# Which Console should I buy?



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying a console gaming system.  Which game system should I buy?  I've heard the Gamecube is marketed for the 15 and under crowd.  Is this true?  The X-box has better specs, but I have not been impressed with the games I have seen for it.

Here's a few of the games I like on the pc, if it will help.

Baldur's Gate series
Icewind Dale series
Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (4 sucked)
The Ultima Series
The Might & Magic series (except nine, it sucked)


I did not like NWN, nor TOEE, nor am I a fan of fps, nor rts.  To me fancy smancy graphics mean less than gameplay.  I do not care to be able to climb, jump, swim, etc, if I have to push 14 buttons in some weird combo to do it.  I'm 35 and my reflexes aren't what they used to be.  :-(

Anyways, any help will be much appreciated.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 8, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying a console gaming system. Which game system should I buy? I've heard the Gamecube is marketed for the 15 and under crowd. Is this true? The X-box has better specs, but I have not been impressed with the games I have seen for it.



On the GC, not really.  There _are_ a good deal more games geared towards children on it, but that's more because of the lower price, and Sony and Microsoft specifically aiming at an older crowd.  I mean, you can't tell me Metroid Prime is geared towards children.

I agree on the X-Box though. 



> Here's a few of the games I like on the pc, if it will help.
> 
> Baldur's Gate series
> Icewind Dale series
> ...



Well, to be perfectly honest you're not going to find many of these types of games on _any_ of the consoles.  Least of all on the GameCube, most of all on the PS2, I think.



> I did not like NWN, nor TOEE, nor am I a fan of fps, nor rts. To me fancy smancy graphics mean less than gameplay. I do not care to be able to climb, jump, swim, etc, if I have to push 14 buttons in some weird combo to do it. I'm 35 and my reflexes aren't what they used to be. :-(



Heh, I'm still lamenting the fact that I can't do full-day gaming marathons anymore, and I'm only 23.  

I'm going to recommend the PS2, actually.  For one thing, reverse compatibility means you have the libraries of _two_ consoles to draw upon for games, and most of the PS1 games can be picked up pretty cheap used nowadays.  That's something you won't get on either of the other consoles.  For another, I think of all the consoles you're most likely to find the types of games you like on the PS2 - again due to an increased number of games.  

If the only choices are between GC and X-Box... well, all I can say is I personally would choose the GameCube.  It's really hard to make a suggestion based on those games, because you really don't see many of those types of RPGs on consoles.  And because I know someone's going to mention it, just to spite me , Bioware's game Knights of the Old Republic is similar to the BG series, and is out for X-Box.  It's also out for PC, and I wouldn't buy an X-Box just for that one game.

If it's really a difficult decision, the other thing I could recommend is trying to find a place out there that will rent consoles.  Rent the console and a couple of games that sound interesting to you, and see how you like it, before you drop serious money on one.


----------



## RyanL (Dec 8, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying a console gaming system.  Which game system should I buy?  I've heard the Gamecube is marketed for the 15 and under crowd.  Is this true?  The X-box has better specs, but I have not been impressed with the games I have seen for it.
> 
> Here's a few of the games I like on the pc, if it will help.
> 
> ...




Pet Peeve: Gamecube appeals to children, yes, but also to mature adults.  It doesn't have that many blood/explosions/boobies games, if that's your idea of mature (I'm not implying you think that way, but, sadly, many people do).

Judging by your list of pc games, you're not going to find many similar games on any console.  Even the plethora of RPGs available for PS2 are mostly console-style RPGs, which are much different from your favorites.  Have you ever owned a console in the past?  If so, what type of games did you like to play on it?

Of course, I would be remiss without pointing out that I love my Gamecube.  This is fueled, in large part, by nostalgia.  I don't own an XBox, and I've never played one, so I can't really comment on it.

-Ryan


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 8, 2003)

I own the main 3 consoles, and my fav of the 3 is the xbox.  Your style of rpgs isn't found anywhere on consoles so don't know what to say.

Personally I'd get both the xbox and the gamecube.  There both cheap, and there are exclusive games on both that work for me.  But exclusive game wise I'm more in the gamecube camp.  

but my thing is if a game is multiplatform which most games are I buy it on my xbox.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 9, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> Judging by your list of pc games, you're not going to find many similar games on any console.





I figured as much.

[/QUOTE]

Even the plethora of RPGs available for PS2 are mostly console-style RPGs, which are much different from your favorites.  Have you ever owned a console in the past?  If so, what type of games did you like to play on it?
[/QUOTE]


Lol.  The last console game I owned was a colecovision, which most people don't even remember, heheh.




-Ryan[/QUOTE]


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 9, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I own the main 3 consoles, and my fav of the 3 is the xbox.  Your style of rpgs isn't found anywhere on consoles so don't know what to say.
> 
> Personally I'd get both the xbox and the gamecube.  There both cheap, and there are exclusive games on both that work for me.  But exclusive game wise I'm more in the gamecube camp.
> 
> but my thing is if a game is multiplatform which most games are I buy it on my xbox.





Sadly, I can only afford one, what with Xmas coming up and all.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. 

Anyone else have an opinion?


----------



## Golem2176 (Dec 9, 2003)

I'm going to reccomend the X-Box. For one thing, it has two games in the Baldurs Gate series; Dark Alliance and Dark Alliance 2. Plus with some mods it can emulate older systems. Overall it kicks butt and has a lot more exciting games. I own the PS2, and am not too thrilled with it, in fact I'm considering selling or trading it for another X-Box. I would like to have an X-Box that that I can freely mod, and one that is completely under warranty.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 9, 2003)

I'm an Xbox owner and proud of it. My friends all started with PS2s but they all bought Xbox's for the really cool exclusive Xbox only games like Morrowind (Best RPG ever) and Knights of the Old Republic (which is based on the SW d20 rules).

Heck, I bought my Xbox specifically to play Knights of the Old Republic and it was worth it. In the future, Knights 2 will be out and a new RPG called Jade Empire which looks very promising. Not to mention Fable, another really cool PC and Xbox only RPG. These games won't come out for the PS2.

I know you don't like FPS games, but Halo and Halo 2, Doom 3 etc. will be Xbox only titles.

Even titles that were formerly PS2 only, such as GTA: Vice City and Tenchu are not only coming out for Xbox (or are out already), but they are coming out with improved graphics and extra goodies like Xbox-version only bonus levels.

The bottom line is if you just want a vast library of games, get a PS2. And you get DVD playability out of the box, if that is important to you.

But if you want a system that doesn't have as many games, doesn't have DVD playability out of the box, but does have better games overall, improved versions of every good PS2 game, plus unique awesome games that you can't get anywhere else, then get an Xbox.

I only buy the best games and I like a lot of the unique Xbox only games so I got an Xbox. It was better for me than having a vast library of mediocre games. Every PS2 game I want is out or coming out for the Xbox in an improved version, and I get phenomenal Xbox only games like Knights of the Old Republic and Morrowind, that PS2 owners can only dream about.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 9, 2003)

And if you like D&D style action RPGs: D&D Heroes and the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance series are out for the Xbox too.

Neither console has the PC style RPGs that you like, but if they do come out in the future for a console, they are more likely to come out for the Xbox than the PS2, simply because of the Xbox's more PC port friendly design environment.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 9, 2003)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I'm an Xbox owner and proud of it. My friends all started with PS2s but they all bought Xbox's for the really cool exclusive Xbox only games like Morrowind (Best RPG ever) and Knights of the Old Republic (which is based on the SW d20 rules).
> 
> ...improved versions of every good PS2 game, plus unique awesome games that you can't get anywhere else, then get an Xbox.



Sorry, but I have to take task with these two statements, otherwise I agree with your arguments.

First, neither Morrowind nor KotOR are X-Box exclusive - they're available for PC as well. Halo is available on PC, and Doom III will be as well. So stop calling them exclusive (and that goes for everyone). They're not. Of course, the latter two don't matter since he said he doesn't like FPS games. I can't recommend getting a $200 system for one exclusive RPG, even if it is by Bioware.

Also, there are "unique awesome games" on every system, not just the X-Box. Metroid Prime is a "unique awesome game" on the GC. As is Zelda: Wind Waker. As for PS2, my favorite "unique awesome game" is actually a PS1 title - Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Finally, there are hardly improved versions of every "good" (subjective term) PS2 game. So neither statement holds any water, because it's based on personal opinion.

[EDIT]  Apologies if that came off a bit snippy Dragonblade.  The "exclusive" claim is something that _really_ bothers me about the X-Box advertising, since a majority of the games _are_ either ports from another console or available on the PC.

But that last statement really was ludicrous.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 9, 2003)

Golem2176 said:
			
		

> I'm going to reccomend the X-Box. For one thing, it has two games in the Baldurs Gate series; Dark Alliance and Dark Alliance 2.



More games on multiple consoles.  In fact, DA1 is on all three.   And DA2 doesn't come out until late January.

One thing I'd like to note - Dark Alliance 1 (and presumably 2) are not at all like the BG games, except the D&D theme (the rules are _very_ loosely adapted in DA1).  They're fun games, but don't read the BG and expect a BG1/BG2/ID experience, because it's not.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 9, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Sadly, I can only afford one, what with Xmas coming up and all.
> 
> Anyone else have an opinion?



Doesn't everyone have opinion?  

Well, if money is really tight, I'd recommend the GC only because it's $50 cheaper - that's two used games you can get right there, and still equal the price of the X-Box and PS2 consoles alone.

Another piece of advice I could give is go to www.gamefaqs.com and look up each console to get an idea of the general spread of games on each system, and maybe try and find some that are appealing to you.  I know you said you didn't like RTS and FPS, are there any other genres you do or don't like?  You can check them out on GameFAQs as well.

Finally, I've seen a Colecovision (a friend had one), but I never played it.  I had to settle for Pong and E.T. on the Atari.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 9, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying a console gaming system. Which game system should I buy? I've heard the Gamecube is marketed for the 15 and under crowd. Is this true? The X-box has better specs, but I have not been impressed with the games I have seen for it.
> 
> Here's a few of the games I like on the pc, if it will help.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you dig RPGs.  Look no further than the PS2 which has every genre covered, including the best selection of RPGs out there, not to mention the Final Fantasy series which you may or may not like.

The Xbox will be getting some better exclusive games next year but if I had to live with just one console (I own the major 3) it would have to be the PS2.  The graphics are the least of the three but graphics, as you said, aren't everything.  That and the controller is the most comfortable one out there right now, to me.

The Cube has some really cool games (Zelda, Animal Crossing and Metroid being my faves) but if you can only afford one system, I would go with the PS2 - simply because of the selection and quality of the games.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sounds like you dig RPGs.  Look no further than the PS2 which has every genre covered, including the best selection of RPGs out there, not to mention the Final Fantasy series which you may or may not like.
> 
> The Xbox will be getting some better exclusive games next year but if I had to live with just one console (I own the major 3) it would have to be the PS2.  The graphics are the least of the three but graphics, as you said, aren't everything.  That and the controller is the most comfortable one out there right now, to me.
> 
> The Cube has some really cool games (Zelda, Animal Crossing and Metroid being my faves) but if you can only afford one system, I would go with the PS2 - simply because of the selection and quality of the games.




If u can choose just 1, and online play doesnt matter to you, Id go PS2. The vast variety and quality of games outshines the competition. And its backwards compatible to PS games. And the developers love the PS2 so more good games are coming. More bang for the buck.

And even tho u sound like a RPGer, the PS2 has alot of good non rpgs (platformers etc) that re worth checking out and can be had cheap (Greatest Hits library).

I own all 3 consoles too, the Xbox being the first I purchased- was very stocked about it. But of the 3 I play it the less. Go figure.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sounds like you dig RPGs.  Look no further than the PS2 which has every genre covered, including the best selection of RPGs out there, not to mention the Final Fantasy series which you may or may not like.




I suggest you pay absolutely no attention to John. If you're like me, and judging by the games you listed liking, you won't want to base a console purchase on console rpg's (a misnomer if ever there was one). They might not be bad for the odd diversion, but compared to pc rpg's they're a joke.

It's hard to recommend a console to based on the limited game prefences listed (as already detailed), so I'll ask a question or two.

Is there anyone else around who might use it? Who are they and how old are they (wife, kids, friends)? What do they like?

Without out knowing anything else I'll suggest a Gamecube, it's worth it just for tLoZ: The Wind Waker and Metroid Prime. It's also the cheapest currently comes with a Zelda bonus disc (tLoZ 1&2, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask); get the Gameboy Player and you have access to every Gameboy, GBC, and GBA game ever; and they may still have the free game offer going on. There are plenty of other good games available right now too.


----------



## RyanL (Dec 9, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Lol.  The last console game I owned was a colecovision, which most people don't even remember, heheh.




Unforunately, all the modern consoles are sorely lacking in the "catch the giant pixel with the vaguely anthropomorphic blob" style of game that was popular in the early 80's  

-Ryan


----------



## Welverin (Dec 9, 2003)

That's why all of those classic collections keep getting regurgitated for every new system (without adding any games).


----------



## jonesy (Dec 9, 2003)

I would actually recommend you just get the newest version of Gameboy. More rpg's and turn-based war games than on any other..umm..console.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 9, 2003)

You basicly have two choice as I can see it... Gamecube doesn't have enough RPGs to make mention of, the only GOOD one (IMO) being Skies of Arcadia. And you can pick up a dreamcast and the original for probably about the same amount the game itself would cost.

Playstation has a large amount of console RPGs... The FF games, for example... But most of them are just that; Console RPGs. 

X-Box has less RPGs, but then again, it has less games overall so far. It has a few real gems though: Morrowind, and Knights of the Old Republic, for example, are two insanely good RPGs. Morrowind: Game of the Year edition was just released with some content from the expansion packs for the PC included. It also has some great roleplaying games comming out... Jade Throne, Fable, etc. 

It's got some other games that may or may not appeal to you as well... Shenmue II, for example. And it's got a ton of more simplistic games, some of them even using RPG settings... Dungeons and Dragons: Heros, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, Hunter: The Reconing, etc. 

There are some other points to consider with the two systems, as well...

Playstation does have some MMORPG games... Basicly, ok, it has Everquest. If that interests you, that's something to consider. It's not bad. 

In terms of online play, X-Box is generaly the clear winner, though... With its unified X-Box Live service, it's really hard to compete with it. 

If by any chance you are interested in playing DVDs with it (I doubt it, few people are anymore), X-Box wins out... It needs an extra attachment, but you wont have problems with DVDs playing in it, like the PS2 sometimes does. 

One nice feature is you don't need memory cards with the X-Box... so none of those to keep track of, and buy new ones constantly. On the other hand, its harder to take a saved game to a friends house or something. You can buy memory cards for the x-box, but it kinda negates the whole purpose of the internal hard drive.

In terms of system hardware, the Playstation 2 is nearing the end of it's life... It's not bad, per say, and with a good developer, it can still really shine. But it's quantifiably not as good as the X-Box or even 'cube in that regard.


----------



## Maraxle (Dec 9, 2003)

Having played all three, I'd have to lean toward the PS2.  It has a huge catalog of games and in my opinion the least bad controller.  I will not say that it's a good controller, but I like it better than the tiny GameCube controller and the awkward X-Box controller.  Try each at Target or something.  You might prefer one controller over the others, though your choice might be different than mine.  As for the library of games, I haven't seen one title on the X-Box that makes me want to own one.  GameCube has a lot of fun GC-exclusive games (mostly by Nintendo - like the Mario games, Zelda, Metroid, etc) and I think it makes an excellent second console.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 9, 2003)

See, for me, I like the X-Box controller more than any other. It's the first controller I've ever held that is actually DESIGNED for the hands of an adult. It's not small and cramped.

Also, the two-part breakaway cables the X-Box controllers use are *nice*. A real system saver, I can say from experience. 

"No! Don't step there! Aaaah! *crash*"


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 9, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have to take task with these two statements, otherwise I agree with your arguments.
> 
> First, neither Morrowind nor KotOR are X-Box exclusive - they're available for PC as well. Halo is available on PC, and Doom III will be as well. So stop calling them exclusive (and that goes for everyone). They're not. Of course, the latter two don't matter since he said he doesn't like FPS games. I can't recommend getting a $200 system for one exclusive RPG, even if it is by Bioware.
> 
> ...




No problem. What I meant was that those games would be X-box exclusive as far as consoles go. The PC game market is vastly different than the console market and its hard to compare the two.

There are some good PS2 games, but more and more all the formerly PS2 only games are coming out for the X-box. There was a time when by buying an X-box meant you were losing access to games like Vice City, Metal Gear Solid, Tenchu, etc.

But that is no longer the case. All of these former PS2 exclusives are making their way to the X-box. And the X-box version is generally superior to the PS2 version.

There are also console (not counting the PC) exclusives like Morrowind and KOTOR. And future console exclusives like KOTOR 2 and Jade Empire, Halo, Doom 3, etc. These games will never come out for the PS2 or GC.

Yes, the PS2 has a ton more games. But all the best PS2 games are making their way to the X-box. The PS2 also has a ton of bad games. To be sure there are some stinkers on the X-box, but generally less than the PS2.

Basically, unless you literally plan on buying a lot of games, the vast library of the PS2 doesn't really mean anything. Yes, the PS2 does have a ton of RPGs but how many of those are really good? Final Fantasy? Bah! Square is a frustrated movie maker and the Final Fantasy series is garbage IMO. They have devolved into nothing more than CG cutscenes seperated by some combat. The stories, the characters, everything are so tightly on rails that they don't give you control over anything but combat anymore. Eventually, they'll just play the game for you and make you watch.

I can only afford to buy a new game every two or three months so this means I try very carefully to buy only the best games around. All the games I'm interested in are coming out for or are out for the X-box and the X-box version is superior to the PS2 version for games that are out for both systems. Buying an X-box was an easy choice for me.

The GC doesn't even enter into the equation. Zelda, Metroid, and Resident Evil are the only GC games of any worth. Every other good GC game is available on other consoles.

All of my friends with both or all three systems have never even looked at their PS2s or GCs since buying X-boxes.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 9, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Also, the two-part breakaway cables the X-Box controllers use are *nice*. A real system saver, I can say from experience.
> 
> "No! Don't step there! Aaaah! *crash*"



Especially when you have small children like I do, who don't always pay attention to where that cable is. 


I own an Xbox and a Gamecube.  I like both equally, and find they each do different things equally well.  NO console does traditional CRPGs that well, as they're not geared to it, and the focus is different.  Here's a brief set of thoughts:

First, for LP's sake, understand that most console gamers, magazines and companies recognize 'exclusive' to mean 'console-exclusive'.  Halo PC came out two years after Halo on the Xbox, so I'd say it qualifies, especially as Halo is considered one the killer apps for the Xbox, especially for LAN parties.  Morrowind wa a PC game first, so it's more legitimate to be upset as hearing that as an exclusive...it's clearly an adaption.  But 'exclusives' are what set one console apart from another, and help sell the platform.  Getting the exclusives like Metroid, Mario and Zelda were big selling points for getting the Cube, to me.

Nintendo has fewer games than any of the three platforms, but the quality level is also higher, per capita, IMHO.  As an old school gamer, you might appreciate many of the games that emphasize gameplay.  Mario Party 4 and 5 are great party games, for example.  The whole Resident Evil series has been brought the Gamecube, now, which are awesome.  Zelda: Wind Waker is one of the greatest games for any console anywhere, and Metroid is suprisingly well done.  Super Mario Sunshine is just plain _fun_, and Rogue Squadron is too.  Super Smash Brothers Melee sets the standard for crazy multiplayer, and games like Ikaruga, Viewtiful Joe and Mario Golf are suprisingly good games.  *Nintendo isn't for kids, it's just not only for adults.  *

Xbox, on the other hand, has a slight technical edge, and targets a difference audience.  Xbox is after the 18-24 male, and it's software choices reflect that.  It has more games than Nintendo, but still fewer than the PS2.  Of the three consoles, it has some of the best US RPGs, namely Morrowind and Knights of the Old Republic.  Since the former is a PC adaption and the later was always envisioned to be moved to the PC during creation, this isnt' suprising.  In this respect, the Xbox wins hands-down, in that the likelihood of future CRPGs finding their way to the Xbox is much more likely than any other platform.  An example of this is Deus Ex 2: Invisible War...but if you're a CRPG gamer, you can get it there, instead.  Xbox is big on FPSs (which you don't prefer), middling on platformers, and big on sports and driving/racing  games.  Games like Crimson Skies and D&D Heroes (a super souped-up Gauntlet) are fun, and Microsoft has been agressively trying to garner support for new Xbox exclusives, like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, stuff from Rare and the like.  The only place the Xbox really falls down is in support from Japan, where the Xbox has had poor sales, meaning little development for anything other than the US market.  X-box also has the best online service, with X-box Live, delivering new content and online matches with equal aplomb, and more feature rich than Sony's offering.

PS/2: The only console I don't actually own.  First advantage: backward compatability.  Currently the only system you could play ever Legacy of Kain game on (if you were masochistic ), for example.  This is somewhat overrated if you didn't own a PS/1, and aren't interested in getting the older games.  The huge library available is another big selling point, in that Sony's console leads by a huge margin over it's rivals.  Unfortunately, as Sturgeon's Law tells us, 90% of everything is crap.  Some titles that should never have seen the light of day show up as cheap throwouts for the PS/2...but that's hardly the console's fault (but it is important to consider when hearing that 2000 games are available...do you really think you'll be picking up Antz Extreme Racing, Lowrider or Pryzm Chapter One: Dark Unicorn?)  On the other hand, PS/2 has some of the best and most innovative games available anywhere, and the newest and some of the best games will only appear here.  Games that are truly different, like ICO, or that push the genre like Devil May Cry or Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy VII.  Having millions of fellow players means you get access to the widest library and some of the best games anywhere, sometimes first and sometimes at all.  Technologically, the PS/2 is the weakest (particularly with it's graphics), but at the same time, it's also benefits from the being the one that programmers are most familiar with (and able to push), as well as benefiting from the widest developer base.

All of which ignores the fourth "console", and the second most popular behind the PS/2....the Gameboy Advance.  The GBA is an old schoolers paradise, with games that emphasize gameplay (although some have quite snazzy graphics, thank you) over pure graphics splendor.  It's portablity is something that shouldn't be underestimated.  I play Fire Emblem (a tactical RPG) on the train to work every day, and my wife won't let me play Final Fantasy Tactics: Advanced, until she's totally defeated it.  Games like Metroid: Fusion and old arcade classics are fun, and there are lots of good platform and RPGs available...more console RPGs than the Gamecube and Nintendo combined, if you like that sort of thing (including Eye of the Beholder, the 3e version of that old PC goldbox classic).  And if you purchase the GBA and Gamecube, you get synergy between the games, as well as the ability to purchase the gameboy player, an attachment to let you play GBA games on the Cube.  Which RAWKS, in case you're wondering.

Finally, remember that many games are available across multiple platforms and are quite good in any incarnation.  Games like Prince of Persia and Soul Calibur look just as good, no matter what platform you're on.  Some games, like Spy Hunter, are equally BAD no matter what plaform you buy them for.  As for controllers, I actually prefer Nintendo's Wavebird as the best one, and then the Xbox Controller-S, but YMMV.

So my recommendation?  Any of the above, depending on your criteria.  If I had to choose just one, it would be one of the Nintendos, I suppose, for different reasons (play with the kids, play on the road, and so on).  I may get a PS/2 at some point...but I've got enough titles as it is.  

Hope that helps.


----------



## javapadawan (Dec 9, 2003)

LightPhoenix pretty much covered all the points I was going to make in his original post, but I'll throw in an additional vote for the PS2. I have all three consoles, and I get the most use by far out of my PS2, and the least out of my XBox. (Most of the worthwhile XBox titles I just play on my PC, where many of them have additional content or features.) 

The backwards compatibility is a big plus for me... there are a _lot_ of very good PSOne games out there, especially if you're in it more for the gameplay than the graphics, and most of them can be had very cheaply. In addition, when the next wave of consoles hit in 2005, there's talk that the PS3 will be backwards compatible with both PS2 and PS, while XBox games will more than likely be unplayable on the next gen XBox 2.

Lastly, the PS2 is easier to cart around if you're one of those people who likes to bring games with you on trips and such. The GameCube is even easier... but that XBox is one heavy piece of equipment.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 9, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> See, for me, I like the X-Box controller more than any other. It's the first controller I've ever held that is actually DESIGNED for the hands of an adult. It's not small and cramped.
> 
> Also, the two-part breakaway cables the X-Box controllers use are *nice*. A real system saver, I can say from experience.
> 
> "No! Don't step there! Aaaah! *crash*"




I like everything about the xbox but where the white and black buttons are.  I haven't found a controller yet that puts them in afinger intuitive place.  I'd much prefer either a 6 buton street fighter like set up or the 4 buttons with the 4 triggers like the PS.  Other than that though I prefer the xbox controller over any other it fits my hands much better, and the breakaway cables are frickin brilliant.

Also a minor perk for the xbox is quality of its components.  I like my cables to be like monster cables, and not some cheap wires.  Bad explanation but I'm short on time and got to go.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 9, 2003)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> No problem. What I meant was that those games would be X-box exclusive as far as consoles go. The PC game market is vastly different than the console market and its hard to compare the two.



Yeah, I know.  Being cash-strapped myself though, I just feel the need to stress that.  My apologies again for being snippy.



> Final Fantasy? Bah! Square is a frustrated movie maker and the Final Fantasy series is garbage IMO. They have devolved into nothing more than CG cutscenes seperated by some combat. The stories, the characters, everything are so tightly on rails that they don't give you control over anything but combat anymore. Eventually, they'll just play the game for you and make you watch.



Hah, we do agree on something! 

And since I don't feel like cutting and pasting WizardDru's quote on GBA being second-best... I would say it's THE best.  For one because there really is no competition, and for two because the numbers are astronomical, and there are a bunch of really great games as well.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 9, 2003)

add me in onto the list of those agreeing on FF.  I'm playing X-2 with one of my friends and I'm thinkning the game would be better if they had a mode where you could play the game wihtout a story.  Not only am I forced into a linear story with only control over the fights.(though the mechinic is fun for a while) but there stories suck and the only thing suckier are the characters.  

Man FF X-2 was a brilliant idea, lets take the suckiest characters from the suckiest FF and make a sequel.  God save me from weak, teen agst losers in pathetically contrived storyines with some kind of amnesia always thrown in.  Oh and the overly girly aspect of the characters in x-2 is annoying in the extreme.  And for those truly girly moments they somehow made there combat/class change system into a dress me up final fantasy game.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 9, 2003)

Final Fantasy used to be good.

6 was the last good one. It jumped the shark big time after that.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 9, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Final Fantasy used to be good.
> 
> 6 was the last good one. It jumped the shark big time after that.




I give the FF series 7 as well as good.  The story was subpar, but at least I liked some of the characters.  And at the time the cut scenes to me at elast were impresive and new.


----------



## RyanL (Dec 9, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Final Fantasy used to be good.
> 
> 6 was the last good one. It jumped the shark big time after that.




Well, I liked FF7, but I agree that Final Fantasy "jumped the shark" starting with FF8.  It seems clear to me that the FF team would rather be making movies, but are stuck making video games.  That commercial that they've been running for FFX-2 with the music concert actually makes we want to egg the developer's houses.  Who cares about gameplay when you've got dancing anime-girls singing some insipid song?  How the mighty have fallen.

-Ryan


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 9, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Final Fantasy used to be good.
> 
> 6 was the last good one. It jumped the shark big time after that.



I hear this a lot, and having no history to judge, I'm curious why you think so.  I remember playing Final Fantasy way back when, and never tried it again until FF7, which I enjoyed.  I later tried FF 9, and enjoyed that, too.

What was it about prior games that was superior, or inferior about subsequent games?  The story was a little wacky in 7, but it seemed like typical Japanese console RPG-fare, and 9 even more so.  Was it the battle systems, or the mixing of tech and fantasy?  I'm just curious what I missed out on.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 9, 2003)

For those of you disillusioned with Final Fantasy, you _must_ try *Knights of the Old Republic*.  Definitely my favorite CRPG of all time.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 10, 2003)

Wow.  Where to start?

Thanks for all the replies! 

I'm looking at the pc games on my shelf and I find hundreds of dollars of games that I have not played over a day or two before I got bored.  Now, that statement may seem like I have a short attention span, but that's not really the problem.  I have played BG and BG2 through dozens of times.  Hell, I still load up the original Bard's Tale series at times, lol.  

But lately, I haven't found an rpg I really like.  Here is a list of games that I haven't been able to force myself to play thrtough in the last few years.

Divine Divinity
Neverwinter Nights
Pool of Radiance 2
TOEE
Quake 3
Age of Wonders
Morrowind
Might and Magic 9
Heroes of Might and Magic 4 (though I still play H3 online a lot.)
Dungeon Siege
Madden 2003 (mostly because I could never figure the controller out, lol.)
Wizardry 8
Wizards and Warriors


As you can see, I mostly like rpgs, but I like the occassional racing game, or tbs game, as well.  

I have played Dark Alliance on a friends X box, and while it looked great, it seemed like a Diablo clone to me.  Diablo was cool for a while, but it got old pretty quick.

I hear good things about KotOR, but if it's like NWN, I'll pass.

I like the old style rpgs and would like nothing better if some of the old 80s games were reworked for the pc with new updated graphics and mouse support.  It seems I'm probably an old fogey sitting around talking about the "old days" but I need a gaming fix, damnit!  


I think I'll go check out some console games at Wal-Mart and see which games appeal to me and see which console has more of those I like.


Once again, thanks for all the help.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 10, 2003)

Could you be more specific about why you don't like Neverwinter Nights? I would kill to see that game and the expansions come out for the X-box.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 10, 2003)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Could you be more specific about why you don't like Neverwinter Nights? I would kill to see that game and the expansions come out for the X-box.





I'm not really sure.  It was just boring.  The outdoor areas were dsigned where you pretty much couldn't go off the path, there are people starving, but they are too stupid to get the gold out of the barrels that I was bashing open left and right, the plot was bleh, and the combat had no strategy whatsoever to it.


I guess I was spoiled by the infinity engine, had I not played BG2, I would probably have liked NWN.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 10, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure.  It was just boring.  The outdoor areas were dsigned where you pretty much couldn't go off the path, there are people starving, but they are too stupid to get the gold out of the barrels that I was bashing open left and right, the plot was bleh, and the combat had no strategy whatsoever to it.
> 
> 
> I guess I was spoiled by the infinity engine, had I not played BG2, I would probably have liked NWN.




I agree.  I didn't really like NWN either.  

Even though its based on the same engine, KotOR is _much_ better.  The story, the graphics, the music, the fight animations... everything is a major improvement over NWN.

I just finished the game about an hour ago and am still a littled buzzed


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 10, 2003)

You want an old-skewl crpg?

Get KotOR. It rocks on toast. I predicted it would suck all along, and it just blew me away. Yes, it suffers from some of those a little... Not too bad though. The biggest is that outdoor areas are a touch linear... I mean, you cant just start walking and eventually hit someplace else. Daggerfall it aint. But tactical combat, good story, a fairly cohesive cast... It works.

And Fable is comming...


----------



## Welverin (Dec 10, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> All of which ignores the fourth "console", and the second most popular behind the PS/2....the Gameboy Advance.




I do believe the GBA out sells all of the home consoles, and what's a better indicator of popularity than that?



> I think I'll go check out some console games at Wal-Mart and see which games appeal to me and see which console has more of those I like.




The only real way to decide on what console is right for you.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 10, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I suggest you pay absolutely no attention to John. If you're like me, and judging by the games you listed liking, you won't want to base a console purchase on console rpg's (a misnomer if ever there was one). They might not be bad for the odd diversion, but compared to pc rpg's they're a joke.



Ah, my old nemesis Welverin.  

I'm still very high on the PS2 despite the comments.  No console has PC style RPGs otherwise they wouldn't be on the PC.  Duh.  But I have played plenty of PC RPGs and enjoyed both.  Sure, there are differences.  It boils down to Japanese RPGs vs. American RPGs.  To that I say: whatever.  A good game is a good game no matter how you slice it.  FFX & FFX-2 are 2 of the best RPGs out there right now.  The only RPG that I have played (take from that what you will) in the last 3 years that tops either was KOTOR, which you can get for the PC.

Okay, so forget the RPGs.  PS2 has the best selection of quality games and the best online setup in every genre.  Next year will see another Xbox price drop, just buy it then when there are better games out for it.

It's too bad that Microsoft won't just make friends with EA.  They would own the online console world if they would just make nice...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 10, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Final Fantasy used to be good.
> 
> 6 was the last good one. It jumped the shark big time after that.




FF9 was my favorite game in the entire series.  I was especially happy that the protagonist (Zidane) wasn't a brooding, angsty whiner (Squall, anyone?).  The only ones I haven't played are FF10 (due to not having a PS2), FF2, and FF3 (Those last two were NES titles that were released in Japan only).

I've been a fan of the Final Fantasy games for about 13 years now (ever since I played FF1 on the NES).  Although they tend to be extremely linear and don't give you many chances to affect the plot, they almost always have memorable characters, deep and involving storylines, awesome soundtracks, and fun gameplay.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 10, 2003)

Most of the FF games have been released for the Playstation... the ones that havn't, well... emulator, man.  If it makes you feel better, buy the game off e-bay first.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 10, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> FF9 was my favorite game in the entire series. I was especially happy that the protagonist (Zidane) wasn't a brooding, angsty whiner (Squall, anyone?). The only ones I haven't played are FF10 (due to not having a PS2), FF2, and FF3 (Those last two were NES titles that were released in Japan only).



I would have liked FF9 more (and did) until spoiler Disc 3, with all the Garland/clone/world-merging crap that just came out of nowhere. FF5 did multiple worlds and world-merging too, and did it much better.

There's a formula to the SNES RPGs that Square (and others) made that I think appeals to a lot of people and reaches a happy medium. The first half or so of the game is fairly linear, but then about halfway through it becomes fairly open-ended. You see this with other Square RPGs too - Chrono Trigger especially. FF5 is really the notable exception - though it had the best storyline of that era, IMO. 

I mean, who hasn't wanted to beat FF6 with just Celes, Edgar, and Setzer? 

FF10 especially just really railroads you down the plot. And it goes by really quick - I was at the end of the game after fifteen to twenty hours (not sure the exact time, been a while). True, I didn't do any of the annoying "side quests" which are just dumb and frustrating, and do nothing to further the story. But that's because they're dumb, and frustrating, and pointless.  



> I've been a fan of the Final Fantasy games for about 13 years now (ever since I played FF1 on the NES). Although they tend to be extremely linear and don't give you many chances to affect the plot, they almost always have memorable characters, deep and involving storylines, awesome soundtracks, and fun gameplay.



Yeah, memorable like Rikku or Yuna, or Rinoa, or Squall, all of whom I wanted to die. Not to mention the goofy guys like Quina, and Amarant, the blackhole of 2D character development, let alone 3D. 

But there have been a few memorable ones. 

I too have played FF since the beginning, and have even played fan-translations of FF2 and FF3. By the way, FF2 blew, FF3 wasn't too bad though. My problem is that after 13 or so years of FF, there just isn't anything innovative about the game any more. Battles remain the giant click-fests they were 13 years ago with _very_ minor permutations (ATB being the most significant). Strategy in the game is almost non-existant. Random battles are nothing but a frustrating hold-over from the NES days when there wasn't enough memory to have enemies you see (a la Chrono Trigger, for example). I've seen all the permutations of levelling systems (and FF5's remains my favorite, though I don't think any have gotten it perfect yet). Chocobos and Moogles are nothing new. Bishonen bad guys are nothing new. Self-sacrificng female leads are nothing new. Hell, they didn't even bother changing the general appearance of the main female lead from FF8 on. The storylines have all been relatively the same, and relatively simplistic. And I'm really sick of bad guys who aren't bad. Kefka kicked major butt because he was evil and sadistic, and you got to take him down. Everyone else is a pale imitation.

For all that Square claims to be trying new things with the FF series, they're really not innovating at all. The sense of wonder and excitement I had playing FF1 is gone. It's because I look at the main ten games, and I realize I'm playing the same game I was playing when I was ten years old.

Now, I have some hopes for FF12, because the lady (I think it's a lady) from Vagrant Story, FFT and FFTA is now in charge of development. If nothing else that promises to be at least a more involving story. I'm hoping they _finally_ do away with random battles (though I doubt it) and I'm hoping they _finally_ make battles challenging by requiring strategy, and not just uber-stats.


----------



## RyanL (Dec 10, 2003)

As an interlude to the Final Fantasy bashing, there is a new FF game "Crystal Chronicle" coming out for Gamecube early next year.  It looks to be a big departure from the standard FF format.  Who knows, it may be good.  Though, I've read that the focus is on coop multiplayer, which isn't really my bag.

-Ryan


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 10, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> FF9 was my favorite game in the entire series.  I was especially happy that the protagonist (Zidane) wasn't a brooding, angsty whiner (Squall, anyone?).  The only ones I haven't played are FF10 (due to not having a PS2), FF2, and FF3 (Those last two were NES titles that were released in Japan only).
> 
> I've been a fan of the Final Fantasy games for about 13 years now (ever since I played FF1 on the NES).  Although they tend to be extremely linear and don't give you many chances to affect the plot, they almost always have memorable characters, deep and involving storylines, awesome soundtracks, and fun gameplay.




Squall is like the perfect exmple of where I feel the FF series has gone wrong.  Zidane was a good character but I don't think he could save the story.  And don't wory about FF10 or 10-2, if you didn't like squall's broodng, angsty, whiner crap you wont like FF10 characters.

I want to see what FF chronicles is about, and if they changed the team lead for FF12 who knows it may be good.  Though the main character looks way to effeminite and from just looks I get a stronger whiner, ansty feeling than even with squall.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 10, 2003)

So, to summarize then, the reason that Final Fantasy I-VI are better is because of the story, and not mechanical reasons (other than a lack of new design elements or features), is that it?  Because it sounds like a dislike for individual characters and for story turns is the main complaint....which is fine, I just want to make sure that I'm not missing some major game element problem.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 11, 2003)

Just to steer back to NWN, i dint really like it. Being a lone hero didnt do it for me after BG1 and 2. 

However, KOTOR is alot like BG in spirit even if it uses a modified NWN engine. Its not the prettiest game but nice looking and the NPC and party members are all interesting with plenty of Baldurs Gate inter party bickering.

And to add my 2 cents on FF, I got hooked with FF7. I never really owned a SNES. I dont particulary like the angsty stuff, or sometimes overly melodramatic themes in FF and other Japanese rpgs. But i love the charm and uniqueness of FF which brings me back again and again.

I also dislked FF8- there wasnt any protaginist I got hooked by.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> So, to summarize then, the reason that Final Fantasy I-VI are better is because of the story, and not mechanical reasons (other than a lack of new design elements or features), is that it? Because it sounds like a dislike for individual characters and for story turns is the main complaint....which is fine, I just want to make sure that I'm not missing some major game element problem.



I rather hope no one's saying that. Because FFI didn't have much of a story (and II and III, though I haven't played them, were also NES games, so I don't think they had much more of a story than I), and IV was suprisingly deep for a game that could be finished in less fifteen hours (I'm no expert, and I managed it) ... but it's still a very short, and rather linear game.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 11, 2003)

*down with smilies*

Nemesis, what did I do to deserve that?

Anyway, the point of that post wasn’t FF sucks or the PS2 isn’t worth getting, but that pc and console rpg’s are significantly different and liking one doesn’t mean you’ll like the other, therefore JRRNeiklot shouldn’t base his purchase on that fact. You might as well say BG2 is a good game so you should get Rayman 2, another good game.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 11, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Nemesis, what did I do to deserve that?



I was just joshin' with ya, man.  


			
				Welverin said:
			
		

> Anyway, the point of that post wasn’t FF sucks or the PS2 isn’t worth getting, but that pc and console rpg’s are significantly different and liking one doesn’t mean you’ll like the other, therefore JRRNeiklot shouldn’t base his purchase on that fact. You might as well say BG2 is a good game so you should get Rayman 2, another good game.



I totally got what you were saying.  However, that the RPGs were good wasn't my entire point.  I would not base purchasing a console on one genre (or suggest one).  I said PS2 was my suggestion because while it is getting a little old it has the best selection of quality games and the most comfy controller along with a flexible online system.

And yes, the RPGs for consoles and PCs are different but they are similar in that they are in the same genre.  Add in different parts of that genre, namely strategy RPGs (which the GBA is getting a nice library of I've started to notice) and you have elements of the games decribed by the initial poster that are close to games he already likes.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 11, 2003)

Alcareru said:
			
		

> Just to steer back to NWN, i dint really like it. Being a lone hero didnt do it for me after BG1 and 2.



Any game that I'm still playing after a year is pretty good, IMHO. I assume when you say "lone hero", you mean playing alone without total control of your henchman, correct?

Because I can barely think of playing NWN by myself, the same way that I thought the main campaign provided was terrible, story-wise. Some of the community modules made Bioware's efforts look pathetic by comparison (which led to some of them being hired). Playing multi-player is, to me, what makes NWN so great.

A question I might ask is: does JRRN actually want a console at all?  All of the games he listed have little or no analog on the console world, other than maybe Deus Ex 2, Morrowind (which he didn't like) and KOTOR (which it sounds like he won't like, as well).  In short, I'm not sure if getting a console is worth his money in the same way that, say, a new video card might be.  If he isn't enamored of any of the types of games that consoles do best, it sounds like he may be unhappy, no matter _which console_ he gets.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> So, to summarize then, the reason that Final Fantasy I-VI are better is because of the story, and not mechanical reasons (other than a lack of new design elements or features), is that it?  Because it sounds like a dislike for individual characters and for story turns is the main complaint....which is fine, I just want to make sure that I'm not missing some major game element problem.




well for me its not that the early ones had good stories because I'm not sure if the really early ones even had a story.  Its 3 things 1 the mechanics for combat and out has seen far too small of an update, we really should be able to see the monsters before the fight for example, the wierd forced 3 person party where people have to hop out if you sub someone else in or change to the uber dressphere in 10-2 that has 3 parts means your other 2 party memebers run off the screen.  All this is fine originally, but they have had the time and the tech to improve things.

 2 the stories have become painful to participate in.  FF8,10,10-2 and on a lesser scale 9, I would of enjoyed on a much higer level if they made it a powerup fighting game with 0 story.  At least in 10-2 you can fast forward through the conversations and if you hit pause can skip the movies.

3 the incredibly story railroad feel of the games can't be forgiven anymore, we have the technology where this shouldn't be in any rpg games.

A lot of things if I look back on the old FF games and compare them to the today ones would be bad, but that's without paying attention to what number they are on in the series and how old these games are.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Dec 11, 2003)

I'm also in the market for a console this Xmas.

My requirements:

1) -- don't make fun of me here, but --- Dance Revolution or some other type of arobic game.  I need to burn off this titanic mass called my gut and I need to compete against something, treadmills just don't cut it.

2) Long term useability.  I don't want to buy a new console a year or two from now.

3) generic head-to-head games I can play with my wife & friends. (I suspect all platforms can handle this)

Thoughts?


----------



## talinthas (Dec 11, 2003)

ahh, ddr, a game after my own heart.
currently, you'll find the most ddr games on psx/ps2, but xbox just released UltraMix, which has a great song list, and the ability to download new song packs from xbox live.  (and the whole 4 player online mode...)

but yeah, if you want ddr and party games, a xbox won't do you wrong.  admittedly, the cube has the best party games, but xbox is starting to work up, mainly on the sports side though.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 11, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> 1) -- don't make fun of me here, but --- Dance Revolution or some other type of arobic game. I need to burn off this titanic mass called my gut and I need to compete against something, treadmills just don't cut it.



 Make fun of you?  Wouldn't think of it.  DDR is loads of fun, and good exercise, besides!   Best bet for this is X-box or Playstation2.  Most DDR games, including imports and para-para games are on the PS/2, and that's not going to change.



> 2) Long term useability.  I don't want to buy a new console a year or two from now.



 Tougher call, but the PS/2 is still the winner.  Xbox will be well supported for some time, but the X-box2 will be using a completely different hardware base....but that said, I'd be suprised if it wasn't backwards compatible, like any PC.  Playstation 2 is already backwards compatbile, and will likely stay alive for some time, even though it's the oldest console.  Some places still make stuff for the PS/1, after all.  Nintendo is up in the air on this one.



> 3) generic head-to-head games I can play with my wife & friends. (I suspect all platforms can handle this)



 Nintendo wins party games hands down.  Playstation has the best library, otherwised.  All three platforms do sports games with equal aplomb.

 Judging from you requirements, PS/2 may be the best choice for you.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 11, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> 2) Long term useability.  I don't want to buy a new console a year or two from now.




This was the main reason I bought an XBox... I didn't want to buy a system that was already outdated (PS2).  However, when then next round of new consoles come out, it will probably be around the same time for all three.



			
				BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> 3) generic head-to-head games I can play with my wife & friends. (I suspect all platforms can handle this)




You definitely can't go wrong with XBox here.  Tons of great racing ganes, Halo, and all the great XBox Live titles to play against your friends (MechAssault being my favorite).


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Make fun of you? Wouldn't think of it. DDR is loads of fun, and good exercise, besides! Best bet for this is X-box or Playstation2. Most DDR games, including imports and para-para games are on the PS/2, and that's not going to change.



Yeah, my brother has it and it's definitely quite the workout.

One thing I'd suggest is if you're going to be doing it seriously, invest in a good pad, and not one of the crappy MadCatz ones.  They slide all over the place.



> Tougher call, but the PS/2 is still the winner. Xbox will be well supported for some time, but the X-box2 will be using a completely different hardware base....but that said, I'd be suprised if it wasn't backwards compatible, like any PC. Playstation 2 is already backwards compatbile, and will likely stay alive for some time, even though it's the oldest console. Some places still make stuff for the PS/1, after all. Nintendo is up in the air on this one.



I'm willing to bet _every_ console will be backwards compatible come the next wave of them.  It just worked _so_ well in Sony's benefit, and the advantage of starting with a large base of games can't be ignored.



> Nintendo wins party games hands down. Playstation has the best library, otherwised. All three platforms do sports games with equal aplomb.
> 
> Judging from you requirements, PS/2 may be the best choice for you.



Yeah, nothing beats a game of Mario Kart or Super Smash Brothers for multi-player fun.  

X-Box, to it's credit, does multi-player the best though, especially if you don't have people around to play with.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of playing with people I don't know, but if you don't care X-Box is great.

And man, this is why we need Sega, in all it's old school glory, because I always felt their consoles did sports games the best.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2003)

ah the dreamcast now that's a machine.  Yeah sega did sports games right.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Tougher call, but the PS/2 is still the winner.  Xbox will be well supported for some time, but the X-box2 will be using a completely different hardware base....




Well, that's mostly speculation right now, and if you go with the speculation, PS3's "cell" processors should be even more difficult to make backward compatible than XBox2 with variant PC hardware.  

So PS2 is definitely not the winner here, but more than likely they'll all try to be backward compatible.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 11, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not a big fan of playing with people I don't know, but if you don't care X-Box is great.




I didn't think I'd like this until I started playing Capture the Flag on MechAssault.  Now I can't get enough of it!


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 12, 2003)

I'm going to go against my better judgement here, but if you want Japanese games like Dance Dance Revolution, then the PS2 is the best choice.

X-box just doesn't have as much Japanese game support although that is changing. For pretty much every other type of game and long term support, I'd go X-box. Microsoft has deep pockets and the Wintel architecture means I'd be extremely surprised if any next generation X-box wasn't backwards compatible.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 12, 2003)

shadowlight said:
			
		

> This was the main reason I bought an XBox... I didn't want to buy a system that was already outdated (PS2).  However, when then next round of new consoles come out, it will probably be around the same time for all three.




Just gotta say, the PS2 may be outdated, heck it was the weakest console spec wise last Christmas. But it has all the developers on its side, and Sony will keep it on the shelf with games for probably another year or so. I like both the Xbox and the GC, but the PS2 is kicking butt and taking names.

In consoles software drives hardware, like a jockey on Seabiscut.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 12, 2003)

PS2 just seems "outdated" because it is the oldest console out there.  The graphics aren't as good as the Xbox or the Gamecube nor should they be.  It is currently the most popular system with the best selection of games hands-down.  The PS3 (or the other next-gen systems) won't hit until 2005 in the US so buying one now isn't that bad of a deal, especially considering all the price drops and great games out there that anyone who hasn't owned the system already has yet to play.

I may seem like a PS2 fanboy because of my support in this thread.  Not true - I just call them like I see them.  The other systems have some tremendous games and I would tell and gamer to try and get them all to experience each but some people simply don't have that luxury.

PS2 = the best bang for your gaming dollar.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 12, 2003)

shadowlight said:
			
		

> Well, that's mostly speculation right now, and if you go with the speculation, PS3's "cell" processors should be even more difficult to make backward compatible than XBox2 with variant PC hardware.
> 
> So PS2 is definitely not the winner here, but more than likely they'll all try to be backward compatible.



That the X-box will be different hardware is certainly not speculation.  Microsoft has already announced that they will be using a different processor set from IBM and different video hardware from ATI, instead of NVIDIA.  I agree that it shouldn't be rocket science to make the platform backwards compatbile...in fact, I assume it will be a high priority for them.  Sony reaped the benefits of such a strategy, so it's no suprise.  I'm not so confident that the Nitentdo 129 witll be backwards-compatible, though.  While Nintendo's box can't play DVDs or CDs...it's also the only console that hasn't been hacked to play bootlegs, turned into a Linux machine or modded to be a media center, AFAIK.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> PS2 just seems "outdated" because it is the oldest console out there. The graphics aren't as good as the Xbox or the Gamecube nor should they be.



Well, this is the rare occasion that you and I will disagree, John.  I distinctly remember the large amount of disappointment at the PS/2s graphics at launch time.  In particular, the lack of anti-aliasing was often lamented.  The X-box and Gamecube are only a year younger than the PS/2, and there are some games on the PS/2 which looked better on the Dreamcast (but honestly, that says more about the developer than the hardware).

All of which is irrelevant in that, depending on your situation, the PS/2 is, as you say, the best bang for your buck.  All the more reason I should get one, I suppose.   I got X-box as a Christmas gift, and I got the 'cube when I traded in my DC and games.  With Mario Sunshine and a memory card, I paid $27 for it....and that was before the price-drop.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 12, 2003)

Alcareru said:
			
		

> Just gotta say, the PS2 may be outdated, heck it was the weakest console spec wise last Christmas. But it has all the developers on its side, and Sony will keep it on the shelf with games for probably another year or so. I like both the Xbox and the GC, but the PS2 is kicking butt and taking names.
> 
> In consoles software drives hardware, like a jockey on Seabiscut.




I know it's a matter of opinion, but IMO, there are a higher _*percentage *_of great games for the XBox.  There are truckloads of ok or good games for PS2, but not very many 10's.  Again, IMO, there are more great games (10's) for XBox than for any other console.  That said, since I don't have a whole lot of time to play, I tend to buy consoles for one or two great games rather than a lot of OK or good games.  I bought XBox for Halo (no question a 10) and then got to enjoy the greatness of KotOR and MechAssault (a couple of others as well, but those are cross-platform).  I also bought GameCube just for Metroid Prime and SM Sunshine.

And if by "kicking butt and taking names" you mean "rapily losing market share to XBox" then I agree   *duck*


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 12, 2003)

Ach, I can't believe you traded in a Dreamcast...

Rest in Peace Dreamcast... You were a system that died before your time, killed by poor marketing and a deluge of crappy games. The gems that you had will be remembered forever, so many of which still stand up to the test of time today. Soul Callibur, for example, STILL looks good. Indeed, comparable to Soul Calibur 2. 

Dreamcast forever!

Also, if anyone else is looking to dump their dreamcast (For shame!) tell me first... There are a few games I have yet to add to my collection that I want.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 12, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> PS2 just seems "outdated" because it is the oldest console out there.




I perceive it as outdated because of the graphics too, but mostly because of the lack of built-in hard drive and network card.  I know you can get these as add-ons, but... they're add-ons... almost a design afterthought and they're going to add to your gaming bill.  Also, for all PS2 those games that don't support the external hard drive, you're going to have to buy a memory card to store your games... again, more money.

_For me_, that's not the best gaming value.  
XBox vs. PS2 + Hard Drive + Network Adapter + Storage Cards


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 12, 2003)

Well, the default memory card reliance on the PS2 has one nice benefit... If you want to go to a friends house and take your copy of Soul Callibur 2 for the playstation, you can grab your disc and your memory card. If you wanna do it for the x-box, you have to grab your entire x-box and the disc. Unless you bought a memory card, which negates the savings.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 12, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> That the X-box will be different hardware is certainly not speculation.  Microsoft has already announced that they will be using a different processor set from IBM and different video hardware from ATI, instead of NVIDIA.




You're right that they've announced that they'll be doing their own chip design, but I doubt that they'll depart much from the x86 instruction set (except for trimming off bits that are irrelevant to gaming and making it harder to run Linux on).  That's sort of what I'm referring to by "_mostly_ speculation."  Also, since both ATi and nVidia provide DirectX compatible hardware, there shouldn't be many compatibility issues.

I guess my point is that we can't really say right now that PS3 will be more backward compatible than XBox2 (in fact, I'd say that what we know slightly favors XBox in that regard).  So don't use that as a factor when deciding which console to buy.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 12, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Well, the default memory card reliance on the PS2 has one nice benefit... If you want to go to a friends house and take your copy of Soul Callibur 2 for the playstation, you can grab your disc and your memory card. If you wanna do it for the x-box, you have to grab your entire x-box and the disc. Unless you bought a memory card, which negates the savings.



 You're right, but I've never needed to do this (and I do a lot of playing at friends houses).  Other people might need this more...


----------



## dagger (Dec 12, 2003)

I own a X BOX and a PS2, and I can honestly say I don't even play the PS2 any more. 

I can't stand the PS2 controllers anymore after getting use to the XBOX controllers.  

PS2 does have more games, but that does not mean they are better games. 


Its kind of like Dr. Pepper and Coca Cola,  they are both pretty much the same and you can't really go wrong with either.  I'm sure you will be happy with which ever one you choose.

I personaly have played the GC a lot at my buddies house, and the only game I can play on it for any length of time is Rocky. Get a PS2 or an X Box if you can...


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 12, 2003)

dagger said:
			
		

> I personaly have played the GC a lot at my buddies house, and the only game I can play on it for any length of time is Rocky. Get a PS2 or an X Box if you can...




Give Super Monkey Ball 2 a try if you get a chance.  It's a HOOT!!  (you will actually hoot from having a heart attack while playing)


----------



## dagger (Dec 13, 2003)

Of course the sports games are fine on all the systems including GameCube.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 13, 2003)

dagger said:
			
		

> Of course the sports games are fine on all the systems including GameCube.



... but the Sega/ESPN games aren't available on GameCube, and the XSN Sports line from Microsoft is, of course, Xbox Exclusive (though the conventional wisdom is that only the Top Spin tennis game is a standout). EA games are only online on PS2, which is one reason why Xbox fanboys tend to favor Sega/ESPN.


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 13, 2003)

I never remember to look in this forum, video games should be lumped in with the tv, movies and books forum. having 3 forms of media together and the fourth seperate is silly.

so i'll jump into the fray late:

xbox: dont own one, dont have friends who own one. played it at an xbox launch event. the controllers are BRUTAL. the most uncomfortable controller ever. would rather play with an atari 2600 box-with-button-and-stick controller. As far as I've heard and read the only must own games for Xbox are Halo and Knight of the Old Republic. Halo eventually hit the PC, KOTOR hit it a few weeks after console release, so right now, there is NO reason to buy an Xbox in my eyes. I see absolutely NO xbox-exclusive games that excite me. NONE. On the plus side, you dont need a memory card so you save 20 bucks. This isnt a big deal, for my Gamecube I have ONE huge memory card that saves everything. Unless you save multiple sports games by season, you only need one big one.

ps2: firends have them. you still need a multi-tap to play with 4 players. With backward compatibility, the system has a huge library but for a long time, all the games sucked. Luckily, this has gotten MUCH better lately and theres actually enough PS2-exclusive games to make this system worth buying. Might have to get me one soon. I really want to play Kingdom Hearts and the upcoming sequel,and both Jak and Ratchet games. The controller is acceptable but small and I dislike double shoulder buttons.

Gamecube: I have one of these. I feel that Nintendo has dropped the ball with this system. No online play. No backward compatibility. Too many sequels and not enough NEW games. And dropping the world's BEST controller (N64s) for an adequate one but moving the perfectly place N64 z-trigger button to the shoulder positon. Ugh. All that said, you still cant go wrong with the Nintendo-exclusive franchises being the best games around. Mario games, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Donkey Kong.  They kiddy image is a myth as Eternal Darkness is the best "mature" game I've ever played and Nintendo now also has the Resident Evil series (which I personally never got into) . When it comes to PARTY games where you actually have 4 people in your house Mario Kart, Mario Party,Super Smash Brothers Mario Golf,and  the eventual release of Mario Tennis along with the Super Monkey Ball series make this THE system. 

Gameboy Advance: the best selling system with the largest library of games. Everyone should have one. 

As for long-term use, everyone should know by now that systems have a 5-6 year life span. Period. Expect new systems from all three companies in 2005. 

JRRNeiklot seems to doubt his reflexes but wants games with depth. Stick with your PC and CRPGs. Otherwise, I'd suggest a gamecube/gameboy combo for you as there are simpler games and lots of old school rpgs available on gameboy. 

For Biggus Geekus, he needs to abandon DDR and get a gamecube for the multiplayer goodness.

As for the Final Fantasy series. In American numbering:
1 was a solid generic console RPG
2 was the best console RPG ever until LUNAR: SILVER STARY STORY came out and thats only because Lunar had great voice acting and two songs. FF2 had some great characters, a great story, great music and one of the greatest death scenes of all time. I almost cried. On second thought, FF2 is still the best.
3 was still solid but HARD. The beginning of the end was seen here as they battles were already getting overly-complicated.
7 is supposed to be really good, but I actually have never played it. I got a PS1 very late in its life span and still have games sitting here that I havent played (inlcuding a borrowed copy off FF7) I've still heard that the battles are too long do to magic but not as bad as the monstrosity that was..
8 SUCKED. I actually gave up on this game 1/4 though. The battles were endless. I hate RPGS where you START with hundreds of HP and finish with thousands. Its ridiculous. Someone needs to take a lesson from the mario and luigi gameboy rpg. SMALL NUMBERS. The story was boring, the characters were BRUTAL, boss fghts would take hours. I watched my gf toil through the rest of the game and wondered where Square went wrong.
From what I hear 9 and 10 werent as bad as 8 but were still worse than the rest. I can see just by looking at x-2 that I have no interest.
This series completely fell apart when they went from sprites to actual grapchics. 

But then again, so did the entire industry.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 13, 2003)

Yeeeesh. Negative much, Steve?

The default x-box controller is a matter of taste, I suppose, but I've never (personally, that is) met someone who didn't like them. I think a few people early on took exception to them, and a lot of the hate towards them is me-too-ism and bandwagon hopping... I blame Penny Arcade in part for that. In any case, it's a moot point... The S-Controller is much smaller (For all you lil-handed folks). 

If you want to talk about "worst controller ever", lets talk Gamecube, shall we? The thing looks like it was designed by the imbred, drunk, insane, mentaly retarded cousin of Picasso. It's tiny, the buttons are awkward (The main shoulder buttons have far too long a draw, and that purple shoulder button is hard to hit... And the green button dominates the controller... And that controller is near-impossible to combo-press certain buttons on, making it useless for fighting games, the D-pad is microscopic...) I could go on, but that should suffice.)

As for "Must Own" games... Meh. I've always thought that was a misnomer. One of the big "must owns" for Gamecube is Metroid Prime, but I think it's a pile of festering cow dung. Likewise, while Halo is good, I don't consider it a "must own" by a long shot.


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 13, 2003)

I'm not negative, just brutally opinionated.   

Although I will admit to having heard MANY people bash the Gamecube controller which I think is OK and the N64 controller which is my favorite ever, I must say I've NEVER heard anyone say they like the Xbox controller. I've also never heard anyone bash Metroid Prime, one of the best-looking games ever that made a shooter FUN.  

So we must be coming from two different worlds.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 13, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> 3 was still solid but HARD. The beginning of the end was seen here as they battles were already getting overly-complicated.
> 7 is supposed to be really good, but I actually have never played it. I got a PS1 very late in its life span and still have games sitting here that I havent played (inlcuding a borrowed copy off FF7) I've still heard that the battles are too long do to magic but not as bad as the monstrosity that was..
> 8 SUCKED. I actually gave up on this game 1/4 though. The battles were endless. I hate RPGS where you START with hundreds of HP and finish with thousands. Its ridiculous. Someone needs to take a lesson from the mario and luigi gameboy rpg. SMALL NUMBERS. The story was boring, the characters were BRUTAL, boss fghts would take hours. I watched my gf toil through the rest of the game and wondered where Square went wrong.
> From what I hear 9 and 10 werent as bad as 8 but were still worse than the rest. I can see just by looking at x-2 that I have no interest.
> This series completely fell apart when they went from sprites to actual grapchics.



I never thought I'd be saying this, but...

So basically what you're saying is you've played through _three_ games of the eleven (not counting FF11, Tactics, Adventure, MQ) game series, and making broad generalizations about them all.  Right.

However, if you feel like emulating, check out FF5, I think you'd like it a lot.

And FF8 did suck verily.

And I do agree 4-6 were the best of the FF games.

However, FF overly-complicated?  Er, no.  Get in battle, pick best skill, press A.  Repeat, ad nauseum, for the entire game.  Virtually no strategy involved.  If anything FF is under-complicated.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 13, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> I'm not negative, just brutally opinionated.
> 
> Although I will admit to having heard MANY people bash the Gamecube controller which I think is OK and the N64 controller which is my favorite ever, I must say I've NEVER heard anyone say they like the Xbox controller. I've also never heard anyone bash Metroid Prime, one of the best-looking games ever that made a shooter FUN.
> 
> So we must be coming from two different worlds.



Personally I'm just used to the PS controller, so using other ones is awkward at first.  However I never really liked the N64 controller - what was the point of the whole left side?  I mean, what games _didn't_ use the analog stick?  And the far yellow buttons (on the right) were just a pain.  On the other hand, the Z-button rocked hardcore.  Perfect placement.

I don't like PS2's extra shoulder buttons either - they're hardly ever used and it's easy to hit the wrong ones.  If they _really_ wanted extra buttons, they should have been on the bottom, like the N64 Z-button.

Like I said at first though, controllers just need getting used to - every time I pick up an X-Box controller, it feels weird, but it's only because I don't use it often.


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 13, 2003)

Original American releases were 1,2,3,7,8,9,10. I played 4 of the 7.  And Secret of Mana even. I have another in my possession and as a gamer I've read/heard a lot  about the others.  I don't need to actually experience FF X-2 to know it sucks since it involves scantily clad girls playing dress-up. Not the kind of fantasy I want in my video games. So I wouldn't call my opinion of the series a broad generlization.  Especially since most who have commented so far agree with me. 



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> However, FF overly-complicated? Er, no. Get in battle, pick best skill, press A. Repeat, ad nauseum, for the entire game. Virtually no strategy involved. If anything FF is under-complicated.




Ok, I'll admit to poor wording here. The complication is merely a ruse. By allowing all sorts of different magic upgrades/combinations/joining yourself with other beings/etc it gives the illusion of complication but is in reality just annoying. The battles are as you said, straight-forward BUT when casting a spell or using a special ability automatically brings up an unstoppable cut-scene thats 30 seconds long EVERY TIME YOU USE IT thats just tedious and unforgiveable. I know 8 is the worst offender on these charges but it is proof that the developers have left behind FUN in favor of flash.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 13, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> I must say I've NEVER heard anyone say they like the Xbox controller.




I think some other people in this thread have said they liked it. 

My like for the 'box controllers can be summed up thusly:


Size. I can conceal a PS-2 or Gamecube controller in one of my hands. It's so nice to finally have a controller that I don't feel like I'm having to contort my hands to grasp comfortably. The only other controller I can say this of (And not to the same extent even then) is Dreamcast controller.
Control Arangement: No strange angles. No buttons in unusual places. Everything is very basic, and it works.
Quality of Construction. I give to the X-Box controllers the same award I give my old IBM metal clickey keyboard . I've been using the same keyboard for many, many years, on many different computers, and it was many, many years old when I got it at a hospital auction for 2 dollars. And every key still works just as well as the day it came off the factory. That's quality. I feel confident I could beat a person to death with this keyboard, plug it back in, and it would still type just fine. Same thing with the X-Box controllers.



			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> I've also never heard anyone bash Metroid Prime, one of the best-looking games ever that made a shooter FUN.




...but...it just...you know...I mean... come on... it really wasn't all that fun... not really... actually... to be honest... it was boring... add in the fact that in general I think FPS games on a control-pad are an abomination, and that Metroid Prime seemed bad even by those standards, and even the halfway decent graphics (It's no Halo, though) couldn't save it.

And as long as I'm on the subject, Smash Brothers isn't all that fun either. Actually, it's kinda stupid. 



			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> So we must be coming from two different worlds.




Evidently.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 13, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> The default x-box controller is a matter of taste, I suppose, but I've never (personally, that is) met someone who didn't like them. I think a few people early on took exception to them, and a lot of the hate towards them is me-too-ism and bandwagon hopping... I blame Penny Arcade in part for that. In any case, it's a moot point... The S-Controller is much smaller (For all you lil-handed folks).



I've got both (and all three current-gen consoles). There's no doubt in my mind that the original Xbox controller is the best of them, at least if you're an adult. The knock on them is almost as silly as the "Xbox=huge" thing; an Xbox is bigger than a PS2 or a GameCube, but it's smaller than my VCR.



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> As for "Must Own" games... Meh. I've always thought that was a misnomer. One of the big "must owns" for Gamecube is Metroid Prime, but I think it's a pile of festering cow dung. Likewise, while Halo is good, I don't consider it a "must own" by a long shot.



No matter how good an FPS is, it's never going to be a "must own" for me, because I just don't have the reflexes for them. I've yet to play one where I don't die horribly before I can decide if the game's any good.


----------



## dagger (Dec 13, 2003)

I have Madden and ESPN Football and everyone I know likes ESPN way better (Madden is still VERY good though). I really like the new ESPN NBA game, it is very good as well. 

My favorite sports game right now is Top Spin, the tennis game.


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 13, 2003)

more strangeness. I've never heard anyone suggest that any football game even comes close to Madden.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 13, 2003)

Well not ot pimp a game I don't like but it FFx-2 the only cut scense in the fihgts are the dress me up FF parts, so only when you change classes.  And in the options section you can get rid of them.

And the coin game is cool, the rest of the minigames have sucked, but the coin game is lots of fun.  I can sit there and play the coin game for hours on end, but then again my favorite game now is puzzle pirates on the computer.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 13, 2003)

well I always mention metroid as a game to get for gamecube because very person I know or have talked to liked it.  Me I was underwhelmed, and then it broke on me so I never found out if I would of liked it in the end.

As for sports games, well I liked madden in the past tense, I haven't liked madden for the past few games.  My problems are summed up in this there are usually just a few good plays that you repeat to victory, and 2 the harder levels the ai doesn't get better in the better play choice sense, the game just makes you fumble virtually every play, and the computer makes every pass no matter the protection and becomes much harder to tackle.  If ESPN fixes this I'll get the ESPN titles.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 13, 2003)

And I will say again I love everything about the xbox controller except the white and black button palcement, they are intuitive to me, though after a short bit you learn where they are good enough.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 13, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> more strangeness. I've never heard anyone suggest that any football game even comes close to Madden.



I'd suggest that you've been living in cave, then. Ever since Sega launched NFL2K for the Dreamcast, their games have been considered serious contenders for the "best console football game" title. EA didn't build a version of Madden for the Dreamcast, so NFL2K was pretty much the undisputed champ in 2000 (a visually great PlayStation game would have trouble matching an average Dreamcast game, and NFL2K was far better than average); reviewers have usually said that the latest incarnation (with ESPN branding) is a very strong challenge to Madden, and is the best game on Xbox (because EA doesn't support Xbox Live).


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 13, 2003)

Ok..well my cave is better than other caves.
In my cave everyone knew not to waste money on a Dreamcast.
We mocked people in other caves who had Dreamcasts.
Or the Atari Lynx. Or a Neo-Geo.
Just like now we mock all three people who own Nokia N-Gages.

Using Dreamcast-owners or Xbox-live-users as your sample is silly. 
Why not use left-handed blonde men from Rhode Island named Balthazar?
A vast majority of a tiny minority is still a minority.

EGM, THE video game magazine,consistently says the Sega football game is GOOD but not as good as Madden. Sales agree with that statement.

Wait, apparently youre right, Gamespot (the wannabe magazine) ranked the Sega versions .1 points higher than Madden this year. So I guess I have to admit my error.
There ARE other people out there who think Sega is better than Madden.
But the rest of us sane people take opinions from people dumb enough to buy Dreamcasts with a grain of salt. I apologize for not listening to the loonies rant.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 13, 2003)

Antagonistic, much?

I'm quite happy with my dreamcast... No "dumb enough to buy" about it. I wouldn't trade my Dreamcast for any other console. So hush.

Further, I find EGM to be a festering pile of dog doo. Much like Metroid Prime. I much prefer Gamespot... Which isn't a "wannabe" anything, thank you ver much.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry.

I just broke the system, didn't I? The whole "Defend position A by insulting anyone who doesn't hold with it." system. My bad.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 14, 2003)

Take chill pill, stevelabny*.*

I mean, I never owned a Dreamcast (mostly because by the time I had disposable income, it was clear that Sega was going to abandon the system... and that Skies of Arcadia was getting a GameCube port). I've just always followed the video game industry pretty closely, even when I didn't have any money.


----------



## dagger (Dec 14, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> more strangeness. I've never heard anyone suggest that any football game even comes close to Madden.




ESPN NBA is awesome as well.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 14, 2003)

Ahh the poor Dreamcast. So much potential, trodden and destroyed by Sony and their ally EA. I too loved NFL 2k and NBA 2k when they came out. 

And lets not bash the Neo Geo handheld. SNK produced a great machine with a large bright backlit screen-and did it in 99-2000. Sadly of course, it was doomed to fail with no games support.

But then again it aint about hardware in consoles is it? Its about the games.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 14, 2003)

Heh, and the Game Gear had a nicely sized bright backlight screen before that.

Nintendo was really behind the times on with regards to that...


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Heh, and the Game Gear had a nicely sized bright backlight screen before that.
> 
> Nintendo was really behind the times on with regards to that...





... yes but it always had that dang plumber and the kid in green tights....


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Antagonistic, much?
> 
> I'm quite happy with my dreamcast... No "dumb enough to buy" about it. I wouldn't trade my Dreamcast for any other console. So hush.



Alas, poor Dreamcast, I knew ye well.  So many poor titles sinking an otherwise excellent console.  Tsyr is spot on the money that Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast STILL looks as good as Soul Calibur 2 on next gen systems.  Shenmue, and then Shenmue II (the DC's superior version, not the poor X-box translation) still rank as some of the finest games I have ever played, anywhere.

Controller-wise, I rank the PS/2 as OK, but the four fron buttoms are irritating to me.  The Gamecube controller is comfortable to me, and I like it's layout.  The base X-box controller is uncomfortable in my hands, and I think Penny Arcade was spot on the money.  Considering how much they push the X-box otherwise, I don't think they were being too disingineous.  Just like them, I find the Controller-S much better and more comfortable.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 14, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Alas, poor Dreamcast, I knew ye well.  So many poor titles sinking an otherwise excellent console.  Tsyr is spot on the money that Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast STILL looks as good as Soul Calibur 2 on next gen systems.  Shenmue, and then Shenmue II (the DC's superior version, not the poor X-box translation) still rank as some of the finest games I have ever played, anywhere.
> 
> Controller-wise, I rank the PS/2 as OK, but the four fron buttoms are irritating to me.  The Gamecube controller is comfortable to me, and I like it's layout.  The base X-box controller is uncomfortable in my hands, and I think Penny Arcade was spot on the money.  Considering how much they push the X-box otherwise, I don't think they were being too disingineous.  Just like them, I find the Controller-S much better and more comfortable.




I only have the X-Box version of Shenmue 2... I passed up a chance to get the european Shenmue 2 for Dreamcast about 6 months ago, and I've kicked myself every since. What exactly is different, could you summarize? I still love it...


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> I only have the X-Box version of Shenmue 2... I passed up a chance to get the european Shenmue 2 for Dreamcast about 6 months ago, and I've kicked myself every since. What exactly is different, could you summarize? I still love it...



So you didn't get it?  I ask this, because I still have it.  I traded in the DC, but not Shenmue II.  The DC version uses Japanese dialogue, with subtitles.  The American X-box version is apparently dubbed *terribly*, which is a shame, since the first Shenmue was well done.

Now, if you wanted said game, something could be arranged.


----------



## RyanL (Dec 15, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> ...but...it just...you know...I mean... come on... it really wasn't all that fun... not really... actually... to be honest... it was boring... add in the fact that in general I think FPS games on a control-pad are an abomination, and that Metroid Prime seemed bad even by those standards, and even the halfway decent graphics (It's no Halo, though) couldn't save it.




Wow, Tsyr.  I usually agree with you, but I have to respectfully and strongly disagree here.  Have you played any of the other Metroid games?  Maybe the problem is that you approached Metroid Prime as a First Person Shooter, which it isn't.

Metroid Prime is one of the best games I've played in years on any system, and easily the best game available for the 'cube.  I found it immersive and exciting.

-Ryan


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 15, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> Wow, Tsyr.  I usually agree with you, but I have to respectfully and strongly disagree here.  Have you played any of the other Metroid games?  Maybe the problem is that you approached Metroid Prime as a First Person Shooter, which it isn't.
> 
> Metroid Prime is one of the best games I've played in years on any system, and easily the best game available for the 'cube.  I found it immersive and exciting.
> 
> -Ryan




I've played Metroid since the old 8 bit days on Nintendo.

I realized MP was supposed to be a hybrid of FPS and metroid gameplay. But IMO it didn't work. They combined some features of each, but didn't get a better whole.


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 15, 2003)

Tsyr out of curiosity what were your opinions of Mario 64 and  Ocarina of Time? Did you dislike the other series' first 3D games too?


----------



## Welverin (Dec 15, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> PS2 = the best bang for your gaming dollar.




I’m with John on this one, BG, the PS2 fits all of your criteria. It has the games you’re looking for and is the system that will last the longest (it should live on for a while after the PS3 is out).



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I got the 'cube when I traded in my DC and games.  With Mario Sunshine and a memory card, I paid $27 for it....and that was before the price-drop.




WORST DEAL EVER!

Unless of course you had no DC games.



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> Also, if anyone else is looking to dump their dreamcast (For shame!) tell me first... There are a few games I have yet to add to my collection that I want.




Let me know too.



> The default x-box controller is a matter of taste, I suppose, but I've never (personally, that is) met someone who didn't like them. I think a few people early on took exception to them, and a lot of the hate towards them is me-too-ism and bandwagon hopping... I blame Penny Arcade in part for that. In any case, it's a moot point...




To be fair, pretty much the whole of gaming media disliked it as well. While the size doesn't bother me the button placement is bad, which is something the controller-s doesn't completely fix.



> If you want to talk about "worst controller ever", lets talk Gamecube, shall we?




I vote Dreamcast, I love the system, but after playing a game for a while my hands started to hurt.



> Likewise, while Halo is good, I don't consider it a "must own" by a long shot.




I'm sure Halo never would have gotten as much praise as it did if it was launch on PC first. By being released on a console first it was compared to other console FPS, which is a much weaker field.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 15, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Using Dreamcast-owners or Xbox-live-users as your sample is silly.
> Why not use left-handed blonde men from Rhode Island named Balthazar?
> A vast majority of a tiny minority is still a minority.




Well, while any more I guess I have to concede your point about Dreamcast owners being a small group, X-Box live... uh-uh. That's growing, and growing fast.


----------



## James Heard (Dec 16, 2003)

I'd recommend the XBox, but only because I'm a big geek and if you're interested in things like that the XBox is really an awesome console to hack out. Add in a big harddrive and load all your games directly into the system with no more disk changing required, for maximum couch potato factor. Link it to your home network and browse the pictures you've got from your digicam on the PC or listen to your mp3s. I think there's even a mod that allows you to turn it into a Tivo-esque thing, but that might just be using a PC as device filter to shuffle recorded shows onto the Xbox. Oh yeah, and the games aren't bad either - I don't think I'd be able to go back to just playing on the PS2.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 16, 2003)

The only problem there is, a modded X-Box is an X-Box that can't use X-Box live, last I knew.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 16, 2003)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and the games aren't bad either - I don't think I'd be able to go back to just playing on the PS2.



See, there's the thing.  Most people I know with multiple consoles actually play all of them, not one or two exculsively.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 16, 2003)

I play all mine(main 3+GBA, and Dreamcast).  Sure if its a multiconsole game I usually get it on xbox, but vice city didn't come out till now on xbox so there's the ps2, FF X I got though I didn't like it, but that's only on the ps2, zelda, sould calibur2(liked link best) super monkey ball2 mario kart, super smash bros, cube, FF tactics advanced, king of fighters, castle wolfenstein GBA, shemue, skies of arcadia and much more on the dream cast, xbox multiconsole, halo, KOTOR etc.

I use every console thoguh the XBOX gets the most play, mainly for the controller, and the deal is sealed because of the slightly better graphics.  But every other console sees some action every month if not week.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 16, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I play all mine(main 3+GBA, and Dreamcast). Sure if its a multiconsole game I usually get it on xbox, but vice city didn't come out till now on xbox so there's the ps2, FF X I got though I didn't like it, but that's only on the ps2, zelda, sould calibur2(liked link best) super monkey ball2 mario kart, super smash bros, cube, FF tactics advanced, king of fighters, castle wolfenstein GBA, shemue, skies of arcadia and much more on the dream cast, xbox multiconsole, halo, KOTOR etc.
> 
> I use every console thoguh the XBOX gets the most play, mainly for the controller, and the deal is sealed because of the slightly better graphics. But every other console sees some action every month if not week.



Exactly my point, thank you. 

Whatever gets the most play from me is whatever game I'm interested in at the moment - recently it's been the GBA, because I'm playing Mario & Luigi, and finally beat FFTA (but still have 45 more missions to go).  I figure after Christmas it'll be the GC, because there's a bunch of games out that I've wanted and haven't had the money for, so I've been mentioning them as possible presents (used if possible, of course).  A few months ago it was my PS2.  Really, it all depends on what games are out I want to play.

The only reason I don't own an X-Box is because there aren't really any games I want to play on the system, that aren't out for other platforms.  For the most part they're just not my bag of tea, and as I alluded to earlier, I'm not a fan of online gaming with people I don't know, or at all even.  I prefer playing with people in person.  If I were more into that, I would pick up an X-Box without hesitation though.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 19, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I'm playing Mario & Luigi




So what do you think of it?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 19, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> So what do you think of it?



It's definitely a fun game, though the difficulty level isn't that high.  The story is simplistic, but the characters are fun, especially Luigi and Fawful.  The mini-games are for the most part easy (although I'm stuck on one towards the end of the game that's going to require serious work to beat), but they serve as a nice distraction to the constant Zelda/Alundra-style play.  The puzzles are simple, and don't require much thought, but they work.  The battles are where the game truly shines, IMO.  Very interactive, much like SMRPG, with the additions of being able to dodge and counter attacks with button presses, and "Brothers Attacks", which are basically spells, but still require interactivity to get the most effect from them.

Overall the game presents itself as extremely easy, but that's the point of the game in a lot of ways.  It's unlike Alundra where the puzzles required serious thought, or Zelda where you had a lot of hack-and-slash battles.  It's a good mix of adventure, puzzle-solving, and mini-games, and it's challenging enough to provide entertainment, without being frustrating.  I would definitely recommend picking it up if at all possible.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 19, 2003)

Thanks for the reply, I've been considering it and think I'll have to pick it up at some point.


----------

