Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo?

[Samurai General]

Well I'v been thinking, and I really can come up with noti'n.:smallfrown:
So I think "Wii" is....just.....what?And the controlers...:smalleek: 6.6
PS's are totally in. Good games, nice style.... 8.9
X-boxes....um, 8.9?:smallconfused: Not an opinion.

[Amotis]

Compooter.

[NecroPaladin]

Computer and Wii. It may be phallic, but it's so much fun.

[SDF]

The Wii has made console gaming fun again. I'm always down for computer games, but Nintendo made a real winner this time around. I'm not about to pay 599 USD for a blu-ray player, might pick up a 360 though. I do have a Bandai Wonderswan Crystal and that is pretty boss. :P

[FdL]

Computer, all the way.

Edit: I agree with SDF though, Nintendo has always put out games that are designed with fun in mind, and more now than ever with the Wii and that retro-looking handheld. I'm not really into consoles though, I think that if you have a computer it's a waste of money and lately they have got really expensive...
The difference with Sony is that with the PS you have thousands of games that are technically impressive but primitive and stupid in their gameplay. I mean, the games haven't really evolved since the time of the PS1...And even then they were old concepts/mechanics but in 3D. That's a sad waste of technollogy.

[Fishies]

Computer, and PS TWO.

[Samiam303]

I still hold that the N64 is the greatest console that is available today. :biggrin:

But of those three choices, I'll go with the Wii.

And NOT JUST because of the awesome jokes you can make. :wink:

[Pink]

You have PSP listed but not DS? In any event, Wii. Ps3 is just...ick...Xbox 360...if it gets FFXIII i shall definately have to buy it.

[Icewalker]

Computa. All the way, but if you want a console, I can basically summarize a little...

Wii: BEST party system (multiplayer) by SO MUCH. Super Smash bros? hands down. Very inventive system, nothing wrong with it, and Metroid Prime 3 will probably be freakin amazing.

PS3: from my experience with my ps2, good single player games, particularly adventure/racing. I dunno if the PS3 is different.

Xbox 360: Halo 2. Amazing. Other than that, can't say I know of any other particularly good games on the 360, but I don't have one. I think Gears of War is.

[Imrahil]

I agree with the computer still being the best system out there, but out of the three I'd have to give it to the Wii. It's the newest concept to gaming, letting people get more 'into' the game, and it actually makes for some good exercise.

[Uberblah]

WII!!!

There. I think that sums up my opinion quite well.

[Da Beast]

Nintendo all the way. The Wii and DS are both tons of fun. The PS3 has all of one good game out for it and is losing all its exclusives. The 360 is a good system but shooters aren't really my thing.

[Samurai General]

Im completlly shocked.I thought PS3 and X-Box 360 would come out top.

[Ravyn]

Whyever would they come out ahead? The Wii's least expensive, easiest to get ahold of, and had the best selection of release titles.

[Cybren]

When the Wii gets more games other than Twilight Princess (a gamecube port) and uhm... rayman/warioware/misc. lots of minigames #84 it'll be on top.
Right now the 360 has the games I find myself playing, and in the future will have more of them. (Especially if it gets MGS4. Even after hearing DMC4 will be on the 360, I still would have bought a PS3 just for MGS4.)

The Wii has a much different feel than the rest of them, and I think it'll take a while to find its place, but like the DS will prove that they know what they're doing.

[Uberblah]

The Wii will kick even more ass once games compatable with its online come out. Once that happens, Wii'll take over the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Dispozition]

Computer, GameCube, PS2, XBox...That's all my gaming systems...Oh, a gameboy colour as well...

I'm not going to be buying any of the systems on the list for at least another year, when it might be worth it.

[Allandaros]

Computer for me. If I were to get a game system, I'd go with Wii - 360 overlaps enough with PC for the PC to be far more worthwhile. And the mods I get don't cost extra cash (take that, XBox Live!).

As for the PS3...from what I've seen, street wisdom says that it's one more in Sony's line of shooting themselves in the foot. With an assault rifle.

[Uberblah]

As for the PS3...from what I've seen, street wisdom says that it's one more in Sony's line of shooting themselves in the foot. With an assault rifle.

No it's more like them taking a 12 gauge, putting the barrel right up against their foot, and firing. That's what the PS3 is to Sony.

[The Prince of Cats]

I got my Wii on Thursday and I must admit that I am not disappointed. I have found that I am getting a decent work-out from the boxing and tennis games that come with the console, I have not ached so much from this much fun since... well, that's would be into banned topic territory...

Come on... It is fun... That is all there is to it. That is all it needs. I have a PC for my 'serious' gaming and so a Wii fills in the gaps.

[Uberblah]

I have not ached so much from this much fun since... well, that's would be into banned topic territory...


Ow Oww...!! *wolves howling sort of thing* Ok.... I'm done.

[Jibar]

I still hold that the N64 is the greatest console that is available today. :biggrin:


Nice to see somebody on the same wavelength.

Anyway,
PC: Awesome for gaming, if your computer can run it. If you really want to play "seriously" it's going to cost a lot. But, a simple home computer with good enough specs can still provide some fun gaming.
Wii: Got one. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Everytime I put a game in, the first thing I do is gasp with amazement. They made gaming reach a level of fun not had since Zora Link, and I now find it hard to play some games without motion sensing. First Person Shooters just don't make sense!
360: Going to get one later this year. Hopefully. But it's just the X Box with an upgrade, and despite early concerns, I enjoyed the X Box. Sure, some games overlap with the PC, but that can only be a good thing. Your computer can't run it? Go for the 360. Not enough space? 360. Besides, it's gonna get Assassin's Creed. Mega bonus points.
PS3: Ew. That's a lot more than I would ever be willing to pay for an upgrade to the PS2. And after that, I have to put up with my moral anguish from the PS3's motion sensing controller. Then, it's losing exclusives every second. Final Fantasy? Might be going to the 360. Even my love of Kingdom hearts wouldn't be enough to make me get a PS3.

[blackout]

I agree with the computer still being the best system out there,
Ding. X-Box is good too.

[Seraph]

what could possibly have made you think the PS3 thad a chance? it's an overpriced chunk of crap.

[TMTree]

Out of the options, I'd go with the Wii simply because it's something different, but I'm not really a consoles person- why do you need them, when you can play outdated computer games which everybody else has forgotten about?:smallcool:

[Jimp]

Out of the newest consoles it has to be the Wii. Everything is so much fun to do. I still have a blast playing even basic games like softball or tennis with my friends. Even if the others have better graphics the Wii can't be beaten on party game fun.

I also third the vote for the N64. I still play mine, though ALL my control sticks are nearly worn out :(

[Tweekinator]

I went with the 360 because it has the most games I want to play and because the xbox impressed me while the gamecube, though not a disappointment, did not live up to my expectations after owning a N64. I would still be playing that, except all my controllers have died.

The 360 has Gears of War, Dead Rising, and will have Halo 3. I'll admit, I did not like Halo 2 as much as the original, with the exception of their multiplayer map design, but I'm holding out hope for 3. It's true, I like my killing.

The Wii has Zelda: Twilight Princess, which is not a big deal to me, since after playing practically every Zelda game, I lost faith in the series at Majora's Mask and Wind Waker did nothing to improve my opinion of it. They also have Rayman, but I hear that's coming out for both other systems as well. I have played Wii Sports at my friends' house, and it was very fun. But I think that however many minigame collections they put out, my interest/enjoyment would eventually wane.

The PS3 is what, $6-700? Even through my joy, I choked a little when my wife got me a $400 360 for my birthday. Didn't complain, though. But $600 for, what? I do not know of any good (system buying) games they have out for it, and I'm not a fan of the Final Fantasy series or any of their clones.

[Jimp]

To be honest I rarely play consoles for the single player games since I can usually get them for PC. I use consoles for multiplayer only. Just thought I'd add that in.

[Lord of the Helms]

I don't care for consoles, my computer is all I need. Though to be fair, I AM looking forward to the Wii control being ported to PC.

[Scorpina]

I've played Wii. I wasn't impressed. This was but the latest in the long line of underwhelming Nintendo experiences I've had.

Mircosoft is, of course, pure evil. I haven't played on a 360, but I was never ever impressed with the original X-Box (no, not even Halo).

PS3... very expensive, BUT, since I can only hope to afford one console, it will be a PS3 because it will have Final Fantasy XIII. Plus PlayStations don't suck.

[Da Beast]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony lose FF as an exclusive. Square has shown that they're more interested in making money than remaining loyal to one company and the PS3 isn't doing so hot. I could definitely see the 360 getting FF 14 or maybe even 13.

[Scorpina]

...yeah, but it'd still be on the 360, which assuming it's anything like it's predecessor, sucks.

[Da Beast]

What's wrong with the 360?

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

Why no computer option. I think all the consoles pale in comparison to computer games.

The biggest reason that consoles are so much more prevalent is because they provide higher profit margins for those companies.

[Tweekinator]

What's wrong with the 360?

I'm guessing from her earlier post it's because Microsoft is "pure evil".

[Da Beast]

What makes Microsoft pure evil? Sony certainly doesn't care about anything other than profit margins. If they did they wouldn't treat their customers like crap. I doubt Nintendo cares much about their customers either.

[Scorpina]

Sony may not care about anything but profits, but they tend to produce stuff that works...

[Cybren]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony lose FF as an exclusive. Square has shown that they're more interested in making money than remaining loyal to one company and the PS3 isn't doing so hot. I could definitely see the 360 getting FF 14 or maybe even 13.

It would be another in a long line of lost exclusives for sony. I don't see it leaving the PS3 but a PC/360 release down the line doesn't seem unrealistic

[Tweekinator]

If I remember correctly, many of the PS3s shipped with less than the full nine of their processors working. And as well as the early 360s, had a tendency to start fires. Their stuff is at least as defective as anyone else's out there, and I would venture to say that it is even more so.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

How are the sales figures for each of them? I heard the Wii wasn't very good but it winning this poll (so far with only a few votes)

One thing I find very odd about the Wii, is they have all these games to play tennis and baseball by swinging a racket and stuff...

why not um I don't know ACTUALLY GO PLAY TENNIS OR BASEBALL! And we wonder why child obesity is such a problem!

[Da Beast]

Because actually playing the sport is harder? As for sales, I've never seen a Wii in stores. They're still going on eBay at a pretty good markup.

[OOTS_Rules.]

I vote Wii. Wii is fun, has inventive pseudo-VR (at times, such as in Wii Sports and similar games) motion sensing, even though it is mostly used for other things, and a lot of great titles. Xbox 360 seems nice to me, even though I do not own it. Is decently priced, has some highly-acclaimed titles, but has had some problems during early launch. Meanwhile, the PS3 to me seems like a horrorshow, and I am not speaking in Clockwork Orange turns. It has hardly any exclusive titles, was said in an EGM Hsu and Chan comic to be an overpriced Xbox 360 (These guys know what they are talking about), and are too few in number. I have even read about SOny's arrogant claims that the PS3 should cost MORE than $600 in, you guessed it, EGM. For me, Wii wins, with Xbox 360 close behind and PS3 left in the dust.

[Sailacela]

I spend 90% of my gaming time on the PC but since it wasn't a choice I went with the Wii. Innovation ftw.

While I wouldn't mind having a PS3 at some point, I just can't see myself spending that kind of money on a console that has yet to release any games I consider must haves.

[Krellen]

I voted for the Wii. The Wii is unmitigated win, fun-in-a-box.

As far as the facts go, I found this site (http://nexgenwars.com/), which had worldwide sales figures:

360: 10.5 million
PS3: 2.9 million
Wii: 6.5 million

Considering that the Wii (and the PS3) have been out a year less than the 360, the Wii's sales figures show its popular and broad appeal. The Wii, it seems, is tooling up to "win" the next generation console war, much as Sony's PS2 "won" the previous generation's.

[Dispozition]

The ps2 is a legendary system. The ps3 is over kill...Seriously...9 processors? It can't even use that many at once...

The x-box was fairly good, the 360 I can't see being much better or worse.

The GC was brilliant, the one problem with it was it's lcak of any really good games. There were a few fairly good ones, but none that had insane reply value and the like. That's where the ps2 won...The wii is the same. It has some decent games, but none that really make me want to say 'I'm going to play this forever'...

The PC is still the leading gaming system in my opinion. Sure, it may crash a lot more and has to be upgraded every few years if you want a decent experience, but I don't mind that because it does everything...

[Arlanthe]

Wiiiii!

Sony can die and go to Hades. Arrogant marketing tools. I am glad the underdog is coming from behind and stomping Sony.

Xbox is cool though. No ill will there.

[Arlanthe]

How are the sales figures for each of them? I heard the Wii wasn't very good but it winning this poll (so far with only a few votes)

One thing I find very odd about the Wii, is they have all these games to play tennis and baseball by swinging a racket and stuff...

why not um I don't know ACTUALLY GO PLAY TENNIS OR BASEBALL! And we wonder why child obesity is such a problem!

1) Sometimes the weather is bad. Some kids frankly don't have access.
2) Active video games still beat lethargic video games.
3) It's a great intro to "try before you buy" on sports, and may actually stimulate interest in a sport. I certainly don't see it replacing sports.
4) Or elderly/disabled (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6191)
5) Wii isn't in the lead, but it is beating Sony. It may overtake Xbox before the end, and is certainly doing well.
6) I'll bet Wii players will register as healther than PS players, and if you really want to be angry at childhood obesity, blame parents and snack foods

[Sereno]

I still play games on my XBox, no 360 in the near future, either. I just don't play games enough to justify upgrading.

However, I must admit that I love the *idea* of the Wii ... a computer game that encourages kids to get up of their butts and, at least, move around a little!

[Jibar]

The ps2 is a legendary system.

Now, see, flipside, I found the PS2 to be a disapointment.
I mean, it has some great games, Final Fantasy, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Legacy of Kain, Kingdom Hearts.
But for every good game, it has about one hundred bad games.
It's like the hooker of gaming. It likes nice, and the pricing seems fair, but you know it's already had a lot of people playing with it.
And then they upgraded it.
They upgraded it.
No new console, no, I didn't even hear any announcement about it. But, turns out, all the new games I bought? Don't work. Gotta buy a new console.
If the original hadn't broken down and I'd been forced to get a slim line, I still wouldn't be able to play new games on it.
It was ludicrous!

[Da Beast]

And then they upgraded it.
They upgraded it.
No new console, no, I didn't even hear any announcement about it. But, turns out, all the new games I bought? Don't work. Gotta buy a new console.
If the original hadn't broken down and I'd been forced to get a slim line, I still wouldn't be able to play new games on it.
It was ludicrous!

They seriously did that? Sony is way more evil than Microsoft.

[Robberbaron]

I still play my SNES, and PS2, I have 3 games I'm watching for in the future, seriously hope they're all available on the same system, KH3, FF13, and DW9.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

1) Sometimes the weather is bad. Some kids frankly don't have access.
2) Active video games still beat lethargic video games.
3) It's a great intro to "try before you buy" on sports, and may actually stimulate interest in a sport. I certainly don't see it replacing sports.
4) Or elderly/disabled (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6191)
5) Wii isn't in the lead, but it is beating Sony. It may overtake Xbox before the end, and is certainly doing well.
6) I'll bet Wii players will register as healther than PS players, and if you really want to be angry at childhood obesity, blame parents and snack foods


All good points. Thank you.

[Dragor]

I'm with the Wii bandwagon here. If I wanted to play an alternative single player to my PC, I'd pick Xbox 360- basically just a smaller computer. However, the multiplayer experience is what hits consoles off for me, so Wii. Not only does it keep you active and up on your feet. Wii Sports is excellent value for what you get, and uses the Wiimote well. Although there have been a few stinkers in the lineup (DON'T get Far Cry Vengeance) it has all gone swimmingly.

Who's been original this time round? Who's broken the barriers? Who's not played it safe? Nintendo. And that's why I love the Wii- it's taking a risk, it's not just saying, "Well, right lads, lets make the console a different shape, a bit shinier, and give it a whopping good amount of graphics potential. Also, some games. Don't forget about the games!", it's the speccy scientist in the corner saying, "No, we should try to be original." At first I thought the Wii would crash and burn for doing what it was doing- I was extremely sceptical.

But it's good. It's very good.

[SoulSpear]

Computer. Its getting a Wii adaption. Soon to be an OMEAGA Console!

[nivek1234]

I personally love the mini-games of the Wii. I can get uber lengthy games on my computer just fine, but bowling, tennis, laser hockey, cow racing, tanks, etc.? Amazingly good times for you or a group.

[Samurai General]

Sony says: we don't wear pants!:smalltongue:

[EllysW]

Wii, because I can play with my 7-year-old daughter and my 66-year-old dad at the same time. We had a blast. :D

[Forthork]

Computer owns all. Best controller (even if you don't like mouse and keyboard, you can use any controller you want), best online play, and free mods. So I have to upgrade ever couple of years. Oh well, my video card is from 2002, I can still play some games. Now that you can get a DirectX10 video card for 90 bucks (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6825), upgrading shouldn't be too expensive.

As for consoles, Wii all the way. It doesn't try (and fail) to be a computer, it is a console. Fun, quick, cheap.

[FdL]

And then, even if you have to upgrade your computer only if you want to play the latest games, with consoles it's the same, they do have a limited life. Only you can't upgrade them, and you'll end up selling the whole thing and buying the new one.
How much did PS2 last? Gamecube?

[Alex Kidd]

I actually prefer the 360(Dead Rising is a blood soaked orgasm of pure killing joy) over the Wii at the moment(stupid drought, a man cannot survive on a subpar Zelda alone), once Metroid Prime 3 hits my tune will certainly change. Or if I get the money to get me an American Wii so I can give the PAL market a big **** you like I have with the PS2 and DS(Super Paper Mario in late 2007? Burn in hell Nintendo of Europe).

I voted Wii however because, I took it as including the DS, and while the 360 is good, the DS is on track to rivalling the SNES and the PS2 as the one of greatest systems of all time.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I only have a computer here at college, but back at home, my brothers own at leat one of every Nintendo system known to mankind (Except the DS. My brother refuses to buy it, believing it to be a complete waste of Nintendo's creative genius)!:smalleek:

I really don't have much interest in console games. That's more the purview of my brothers. Nintendo fanatics, they denounce Sony consoles on principle. One of my brothers though has often considered the possibility of an X-box 360 (he'd but it over a DS any day). I personally don't bother. Anything of quality on the X-box or X-box 360 will be out for the PC eventually. It took two years, but I finally got to experience the majestic gem that is...Jade Empire!

[Hannes]

Wii. If not for anything else except the ability to play Gamecube. Nintendo is the best! The games are fun, even the suckiest ones on Nintendo rock =P

[Archpaladin Zousha]

My brother would be inclined to disagree with you. He hopelessly compares all other games to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. In his mind, not even Twilight Princess can match its predecessor.

[Rob Knotts]

I've got a PS2, PS One, and my dad's sprawling home-built computer. I could never get into RPGs on the PS, but after spending almost 3 years hypnotized by City of Heroes, I'm feeling tempted to try out RPGs on the Nintendo DS or the PSP.

Lemme splain.

I started playing arcade games back in 1980, spent a lot of time on platformers like Donkey Kong, Mario Brothers, and what I thought of as the last great arcade side-scroller, Shinobi. But if any single game could define my almost two decades of arcade gaming, it would be Street Fighter II. That, and many 2d fighting games that followed (especially from Capcom and SNK), not only sucked up most of my late adolescence and early adulthood, but also set my standard for on-screen action and and character controls. While I realize that a lot of people swore by 3d rendered fighting games, the controls lacked an intuitive quality for me, and for me the 3d animation was much more a gimmick around which to build new game titles than any sort of actual improvement.

When I got into the Playstation and later the PS2, I tried out RPGs like the Final Fantasy series, and if the copious amount of walking wasn't bad enough, the combat systems were always a turn-off. If old school arcade platformers, side-scrollers, and fighting games could offer real-time combat, why couldn't these fancy new 3d console RPGs? And while Legacy of Kain and Oddworld games had taught me to appreciate cut-scenes as the reward for succeeding in the game (as opposed to the points and ranking used by arcade games), and while I knew there were some downright beautiful cut-scenes buried in modern console RPGs, they were buried too far under endless hours of pointless wandering to be worth the effort for me.

When I got into City of Heroes/Villains, I found out instantly how addictive MMOs could be, but it took me a couple years to realize how little real satisfaction I was getting. The prospect of being able to design my own videogame character and enter a setting shared by other players blinded me to the fact that there was just as much pointless running around as in console RPGs and the combat was just as static as ever (doing 2 or 3 attacks and then standing around for half a minute to let them recharge just wasn't cutting it). When I tried WoW I realized it had all the same problems I found in CoH; my first day playing WoW was also my last.

The WII's not my style, but what about the PS3 or the 360? Even if it weren't for the outrageous introductory prices, truth be told I've still got PS2 games I haven't finished or even started yet, and I've never been interested in getting an Xbox (still think the PS2 is more practical for the price). Nowadays I'm an unemployed college student on a very limited budget, but once I get around to replacing my GURPS 4e books (a male cat got upset at the addition of a 5th cat to our home) then I might consider getting a PSP or (more likely) a DS to try out 2d adventure or roleplaying games.

[Lyesmith]

Personally, Wii.
Played Twighlight princess and Wario Ware on it for most of yeseterday.
i am in love! (Its the noses.)

And Rob, if you get a DS try out both of the Golden Sun games.
They are awesome little handheld RPGs! technially for Advance,but meh. still fantastic.

[Goff]

Personally, I think the breakthrough in graphics that the Atari 2600 presents is an unbeatable proposition.
Just look at these graphics:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/A2600_Pitfall.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/A2600_Donkey_Kong.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Atlantis_Atari2600.png

You just can't argue with quality.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Atari2600jr.jpg
Beautiful, isn't it?

[LoopyZebra]

PS3's are pure evil. It's like if you took Hitler and Stalin and put them in a electronic console. Then added Ctuhulu. If you like life, don't buy it.

And how can people doubt the superiority of the 360 as a gaming console still? In just a short few months, the Xbox Live accounts will be connected with the Windows Live accounts. One account will allow you access to every major internet service.

Oh, and we have Gears of War.

Admit that Lord Gates is a higher being, and the way to enlightenment shall be paved.

[BrokenButterfly]

I haven't been caught up in the console war at the moment, so I've yet to buy any of these. When I do though, it's going to be the Wii.

But considering I'm still using my PS2, Gamecube, GBA and my newish gaming PC, it's some way off.

[Penguinizer]

I like them all. The wii controller is fun, but it is somewhat un-conventional. The others are ok, but the computer is the best imo.

[Archonic Energy]

ok here's my 2p

PC: THE gaming platform of choice.
Wii: the Casual Gaming platform of choice WW is so much fun espically when people take it way too seriously though not every game benifits from using the Wiimote (SSX Blur anyone)
X-Box 360: good system. with brilliant on-line intergration. I can't wait to play X-Boxers on my PC when MS sort the PCLive thing out
PS3: i don't know what sony were thinking when they thought "let's piss off the entire european market share by pumping up the price & cutting costs by removing the hardware PS2/PS emulator chips" but they certainly took a missle launcher & shot themselves in the foot!

[PlatinumJester]

Nintendo and Microsoft should form together to make an uber console called Wii 360. It could have Wiis Nintendo games and controllers and X - boxes adult games, graphics and online capabilities. Imagine playing Halo 3 with a Wii controller (not using Red Steel controls though cos they are too jumpy).

[Daze]

PS3's are pure evil. It's like if you took Hitler and Stalin and put them in a electronic console. Then added Ctuhulu. If you like life, don't buy it.

And how can people doubt the superiority of the 360 as a gaming console still? In just a short few months, the Xbox Live accounts will be connected with the Windows Live accounts. One account will allow you access to every major internet service.

Oh, and we have Gears of War.

Admit that Lord Gates is a higher being, and the way to enlightenment shall be paved.

Ok.. I know your joking, but thats the silliest attitude ever. I mean seriously... Sony is more evil than Microsoft?? helloooooooo... like its not bad enough 98% of all PC's run on MS based software, but now MY GAMING CONSOLE has to be dominated by them too??? I dont think so!!!
MS is the classic big evil empire... sony just seems nicer :P

[The_Lonely_d12]

I really would have to say Wii. It just seems much more innovative, more fun to play, and i have a lot less trouble with the system-i.e. the others have tendencies to crash or freeze at times. could just be the situation, but anyways. Besides-Rayman's Raving Rabbids. That game is like delicious, insanely cackling crack with ground up coffee beans when you add it with a group of friends...especially when there has been a slight consumption of beverages beforehand

[Da Beast]

Ok.. I know your joking, but thats the silliest attitude ever. I mean seriously... Sony is more evil than Microsoft?? helloooooooo... like its not bad enough 98% of all PC's run on MS based software, but now MY GAMING CONSOLE has to be dominated by them too??? I dont think so!!!
MS is the classic big evil empire... sony just seems nicer :P

So your reasoning is that because Microsoft is succesful they're automaticaly an evil empire?

[OOTS_Rules.]

Oh, and that PS1 game Bushido Blade makes no snse. How am I supposed to win if I can't beat my opponents the normal way??

[Samurai General]

Wii 360.....? The-it-who-I-BWAAAAAT!?!?!

[Daze]

So your reasoning is that because Microsoft is succesful they're automaticaly an evil empire?

When that success is by way of monopolistic practices, the breaking of anti-trust laws, unfair practices via the crushing of competition, and possible corporate espianoge.. than yup.. evil.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime"

of course.. I own a PC and always will... so i guess that makes me a hypocrite...

[Daze]

I'm definitely gonna grab a Wii.. but my only worry is the longevity of the system. not so much from a tech point of view.. but seriously, how many bowling/baseball/sword games can ya play? seems like it might run out of original, thoughtful games at some point...

[Scatman]

My brother would be inclined to disagree with you. He hopelessly compares all other games to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. In his mind, not even Twilight Princess can match its predecessor.

I would like to submit that Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess is inferior to Ocarina of Time.Theyre both some of the greatest works of nintendo, they make XBox look like its unworthy enough for the angry video game nerd.Ocarina of Time brought new gameplay and 3-D to the Zelda world.It wasnt realeasd with the N64 because they wanted to make it better than Super Mario 64.They did.Awesome storyline man.Nuff said.Along with that theyres great gameplay, great graphics for that time in gaming history(i still think its pretty nice)and one more factor:
Nintendo.
Nintendo was one of the first game companys that is actually the oldest game company that exists.(Nintendo was a company in 1882 at japan doing all sorts of small stuff)
Nintendo is the greatest thing in the world.
Oh yeah, Wii all the way.

[FdL]

I'm definitely gonna grab a Wii.. but my only worry is the longevity of the system. not so much from a tech point of view.. but seriously, how many bowling/baseball/sword games can ya play? seems like it might run out of original, thoughtful games at some point...

You're right, but then it's way ahead of the PS and Xbox, because you have already played before the kind of games they have.
I mean, for example I don't like FPS. Why would I want to buy an xbox? I hate japanese "rpg" games, and all fighting games are all the same. That's why I'd never buy a PS...
The Wii, on the other hand, has the totally fun games you can play with other people in a way in which you haven't played before.

To me it boils down to that, period.

[Wojiz]

You're totally uninformed, FdL. One of the worst downsides of the XBox is that it has NO Japenese-style RPGs, that's the PS2. The first one, really, is Blue Dragon, which won't be released for months, and the only other is Sudeki, I guess. And it has a lot more variety than bland cookie-cutter FPS/Fighter games, which again is more of a PS2 thing.

The Wii is great, except for the damn game drought going on that happens every time a Nintendo console is released. Luckily, it'll have it's wonders, i.e. Super Smash Bros., Metroid, Super Mario Galaxy, Fire Emblem, and the like. It'll just take a while to show up.

The PS3 has a few awesome games going for it, but not enough to warrant the cost of a Core 360 AND a Wii, with 50 bucks for a game left over. I mean, sure, Heavenly Sword will be great, and so is Resistance, but a few awesome lineup games, i.e. MGS, DMC, FFXIII, are either already planning for a 360 release, probably will have a 360 release or might possibly have a 360 release. Plus, Sony's botched it so many times and thrown on so many useless and buggy features that technological power aside, it's a frustrating console.

Finally, the N64 is the best console of all time, hands down, no contest. Coupled with my N64 Emulator on my PC and PC games, my little ol' Dell is a gaming machine.

[FdL]

You're totally uninformed, FdL. One of the worst downsides of the XBox is that it has NO Japenese-style RPGs, that's the PS2. The first one, really, is Blue Dragon, which won't be released for months, and the only other is Sudeki, I guess. And it has a lot more variety than bland cookie-cutter FPS/Fighter games, which again is more of a PS2 thing.


Sorry, it wasn't clear enough, the second part of that paragraph referred to the PS2. I'm just a little uninformed, though, because I knew that.
I also know that there's more variety in Xbox games, but those are the driving force behind the system. There's a reason why Halo is its flagship game. And that Gears thing everyone talks about and whose existance I happily ignore :D

Other types of games I can't stand and that are a dime a dozen for the PS2 are Resident Evil clones.



Finally, the N64 is the best console of all time, hands down, no contest. Coupled with my N64 Emulator on my PC and PC games, my little ol' Dell is a gaming machine.

Yeah, I didn't want to bring that subject up but it's another cool thing about the PC.

[Samurai General]

WiiStation 360:smalltongue: !

[Snipers_Promise]

I voted X box 360 but thats only because i havent tried the Wii.

[Mr. Mud]

I have a Wii an I EXTREMLY suggest getting Marvel Ultimate aliance for it, i could play it for hours

[FdL]

I also think the DS is one of the strongest systems out there period.

[Daze]

I also think the DS is one of the strongest systems out there period.

Is that because it fits in your jacket pocket? :P

dont know if I agree though... its got some unique games and all, but its missing some more "in depth" games like the PSP has.. RPG's and such...

[FdL]

I think here we have the same contrast as with the Wii and the PS.

[Choas_Dragoon]

This is a hard one. PS3 isn't even in the running. I'll just have to go with the wii, it's just so different and great.

[Erloas]

Meh. I haven't played many consoles lately. I've used my PS2 a little bit, but its been a very little bit in the last couple of years. Its all PC for me.

I did play a Wii at a friends house last weekend, it was ok but I didn't think it was anything spectacular. I didn't get a chance to play a lot of games on it, but the ones I did play were rather simplistic. I don't know if that was required by the design and possible use of the controller or if they simplified them for some other reason.
I can say that giving the Wii a try didn't make me want to go out and buy one and it didn't change my opinion on the system at all. Which is to say I don't see it as any better then the other systems that I have played much (PS2 mostly, but all the last gen systems to some extent) and that I haven't tried either the 360 or the PS3 to say if they are great or not.

[Jayabalard]

I'd pick the PS2, but it's not an option.

I'm not impressed with any of the nextgen consoles.

[thorgrim29]

X-Box 360, 3 words: Gears Of War. and then you get other funny games, like DOA4, Dead rising, oblivion, vegas, and lots more. Only problem is myne keeps crashing untill it's heated up.

[Daze]

Only problem is myne keeps crashing untill it's heated up.

Which is why a wise man waits for the "next-gen" of next-gens... let me tell ya.. never, ever buy the first incarnation of a console system.

They always rush them out and theres always problems. I'll make an exception for the Wii on that, because its a lesser machine in many respects. That technology is already established.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I choose option D. I'm happy with my Gamecube thank you very much. (although I do plan eventually on getting a PS3 for the sole purpose of getting RE 5).

[[..]Stigma[..]]

I have a personal dislike for most microsoft things (I'm a Mac user), but I enjoy my X-Box 360 far more than I did when playing the PS3 or Wii. Just my purely subjective opinion, however.

[Calamity]

PS2 is a lot more worthwhile than the PS3 and is still my favourite console of all time.

Next-gen consoles.... Wii, absolutely. But apparently, according to someone who I will call 'Mr. Shortminded', it's not next gen because it doesn't have HD graphics. This of course was an Xbox 360 fanboy of course. I didn't say Microsoft fanboy because he also seems to have something against all computers including Windows.

But computers are the ultimate of the ultimate!

[FdL]

What's exactly the definition of "HD graphics"? Is it a standard? I'm just curious, as it's a point where consoles usually are behind PCs (gaming resolution, that is).

[Daze]

What's exactly the definition of "HD graphics"? Is it a standard? I'm just curious, as it's a point where consoles usually are behind PCs (gaming resolution, that is).

Well The "HD" has more to do with the television or monitor your viewing the source material on, rather than what the game or movie is putting out. Now of course the DVD or game has to be made in an HD format, i.e. the devolpers had to make it HD compatible.

The two current HD TV standards are 1)720p and 2)1080p. This accounts for the resolutions of the image. 720= 1280 x 720 pixels, 1080= 1920 x 1080 pixels. To put that in perspective, an XVGA monitor is 1024 x 768 pixels. So as you can see an HD TV has better potential resolution than your typical higher end computer monitor.

Now as this applies to movies, a DVD will always look better on an HD TV, rather than a computer, as the movie playback technology (DVD, HD-DVD, Blue-ray) is equal.
However, this is not always the case for games as you have to take into account the power of the PC you are using... graphic card, chip, memory, etc... which may outstrip what is being used in a console (plus the technology is more established.. it remains to be seen how far a PS3 or Xbox 360 can go).

HD is not quite "standard" as of yet and the technology is still relatively young. To view HD on your TV you muat have a few things: 1) An HD ready TV (either 720 or 1080.. 1080 being better, but less widely used as of now). 2) An HD "reciever" to convert the incoming signals. 3)HD component wires. 4)An HD "playback" device... DVD player, next-gen console, etc.. 5) HD media.. games, movies, etc...
Once your system (expensive!) is ready to go, then you can enjoy the full splender of HD.. which actually is quite beautiful. Particulary for sporting events, the difference is HIGHLY noticeable.

Is the Xbox or PS3 gonna outwork a PC? As of today, this minute... no... My copy of oblivion looks just as good on my beast of a machine as it does on my buddy's Xbox.... but I believe its only a matter of time before the consoles take over as far as graphics... particulary the PS3, whose blue-ray disks hold an amazing amount of data. The developers just need a bit more time to catch up. (and overly commercialize their games.. development costs are going through the roof)

[FdL]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know this was so widespread. But in the end I think that it's not such a big selling point, as only few people will have the kind of equipment necessary to enjoy it.

And for the PC vs. consoles, I think consoles are going to keep evolving, but so are computers. And the thing is, I think that with computers you have more frequent technology updates than with a console. New generations of video cards come out every years, as do new microprocessors. Their evolution is constant, whereas with consoles it's usually the top 3 simultaneously releasing their next wonders every what, 5 years? Plus there's the upgradeability consoles lack.

[Erloas]

The two current HD TV standards are 1)720p and 2)1080p. This accounts for the resolutions of the image. 720= 1280 x 720 pixels, 1080= 1920 x 1080 pixels. To put that in perspective, an XVGA monitor is 1024 x 768 pixels. So as you can see an HD TV has better potential resolution than your typical higher end computer monitor.

The first part is right, the second part isn't really. My computer monitor from 1999 did 1600x1200, which is just about the same resolution as 1080i, it just wasn't wide screen, it may have been higher too, I think it was limited by my video card. (1.9m pixels vs 2.07m pixels). The monitor I'm using now (not sure when its from, but I got it free from my roommate because the company he was working for was upgrading out of it) will do at least 1920x1440 and that is probably the limit of my video card rather then my monitor again. Given those are both CRTs, and once you get into the various types of flat panels there is no difference at all between a computer screen and an HD TV except what you are using it as.

Once you factor into it that many console games and other types of video sources and TVs are often scaling the signal up or down into their native resolution its hard to say what any particular setup is actually going to run at. "HD" in general is basically anything that outputs at a higher resolution then the traditional TVs, which is just about anything.

If you consider that, other then CRT monitors, an HD TV and a non-CRT computer monitor are exactly the same thing, just marketed a little differently and put on different shelfs at stores, you are looking at the same possible video resolution from a computer and an HD-TV. Its then limited, as you said, to whatever you are using as a source, be it a high end video card, a DVD player (both PC and stand-alone), or a console (even if the console supports the higher resolution that doesn't necessarily mean the games it plays are natively at that resolution).

[Daze]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know this was so widespread. But in the end I think that it's not such a big selling point, as only few people will have the kind of equipment necessary to enjoy it.

And for the PC vs. consoles, I think consoles are going to keep evolving, but so are computers. And the thing is, I think that with computers you have more frequent technology updates than with a console. New generations of video cards come out every years, as do new microprocessors. Their evolution is constant, whereas with consoles it's usually the top 3 simultaneously releasing their next wonders every what, 5 years? Plus there's the upgradeability consoles lack.

no problemo amigo :)

Your right... HD is estimated to only be in about 18 million homes (in the US), so this upgrade in consoles is only affecting relatively few people.

Its true that PC's do upgrade fairly frequently, but in fairness they're starting to hit a wall. They are getting to the point where those silicon based chips can only hold some many nano-processors (or whatever the heck those amazing tiny lil things are). There has been talk of using different kind of base material.. even lasers, to cope with this. But that is still a bit away from fruition.
The next-gens are gonna be good to go for a while though. I think gaming in general has hit the point where the hardware is way ahead of the software (used to be the reverse). This mean that if you buy a console, it should satisfy you for some years. And with the PC gaming market shrinking (cept for MMO's), a lot of developers arent gonna bother porting to PC, but be console only.

I dont care though.. I love my lil monster PC and will game with it no matter what. Long live the keyboard and mouse!

[Daze]

The first part is right, the second part isn't really. My computer monitor from 1999 did 1600x1200, which is just about the same resolution as 1080i, it just wasn't wide screen, it may have been higher too, I think it was limited by my video card. (1.9m pixels vs 2.07m pixels). The monitor I'm using now (not sure when its from, but I got it free from my roommate because the company he was working for was upgrading out of it) will do at least 1920x1440 and that is probably the limit of my video card rather then my monitor again. Given those are both CRTs, and once you get into the various types of flat panels there is no difference at all between a computer screen and an HD TV except what you are using it as.

Once you factor into it that many console games and other types of video sources and TVs are often scaling the signal up or down into their native resolution its hard to say what any particular setup is actually going to run at. "HD" in general is basically anything that outputs at a higher resolution then the traditional TVs, which is just about anything.

If you consider that, other then CRT monitors, an HD TV and a non-CRT computer monitor are exactly the same thing, just marketed a little differently and put on different shelfs at stores, you are looking at the same possible video resolution from a computer and an HD-TV. Its then limited, as you said, to whatever you are using as a source, be it a high end video card, a DVD player (both PC and stand-alone), or a console (even if the console supports the higher resolution that doesn't necessarily mean the games it plays are natively at that resolution).

Well my monitor for many years ran at 1600 by 1200 also. In fact (as you probably know) if you mess around with your display functions you can set your monitor to all kinds of high displays if you wished. But as you said, you run into the problem of the games not outputting at that level, as well as the video card not supporting it. I was being pretty general in my assesment, but I still do back the power of PC's.. no worries ;)

I have a CRT myself... I'll always prefer them over LCD or Plasma. Tube technology has long since been perfected, and I always believe you'll get better quality than with liquid or crystal. Of course where people have the problem is with the size of these things... its much easier to work around a flat panel monitor (or TV even).

My parents have 16:9 Sony 720 wega. (I cant afford that, nor do I have the space unfortunately). But I much prefer their "tube" TV HD quality over my buddys 60 inch flat panel. It's quite clear if you watched both. I think the same goes for monitors myself...

Overall, HD is not a "now" technology. It's gonna take some years for the market to correct itself, both with the hardware and the media.

[Erloas]

Its true that PC's do upgrade fairly frequently, but in fairness they're starting to hit a wall. They are getting to the point where those silicon based chips can only hold some many nano-processors (or whatever the heck those amazing tiny lil things are). There has been talk of using different kind of base material.. even lasers, to cope with this. But that is still a bit away from fruition.
The next-gens are gonna be good to go for a while though. I think gaming in general has hit the point where the hardware is way ahead of the software (used to be the reverse). This mean that if you buy a console, it should satisfy you for some years. And with the PC gaming market shrinking (cept for MMO's), a lot of developers arent gonna bother porting to PC, but be console only.

Transistors is the word you are looking for, very basic switch is all that it is. Intel already has a new set of materials to make the transistors out of, still using a silicon base but the transistors are made of other materials (which materials are being keep top secret). They can be made smaller and still function and leak a lot less energy which improves thermo properties. As for the size, Intel also has plans for 45nm etching, which was 65 and 90 just a few years ago and I think they already have some plans in place for 36nm. The 45nm might already be out, I forget. It is either the 45nm or the new metal types that are being released in a few months.

There really is a lot of development left to go, especially since video card improvements have the biggest change in the look and performance of games and the silicon development processes of the video card companies are a few steps behind the CPU development processes.

Also one big change that has been happening with processors recently is greatly improving how they do what they do. That was how AMD was able to hold their lead while they did even with slower clock rates, because the processors were able to do more per clock cycle. The Core2s from Intel are even better. They improve the per-cycle performance of the chip and then increase it to the higher frequencies they were able to get before. They also add more abilities to each instruction set so that some simple steps that used to be taken by software and took 2-3 instructions are done in a single instruction by the processor.

In terms of software though, they still can easily make software that is beyond the abilities of hardware to run real time right now. What is happening now though is that the market has changed and the mid range hardware is "good enough" to make a good looking game and most importantly, one that will sell well because people can run it. They can, and will for years to come, still be able to push a game beyond what the hardware can support, its just that it is no longer economically practical so they don't.

One other thing that needs to happen is that the way software is developed and writen needs to be changed. Most current games are only able to make use of a single core, and its a limited number that can even make good use of two. Few, if any, games out right now can make good use of 4 or more cores. (more being very possible to do, but not practical at this point) So that is one of the reasons why games don't seem to be taxing the hardware as much as it could be.

The reason PC games are in the decline and console games are on the rise is not because the consoles are in any way more capable of gaming then the PC, but because the consoles are good enough to make games that look good. The gap between what a console game looks like and what a PC game looks like is fairly small, even though the potential on the PC is much higher. Its just that the number of people with a PC to see that potential isn't enough to make the game worth making for them.

Whats really changes is not that hardware out paced what software was demanding, but that hardware outpaced what the majority of people are willing to pay for it and the software started following the market rather then following the hardware.