 12, she gets through them way shorter than I do with some Xbox games.
PS2: Ever heard of more quality instead of quantity?
Xbox: WOAH WOAH WOAH. What's the other game I like? I like quite a few xbox games, btw and most of which aren't FPS. For FPS I stick to PC. I am somewhat an xbox fanboy though. Originally, before xbox came out, I was a huge nintendo fan boy, then I got proven wrong about nintendo. :)
But yes... all FPS games are better on PC. IF you have the equipment though.
[quote=Drewboy64]Well, straying on topic sort of, IGN mentioned why you should wait for a Revolution instead of a 360.
[URL="http://cube.ign.com/articles/670/670078p1.html"]WhyRevolution>360[/URL]
I'm sorry to say this, actually no, I'm really happy to say this, but IGN's totall bullshit. They obviously get paid off to bias their reviews. If you think I'm wrong, look up any review of a game and compare IGN's review with any other official review (ie: Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.) and you should find that IGN gives the best reviews.
[quote=KoH]Xbox: WOAH WOAH WOAH. What's the other game I like? I like quite a few xbox games, btw and most of which aren't FPS. For FPS I stick to PC. I am somewhat an xbox fanboy though. Originally, before xbox came out, I was a huge nintendo fan boy, then I got proven wrong about nintendo. :)
Bullshit! You so weren't!
If you were a huge nintendo fanboy before X-box, you would have a Gamecube.
And the only good games I like for Xbox are Halo and Halo 2. There are more taht are good games, yes, but there aren't many.
[quote=Drewboy64]Oh? Will how about [URL="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668897p1.html"]IGN's other biased article?
[/URL]
Sure, theres bias in both things, but that's why there are seperate sections of IGN. Anyhow, what games does your sister play for the gamecube? Have you played Double Dash or SSBM? Those have infinite replay value that never gets old. Jungle Beat is a very long game, contrary to popular belief. So is Resident Evil 4.
Yeah, true, replay value in some... But I meant most games (too lazy to see if I actually said this before or not) don't have a replay value. RE4 and a few others are the only reason I'd get a GC. And uh... jungle beat, huh? Yeah... see... replay value or how long the game is isn't the problem with me and that game.
[quote=Speedfreak]Bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it! You so weren't!
lmao, I swear to god, dude. I have like, a closet full of nintendo magazines stored away in the garage. It's got yoshi on it! I was seriously in love with the n64, snes, and nes.
[quote=Drewboy64]If you were a huge nintendo fanboy before X-box, you would have a Gamecube.
And the only good games I like for Xbox are Halo and Halo 2. There are more taht are good games, yes, but there aren't many.
I was going to get a GC, but xbox came around before my birthday and christmas and when I played it I changed my wishlist.
And btw, I really don't like Halo 2. There are more good games for XBOX than for Ps2. Least that's my opinion.
Jeez... that sounds so choppily said, but whatever... too lazy to retype.
Speedfreak said
Why I will buy all three consoles:
Because all three company's are equal, they are uber cool and all should be given respect for making uberly w00tin games.
Equal they are not. But as for comparing them now are sorta pointless seeing that only one is out.
Ok now this is just a rumor. But I was talking to the Nintendo rep, and he was kicking around the idea that he had heard from a supervisor or something that Nintendo may charge original price on the downloaded games. Now I highly doubt that'd happen, because of it would, nintendo would probably commit gaming suicide.
That **** better not happen.
Game retail. I have connections to all three of the companies reps. I see mostly the Sony rep, then Nintendo rep, and I barely ever see the MS Rep.
The MS Rep said they are few and far between. He said microsoft doesn't believe in using many reps. idk why?
[quote=Luigi182]Well, I suppose I'm in the minority here. For you see, I really prefer a trackball mouse over a standard mouse when I'm playing PC games. You know why that is? It's because it feels more like a regular controller. And the whole WASD thing, I don't use that at all. I always have to reconfigure the keyboard buttons on a PC FPS such that it feels more like a console game. Arrow keys for movement, 0 on the numericpad for jumping, Ctrl for ducking, Left mouse for regular fire, right mouse key for special fire and finally scroll wheel for scrolling through weapons. I also have to reverse the mouse look so that rolling the trackball down looks up and rolling the trackball up looks down.
And that's really all I use, no kidding. the rest of the keyboard buttons don't get used during normal gameplay(well, I do use Esc for pausing...) I've actually considered one of those reduced keypad thingys, like the ones I keep seeing for Doom3.
But I digress, as I'm getting way off topic here.
You realize that a keyboard is a keyboard and a controller's a controller, right? How does merely moving key configurations to the right side of a keyboard somehow make the keyboard (which is flat, mind you) into feeling like a 3d, hold-in-your-hand controller?
You merely explained the way that people who don't use the wasd config. assign their keys to actions. Good job on that...
Btw, that's also great and all that you think you've somehow created a link between a flat piece of plastic and a three dimensional hand held controller, but you've also forgotten that those who do use more than 10 or so keys are playing far more sophisticated and complex games than run-and-shoot'em-up games such as Doom 3. Here are a few examples: Battlefield (all of them), any MMORPG, Simulators, a TON of FPSs, and pretty much any PC game that can ever come to your mind.
But I'll give you this, people who do use more than 10 keys are often thinking about good functionality, playability, convenience, and most of all, how to win. So unless you plan on loosing, go ahead and press on with your argument as to how to trick your mind into thinking that keyboards can be bent into controllers.
Thats a little harsh KoH, I have noticed that most people who go to the arrow keys are left handers, as the mouse is on the left. This takes out keys, there are also people who go the other way and use RDFG or TFGH as there WASD, as it opens up more keys to the left.
I was reading somthing and it summed up the next gen consoles realy well. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are upgrades, they offer nothing more then better graphics and more things on the screen at once. The Revolution is actualy somthing new. Its very much like the DS and PSP, the PSP mearly has "diet coke" versions of console games while the DS has new strange and quirky games. Even remakes or sequals on the DS offer somthing new (Mario 64 is a good example).
[quote=Osic]Thats a little harsh KoH, I have noticed that most people who go to the arrow keys are left handers, as the mouse is on the left. This takes out keys, there are also people who go the other way and use RDFG or TFGH as there WASD, as it opens up more keys to the left.
I was reading somthing and it summed up the next gen consoles realy well. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are upgrades, they offer nothing more then better graphics and more things on the screen at once. The Revolution is actualy somthing new. Its very much like the DS and PSP, the PSP mearly has "diet coke" versions of console games while the DS has new strange and quirky games. Even remakes or sequals on the DS offer somthing new (Mario 64 is a good example).
Lmao, I could go way harsher. Let me demonstrate:
[quote=Luigi182]You completely forgot or possibly even glazed over the fact that I said I prefer using a trackball mouse over a regular mouse. So I'll clarify. You hold it in your hand and use your thumb to manipulate a ball without having to move the entire unit. Your hand stays in one place. That is what feels like a regular controller.
That's wonderful. But notice how I didn't mention that bit? See, I did, in fact, understand the concept of a trackball and easily linked that idea to the idea of the "trackball" in a controller. Notice how this works? So that, out of your entire post, is the only bit that makes sense. Hence, why I didn't mention it, idiot.
[quote]And for the keyboard part I'm right handed. I use the arrow keys like I explained before and slide the whole keyboard left. And I don't always lose, but I don't always win either. I'd say my track record is pretty even when it comes to wins and losses and I feel that is more attributed to the fact that I don't live in online PC FPS games. I've got console games to play...
ALLLLRIGHT. Thanks for that utterly USELESS information. I actually DID assume that you would move the keyboard over to the left more, I didn't think that you were a complete retard before you thought it necessary to point this obvious fact out. And I could care less about your scores or how well or badly you do. I said that for most the wasd config. works best.
[quote]Anyhow, we're getting way off topic here, so I'll shut up. Besides, it's pointles to explain how I play without the WASD config to anyone else who plays PC games.
No... I totally understand. I never said that I didn't. I merely meant to say that what you said was ridiculously stupid.
:) But hey, if you want to shut up, go ahead.
KoH, you're losing, and you're very good at it.
[quote=Wings]KoH, you're losing, and you're very good at it.
Hey, whilst you're wide awake on YOUR island, I'm up at 3:33 AM. So forgive my noncoherent bs. :) I'll edit it later and spice it up. :)
I was referring to your posts in general, not just the last one.
"Its very much like the DS and PSP, the PSP mearly has "diet coke" versions of console games while the DS has new strange and quirky games. Even remakes or sequals on the DS offer somthing new (Mario 64 is a good example)."
Shouldn't it be diet Pepsi, as Sony steals everything Nintendo makes?
And what about keyboards are you people arguing about, anyway?
[quote=Wings]I was referring to your posts in general, not just the last one.
I know... wtf. I need to be 13, aggressive, and emo/gothic again in order to "flame properly."
[quote=Osic]Thats a little harsh KoH, I have noticed that most people who go to the arrow keys are left handers, as the mouse is on the left. This takes out keys, there are also people who go the other way and use RDFG or TFGH as there WASD, as it opens up more keys to the left.
I was reading somthing and it summed up the next gen consoles realy well. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are upgrades, they offer nothing more then better graphics and more things on the screen at once. The Revolution is actualy somthing new. Its very much like the DS and PSP, the PSP mearly has "diet coke" versions of console games while the DS has new strange and quirky games. Even remakes or sequals on the DS offer somthing new (Mario 64 is a good example).
Actually, I did that with Halo PC, because I kept pressing the wrong buttons because they're all right next to eachother and are the same size. Another advantage of controllers over keyboards.
Also, you ever try playing Street Fighter on a keyboard? Seriously, download an emulator and ROM and try it, combos and all. When you realise how stupidly impossible it is you'll realise my side of the arguement.
i thought we were only talking about FPS's here. Granted, controllers are better for fighting games than keyboards, but Keyboard and mouse or rev controller is better for FPS's. At least in the aiming aspect.
My friend managed to get hold of a Premium system with no preorder - don't ask me how, especially since the UK's undergoing a hard drive shortage - and he broke even with it on eBay within a few hours and a start price of around £50. I went into my local Dixons and asked if they had any due to this. They had two Cores, bundled with four games for £350.
Now, this might just be me, but that's a **** good deal. I might even grab some after Christmas and do the same thing, if they have any. The best thing is that this particular branch is closing down, so I'll get a discount on top of that.
I am a former Nintendo fan (not fanboy, mind you). I chose them over Sony for one reason: I enjoyed their games more. Mario's jumping was more entertaining than Lara Croft's, Link could kick the crap out of Crash, and Wave Race was infinitely better than Demolition Derby. I bought the 'Cube at launch, as I did the GBA. The game libraries are good, but I've found myself enjoying the sword-swinging of Link's a lot less, and Mario's, "Hah, Yah, Wahoo!" yells have grown old. My tastes in game have changed. Now, I would much rather wear the full-body black outfits of ninjas than the green tunics of the Kokiri. I prefer shooting at the Covenant over shooting at filthy clumps on Isle Delfino.
Am I coming across correctly? If not, let me clarify.
I sure do look forward to buying the Xbox 360. That is, of course, after all the bugs are fixed, all the hardware is reliable, and they don't randomly burst into flames.
interesting. i agree with much of what has been said in this thread but despite it all there is just no way im going to live in peace if i dont play the next installments of final fantasy, MGS,devil may cry,resident evil etc which are all most likely going to be PS3 exclusive.(except resi 5) Still pretty hyped about rev tho.A new Metroid and zelda on rev plus all my old favourites from years ago is a winning formula you no.
Well i've heard rumors that Final Fantasy XIII and possibly the next Dragonquest will be Xbox 360 titles aswell. Also Hideo Kojima is working on a project for the Revolution (My guess is a Metal Gear game).
I'm more looking forward to the older games than the newer. Nintendo's gone downhill in my opinion. The SNES/NES had so many great titles. The SNES was probably the best system ever. The N64 had 3 good games in my opinion. Zelda OOT, Mario 64 and Goldeneye. The Gamecube also has a few in my opinion: Zelda OOT Masterquest (N64 port), Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes (PSone port), Mario Strikers (Exclusive), Resident Evil 1-3, and honestly I liked Mario Sunshine. I tried to get into Resident Evil 4 but the camera angle and the graphic effects made me sick. I puked a few times when I tried playing it. So I can't say how good or how bad it is. I recently tried to play the PS2 version and got the same result. Guess I wasn't meant to play it.
But all i'm saying is I believe Nintendo games were great and they aren't bad now but they just aren't as good. I guess I see a lot of that with Sony now that I think of it. I believe the PSone was 100x better than the PS2. Just opinionated though.
He also recently said that he'd like to have Metal Gear Solid 4 for the Xbox 360 but doesn't like to take the time to make a port for the version. Sounds like laziness to me :-P
This is a very interesting thread. IMHO I will probably buy a Revolution just when i'm not in the mood for my pc. All in all the best gaming system ever is a PC. I can dl literally any SNES rom, jap or us or whatever, and play it with the same sounds, same graphics, and being that I have a controller pad, same feel. That also goes for GB/GBA/N64/Dreamcast/Saturn, you name it. Aside from this, the majority of online games can be played without extra cost(Xbox live is a joke) and the games are just simply always going to be superior to console.
Looking at the posts about keyboard usage to controllers it made me realize some facts. Now sure people may say that an apparent advantage of a controller to a keyboard is less accidental key hitting. Well my reply to that is the more complicated the application/activity, the more complicated the tool. And if you are too stupid/uncoordinated to use the tool well then perhaps you shouldn't be participating in the application/activity. The obvious reason controllers are easier to use is this. The console games are very limited to easy playability and how advanced the system you play with is. For instance in Worlds of Warcraft which I play on my pc, I have a good 20+ hotkeys for some characters and that is just my magic skills. To have a game that complex on a console you would definitely require a keyboard and not just a simple controller.
But I personally think that is the charm of a console. Like was stated in the first post of this thread, I think that consoles are definitely mainly geared towards non-serious gamers and I mean all consoles. Once you play a game like WoW or DAOC you realize that all consoles games are always going to be easier and simpler, which is why they are so popular generally. And this is why a Revolution will be my bet, because unlike Microsoft and Sony, Revolution isn't trying to achieve a complexity that can only be attained and controlled by a good ol fashioned PC and keyboard.
On a final note, It would prefer to see Metal Gear limited to the ps. I got pretty ****ed when playstation had the ever so pathetic "Chrono Cross" released, and even if the revolution had a great MG game I would rather see it stay where it is. From what I have heard Kojima is both lazy and somewhat loyal =D