The Console Wars - The Debate

[Guest Future Shock]

Because graphics don't mean THAT much to gamers. What they want is badass gameplay, which ALL 3 consoles provide in spades, and the GBA provides too. the GBA has some SNES graphics, does IT suck? And it's got some of the most indepth games on ANY console.

[therockbox]

Because graphics don't mean THAT much to gamers.  What they want is badass gameplay, which ALL 3 consoles provide in spades, and the GBA provides too.  the GBA has some SNES graphics, does IT suck?  And it's got some of the most indepth games on ANY console.

←

But I'm not talking about graphics specifically. I'm saying that the X-Box has more potential than the other 2 consoles any which way you look at it. But the PS2 has a wider selection of games, which is why more people like. Its all a vicious circle. The PS2 has more games, so people buy it. More games are developed which could probably be better on the X-Box, but aren't because of the smaller audience.

Of course, I'd take Gameplay over graphics anyday. Hell, I even play Starfox on my Super Nintendo quite a bit because the gameplay is great, but the graphics aren't all that much anymore.

Gameplay > Graphics is a given. But Gameplay and graphics is so much better, as long as gameplay isn't sacrificed.

[Herr Matzat]

Out of the 3, the X-Box is by far the best.[...]The games may have a smaller selection, but most of them are a lot higher quality than PS2 - purely because its got higher capabilities.

some postings later

I never said that the PS2 didn't have better games, it does. But the X-Box has the potential to have better games in every single concept - graphics, storyline, blah blah blah.

Start having a fucking point that makes sens ore shut up.

My Point is, go with the console that has the GAMES you want/like to play, screew Chipsets. Did you get that ? I don´t give a fuck if you like gamecube best becaus you mark for Mario Card and Zelda, that ok, you like thes games ? Have fun with this games, go out and buy it, it´s THE BEST console for "you".

I don´t give a handfull of Panda Poo about the technic that is in thes things as long as it works good enough to alows developers to create good games, for me SNES already was good enough (not that i don´t like videos and stuff, i just don´t NEED them for a compleed and allround good game, got it ?) to fullfill this purpus.

I don´t care if X-Box coulöd launch Missiles on 3 world countrys, get me enough games THAT I WANT and i´ll buy that thing, as long as there are no games for that friggin system IT´s NOT A GOOD GAMINGCONSOLE FOR ME, simply becaus i would not have fun gaming with it, becaus its laking games i ahve fun with.

Now either stop replieng ore stop twisting your weak points around all the time and claiming you never said the stuff i revere to..........

[therockbox]

My "weak" points? Irony at its finest, right there.

Start having a fucking point that makes sens ore shut up.

My Point is, go with the console that has the GAMES you want/like to play, screew Chipsets. Did you get that ? I don´t give a fuck if you like gamecube best becaus you mark for Mario Card and Zelda, that ok, you like thes games ? Have fun with this games, go out and buy it, it´s THE BEST console for "you".

So, you've been arguing all this time and that was your point?

I don´t give a handfull of Panda Poo about the technic that is in thes things as long as it works good enough to alows developers to create good games, for me SNES already was good enough (not that i don´t like videos and stuff, i just don´t NEED them for a compleed and allround good game, got it ?) to fullfill this purpus.

Yes, the PS2 games are good (GTA is a prime example) but they could be better on the X-Box, which is my point.

Now either stop replieng ore stop twisting your weak points around all the time and claiming you never said the stuff i revere to..........

But I didn't. I never said the PS2 had less games, just that they could be better on X-Box, and the ones it does have are usually better.

Well, I'll just wait for GTA: San Andreas comes out for the PS2 and then we'll all know the better console.

So, we have some people saying that the X-Box shouldn't live on Halo, and yet you're (njm) doing the same for the PS2 with GTA? That smacks of double standards.

There is no clear winner to this as it's obviously personal preference. Me, I've been an avid gamer since the old school Atari. I prefer the Xbox myself but I can respect how people say it's the PS2 that is better or the GCN.

Exactly. Matzat obviously prefers the PS2 because it has a wider selection of games - which is one of the Boxes many faults. I was a little skeptical about paying £200 for an X-Box with the limited amount of games, but it was money well spent - just like the money that brought me the PS2. I play both equally, but think that the X-Box has more potential to create games that please everyone.

for me SNES already was good enough (not that i don´t like videos and stuff, i just don´t NEED them for a compleed and allround good game, got it ?)

Which is what I said in my previous post (Read: Starfox on the Super Nintendo). Another example would be Sonic on the Mega Drive, that was a brilliant game. Did it have cut-scenes? No. Did it have amazing graphics? No. Is it better than 99% of the games on PS2 and and the X-Box? Yes, because it was a game you could play for hours and hours, and not get tired of it.

Man, I want my Mega Drive back

Edited May 15, 2004 by Agent_Sm1th

[Herr Matzat]

Exactly. Matzat obviously prefers the PS2 because it has a wider selection of games

If ps2 only had 20 games, but thes games were the games I WANT/LIKE to play, this still would be my way to go. I don´t care about anny numbers, besides the number of games I want, and this number better be not to smal otherwise it´s not a system i put 100-350 (depending on how fast after release i buy the system) Euro on the table for.

So, you've been arguing all this time and that was your point?

second posting of this topic....

i say screew the system, play what you want, what you like ect.

i love RPGs so i am screewed with every other console than PS2/PSX as long as i don´t reach back to SNES.

...

Yes, the PS2 games are good (GTA is a prime example) but they could be better on the X-Box, which is my point.

no that wassent your point and thats why i argued, that wassent your point...

Out of the 3, the X-Box is by far the best.[...]The games may have a smaller selection, but most of them are a lot higher quality than PS2 - purely because its got higher capabilities.

I argued becaus you made a Tech Whore BS comment on X-Box games being better just becaus X-Box is Technicly the better system. That Point allways was a Brainfuck and it stioll is, i see you see that i am right claiming that Point is Bullshit becaus you now are constantly ignoring that you made it

Which is what I said in my previous post (Read: Starfox on the Super Nintendo). Another example would be Sonic on the Mega Drive, that was a brilliant game. Did it have cut-scenes? No. Did it have amazing graphics? No. Is it better than 99% of the games on PS2 and and the X-Box? Yes, because it was a game you could play for hours and hours, and not get tired of it.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand again

Out of the 3, the X-Box is by far the best.[...]The games may have a smaller selection, but most of them are a lot higher quality than PS2 - purely because its got higher capabilities.

[therockbox]

I argued becaus you made a Tech Whore BS comment on X-Box games being better just becaus X-Box is Technicly the better system. That Point allways was a Brainfuck and it stioll is, i see you see that i am right claiming that Point is Bullshit becaus you now are constantly ignoring that you made it 

OK, Fifa 2004 is on both the PS2 and X-Box. I have played it on both, and its better on the X-Box because it has the better system. Splinter Cell, on both again. I have played (and own) both, and again, its better on the X-Box. Its still shit, but its less-shit on the X-Box. Games that are on both are usually better on the Box. Why? Because it has better specs.

If ps2 only had 20 games, but thes games were the games I WANT/LIKE to play, this still would be my way to go. I don´t care about anny numbers, besides the number of games I want, and this number better be not to smal otherwise it´s not a system i put 100-350 (depending on how fast after release i buy the system) Euro on the table for.

But if the X-Box had all those games, then I'm pretty sure they would be better on that, based on the games that are on both right now. Which would you go for then?

Edited May 15, 2004 by Agent_Sm1th

[Herr Matzat]

OK, Fifa 2004 is on both the PS2 and X-Box. I have played it on both, and its better on the X-Box because it has the better system.

Aside from Fifa not being a good soccer game (i by fare prevere Winning Eleven/Pro Evulution) i can get Fifa for PC, wich holds me from gettin an X-Box to play it becaus i just can save monney on buing the Console and get the game with better screen resulution on my PC)

Splinter Cell, on both again. I have played (and own) both, and again, its better on the X-Box. Its still shit, but its less-shit on the X-Box.

No interest from my side, PC version avalible, so no need to buy a new system to play it.

Games that are on both are usually better on the Box. Why? Because it has better specs.

But if the X-Box had all those games, then I'm pretty sure they would be better on that, based on the games that are on both right now. Which would you go for then?

←

I don´t care about what if, it just issent, end of story. I don´t need a System under my TV to say, "If that thing had Talls of... the Grafiks would most likly look a better here and there." - I need a system under my TV that enables me to play thees great games, X-Box dossent, you gan give it 3 times as much power as it has at the moment, it still wont play thes games, and it most likly never will becaus the games i like almost only come from Japan were X-box sold like Keith underwear on E-bay and therfore no one ther wants to produce for that thing, even if you kick 6 times the power in it. In my eyes not being able to play is significantly wors than being able to play with les system power, as long as this system power alowes propper gameplay and a good platform for the designers.

If you like more X-Box games, go hugh you X-box, if you love Mario and Co. jump up and down on your gamecube, if you love rpgs like i do thungkiss your PS2, play the system that provides you with the games you like the most - but stay away with thes fucking "the technic of the system is better so all games are better" points, they suck, are tech whoring and have nothing todo with good gaming.

And you made that point like i quoted a million times by now...

[therockbox]

If you like more X-Box games, go hugh you X-box, if you love Mario and Co. jump up and down on your gamecube, if you love rpgs like i do thungkiss your PS2, play the system that provides you with the games you like the most - but stay away with thes fucking "the technic of the system is better so all games are better" points, they suck, are tech whoring and have nothing todo with good gaming.

And you made that point like i quoted a million times by now...

I said most games are better, which they are. And the specs of a system have everything to do with good gaming. If the specs aren't good, then the games aren't going to be as good. Take a PC. The better the speed and processor etc, the better the games it will be able to run.

[Typical Phenom]

You people are sensitive about your games.

Anyway, I had PS2 and currently have X-Box. I do think the graphics are better on X-Box, the games can be more in depth (Morrowind for one) and the biggest reason I like it more is that I don't have to buy any stupid memory cards. Plus, I can have my own soundtrack on some games.

[Herr Matzat]

I said most games are better, which they are.  And the specs of a system have everything to do with good gaming.  If the specs aren't good, then the games aren't going to be as good.  Take a PC.  The better the speed and processor etc, the better the games it will be able to run.

←

tech whore³

[therockbox]

tech whore³

←

The maturity of this lad is incredible. Wow, you can put a little 'to the power of' 3 symbol.

EDIT: I'm not going to get drawn into a flame war, because I can see where this is going. This will be my last post in response to Matzat in this thread, because arguing over the Internet is pointless. You have your opinions, I have mine - we're never going to agree.

Edited May 15, 2004 by Agent_Sm1th

[Guest BigDirty]

Well some old football coach said "Potential is nothing, execution is everything". So who cares if X-Box has the better chipset? You don't need good hardware for good games. It's like Matzat said, nice that X-Box has good techs but too bad you can't do anything with it.

PS2 > X-Box

[Drezdon]

I have all 3 consoles, just to cover the spread and make sure that i'm not missing out on any top quality gaming experience. The PS2 is chipped, and so is the X-Box, so i only have to pay £2 for the games, but sometimes £5, all in though, i save quite alot of money. Obvious reasons, i havn't got the Gamecube chipped (disks for all whom are wondering why ), so that's the only console i have to pay full whack.

The Drezdon star rating, based on my personal opinion

PS2 - 7/10 (would have been 9/10 before it got old, and the graphics got shit)

X-Box - 8.5/10

Gamecube - 8.7/10

So yeh, i think the cube just slightly edges the X-Box out of top spot, but only just. I've owned every single Nintendo console, and thus why i edge a little towards liking it more than the others, but X-Box2 will own the world, so easily.

[Clawson]

The funny thing is when reading Agent Smith's post is that he talks about potential. Alex Diagle had potential, Ryan Leaf had potential but they never turned into anything.

Potential means jack shit in this world, if you don't have the current stuff to back it up who cares about potential.

[Drezdon]

The funny thing is when reading Agent Smith's post is that he talks about potential. Alex Diagle had potential, Ryan Leaf had potential but they never turned into anything.

Potential means jack shit in this world, if you don't have the current stuff to back it up who cares about potential.

←

Totally off topic, but that was seriously one of the best posts ever

[9 to 5]

This is such a stupid debate, because most of it is based purely around opinion, which never defines a clear winner.

Aren't most debates based on opinion?

[CKN]

The funny thing is when reading Agent Smith's post is that he talks about potential. Alex Diagle had potential, Ryan Leaf had potential but they never turned into anything.

Potential means jack shit in this world, if you don't have the current stuff to back it up who cares about potential.

←

ROFLMFAO That is so true. Clawson>*

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

Well the X-Box is far from back, but hey maybe one day they might actually give me a god damn regular size controller then I might actually get to play a game.

The Playstation 2 has Pro Evo 3/Series and well its like the greatest football game ever realesed, I would literally buy a PS2 just to play this game. Playstation was always the best, then PS2 came out and thats the best. I couldn't care if X-Box has some better graphics because at the end of the day its not like the ones on PS2 are crap. So basically yeah, I prefere PS2 anyday but maybe thats just me(Not too forget PS2 have the greatest rpg game ever, FFX )

[Guest bruins72]

I'm not going to go into deep detail like some have. I'm just going to throw in my 2 cents. I own the PS2 and my roommate owns the X-Box. We had the PS2 in the house for a year or two before getting the X-Box. I like the X-Box soooo much better. I like the hard drive come included. I like the way the controls feel. It just feels like it's a more up to date system than the PS2. It doesn't feel as "console-ish" to me, which is a good thing.

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

I don't like the X-Box, fine its more powerful, but who cares? when there are less powerful systems that are still competing (and most probably winning the war) you've gotta have a think about how important that power really is.

The GC is too 'toony' for my liking, I might of chose it had I been 8 years old, but I'm not, the controller is worse than that of the X-Box which is something I would never of dreamed possible, although I do believe the buttons were placed specifically so people like Stephen Hawkins could play with ease, but that doesn't help me. I don't like Sonic anymore, I don't like Mario, I don't like Pikmin, I don't like Pokemon, I don't like Star Wars, I don't like Super Smash Brothers, I don't like Metroid Prime.....basically I won't shell out cash for something that has little attractions for me. I don't like Cell-shading either, stop it.

Now the PS2, the PS2 I like, it has loads of shit games, but it also has loads of quality games, it has something for everyone, it has a decent controller and by decent I mean fucking quality, it can play DVDs (not that I ever use it, but it CAN play DVDs) basically it can do anything the other consoles can do (excluding pointless gimmicks) and thats fine by me.

I don't have the desire to replace it with one of these alternatives, so why should I bother? when they produce something that makes me think 'Oh shit, my PS2 sucks' then I'll consider it.

Halo is shit too.