Sorry your browser is not supported!

lol

Hang on, hang on, I think it's about time we wrapped this whole thing up right here.I gotta admit, I got stitched up like a kipper on this one. What started as a friendly little thread has developed into full on console warfare. I have endured countless insults and unfriendly remarks as a result of this, not to mention Sony, who have been mutilated and burnt on a stake. These include:


Well, it depends what your definition of fanboy is. Yeah, I'm a fanboi, that is to say, I'm a fan of what I believe in.


No, I don't. Hardly suprising tho, since I wasn't even born when the SNES hit the shelves, so how was I meant to know that?


That's like saying "That guy in the suit from HALO isn't Xbox's mascot". Well, if not, then who is? Do they even have a mascot?


Sure, PS2 has a vast library of games, just it's not Sony's fault if half of them are crap. It's actually the fault of the third parties - after all, they're the ones who develop the games.


You should be more careful.


Says who? The Official Hype Whore Commity? (OH WC)


Well, guess I'm not a tool then. But, I would be a tool if I listened to someone call me one, so I'm not even gonna take that one seriously.


That's gotta get the "Best Quote of the Year" Award, surely.

I guess that people have the right to like what they like, without having to criticize others. Maybe I should remember that in the future. But, you gotta admit, Dr. Mario was pretty lame.

Hop this has cleared things up for ya.

--NYTMAYRE--

P.S Has anyone actually checked out "Who thinks Slimline PS2's are useless?"? Because that's what mainly started me off here. Please view it, it might make a bit more sense out of my argument. Thanks.
















Well, at least I got a lot of posts lol.

Sausage is right. For every game like Katamari Damashi theres 30 Killzones.

Speaking of Killzone, it is very cool. I would argue that it rivals HALO, but I would probably get blasted again so I won't.

I'm playing it at the moment. It has a much larger lifespan than HALO, but it's multiplayer isn't as good.

But for £15, who's complaining?

He isn't. The XBox (AFAIK) doesn't have a mascot. Nintendo put a picture of Mario on almost every cartrige, console, and box they distributed. That makes him a company mascot.

As for not knowing about Ratchet and Clank... I don't have a PS1/2 so is there any reason I should know about them? It's not like they're mascots, as there would be pictures of them everywhere.

It didn't really seem friendly to me, trying to degrade Nintendo. I'll have nightmares for weeks you know. Also, don't give me that crap about Sony. You were the one who started the 'mutilating'.


So should the other millions of people who bought it?

yep... play only 2 hours a day, don't polish it, and don't turn play high quality games.

Some issues are because of consol abuse (over using the consol or putting it in places not suitable) but from what it sounds like. Sony is pulling the american tactics book out.

Page 1, paragraph 1, line 1

Thou shalt not creat a product that can't be bought again. Make it to break, so that people will be forced to buy again.

I like nintendo, because they can, with minimal characters (ie: characters regurgitated 100 times) create entirely new experiences with the same subject matter.

My FAVORITE example of this regurgitation WITHOUT stagnation (something that neither PS2 or XBOX dev companies can manage EVER) is going from Zelda: Ocarina of Time and then playing Zelda: Majora's Mask and watching the second game unravel (utterly compelling) with IDENTICAL CHARARCTER MODELS!!! Part of me was thinking - how cheap! and the other was thinking - it's utterly amazing... Majora's mask became my favorite game for a long time for this reason. (All the levels and the game structure were totally different, but the central mechanics (and characters) remained identical.)

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEW ZELDA!!!!!

What?! You call that playing?

I regret what I said, so please people, don't abuse me or my console any longer! After posting this, I have now realised that there's no point in arguing over which is best; as long as we have a good time messing about with these games, it doesn't really matter.

Peace to everyone!

Heh heh. Me no abuse Sony. Me want PS3, play all games I never got PS1/2. Me want MGS3. Me play MGS1 on GC and MGS2 on XB. Me want MGS3, and FF8-10. Me want Katamari Damacy. Me want Ico and that other game they're making. Me want Kingdom Hearts. Me want that one big RPG that I just now forgot the name of that's huge.

Me just not want any of their other games. Me get all in one package with more with PS3.

I got Kingdom Hearts and Mgs3
I have to say, MGS3 is the best game I have ever played, and Kingdom hearts is cool as well.

I bet it took years to code MGS3...


^
|
BEST GAME EVER!

I spell 'bananas' B*A*N*A*N*A*S

I'm not worried Nintendo is on it's way out as home console developer as it's in for a severe beating when the next gen systems come out. Then you'll be see Nintendo go the way of Sega. Mario will be around on XBOX 720(or whatever), and PS4, but face it game cube sales lagged the other 2 consoles(That's why it's lower priced). Microsoft took a loss to beat out GC, Sony only didn't loose out beacuse of the same reason PS1 sold more the N64, the quality and depth of the games. On GC Nintendo cuaght up some in depth, but Sony has the game library advantage now and XBOX the graphic advantage. PS3 from current available screenshots and specs looks to have the advantage in both on it's upcoming system. Rare(Conker and Perfect Dark) has already gone to XBOX and as already stated MS bought bungie.

In the end I still own all three and a GBA SP (with no backward compatability to GB/GBC I'm not getting a DS, not going for PSP either). PS3 will be a definite. XBOX and Nin, I'm not so sure.

Really? Interesting given Nintendo are the only company to make a profit from thier hardware. They have also had 3 of the best selling games this year exclusive to thier platform.

Not to mention that unit wise, they still own almost equal market share to Microsoft as well as out performing either of it's competitors in overal game sales.

So, from where I'm standing it looks like Nintendo are going into the next generation being the only company not to have made loss.



The fact that the previous Nintendo president promised to provide an affordable gaming machine, and launched the GameCube at half the price had nothing to do with the fact that it was and is the cheapest?

I've only seen the price of the GameCube drop once. It was claimed to be because of a lack of sales, but it happened right after Sony and Microsoft both dropped thier prices to around the same price. To me that looks like a company keeping thier promise.

Shame the same cannot be said about Sony, and thier 'Emotion Engine'.



The Nintendo GameCube is the only current generation console to offer:

• HD Gaming on Every Game
• Constant Data Streaming
• Shader Model 2.0 Technology
• Dolby Surround Sound on Every Game
• A Console that can actually fit in the living Room!

While it's true the overall polygon power of the GameCube isn't quite as much as the X-Box, the fact is that the Playstation 2 is only capable of the same polycount. Also the X-Box is only capable of 10million more using Shaders per second. Given the X-Box is only capable of Shader Model 1.1 which has a lower IQ (Image Quality) to Shader Model 2.0, not to mention the GeForce isn't capable of pushing as many Pixel Pipelines as the Radeon is. Fact is that if developers wanted to they could create far more visually stunning games on the GameCube.

The games produced however is slightly Nintendo's fault given how the previous president ran the company. This is something that is changing for the Revolution. This said, the Nintendo GameCube still had the most HQ Games available of all the consoles.

While Microsoft and Sony had around 10-20 games out of libraries of 1,000 games produced that were really any good, the GameCube has had many more out of it's library of a mere 350 games (only 250 of which having been released in Europe/America).

I personally have played around 80 games (I own around 60 odd) and out of those 80 I've only disliked 2. Given both my X-Box and Playstation 2 libraries have less than 20 games in total, over half of which I though were going to be cool but ended up being crap.

Well quite frankly the GameCube has been far more fun, and value for money so far. With more awesome games on the horizon over the next year.



The Next-Generation Consoles it's quite obvious that both Microsoft and Sony want to make sure gamers are seeing cinematic visuals. They're playing this up showing what is graphically possible and how amazing things are going to be with realistic grass and such.

There is no doubting that the Sony Playstation 3 is the most powerful of the three consoles on show. It's out-performs Nintendo and Microsoft graphically by almost 2x the power, as far as real processor work goes then it's more like 1.2-1.5x. Still this put it firmly ahead in what potencial it has.

Fact of life though, give the developers more power and they'll cut-dwon development time by cutting corners because they can now afford to. PC owners have experienced this for over 20years.

Sony are also purely playing the 'graphics' card. In-fact there is nothing new what-so-ever about the rest of the console. So while you enjoy Killzone 2 which quite frankly despite the stunning shaders doesn't look that much better than Killzone 1 be happy in the knowlage that all that hardware is getting a good work-out.

As far as Microsoft and Nintendo are conserned however, the future of gaming isn't purely in the graphics of the console.

Microsoft are turning the X-Box 360 into a fully-featured media centre style machine, which can be personalised completely to your tastes. They also believe that Online Gameing is the new Black (heh, oki bad joke ). While Sony does nothing to enhance this aspect of thier console, both Nintendo and Microsoft have put A LOT of research dollars into making sure that they have some truely awesome online experiences.

Power-wise, while the internal layout of the hardware is slightly different. They're both designed from almost identical base hardware and are capable of almost identical output. In other-words if something can run on the X-Box 360, it could easily run on the Revolution with zero difference in the visuals.

Nintendo on the other hand firmly believe that gaming is not going to be based on visuals. While sure it can hold it's own in a graphical contest, fact remains that what makes the Nintendo machine a "Revolution" is quite frankly the player interaction.

You may have already heard the rumours of the secret Nintendo controller. I for one believe it's awesome that these new design features by far make this possibly the most exciting aspect of any console in years.

Games are quite frankly stagnent needing to evolve. Although sure, we have Will Wright making the ground breaking Spore which you might be pleased to know that the reason KKreiger hasn't been updated is because THEY are the programmers behind Spore.

You want to see what they've come up with, checkout the recent inverview on GameSpy.com about it. I am without a doubt utterly speechless over what quite frankly is going to be the most amazing game concieved.

Nintendo are also going to be pushing the evolution envelope.
Cinematic graphics are awesome, but who cares when you can be driving a dirt bike across a motor-cross track by purely moving the controller and in-turn having your controller throw you about, and feel all the dirt as it hits you hand. Feeling how the wind is cold and your hands warming back up as you slow down.

That my friends is the Evolution, of the Revolution.

Just because Nintendo aren't blinging everyone with every slivver of information possible showing of out-standing visual doesn't mean they're just giving up. It's because they don't want you to see what the Revolution is capable of... they want you to feel what it is capable of.

For the original poster:

You don't like Nintendo because we have a Mario game for each Sport, Party, etc. game? Well ya know what, if Electronic Arts isn't going to give us Baseball, Golf, or Fifa then Nintendo has to give us them. What's more is Mario's games are quite frankly far more fun to play.

And if we go through these games... you'll notice that while Mario's name is on the box, often the characters involved are ALL of the franchise characters available.

Paper Mario, is a truely awesome and unique RPG.
Mario Sunshine is the little guy back in his GC adventure with some very nice twists and gameplay elements.
Mario Party is one of the most awesome games with friends (not that many Playstation 2 or X-Box fanboys understand what it means to PLAY GAMES WITH YOUR FRIENDS THAT ARE REAL NOT VIRTUAL)

Each Mario game couldn't be so far removed from the last it's just not funny. It's not a case of 'Milking the Company Mascot for all he's worth' ... this is a case of providing internal games with characters that they can identify with.

Mario IS Nintendo's Mascot, while Starfox, Sammus and Link are just exclusive franchises. As such it's the little fat plumber who has to do all of the leg work for the console.

What would you rather see as a title. Nintendo All-Star's Baseball, or Mario Baseball? It's just easier to design games in that context. Despite what the content it has inside. I would rather 100 Mario titles to cover the games NOT produced by 3rd party developers, rather than a library of 5 games that are produced by external developers.

Again this is because of a number of reasons. Unfortunately because of Nintendo having to do basically half of the library themselves, this has gained them a 'Childrens' image for the console. Something that Resident Evil and Zelda have started to try and shake, but really it's too little too late.

You also can take one of the reason as developers being lazy.
The GameCube can hold 1.4GB of data per Disc.

To put that into perspective, Doom 3 can fit on a single disk and run from that disc. So we're not talking about a small amount of information here. Some games were stripped from the GameCube simply because, of stupid things.

Madden for example was never released because .. You can't fit the training videos on one of the discs. I mean I have several things to say to that.

WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT TRAINING VIDEOS. We're buying the game to play not sit and watch Mr Madden telling us about back-parry-fake-longshot plays. Also I'd love to know what the hell the problem is USING A SECOND DISC? Many of the GameCube games use more than one disc, and I don't have any issues with swapping them.

Most of these games you have to swap around 10-15hours into the game. Seriously, it isn't any hassle at all. I think the Resident Evils did it simply because it was tradional, all 5 of the Resident Evil games use 2 Discs. Despite the fact that 2 and 3 are perfectly cloned from the Playstation version.

Same goes for Metal Gear Solid, you change discs at one point.. yet you can still visit the entire base on either disc. So it's not really that off-putting changing them.

There is also the bitch about it not having online play. Bollocks, it has a broadband and narrowband modems. The reason no game uses them is because the only title that does was poorly developed and was hacked. Not that the hacking achieved much, you still can't change anything on the game servers.

Point being, don't be some mis-informed Sony smacktard. Don't go around making accusations about rival consoles because you want to "1337", quite frankly while Sony currently have some eager fans... these fans also believe that gaming began with Sony.

Simperfi, Nintendo are the original top-dogs. The only reason that they lost this so-called market to Sony in the first place was simply because people couldn't afford the hardware or games, not to mention you can't put as much data on a Cart as on a CD. It just lost out in terms of the sheer volume of games.

Sony still haven't learn this industry belongs to Nintendo. Microsoft did, and that's the whole reason they've purchase several of Nintendo's major developers including Rareware; a company who quite frankly set the bar that only Halo was capable of reaching for Console FPS games.

Perfect Dark, is the flagship title of the X-Box 360. Like it or not Joanna, is the console's official Mascot. Believe me, you thought Halo 1/2 were good fps games... just wait. You'll soon find out why the hell Rare are the Daddy of FPS games.

That's where depth comment came from.

The main reason I like Sony (for next gen consoles) is the game library. When I get a PS3 it will play PS1, PS2, and PS3(PS3 was designed with that from the start. XBOX 360 will only play some XBOX(as of current data) and Rev won't play GC(Different disc formats) or anything else.I own a GBA SP also for that reason. If DS played GB/GBC I'd buy one.

PS2/XBOX I also use as a DVD player.

PS2 (with slim line) is now the most portable and I work away from home. GC is still portable, but doesn't play movies and I don't want to lug around more than one system. I have a GC, but the only titles I've bought for it are the "exclusive" titles (Mario, Zelda etc... ). When I want a game I look at on which system does the game give me the most for my money if it's multiplatform (this is usually XBOX for graphical edge). Nintendo is very fond of gimmicks, VBoy(a dissmal failure), the GB(camera), the (Pokemon talk toy), the powerglove, the dancepad, DS(Dual screen with the pen). There have been similar gimmicks by Sony (eyeToy, etc..), but nintendo has tried to push them as innovation. Fact is though kids like bright colors and gimmicks(the latest and coolest). Nintendo has survived on marketing because is has a different audience. The consoles are aimed at different audiences. Nintendo was designed for kids(Yes there are "M" games for it). Sony and MS geared their consoles toward an older audience. Multi-player on GC is real person based and the other 2 are virtual I think this is simply because of how the consoles are geared. Multiplayer for kids should be between kids. Teen-Adult between T-A. That is a much larger group and needs networking. T-A are looking for greater challenges in multiplayer because human vs AI is to simple. Kids simply want to play with friends. For kids multiplay is more social than competitive and then other way around for T-A.

Finnally as for my other argument Yes, Nintendo was king. At that moment Sony is and looks to continue that way next console gen. MS made a good play(losing money for higher market share to carry to their 2nd console). But in the end Sony is on top now and looks to continue that way.

P.S. One more fact in May 2005 (latest month for which their is data) PS2 out sold GC and XBOX put together.

Finally if you don't believe me...
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/491/491439p1.html
The article is from 2 Yrs ago and hasn't changed much since.

It will actually. That`s why it has pads ports in it even though it uses wireless controlers. They`re hidden behind the plassic panel at the front.
I don`t want to pick a hole in your argument over a petty thing. Just wanted you to know incase it affects which console you buy. Personaly I don`t see the big deal over backwards compatibilty. I don`t expect my console to brake in a years time and if there aren`t any games for the currant system after a few years that beat the games for the last system then they`ve got some serious problems.

True MiR.(I stand corrected, I guess Nintendo can be taught) I looked up more Rev info, recently.

Also as Raven stated Nintedo is the only one with hardware profits. That's because MS and Sony put more money into their systems and took a hardware loss for a software gain. It's a bet that so far has worked out for them.

Some new PS3 screenshots were released from a playable developer demo.
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748465/imgs_1.html
the one dated 7/21/05 are the developer demo ones. The other are from movies shown at E3.

I thought that was a big selling point for the Playstation 2, the back compatibility. Fact is, I still use my PSone rather than my PS2 for playing them because the PS2 doesn't always render them correctly. Either with artifacts, lines, etc.

Sure there are a handful of other PSone game I liked, but considering I can play Metal Gear Solid on my GameCube with far better graphics, cut-scenes, etc. and Medal of Honor on my PC. Why on earth would I want to play the ratty old PSone versions with more difficult controls and half the gameplay?



Do your research before spouting off. The Revolution has fully backward compatibility with the GameCube.

You can play using it's discs, controllers and memory cards. Try using the Playstation Memory Cartidges with Playstation 2 games, or vice-versa. It doesn't work.



This is Microsoft covering thier asses. They're only testing and tweaking the emulation software with a handful of popular games. It doesn't mean others won't be supported, but there is no guarentee.
Atleast they're being realistic about thier features rather than claiming 100% back compatiblity, something the Playstation 2 and no doubt the Playstation 3 just won't have.



After 5years meaning you want to have something portable you have to not only buy a new machine (which given my PS2 oddly broke down shortly before the PS2-Slim was released, as did many other peoples) which STILL costs more for dated technology.

I'd also like to point out the weight and size difference between the PS2-Slim and GameCube isn't that much either. I'd also like to say it took them 5years to finally package QUALITY hardware.

The controller finally feels sturdy and well built, not to mention it's lasted longer without breaking than any of my previous PS2 controllers. Same goes for the console, no doubt I'll have to wait another 5 years for them to release the PS3-Mini that will have some REAL quality to it. Oh and should I mention the fact that it costs £120 to get a PS2-Slim, where-as it still costs only £70 to get a GameCube (which HAS survived with the original hardware for the entire lifetime of the GameCube console).



The Dancemat was introduced for the Playstation. Again get your facts right.



Prince of Persia, Beyond Good & Evil, and 007 Nightfire have all looked far better using the GameCubes FSAA and HD Gaming technology, not to mention run smoother, been £10 cheaper, and NO LOADING TIMES. Sorry but, why the hell would you want to purposely wait 5minutes for a level to load when you can be playing within seconds?



Nintendo's own games are aimed at a BROADER audience, not just adults. It's just this dumbass American thought pattern that 'Cartoon = For Kids'; yeah go back to smacking up your bitch in GTA3, a game that quite frankly an embaressement to the entire series and the lastest affair with ESRB quite frankly is something that is a small win on the side of decency.

I don't care a lick about game Ratings, but what I do care about is Rockstar's flagrant disregard for decency in thier video games. Take2 and Rockstar are the ONLY companies in recent years to be getting the flak from the media and activists. You know why?
It's because of the content of the games they're pushing.

I don't believe for a second that Microsoft and Sony are any more commited to providing for a more adult audience. This choice is 100% up to the publishers and developers, it is also the choice of the publishers on whether to support the Nintendo console. This last generation they've chosen not to. Quite frankly I find it offensive that people try and throw something in the face of the console something that quite frankly is out of the control of the console and company itself.

Nintendo went out of thier way to get rid of the old Assembly System, and provide a full C-Based OpenGL Rendering System, using easy to program Central and Graphic Processors. They dropped the price of thier SDK, and opened up thier doors to allow more developers than ever before to produce games for thier system.

It's the publishers that often decided that the GameCube market was too much fo a risk. I don't know why the hell they believe that, but what pisses me off is because they deny developers to create games for the said console, then no more unit are sold creating a vicious cycle.

People see the range of games on the other 2 platform being "better" simply because there are more. This is complete bull, just like it's complete bull that the X-Box is capable of better visuals. It isn't, the GameCube has the current leading graphical ability.

Creating Half-Life 2 on the GameCube would've been far easier and more true to the PC version thant doing it on the X-Box. The same goes for Doom 3. It precisely because of bullcrap like that from developers only supporting the small world they know of that really ticks me off.

What exactly has stopped Epic creating Unreal 3 for the Revolution? NOTHING, it's the same god damn hardware as the X-Box 360. The only thing stopping them is THEM.



Bollocks.
Over Christmas 2004 the X-Box outsold the newly released Playstation 2 Slim. Sony claimed it was because they didn't produce enough to keep up with orders, I don't give a flying monkies what they did or didn't do. Fact was that Microsoft were able to supply the hardware to make them #1 over the crucial Christmas period.

Sony might still have 50% of the market, but that doesn't matter.
No one can explain the success of Sony, that includes the company themselves. That's why they're not changing a thing about thier next generation console apart from making it seem more "bling".

They're betting that not screwing with the formula will keep thier current userbase who are all 'graphics = awesome' crowd. I believe they're going to get a shock though.

As I said, while Nintendo may not be selling the most hardware units. Fact still remains they're making the most money, and they have a very loyal userbase who have used thier hardware for years.

Sony have fanatics. They amp because Sony gets all of the "must have" games, just look at what happened when Resident Evil 4 was released on the GameCube. More over look at how the Sony crowd are reacting to the heaping pile of zero-atmosphere manure that happens to be the PS2 version of the game. Every graphical enhancement, stripped from the game... wow the PS2 can achieve the same polycount, amazing. That on it's own must suddently convert me to the retarded side.

Yeah. Sony have had thier time, but graphics alone won't win the next console war. Everyone claimed Nintendo would be down and out by now just like Sega. What we see is a company in one of the strongest positions to date not even close to dead but biding it's time.

It is time for another leap. With the SNES to Playstation / N64, the jump was to 3D. With the last generation it was just better graphics, but in all the same old stuff. Sony are betting on a 3rd graphics generation, but as the PC Market clearly is showing... gamers are getting tired of graphics alone.

Sure you'll amp about them, but when when you realise that's all there is to them. Interest dies. Nintendo and Microsoft are both betting that gamers will want more than pure pretty graphics.

Nintendo hasn't out lasted 4 competitors over the years (Sega, Amiga, Atari, and NeoGeo) just to loose it all to the new commer based on thier own freaking hardware. Sony can lie and cheat thier way to the top all they want. In my eyes the GTA3 series is perfect for thier console. Doesn't mean that they know what they're doing.

Just look at the handheld market. They don't have a clue what the gamer wants. Only reason they lucked out with the mainstream consoles is because of the developers backing them.

What do you think would happen is both Capcom and Square-Enix decided they were going to rekindle thier Nintendo roots? Ubisoft's demographics have also clearly shown that gamers prefer either the GameCube or the PC for thier games. It's clear to see that the games that don't have you locked away in a dark room on your own for several hours at a time happen to be more loved on the GameCube.

That's how I view the X-Box and Playstation 2. Consoles for the sad and friendless. Each console does have a good game or two, but as I said... there are just so damn many good games on the Cube. WITH PLAYABILITY!



Over the last 6months, 3 out of the top 5 selling games were on the Nintendo GameCube. Most GameCube games will sell far more units than the X-Box or Playstation games, simply because GameCube owners generally buy more games because a) they can actually afford to, b) because generally a game will reach more of the overally gamer population.

What's more considering all of Nintendo's games are published by Nintendo and not third party. This means that they get a bigger chunk of the money back (despite thier games being cheaper).

So to answer your question. No I don't think Sony or Microsoft are making even close to what Nintendo are right now.

Sony just dropped $1.2billion on the development cost for the Playstation 3. Microsoft dropped $350million. Nintendo have spent less than $150million.

Yet Sony are only 2x more powerful than the rivals, and Microsoft is equal to Nintendo. Visual might 'wow' you, but at the end of the day it's about playability. Something most Sony companies know nothing about.

man raven your posts are fricken long!

...i hate reading.

Raven one question.
Which console has sold the most units of any gaming system ever period?

The answer in millions shipped worldwide: (From an industry report in 1/05)
1: 118.69 GB/GBC (69.42GB /49.27 GBC)
2: 101.73 PS
3: 81.39 PS2
4: 65.74 GBA
5: 61.78 NES
6: 49.02 SNES
7: 32.93 N64
8: 30.75 Genesis
9: 19.90 XBox
10: 18.02 GC
11: 10.60 DC
12: 9.26 Saturn
13: 8.65 Game Gear
14: 2.84 DS
15: 0.51 PSP

I have the stats for others if you want.

I would rather see the report for myself, because those figures seem like bullcrap to me.

PSP and DS are alot higher by now. I'll look for the link to the report.
Also of note sales of the Atari 2600 increased in 2004 vs 2003. Radio Shack sells it by special order(Although it's just old unsold originally shipped units so supplies are running low get them while you can nostalgia buffs).

Nintendo does not reuse, they just think of new ideas and would like to get them out to people by using familiar faces. And plus they have others that don't get as much limelight:
Earthbound
Pikmin
Fire Emblem
F-Zero
Star Fox
Zelda
Animal Crossing
Metroid

And plus think of the sport Mario games as Nintendos answer to 989 sports, and the old XSN and EA SPORTS.

I'm pretty sure that those figures are in the right ballpark - the order at least appears to be correct.



Someone has been taking flamebait pills again. Any monkey can tell you that isn't true - if you look at the IGN head-to-head reviews, the XBox almost always comes out top in the graphics department, and you cannot blame it on inept developers. I like my GC as much as the next Nintendo fanboy, but the XBox has a more powerful processor, more RAM and a faster GPU - and it shows.

I suspect Nintendo will become a player somewhat like Apple in the PC market - small but omnipresent. Nintendo really need to innovate on their software titles as well. I have no interest in buying umpteen Mario-sport clones (Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Lacross, Mario Pub-Crawl etc.). There hasn't been a major Nintendo title for quite a while, and I don't think that the current generation of consoles has seen a serious new franchise emerge from them either.

LMAO. I don`t know I could see myselfgetting that game. If only fora laugh.

How about Metroid Prime? Personaly I think it`s the most boring game I have on my GC but alot of people love it and think it`s the best game for the console. (If that`s their taste then it might explain why todays games are so bad)
Nintendo aren`t realy doing any worse than they were on the N64. Mario wasn`t as inovative and the Zelda game wasn`t the best thing since sliced bread(though the new Zelda could take that title) but they did reintroduce the metroid series. I think the main problem with them ths generation is the fact that they have no Rare to back them up. No Goldeneye for multiplayer. No Banjo for people who have completed Mario.

Screenshots on GameSpy/IGN to me look identical between GameCube and X-Box when a title is multiplatform. The Playstation 2 often has lower resolution textures.

Playing a game on your actual TV and the story changes completely.
For starters games like Beyond Good & Evil will run in Widescreen HD 720i on both Consoles. On the X-Box however you can quite clearly see that when you activate this mode it struggles to reach 30fps, in-fact when there are some more action intense areas the game starts to show serious signs of low-fps.

On the GameCube this just doesn't happen period. The only time I've seen my GameCube ever even start to show signs of the FPS dropping below a reasonable level, is in Billy Hatcher & The Giant Egg. I had over 200 Enemies on-screen at once and at the top of the circus level viewing right back to the starting point (which is a HUGE draw distance). Even then the slow-down wasn't noticable by any of my friends, only my brother who was like 'woah, gc is struggling'

The games that really show signs of stress on the X-Box are Halo and Doom 3. In Single-Player it can just about handle it at the standard resolution, again in action intense moments (more than 15 enemies on-screen at once) and the whole thing starts to crash in speed. In HD Mode, quite frankly it's unplayable.

While yes they do appear to be more games that look better on the whole, the fact remains that this is down to the sheer number of games produced that are focusing on graphics.

It has yet to be proven that the X-Box is actually more powerful in terms of Graphics. While yes the theoretical numbers look impressive (80million polygons per second), the reality is much different.

Theoretically my FX 5200 is capable of pushing 250million polygons per second. If this were true this would mean it could achieve 2,500,000 polygons per scene. Sorry but the performance of my card is closer to 500,000 polygons Textured, and 250,000 polygons Shaded.

This means that it can push around 15million Per Second. This is roughly the same as the performance of the GameCube's ATI-Based GPU. For me this seems about right.

As we all know the GeForce 3 GPU power-wise just can't touch even the GeForce FX 5200 Standard GPU in speed. We can forget for the second the huge drop in IQ that Shader 1.1 has to 1.4/2.0.

As far as CPU's go, again theoretically yes the X-Box Pentium 3 CPU is capable of out-performing (Floating-Point wise) the GameCube PPC 403 GPU. Yet, in the same breath the Playstation 2 TX79 CPU is actually capable of (again Floating-Point wise) out performing the X-Box by almost 3x the speed.

As we all know the real-world scenario of the X-Box vs Playstation 2 does seem to look like a different story. Fact really remains though that despite the technical differences, the GameCube itself is most likely capable of pushing more polygons in a game situation than the X-Box, not to mention being able to do it with more complex Shaders for a better Image Quality.

All of this also will run flawlessly at a speed of 50/60FPS at HD 1080i. The reason it appears the X-Box can shift 2x the polycount is quite a simple fact.

Doom 3 & Halo 2 run at 30fps... Resident Evil 4 at 60fps.
So if they could push the same polycount at 60fps, the X-Box would be able to squeeze around 70-80% more polygons from a reduced overall speed. This also contributes to showing more when the game can't handle it.

A point I might add is that Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube on a HDTV is Sharp, Graphically Beautiful (you can't see half the effect in-game in screenshots, you just can't. How do you portray motion blur in screenshots?), Pushing just as many polygons as Halo 2 (no seriously), Multiple Shader effects including HDR, Normal Mapping, Fire, Dust, etc.

Quite simply put, the X-Box is only in Theory the most powerful system. In practise all of the systems are physically capable of pushing very similar polygon counts. As far as physics, etc. go there is no difference in the CPU power of the X-Box and GameCube.

It's all down to how the Cube is designed and not what is inside the machine. Both the X-Box and Playstation 2 have deliberate bottle necks (just as the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3 do) in order to cut development costs, while providing these 'multimedia' machines. The GameCube was designed for a single purpose, Games. As such the quality of the hardware and design just wasn't put behind the cost of the materials.

The way I see it, the GameCube is capable of more. Just because the games you've seen on the machine have been unable to bring out that potencial like the X-Box and Playstation 2 developers doesn't mean that Microsoft' are right to boast thier machine as the most powerful. Quite frankly I've not been overly impressed by the visuals on the X-Box ever. Considering the power they claim the machine has, it just hasn't been able to achieve the same level of graphics as Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Resident Evil 4, Starfox Adventures. When you do seem games running with similar graphics you can't run them in HD Mode, and they're quite obviously running at 30fps rather than 60fps.

To me that doesn't look like it has more power, it looks like developers trying to squeeze far more out of a system that was built up to a point where people believe it's the best when in-fact it is just about holding it's own.

Hell, look at Killzone and God of War on the Playstation 2, they look pretty fantastic. The X-Box has Halo 2 which while sure, has bump and specular everywhere... really doesn't look that much better.

Sorry but on a bog standard TV, each system renders out roughly the same picture quality. The X-Box has Shaders which makes games look a bit better, but the GameCube Shaders quite often are better quality. So it generally comes down to textures, which only the Playstation 2 lags behind with.

On a HDTV though the playing field completely changes.
I still think that the GameCube could quite easily provide the same level of quality as a mid-range PC with Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 if ports were made.

We'll never know though because developers just refuse to touch a so-called 'minority market'. Yet look at the overall sales and the X-Box has sold what, a few million more units. The difference between the two is less that 1% of the entire demographic.

Not like the 50% market share the Playstation 2 has. It's all about over-hype, once a system has that ... then people buy them in droves, when that happens developers despite how hard it is to developer for will always develop on that system.

Is it really nessicary to post 2 pages worth of reply? Simply state a few facts. Not all of them.

There s an advantage in saving many of your facts for later use, only bringing out enough to pwn your opponent.

I had no clue GC only had 350~ games out. Some publishers (mostly EA) do rig their games to look better on Xbox it seems, so I typically get multiplatform games for that. Gamecube does have the most interesting titles, Xbox merely serves to feed my need for the developers that MS snatched up (including Bungie of course), and to play shooters that wouldn't run on my PC-like Pariah. Which has pretty cool single player btw.

OMG!!!! It looks like I have a whooole lotta facts and statements to correct... most of them by Raven...but oh well...


Yep, they sure are.


Is that why Sony are intending to make PS3 Online-ready from the get-go? I don't think so. Is that also why PS2 currently have the largest online community of any Next-Gen console. Gimme a break. And is that also why PS2 has the largest number of online games available to their console? You must be joking. I rest my case.


In other words, milking the company mascot for all he's worth.


How about...



Correction: Sony still haven't learn this industry used to belong to Nintendo.

Regarding the whole " Which console is lightest" thing, The slimline PS2 was released because fans didn't like the bulkiness of the machine. I mean, The Gamecube might as well be called the GameBrick, and I could stick two Xboxs on the end of a bar and go olympic weight-training with it.


My guess is, the reason for this is that, as you yourself stated, the console was newly-released, and as such, didn't have enough time to secure advertising and whathaveyou. Also, your making it sound as thought it's a brand-new machine, when in fact it was basically a request from the general public.


Notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Gamecube, obviously meaning that Gamecube did the worst in terms of popularity over Crimbo 2004.

It seems that a few people has got this misunderstood, predetermined misconception that PS2 and Sony focus mainly on graphics. This is not at all true, and I can say this as a Sony fan and as a not-bothered-which-one-is-best-person. Of course, I am not a not-bothered-which-one-is-best-person, but you know what I mean.
Just because PS3 is geared to have the most powerful and better graphics of all 3 next gen consoles does not mean that it is all they are focusing on.
On the contrary, it is quite the opposite. Just check this out...
http://uk.playstation.com/features/featureStory.jhtml;jsessionid=TJ3JSGIYWAJHMCQSBLUR2RQ?storyId=106949_en_GB_FEAT&linktype=PC115

Just to underline the main points -
...Our development philosophy is more fan-led, rather than reacting to what a competitor did. We follow our own path and get reactions from the players who enjoy Soulcalibur.

...I feel that it's not really about the specifications of the hardware, it's more what your game is about - what's your motif, what's your theme? As such, like I mentioned earlier, it's more of a player-led development. We'll look at how they react to new hardware and react accordingly.


I agree. In fact, I believe that this has already happened.


Which is, quite possibly, the reason why the Gamecube is losing out on sales right now. Forget all this Graphical Mumbo-Jumbo you were spouting earlier, the way I see it - The gamecube is least popular because it has no multimedia support, and, it's sole purpose
- games - is wasted because, to be quite frank, it has none. (or any of any value, at least). Basically it is a machine with no valid reason of being, exept of course to please Ninty and it's sad little fans.


Huh, that's a laugh. Don't blame Nintendo's Failures on the developers, it just makes you look like a hyped-up fanboy.


You obviously haven't researched hard enough. This may be a new idea to you, but why don't you check out PS2's website? You never know, you might learn something new.

Well, their are also alot more kinks in Ravens facts, but I can't be bothered to sort out any more...

Oh and one more thing - If I hear one more "Quite Frankly", I have a feeling that my rake and Raven's ass will become a little more friendly, if you know what I'm on about.

Well see ya all,

--[NYTMAYRE]--

P.S Check out my up-coming thread - Which is better? DS or PSP?

Heh Heh Heh.

You guys are funny.

It has a network connection. Whoopdi-freaking-do.
So does the X-Box, and GameCube.



Wrong. The X-Box does. Why? Because it has X-Box Live! which makes getting online easier, quicker and more community based.

I don't play any games online on my PS2, I don't know anyone else who does either. Further more the Playstation 2 DOES NOT have the largest online game collection. The X-Box does.

Over 3/4 of the titles released with Multiplayer Options are X-Box Live! Compatible. This is roughly half of the entire X-Box catalog currently on the market.

What are Sony doing to correct this issue? Nothing. There are no enhancements to SonyOnline or PlayOnline. Even Final Fantasy XI Online, is being remade for the X-Box 360 because of the Live! support but there will be no Playstation 3 version.

Microsoft and Nintendo are making sure to provide an online community not just support.



No, it's an identifiable character. There is a difference between Milking a Character (aka Lara Croft) and using them in order to provide a base with which to create a new game.

Pokémon on the other hand IS being milked. If you want a target to attack, then attack the right one numbnuts.



From where I sit, while the GameCube might only own 25% of the overall market share with X-Box. If you include the bigger picture to include handhelds then Nintendo happen to be out-performing everyone else with technology that is over 2 decades old.

Not to mention they've sold over 4x more Nintendo DS, than the PSP.. which puts them at roughly the same number of DS sold world wide as GameCube. After only 12months.

Yeah, I'm so sure that Sony obviously stole the crown.



The Playstation 2 Slim, which was originally the Playstation X. Has nothing to do with the fans what so ever. Only Sony can rerelease the exact same hardware 5years on, using new prefrabrication techniques to retail for the same damn cost. And everyone feels it's some monumental break-through.

The GameCube weight the same is not lighter than the PS2-Slim, which I'm wondering actually. Where's the MultiMedia Control Promised? Where's the DVD-R Promised? Where's the built-in HDD Promised? Well?

They all disappeared along with the promised Playstation X. It's all about hype as far as the consumers are conserned and Sony are simply the best hype mongers right now. Hype is a funny thing though, sometimes it can work in your favour (Half-Life 2) and other times it can totally screw you over (Doom 3).



No, Sony's sales are most due to the fact that almost everyone's Playstation 2 died. We needed new machines capable of actually playing games. This wasn't something that affected just me, because you just go back to over Christmas and you'll see a number of posts from people who were bitching about thier PS2's recently dying.

I wouldn't be surprised if half the number sold were to previous Playstation 2 owners who needed to buy new hardware because Sony wanted to charge them for repairs.



I don't care how popular the GameCube is, I know from the perspective of you Sony freaks that it's considered a minor console despite the fact that it's actually head-to-head with the X-Box still.

I'm just pointing out that Microsoft were capable of delivering what the consumers wanted. Sony couldn't.



Soul Calibur, the game that let me think. Now which Console did that game originally appear on? Oh wait it's on the tip of my tounge.

No doubt Capcom (the lying cheating backstabbing bastards they are) would say the entire reason for Resident Evil 4 being developed for the Playstation 2 was "for the fans". Yes it makes for a very nice Sony Fanboy feel good peice. Doesn't make it true.

And this quote:


That's just thier pleasent way of trying to say "The Playstation 2 was limiting us!". In-fact an earlier quote:



Says it all doesn't it. Especially as another comment makes mention that some things had to be sacified because of it being multiplatform. Yet there is no mention of the X-Box or GameCube being "limiting" the potencial. As the current screenshots of Soul Caliber III clearly show, obviously the other machines were NOT the source of the limitations.

By remaining purely on the Playstation 2 this time, quite frankly is destroying the Fanbase that has been built on the X-Box who don't have many good fighting games, and the GameCube where thier largest fanbase since the demise of Sega's Dreamcast are.

If that's listening to thier fans then obviously they're ignoring over half of them.



Right now total world units sold (according to DPS) is

Sony Playstation 2 (Slim) 68million Units
Microsoft X-Box 31million Units
Nintendo GameCube 30million Units

To me that's hardly a huge game. What's more you take Asia out of the equasion, the scores change drastically.

PS2 - 38million
XB - 22million
GC - 20million

This might seem like a huge amount of sales, but at the end of the day Sony and Microsoft are still making an overall loss on thier hardware which is only made back through the games themselves, which need to constantly be advertised.

Nintendo might be at the bottom of the heap in overall sales, point is they're the ones who are currently making the most money. That's just for the GameCube.



Really? See now this is the thing isn't it. Because I see a huge selection of games I want to buy on the GameCube... too many for me to own them all. For the Playstation 2 I have less than 20 games, all of which I really wanted but the end results of those games weren't what I'd hoped for, more over I'm not sitting here thinking "OMG I MUST HAVE THIS!" with any current PS2 game in development. I haven't felt that way for over a year.

Recently got God of War. Before that I got Killzone. They're alright, best games on the PS2 certainly. Once I completed them though, I've not really had the urge to replay them. £45 for games that will probably forever more sit on my shelf.

Yet, I go back and replay all of my Nintendo and quite a few of my X-Box games. I don't use my PS2 for DVD, I either use my X-Box which has Surround Sound built-in.. or I go downstairs.

So lets see... I have a much smaller PS2 library than GC, I don't really replay any of those games. Oh but the PS2 does have a bigger library of overall games. What the hell is the point in a larger library of crap games.

Put simple most of the best PS2 games have been multiplatform with the X-Box or PS2. X-Box offers better graphics, as does the GameCube. GameCube is cheaper by £10. It's not exactly a hard choice in my mind.



This is obviously comming from someone who has never played on a GameCube and believes in the Sony press that it's a "non-issue". God you know what, I hope to hell Nintendo provide Sony with the stern cold wake-up call to what this industry should be about.

The games. They have the most inventive library of games and developers providing the largest selection of variety you could ever ask for. Often providing them with the loveable heros that many of us (obviously not you) but those of us who weren't still in diapers 10years ago and seem to believe that Sony created the gaming industry, remember in the landmark games of the industry.

Obviously you really prefer the whole, Jak vs Rachet arguement... despite the obvious fact that they're identical sodding games. Or maybe you want a war-sim. I mean the choices are amazing... It's like Battlefield 1942, or Medal of Honor, or or I know some other generic WW2 FPS.

You know why the PC Gaming Industry seems to marvel whenever companies like id or valve make a new game? Because they're the best? No, it's pretty much because we hope for some god damn innovation that hasn't happened in over a decade.

Half-Life 2 is amazing with it's graphics but in the end your still running around mindlessly shooting with some minor character interaction. That for us is AWESOME, cause we have [censored] all else. Console developers could do so damn much more. They have more resources to provide more graphical bang for your buck. Everyone is guarenteed to have much larger storage than CD-Rom, so they can fit more media into a game. They can stream everything so you don't have to worry about loading times.

What do they do with this innovation? Repacked exactly what you've played 1000x before and try to tell you it's new.

I'm trying so hard to think of a game for the Playstation 2 which actually innovated anything. I can't think of one. Best I can think of is Final Fantasy with it's battle system. Then again everything else about the game remains identical.

Resident Evil on the Playstation 2, again nothing really changed.

How about Jak... what changed from game to game? Not a whole hell of a lot. 3 games the exact same damn thing over and over again.

You look at the GameCube variations.
Crystal Chronicles was one of the most innovative examples of how an RPG can grow and become multiplayer I've ever seen. It looks gorgeous and plays fantastically. You don't do the generic leveling up you'd do in other games, it's all about the story and the closely knitt game areas.

Resident Evil 4 transformed the games to a whole new level. Even the Remake and Zero games provided new things to the game.. made them feel more involved and closer to the player. They didn't just remake the game they provided a new take on the story while being true to the original. That in itself is a hard task.

The closest thing to Jak on the GC is Mario. Yes underneath it will a very similar game to the N64 version, the improvements of physics, puzzles and design. Provided it with one hell of a worthy upgrade from Mario64.



Sales would suggest Nintendo are quite happily keeping up with the competition. I don't see them being a failiar.

I do however blame developers/publishers for not developing enough games for it, particularly multiplatform games.
Best example I know of right now is Tomb Raider Legend.

Developed for the PC, XB, XB360, and PS2. Where the hell is the GameCube version? Your going to try and tell me it's Nintendo's fault that Eidos and Crystal Dynamics aren't developing a GameCube version?

That would be bullcrap and you know it. But you Sonytards reveal in the whole fact that because the PS2 has sold enough units they're supported. X-Box is supported simply because it's a PC. Where does that leave Nintendo? It leaves them with just as few games, so Nintendo work thier asses off to provide thier gamers with enough variety in thier own games to compensate.



Well let's see, in the past few months I've provided a technical overview and debate on the hardware. Covered the facts of what each company has provided in terms of the information realised.

And yes I visit the Sony website. Far more than what any adverage gamer will be doing. You know what I've found? Sony constantly pushing the fact that thier system will be far more graphically capable. Every review, every interview, every new video.

Created with the illusion that your gaming hardware will actually be capable of what they're promising. When the current fact is thier processor is almost equal speed to the X-Box 360 in real-life situations. What's more the graphical potencial of the system will only provide better performance in a handful of situations, and you will not be able to play all games in HD mode.

Oh and if you fancy boasting over the PC performance. While sure the RSX can outperform the G70 in performance tests, the CPU and system bottlenecks this performance. Combine this with the fact that the Cell processor is actually capable of 1/2 the performance of an Athlon64 3.2GHz or Pentium D 3.2GHz... if that.

Well sure it'll achieve slightly better performance than the X-Box 360, but really no it's not going to be able to push Killzone 2.
Technically to achieve that level of graphics will be impossible, in-fact running Unreal 3 and Gear of War will probably push both machines pretty much to thier limits.

At the moment both Sony and Microsoft are in a pissing contest with thier cards out on the table to wow the punters.

The GameCube as a peice of hardware isn't weak. Far from it.
As far as the titles available go, again it isn't exactly struggling for awesome games.

I say bring on the PS3, cause with Itowa now at the helm. I firmly believe that Nintendo are changing, internally and externally.

[Talking in German for no reason]

Den poste war sehr lange

[/talking in german for no reason]

Doh.

I will also like to add that gamecube can play all GBA and GB games with no problem.