The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Console definition: A machine solely built for the entertainment of video/interactive game/s.
Turbonutter throughout the course of yesterday made many statements which I thought silly and had a go at, I would like to finally conclude or maybe even begin a new argument.
Turbnutter said:
"The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and Xbox just can't be compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a free GBA or a PS2, GC or Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a GBA? It's be a miricle if it went into double figures."
Thats just bloody stupid, if you are saying they can't be compared on that basis, if you offer 100 people the playstation1 or the playstation2, I bet you the original wouldn't run into double figures. HOWEVER, does that mean you cannot compare them? DOES IT?
Turbonutter said:
"The GBA has no competition at all because it lives in a market all in its own. How can you include something in a "console war" when it's not fighting anything?!"
Wasn't it for many months we had a playstation2 in the market with no competition what so ever? Dreamcast and N64 dead... so how about we don't include the PS2 in any sales or argument because we still included it in console war topics before the launch of any other console!
er-no, stop being silly and grow up.
I also here the talks or power, how can the GameboyAdvance be a console and how can you compare it with consoles so 'advanced' to it in power, and therefore, how can you call it a 'console'. Let me ask you a question.
Is a Mini a car?
Then surely a Ferrari is a car as well?
By definition they are both cars surely?! No?
Another...
A small Halfords Bike with 10 gears, a bike?
A RockHopper Bike with 28 gears, a bike?
If you use the method of Turbonutter we have to come to the conclusion that a mini is not a car, because its power and capabilities are limited to the ferrari, and the Halfords bike in all ways is NOT A BIKE because its very limited compared with the RockHopper. Surely without a doubt, they have to be the same!
Heh, I have a good one, from what everyone has been going along, to compare these machines we have been using the word 'console' a lot:
The GBA is a console, it plays games, actually. Surely as the Playstation2 plays DVD's and is going to surf, we can no longer call it by definition a console. Ah well, infact. Holy Jesus, we cannot call the XBox a console either.
Wow.. THERE IS ONLY THE GAMECUBE LEFT. GAMECUBE WINS.
However, you cannot complete disagree with Turbonutter, because you can make a picture from what he is saying, that you cannot compare the consoles of the GBA and Gamecube/Playstation2/Xbox because of how it plays the games, I feel that is a different subject.
Its safe to say that Nintendo are being very much helped by the beautiful sales of the GBA, but YOU CAN NOT REMOVE IT FROM A CONSOLE WARS TOPIC, why? Because it is a console.
The curtains are shut to most of us in the gaming world, its up to the beholder to look behind them.
Thanks. :-D
er-no
Turbonutter throughout the course of yesterday made many statements which I thought silly and had a go at, I would like to finally conclude or maybe even begin a new argument.
Turbnutter said:
"The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and Xbox just can't be compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a free GBA or a PS2, GC or Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a GBA? It's be a miricle if it went into double figures."
Thats just bloody stupid, if you are saying they can't be compared on that basis, if you offer 100 people the playstation1 or the playstation2, I bet you the original wouldn't run into double figures. HOWEVER, does that mean you cannot compare them? DOES IT?
Turbonutter said:
"The GBA has no competition at all because it lives in a market all in its own. How can you include something in a "console war" when it's not fighting anything?!"
Wasn't it for many months we had a playstation2 in the market with no competition what so ever? Dreamcast and N64 dead... so how about we don't include the PS2 in any sales or argument because we still included it in console war topics before the launch of any other console!
er-no, stop being silly and grow up.
I also here the talks or power, how can the GameboyAdvance be a console and how can you compare it with consoles so 'advanced' to it in power, and therefore, how can you call it a 'console'. Let me ask you a question.
Is a Mini a car?
Then surely a Ferrari is a car as well?
By definition they are both cars surely?! No?
Another...
A small Halfords Bike with 10 gears, a bike?
A RockHopper Bike with 28 gears, a bike?
If you use the method of Turbonutter we have to come to the conclusion that a mini is not a car, because its power and capabilities are limited to the ferrari, and the Halfords bike in all ways is NOT A BIKE because its very limited compared with the RockHopper. Surely without a doubt, they have to be the same!
Heh, I have a good one, from what everyone has been going along, to compare these machines we have been using the word 'console' a lot:
The GBA is a console, it plays games, actually. Surely as the Playstation2 plays DVD's and is going to surf, we can no longer call it by definition a console. Ah well, infact. Holy Jesus, we cannot call the XBox a console either.
Wow.. THERE IS ONLY THE GAMECUBE LEFT. GAMECUBE WINS.
However, you cannot complete disagree with Turbonutter, because you can make a picture from what he is saying, that you cannot compare the consoles of the GBA and Gamecube/Playstation2/Xbox because of how it plays the games, I feel that is a different subject.
Its safe to say that Nintendo are being very much helped by the beautiful sales of the GBA, but YOU CAN NOT REMOVE IT FROM A CONSOLE WARS TOPIC, why? Because it is a console.
The curtains are shut to most of us in the gaming world, its up to the beholder to look behind them.
Thanks. :-D
er-no
Page:
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Best topic ever.
Best reply to one of my topics ever.
> Best topic ever.
Best reply to one of my topics ever.
The_King wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> 5 years? This PC was bought in 1998. Furthermore, it's
> well above the minimum
> specs for Counter Strike, despite it only running
> at ~3fps
> Oh okay, so FOUR years (not five) ago!
So you're saying that
> in 1998 you bought a PC with 32 Mb’s PC66 RAM?
> Well more the fool you.
Grandad, actually. I wouldn't have bought a Packard Bell
I
> bought a PII 333 with 64MB of RAM at Christmas 1998 (which at the time wasn’t
> classed as top of the range, so god knows who told you the one you were buying
> was a "top of the range multimedia desktop"!
Hell the P3 500 was
> released in late Q1 of 1999!
PC World guy. I hate them.
I still own this machine and it’ll play
> Half-Life quite comfortably at 800X600 res…….
Possibly. I have always maintained there's something seriously wrong with this. The fact is though, it cost £1000 and it won't even play Half-Life, why the hell would anyone want to play games on a PC? It's just stupidly expensive.
Are you sure you’ve actually
> installed Windows? Maybe you’re trying to run Counter-Strike through DOS or
> something …LOL
Doubtlessly it would run quicker under DOS, most games do.
Despite the fact that you said I needed to prove you have
> little knowledge on games and computers, you seem incapable of answering any of
> the questions I have put to you. I don’t need to prove anything as you’ve done
> it yourself.
What questions? I haven't seen any. Go into the tech forum, then we'll see who knows more about PCs
And before you say it, Yes PC’s cost loads more money than
> Consoles and are aimed at totally different audiences, but I’m not disputing
> this.
Yes, audiences that don't play games. PCs are designed to do wordprocessing etc, not play games. Hell, why don't I try and do my English coursework on my PSone? Duh...
> I’m saying that this statement…
Turbonutter wrote:
>
> ...and DirectX errors, DOS memory maxing, crashing, incompatability, graphics
>
> card drivers, segfaults, lack of memory, and then, if you actually DO get
> it
> working, it crashes just metres from the save point!
PCs are not
> designed for
> gaming. In fact, as gaming hardware goes, they're pretty
> damn crap. Stable
> framerate on a PC? Not possible.
Is totally
> unfounded, and despite me asking you to bring weight to your statement on two
> occasions now, you seem incapable of doing so.
The one game I have that actually runs well on this is Carmageddon. however, it *literally* crashed every 15 minutes. If you hadn't saved the race by then you were screwed! What's more, despite it costing 3 times as much, my ancient PlayStation still had better graphics.
And to be quite honest I don’t
> want to get drawn any further into a debate with a ‘console kid’ who knows very
> little (by his own admission) about PC’s, their hardware and how they
> work.
*choke* I know much more about PCs, hardware and software than you ever will.
> Stick to posting about Consoles – at least here you have some idea of
> what you’re talking about!
I know loads about PCs, just not about gaming on them because they're NOT DESIGNED TO! I stopped gaiming on my PC, even on my Mum's much more powerful one, when I discovered the above problems with them. Come on, forum 206, Web Design, PC, Internet & Freeola, I await your arrival.
> Turbonutter wrote:
> 5 years? This PC was bought in 1998. Furthermore, it's
> well above the minimum
> specs for Counter Strike, despite it only running
> at ~3fps
> Oh okay, so FOUR years (not five) ago!
So you're saying that
> in 1998 you bought a PC with 32 Mb’s PC66 RAM?
> Well more the fool you.
Grandad, actually. I wouldn't have bought a Packard Bell
I
> bought a PII 333 with 64MB of RAM at Christmas 1998 (which at the time wasn’t
> classed as top of the range, so god knows who told you the one you were buying
> was a "top of the range multimedia desktop"!
Hell the P3 500 was
> released in late Q1 of 1999!
PC World guy. I hate them.
I still own this machine and it’ll play
> Half-Life quite comfortably at 800X600 res…….
Possibly. I have always maintained there's something seriously wrong with this. The fact is though, it cost £1000 and it won't even play Half-Life, why the hell would anyone want to play games on a PC? It's just stupidly expensive.
Are you sure you’ve actually
> installed Windows? Maybe you’re trying to run Counter-Strike through DOS or
> something …LOL
Doubtlessly it would run quicker under DOS, most games do.
Despite the fact that you said I needed to prove you have
> little knowledge on games and computers, you seem incapable of answering any of
> the questions I have put to you. I don’t need to prove anything as you’ve done
> it yourself.
What questions? I haven't seen any. Go into the tech forum, then we'll see who knows more about PCs
And before you say it, Yes PC’s cost loads more money than
> Consoles and are aimed at totally different audiences, but I’m not disputing
> this.
Yes, audiences that don't play games. PCs are designed to do wordprocessing etc, not play games. Hell, why don't I try and do my English coursework on my PSone? Duh...
> I’m saying that this statement…
Turbonutter wrote:
>
> ...and DirectX errors, DOS memory maxing, crashing, incompatability, graphics
>
> card drivers, segfaults, lack of memory, and then, if you actually DO get
> it
> working, it crashes just metres from the save point!
PCs are not
> designed for
> gaming. In fact, as gaming hardware goes, they're pretty
> damn crap. Stable
> framerate on a PC? Not possible.
Is totally
> unfounded, and despite me asking you to bring weight to your statement on two
> occasions now, you seem incapable of doing so.
The one game I have that actually runs well on this is Carmageddon. however, it *literally* crashed every 15 minutes. If you hadn't saved the race by then you were screwed! What's more, despite it costing 3 times as much, my ancient PlayStation still had better graphics.
And to be quite honest I don’t
> want to get drawn any further into a debate with a ‘console kid’ who knows very
> little (by his own admission) about PC’s, their hardware and how they
> work.
*choke* I know much more about PCs, hardware and software than you ever will.
> Stick to posting about Consoles – at least here you have some idea of
> what you’re talking about!
I know loads about PCs, just not about gaming on them because they're NOT DESIGNED TO! I stopped gaiming on my PC, even on my Mum's much more powerful one, when I discovered the above problems with them. Come on, forum 206, Web Design, PC, Internet & Freeola, I await your arrival.
Turbonutter wrote:
> 5 years? This PC was bought in 1998. Furthermore, it's well above the minimum
> specs for Counter Strike, despite it only running at ~3fps
Oh okay, so FOUR years (not five) ago!
So you're saying that in 1998 you bought a PC with 32 Mb’s PC66 RAM?
Well more the fool you.
I bought a PII 333 with 64MB of RAM at Christmas 1998 (which at the time wasn’t classed as top of the range, so god knows who told you the one you were buying was a "top of the range multimedia desktop"!
Hell the P3 500 was released in late Q1 of 1999!
I still own this machine and it’ll play Half-Life quite comfortably at 800X600 res…….
Are you sure you’ve actually installed Windows? Maybe you’re trying to run Counter-Strike through DOS or something …LOL
Despite the fact that you said I needed to prove you have little knowledge on games and computers, you seem incapable of answering any of the questions I have put to you. I don’t need to prove anything as you’ve done it yourself.
And before you say it, Yes PC’s cost loads more money than Consoles and are aimed at totally different audiences, but I’m not disputing this.
I’m saying that this statement…
Turbonutter wrote:
> ...and DirectX errors, DOS memory maxing, crashing, incompatability, graphics
> card drivers, segfaults, lack of memory, and then, if you actually DO get it
> working, it crashes just metres from the save point!
PCs are not designed for
> gaming. In fact, as gaming hardware goes, they're pretty damn crap. Stable
> framerate on a PC? Not possible.
Is totally unfounded, and despite me asking you to bring weight to your statement on two occasions now, you seem incapable of doing so. And to be quite honest I don’t want to get drawn any further into a debate with a ‘console kid’ who knows very little (by his own admission) about PC’s, their hardware and how they work.
Stick to posting about Consoles – at least here you have some idea of what you’re talking about!
> 5 years? This PC was bought in 1998. Furthermore, it's well above the minimum
> specs for Counter Strike, despite it only running at ~3fps
Oh okay, so FOUR years (not five) ago!
So you're saying that in 1998 you bought a PC with 32 Mb’s PC66 RAM?
Well more the fool you.
I bought a PII 333 with 64MB of RAM at Christmas 1998 (which at the time wasn’t classed as top of the range, so god knows who told you the one you were buying was a "top of the range multimedia desktop"!
Hell the P3 500 was released in late Q1 of 1999!
I still own this machine and it’ll play Half-Life quite comfortably at 800X600 res…….
Are you sure you’ve actually installed Windows? Maybe you’re trying to run Counter-Strike through DOS or something …LOL
Despite the fact that you said I needed to prove you have little knowledge on games and computers, you seem incapable of answering any of the questions I have put to you. I don’t need to prove anything as you’ve done it yourself.
And before you say it, Yes PC’s cost loads more money than Consoles and are aimed at totally different audiences, but I’m not disputing this.
I’m saying that this statement…
Turbonutter wrote:
> ...and DirectX errors, DOS memory maxing, crashing, incompatability, graphics
> card drivers, segfaults, lack of memory, and then, if you actually DO get it
> working, it crashes just metres from the save point!
PCs are not designed for
> gaming. In fact, as gaming hardware goes, they're pretty damn crap. Stable
> framerate on a PC? Not possible.
Is totally unfounded, and despite me asking you to bring weight to your statement on two occasions now, you seem incapable of doing so. And to be quite honest I don’t want to get drawn any further into a debate with a ‘console kid’ who knows very little (by his own admission) about PC’s, their hardware and how they work.
Stick to posting about Consoles – at least here you have some idea of what you’re talking about!
Got it in one Joby!
Best topic ever.
Basically:
PC's with anything to do with Microsoft on it-CRAP
Microsoft-CRAP.
Glad we got that sorted.
PC's with anything to do with Microsoft on it-CRAP
Microsoft-CRAP.
Glad we got that sorted.
....at minimum res.
5 years? This PC was bought in 1998. Furthermore, it's well above the minimum specs for Counter Strike, despite it only running at ~3fps
Turbonutter wrote:
> Because can all be problems that affect PC gaming, especially since this
> "top of the range multimedia desktop" originally only contained a
> single 32mb PC66 DIMM
http://luke.ac6.org/turbonutter/boxen/viper.png
what the hell of an answer is that?
What relavence has a PC that is like 5 years + out of date got to do with mordern PC gaming. It's like saying consoles have crap graphics because the Vectrex had a monocrome screen!
To be honest i don't even know what to say to that post, it's just so damn crazy i'm honestly lost for words!
Once again, if you can explain how the problems you mentioned effect MODERN PC's then fair enough, but an answer like that is just not even worth dignifying with my time.
I thought i had missjudged you Turbo, but come on, that post was just way off! And as i said, if you don't understand modern PC's (for whatever reason: don't like the games etc) then why, oh why, post stuff like you have prevoiously in this threat!
> Because can all be problems that affect PC gaming, especially since this
> "top of the range multimedia desktop" originally only contained a
> single 32mb PC66 DIMM
http://luke.ac6.org/turbonutter/boxen/viper.png
what the hell of an answer is that?
What relavence has a PC that is like 5 years + out of date got to do with mordern PC gaming. It's like saying consoles have crap graphics because the Vectrex had a monocrome screen!
To be honest i don't even know what to say to that post, it's just so damn crazy i'm honestly lost for words!
Once again, if you can explain how the problems you mentioned effect MODERN PC's then fair enough, but an answer like that is just not even worth dignifying with my time.
I thought i had missjudged you Turbo, but come on, that post was just way off! And as i said, if you don't understand modern PC's (for whatever reason: don't like the games etc) then why, oh why, post stuff like you have prevoiously in this threat!
Because can all be problems that affect PC gaming, especially since this "top of the range multimedia desktop" originally only contained a single 32mb PC66 DIMM
http://luke.ac6.org/turbonutter/boxen/viper.png
http://luke.ac6.org/turbonutter/boxen/viper.png
Page: