FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Best Gaming System is best





true_paki
PS2 or XBox?

I heard PS3 is coming in late fall. Should I wait go for PS2. I heard that PS2 loading problem
Xbox is only good for Halo, which I hate.
Juparis
Are you insane?

There's no competition between PS2 and the Xbox, and I say that without being biased. The PS2 is just too old and outdated, and yet it still costs more than the Xbox. Evidentally you hate Halo, so I'm assuming you wouldn't enjoy half the other games/features that come with the Xbox. Not like PS2 has any good games going for it. Rolling Eyes

If you have the several hundred dollars to waste, then you're better off waiting for the PS3. Sure it'll be the next new fantastic it-can-do-everything console, but the price will definitely show for it. The Xbox 360 is more worth its value, and there are already plenty of games you can enjoy. (Seeing as you "hate" Halo, though, you'll be missing out on a lot of it).

Just curious, but why do you hate Halo? Because it was so revolutionary? Because it raised the bar for gaming storylines and graphics? Or simply because, for once in a lifetime, everyone was addicted to a relatively good game? Hehe, only kidding. Wink
elekis
why not waiting the WII (are the champion m...)??

Nintendo is the best in gameplay
screamingdecay
Xbox 360

Great Games , and soon Gears of war! Very Happy
rightclickscott
Juparis wrote:
Are you insane?

There's no competition between PS2 and the Xbox, and I say that without being biased. The PS2 is just too old and outdated, and yet it still costs more than the Xbox. Evidentally you hate Halo, so I'm assuming you wouldn't enjoy half the other games/features that come with the Xbox. Not like PS2 has any good games going for it. Rolling Eyes

If you have the several hundred dollars to waste, then you're better off waiting for the PS3. Sure it'll be the next new fantastic it-can-do-everything console, but the price will definitely show for it. The Xbox 360 is more worth its value, and there are already plenty of games you can enjoy. (Seeing as you "hate" Halo, though, you'll be missing out on a lot of it).

Just curious, but why do you hate Halo? Because it was so revolutionary? Because it raised the bar for gaming storylines and graphics? Or simply because, for once in a lifetime, everyone was addicted to a relatively good game? Hehe, only kidding. Wink


I see we have another person from the G4 Generation. The PC will always be best in my book, even though I've playing on my PS2 nonstop lately.
kazikame
Personally, I prefer the gamecube. If it was supported by more developers, it would have been much more successful.

I think that the PS3 is going to fail. Sony are having financial troubles (apparently) and 425/$600 is just too much for regular consumers. The Wii is going to bring innovation to the industry, for a price much less than that of the PS3 and the XBox 360. I'll be trying to get one at launch Smile
gr3gg3r
PS2 has great games for it, I mean come on, it has the entire Final Fantasy franchise. It probably has all the best RPGs on it. But PS2's biggest downfall is its lack of online based gaming. They've tried to enhance it, but too few play PS2 online. Its not that great either, there is a lot of hassle involved.

XBOX on the other hand, when it comes to online play, its phenominal. Even if you don't like Halo or Halo 2, there are still great games for the XBOX, even playing online. Plus the 360 has utilized the online capabilities tremendously.

But again, don't rule out PS2 completely because it is still producing some great games... Final Fantasy XII is coming out soon. Very Happy
AdamantMonk
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, FFXII is coming to 360 as well, if it's not already out.

If I am mistaken about that, I still know for sure MS has also gotten in on future Square-Enix action. So, It's not just for Sony fans anymore.
Fire Boar
true_paki wrote:
PS2 or XBox?

I heard PS3 is coming in late fall. Should I wait go for PS2. I heard that PS2 loading problem
Xbox is only good for Halo, which I .

Another person who seems to have completely ignored the existance of the Wii and the Gamecube. Wait for the Wii, I would. Much cheaper, and promises to be much better, than the PS3. 425/$600? Come off it...
Joe944
You see, the thing is that the Wii and the PS3 are on a completely different level. I plan on buying both. I've got a PC and I don't really feel the need to buy a 360.

I hear very good things about the PS3. So it might cost a little more, but honestly I've spent a few hundred dollars on things that won't benefit me as much as a video game console. Just think about how much time you are going to spend on the damn thing.
IceNinjaa
Joe944 wrote:
You see, the thing is that the Wii and the PS3 are on a completely different level. I plan on buying both. I've got a PC and I don't really feel the need to buy a 360.

I hear very good things about the PS3. So it might cost a little more, but honestly I've spent a few hundred dollars on things that won't benefit me as much as a video game console. Just think about how much time you are going to spend on the damn thing.


i have to agree totally with you here. Over the years Nintendo has really seperated itself from the competition that is console gaming. Partly because of their lovely thought process. People don't want online gaming? Come on! Any company being run by someone like that isn't gonna acheive very much in this age IMO.

With that said, I think the WII will bring Nintendo back into many more households with their innovative design and interface. Yet, still not their on the ranks of PS3 and XBOX 360. I still think if Nintendo wants to be back where they were in the beginning they need to get better graphics and break down the age barrier they seem to be hiding behind.
Juparis
rightclickscott wrote:
I see we have another person from the G4 Generation. The PC will always be best in my book, even though I've playing on my PS2 nonstop lately.

G4? Dunno what that is Question
PCs are always better--you'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Rolling Eyes They just have more power and capabilites than a console. But consoles are so much cheaper--that's why people buy them.

I just think its sad when companies try and shove 10,000 multi-media features into one box to try and get more customers. What about those of us who plan on playing games on our console, and nothing else? Do we still have to pay the extra several hundred dollars for features we'll never use? Sony says yes. Rolling Eyes

Nintendo is on their own playing field, though. They've never sacrificed creativity or innovation with each of their products. I just think American kids will be too lazy to get up and be interactive with their games--they're too narrow-minded to like the Wii, for the most part. Still, I support them. Very Happy
Fire Boar
IceNinjaa wrote:
People don't want online gaming? Come on! Any company being run by someone like that isn't gonna acheive very much in this age IMO.

Actually, the Wii will be online, and will have the capabilities to remain on and online using the same amount of power as a small lightbulb. So that above statement is false. And no-one's actually seen the Wii graphics. All the demos shown at places like E3 and other press conferences were actually played on an overclocked Gamecube. The graphics of the Wii might excel even the PS3. I'm not putting any money on that, mind you.
rightclickscott
Fire Boar wrote:
IceNinjaa wrote:
People don't want online gaming? Come on! Any company being run by someone like that isn't gonna acheive very much in this age IMO.

Actually, the Wii will be online, and will have the capabilities to remain on and online using the same amount of power as a small lightbulb. So that above statement is false. And no-one's actually seen the Wii graphics. All the demos shown at places like E3 and other press conferences were actually played on an overclocked Gamecube. The graphics of the Wii might excel even the PS3. I'm not putting any money on that, mind you.


I heard the Wii was supposed to use displacement mapping for it's graphics, and it's a brilliant idea. Spending the same amount on graphics that are last generation, but using a simple bluring technique to make it look next gen is an amazing idea.
jkh13
Its really difficult to say:

Wii I think is going to be good but not get alot of sales compared to the 360 and the ps3 for obvious reasons, which is a shame.

Ps3 is difficult to say what will happen with that console yet as unless you went to E3 or another event like that you would not have played on it at all. Gameplay makes the consoles, not the pretty videos.

Xbox 360 is therefore the only one playable and out so no comparison can be made. Also the games are limited making it difficult to guage how good the console will really be.

I advise you wait it out till the better console becomes clear.
rightclickscott
jkh13 wrote:
Wii I think is going to be good but not get alot of sales compared to the 360 and the ps3 for obvious reasons, which is a shame.


What are you talking about? Everyone who knows anything about it, even people I know and who I don't know that well who have made fun of it have admitted that they are going to get a Wii. It's definetly going to be a major competitor when it comes to the next generation consoles.
Cthulhuman
rightclickscott wrote:
Juparis wrote:
Are you insane?

There's no competition between PS2 and the Xbox, and I say that without being biased. The PS2 is just too old and outdated, and yet it still costs more than the Xbox. Evidentally you hate Halo, so I'm assuming you wouldn't enjoy half the other games/features that come with the Xbox. Not like PS2 has any good games going for it. Rolling Eyes

If you have the several hundred dollars to waste, then you're better off waiting for the PS3. Sure it'll be the next new fantastic it-can-do-everything console, but the price will definitely show for it. The Xbox 360 is more worth its value, and there are already plenty of games you can enjoy. (Seeing as you "hate" Halo, though, you'll be missing out on a lot of it).

Just curious, but why do you hate Halo? Because it was so revolutionary? Because it raised the bar for gaming storylines and graphics? Or simply because, for once in a lifetime, everyone was addicted to a relatively good game? Hehe, only kidding. Wink


I see we have another person from the G4 Generation. The PC will always be best in my book, even though I've playing on my PS2 nonstop lately.

I totally disagree with Juparis because yes Halo was the xbox game of choice, but I mean I really didn't like it. It was a good first person shooter and everything but I wasn't good at it so it really didn't appeal to me and like every other game after you play it so much it gets tiring. I really don't see what the bid deal about the game was. I totally agree with rightclickscott because even though you went out and spent all this money on all of these games that only work on one system I've got the best computer out of all of my friends and can play most of the games that I'd want to play that's out on the ps2 or xbox 360, and it looks better. So I'd say invest in a good computer and go from there but that's just me.
Kelcey
Juparis wrote:
Are you insane?

There's no competition between PS2 and the Xbox, and I say that without being biased. The PS2 is just too old and outdated, and yet it still costs more than the Xbox. Evidentally you hate Halo, so I'm assuming you wouldn't enjoy half the other games/features that come with the Xbox. Not like PS2 has any good games going for it. Rolling Eyes


You aren't biased? Rolling Eyes

"XBox rules all"

"PS2 has nothing"

when clearly the PS2 has outsold the XBox.

Last I checked it was Microsoft axing the Xbox to make way for the 360 and Sony still releasing big titles on the PS2 (FF12, God of War 2, Valkyrie Profile 2). I think you'd consider the Xbox as a system, outdated (not by graphical power).

Verdict? Biased.

Juparis wrote:


I just think its sad when companies try and shove 10,000 multi-media features into one box to try and get more customers. What about those of us who plan on playing games on our console, and nothing else?


Yeah you know the 360 can do:

Hook up mp3 players and digital cameras to your 360.
Hook up your pc to your 360 and stream MEDIA such as music and pictures.
Hook it up to your Media Center PC and stream video.
Download music videos.

So tell me, why are you supporting it again?

Verdict? Biased.

Juparis wrote:

Do we still have to pay the extra several hundred dollars for features we'll never use? Sony says yes. Rolling Eyes


Oh that's right. Several hundred dollars is one hundred dollars. Oh man I'm gonna be rich cause every one hundred I earn from work is really several hundred! Face it, you're completely talking like you're biased.

The "crippled" PS3 is 500 dollars. The "uncrippled" 360 is 400. They both come with a 20 gig hard drive and component out. The PS3 comes with a blu-ray drive (i'm not saying this is important to the argument) and the 360 comes with a dvd drive. So you're getting the same thing except one has a blu ray drive (but let's not care for now). So can you do this math for me?

500-400 = X

X = SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS? Congrats.

Verdict? Very biased.

To answer the OP's question. It depends on what you like. If you like FPS and you want multi-platform games, go with the Xbox. Otherwise, go with the PS2.
uslhoops
For me its XBOX for sure!
Juparis
Warning: This post is largely opinionated and may be subject to subconcious bias. Read at your own risk.
Kelcey wrote:

You aren't biased? Rolling Eyes

"XBox rules all"

"PS2 has nothing"

when clearly the PS2 has outsold the XBox.

Oooh, a $ony fanboy--this should be interesting. Wink

I only said my first statement was unbiased, because I still believe it to be true. Nowhere did I say "Xbox rules all" or "PS2 has nothing." You are exaggerating my words by making up your own, simply so the playing field would tilt in your favor. (Leave it to a fanboy to try something like that Rolling Eyes )

Clearly the PS2 has outsold the Xbox because it's been out for so long. And now that everyone knows how expensive the PS3 is going to be, people are still settling down with a PS2 for their precious Final Fantasy fix, since they won't be able to afford the PS3 for more time to come. And even then, I heard PS2's are still selling for $150! For a lackluster console with only two control ports, I wouldn't say it's worth it unless you truly love every game they've come out with. Sadly, I cannot say that I do.

Kelcey wrote:
Last I checked it was Microsoft axing the Xbox to make way for the 360 and Sony still releasing big titles on the PS2 (FF12, God of War 2, Valkyrie Profile 2). I think you'd consider the Xbox as a system, outdated (not by graphical power).

M$ isn't "axing" the Xbox--a more powerful console is being released, that's all. Just because you don't see the advertisements for Xbox on the commercials doesn't mean games aren't still being released for it.
Your second point is true, however. $ony is still releasing big titles on the PS2--and how pathetic is that? Why should a good game be torn from its true potential just so $ony can make a few more bucks off of it? They could have done much better, imo. (and NOTE that this is imo--that's right, I'm saying that this is my bias. Happy yet?)

Kelcey wrote:
Verdict? Biased.

Your verdict is biased and therefore invalid. Razz

Kelcey wrote:

Yeah you know the 360 can do:

Hook up mp3 players and digital cameras to your 360.
Hook up your pc to your 360 and stream MEDIA such as music and pictures.
Hook it up to your Media Center PC and stream video.
Download music videos.

So tell me, why are you supporting it again?

Just because I'm supporting a reputable company doesn't mean I agree with everything they do. Where did I ever suggest that I was happy with the number of features they forced into the 360? I support the console, but not everything about it (just 99% more than the PS3).

Kelcey wrote:
Verdict? Biased.

Seeing as your presumptuous convictions are false, your verdict too must have been ill-conceived and is therefore void. Laughing


Kelcey wrote:
Oh that's right. Several hundred dollars is one hundred dollars. Oh man I'm gonna be rich cause every one hundred I earn from work is really several hundred! Face it, you're completely talking like you're biased.

I'm sorry if your math teacher molested you, but several hundred dollars is, in fact, more than one hundred dollars. Wink
Both the PS3 and 360 could be significantly cheaper if the companies behind them focused on gaming alone. And the significance, in the case of the PS3 at the very least, is indeed several hundred dollars. I wouldn't know the exact dollar amount, however--sorry.

Kelcey wrote:
The "crippled" PS3 is 500 dollars. The "uncrippled" 360 is 400. They both come with a 20 gig hard drive and component out. The PS3 comes with a blu-ray drive (i'm not saying this is important to the argument) and the 360 comes with a dvd drive. So you're getting the same thing except one has a blu ray drive (but let's not care for now). So can you do this math for me?

Where did I ever say that the PS3 was crippled, or even that the 360 wasn't? Once again, you're putting words in my mouth (or rather, just claiming that I typed them), which I don't appreciate too much.

Kelcey wrote:
500-400 = X

X = SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS? Congrats.

Verdict? Very biased.

Perhaps you misread my post, because I was not referring to a PS3/360 comparison. Hmm, although I could argue that the 360 only costs $300 (without the harddrive), in which case the term "several hundred dollars" still applies. Wink And if we do that, we see that your math is flawed, and therefore your verdict is flawed as well. Surprised

All seriousness aside, how far do you really expect to get in this argument if you keep acting like that? It would seem to me that you're spending this whole post to disprove my first sentance, and only because I claimed that the single first sentance was unbiased.

Okay, I can't resist making one more point. Razz
Kelcey wrote:
To answer the OP's question. It depends on what you like. If you like FPS and you want multi-platform games, go with the Xbox. Otherwise, go with the PS2.

Many games available on the Xbox are not multi-platform. Need I bring in an unnecessarily large comparison chart? I hope not.
At the same time, not all games for the PS2 are meant only for the PS2 (but what a shame for those that are!). It is my personal opinion (based on my experience) that the innumerous games for the PS2 don't count for much, since most have the same storyline, the same map templates, the same keys to press--there's just nothing new to learn, which is something that I love with the Xbox. And yes, that is largely influenced by, but not limited to, Halo 2. :d Dead or Alive is another great game series. Wink
Kelcey
Juparis wrote:
Warning: This post is largely opinionated and may be subject to subconcious bias. Read at your own risk.
Kelcey wrote:

You aren't biased? Rolling Eyes

"XBox rules all"

"PS2 has nothing"

when clearly the PS2 has outsold the XBox.

Oooh, a $ony fanboy--this should be interesting. Wink

I only said my first statement was unbiased, because I still believe it to be true. Nowhere did I say "Xbox rules all" or "PS2 has nothing." You are exaggerating my words by making up your own, simply so the playing field would tilt in your favor. (Leave it to a fanboy to try something like that Rolling Eyes )

Juparis wrote:

Not like PS2 has any good games going for it. Rolling Eyes


So what does the PS2 have then? Memory cards? A black color? Yeah, that statement says it has nothing. Games are everything for the system and you said the PS2 doesn't any good games for it. So no, I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Xbox rules all may be a bit far. You said nintendo was in a different mode/type of market.

I can say I hate sony and they make stupid mistakes and ACKNOWLEDGE that the xbox and 360 have their great franchises. Yet, you're going to call me a fanboy for crediting both systems? What do you do? "PS2/3 have no games going for it." YOU DID say ps2/3 has "no games going for it." While it is true for you (and I respect your opinion as to whether you like games or not), that's complete garbage statistically. You can't acknowledge the great franchises it DOES have whether you like it or not. I'll say Halo has been a powerhouse to the whole gaming industry even though I don't like it. You see how that works? Even if you don't like the games, you STILL have to acknowledge how big of an impact they have. Two series come to mind for the PS - Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid. You can love them or hate them but you can't deny that the majority like the games and that they ARE reasons to get a ps2 for others while it may not for you. In other words, the PS2 has games going for it EVEN if you hate them.

Juparis wrote:

Clearly the PS2 has outsold the Xbox because it's been out for so long. And now that everyone knows how expensive the PS3 is going to be, people are still settling down with a PS2 for their precious Final Fantasy fix, since they won't be able to afford the PS3 for more time to come. And even then, I heard PS2's are still selling for $150! For a lackluster console with only two control ports, I wouldn't say it's worth it unless you truly love every game they've come out with. Sadly, I cannot say that I do.


What? The PS2 is not 150. It's the same price as a REFURBISHEd Xbox. Use the extra money so you can get a multitap if you find it important. Instead of listening, look it up.

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020245

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020201


So since the dreamcast came out before the PS2 (you say power isn't an indicator doesn't matter since the Xbox is definitely more powerful than a ps2), are you saying the dreamcast should be outselling the ps2, cube, and xbox? The Dreamcast was out well before the PS2. Why won't you acknowledge that people actually buy the system cause it has games they like? You're calling me a fanboy yet *I* continue to acknowledge the great things Microsoft has done for gaming such as online gaming and halo even though I HAVE STATED I DON'T LIKE THEM. Whether I like them or not doesn't mean they haven't done a lot for gaming. You haven't stated one positive thing about the Playstation and had (until further in your post) continued to only talk great about Microsoft. So I ask how can you call me a fanboy when I praise the supposed "opposed" system while you do no such thing? You state a system isn't worth it unless you truly love EVERY game they've come out with. Do you love EVERY game that the XBox has come out with? I anticpiate you DIDN'T mean EVERY game and I'm sincerely (not in a jerkish or arguing way) asking, what did you mean?

Juparis wrote:

Kelcey wrote:
Last I checked it was Microsoft axing the Xbox to make way for the 360 and Sony still releasing big titles on the PS2 (FF12, God of War 2, Valkyrie Profile 2). I think you'd consider the Xbox as a system, outdated (not by graphical power).


M$ isn't "axing" the Xbox--a more powerful console is being released, that's all. Just because you don't see the advertisements for Xbox on the commercials doesn't mean games aren't still being released for it.
Your second point is true, however. $ony is still releasing big titles on the PS2--and how pathetic is that? Why should a good game be torn from its true potential just so $ony can make a few more bucks off of it? They could have done much better, imo. (and NOTE that this is imo--that's right, I'm saying that this is my bias. Happy yet?)



All games WORTH developing except games that exist on every platform have moved to the 360. This gives nobody a reason to continue purchasing games for an Xbox unless they have no money to afford a new console. I'd consider it axing it when you move DOA4 and Kameo from the Xbox to the 360. The Xbox isn't geting worthy support. Of course you're going to see madden and what not on it. You saw Madden on the Playstation and SNES well after Nintendo and Sony moved on to their next gen systems.

How come you claim it's sad to still release games on your console that it is a staple in the video gaming world? It's more money for them. It's smarter and they have been in development far before the companies could've gotten a PS3 dev kit. So I really don't get how you can call it pathetic.

Kelcey wrote:

Yeah you know the 360 can do:

Hook up mp3 players and digital cameras to your 360.
Hook up your pc to your 360 and stream MEDIA such as music and pictures.
Hook it up to your Media Center PC and stream video.
Download music videos.

So tell me, why are you supporting it again?


Juparis wrote:

Just because I'm supporting a reputable company doesn't mean I agree with everything they do. Where did I ever suggest that I was happy with the number of features they forced into the 360? I support the console, but not everything about it (just 99% more than the PS3).


It apparently was a significant reason you hate the PS3. How come you didn't say "Sony AND Microsoft say yes." in your original post? If I said something like, "Microsoft says yes." only, you'd consider me a fanboy for that. Heck, you consider me a fanboy for praising both systems. How do you think you look when both companies do similar things yet you only seem to manage to name Sony as the culprit. Those features for the 360 come at a price as well. I give you that the blu ray drive at 100 more probably isn't worth it as I have stated already in other threads. However, you state that you don't want to pay the money for extra features that aren't strictly gaming. Microsoft is making you do so. As far as multimedia goes. I don't care. I don't hate it nor love it. That statement was merely a refute because you deem the topic important to you.



Kelcey wrote:
Oh that's right. Several hundred dollars is one hundred dollars. Oh man I'm gonna be rich cause every one hundred I earn from work is really several hundred! Face it, you're completely talking like you're biased.


Juparis wrote:

I'm sorry if your math teacher molested you, but several hundred dollars is, in fact, more than one hundred dollars. Wink
Both the PS3 and 360 could be significantly cheaper if the companies behind them focused on gaming alone. And the significance, in the case of the PS3 at the very least, is indeed several hundred dollars. I wouldn't know the exact dollar amount, however--sorry.


You say this yet you quote my math and still say I supposedly think 100 = several hundred? Maybe you misread it or didn't read it. The above sentence was sarcastic because I thought you were saying it's several hundred more. Look below (once again) for the math. PS3-500, 360-400, 500-400 is not several hundred. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

PS3 with all 360 features + blu ray drive is FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
360 with all crippled PS3 features is FOUR HUNDRED.

*This is the closest match you can get between the two systems WHICH is why it makes the most sense.*

Clearly you can mix and match and make it out to be "300" more which is several hundred. But anyone trying to prove that point wouldn't do so considering you'd need a CORE 360 (no online gaming for your) to make that difference. And I'm quite positive you don't have a Core 360. If you're HAPPY with a Core, you'd be happy with a CORE PS3 which would reduce the difference down to 200 which is STILL not several hundred. It'd be completely hypocritical to buy a core and a premium ps3. You buy a core because you don't have enough money and/or you don't find the hard drive + etc. important. So why would you go buy a ps3 with a 60 gig hard drive? It doesn't make sense so it's an invalid comparison.

After reading your post over, I apologize for claiming you said that the ps3 is several hundred more.

I won't attack you and say your "math teacher molested you," because that's ridiculously low and comes at a complete loss of credibility and maturity. I really hope you don't say something like that again.

Juparis wrote:

Kelcey wrote:
The "crippled" PS3 is 500 dollars. The "uncrippled" 360 is 400. They both come with a 20 gig hard drive and component out. The PS3 comes with a blu-ray drive (i'm not saying this is important to the argument) and the 360 comes with a dvd drive. So you're getting the same thing except one has a blu ray drive (but let's not care for now). So can you do this math for me?

Where did I ever say that the PS3 was crippled, or even that the 360 wasn't? Once again, you're putting words in my mouth (or rather, just claiming that I typed them), which I don't appreciate too much.


I'm going to ask you where I said you said there was a crippled PS3? *I* call it the crippled PS3. Look at my other posts in other threads. So no, the fact is you're putting words in my mouth and making me look like I'm attacking you. So if you don't appreciate it, why are you doing the same thing to me? Clearly that wasn't your intention and my previous sentence was sarcastic. You just didn't know that I call them the crippled versions. But up until the last (my)two sentences, that's how the above quote(your's) sounded to me. Nobody is putting words in anybody's mouth. You just didn't know that I refer to the "cheaper" versions as crippled.

Juparis wrote:

Kelcey wrote:
500-400 = X

X = SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS? Congrats.

Verdict? Very biased.

Perhaps you misread my post, because I was not referring to a PS3/360 comparison. Hmm, although I could argue that the 360 only costs $300 (without the harddrive), in which case the term "several hundred dollars" still applies. Wink And if we do that, we see that your math is flawed, and therefore your verdict is flawed as well. Surprised


Yes, going back I did misread your post. Sorry about that. I was thinking about some other guy who said the PS3 was several hundred more than a 360. So yes, sorry for even bothering with that.

And no, you can't argue that the PS3 costs several hundred more than the 360. Read above. So no, my math is not flawed as it presents the optimal situation seeing as how the consumer hasn't been hit in the head multiple times.

Juparis wrote:

All seriousness aside, how far do you really expect to get in this argument if you keep acting like that?


Juparis wrote:

I'm sorry if your math teacher molested you


Is this the way I should be acting then?

Juparis wrote:

It would seem to me that you're spending this whole post to disprove my first sentance, and only because I claimed that the single first sentance was unbiased.


How am I acting? I have clearly gave the Xbox its credit where it's deserved. So why are you getting antsy on me? Furthermore, I have always stated and will state ONE MORE TIME. Whether the Xbox or the PS2 is the bettter system is UP TO THE PLAYER. Yet, you make THE CLAIM, "the ps2 has no games going for it." I have both and I enjoy them thorouglhy. You're calling me a fanboy merely cause I'm not praising the Xbox 100 percent and am defending the Playstation on points you made. Yet you still refuse to give the playstation its credit. If you had said, "the ps2 has no games that I like, so I suggest you stay away from it," I would've happily not replied because I respect you not buying a system because you don't like it. It's completely logical and I'd have no reason to bother with it. Me and you clearly don't like the same things. As with your claim about the ps2 having rehashed games, I agree with you. I absolutely do. The PS2 is, in my opinion, a system with essentially nothing but rehashed games. The fact remainds that these rehashed games pull in the sales and are still reasons to buy the system for certain people. Rehashing is rehashing... rehashing isn't equivalent to crappy. I don't like the PS2 nearly as much as I liked the PS1. PS1 games took more risks and cashed in on them. Microsoft introduced online and the hard drive which cashed in major for them. I no longer want to game without a hard drive. So ya see while I personally don't like Microsoft as a company, I give them their credit. It wasn't Sony nor Nintendo that introduced the hard drive that I have to have now. It was Microsoft and they deserve all the credit. Do I still like my PS2 more? Yes. Do I like Sony as a company more? Hell no. I hate both of them equally and wish they'd go away. When it comes to games, I like the rpgs and support Square which indirectly forces me to support Sony. I don't want to support Sony. I just wanted you to know that. If Final Fantasy wasn't on the Playstation and it was on the Xbox, the XBox would be my favorite system. So in light of this, I hope you retract your Sony fanboy statement. If anything, I am a Square fanboy, but not enough to admit when their games suck. FF8 comes to mind as sucking hard. As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 launch to me looks like it'll be the worse launch in history. However, I am going to get it because Final Fantasy is on it. Final Fantasy is to me what Halo is to you. I hate Halo and you hate Final Fantasy probably. But I'll still acknowledge Halo is *the* reason to have an Xbox despite my feelings about it.


Okay, I can't resist making one more point. Razz
Juparis wrote:

Kelcey wrote:
To answer the OP's question. It depends on what you like. If you like FPS and you want multi-platform games, go with the Xbox. Otherwise, go with the PS2.


Many games available on the Xbox are not multi-platform. Need I bring in an unnecessarily large comparison chart? I hope not.
At the same time, not all games for the PS2 are meant only for the PS2 (but what a shame for those that are!). It is my personal opinion (based on my experience) that the innumerous games for the PS2 don't count for much, since most have the same storyline, the same map templates, the same keys to press--there's just nothing new to learn, which is something that I love with the Xbox. And yes, that is largely influenced by, but not limited to, Halo 2. :d Dead or Alive is another great game series. Wink


I say you want it for multiplatform games because the Xbox is typically better for multiplatform games because it's obviously technically a better system. So what's your point? I'm praising the Xbox and have been that it IS a better system graphically. There I go, being a sony fanboy and talking good about the Xbox. Your opinion of the PS2 games IS RESPECTED by me. I've said and will yet say it once again. If you hate EVERY ps2 game the ps2 does SUCK in your opinion, that's certainly respectable. Why should I get mad at you just because you don't like final fantasy? I have no right to get mad at you if you don't like the games I do. That's fine with me that you say *you* don't like ps2 games. There's nothing wrong nor stupid if you hate all the games on one system. My problem is that you don't acknowledge that the system has games that people like. YOU may not like it, but a lot of others do. That's ALL I am saying in response to you. You write off the PS2 as if it's just a pile of crap. I said I hate Halo and I do. So? I also recommend Halo to people who are getting an Xbox cause the majority like it. I'm not going to say the XBox "has no games for it" simply because the only games I like on it are team ninja games. That'd be ridiculous and stupid. As far as me saying "if you play fps get it" it's my mere opinion. In my opinion, the Playstation has more in other genres than the XBox. I absolutely HATE Metal Gear Solid, but it's a VERY important game for the Playstation. And I'll be happy to use that as an example of something that statistically dominates any corresponding XBox game of that type. As far as fighters go, the XBox has the same capcom games as the Playstation. It has soul calibur 2 and doa. The Playstation has soul calibur 2 and 3, tekken, and virtua fighter which in the fighting gaming community, hold more weight than doa does. Obviously the PS2 has the bigger rpgs. The Xbox has the better fps. I'll give the sports to XBox because it looks better. What else do you want from me? I'm not going to say the XBox has the best rpgs in the world to try and show you I'm not a fanboy. The fact is it doesn't. I hate racing games so my opinion doesn't mean jack crap. But for the most part it looks to me that Gran Turismo is *the* racing game to have. Not like I care cause I don't like racing games whether they're on xbox, ps2, ngage,psp,ds, or wii.

In the end. I want to put this behind us. If I came off to you as "THE PS2 IS THE BEST EVER." Then I'm sorry. That was not my purpose. The "best system" is up to the person buying it. My purpose was to try and refute that "the ps2 has nothing going for it." And while it may not for you, I hope you acknowledge that it does for those that bought the system. I'm certain you wouldn't agree with someone who said "the xbox has nothing going for it," because you DO like games on it. The same holds vice versa. By the way you talk about it (my interpretation), it sounds like people only have ps2s because they had 300 bucks to waste on a system with no games just because they felt like doing it. I think this way because you claim that the ps2 outsold the xbox because it was out earlier. Furthermore, you claim that the ps2 has no games. So what do you want me to conclude from that? Are you saying all PS2 owners are rich idiots who waste money all the time? Are you saying people like hardware they can't do anything with? I really want to know what you're saying about PS2 consumers. If that's not what you meant, then fine, we're done arguing. Once again, my argument is that the PS2 has games going for it and it's because of those games it has outsold the XBox. Did the early release help? Maybe, I'm not going to completely claim either side. It probably had a piece of it. However, sales mean nothing to the individual if the individual doesn't like the games.

Someone claimed you were in the G4 generation. That's a really crappy television game network that focuses heavily on stuff like GTA and Halo... primarily console games.

Finally in the end. I don't have the energy to argue about something that is argued all over every board. You like the XBox more, that's absolutely fine as it always has. If you believe (you may not) that the ps2 has no good games and just sold well because it came out earlier than the Xbox... that's fine. It does me no harm. I shouldn't have bothered replying in the first place. It causes both of us annoyance. I typically try not to reply to these things. I always get caught up in them though. I'll probably go hang out in another section of the forum where this type of stuff doesn't happen. Anyways, I apologize if I was a jerk to you in any way and made you feel bad or something. It is not my intention to put you down. My intention was to try to disprove a point, that's all. I don't hate you or any crap like that. I understand you're a compassionate fan of gaming as I am as well. That's probably why this got so heated. So I'm cooling it down and will not reply to any further posts on this discussion/argument because it's not good for either of us. The argument will go no where anyways since we're both hard headed. That's what we get when we love video games that much. Anyways, I'm off.
SilverDogg
lol, how do you get the energy? ;P


if you have the money, and want games from both sides (wii vs 360/ps3) then i suggest you get wii60. you get two consoles, at the price of one =). you might even be able to afford a game or two Wink
squeakypants
I still don't understand why people say the 360 is technologically better than the PS3. It isn't, plain and simple. That is, unless PS3's problems don't get fixed, which is highly unlikely (it doesn't matter how long they delay release, they won't release it broken). The 360 has a triple-core 3.2ghz processor. The PS3 has eight 3.2ghz cores. 360's GPU processes 500 million triangles per second, PS3's processes 1.1 billion vertices per second, which is about equal depending on how many complete models there are. 360 has 512mb of RAM at 700mhz that is shared (CPU and GPU), the PS3 has 256 for each; the GPU's at 700mhz and the CPU's at 3.2ghz. 360 outputs up to 1080i, PS3 up to 1080p (noninterlaced). The 360 has a DVD drive, and will expand to HD-DVD (which will be more money out of your pocket) which is 15gb per layer. The PS3 has both DVD and Blu-ray built in (no more money out of your pocket) which is 25gb per layer.

So, wherein these statistics do they become equal. From the looks of it, every bold statement there is PS3 > 360, and there is absolutely nothing 360 > PS3 (EDIT: Besides price. However, the built in Blu-Ray vs addon HDDVD reaches equalibrium). So why is there even a comparison?

I see both markets as "hardcore gaming". Neither has any games as of yet or announced that look any more fun than the horrible boring games of last generation.

And therein lies the answer.

A little Wii did no one any harm.
Juparis
First and foremost, Kelcey: I was being sarcastic and giving you a hard time (hence the use of annoying smilies as an indicator). You have to understand that everything I type, as an American, isn't intended to offend you or go directly against every last thing you say. That's what you seem to be inferring, however, so I'll try and stop myself from being funny. Rolling Eyes (Who am I kidding; I can't stop my personality)

Kelcey wrote:

So what does the PS2 have then? Memory cards? A black color? Yeah, that statement says it has nothing. Games are everything for the system and you said the PS2 doesn't any good games for it. So no, I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Xbox rules all may be a bit far. You said nintendo was in a different mode/type of market.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm, but that's Ok. Maybe you just didn't read the first line of my post? It's Ok, I forgive you. Smile (<- Note the smilie; I'm not trying to be a jackass, just adding a little humor to life)
For me, the PS2 has nothing going for it--even that's an overstatement. I realize there are literally hundreds of monotous games ready to jump out with each victim who buys PS2, but from a personal standpoint, there's nothing attractive about it. Heck, even the cardboard-thin design turns me off, but somehow others find that attractive. (Note the use of exaggerative words to induce a little more humor)

But no matter how you look at it, you did not quote my words, but put quotes around your own exaggerated sentance--this indicates that you were quoting me, when you were really paraphrasing. So in the end, you were indeed "putting words in my mouth," because I did not type those exact words.

Kelcey wrote:
I can say I hate sony and they make stupid mistakes and ACKNOWLEDGE that the xbox and 360 have their great franchises. Yet, you're going to call me a fanboy for crediting both systems? What do you do? "PS2/3 have no games going for it." YOU DID say ps2/3 has "no games going for it." While it is true for you (and I respect your opinion as to whether you like games or not), that's complete garbage statistically. You can't acknowledge the great franchises it DOES have whether you like it or not. I'll say Halo has been a powerhouse to the whole gaming industry even though I don't like it. You see how that works? Even if you don't like the games, you STILL have to acknowledge how big of an impact they have. Two series come to mind for the PS - Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid. You can love them or hate them but you can't deny that the majority like the games and that they ARE reasons to get a ps2 for others while it may not for you. In other words, the PS2 has games going for it EVEN if you hate them.

First thing's first--you ignored the smilie, and thus I can only assume you ignored my sarcasm as well. I was not calling you a fanboy just to make a rebuttal, but rather I was acknowledging your strong defence for $ony, typical of many true fanboys. Smile (<- note, a smilies is inserted to display I am not trying to be rude here)

I can acknowledge that Christ Jesus is the saviour for all Christians, but that doesn't mean I have to bow down at his feet or defend the man's reputation (assuming he existed, that is). I realize how big Final Fantasy has come. Sure, they make good posters, and every now and then there are a few seconds of life-like graphics in the game itself! But I'd be lying if I were forced to say Final Fantasy is a must-have, a 5-star game, the most 1337 piece of software ever invented, etc. In addition, I'm not going to defend Final Fantasy's supposed integrity just because thousands of emo's [ Razz ] across the world fell in love with the fictional characters. (Note again the sarcastic exaggeration being put in use. While I'm making a point, it's fun to stretch the truth a little). As for Metal Gear Solid? I've heard the name, but have never seen the game. Sorry, I just can't comment on something I don't know anything about. Regardless, I will acknowledge that the Playstation consoles have played a helping hand in reducing teenage violence, and putting teenage murder/suicide rates at their lowest in decades. Very Happy (That part's actually true)

I guess my overall point here is that you can't force me to give credibility to something that I believe deserves none. That would be hypocritical. Surprised

Kelcey wrote:

What? The PS2 is not 150. It's the same price as a REFURBISHEd Xbox. Use the extra money so you can get a multitap if you find it important. Instead of listening, look it up.

I'll just take your word for it. Still, a friend of mine just won an auction for a PS2 which cost him ~$150. He said they didn't get any cheaper in the stores, so I assumed that all PS2's were still running the $150 mark. My apologies. (Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend lives in Europe, which may explain why)


Kelcey wrote:
So since the dreamcast came out before the PS2 (you say power isn't an indicator doesn't matter since the Xbox is definitely more powerful than a ps2), are you saying the dreamcast should be outselling the ps2, cube, and xbox? The Dreamcast was out well before the PS2. Why won't you acknowledge that people actually buy the system cause it has games they like? You're calling me a fanboy yet *I* continue to acknowledge the great things Microsoft has done for gaming such as online gaming and halo even though I HAVE STATED I DON'T LIKE THEM. Whether I like them or not doesn't mean they haven't done a lot for gaming. You haven't stated one positive thing about the Playstation and had (until further in your post) continued to only talk great about Microsoft. So I ask how can you call me a fanboy when I praise the supposed "opposed" system while you do no such thing? You state a system isn't worth it unless you truly love EVERY game they've come out with. Do you love EVERY game that the XBox has come out with? I anticpiate you DIDN'T mean EVERY game and I'm sincerely (not in a jerkish or arguing way) asking, what did you mean?

Where did I say "power isn't an indicator doesn't matter"? I'm looking, but I'm not finding it, and I don't even know what it means..'

But anyway, had Dreamcast been under either the Sony or Microsoft brandname (and fixed up their controller a tad bit), I have no doubt that they would have indeed outsold PS2/GC/Xbox. It was a magnificent machine, but fell short of reaching the big-name backup like Sony.

Now, you are also making a habit of putting more words in my mouth. I don't know why, exactly, but it's what you are doing. If you're going to exaggerate your own paraphrase, please say so. For starters (this is a pet peeve), when did I say PS2 was the "opposed" console? Secondly, I did say some nice things about Playstation, but I think you must have skipped over them in your rampage. My exact words were "it'll be the next new fantastic it-can-do-everything console" about the PS3. Is that a negative reference? Sorry, but my dictionary says it's good. Wink Also, you say I've only talked good about Microsoft, but I think I've made it clear that I do not appreciate everything the company does. I simply applaud the console
(but mind you, that's a paraphrase). Lastly (for this section), I have double checked and found that nowhere did I ever "state a system isn't worth it unless you truly love EVERY game they've come out with." I just don't know where you got that one. So, when you asked me what I meant, I don't know how to answer, since what you think I said never existed in the first place. Confused However, in general, it would seem foolish to buy a console that has games you don't like--I should hope that a person spends his money on somethine he enjoys. If you have something against that, well then I'm sorry for you.


Kelcey wrote:
All games WORTH developing except games that exist on every platform have moved to the 360. This gives nobody a reason to continue purchasing games for an Xbox unless they have no money to afford a new console. I'd consider it axing it when you move DOA4 and Kameo from the Xbox to the 360. The Xbox isn't geting worthy support. Of course you're going to see madden and what not on it. You saw Madden on the Playstation and SNES well after Nintendo and Sony moved on to their next gen systems.

It's true that many big-named games are being released on the 360, but then again, maybe I'm the only person that doesn't need a big name to have fun. Oh, but I have to say that I've grown tired of Madden--that's personal opinion however. Maybe I will buy a 360, maybe not--I'm still not sure.

Kelcey wrote:
How come you claim it's sad to still release games on your console that it is a staple in the video gaming world? It's more money for them. It's smarter and they have been in development far before the companies could've gotten a PS3 dev kit. So I really don't get how you can call it pathetic.

Because of the cycle Sony puts it through: It's the staple because more games are released on it. Apparently, more games are released on it because it's the staple. They could have improved the console itself, is what I'm saying, instead of just milking the product for every last spoiled drop. Microsoft had the ingenuity to lose money with every Xbox sold--that's a step I'm sure Sony would never dare take (but I guess that needs to be reconsidered when you think about how much top-of-the-line hardware is being shoved into the PS3--and that's not a negative statement [I don't think?] ). Once the new technology was available, Microsoft started developing a new console to feed gamer's hunger for more realistic gaming. It is proven fact that technology advances (by which I mean doubles the power in half the size, or something close to) every two years. You cannot say that the PS2 is still cutting-edge technology. Maybe it's only opinion, but I think the PS2 has been left in the dust in that sense. There could have been a lot to improve (aside from just slimming the case down), but Sony didn't spend a single cent towards the idea (unless the did under secrecy? I haven't heard anything, at least). I hope that explains why, but again this is what I've concluded and may be different for you.

Kelcey wrote:

It apparently was a significant reason you hate the PS3. How come you didn't say "Sony AND Microsoft say yes." in your original post? If I said something like, "Microsoft says yes." only, you'd consider me a fanboy for that. Heck, you consider me a fanboy for praising both systems. How do you think you look when both companies do similar things yet you only seem to manage to name Sony as the culprit. Those features for the 360 come at a price as well. I give you that the blu ray drive at 100 more probably isn't worth it as I have stated already in other threads. However, you state that you don't want to pay the money for extra features that aren't strictly gaming. Microsoft is making you do so. As far as multimedia goes. I don't care. I don't hate it nor love it. That statement was merely a refute because you deem the topic important to you.

Still ranting about a sarcastic remark, are we? Goodness, you really have to get over that. Not everyone in the world is going to love you for your transcendentalist state of mind (console-wise). Just accept that I made a remark without including enough smilies to make you see it was sarcasm.. please? It's getting old.
Anyway, said features are only part of what makes me dislike the PS3--I'm sorry that you saw otherwise. It is true that Microsoft did the same thing with the Xbox360 (however not to the same extent). I think someone from Microsoft was even trying to sell it as a multimedia device instead of just gaming--that made me sad, but it doesn't belong in an argument concerning why I dislike Sony, and why you think the Playstation deserves credit. Maybe that's just my style though--not to digress, I mean. Also, concerning your last statement--that what I said "was merely a refute because [ I ] deem the topic important to [ me ]".. Do you honestly think that I would be arguing about something I don't care about? No, I don't have that kind of time (well, maybe I do, but just not the motivation or effort). When people take my opinions as fact and challenge them, I'm bound to try and correct them to avert the wrong impression of myself affecting future conversations. This may be too apologetic by now, but I'm sorry if you think that way.


Kelcey wrote:

You say this yet you quote my math and still say I supposedly think 100 = several hundred? Maybe you misread it or didn't read it. The above sentence was sarcastic because I thought you were saying it's several hundred more. Look below (once again) for the math. PS3-500, 360-400, 500-400 is not several hundred. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

PS3 with all 360 features + blu ray drive is FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
360 with all crippled PS3 features is FOUR HUNDRED.

*This is the closest match you can get between the two systems WHICH is why it makes the most sense.*

Clearly you can mix and match and make it out to be "300" more which is several hundred. But anyone trying to prove that point wouldn't do so considering you'd need a CORE 360 (no online gaming for your) to make that difference. And I'm quite positive you don't have a Core 360. If you're HAPPY with a Core, you'd be happy with a CORE PS3 which would reduce the difference down to 200 which is STILL not several hundred. It'd be completely hypocritical to buy a core and a premium ps3. You buy a core because you don't have enough money and/or you don't find the hard drive + etc. important. So why would you go buy a ps3 with a 60 gig hard drive? It doesn't make sense so it's an invalid comparison.

Sorry, my happy mood got the better of me, and I was joking around (hence the smilies). I didn't realize this was a forum in which all debates had to be taken seriously, with each opposer at the other's throat.

Kelcey wrote:
I won't attack you

It would be pretty hard, considering you don't know where I live (I think?) Razz
(I almost forgot to warn you, this is some more fun sarcasm)

Kelcey wrote:
and say your "math teacher molested you," because that's ridiculously low and comes at a complete loss of credibility and maturity. I really hope you don't say something like that again.

That was low, I admit. Spur-of-the-moment sorta thing, and I forgot to add some smilies. Compared to some of the false claims you had been making, however, it's not all that low. Regardless, I hope we can continue the debate with some sort of compromise/resolution at the end.

Kelcey wrote:

I'm going to ask you where I said you said there was a crippled PS3? *I* call it the crippled PS3. Look at my other posts in other threads. So no, the fact is you're putting words in my mouth and making me look like I'm attacking you. So if you don't appreciate it, why are you doing the same thing to me? Clearly that wasn't your intention and my previous sentence was sarcastic. You just didn't know that I call them the crippled versions. But up until the last (my)two sentences, that's how the above quote(your's) sounded to me. Nobody is putting words in anybody's mouth. You just didn't know that I refer to the "cheaper" versions as crippled.

My bad--when you had the quotations, I thought you were quoting me. It would make sense, since your overall argument was defending the PS2/3, and then to call em crippled? Yea, I haven't been in enough threads I guess to see that. A sincere apology.

Kelcey wrote:

Yes, going back I did misread your post. Sorry about that. I was thinking about some other guy who said the PS3 was several hundred more than a 360. So yes, sorry for even bothering with that.

And no, you can't argue that the PS3 costs several hundred more than the 360. Read above. So no, my math is not flawed as it presents the optimal situation seeing as how the consumer hasn't been hit in the head multiple times.

Eh--we're each guilty of a few misunderstandings/misinterpretations. Only natural. And I was just having fun saying it would cost more--I didn't actually think any consumer would be hit hard enough in the head to buy a PS3 and Core 360. Laughing

Kelcey wrote:

Is this the way I should be acting then?

If that is your wish. Maybe it's just me, but I have fun with debates. Making em too serious degrades the quality of the whole thing imo. But yea, I had a short serious phase there. No worries--it's all gone now. Very Happy

Kelcey wrote:

How am I acting? I have clearly gave the Xbox its credit where it's deserved. So why are you getting antsy on me? Furthermore, I have always stated and will state ONE MORE TIME. Whether the Xbox or the PS2 is the bettter system is UP TO THE PLAYER. Yet, you make THE CLAIM, "the ps2 has no games going for it." I have both and I enjoy them thorouglhy. You're calling me a fanboy merely cause I'm not praising the Xbox 100 percent and am defending the Playstation on points you made. Yet you still refuse to give the playstation its credit.

You're taking everything so literal and serious that you keep referring back to a single point/word which was misinterpreted in the first place--that's what irks me so much. Here, again, you refer back to the "fanboy" remark that I had made. You just don't seem to get over the smallest little details while I'm hoping to get further in the actual debate.
Additionally, I often don't give Playstation credit because it is my personal opinion/belief that it deserves none. I'm sorry you can't agree with my opinions, but that's no reason to get so angry.

Kelcey wrote:
If you had said, "the ps2 has no games that I like, so I suggest you stay away from it," I would've happily not replied because I respect you not buying a system because you don't like it. It's completely logical and I'd have no reason to bother with it. Me and you clearly don't like the same things. As with your claim about the ps2 having rehashed games, I agree with you. I absolutely do. The PS2 is, in my opinion, a system with essentially nothing but rehashed games. The fact remainds that these rehashed games pull in the sales and are still reasons to buy the system for certain people. Rehashing is rehashing... rehashing isn't equivalent to crappy. I don't like the PS2 nearly as much as I liked the PS1. PS1 games took more risks and cashed in on them. Microsoft introduced online and the hard drive which cashed in major for them. I no longer want to game without a hard drive. So ya see while I personally don't like Microsoft as a company, I give them their credit. It wasn't Sony nor Nintendo that introduced the hard drive that I have to have now. It was Microsoft and they deserve all the credit. Do I still like my PS2 more? Yes. Do I like Sony as a company more? Hell no. I hate both of them equally and wish they'd go away. When it comes to games, I like the rpgs and support Square which indirectly forces me to support Sony. I don't want to support Sony. I just wanted you to know that. If Final Fantasy wasn't on the Playstation and it was on the Xbox, the XBox would be my favorite system. So in light of this, I hope you retract your Sony fanboy statement. If anything, I am a Square fanboy, but not enough to admit when their games suck. FF8 comes to mind as sucking hard. As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 launch to me looks like it'll be the worse launch in history. However, I am going to get it because Final Fantasy is on it. Final Fantasy is to me what Halo is to you. I hate Halo and you hate Final Fantasy probably. But I'll still acknowledge Halo is *the* reason to have an Xbox despite my feelings about it.

Ok, yes, I should have added that it had no games that I like. Still, generally speaking (and this isn't just to get the last word in--feel free to jump in yourself), message boards are recognized for the opinionated views of their users. I assumed (out of habit), that the bias would be recognized, and if any games did suit the consumer, that person would realize (assuming (s)he even remembered my post) that it was a game I did not appreciate, hence the comment I made. But I guess I should be adding the exta 'imo' more often, huh?

Final Fantasy is not a game I particularly enjoy, no. I've played one or two versions, I'm not sure which (there's too many as it is, --imo). They were misleading, especially the graphics (story vs fighting). I just couldn't get into pixelated characters fighting eachother by turn, and thus I made rash remarks about it because of how displeasing it was for me. Sorry if that angers you. I think most would consider me a Halo-fanboy. I truly suck at the game, but I love playing it online with friends. I couldn't finish the campaign alone--I got too frustrated. I guess it's the environment that attracts me, more than the game (though the overall storyline is pretty good too, I think). And I don't mind being called a fanboy for any reason. Wink

Okay, I can't resist making one more point. Razz
Juparis wrote:

I say you want it for multiplatform games because the Xbox is typically better for multiplatform games because it's obviously technically a better system. So what's your point? I'm praising the Xbox and have been that it IS a better system graphically. There I go, being a sony fanboy and talking good about the Xbox. Your opinion of the PS2 games IS RESPECTED by me. I've said and will yet say it once again. If you hate EVERY ps2 game the ps2 does SUCK in your opinion, that's certainly respectable. Why should I get mad at you just because you don't like final fantasy? I have no right to get mad at you if you don't like the games I do. That's fine with me that you say *you* don't like ps2 games. There's nothing wrong nor stupid if you hate all the games on one system. My problem is that you don't acknowledge that the system has games that people like. YOU may not like it, but a lot of others do. That's ALL I am saying in response to you. You write off the PS2 as if it's just a pile of crap. I said I hate Halo and I do. So? I also recommend Halo to people who are getting an Xbox cause the majority like it. I'm not going to say the XBox "has no games for it" simply because the only games I like on it are team ninja games. That'd be ridiculous and stupid. As far as me saying "if you play fps get it" it's my mere opinion. In my opinion, the Playstation has more in other genres than the XBox. I absolutely HATE Metal Gear Solid, but it's a VERY important game for the Playstation. And I'll be happy to use that as an example of something that statistically dominates any corresponding XBox game of that type. As far as fighters go, the XBox has the same capcom games as the Playstation. It has soul calibur 2 and doa. The Playstation has soul calibur 2 and 3, tekken, and virtua fighter which in the fighting gaming community, hold more weight than doa does. Obviously the PS2 has the bigger rpgs. The Xbox has the better fps. I'll give the sports to XBox because it looks better. What else do you want from me? I'm not going to say the XBox has the best rpgs in the world to try and show you I'm not a fanboy. The fact is it doesn't. I hate racing games so my opinion doesn't mean jack crap. But for the most part it looks to me that Gran Turismo is *the* racing game to have. Not like I care cause I don't like racing games whether they're on xbox, ps2, ngage,psp,ds, or wii.

I was convinced to buy Xbox through Halo--turns out I enjoy much more, regardless of their platforms (multi or not). But Halo [2] is only on the Xbox--I guess that's what I was trying to push? At least we can agree it's all opinion. Very Happy
I fell in love with Soul Calibur 2; I wanted SC3 so badly, but not enough to buy a whole console for it. I also loved playing Tekken--starting out from the Arcade version, of course--but again, not enough to buy a whole console. The rest don't mean diddly-squat to me. Racing is the same for practically everything (except I found Rush2049 extremely addicting, available only on Dreamcast). And I simply get bored of sports games. The movements are usually too rigid for me to really get into it, anyway. I think that sums it all up... Looks like it, so I'll stop the personal preference there..

Kelcey wrote:
In the end. I want to put this behind us. If I came off to you as "THE PS2 IS THE BEST EVER." Then I'm sorry. That was not my purpose. The "best system" is up to the person buying it. My purpose was to try and refute that "the ps2 has nothing going for it." And while it may not for you, I hope you acknowledge that it does for those that bought the system. I'm certain you wouldn't agree with someone who said "the xbox has nothing going for it," because you DO like games on it. The same holds vice versa. By the way you talk about it (my interpretation), it sounds like people only have ps2s because they had 300 bucks to waste on a system with no games just because they felt like doing it. I think this way because you claim that the ps2 outsold the xbox because it was out earlier. Furthermore, you claim that the ps2 has no games. So what do you want me to conclude from that? Are you saying all PS2 owners are rich idiots who waste money all the time? Are you saying people like hardware they can't do anything with? I really want to know what you're saying about PS2 consumers. If that's not what you meant, then fine, we're done arguing. Once again, my argument is that the PS2 has games going for it and it's because of those games it has outsold the XBox. Did the early release help? Maybe, I'm not going to completely claim either side. It probably had a piece of it. However, sales mean nothing to the individual if the individual doesn't like the games.

If you want to put it behind us, then so be it. I always enjoy a healthy debate, though, and I guess that's what brought out my first (erroneous) impression of you--I was just looking for a good rant-a-thon. Razz

In the end (for me), it is more the companies behind each console. Sony is too money-driven for my likes. They make tremendous profits simply because people trust the Sony brand name. That, and I've had a run with poor Sony products leading me to boycott them wherever possible. But I'm not saying Microsoft is an angel in comparison. Still money-driven, but not as much (I don't think?). Microsoft is obviously the monopoly-driver in the computer world, so you'd expect the same to be attempted in the video gaming business. But I think they're too narrow-minded for that. As you said (somewhere), a lot of Xbox games are.. well, I can't remember how you said it and am too lazy to look it up myself. Either way, I think Nintendo keeps a clear mind about everything. They don't need the most graphic blood-effects to keep good games and fun. Sometimes their innovation leads them to believe that people will be accepting, when it's my belief that not many will be willing to try the new remote. Who knows whether or not people will like it after they get use to it, but I think too many (younger) kids have gotten accustomed to the generic style, playing the same ol' gore games all the time. I'll still buy the Wii if I can afford it, simply for any Starfox and Super Smach Bros. games. Those are simply the best in my mind. Very Happy

Oh no, I got off topic! Ah well, if this is the end, thanks for a good discussion. If not, I look forward to making a good rebuttal. Twisted Evil

Kelcey wrote:
Someone claimed you were in the G4 generation. That's a really crappy television game network that focuses heavily on stuff like GTA and Halo... primarily console games.

Hmm, something I'd enjoy then! Too bad I don't get it here. I have to rely on the occasional (and rare) gaming magazine that I pick up whenever I remember (not often).

Kelcey wrote:
Finally in the end. I don't have the energy to argue about something that is argued all over every board. You like the XBox more, that's absolutely fine as it always has. If you believe (you may not) that the ps2 has no good games and just sold well because it came out earlier than the Xbox... that's fine. It does me no harm. I shouldn't have bothered replying in the first place. It causes both of us annoyance. I typically try not to reply to these things. I always get caught up in them though. I'll probably go hang out in another section of the forum where this type of stuff doesn't happen. Anyways, I apologize if I was a jerk to you in any way and made you feel bad or something. It is not my intention to put you down. My intention was to try to disprove a point, that's all. I don't hate you or any crap like that. I understand you're a compassionate fan of gaming as I am as well. That's probably why this got so heated. So I'm cooling it down and will not reply to any further posts on this discussion/argument because it's not good for either of us. The argument will go no where anyways since we're both hard headed. That's what we get when we love video games that much. Anyways, I'm off.

Wow, this "end" is sure dragging on, huh? Smile
Leaving so soon though? Debates are a healthy part of a teenager's social life! Gets you to see things from a different perspective. And even though I attack so harshly, I do see what you mean and understand your point of view. It's just fun for me to continue arguing, I guess. Please don't go! I need someone to debate with! I don't suppose another ill-conceived insult would infuriate you enough to come back, would it? Cool
Monkeydog
What the hell, I'm not reading all that!

Anyways, the PS2 clearly. Although only because it had one or two good games, and this generation...sucked...BADLY.

Xbox has really nothing unique in terms of gameplay, boring.
GCN had Pikmin and Animal Crossing...meh...AC had me hooked forever, then got really boring.
PS2 wins because it had Katamari and Guitar Hero, best games of this generation.
Juparis
I'm sorry, but I tend to think the exact opposite--the PS2 had nothing unique simply because of the innumerable games that were released on it. They all sort of blend together.
(except Guitar Hero, but that's another story Wink )

The Xbox did kinda follow the mainstream trend, but at the same time, it was setting the trend with games like Halo. I can only hope that something equally good is released on the 360, though I highly doubt word of it will be heard over the roars waiting for Halo 3. Still, DDR is plenty fun--does PS2 have the floor pads for that? Or the game at all?
KSheriff
If I'm going to purchase any of the new systems, it's gunna be a Wii. I like gameplay.
limrio
PS 2 Very Happy I love it, I'm waiting for PS 3 right now
Fire Boar
limrio wrote:
PS 2 Very Happy I love it, I'm waiting for PS 3 right now

*watches limrio sitting there glassy eyed* Dude, why don't you do something else whilst you're waiting. Whatever reasons you have for wanting a PS3, it surely can't be such a strong urge that you can't do anything else in the mean time, can it?

I reckon it's such a shame that Guitar Hero wasn't released on anything but the PS2. It looked awesome, but I don't buy a console just for one game (because I can't afford it). I've played on a friend's PS2, so I'm not completely unknowledgable about it. I found that the games I played just weren't... fun. I mean, it was all well done and everything (mostly) but I just didn't get the same blast out of the PS2 as I do my Gamecube and DS.
Whong
Wii will rule the gaming market and there is nothing much that Sony and Microsoft can do about it!

Nintendo will rule the gaming market and so take the leading role!
eqfan
here is xbox360!
venkateshwarans
Xbox360 is an obvious choice if you can't wait. I suggest you wait coz is toying with idea of making ps3 work as a computer .No to nintendo.
ltbennett
i dont know but if i had to choose it would be the xbox 360 no wait revolution because of the controlers are cool and can make ur drunken mates look rediculous just like the eye toy lol Very Happy
Ryl2Pvp
XBOX 360!!!!
they have huge advanage on ps3
they bought GTA from rockstar (heard rumors about MS taking over Rockstar)
Have great xbox, pc only games
they are in their second line of games
more experience wit mp
they lower brice wit 50$ sof 350$ then and ps 3 (good one) 600$ what will you chouse then >.<
Related topics
Anyone play PSP ?
Favorite videogame systems
PlayStation 3
Best Gaming Monitor
BEST PC THAT MONEY CAN BUY !!
Gaming System
Best Operating System
I got a new computer!
What OS you live
What do you think the best Gaming Platform is?
wich is best operating system for gaming ?
Looking for the best CMS system
What windows do you think is the best
What's best windows operating system?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Games

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.