# What system you like better



## TallAdam85 (Oct 23, 2003)

Just wondering what game systems do you like


----------



## Kroy (Oct 24, 2003)

I love my PS2.


----------



## Elfan (Oct 24, 2003)

I play an ocasional game on by brother's Gamecube or a friend X-Box but I'm not much of a gamer any more.


----------



## RanaHarmamelda (Oct 24, 2003)

PS2 -- it just has the most variety of games.

Err, ok, truth be told, it has the most RPG's.


----------



## Aikikitty (Oct 24, 2003)

I play GameCube but my mom plays PS2 and loves it.  We have all the game symstems except the X-Box.  I often enjoy the N64 and my Gameboy Advance SP. 

Robyn   :asian:


----------



## OULobo (Oct 27, 2003)

X-box has the best characteristics and graphics, but the game selection sucks, you have to get a PS2 to get the good games.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Oct 29, 2003)

PS-2 but I'm getting anXBOX also.


----------



## TallAdam85 (Oct 29, 2003)

x box is good if you like sport games but i am not a big fan of sport games so I never realy play with my X-BOX only reason I got it was for the bruce lee game for X-box


----------



## someguy (Oct 30, 2003)

I think the cube is the best.  Ps2 is close though.  X-box is just bleh.


----------



## gman (Nov 6, 2003)

We have a PS2 it's great. When is the PS3 coming out?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 29, 2003)

I like the GameBoy Advance. Then I'm not tied to the TV.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 30, 2003)

PS2. Mainly because it has the greatest number of quality fighting games on it. (One dimensional I suppose, but hey...)


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Nov 30, 2003)

Just got an X-Box and I love it!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2003)

No time for games!  Too busy training!

 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Nov 30, 2003)

If you're so busy what are you doing here?:asian: :rofl: :asian:


----------



## OULobo (Dec 1, 2003)

I've been busy playing GTA: Vice City. So far it's been 3 days of staying up all night and sleeping all day. God I love the thanksgiving break, and my xbox.


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 1, 2003)

Xbox - and especially Dead or Alive 3. Tecmo is releasing Dead or Alive Online at some yet un-announced date....so flame wars MT flame wars will be a thing of the past..got a beef? log on and sort it out.....


----------



## OULobo (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Renegade _
> *If you're so busy what are you doing here?:asian: :rofl: :asian: *



I'm at work. Can't cha tell.


----------



## Tapps (Dec 9, 2003)

Can't touch XBox graphics.


----------



## Zepp (Dec 9, 2003)

I don't own my own system, but the Xbox rules for multiplayer.  My friends and I used to spend hours playing drunken Halo and drunken Dead or Alive 3 (guess my favorite DOA character ).  The girls in our group used to be better gamers than some of the guys.


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 9, 2003)

> and drunken Dead or Alive 3 (guess my favorite DOA character ).



ooh...bring on DOA Online....you need to be punished for supporting the obscenity that is Brad Wong.


----------



## albert (Dec 9, 2003)

PS2. It has the best RPGs and fighting games.


----------



## Seig (Dec 9, 2003)

I have been considering getting one of these systems.  The last game system I bought was a PS1.  Could someone explain the differences in the systems so that someone like myslef who just doesn't know which is which can decide.
Thanks


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 9, 2003)

Xbox, technically, is a far superior system. Faster, Stronger, Better - its the 6 milion dollar console. It renders several times more polygons-per-second as the PS2, it has an onboard hard-drive, and is broadband capable.

[Bao ducks while legions of PS2 fans  spark up the flame throwers.]

However, some say the the 'box suffers from the same Achilles heel as the 6 Million Dollar Man TV series - a lack of material; which, while once true (PS2 launched with a staggering number of games, but many of them were just ports of games that were originally slated for PS1), is not so true anymore - there are currently approx 150 games available for the XBox here in the Antipodes, and more in the States.


The finest quality of the 'box is undoubtedly the broadband capablity - Xbox Live - its a disgusting amount of fun. I've been playing games on-line longer than i care to admit, and i've never had soo much fun as on Live - mostly because its a wicked fast OL game system i can play on the couch, rather than crouched over the keyboard. Bringing online gaming - traditionally the purview of "hard-core" gamers  - to the casual gamer has been the Holy Grail of games marketers since the someone realised you could make money on this internet contraption. The Xbox hasnt done it truly, but its a hell of a lot closer than anyone else has got so far.

The PS2 can play PS1 games, so if u have a lot of those, you might want to look at a PS2.....but of all the guys who have bought a PS2 for this very reason, i dont think any of them still play the PS1 games.

I have a 'box, my brother has a PS2...i play both regularly, and IMHO, there is no competition. 

the Xbox 0\/\/|\|5. 


BTW - you may note no  mention was made of the GameCube. IMHO, its best we keep it that way.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *I have been considering getting one of these systems.  The last game system I bought was a PS1.  Could someone explain the differences in the systems so that someone like myslef who just doesn't know which is which can decide.
> Thanks *



PS2: Hands down leader in terms of sales and game library. It's arguably the least powerful of the three systems out right now, (but the difference is marginal). 

GC: Nintendo's floundering with this system. Still has F-Zero and some other great titles. 

Xbox: Currently ranking in at a distant, distant second place. Lots of PC derived games on it as well as games that typically appeal more to PC gamers than console users. (Way too many FPS games for example.) Not much to offer in terms of fighting games or RPG's.  Just has the iffy DOA3 and Soul Calibur to reccomend it on the fighting side. 

Online play numbers are dismal on all three platforms. Great for people who like online play, not a selling point to the majority of buyers for any of the three systems however.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Marginal _
> *PS2: Hands down leader in terms of sales and game library. It's arguably the least powerful of the three systems out right now, (but the difference is marginal).
> 
> Online play numbers are dismal on all three platforms. Great for people who like online play, not a selling point to the majority of buyers for any of the three systems however. *



PS2 is higher in sales and has more games because it has been around for almost 2 years longer that XBox or Gamecube. Gamecube made the mistake of marketing heavily to the younger crowd. It has been floundering so much that I almost took advantage of all the deals they are offering and bought one out of pity. If the price keeps dropping I still might. The online play sucks so bad because it costs extra per month to play online. People would play more if they allowed a tie-in to standard home internet servers, but I don't want to pay extra for the equipment to get online, pay for the game and then pay an ongoing monthly fee to get hooked up. Just not worth it, when I can hit my PC and play online all I want.


----------



## albert (Dec 10, 2003)

It all depends on what kind of games you like..and if you have a good PC don't bother with an Xbox..


----------



## Marginal (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *PS2 is higher in sales and has more games because it has been around for almost 2 years longer that XBox or Gamecube.*



It's a convenient excuse, but really the PS2 is in first place because Sony lined up the best games library. They secured exclusives over games like GTA 3 when it mattered and so on. 



> Gamecube made the mistake of marketing heavily to the younger crowd.



Nintendo alienated third party developers with their typical arrogance. This caused them to have nothing but kiddie games. 



> The online play sucks so bad because it costs extra per month to play online. People would play more if they allowed a tie-in to standard home internet servers, but I don't want to pay extra for the equipment to get online, pay for the game and then pay an ongoing monthly fee to get hooked up. Just not worth it, when I can hit my PC and play online all I want.



True. (Also why Live's worthless.)


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 10, 2003)

GTA3 and Vice City are coming to Xbox - with graphical improvements  Next month, i beleive...but Sony was very clever in securing them for as long as they did. Its not really "a conveniant excuse" - Sony had a exisiting stable of developers from teh PS1, and simply migrated the PS2 technology to them - Microsoft had to develop those relationships from scratch on unproven technology.

The PS2's numbers also look a lot better due to the fact that they dominate the biggest console market with the deepest penetration....about 42% of the Japanese market, where Xbox has only 2%. I dont think japanese otaku will every really take up a non-japanese console en masse....

PS2 has a lot of good games, and is a good console...in fact, if you have a couple hundred of them, its a pretty simple exercise to build your own supercomputer. But on simple technical merits, Xbox is superior - Halflife 2 is an Xbox exclusive because its the only console powerful enough to run the game they way they want it.

Yeah, the costs associated with Live can be prohibitive - my glowing report *may* have been colored by the fact that i dont pay for it (no, its not free, or stolen....someone else pays for it).


----------



## Marginal (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Baoquan _
> *GTA3 and Vice City are coming to Xbox - with graphical improvements  Next month, i beleive...but Sony was very clever in securing them for as long as they did. Its not really "a conveniant excuse" - Sony had a exisiting stable of developers from teh PS1, and simply migrated the PS2 technology to them - Microsoft had to develop those relationships from scratch on unproven technology.*



The tech was very proven. Nobody really questioned that. They questioned MS' ability to bring out a system that you focus on the console market. It's larger than the PC market, and it tends to have differing interests in genre picks. 

As for GTA 3 and VC coming to Xbox, getting a game first counts for a lot. Especially with a year's lead time. Sony's already done the damage with their exclusivity window there. AS for their built in advantage, sony only carried that stable of developers from one generation to the next because they provided adequate incentives for the developers to follow. Nintendo and Sega certainly didn't succeed as well as Sony did in that respect, so I can't see a good reason to take 1:1 migration from one platform to another as a given. 



> The PS2's numbers also look a lot better due to the fact that they dominate the biggest console market with the deepest penetration....about 42% of the Japanese market, where Xbox has only 2%. I dont think japanese otaku will every really take up a non-japanese console en masse....



Fanatics don't really amount to much in any console race. (Japanese xenophobia's another convenient excuse.) PC gaming hasn't been big in Japan for years. Online gaming has never really been relevant there either. There goes the game library MS has, and their one iffy selling point. If MS wants to convert Japanese gamers, they need to attract developers and design games that appeal to broader tastes than games like Halo happen to do. Attracting Tecmo was a nice start, but that's about all they've accomplished in that respect. 



> But on simple technical merits, Xbox is superior - Halflife 2 is an Xbox exclusive because its the only console powerful enough to run the game they way they want it.



Most of claims like that stem from propaganda rather than truth or reality. (Much like anything Tombu Itagaki says.) Technical merits have historically, been horrible at moving hardware. 



> Yeah, the costs associated with Live can be prohibitive - my glowing report *may* have been colored by the fact that i dont pay for it (no, its not free, or stolen....someone else pays for it).



Live's nice for what it is. Statistically speaking however, it's not a factor in selling hardware. Sony's online support actually draws in greater numbers despite the lack of a coherant online strategy. (Even then, it's not a system selling feature. More of a nice bonus for those that care aobut such things.)


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 10, 2003)

> Technical merits have historically, been horrible at moving hardware.



All too true..beta max was a better video technology, but got steamrollered by VHS. Beta Max is still used widely in video news media (those that havent gone digital).




> The tech was very proven.



Not when the development cycles of the 1st gen xbox games started. I was part of the first gen program - everyone was developing on PCs built to act a lot like an Xbox would, if it finished development the way they planned. Thats a big ask for multi-million dollar developments. 





> Live's nice for what it is. Statistically speaking however, it's not a factor in selling hardware. Sony's online support actually draws in greater numbers despite the lack of a coherant online strategy. (Even then, it's not a system selling feature. More of a nice bonus for those that care aobut such things.)



Again, very true. if you look at Australia's registered gamer tag DB (xbox Live logins, essentially), there are about 50. Its uptake is ludicrously low...but is a *lot* of fun.



> Most of claims like that stem from propaganda rather than truth or reality. (Much like anything Tombu Itagaki says.) Technical merits have historically, been horrible at moving hardware.



Absotively...but this one happens to be true - particle specularity and render distances are deeper and longer, respectively, on XBox, for the same polygon counts. The PS2 does what it does a little more elegantly, but Xbox took the sledgehammer approach to precessing and hardware design, and came up with a win.

Theres no doubt PS2 is a fun machine, and it has the games catalogue to make everyone happy...but at the end of the day, i'd rather play xbox, no doubt. Better graphics res and dolby 5.1 just make it that much more immersive IF a game is good enough to make use of it...a lot arent.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Baoquan _
> *GTA3 and Vice City are coming to Xbox - with graphical improvements  Next month, i beleive...*



It must take a really long time for things to get there. Vice City came out two monthes or more ago here and the both for the price of one combo deal came out last month.


----------



## 2fisted (Dec 11, 2003)

I voted ps2 mainly because it's the one I have.  

But seriously I bought it due to the game library offered.  And yeah rpgs and fighters are my favorites.  Plus I'm not someone who needs lotsa graphics.  I still play ps1 games on my ps2!


----------



## JDenz (Dec 11, 2003)

I have X-box and PS-2 I definitly like PS-2 better.  Better controler, better games.  Xbox has some killer RPG's to KNights of the old Rebublic and Shemue 2


----------



## Baoquan (Dec 11, 2003)

> It must take a really long time for things to get there



it does...it seems it takes about 4 months to cut a region 4 dvd


----------

