# Reasons to NOT BUY a Ps2



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

I dare you to find a reason NOT to buy one..as for me i have none i love the system.


----------



## Rixxster (Oct 23, 2007)

A reason why not to buy a ps2?

maybe becuase its kinda old and the graphics are becoming shiter each time you buy a new game for like pc and you go back to the ps2 graphics makes me want to cry and theyv stoped bringing the new games out on ps2 so its pointless


----------



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

ps2 is not that and with graphics tho, however i have seen pretty bad graphics on it that make the n64 look better


----------



## TheGru (Oct 23, 2007)

It's about as durable as a glass plate, that is to say, one 5 foot drop breaks it. Other than that however it's probably the best system of it's time, only because it was the one with all the games.


----------



## pinkplushii (Oct 23, 2007)

Because I already have one. :B Don't need two.


----------



## Rouge2 (Oct 23, 2007)

The PS2 is near the end of it's Life Cycle.


----------



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

Rouge2 said:
			
		

> The PS2 is near the end of it's Life Cycle.



your right it is..and if the ps3 does not get its act together it might go the way of cube


----------



## Eevee (Oct 23, 2007)

Er.  PS3 is no longer backwards-compatible, supposedly.


----------



## Deretto_Eevee (Oct 23, 2007)

The less-expenisive, not as much memory PS3 which I'm not sure whether has been released yet or not isn't backwards-compatible.


----------



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Er.  PS3 is no longer backwards-compatible, supposedly.



thats ether the biggest lie ever or the dumbest thing sony ever done


----------



## Tarrock (Oct 23, 2007)

Here's a question to answer your question.

Why shouldn't you buy a sega genesis?


----------



## Janglur (Oct 23, 2007)

A reason you SHOULD buy a PS2:

The PS3 can't play PS2 games.


----------



## Krystalynn (Oct 23, 2007)

[size=medium]Because the PC has more lastability than consoles..[/size]


----------



## Rixxster (Oct 23, 2007)

Krystalynn said:
			
		

> [size=medium]Because the PC has more lastability than consoles..[/size]



i agree with that, games wil always be avalible for pcs unless the OS wont let you but i dowt that lol 

Pc is my 1# gaming Platform


----------



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

Tarrock said:
			
		

> Here's a question to answer your question.
> 
> Why shouldn't you buy a sega genesis?



I own 3


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 23, 2007)

Because those slim models overheat about as quickly as a defective Xbox 360.


----------



## Brooklyn (Oct 23, 2007)

A note about the backward-compatibility of PS3s:

The people who jumped at the chance to own one have fully-compatible, backward-compatible, PS3s. The whiny-turds that complained about the price don't get them now that the cheaper models are out. You get what you pay for.

I can still play a PSX /launch title/ on mine.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 23, 2007)

^ WOW.  I cannot find words to suitably mock this level of arrogance.  No wonder you bought a PS3; you view Sony's customers the same way they do.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 23, 2007)

Doesn't (or more properly, _shouldn't_) Sony at least have plans for PSX/PS2 emulators on the PS3?


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 23, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> A note about the backward-compatibility of PS3s:
> 
> The people who jumped at the chance to own one have fully-compatible, backward-compatible, PS3s. The whiny-turds that complained about the price don't get them now that the cheaper models are out. You get what you pay for.
> 
> I can still play a PSX /launch title/ on mine.



lawl, your a perfect Sony customer. A WINNAR IS YOU.

FYI, Sony's wanging up BC because they want to save money and they also want people to stop buying PS2 games.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 23, 2007)

The word on PS3 BC is the following.

The 20 and 60 gig models have 100% BC. They are the ones with the full PS2 chipset. 
The 80 gig has about 70% BC, as the PS2 EE chip is removed. There's a full BC list on Playstation.com somewhere, but be warned, 70% is a high number, but lots of games are left out in the cold.
The 40 gig has NO PS2 BC at all, nor are plans to add in the future. All PS2 chips are removed.

The only reason I own a 60 gig is 400 dollars of trade in credit at a local mom and pop store and not wanting to have Sony fuck me over on BC. I honestly would have waited at least one more year otherwise, but I have a fair amount of PS2 games, I play FFXI and there's loads of PS2 games I want to go back and play. This will however bite Sony in the ass and as a retailer, i'm not looking happy to this hoilday season trying to explain what the deal is to folks who pick up a 40 gig. One more reason Sony's sucking hind tit, but hey, they got customers like Brooklyn there, I'm sure 3rd place will suit them just fine.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 24, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> FYI, Sony's wanging up BC because they want to save money and they also want people to stop buying PS2 games.


Given that there are popular games not even released yet that are still coming out for the PS2 (Rock Band)...  you'd think they would wonder if they're doing something wrong.  Like, you know, treating their customer base as a disposable resource.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 24, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Foxstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we might see another price drop for the PS2 before Christmas.  Maybe all the way down to $99.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 24, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> A note about the backward-compatibility of PS3s:
> 
> The people who jumped at the chance to own one have fully-compatible, backward-compatible, PS3s. The whiny-turds that complained about the price don't get them now that the cheaper models are out. You get what you pay for.



Australia didn't even backwards-compatibility, we only got the dodgey software emulation.
Fuck you Sony.


----------



## DragonRift (Oct 24, 2007)

From personal experience, I'd say the PS3 would be the reason to not buy a PS2.  However, since the 60GB is no longer in production (and was the last model that's 100% backwards-compatible), a PS2 is almost something you CAN'T live without.

I imagine the Slimline getting even cheaper in less than a year, and that'll be the best bang for your buck if you want to keep your PS2 classics alive.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Oct 24, 2007)

My PS2 is invincible, I don't care what anyone else says. I got it when it first came out in like 2001 or some crap like that and it still works dispite numberous attemps to kill it. If it can survive; kicks, soda, being beaten if its own controler, stepped on by my 200 pound father, having a BB lodged inside it, the first controller port being ripped to hell, my fatass dog (weighed 125 at the time) sitting on it, being dropped onto a concereat floor, hit with a golf club, being punched, pistol whipped, having water poure on it, being thrown across a room, and being forced to play all the lord of the rings movies in a marathon non-stop. And the only things wrong are that it's stuck in German, only recognizes the controller if it has an extention cord, takes ten minutes to load a game, can't play blue bottomed disks, and thinks a dvd is a music cd. It's a damn good system, my Xbox crapped out after suffering only half that abuse. It's a fine ass system and the game liberary is extenive and awesome. There is no reason not to buy it.


----------



## Janglur (Oct 24, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> A note about the backward-compatibility of PS3s:
> 
> The people who jumped at the chance to own one have fully-compatible, backward-compatible, PS3s. The whiny-turds that complained about the price don't get them now that the cheaper models are out. You get what you pay for.
> 
> I can still play a PSX /launch title/ on mine.



'Splain why noone else could, then.  Target had four of them returned to my department because they wouldn't play jack shit.  Only PS2 game we could make them play was Eragon.  Unless by 'jump at' you mean some magical model only released in pre-order, and not the models that first showed up in stores, then i'm afraid you're full of it.

The PS3 originally had spotty emotion engine emulation to begin with.  Now, it's been entirely removed.  So much for the promises Sony made that unworking titles would be 'fixed in an update'.  Fah.
Sony hasn't delivered on a promise yet with the PS3.


----------



## lance.f (Oct 24, 2007)

I say the reason to not buy a ps2 is because you probobly have one allready


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 24, 2007)

> The PS3 originally had spotty emotion engine emulation to begin with. Now, it's been entirely removed.


But somewhere in the middle, one of the firmware updates fixed it.


----------



## lance.f (Oct 24, 2007)

Ps3 is a joke in my opinion, i neeeds games now


----------



## DragonRift (Oct 24, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> The PS3 originally had spotty emotion engine emulation to begin with.  Now, it's been entirely removed.  So much for the promises Sony made that unworking titles would be 'fixed in an update'.  Fah.
> Sony hasn't delivered on a promise yet with the PS3.



Actually, with their firmware updates over the past few months, my PS3 has been performing just as well as my PS2 did on all my games, including the once-glitchy PS1 titles.  The emotion chip works, and it works fine.

I imagine them doing the same crap with the PS4...  ~_~


----------



## Eevee (Oct 25, 2007)

Oh good, after a year of extra fiddling they can finally emulate their own hardware on something that was supposed to change the universe for the better and cure cancer.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 25, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Oh good, after a year of extra fiddling they can finally emulate their own hardware on something that was supposed to change the universe for the better and cure cancer.



Did everyone forget that the Xbox 360 doesn't even have full BC either?


----------



## Janglur (Oct 25, 2007)

Thus, we can see how this marvelous generation of consoles is, actually, still fail.



Viva la computer.


----------



## silvertwilight (Oct 25, 2007)

TheGru said:
			
		

> It's about as durable as a glass plate, that is to say, one 5 foot drop breaks it. Other than that however it's probably the best system of it's time, only because it was the one with all the games.



Unlike the gamecube which was later modified into a Japanese bomb shelter ^_^


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2007)

Silver R. Wolfe said:
			
		

> Did everyone forget that the Xbox 360 doesn't even have full BC either?


Careful there, inconvenient truths like that may get in the way of all their Sony bashing fun.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 25, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Silver R. Wolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Wii however, is, now be a good little gamer and go play with your Wii :wink:


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 25, 2007)

Silver R. Wolfe said:
			
		

> Eevee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did everyone forget the endless PR jabs by Sony at Microsoft for having less then 100% BC or how Microsoft made it clear BEFORE launch they just couldn't do 100%? 

Did everyone also forget that Microsoft has lost billions on billions of dollars on both Xboxes (7 billion, last time I checked) yet they aren't busy removing features in order to save money or removing features to get people to stop playing the older system's games on their newer system? OH WAIT.


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2007)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> The Wii however, is, now be a good little gamer and go play with your Wii :wink:


I personally think the Wii is a piece of cheap gimmicky crap and there hasn't been a single Nintendo game that caught my interest since the 9th grade. The platform couldn't innovate in the use of AI, physics or generative content if its existence depended on it because it was probably built with the contents of a PC World recycling bin. So they ripped off the gyro mouse motion control mechanism and hoped to god the casual audience wouldn't notice their latest system recycles the same franchises they have used for over a decade.

Now watch half the Internet gang rape me for daring to criticise the Wii.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 25, 2007)

Nintendo didn't set out to renovate videogame mathematics.  They set out to innovate the way games are truly _played_.

Kinda like how everybody first thought the DS was a gimmicky piece of plastic crap too.



> Oh good, after a year of extra fiddling they can finally emulate their own hardware on something that was supposed to change the universe for the better and cure cancer.


Where by comparison, PS2 could emulate PS1 games perfectly even out of the box, with the bonus option of filtered textures, too.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 25, 2007)

Silver R. Wolfe said:
			
		

> Eevee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has more support than the PS3.
The 360 site has a list of compatible games.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 25, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Silver R. Wolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/CompatibleStatus
http://faq.eu.playstation.com/bc/


----------



## DragonRift (Oct 26, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> It has more support than the PS3.
> The 360 site has a list of compatible games.



The 60GB PS3 completely contradicts your statement.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 26, 2007)

DragonRift said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



60GB PS3? What 60GB PS3?
http://www.cnet.com.au/games/ps3/0,239035763,339282710,00.htm


----------



## DragonRift (Oct 26, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> 60GB PS3? What 60GB PS3?
> http://www.cnet.com.au/games/ps3/0,239035763,339282710,00.htm



The 60GB PS3 I own and purchased less than two months ago.    Every single one of my PS2/PS1 games (including PS1 titles that didn't work on my PS2) work on my PS3, hence making it more backwards-compatible than my XBOX 360.

So, I know it's pretty much gone (aside from a few stores here and there that might have a handful left), but when it was out, their capability to play older games was far superior to the 360's.  I got it specifically because the emotion chip was going bye-bye.

Everyone may be SOL now, but my satisfaction has been achieved, so that's all that matters to me.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 26, 2007)

http://www.cnet.com.au/games/0,239029232,339273831,00.htm


> The Australian and European model of the PlayStation 3, which is set for launch on 23 March, 2007, will use different hardware specifications from the models already released in Japan on 11 November, 2006, and in the US on 17 November, 2006. Backwards compatibility is one of the key differences, with the new PS3s compatible with only a "limited range" of PS2 titles and a "broad range" of original PlayStation games. Ephraim said the main reason behind the different compatibilities is that Australian/European PS3s will not ship with the Emotion Engine chip installed.


We never had the full thing to start with.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 26, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Rilvor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why gang rape a batshit insane Fallout fan/PC elitest? You've likely got viruses within you that the CDC doesn't even know about and I happen to like my penis and my health. FYI, Nintendo's held patents on the various gryos that went in the Wiimote from the mid 80's. -1 points for crying about the 'causal' audience because causal gamers have driven video game sales from the launch of the PSone on. It's debateable that they started much sooner, with the launch of the Gameboy and Tetris.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 26, 2007)

Silver R. Wolfe said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh wow fantastic. 70%. That's just jawsome. It's SUCH a improvement from 100%! FYI, you don't own a PS3 do you? At least not till you can load it up with backups.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 26, 2007)

DragonRift said:
			
		

> Everyone may be SOL now, but my satisfaction has been achieved, so that's all that matters to me.



Too bad Sony needs 'everyone' to pull out of the massive 3rd place hole they've dug themselves into.


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> [snip]


They owned motion sensor patients since the 80s but they are only using it now? Oh that makes a whole lot of sense, why aren't they suing all these companies that used the same motion sensor technology before the Wii was ever conceived? They are profiting from a Nintendo patient apparently. Someone had better go warn Gyration that their 6+ year old motion sensing wirless mouse is ripping off Nintendo.

The fact of the matter is you have just supported my views, in the gamers eyes Nintendo cannot do wrong. They can release Zelda and Mario version 150+ and everyone will lap it up because it has a motion sensor or a power glove or a secondary screen or some other add on that distracts that they are playing the same old games using different input systems. There is a market for these sort of games but the moment people start thinking it is the path the whole industry should take they can shove it. The casual audience taking over already killed several of my favourite genres, I'll be damned if they infect the rest with a over simplified and shallow game play experience whose highlights are being able to swing the remote to swing a sword.

If over marketed junk like the Wii really is the future then I should probably quit gaming when the takeover starts.


----------



## cesarin (Oct 26, 2007)

KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> My PS2 is invincible, I don't care what anyone else says. I got it when it first came out in like 2001 or some crap like that and it still works dispite numberous attemps to kill it. If it can survive; kicks, soda, being beaten if its own controler, stepped on by my 200 pound father, having a BB lodged inside it, the first controller port being ripped to hell, my fatass dog (weighed 125 at the time) sitting on it, being dropped onto a concereat floor, hit with a golf club, being punched, pistol whipped, having water poure on it, being thrown across a room, and being forced to play all the lord of the rings movies in a marathon non-stop. And the only things wrong are that it's stuck in German, only recognizes the controller if it has an extention cord, takes ten minutes to load a game, can't play blue bottomed disks, and thinks a dvd is a music cd. It's a damn good system, my Xbox crapped out after suffering only half that abuse. It's a fine ass system and the game liberary is extenive and awesome. There is no reason not to buy it.



this.. ladies and gentlemen, is a true  brand fanboy


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 26, 2007)

My question is:
Who the fuck is that fucking awful at looking after something? 
My NES and SNES still works. Wanna know why?
Because I didn't drop kick it, pour liquid over it, leave it in a step-onable area, hit it, shoot it and whatever the fuck people seem to do to consoles for some reason.

Liquid only damages it if it gets inside the machine and/or if you turn it on while it's still wet. 
A good way to dry out smaller electronics (phones and such) is open it and cover it in rice.


----------



## DavidN (Oct 26, 2007)

The SNES seems to be remarkably resilient - my wife's one still works fine even after the US postal service tried to give it a beating.







And I've never had the problems with the PS2 that others seem to have (although right enough it never occurred to me to submerge it in water or sit on it) - my PAL PS2 is still going strong, but the original PS is going a bit senile.


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 26, 2007)

Here's the BEST reason not to buy a PS2

Standard
Oil
New
York

It's not even a Japanese company.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 26, 2007)

lul wat?

More depth plz.


----------



## kitetsu (Oct 26, 2007)

The biggest reason not to buy a PS2 is hearing all of you people bicker about the right amount of screws and screwups to make it the best/worst console ever created, and participating in elitist social poison called the Console War in general.

Go play your favorite games already before i come do drive-by burglaries and sell every stolen piece of booty to company bankruptcy. >8|


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 26, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> They owned motion sensor patients since the 80s but they are only using it now?



Why not? Sometimes it takes years before you can fully use tech you patiented in the manner you want. 



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Oh that makes a whole lot of sense, why aren't they suing all these companies that used the same motion sensor technology before the Wii was ever conceived? They are profiting from a Nintendo patient apparently. Someone had better go warn Gyration that their 6+ year old motion sensing wirless mouse is ripping off Nintendo.



It's not uncommon to pay to use someone else's stuff. Just like Sony gets paid for their DVD's patents, Nintendo gets paid for it's D-pad one, someone gets paid for Rumble, Jan Coyle got paid for moving PC created graphics onto a home gaming system, etc. Others try to make something that allows them to get their own patent and avoid paying fees.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is you have just supported my views, in the gamers eyes Nintendo cannot do wrong. They can release Zelda and Mario version 150+ and everyone will lap it up because it has a motion sensor or a power glove or a secondary screen or some other add on that distracts that they are playing the same old games using different input systems.



Supported what views? I got more then my share of issues with Nintendo. Nintendo can release Mario and Zelda 150099 times because people want to play them and each time Nintendo or a Nintendo owned second party will put forth the utmost effort into making it a fun, enjoyable game. You don't need your 1500-2000 dollar overclocked rig to have fun still, something you seem to have forgotten while crying tears of anger that Fallout 3 won't be like Fallout 1 and 2. 



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> There is a market for these sort of games but the moment people start thinking it is the path the whole industry should take they can shove it.



The industry is and will keep it's shift towards more causal gamers. This is unavoidable. There's too much to be gained towards doing it and you know what? Your still going to get your beloved hardcore games. Yes, Wii Sports and Wii Fit will fund those oh so beloved hardcore games like Contact, Earthbound, Brawl, etc, etc, etc.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> The casual audience taking over already killed several of my favourite genres, I'll be damned if they infect the rest with a over simplified and shallow game play experience whose highlights are being able to swing the remote to swing a sword.



Bullshit. Causal gamers killed nothing. Lack of profit and pigeonholing software along with rabid 'backups olny' torrent whores towards a small select group of people who even if they all bought said software would barely cover dev costs are what you have to blame. But entertain me, tell me what games 'causal' gamers have killed? If you say Fallout, I will reach though the many tubes of the internet and slap you with a fish. Don't prove Tycho right about what he said about Fallout fans...wait, too late there.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> If over marketed junk like the Wii really is the future then I should probably quit gaming when the takeover starts.



I don't know what's worst, a gaming elitest or a music elitest, but your making me lean towards the former. What a freaking snob you are, it's no wonder devs have gone "Hey, console gamers aren't complete pricks and their money's just as good as PC users, let's shift our focus there!"


----------



## lance.f (Oct 26, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



your a very wise birdy :3 and a talkative one X3 this topics about why not to buy a ps2..but meh topics can change as long as people support stuff


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 26, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> Silver R. Wolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're persistent, that much I can give you.


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2007)

lance.f said:
			
		

> your a very wise birdy :3


Nope, just a 'my opinion is more valid than yours' argumentative prick such as myself. You say wise but he hasn't offered any more proof to back up his arguments as I have, only the threat of looking somewhere on Google to back his claims up which pretty much anyone can do if given enough time.



			
				Foxstar said:
			
		

> [snip]



Why do you keep mentioning Fallout, christ, my entire gaming world doesn't revolve around Fallout. But it got mentioned recently because it is currently in the process of being made Oblivion style retarded so the Xbox/PS3 gamers don't lose interest after 10 minutes, so fresh in your memory from past threads it is used as the basis of how he views my mentality on gaming. 

My standards haven't dropped over the years, that's my problem. I dare expect role playing games to not have a promotional sheet that reads like a beatem-up or action game and people laugh at the idea of RPGs not playing like GTA with stats. Hell role playing? Long and complex storylines with confusing twists? Character development? Exploration and discovery? Actually having to figure stuff out? Uh, just distractions from what real role playing games are about which is killing and looting! Stat boosting E-Penis for the win! The casual audience killed RPGs by having everything they stand for trashed in a effort to appeal to them, I can't even speak for point and click adventure games because they were chucked in a hole and forgotten for not being flexible enough to be scaled down.

RPGs have been dumbed down to the point were they hardly vary from the Action or FPS genre to help them sell to the majority known as the casual gamer, people who only want a game to pick up for 10 or 20 minutes before buggering off to do something else. I know the casual audience have always ruled consoles, PC gaming wasn't looked at too much because of costs and being considered a tech nerd platform so it actually had games that had this mysterious thing called depth, but the rising costs of development is forcing pretty much every game to go cross platform. Therefore games designed to appeal to the casual audience, in other words 6 hour long constant boom fests with quest compasses and no complex choices, infected the PC gaming market. Resulting in the difference between System Shock 2/Deus Ex and Bioshock/Deus Ex 2.

So yeah, this pisses me off, as it does a good number of PC gamers. If you have a problem with that then I think I'll pull a furry and sod what everyone else thinks, I know there is nothing I can do about it but I will be damned if someone tries to take away my right to vent.

I could segment your post and address every point made like you did but experience dictates that only leads ridiculously long comebacks as each person flexes his Google fu to out do each other. In a effort to avoid that usual argumentative nonsense I think it would just be far easier to let you think of me as a PC elitist bastard and not try to convince you otherwise. Because someone thinking badly of you on the Internet is allot easier to deal with than getting into a 3+ page, 15 paragraphs per post, weekend long argument that neither will yield to at the end anyway.


----------



## Emil (Oct 26, 2007)

Honestly, I dont care that much about backwards compatibility. When I buy new systems its usually after they've been out for a few years and the used systems prices have dropped. By that time, I've usually played all my old games to death. This is especially true in the last few year now that most games worth getting will cost you about 80 bucks, so I only have a few. And as for why I didnt get a ps2, the answer is simple. It didnt have Halo :3


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 26, 2007)

I have a PS2, bought it recently because its cheap, the games are cheap, and it has an excellent game library.

Reason not to buy a PS2:

1. It was previously owned by Jack Thompson


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 26, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> But entertain me, tell me what games 'causal' gamers have killed? If you say Fallout, I will reach though the many tubes of the internet and slap you with a fish. Don't prove Tycho right about what he said about Fallout fans...wait, too late there.



'Causal' gamers didn't kill Fallout, Interplay did and then it started to snowball. Just like how EA will bland Bioware to death but that's a totally different topic.


----------



## furryskibum (Oct 27, 2007)

I paid $50 for my PS2 system and 20+ games from a friend.  That's the most I'll ever pay for a console gaming system.  XD  Also, this one has been very solid.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

Silver R. Wolfe said:
			
		

> Did everyone forget that the Xbox 360 doesn't even have full BC either?


No; that is also lame, and I have given it its fair share of mockery for that too.  Barbie Horse Adventure?



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> The platform couldn't innovate in the use of AI, physics or generative content if its existence depended on it


enemies duck: INNOVATIVE
entire game built around gravity gun: INNOVATIVE
entire game built around gravity gun again: STILL INNOVATIVE
entire game continues to be built around gravity gun: MY GOD HOW DO THEY DO IT

But hey, I'm a disillusioned dick who doesn't think moving away from Wolfenstein "AI" after 15 years or giving me a weapon used to _pick stuff up_ is all that clever.



			
				Bokracroc said:
			
		

> 'Causal' gamers didn't kill Fallout, Interplay did and then it started to snowball.


Shush, you'll jinx it.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 27, 2007)

HL2 was hardly built around the Grav Gun. Sure Ravenholm was but most of the time is was a glorified crowbar short of flinging the stray object every now and then.


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> enemies duck: INNOVATIVE
> entire game built around gravity gun: INNOVATIVE
> entire game built around gravity gun again: STILL INNOVATIVE
> entire game continues to be built around gravity gun: MY GOD HOW DO THEY DO IT
> ...


I was not so much referring to Half Life 2 in that statement as I was games like Spore and Alan Wake, you strip away all the graphical detail to fit them on the Wii but the game play requires a certain amount of processor power and ram to be able to function. For instance I think it would be hilarious to see them try to use Spores procedural creature generation and animation system on the Wii's 729mhz processor and 88mb ram, or Alan wakes physics and content streaming code.

They advertise the Wii as being innovation and game play over graphics, but without the horse power it can't improve game play in area's all the other platforms can. So instead they are forced to keep people amused by finding new ways to wave the controller around.

A Spore dev actually did a public rant on the weaknesses of the Wii but quickly did a 180 on his views and made a public apology when it was clear it could get him into trouble. Everyone knows the Wii is too underpowered to offer next generation game play, but few are willing to say it.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 27, 2007)

Your post ADF makes me think of how old NES games are still better than some games today, because of excellent gameplay.


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> Your post ADF makes me think of how old NES games are still better than some games today, because of excellent gameplay.



If you want to live in the past then go and be happy, but those who would like to see games improved by modern technology move forward.

Which is what the next generation is all about, experiencing something the previous generation couldn't offer, whether that be graphics or game play. As it stands only the PC, 360 and PS3 have the hardware power to provide a new generation of gaming while the Wii is still stuck in the past being interpreted through a different control system. If people are happy with just that then good for them there is a console that offers it, but these same people shouldn't look at our games and wonder why they are not on the Wii.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 27, 2007)

Eh, I'm just one of those gamers who has more fun with a game that looks ok and plays great, than a game that sucks but looks great. Frankly that pisses me off, when more time is spent on graphics than gameplay. I've yet to buy a "next-gen" system, mainly because I think they all currently suck and aren't worth the money. *shrugs* Now before anyone goes into a righteous arguement, yes the systems are awesome, and I'm sure they have great games, but I'd rather not pay 60-80$ for a game that I can get equal gameplay out of a game thats 20$ or cheaper.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> They advertise the Wii as being innovation and game play over graphics, but without the horse power it can't improve game play in area's all the other platforms can.


Er, what _released_ games have improved gameplay so significantly in the past total three years that the 360 and PS3 have been out?

No, the Wii can't do super-crazy AI, and when someone finally decides that Havok kinda sucks and bothers to replace it, I'm sure that won't run well on the Wii either.  I'm..  sorry?  Honestly, can you imagine Nintendo pushing in this direction even if their machine were the most powerful?

No, the Wii doesn't make a very good sandbox for pushing the limits of hardware.  Then again, from the Crysis demo thread, apparently the average highish-end gaming PC doesn't, either.  So what?  Both still play games I enjoy -- and that I enjoy for being clever, not necessarily for pushing hardware.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> So instead they are forced to keep people amused by finding new ways to wave the controller around.


While the other platforms are forced to keep people amused by finding new ways to mash buttons like a trained monkey.  Yes, being dismissive is very productive.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Everyone knows the Wii is too underpowered to offer next generation game play, but few are willing to say it.


To nitpick: given that the generations are defined solely by the available consoles, the Wii _is_ "next-generation", whether or not you think it deserves to be.

I don't know what "next-generation gameplay" even means.  Content generation doesn't automatically make games more fun.  AI doesn't even automatically make games more fun.  Gameplay is not some science you can quantitatively measure and tack more things onto to make it cooler.

What are the most popular current-gen games?  Halo 3?  Nintendogs?  Guitar Hero II?  Pokemon?  Where is the _next-generation gameplay_?

Cool new technology is cool, but it's not required, it's not being _used_, and it doesn't magically make gameplay better just by existing.


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

Sheesh it seems I am no good at trying to get my point across, I just can't find the right words. Keep in mind this started when you criticised my comment that the Wii isn't any good at today's AI, physics or generative content for more advanced game play. Seeing how you yourself admit that what is the problem?

My response to your initial post was that while the Wii claims having last gen graphics somehow magically makes it more innovative and game play orientated, there are many areas it cannot progress in because of technological limitations.

Whether or not you consider advanced AI to force players to become more tactical in their approach or the impact of physics on the environment from one moment or another as a form of game play is a preference I suppose. But my point wasn't they magically improve game play, that is obviously wrong as it depends on how they are applied, my point was they are area's games on other platforms can innovate in that the Wii can't. 

You can make a game like Spore on PC, 360, PS3 because they have the power to run the game while the Wii on the other hand is predicted to encounter problems trying to duplicate the same game. Whether or not you care about that sort of thing and would rather play Mario or Zelda version 29 by waving a controller around is up to you, if that's all someone needs to be entertained then they are lucky. 

But for those looking for next generation game play, which I will describe as meaning game play elements that last generation hardware were incapable of processing, then the Wii isn't the platform of choice. It might be perfect for those who just want to play a physically interactive sports game for 20 minutes before going out, but everyone's gaming preferences are different.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Keep in mind this started when you criticised my comment that the Wii isn't any good at today's AI, physics or generative content for more advanced game play.


My criticism had nothing to do with the Wii.  I didn't say a word about the Wii in that comment.  I was criticizing your attitude that you are apparently _better_ for liking "advanced" gameplay elements, the implication that those gameplay elements are ubiquitous on most playforms, and the suggestion that such gameplay elements are required for the platform itself to be worthy of any consideration.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> My response to your initial post was that while the Wii claims having last gen graphics somehow magically makes it more innovative and game play orientated


I must have missed this press release.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Whether or not you consider advanced AI to force players to become more tactical in their approach or the impact of physics on the environment from one moment or another as a form of game play is a preference I suppose.





			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Whether or not you care about that sort of thing and would rather play Mario or Zelda version 29 by waving a controller around is up to you, if that's all someone needs to be entertained then they are lucky.





			
				ADF said:
			
		

> It might be perfect for those who just want to play a physically interactive sports game for 20 minutes before going out, but everyone's gaming preferences are different.


Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just going to mock games that are so far _beneath_ your preferences and then hide behind "well everyone is different"?


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

I have already made my point; the point being the Wii is incapable of innovating in certain areas because of its hardware limitations, despite PR that it offers better game play than the other platforms. What a individuals particular tastes in game play are is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is high end systems can innovate in area's the Wii cannot even touch.

But between criticising Half Life 2 physics game play, questioning whether the other platforms actually utilise the additional hardware for more advanced game play, comparing the repetitive use of the Wii's motion sensor to other platforms control systems and considering what defines next generation... I'm trying to figure out were all of this adds up to a argument against my claim regarding the Wii 'you already agreed with earlier'.



> No, the Wii can't do super-crazy AI, and when someone finally decides that Havok kinda sucks and bothers to replace it, I'm sure that won't run well on the Wii either.



It only becomes more confusing that you have now decided to announce that you are criticising my attitude toward the difference between traditional and casual gaming. My discussion regarding that went on with FoxStar which as far as I'm concerned is done and dusted unless he decides to continue, my conversion with you started with the Wii response so as far as I'm concerned this is a totally different debate.

But the thing about debates is they must have a subject and several alternative views that challenge each other in a effort to come to some greater understanding through testing different arguments. With that in mind, and what has been said so far.

What the hell are we going on about? :?


----------



## DragonRift (Oct 27, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> You can make a game like Spore on PC, 360, PS3 because they have the power to run the game while the Wii on the other hand is predicted to encounter problems trying to duplicate the same game.



I find it absolutely amusing that you said that.  According to this article, *Spore* is headed to the Wii and NOT the other two platforms.

Will Wright has a very valid point.  No one has done anything really next-gen but Nintendo.  Nintendo is the only one that actually takes serious risks with their systems, and I have yet to really see Sony and Microsoft do that.  While I adore the 360's Live setup, people claim it's revolutionary, but we've been playing games online with our PCs for years.

The PS2 was practically a PS1 with longer games and better graphics..... and the same can be said for the PS3.  Not even the controllers changed (the Sixaxis is barely a change, being they announced it AFTER Nintendo showed off the Wii-mote).  The 360 controller may be super comfy, and probably the best-designed traditional controller out there, but again... it's still the traditional controller with the same old button/analog layouts that we've been used to for the past twenty years.

The DS may be graphically inferior to the PSP, but it's still the more inventive handheld of the two.  Hell, I could almost say that the PSP is a souped-up version of the original GBA, just with a bigger screen and PS2-quality graphics.  And don't say that the GBA wasn't hackable, because it was... just not the same way as the PSP.

The Wii may not be the powerhouse monster, but it's the only system that finally broke the same old mold we've been tinkering with for decades.  Nintendo promised they'd create a new way for us to play games, and they did.  Whether you want to agree with it or not, that's your choice, but it's a cold-hard fact that they are the only ones that are keeping their creativity in check.

So, what is next-gen to you?  The same gameplay we've been hammering at for years, just with prettier graphics?  Or new gameplay that forces us to use more than just our thumbs and index fingers, without the need for hi-def visuals?


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 27, 2007)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> I'm just one of those gamers who has more fun with a game that looks ok and plays great, than a game that sucks but looks great.


Insert _Katamari Damacy_ for the former and _Lair_ for the latter.

The important part is always how the game _plays_, about game _design_.  Granted, stellar game design was probably easier to come up with back in the days when it was simpler, less sophisticated, but just the same, a game with poor design doesn't play fun.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Oct 27, 2007)

This reminds me of a quote I heard once. 

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

DragonRift said:
			
		

> [snip]


Spore is heading to every platform, including mobile phones, they plan on making a whole franchise out of it like they did with the Sims. Doesn't mean it will be the same game of course, the version for mobiles is said to play like a card game using the sporepedia cards for instance.

For the record, Nintendo is the only company that isn't taking any risks. Unlike Microsoft and Sony they don't have other products to fall back on, if they had a single system that flopped they would go the way of Sega. So they stick with tried and proven franchises that they hang on to like a death grip. 

They know they cannot compete on the same level of the other platforms who are willing to take a loss to acquire market share, so they designed a system so cheap they can make a profit on it even at these prices. The Wii remote was just a way of justifying the low specs of the system with a different form of interaction, even though the same remote could have been applied to any platform whether low or high end.

They demonstrate their desperation for survival by making what was previously a locked down platform as open and easy to develop for as possible. They had to change their business model to survive, it was a fly or die situation so not taking the risk wasn't really a option.

As for this part.



			
				DragonRift said:
			
		

> So, what is next-gen to you?  The same gameplay we've been hammering at for years, just with prettier graphics?  Or new gameplay that forces us to use more than just our thumbs and index fingers, without the need for hi-def visuals?


I have said enough in this thread that should show that I am not a graphics nazi; I have been referring to memory and processing power allowing for types of game play that was previously not possible on last generation hardware, preferring systems that are more powerful does not automatically equate to preferring the games with better graphics. My constant bitching about how the casual audience has ruined role playing games with over simplification should be enough to show my concerns lye with how the games play rather than how they look.

I could go into more detail but honestly if you check the time over in England you would see I'm too tired to do so.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Oct 27, 2007)

Bottom line on Nintendo. 

"LOL IT PRINTS MONEY"

And it doesn't really matter how.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 27, 2007)

DragonRift said:
			
		

> The PS2 was practically a PS1 with longer games and better graphics..... and the same can be said for the PS3.  Not even the controllers changed (the Sixaxis is barely a change, being they announced it AFTER Nintendo showed off the Wii-mote).  The 360 controller may be super comfy, and probably the best-designed traditional controller out there, but again... it's still the traditional controller with the same old button/analog layouts that we've been used to for the past twenty years.




Actually, if you think about it...The Virtual boy, Atari Lynx (Handhelds essentially), DS, and the Wii are the only real "innovative" gaming platforms since they're not just upgraded models with more specs and buttons. And of course all that excess crap that almost no one uses since we have $20 DVD players and $10 Discmen.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 27, 2007)

> For the record, Nintendo is the only company that isn't taking any risks.


As in, never selling hardware below cost?

(goes back and re-reads) ... er, okay. Nevermind that.

I do remember a news article saying Mitamoto originally wanted a console they could retail for $100.


----------



## sateva9822 (Oct 28, 2007)

PS2 is like the SNES. Sure its out dated, graphics aren't as great and its a bit of a fragile system. But it has so many classic games that bring hours of entertainment and will always have a whole arsenal of games you haven't tried on it yet. On top of that you can pick up a system for 90$-100$ and the games sell for 5$-15$ used, 30$-50$ new. 10 20 years from now people will still be buying and playing the PS2. People do still play SNES after all...


----------



## Melo (Oct 28, 2007)

So I herd video game consoles are serious fucking business.

There's no reason to NOT buy any console that's going to entertain you or make you happy. Buy what _you_ think _you'll_ enjoy.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 28, 2007)

Not many people think these days.


----------



## Bloodangel (Oct 28, 2007)

Reason to not buy a PS2.

You have arthritis your my hands. It hurts to hold te control pad.

Thank god I'm not you.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 28, 2007)

Stratadrake said:
			
		

> I do remember a news article saying Mitamoto originally wanted a console they could retail for $100.


OWPC?


----------



## Vore Writer (Oct 29, 2007)

Midnight Panics said:
			
		

> So I herd video game consoles are serious fucking business.
> 
> There's no reason to NOT buy any console that's going to entertain you or make you happy. Buy what _you_ think _you'll_ enjoy.



That was ten years ago. Now it's buy a console that'll make you look cool amongst your friends.


----------



## kitetsu (Oct 29, 2007)

Vore Writer said:
			
		

> Now it's buy a console that'll make you look cool amongst your friends.



That's what 13-year-old delinquents think.


----------



## DuncanFox (Oct 31, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> For the record, Nintendo is the only company that isn't taking any risks.



There's been a lot of stupid in this thread -- from all sides -- but this right here takes the cake.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 are nothing more than incremental upgrades to their predecessors.  The manufacturers even admit this in their names.  The controllers are the same things consoles have been using for years -- a pad full of oddly-labeled buttons.  The processors are faster, the memory is increased, the graphics upgraded.  But there is _absolutely nothing_ "risky" about either of them.  They follow the formula to a "T", giving gamers the same comfortable options they've had for years.

Enter the Wii.  Replace the well-known joypad with a motion-sensing controller with half the buttons.  Give only a passing nod to upgrades of the processor, graphics, and memory; to the point where people call it "two Gamecubes duct-taped together."  Ignore the fact that your main two competitors -- who have overshadowed you for years, now -- are adding hard drives and multimedia capibilities: instead give your console only modest storage, and not even a DVD player.

And you actually think they didn't take a risk with that approach?  They took _so much_ of a risk that many game developers completely ignored the system, expecting it to flop like the Virtual Boy.  It turns out the risk paid off, but that doesn't mean there wasn't risk involved.

If anything, Nintendo is the only company who _did_ take a risk with this generation.


----------



## DuncanFox (Oct 31, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Here's the BEST reason not to buy a PS2
> 
> Standard
> Oil
> ...



I can't let this one stand, either -- I can't believe nobody else challenged this yet.  Or is just so obvisusly wrong that nobody else bothered?

http://www.snopes.com/business/names/sony.asp

The short version: Sony, in the early 1950s, was "Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo."  After his first trip to the USA, chairman Akio Morita realized the company needed a name that Americans could handle better.  He proposed renamed the company by combining a brand of audio tape they had been marketing, called the Soni-tape, and the phrase "sonny boy," which he thought was "youthful and irreverent."

In 1958, Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo became Sony.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2007)

DuncanFox said:
			
		

> [snip]


Don't worry; I think your perspective on the subject is flawed too, a 'new generation' Nintendo hype victim who actually thinks the direction of the Wii is automatically better than the Sony/Microsoft approach on the basis of it is different. 

The Wii may be the messiah to a particular portion of the market but just keep in mind it is a big market, Nintendo games are not for everyone. Not hyping over the Wii doesn't make you a graphics nazi consumer whore just because you prefer the tried and proven business model of gradual improvement instead of gimmicky gadgets attached to the same old games. Remove the motion sensor controller and what will Wii games have going for them? When it is used to death and like all new things over time the Wii controller is seen as common, becoming simply a means to an end, the games had better offer something over the previous generation.

It's too late to address all your points and I'm about go to bed soon, so this is a debate for another day.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 31, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Don't worry; I think your perspective on the subject is flawed too, an 'old generation' Microsoft hype victim who actually thinks the direction of the 360 is automatically better than the Nintendo approach on the basis of it is the same.
> 
> The 360 may be the messiah to a particular portion of the market but just keep in mind it is a big market, Microsoft games are not for everyone. Not hyping over the 360 doesn't make you a gimmick nazi consumer whore just because you prefer the tried and proven innovation model of testing new ideas instead of meager improvements attached to the same old games. Remove the better video hardware and what will 360 games have going for them? When it is used to death and like all new things over time the 360 graphical quality is seen as common, becoming simply a means to an end, the games had better offer something over the previous generation.


ftfy


----------



## BloodYoshi (Oct 31, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> DuncanFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I smell fanboys.

More specifically...



> Not hyping over the Wii doesn't make you a graphics nazi consumer whore just because you prefer the tried and proven business model of gradual improvement instead of gimmicky gadgets attached to the same old games. Remove the motion sensor controller and what will Wii games have going for them?



Actually I'm pretty convinced that Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 Corruption, Twilight Princess and Super Smash Bros. Brawl would still be amazing games regardless of motion control. Just slightly less amazing and immersive. Just like you claim that Wii cannot deliver the experience 360 or PS3 can based on its raw power, the Wii's so called gimmick is what allowed it to do so much more than just survive the generation. Your opinion on whether the Wii's motion and IR control makes games any more fun or not isn't something to be trying to debate as fact, because there are as of now 13.1 million Wii owners and something like over two score million Nintendo DS owners who disagree with you. That number will only increase.

I actually think the Wii is for everyone. It houses plenty of franchises that will sell systems to the hardcore and softcore gamer alike. That's why it prints money.


----------



## DuncanFox (Oct 31, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Don't worry; I think your perspective on the subject is flawed too



Don't worry; you apparently read what you _wanted to hear_ instead of _what I said_, so I'll clarify.



> ...a 'new generation' Nintendo hype victim who actually thinks the direction of the Wii is automatically better than the Sony/Microsoft approach on the basis of it is different.



Nope, sorry.  Try again.

Nowhere did I say it was better.  In fact, I _specifically avoided_ saying that it was better, because which system is "better" has nothing to do with my point.

I said they took a risk.  That's all.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 1, 2007)

The main risk that Sony and Microsoft take with their consoles is their business model itself:  Selling the hardware at a loss.  If they don't make up for it on the (profitable) software end, then they have to put their gaming divion on life-support from the rest of the company as a whole.  Or else go the way of Atari and Sega.


----------



## ADF (Nov 1, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> ftfy


Eevee, now what about my past posts suggest I care if you make fun of the 360? Honestly I hate the thing because it is money grubbing ass hole Microsoft's attempt to invade the console market when they should be concentrating on the well being of their main product. By all accounts the thing should have failed, but they kept chucking money at it until it was sustainable. Now it steals PC games and consolizes them, it has done it since launch but now it is big enough to affect the games development making them console orientated, so Xbox isn't in my good books right now.



			
				ChillCoyotl said:
			
		

> I actually think the Wii is for everyone. It houses plenty of franchises that will sell systems to the hardcore and softcore gamer alike. That's why it prints money.


No it isn't for everyone, it can thank its success for being the cheapest ass console on the market and catering to the casual audience. The casual audience, I have indicated throughout the thread, is the vast majority set out to destroy any form of depth and skill in gaming. Nintendo games are comparable to EA sport titles, they release the same ones over and over again with minor improvements but the fanbase laps it up anyway. A new feature here, a slight improvement there and they will rationalize it is a worthwhile purchase. Hell at the price of Wii games why not? Release 15 different games all based around decade old Nintendo characters and they will love it. But for anyone who actually likes games that take themselves seriously, the Wii can stay over there. If you are happy with the Wii line up then it is probably your thing and you can enjoy that, but it is definitely not something that will interest anyone I know.



			
				Stratadrake said:
			
		

> The main risk that Sony and Microsoft take with their consoles is their business model itself:  Selling the hardware at a loss.  If they don't make up for it on the (profitable) software end, then they have to put their gaming divion on life-support from the rest of the company as a whole.  Or else go the way of Atari and Sega.


You are right, the current business model of gaming is none sustainable. If nothing is done about it in the next couple of generations the gaming industry will probably crash, standard gaming consoles would cease to exist, leaving only indie dev studios left to pick up the pieces. This is inevitable down this current path, the first signs of it are being felt today in that development budgets have become so high to cater to next generation content that releasing a game on multiple platforms is becoming less of a choice.

However, I don't think the answer to this is to release the same old games over and over again with different gimmicks to make them appear different. I don't want EA sport games milking system to become the business model of the games industry.

My favourite genre was killed by the existing business model, so believe me I don't like it. But the Wii is hardly the end all answer to the industries problems, I would rather quit gaming than resort to wacky gadgets to compensate for a redundant and over used game design. They need to focus on improving the games themselves, not changing the control system so it feels like you playing something different. Whether the sword is swung with a button press of a arm movement it has the same affect, put a Wii game on a old fashioned Nintendo controller and suddenly it loses its novelty. I want my games to become better through focus on the game itself, not changing how I interact with the game.



			
				DuncanFox said:
			
		

> Nope, sorry. Try again.
> 
> Nowhere did I say it was better. In fact, I specifically avoided saying that it was better, because which system is "better" has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> I said they took a risk. That's all.



A entire post bashing PS3/360 business model then praising the Wii for being different does not equate to saying it is better? Right...

If you would read my post as to why I think they are the only ones not intently taking a risk you would know what I am getting at, if you disagree with what I said then tough. You have a right to disagree with my opinions on a particular console system I think is junk, but don't put expressing someone's perspective on a particular subject in the realms of true and false dictated by you.


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 1, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Eevee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And Sony is different why?

A 'rival' forces both sides to evolve and constantly better each other. Without the Xbox (and therefore butting heads with the dominate Sony), I doubt we'd be seeing a lot of the titles we see and praise today.
As for Xbox stealing PC games, the Xbox is a more profitable side over the world of PC gaming.



> Xbox
> Xbox games that have sold one million copies or more.
> 
> * Halo 2 (8 million)[9]
> ...





> PC
> This is an incomplete list of PC games (including Microsoft Windows, Macintosh, Linux) that have sold one million copies or more. Please note that the sales figures for expansion packs are not used in calculation of the sales figure for the original game.
> 
> * The Sims (16 million shipped)[103]
> ...



Let's ignore The Sims/2 (because it seems fucking everyone buys a new copy of the damn thing every week :?), look at the Release dates to copies sold for some of these games:

StarCraft: April, 1998. *9.5 million*
WoW: November, 2004.* 9 million* _subscribers. (Nothing really stops one person from having more than one subscription)_
Halo 2: November, 2004. *8 million*
HL1: November, 1998. *8 million*
Myst: September, 1993. *6 million*
HL2: November, 2004 (Steam launch). *4 million*


----------



## Sarn Darkholm (Nov 1, 2007)

somehow i think this thread got totally off-topic, but thats just me.

Back on Topic
My main reason not to buy a PS2, is because I already own one.  My PS2 will be with me a very long time, and it will still be used even IF i get a PS3 (which i would mainly do because it is STILL the cheapest Blu-Ray DVD player on the market.)  I am glad that they did cut out the BC on the PS3 because it makes it cheaper (which for me is a plus) and also if i want to play my PS1 and PS2 games i will play them on my PS2.  Besides most older games i heard look like shit on the PS3.  That is my two cents.


----------



## ADF (Nov 1, 2007)

Bokracrac,

Nowhere in that post did I criticise 360 game sales, nor did I consciously avoid mentioning the PS3. I was merely responding to Eevee's criticism of the 360 when I honestly don't care what it gets up to if it does not affect me.

To be frank throughout this thread I have never claimed the PC is more successful than the consoles, I have said multiple times that the casual audience consoles cater for make up the majority. Which is why people from the days of gamers = nerds such as myself hate seeing everything being catered to that lot.

I must say I have had a tough couple of days and need some time to kick back, I'll get back to responding to peoples posts at some point but right now I honestly don't feel up to it.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 1, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Eevee, now what about my past posts suggest I care if you make fun of the 360?


missing the point but okay
s/Microsoft/Sony/g
s/360/PS3/g


----------



## BloodYoshi (Nov 1, 2007)

> No it isn't for everyone, it can thank its success for being the cheapest ass console on the market and catering to the casual audience. The casual audience, I have indicated throughout the thread, is the vast majority set out to destroy any form of depth and skill in gaming. Nintendo games are comparable to EA sport titles, they release the same ones over and over again with minor improvements but the fanbase laps it up anyway. A new feature here, a slight improvement there and they will rationalize it is a worthwhile purchase. Hell at the price of Wii games why not? Release 15 different games all based around decade old Nintendo characters and they will love it.



If you want to make that speech over fifty million times then knock yourself out.



> But for anyone who actually likes games that take themselves seriously, the Wii can stay over there.



That's a pretty strong statement. You're really full of yourself, aren't you?



> If you are happy with the Wii line up then it is probably your thing and you can enjoy that, but it is definitely not something that will interest anyone I know.



I'm by no means a casual gamer, yet the Wii still interests me and my circle of hardcore friends. The point I was trying to make is that nearly everything you say is pretty much an unnecessarily eloquent synonym to the sentence "nintendo suks gtfo noob." Or, to put it in your unnecessarily eloquent language, belligerent ramblings of a pompous, over opinionated nerd who's utterly disgusted at Nintendo for reasons no one else quite understands.

If you reply to me I probably won't reply back because I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.


----------



## DuncanFox (Nov 1, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> A entire post bashing PS3/360 business model then praising the Wii for being different does not equate to saying it is better? Right...



Which is precisely why I suggest you read _what I said_, and not what you _want to hear_.  I wasn't bashing the PS3/360 model.  It obviously works quite well.  But there's really no disputing the fact that they are nothing more than incremental upgrades.  They're faster, with more memory, and sharper graphics, but they don't actually do anything _different_.

No value judgement in that.  Just an observation.

Likewise, I wasn't "praising" the Wii for being different.  Just stating that it _is_ different.  That doesn't make it inherently better or worse, but there's no denying that _it is different_.

Everyone expected the Wii to be a flop.  Nobody took it seriously.  Game developers almost unilaterally ignored it.  Why?  Because spending the time and money to develop for the Wii was _too much of a risk_.  Instead, they developed for the 360 and PS3, because those were the "safe" choices.  The ones with the _least risk_.



> ...but don't put expressing someone's perspective on a particular subject in the realms of true and false dictated by you.



Not once in _this post_ have I backed up my statements with opinion, only with facts.  If there's something in this post that you elieve is false, please let me know.  But the way I see it (and I'm not the only one), there is a lot of evidence that Nintendo took a risk, and that _the entire industry agrees_.

If you still disagree, then please explain why the above risky behaviors are actually _not_ risky, and please also explain why giving gamers exactly what they want and expect (PS3/360) somehow _is_ risky.  Because it makes no sense.


----------



## AlexX (Nov 1, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Nintendo games are comparable to EA sport titles, they release the same ones over and over again with minor improvements but the fanbase laps it up anyway.


Because there's SUCH a big difference between Final Fantasy 7-12, Halo 1-3, MGS 1-4, DMC 1-3, and all the other famous franchises that are the main selling points for Sony and Microsoft's systems.

Though seriously, all EA does to its games is update the player rosters and that's more or less it. At least Nintendo games make changes that actually effect the gameplay, and claiming it's the exact same game over and over again is like saying that 90% of the songs in existance are just the same love song over and over again.


----------

