The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
So with your knowledge of PC's, which by your own admission is poor, do you stand by the statments you made above?
For example, could you explain to me how 'Dos memory maxing' would effect you when playing a game like Return to Castle Wolfenstein? or why a modern PC would ever encounter a 'lack of memory' problem?
And you're right, i am not really in a position to judge you, and i haven't been reading what you post for that long. However, you must agree that statments like the one above don't really do much to give the impression of an understanding and knowledge of what you're saying.
if you don't understand the subject, why post such a bold message?
> ...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.
So with your knowledge of PC's, which by your own admission is poor, do you stand by the statments you made above?
For example, could you explain to me how 'Dos memory maxing' would effect you when playing a game like Return to Castle Wolfenstein? or why a modern PC would ever encounter a 'lack of memory' problem?
And you're right, i am not really in a position to judge you, and i haven't been reading what you post for that long. However, you must agree that statments like the one above don't really do much to give the impression of an understanding and knowledge of what you're saying.
if you don't understand the subject, why post such a bold message?
"And as for your remarks about my gaming knowledge, I refuse to take you seriously because you have only been reading my posts for two days.
But, if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have, ooh, a week to prove your claims."
Why don't you two have a gaming quiz to the death to see who wins? I would gladly be the scorekeeper and Joby could be the quiz master. Ya like?
But, if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have, ooh, a week to prove your claims."
Why don't you two have a gaming quiz to the death to see who wins? I would gladly be the scorekeeper and Joby could be the quiz master. Ya like?
Turbonutter wrote:
> You're right. I do know very little about PC gaming, mainly because this PC is
> too poor.
And as for your remarks about my gaming knowledge, I refuse to take
> you seriously because you have only been reading my posts for two days.
But,
> if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have,
> ooh, a week to prove your claims.
heh... I shall wait and see....
> You're right. I do know very little about PC gaming, mainly because this PC is
> too poor.
And as for your remarks about my gaming knowledge, I refuse to take
> you seriously because you have only been reading my posts for two days.
But,
> if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have,
> ooh, a week to prove your claims.
heh... I shall wait and see....
You're right. I do know very little about PC gaming, mainly because this PC is too poor.
And as for your remarks about my gaming knowledge, I refuse to take you seriously because you have only been reading my posts for two days.
But, if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have, ooh, a week to prove your claims.
And as for your remarks about my gaming knowledge, I refuse to take you seriously because you have only been reading my posts for two days.
But, if you must persist in your accusations, I feel I must challenge you! You have, ooh, a week to prove your claims.
I am waiting for Turbonutters reply to thta post by The_King.
And that last post by Turbo Nutter must surly, once and for all, prove that he hasn't got a clue about PC gaming. Yes PC's weren't designed for games, but other than that fact (which is fairly obvious, even to my girlfriend!) everything else you said should be taken with a huge (were talking city-sized) grain of alt!
In fact to be honest, it appears that you have very little understanding or knowledge of ANY sort of gaming - other than the odd, very narrow minded opinion of someone who quite obviously has no idea how the industry works.
Still, at least your posts are funny :-)
In fact to be honest, it appears that you have very little understanding or knowledge of ANY sort of gaming - other than the odd, very narrow minded opinion of someone who quite obviously has no idea how the industry works.
Still, at least your posts are funny :-)
...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.
PCs are not designed for gaming. In fact, as gaming hardware goes, they're pretty damn crap. Stable framerate on a PC? Not possible.
All I'm saying is this:
At the moment (not here yet though) you can buy 4 "consoles", the GBA, PS2, GC and Xbox. This creates what is commonly termed as a "console war". Now we all know that without a doubt the GBA will sell more than all the others. Does this mean it can be said to have "won"? I really don't think so. Many people don't put the GBA in the same class of the other three, mainly because it's only £70, is more than a generation (that's 5 years) behind in power and is currently, playing quite a lot of remakes. Sure, they're all consoles and they all play games, but whereas 3 of them can be defined as "very advanced, playing all the latest games, extreme graphics, bondary pushing ideas, quite expensive, blah blah blah" the GBA can be defined as "Somewhere between the PSone and the SNES, playing mostly remakes, quite cheap, handheld blah blah blah". In my opinion to say it has won the console war would be ludicrous. Sure, it may HELP the GC's sales, but we only really need to look at the GC's final sales in 4 years or so's time, and whatever bearing the GBA had had on that will be included in that.
At the moment (not here yet though) you can buy 4 "consoles", the GBA, PS2, GC and Xbox. This creates what is commonly termed as a "console war". Now we all know that without a doubt the GBA will sell more than all the others. Does this mean it can be said to have "won"? I really don't think so. Many people don't put the GBA in the same class of the other three, mainly because it's only £70, is more than a generation (that's 5 years) behind in power and is currently, playing quite a lot of remakes. Sure, they're all consoles and they all play games, but whereas 3 of them can be defined as "very advanced, playing all the latest games, extreme graphics, bondary pushing ideas, quite expensive, blah blah blah" the GBA can be defined as "Somewhere between the PSone and the SNES, playing mostly remakes, quite cheap, handheld blah blah blah". In my opinion to say it has won the console war would be ludicrous. Sure, it may HELP the GC's sales, but we only really need to look at the GC's final sales in 4 years or so's time, and whatever bearing the GBA had had on that will be included in that.
Page: