Stupid Developers make Gamerz ask "Why?"

[Fsiphskilm]

If [u] only 5

[Link Antilles]

Volt you are a funny fellow....

I'm really tired right now, so I'm gonna keep it short.... My theory....

1. Capcom and Konami are old pals of Nintendo. The Metal Gear series started on the Nintendo and the Mega Man Series started on the Nintendo. BTW, Volt on the Mega Man games you aren’t missing much.... Capcom seems to have the thought extreme frustration equals... fun!
2. The GBA is the only system in true competition with the PS2..... Capcom and Konami want make games for the GBA. This goes the same for Square. All three companies want to continue to makes games (fast and nice profit) for the GBA, but Nintendo wants the 'Cube to be more popular, so a compromise is made. A special Exclusive title for the 'Cube and tons of GBA games, making good money. All three companies do want good relations with Nintendo and Sony. Vice Versa
3. X-box is another story. M$ is rich.... that's the incentive to makes games for M$. Yet, the Japanese companies have lost faith in X-box and move back to their Japanese brethren. As I said Temco seems to be the only ones with faith in X-box and use it as a medium to deliver fan service.


It's all one big horde of gambles and compromises....

[Fsiphskilm]

[quote="Link Ant

[cbwing0]

There are GirlFreinds and Ex-Girlfreinds. What's over is over. You don't hang with your ex-grilfreind when you're dating your new girlfreind.

Good point. Several years ago, Square produced FF games exclusively for Nintendo; then, they started to (and still do, thankfully) produce them only for Sony. This was a smart move in my opinion.

I have to leave for church in a few minutes, so I can't write very much...

Here is my theory:

1.Nintendo thugs have kidnapped the children of the top Capcom and Konami executives, forcing them to make Gamecube-exclusive titles.

You also make a good point, Link. Nintendo is using the clout of the GBA to force companies to make Gamecube exclusives, at the expense of millions of PS2 owners.

[Vyse]

[quote="cbwing0"]Good point. Several years ago, Square produced FF games exclusively for Nintendo]

Though you have to consider the reason Sony is more popular then Nintendo in the 1st place, Final Fantasy VII. If N64 did have FFVII(and the following FF games) I do belive Nintendo would still be in 1st place today. And on the subject of systems... Game Cube itself is NOT a bad system, they make some very high quality 1st/2nd Party titles, Metroid Prime for example, and yes a lot of people bash Super Mario Sunshine because it has a "water gun" but most people just bash it because of that, they never take the time to fully play it for what it is, if you do, you'll notice that it is a VERY fun game. And while Game Cube's 3rd party support is kinda lacking, they do have some excellent 3rd party games such as Skies of Arcadia Legends, Sonic Mega Collection, and Harvest moon for example.

And while GCN is my system of choice for games that are just plan "fun" If I want a game with a pretty deep story, I'll go to my PS2 for an RPG. Or if I want to watch anime, I'll also go with my PS2.

Oh, and another reason people develop for GCN over PS2 is that the hardware for the most part is better I'm sorry but a lot of PS2 games have horrid textures, while from a-far they look great, if you move the camara even remotely close to them... yeah. And while the storage capicty of a GCN disc is smaller, the load times also seem much smaller then the average PS2 game, not that bad of a trade off.

And also, if there are games you want on another system, there is one EASY solution, do what I did and buy the other system, so yeah, consle bias is bad.

Oh btw, I'm not into games like MGS, BUT the one that just appeared on GCN was re-made with the help of a Nintendo 2nd party

[Vyse]

There are GirlFreinds and Ex-Girlfreinds. What's over is over. You don't hang with your ex-grilfreind when you're dating your new girlfreind.

Old pals are just that "OLD"

No offense, I know you are joking but, but you just contradicted your main point, if the fans of the orignal games still owned a Nintendo system and not a Playstation, they would be deprived of those games.

And Volt, most Mega Man games aren't on Game Cube, infact I can only think of one, that is exclusive, Mega Man Network Transmission, the upcoming ones are also coming out on PS2 and the PS2 already has Mega Man X7. Also its logical for Mega Man Network Transmission to be on GCN because the .Exe seres started out on GBA.

[cbwing0]

Ah...the never-ending console wars.

Though you have to consider the reason Sony is more popular then Nintendo in the 1st place, Final Fantasy VII. If N64 did have FFVII(and the following FF games) I do belive Nintendo would still be in 1st place today.

That is fine, but I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, the N64 wasn't out for a number of months, giving the PS1 time to esablish itself (alongside the Sega Saturn) as the dominant system of its day. Then, when the N64 finally did come out, it was still cartridge based (at $70.00 a cart to boot!), and lacked decent third-party support throughout its lifespan.

Second, you are incorrect about Final Fantasy VII being the only good game for the PS1 in its early days. There were many good games in that time, including Crash Bandicoot, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken, Twisted Metal, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat...the list goes on and on. What did Nintendo start with? Mario 64, and pretty much nothing else. The same thing happened, and contines to happen with the Gamecube. It launched with a handful to 1st party titles, and for all intents and purposes, that was it. This is not even considering the sheer volume of games that have been produced for the Sony consoles in relation to all of the other systems. Countless great franchises have had their start on the PS1/2, while Nintendo is still relying on the mascots that it has been using for 15-20 years.

And while Game Cube's 3rd party support is kinda lacking, they do have some excellent 3rd party games such as Skies of Arcadia Legends, Sonic Mega Collection, and Harvest moon for example.

Notice something about two out of the three games you mentioned: they are merely rehases of great Dreamcast games with a updated graphics and a sprinkling of additional content. The same can be said of Phantasy Star Online (the only reason that I would dream of buying a Gamecube), and Capcom vs. SNK. The bottom line: very little original third-party software, in stark contrast to the PS2, and the Xbox to a lesser extent.

And while GCN is my system of choice for games that are just plan "fun" If I want a game with a pretty deep story, I'll go to my PS2 for an RPG. Or if I want to watch anime, I'll also go with my PS2.

That is great. I'm glad that you like have fun with the games on Gamecube]Oh, and another reason people develop for GCN over PS2 is that the hardware for the most part is better[/quote]
There is a simple explanation for that: the PS2 was released long before the Gamecube, designed to compete with the Dreamcast, and later systems to a lesser extent. For this reason, the hardware is not as advanced. Still, developers manage to create amazing games for the system, such as Soul Calibur 2, Prince of Persia, and Metal Gear Solid 2. Granted, they may not look as good as their counterparts on other systems, but they are far from "terrible."

And also, if there are games you want on another system, there is one EASY solution, do what I did and buy the other system, so yeah, consle bias is bad.

Oh, why didn't I think of that? So you're saying that all I need to do is spend $150+ on a new system, plus $20-30 for each additional controller, $20-30 for a memory card, $50 for a network adaptor and $30 for a keyboard if I want online play, plus $50 per game? Theoretically I could buy the other systems and games, but it would put quite a dent in my savings; and unfortunately I don't have rich parents to buy me every system that is released. I'm sorry, but this is rather unrealistic for the vast majority of gamers.

[Vyse]

Ah...the never-ending console wars.

That is fine, but I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, the N64 wasn't out for a number of months, giving the PS1 time to esablish itself (alongside the Sega Saturn) as the dominant system of its day. Then, when the N64 finally did come out, it was still cartridge based (at $70.00 a cart to boot!), and lacked decent third-party support throughout its lifespan.

Yes I agree, the N64 lacked a lot of 3rd party support, I think that was the downfall of the system, in fact I think it is to this day still a down fall of Nintendo.

Second, you are incorrect about Final Fantasy VII being the only good game for the PS1 in its early days. There were many good games in that time, including Crash Bandicoot, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken, Twisted Metal, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat...the list goes on and on. What did Nintendo start with? Mario 64, and pretty much nothing else. The same thing happened, and contines to happen with the Gamecube. It launched with a handful to 1st party titles, and for all intents and purposes, that was it. This is not even considering the sheer volume of games that have been produced for the Sony consoles in relation to all of the other systems. Countless great franchises have had their start on the PS1/2, while Nintendo is still relying on the mascots that it has been using for 15-20 years.

Where did I say that it was the only good early game for PS1? I said it was the game that got everyone to buy one, which is quite true, people went out in droves to buy a PS1 for FF7 And why does it matter how old a Mascot is? I still love playing as Link, Mario, Kirby, Samus, etc. That just comes down to taste

Notice something about two out of the three games you mentioned: they are merely rehases of great Dreamcast games with a updated graphics and a sprinkling of additional content. The same can be said of Phantasy Star Online (the only reason that I would dream of buying a Gamecube), and Capcom vs. SNK. The bottom line: very little original third-party software, in stark contrast to the PS2, and the Xbox to a lesser extent.

Sonic Mega Collection wasn't on Dreamcast ]

That is great. I'm glad that you like have fun with the games on Gamecube; however, I would not have the same experience, at least not compared to the options available for the PS2. I should also not that I am not simply speaking on Hearsay. I have played a considerable number of hours on Gamecube games with my Nintendo loving friends, and can say with confidence that I prefer Sony's software library.

[align=left]While I agree that PS2 has a better RPG libary, for me there aren't any other games on PS2 that interest me beside .Hack and Kingdom Hearts, most of the time I'm watching anime or playing PS1 games in it, in the end this just comes down to opinion.

There is a simple explanation for that: the PS2 was released long before the Gamecube, designed to compete with the Dreamcast, and later systems to a lesser extent. For this reason, the hardware is not as advanced. Still, developers manage to create amazing games for the system, such as Soul Calibur 2, Prince of Persia, and Metal Gear Solid 2. Granted, they may not look as good as their counterparts on other systems, but they are far from "terrible."

I never clamed the PS2 had "terrible" graphics I said some of the games had bad textures up close, but no, they aren't really "bad" as a whole, just not if your looking too closely

Oh, why didn't I think of that? So you're saying that all I need to do is spend $150+ on a new system, plus $20-30 for each additional controller, $20-30 for a memory card, $50 for a network adaptor and $30 for a keyboard if I want online play, plus $50 per game? Theoretically I could buy the other systems and games, but it would put quite a dent in my savings; and unfortunately I don't have rich parents to buy me every system that is released. I'm sorry, but this is rather unrealistic for the vast majority of gamers.

If you want to go for all the extras then go ahead, thats one of the reasons why I don't play online, the cost is WAY too much, and another reason why I can afford a PS2 and GCN. And GCN is 100 not 150. And 1 251 mem card that I paid 20 for, has lasted me quite a while for my 10+ GCN games. And there are quite a few "Players Choice" line games that are 20-30 dollars a pop.

[cbwing0]

Where did I say that it was the only good early game for PS1? I said it was the game that got everyone to buy one, which is quite true, people went out in droves to buy a PS1 for FF7 And why does it matter how old a Mascot is? I still love playing as Link, Mario, Kirby, Samus, etc. That just comes down to taste

Here is what you said, "Though you have to consider the reason Sony is more popular then Nintendo in the 1st place, Final Fantasy VII." That statement implies that you believe this to be the only reason for the PS1's early success, which you confirm by saying, "it was the game that go everyone to buy one." There were certainly other games that made people buy the system, such as those I mentioned.

The age of a mascot doesn't matter so much, except when they are put in game after game after game. Just look at Mario. You start with Donkey Kong, followed by Super Mario Bros. From there, they made Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Paint, Mario RPG, and Super Smash Bros.. I do not object to the age of the mascots, but rather to their gross overuse and lack of creativity in recent years.

While I agree that PS2 has a better RPG libary, for me there aren't any other games on PS2 that interest me beside .Hack and Kingdom Hearts, most of the time I'm watching anime or playing PS1 games in it, in the send this just comes down to opinion.

And I believe that this is the issue on which we will not agree, due to different playing preferences. I play the PS2 for games like Street Fighter EX3, Armored Core, The Eye Toy, Virtua Fighter, Dynasty Warriors, Tekken, and Twisted Metal. I rarely play RPGs or platformers.

I never clamed the PS2 had "terrible" graphics I said some of the games had bad textures up close, but no, they aren't really "bad" as a whole, just not if your looking too closely ]

You said that they have "horrid" textures. "Horrid" is a synonym for "terrible." You also said that "a lot" of games looked bad, not just "some." This may have been true in the early days of the PS2, but it is become less and less common today. In any case, if, as you say in your latest post, "they aren't really that 'bad' as a whole," there isn't a point here.

If you want to go for all the extras then go ahead, thats one of the reasons why I don't play online, the cost is WAY too much, and another reason why I can afford a PS2 and GCN. And GCN is 100 not 150. And 1 251 mem card that I paid 20 for, has lasted me quite a while for my 10+ GCN games. And there are quite a few "Players Choice" line games that are 20-30 dollars a pop.

[size=84]I stand corrected: the cost isn't as substantial as I had thought]

[Vyse]

Here is what you said, "Though you have to consider the reason Sony is more popular then Nintendo in the 1st place, Final Fantasy VII." That statement implies that you believe this to be the only reason for the PS1's early success, which you confirm by saying, "it was the game that go everyone to buy one." There were certainly other games that made people buy the system, such as those I mentioned.

Yes there were, but MOST jumped on the band wagon with FF7.

The age of a mascot doesn't matter so much, except when they are put in game after game after game. Just look at Mario. You start with Donkey Kong, followed by Super Mario Bros. From there, they made Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Paint, Mario RPG, and Super Smash Bros.. I do not object to the age of the mascots, but rather to their gross overuse and lack of creativity in recent years.

As long as the games are fun, I really don't care, I mean yeah there might be a few stinkers, but most of them were enjoyable, were the Crash Party games any good?

And I believe that this is the issue on which we will not agree, due to different playing preferences. I play the PS2 for games like Street Fighter EX3, Armored Core, The Eye Toy, Virtua Fighter, Dynasty Warriors, Tekken, and Twisted Metal. I rarely play RPGs or platformers.

Yes, but we can agree on that we have differenent preferences, which in actuality determinds the person's choice of system.

[size=84]You said that they have "horrid" textures. "Horrid" is a synonym for "terrible." You also said that "a lot" of games looked bad, not just "some." This may have been true in the early days of the PS2, but it is become less and less common today. In any case, if, as you say in your latest post, "they aren't really that 'bad' as a whole," there isn't a point here.

[/size]

As I said, when they are zoomed in realitvely closely it is very noticeable, but most of the time its not, thats why its not that bad, now if it was noticeable all the time during game play....

[size=84]I stand corrected: the cost isn't as substantial as I had thought; nevertheless, it is still quite a lot. As for players' choice games, that doesn't apply to new titles, which are the primary area of concern.

Thats true it doesn't apply to new titles, but they will be at that price eventually.[/size]

[madphilb]

Simple answer? Some people got tired of programming for the PS2 (which I've heard is more difficult to program for since it's not a Win based development system), on top of which both the cube and the XBox are considerabily more powerful than the PS2 (even for inexperienced programmers who don't have all the ins and outs of the system at the time).

On top of that.... you're not missing anything with Dino-Crisis, the game was a real stink-er-oo from what I've read of the reviews (and I wasn't impressed with the demo either).

On top of that the lastest word is that Sony plans on milking the PS2 for everything it's got (and then some), pushing it for sales into 2010.... if they don't do something new soon they're going to get stomped over by the bit N and the M$ money machine (which there is talk of them releasing the XBox-2 in 2005).

I'm just surprised that more companies haven't jumped ship yet.

[Link Antilles]

There are GirlFreinds and Ex-Girlfreinds. What's over is over. You don't hang with your ex-grilfreind when you're dating your new girlfreind.

Old pals are just that "OLD"

Well, there are different degrees of game developers, my friend. What you stated would be true for 2nd Party game makers. It wouldn't work out for Rare to go back to Nintendo.

3rd party are freelance, they hold not allegiances. Biases, yes. They produce game that would benefit for each system. The Metal Gear Solid remake would be nothing new to PS2 gamers.... been there… done that, only the true fans would catch on. Konami and Capcom are helping to reach new game demographics for Nintendo, also. At Nintendo's request, with, yes the GBA as a lease. Anyways, on the Metal Gear Solid Remake... Silicon Knight (makers of the awesome Eternal Darkenss) did most of the work. Giving a Konami a nice profit.

If I was a game developer, I'd be with Nintendo, all the way! They're just different and they games are based on fun, as Vyse noted. The PS2 is limited.... and they are really milking that system dry.... yes they have sold more systems and are in a closest things to a monopoly in the console wars.

The thing a hate the most is the devil of the game industry... this weak economy. A lot of games that are put out there are generic want-a-be titles or cheap advertisement for something. I'm a very cynical game player, if it doesn't have good gameplay and doesn’t show the developers put work into it... I simply want play it or give it a chance. I have about 30 Gamecube games, there are 6 (Phantasy Star Online, Medal of Honor, Bomberman, 007: Agent Under Fire, Star Wars: Clone Wars, and Jedi Outcast.) that I just won't play anymore and yes were a waste of my money. Notice these are 3rd party. A few of them are retarded from the PC version and smacked onto the consoles to make a cheap buck. Yes, PS2 has a large library of games, but you can't can say Nintendo has a small one of good games. I have a little over 24 rock solid games. Several in the future I'm looking forward to alsom and five awesome games that I still need to get (Prince of Persia, Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil: Zero, Eternal Darkness, and Ikuragi.) Yes, I've played my share of PS2 games (I borrow one from my neighbor to try out the RPGs and various other adventure games.), yet I refuse to buy one, because it's overprice. They don't have the need to lower it, 'cause they're still sucking other people in, still. Anyways, before I go on a weird and mad tangent, I must say this.... I like Nintendo, because they're creative and wacky..... making down right fun games. Yes, I’m an X-box fan too. ^^

[Fsiphskilm]

[quote="Vyse"][align

[cbwing0]

You make some good points, Volt (thanks for the numbers on FF7 ). However, I have to comment on this:

But everyone is so busy talking about CONSOLE WARS which is not what this thread is about.:shady:

When you are talking about game companies jumping ship to other systems, you are inevitably going to get people comparing the consoles in question. This thread is also related to a very real aspect of the "console wars," namely the economic competition between companies.

[Link Antilles]

Lemme tell everyone a secret. It's not the console, it's the developers. Metal Gear Solid / the Bouncer / FFX had graphics that surpasses many GCN and Xbox hits. Not becaue of the hardware but becaue of the developers. Also GameCube's hardware doesn't allow for a Hard-Drive and many other peripherals. What every happened to GameCube's Online feature?

Thanks Volt for writing in a different color... easier on the eyes... I'm to lazy to do so, though.


I'm sorry, but the graphics engines for those three games are old and outdated. They did look amazing when they came out, but they have aged and so on. They do beat Animal Crossing's graphics. The Gamecube and X-box hits I'm thinking of have much improved graphics than the ones you’ve mentioned. X-box only games: Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Halo, Crimson Skies, and Project: GR 2. Gamecube only games: Rogue Squadron II & III, Pikimin, StarFox Adventure (I must say the other one coming out has rather sad graphics), Wace Race, FF:CC (they single player lacks, multiplayer is very fun, and the graphic effect are top-notch!), Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, and Resident Evil Zero. Yeah, I know Mario Sunshine, Zelda the Wind Waker, and Animal Crossing, aren't best in the graphics department, but those games weren't about graphics. I might cite; The graphics for the Twins Snakes is pretty much the same as Son of Liberty, but the animation of The Twin Snakes mocks the Vamp vs. the Seals and Solidius vs. the Rays scenes. Yeah, I borrow a PS2 quite frequently, I do love the games. Yet, I have compared the graphics and PS2 has it's limits. As a X-box and Gamecube gamer, I have a grudge against the PS2. The graphics for the “all system gamesâ€

[righteous_slave]

Sony's gonna milk the PS2 until 2010? GOOD I say GOOD. That means that
A. Game developers will have the chance to push the system to it's limits before being forced onto the next system.
B. Hopefully when the PSX and PS3 hit, PS2's will drop down low enough for me to replace the one I traded for my 'Cube (in search of more multiplayer and family oriented games)

Back on topic, Nintendo has something that the other companies want, namely the only major portable game system going, the GBA. What will prove interesting is whether or not the Playstation Portable ever gets here and how well it does. If there is competition in the portable field, it's a whole new ball game and venerable old Nintendo may be running off in search of a paddle.

It all boils down to simply this: the third parties are going to go where the money is. If there is money in the PSP, they will head there, possibly avoiding some of these breakoffs. If there is money in the GBA, they will make the sacrifices (loss of fans over exclusive titles) to get to the money. If the money is on the GC, that's where the developers will be. Capitolism 101, y'all.

[cbwing0]

Back on topic, Nintendo has something that the other companies want, namely the only major portable game system going, the GBA. What will prove interesting is whether or not the Playstation Portable ever gets here and how well it does. If there is competition in the portable field, it's a whole new ball game and venerable old Nintendo may be running off in search of a paddle.

And for that reason I will be praying that the PSP does well.

[Link Antilles]

[quote="cbwing0"]And for that reason I will be praying that the PSP does well. ]

And us Nintendo and X-box peeps want it to fall flat on it's face like the N-gage. I guarantee it will, if they set the price to high.

Yet, I was watching a demo video of the PSP, I'm impressed. I would buy it… if it’s around $100 and I see games I like.


EDIT: The main reason I don't want to PSP to succeed is that would give Sony a really close-scary monopoly over the Video Game Industry. I really don't want any company to have complete dominance. Why? They get slack and the prices go up. Look at the PS2. I personally want of companies to be in healthy competition.

[Saint Kevin]

[quote="Link Antilles"]As a X-box and Gamecube gamer, I have a grudge against the PS2. The graphics for the “all system gamesâ€

[cbwing0]

Bear in mind that if Nintendo had been a little more savvy about it's Playstation project (which was designed to be an CD-ROM based add-on for the SNES) and they had not eventually dumped the project, we might not be having this conversation, and Nintendo could have been the undisputed champ of the console market.

Yes...a cd based add-on to the SNES would have dominated the console market...just like the Sega CD...

From what I've heard, the PSP is going to be a lot more powerful than the GBA, with more extra features and such, so it will probably cost quite a bit. Price will probably be the main sticking point for the system.

[righteous_slave]

I don't think that some competition will hurt the GBA too bad. With it's backwards compatablilty, there are thousands of games available, it's connectivity with so many 'Cube games make it an almost neccessary accesory, and Nintendo's recent trend of re-releasing good old SNES games on it all make for a well entrenched product. The PSP is gonna have to have a reletively low price, several good launch games, and steady support from Sony and what ever 3rd parties are in on it. Hopefully another contender will get Nintendo to use those advantages to thier utmost, and maybe give Sony some ideas...(connectivity w/PS2 & 3 games, internet connectivity through the console, use of the harddrive, ect)

p.s. since lines keep getting drawn, I'll let you know I have no allegences, I like my 'Cube, I want to replace my PS2, preferably w/hd, and want to get a GBA. The only system I don't like is the X-Box, just because I don't see that many games that I like out on it.

[madphilb]

Thought I'd give you all the link to the article about Sony's plans for the PS2

Also note that while Sony is looking to hedge in on Nintendo's portable market, they also have to deal with the Big N's new handheld that is in development as well (The Big N has done well for itself with the Gameboy systems, very well).

Frankly I don't have anything directly against Sony, they've done some good stuff, but the PS2 is dated, and what little I've heard about the next system from them is that it's not much better than the current XBox, it's time Sony takes some lessons from both Nintendo and Microsoft if they want to keep as a leader in the industry.

PS3 needs a built-in Hard disk. Better equipment (PS2's are notorius for breaking down compared to XBox or the Cube), and the system itself not only needs to be at least on par with everyone elses system, but maybe even a bit above (and I'm not talking the current systems, I'm talking the next-gen XB/GC systems). On top of that Sony needs to make sure the PS3 is very, very friendly to program, even better if it's close to a WinBOX (as much as I hate to admit that).... Linux might be a good option for the primary foundation if the CPU itself was something somewhat standard.

If they ignore what microsoft did with the XB, Sony will find themselves left in Micro$oft's dust next time around.

Programmers will flock to the system that shows the most potential for them, in ability, ease of programming (my understanding is that the creator of Ninja Gaiden said he's never program for the PS2 again because it's a bear), class of user, etc.

Don't think I feel the Sony system is a bad one, but stacked against the competition it's slowly losing ground resting on it's past accomplishments. Compared to the ability of the XB or GC, it's just not up to another 5 years (aside as some sort of retro gaming system like SNES, NES, and Sega systems are now).

[Bobtheduck]

Well, the PS1 is still alive, even with PS2 on top. It's cheap, it's classic, it's tiny, and there are a lot of people who have one that don't have money for ANY new systems. As for the PS3 not being much better than X-box, I highly doubt that. PS2 was released at abilities further than the best PC stuff at the time, and when X-box came out it wasn't as good as the current PC stuff... I think PS3 will be released at better stats than the what's current on the PC (well, for graphics, not for ram/processer since Consoles are dedicated systems) just like the PS2 was. I had heard some AMAZING stuff that's much better than what's on the X-box.

Now, I gotta say, "most popular" does not mean "monopoly." Nintendo has too many close friends for that to happen. Eh... It doesn't matter. History will tell.

As for lazy developers who "downgrade" the cube and xb games because they make PS2 versions? That's just too bad... It's certainly not Sony's fault... That's the developer's faults for being lazy... Game developers should always work really hard to maximise their product for the platform it's on... When they dont', and make Mediocer products, there's no on to blame but themselves... And, I'm quite happy with the top tier PS2 stuff that gives me no need to make a switch.

Oh, and I don't know what to think about the PSP.

[skynes]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did the makers of the new Resident Evil not say something along the lines of "These graphcis could never be done on any other console"?

--------
I would never have got a PS1 were it not for Final Fantasy. It's the ONLY reason I got one and still remains the ONLY reason I keep it!

Nintendo do have few 3rd party companies. To be honest I don't blame them. I cannot recall ONE 3rd party game I've liked. 1st party and 2nd party - yip. 3rd party - Not a chance.

Even if ALL companies left Nintendo, they would STILL be tough competition simply because of the games they make.

Metroid, Zelda, Mario, F-Zero. So many of them. What have Sony got thats exclusive to them... Emmmmmmmmmmmm.... I can't think of any! I used to be able to say FF and MGS but not any more...

X-Box had Halo, but thats on the PC too now. In my opinion the X-Box is a PC trying to be a console and no more. It's benefits are the Hard Drive and not worrying about System specs like PCs.

--------
The PS2 is a NIGHTMARE to program for. Sony just threw a bunch of powerful parts togther not caring how the programmers would feel about it. After all Sony aren't going to be programming on it, they don't make games (They did make a couple I think)

Oh look at that... Nintendo do.

Royalties is another big thing. whenever a Ps2 or X-Box game is sold the company that made it gets 5% of the profit. Nintendo gives 20%....


I firmly believe that if the N64 had the FFs that the Ps1 has the PS1 would be a forgotten console.

The reason ppl I know buy PS2s goes like this: Fifa, Football, more Fifa, Grand Theft Auto and gunning innocents....
--------------

As for the PS3 not being much better than X-box, I highly doubt that. PS2 was released at abilities further than the best PC stuff at the time, and when X-box came out it wasn't as good as the current PC stuff...

You buy a top of the range PC... Next day it's obsolete and outmatched.
Comparing Consoles to PCs is a silly thing to do, PCs become so advanced and so powerful so quickly that comparing a fixed specification machine such as the PS2 to it makes no sense.

Between the time the PS2 was released and the time the X-Box was released the PC industry had time to almost double its power.
--------------

[Bobtheduck]

You buy a top of the range PC... Next day it's obsolete and outmatched.
Comparing Consoles to PCs is a silly thing to do, PCs become so advanced and so powerful so quickly that comparing a fixed specification machine such as the PS2 to it makes no sense.

It's not silly. It makes perfect sense. I was comparing that because while PS2 was better than the computer systems at the time of it's release, X-box was not. It's perfectly viable argument because someone had said that PS3 wasn't going to be much more powerfull than X-box. I disagreed with that, and doubted any sources that had claimed that. To have a system that is more powerfull that the PCs at the time it comes out is a very important thing. It means that they've made a great leap forward in technology and are not just riding the coattails of the PC gaming industry like X-box is. X-box was a step down from the current PC trends of the time. X-box was just a little more powerfull than the PS2. Of course, then there's the dreamcast to consider as well. I have no clue why PS2 swallowed the Dreamcast, but X-box didn't swallow the PS2. Probably because it's an american system and Console gamers for the most part aren't into the types of games that get made for X-box. Gamecube, on the other hand, has strong support from a lot of console gamers and if I'm not mistake is ahead of Microsoft as well. I am fine with Nintendo... I'm just not fine with MS. The X-box is the pinnacle of all the bad in the VG industry to me... Putting power over creativity. Using money rather than brains. Catering to the quick and cheap rather than real ingenuity. I am a Sony/Nintendo fan. I'm against the X-box.

Really, MS and Nintendo have allowed Sony developers to get some brains and work a little harder and turn out superior stuff. Early PS2 stuff was crap for teh very reason of being the most powerfull at the time...

BTW, Despite Twin Snakes being a GC exclusive, Snake Eater is going to be on PS2 long before it goes to any other system. So, getting the game first is another good thing about beng with Sony... That and using Nintendo's classic control system (the SNES controller) only improved on (adding 2 more top buttons as well as two joysticks) The other systems have all tried to do bizarre things (N64, Dreamcast, X-box, Gamecube) but Sony stuck with the best design (I really haven't liked any controllers since the SNES controller which became Dual Shock). I can't wait until PS3. I'm pretty sure it will come with a HD, it will mostly likely have 4 controller ports (the biggest flaw of the sony systems) and Sony's online service will be well established by that point. It will also be incredibly powerfull and will be a worthy contender for Nintendo and MS.

these are all of the reasons I go sony:

.hack
Silent Hill (only one of which is on X-box (two when SH4 is released), and since I am anti x-box, it doesn't matter much)
Metal Gear Solid (they did a lame job on the X-box update and us sony users got that one anyhow)
Final Fantasy (FFX isn't on any system but PS2...)
DDR (There are 5 PS releases for DDR in the US... Only 1 DC, 1 PC, and 1 X-box release... No Gamecube)
There are too many good games on Sony.

Frankly, I see it sort of the same with MS as you do with Sony... There are no really good XB games that are XB exculsive. American programmers just go for the X-box because they like programming for windows. That doesn't mean everyone has a hard time programming for the PS2.

I think GTA is rediculous. I don't play "run and gun" games and I don't play "let's kill innocents" games... Though I may get bored sometimes with an escort mission and off someone, like EE (MGS2)... Or not... I've never offed EE, but I've offed Maria (SH2) numerous times... Anyhow, i'm getting off track. I have a PS2 because it's the best system for me. I'll never buy a MS console. IF MS was the only console left, I'd develop games for Linux in protest.

I would love to get a GC, though.

[skynes]

I think it's very hard to get a console to match/beat the PC industry. It just advances too quickly.

Companies work away for years making a console, if they upgraded it all the way through development to match/beat PCs then theyd NEVER get it released! They'd keep updating it forever!

Consoles CANT be compared to PCs. Consoles are stand-alone machines will PCs are constantly changing.

[cbwing0]

A new console also costs about 1/10 of the price of a good PC, so you can't really expect them to be comparable in terms of power, memory, etc.

[Kite]

Metroid, Zelda, Mario, F-Zero. So many of them. What have Sony got thats exclusive to them... Emmmmmmmmmmmm.... I can't think of any! I used to be able to say FF and MGS but not any more...

*Shakes Head* I can think of tons of great games that are PS2 exlusive.

1.Jak and Daxter

2.Jak II

3.Rachet and Clank

4.Rachet and Clank 2

5.Gran Turismo 2,3 and 4

6.Xenosaga

7.Contray to what you think Final Fantasy.

8.The DarkCloud Series

9..hack

10.Ico

The thing is that your a nintendo fanboy, so of course you love nintendo more. Now nintendo has these

1.Mario

2.SSBM

3.Metroid

4.Harvest Moon

5.Pokemon

6.Kirby which totally stinks

7.RE

8.MGS:TTS

9.Zelda

Thats all I can think of right now.

X-box has these

1.Panzer Dragoon Orta

2.Crimson Skys 2]

3.Ninja Gaiden

and me thinks thats all.

[cbwing0]

X-box has these

1.Panzer Dragoon Orta

2.Crimson Skys 2]

3.Ninja Gaiden

and me thinks thats all.

You're forgetting the most important title; the one that made the Xbox: Halo! Where would the Xbox be without Halo?

[skynes]

Nowhere...Halo MADE X-Box. It'd be dead without Halo.

The PS2 games u mentioned (that I know of) are mostly 3rd person Adventure and Racing right? Well I hate those genres... Well most games of those Genres.

F-Zero and Mario Kart are the ONLY racing games I've ever liked.

Kirby does stink... except in Super Smash Bros.

Metroid for me is good enough a game to make it worth buying a console for!

All Nintendo needs is more Final Fantasy. It's all its lacking in my opinion, not enough RPGs!