Older Gen systems FTW! Missing from the pic are the PS1, NES, 32x and Genesis that are buried in a box somewhere and my PS3.
Quote:
Graphics were never that big of a concern in the 8-bit and 16-bit era.
Then you'd love the virtual console. You can download (some, for now) NES, SNES, N64, Sega Genesis, and Turbografx 16 games.
I was playing Sim City, Super Mario Brothers, and Mario Kart 64 last night on my Wii.
dreamcast ftw!!!! hahahahahahaha
my first console was an xbox i got last year... my parents never ever wanted me to have one... and were not exactly rolling in the dough... ive played the ps1/2 b4 and have never been really impressed... love the 64... cube was alright but lacking in games.. for my taste the xbox/360 has the best games out there... between my pc and xbox im good (til i pick up a 360) my vote goes out to 360... (and forza is way better than Gran Turismo anything... i've played both... FM2 ftw)
degenerated wrote:Quote:
Graphics were never that big of a concern in the 8-bit and 16-bit era.
Then you'd love the virtual console. You can download (some, for now) NES, SNES, N64, Sega Genesis, and Turbografx 16 games.
I was playing Sim City, Super Mario Brothers, and Mario Kart 64 last night on my Wii.
You mean virtual boy? I'm trying to find one to get ahold of actually
those other games......... have em all
Heh, I doubt they'll have virtual boy games...but you never know.
And my point was what you are able to do with the Wii. For people like me, who no longer have my original systems, it's great...
Sunb1rd wrote:dreamcast ftw!!!! hahahahahahaha
my first console was an xbox i got last year... my parents never ever wanted me to have one... and were not exactly rolling in the dough... ive played the ps1/2 b4 and have never been really impressed... love the 64... cube was alright but lacking in games.. for my taste the xbox/360 has the best games out there... between my pc and xbox im good (til i pick up a 360) my vote goes out to 360... (and forza is way better than Gran Turismo anything... i've played both... FM2 ftw)
Dreamcast is bad ass, that is my second most used system first being the PS3. They had awesome games but nothnig compared to what was released in Japan.
Sadly ive never owned one, the dreamcast is next on my list though for my collection
the dreamcast controller was atrocious, i hated it
for me... xbox... snes and then 64.... only one controller for 64 so it doesn't get used much...
the only thing wrong with the dreamcast controller was the way the cord connected...
The Saturn was a badass system--Sega shot themselves in the foot with it because it could have taken the PSX down if they marketed it better.
Really though, if you think about it, what can you do on the 360 and the PS3 that you can't do with a PC?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Quote:
Really though, if you think about it, what can you do on the 360 and the PS3 that you can't do with a PC?
Absolutely nothing.
And by the time the Cell processor becomes utilized, it'll be obsolete.
I believe he wii is going to win out due to the fact that they are going outside the gaming comunnity. My mom is 55 years old and has never played a video game in her life (that i know of) and she expressed interest in getting one.
But the longevity of the system might be in question, depending on how they interact with future games, and personaly, while it is a fun system, the contols still need some improvements (aka, i swing my racket one way, and the ball goes the other way, also getting the pointer to line up with the tv).
As for the 360/ps3 war, I'm guessing the 360 will win. By the time game developers start utilzing the ps3 abilitys, it's going to be too little, too late. If you are a hard core gamer, or a sony fanboy, odds are that you already own one. But for the average player, the 360 currently offers much more for much less mondey.
But just out of courisity, does anybody know if,
1. they will be able to increase the wii controller's sensitivy in future games?
and
2. the wii controll is just an attachment right? what is stopping the 360 or ps3 from adding a senor bar and wand? They already have something like it with the guitar hero game (tilting it at certain points in the game). With the success of the guitar hero, why couldn't they come out with a motion sensor light sabor or a quick draw gun?
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
degenerated wrote:Quote:
Really though, if you think about it, what can you do on the 360 and the PS3 that you can't do with a PC?
Absolutely nothing.
And by the time the Cell processor becomes utilized, it'll be obsolete.
throw it in a bag and take it to a friends place?(i've had 4 xboxes in my basement with 14 people playing with a set up time of 10minutes)
play the most current games 4 years from now?
play muilti player? (can you on a pc?)
watch tv on the couch and decided to play a game without ever having to get up
Not have to worry about settings everytime a get a new game
Most cost effective in the long run if you don't have to continusly have to upgrade the computer.
Sorry, i got a decent computer my Jr year of highschool (about 9 years ago?) two years later i take it too college and try to run a game of my roommates, yea not even close to being able to work well... I've been turned off to computer gaming ever since.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
Niceguy4186 wrote:
throw it in a bag and take it to a friends place?(i've had 4 xboxes in my basement with 14 people playing with a set up time of 10minutes)
They're called LAN parties, and some LAN party events land in the 10's of thousands. 14 people would be considered a small LAN party in PC land.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
play the most current games 4 years from now?
What do you mean by most current? First, there are many PC games that aren't available for the home systems, so maybe YOU can't play the most current games in my view.
Further, I have three computers in my house that can outdo the Xbox and PS2 in graphics and sound, and have been for up to four years. So in my view, the Xbox and PS2 hit the dinosaur age in graphics and performance back in 2003.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
play muilti player? (can you on a pc?)
Are you serious? I was playing multiplayer PC games in the 80's over modems.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
watch tv on the couch and decided to play a game without ever having to get up
I have a PC under my TV personally. So that isn't a problem. It's also been doing 720p graphics levels now for a year and a half. I'd do the whole 1080 if I bought a graphics card.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Not have to worry about settings everytime a get a new game
I rarely have to mess with my games anymore, and it's only getting easier. It's the price you pay when you want to play the games with the best graphics on computers with massive storage. 60GB hard drives? Pssh please.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Most cost effective in the long run if you don't have to continusly have to upgrade the computer.
Most cost effective if that's what you want, you mean. I personally was not content with a Pentium 700 (Xbox) in 2001, much less 2005 or 2006.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Sorry, i got a decent computer my Jr year of highschool (about 9 years ago?) two years later i take it too college and try to run a game of my roommates, yea not even close to being able to work well... I've been turned off to computer gaming ever since.
I tried playing Halo after I had played Unreal Tournament and never bought an Xbox because of it.
---
Niceguy4186 wrote:But for the average player, the 360 currently offers much more for much less mondey.
I've completely gone over the library of games both current and upcoming and haven't seen anymore than maybe 3 or 4 games that caught my attention. So the X360 doesn't appeal to everyone, and not everyone feels the same way as you do. Hey Asia you haven't bought the awesome Xbox360?
What's wrong with U?????????
It's all a matter of preference...
AGuSTiN wrote:Niceguy4186 wrote:
throw it in a bag and take it to a friends place?(i've had 4 xboxes in my basement with 14 people playing with a set up time of 10minutes)
They're called LAN parties, and some LAN party events land in the 10's of thousands. 14 people would be considered a small LAN party in PC land.
Niceguy: and you can do these events with your best friends in your basement? If i wanted to play with a 10,000 random people, i would play online. The point is sitting around with friends having a good time yelling at them when they kill you. This issue here was portablity, we can rig up 4 tvs with x-boxes in 10 minutes time.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
play the most current games 4 years from now?
What do you mean by most current? First, there are many PC games that aren't available for the home systems, so maybe YOU can't play the most current games in my view.
Further, I have three computers in my house that can outdo the Xbox and PS2 in graphics and sound, and have been for up to four years. So in my view, the Xbox and PS2 hit the dinosaur age in graphics and performance back in 2003.
Niceguy: This one can be taken in different ways, so how about this, i can buy a console system, and 4 years later i can buy the newest game for that system. I can't get a computer and 4 years later play the newest computer game.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
play muilti player? (can you on a pc?)
Are you serious? I was playing multiplayer PC games in the 80's over modems.
I was talking about on each compter... split screen.... how about 4 way split screen?
Niceguy4186 wrote:
watch tv on the couch and decided to play a game without ever having to get up
I have a PC under my TV personally. So that isn't a problem. It's also been doing 720p graphics levels now for a year and a half. I'd do the whole 1080 if I bought a graphics card.
Niceguy: well it is possible, it is rare. while you might have 3 computers... the AVERAGE person only has a normal desktop or laptop. I've only known one person who had there computer running to there tv, and it actuall was running to a projector (three engineers who lived together)
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Not have to worry about settings everytime a get a new game
I rarely have to mess with my games anymore, and it's only getting easier. It's the price you pay when you want to play the games with the best graphics on computers with massive storage. 60GB hard drives? Pssh please.
Niceguy: well maybe it's gotten easer sense last time I tried, but you even admit, that there is an addional price...
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Most cost effective in the long run if you don't have to continusly have to upgrade the computer.
Most cost effective if that's what you want, you mean. I personally was not content with a Pentium 700 (Xbox) in 2001, much less 2005 or 2006.
Niceguy: for the average person, cost is a big factor... I have a hard enough time affording the systems as they are, and honestly i have haven't got new system yet because they have not been worth the cost (and roommates have had them), so 3x the cost for a gaming computer is defently not worth it.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Sorry, i got a decent computer my Jr year of highschool (about 9 years ago?) two years later i take it too college and try to run a game of my roommates, yea not even close to being able to work well... I've been turned off to computer gaming ever since.
I tried playing Halo after I had played Unreal Tournament and never bought an Xbox because of it.
Niceguy: that had nothing to do with what i said?
Quote:
Niceguy4186 wrote:
But for the average player, the 360 currently offers much more for much less mondey.
I've completely gone over the library of games both current and upcoming and haven't seen anymore than maybe 3 or 4 games that caught my attention. So the X360 doesn't appeal to everyone, and not everyone feels the same way as you do. Hey Asia you haven't bought the awesome Xbox360? What's wrong with U?????????
It's all a matter of preference...
if only 3-4 current and future 360 games spark your interest, then how many ps3 games do? If you say more than you are just being extremely bais. Does the ps3 even have any games with high ranking yet?
Yes, the 360 does not appeal to everyone, there will always be fanboys who will be bias no matter what.
but again for the AVERAGE PLAYER, the 360 CURRENTLY offers more bang for the buck.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Niceguy: and you can do these events with your best friends in your basement? If i wanted to play with a 10,000 random people, i would play online. The point is sitting around with friends having a good time yelling at them when they kill you. This issue here was portablity, we can rig up 4 tvs with x-boxes in 10 minutes time.
Well I don't have a basement, so I guess the answer is no. But 14 people on a LAN party in my living room is easy. Nothing hard about plugging in keyboards and mice.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Niceguy: This one can be taken in different ways, so how about this, i can buy a console system, and 4 years later i can buy the newest game for that system. I can't get a computer and 4 years later play the newest computer game.
Yeah, but you're playing the newest game for a four year old system. If you want the latest and greatest, it's not a console game. I mean, I can still buy the latest gas for my 10 year old car, doesn't mean the car is modern.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
I was talking about on each compter... split screen.... how about 4 way split screen?
That's not how PC players roll. We like to hoard our video card's performance to ourself. It's not that PC couldn't do it, it's that PC players couldn't care less to do it, so it's not offered.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Niceguy: well it is possible, it is rare. while you might have 3 computers... the AVERAGE person only has a normal desktop or laptop. I've only known one person who had there computer running to there tv, and it actuall was running to a projector (three engineers who lived together)
There's nothing stopping a user from wiring their computer to their TV. The reason it hasn't been done in the past is because computer monitors are higher res than TV's. Now that HDTV's are getting popular, people will begin to use them as monitors. It'll all change.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
Niceguy: for the average person, cost is a big factor... I have a hard enough time affording the systems as they are, and honestly i have haven't got new system yet because they have not been worth the cost (and roommates have had them), so 3x the cost for a gaming computer is defently not worth it.
So that's what this is really about, you can't afford to stay in the arms race, period.
Niceguy4186 wrote:I tried playing Halo after I had played Unreal Tournament and never bought an Xbox because of it.
Niceguy: that had nothing to do with what i said?
Sure it did, you gave a reason why you didn't do computer games and I gave a reason I don't do Xbox.
---
Niceguy: Yes, with LAN parties you can...and with mini/nano ATX formfactors, and other small-format PC's, you can make a decent PC the size of a gamecube...plus, if we assume NHL 07, i can have as many people playing that on my PC that I can on a console.
Nice: No, but in the end, the amount spent on PC upgrades to the amount spent on consoles to me evens out. Your standard technophobe that insists on getting a dell likely not, but despite everything being replaced twice over in my system, i'm basically with the same PC i got right out of highschool--granted that was a Cyrix 200 with a cirrus logic 2d card.
I can't, however, do incremental upgrades in digestable chunks to any console. If the cell processor does that then best to them, but right now i have racing games on the PS3--and I find those more boring than an economy lecture from Ben Stein.
As for the "on the computer", see the NHL 07 argument--i'm limited to the game programing and the amount of free USB ports i can connect to my system. and since DVI can connect to HD TV's, it's not like i'd have to play it on a 15" screen.
And for the TV/PC thing, there are the Home Theater PC's that are coming out. Hell, if you wanted to go ultra-techie you'd build a home theater PC and wire up all the consoles through it
Best of both worlds. As a contrast to Agustin, though, i have a tuner card in my PC, so not only do i have TV on my PC, but i have my N64 and SNES wired through it.
In the argument about settings, i find it a bonus that you can adjust the settings. I prefer the flexibility
As for the cost, for me, i've rarely ever spent more than $200 on a single upgrade--usually if it's a platform change. With consioles now, hell, you're looking at how much? For the PS3's cost could build a media center PC with brand new components. For the 360's, i could build one with the spares i have laying around.
Really though, in my opinion:
360: decent spread of games and estabished base, but for me, nothing that
i want i couldn't get on my PC.
PS3: Right now, eye candy. I personally find racing games more played out than most of the Grammy nominees. But NOTHING right now i can see justifies it's price tag.
Wii: The only console in recent years i've wanted (exception of the DS, which i own). Demo'ing Twilight princess, Im impressed. But i value gameplay over graphics--why i think all Final Fantasies after VI are not nearly as good as I-VI, but i digress.
PC: largest selection, and if done right, you can play your consoles through it
My $.02.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Agustin and KOTL, thanks.
And, why do you think consoles have been moving more and more towards including PC hardware?
Because PC's are better, but most people don't like fooling around with their PC, or aren't techno-junkies.
So, they take what they can, put it in a box that you can't upgrade, and call it a console.
To be honest, consoles have been the biggest detriment to gaming since the PlayStation came out. Take Deus Ex--amazing game. They make a sequel, but for the XBox and port it to the PC, and it sucked because of all the limitations of a console system.
That's why I like the Wii. It doesn't pretend to be a PC. It IS a gaming machine, and it does what it does very well.
Niceguy4186 wrote:if only 3-4 current and future 360 games spark your interest, then how many ps3 games do? If you say more than you are just being extremely bais. Does the ps3 even have any games with high ranking yet?
Yes, the 360 does not appeal to everyone, there will always be fanboys who will be bias no matter what.
but again for the AVERAGE PLAYER, the 360 CURRENTLY offers more bang for the buck.
I'm a Sony fan, yes. But am far from biased as the picture up at the top of the page shows I also bought the first Xbox, and as with the X360 no games really caught my attention. I own these games for the Xbox.
Halo
Midway Collection 2
Morrowind
Some Medal of Honor
Some Call of Duty
Some Tony Hawk Skating
As opposed to the 80 or so games I own for the PS2 as I said in the last page.
I bought the first Xbox at launch and wasn't impressed with the library after 2-3 years or so. I didn't bother to get the 360 knowing what type of games would be released for it. I love Japanese games and I know that Sony will deliver that to me. I guess it's cool these days to bash Sony these days, I just like to straighten out false information.
The only thing that would make me get a X360 is another Killer Instinct.
14 computers in your living room is easy? maybe this is a stupid question, but where would everyone sit and set the computers? also to set it all up within a 10 minute time span?
the latest games on an older system are all about value. I'm not interested in upgrading 2k for just marginally better games. same way you are not interested in upgrading your 10 year old car to use with the new gas. so to say, for you it's not worth 20k to upgrade your car for only a little smoother ride, and new car smell. (although that example was flawed from the start because the quality of gas has not changed in the last 10 years.)
multiplayer games on the pc is not offered just because it's not practical.
I doubt if many people will run there computer threw their main tv, mainly just because it's not practical. Just major conflicts with use of the screen, usability when doing simple reports, and just overall set up (i don't care to have a desk or something like that to set the mouse/keyboard on in the living room)
Running to a normal tv is easy enough now for most computers, but hardly anybody does it just because it's not worth it.
when did this become an arms race? it's all about cost vs benefits. lets say you spend 2k on your gaming computer and you play one hour every day for a years, that comes out to about $5.50 per hour to play games, lets say you get a 360 with live for 450, you play the exact same amount of time. That comes out to about $1.25 per hour of game play. Now, the question is, do you get 4.4 times the benefit from playing on a pc? Even if you get a lower end computer, would you still get twice the enjoyment?
The original start of this was ps3 vs 360 vs wii. I picked the wii to win overall because of the available demographic. when picking the 2nd place winner, I went with the 360 because currently there are more games with better ratings (based on most game rating sites) all for a lower price. So, if you set all preferences aside and just use the available data, the 360 comes out on top over the ps3.
Now, i original rebutted against the commit about there being absolutely no benefits of a concel over a pc. I believe I proved this commit wrong by;
1. you can easily and quickly hook up 14 people in one room to all play the same game.
2. it's more cost effective
3. for the most part, you can play mulitiple people on the same system/monitor
4. pop in the latest game 4 years from now and now worry about if it will work or not.
and for 95% of the people out there,
5. switch from playing a game to watching tv without ever getting up
in all reality, a 360 or ps3 is nothing more than a computer, but there are still advantages of buying a "computer" designed to do nothing but play games.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
^^^properly set up, a computer can do all of those:
1: Last I checked, there's maybe 4 ports MAX on a console. 4 USB ports on a PC equals this out. Laptop or a Mini/nano ATX computer with a wi-fi card onj a properly setup home network can also connect that up well. The key is, setting it up. For the average joe: a console wins. for someone doing things right, it's all equal.
2/4: That's if you spend 2k on a gaming rig. I can spend as much as on a PS3 machine, that will run the lastest games on a box that will play the latest games, and in 4 years, it will STILL rrun the latest games...maybe not at the breathtaking levels of the techniology 4 years into the future. But then again, the consoles will not be pushing breathtaking levels 4 years into the future.
3: For the most part. The other issue is: Have you ever tried to have 4 people playing on a sectioned screen for each player vs. each having their own screen. I'd rather have my own screen
5: Again, it depends on how well you set this up. A properly set up media center can do this.
Really, as you said about the 360/ps3, it's a computer set up to be a video game machine. You can do that with a media center PC. think is, most people won't get them.
Anyhow, I do agree with you, though. Wii tops this gen of consoles, if for nothing else, sheer innovation. 360 is strong and affordable, and has the library of games. ps3 is too expensive and really, nothing takes advantage of it...yet.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Quote:
multiplayer games on the pc is not offered just because it's not practical.
You're not serious.
Nearly EVERY game that comes out on the PC now has an online multiplayer mode. Heard of WOW? That game, in and of itself, probably has more people playing it this second than for all the other games COMBINED for every console system EVER made.
Quote:
1. you can easily and quickly hook up 14 people in one room to all play the same game.
Well, assuming you had enough consoles, you'd also need four TV's, each with a four way split screen. Where are you going to put all of those TV's?
Quote:
2. it's more cost effective
Again, add in the cost of the TV's. I'll give you that it's cheaper, but so is the gaming quality.
Quote:
3. for the most part, you can play mulitiple people on the same system/monitor
This isn't a selling feature. Split screens are annoying as hell.
Quote:
4. pop in the latest game 4 years from now and now worry about if it will work or not.
and for 95% of the people out there
Okay. But if somebody is playing games on their PC, they'll probably have upgraded so they can run those games.
Quote:
5. switch from playing a game to watching tv without ever getting up
??? I can be watching TV on my PC with the click of a button, or the other way around if I so desired.
Quote:
when did this become an arms race? it's all about cost vs benefits. lets say you spend 2k on your gaming computer and you play one hour every day for a years, that comes out to about $5.50 per hour to play games, lets say you get a 360 with live for 450, you play the exact same amount of time. That comes out to about $1.25 per hour of game play. Now, the question is, do you get 4.4 times the benefit from playing on a pc? Even if you get a lower end computer, would you still get twice the enjoyment?
Cost vs. benefits? How much is your internet access worth to you? E-mail? The ability to use word processing and productivity programs?
You have to factor in those benefits as well. Not only can my PC go from a communication device to digital darkroom in a second, but it also allows me to play games.
So, if I spend 2k on my computer, but I only spend 20% of my time on it playing games (which is probably a little high, I might go an hour or two one night, none for the next two weeks), that's $400, which by your formula is about $1.10 an hour. So, in addition to being able to do much, much more than my console would, it's actually cheaper to play games.
Nevermind that, because thanks to the magic of IRC and torrents, I don't even have to pay for games if I don't want to. Not saying I don't, but I sure am glad I've downloaded some games before buying them.
And that's one of my bigger beefs with the 360 and PS3--they're trying to be something that they're not. If they were strictly gaming machines, I could deal with it, but they're encroaching on PC territory in the name of convergence, and it's making for crappy games.
Nintendo, with the Wii, realizes that some people just want to play a fun game, then go about their lives.
okay...I'll end this debate on PC vs. console for once and for all:
And ALL of you can back me on this, unless you're a total liar:
Can a console store gigabytes of porn on it for later use?
NO
Game, set, and match...
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
