The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Microsoft has decided to release their new green box of crap(opps did I say that) before the release of the PS3 that will come out around 2005. I think one of the main reasons is that little Billy wasn't to happy about the fact that the Xbox scratches the disc when you put them inside.
The Xbox2 will have a little more advanced graphics in it but the early bird doesn't necessarly get the worm. Do you think the Xbox2 will have the same downfall as the Dreamcast because Sega released their system too early even though it was far superior than the N64 and the Playstation? We will just have to wait and see I guess.
The Xbox2 will have a little more advanced graphics in it but the early bird doesn't necessarly get the worm. Do you think the Xbox2 will have the same downfall as the Dreamcast because Sega released their system too early even though it was far superior than the N64 and the Playstation? We will just have to wait and see I guess.
Page:
It may surprise some of you, but I am fairly interested in what XBox 2 "might" offer.
Sony PS3 will be quick, but we just don't know where they are going with the design. Some say Sony want PS3 to be a set top decoder that downloads games from the net via broadband. Does this mean, that PS3 won't have DVD, CD or any other type of disc drive? If it is a download box only, with no games on disc, that also rules out PS1/PS2 compatibility. I wouldn't go for a console like that, since I can't use it (no broadband in the area). In any case, I probably couldn't afford the sign up charges or monthly subscriptions that would follow. I just hope Sony stick one of their new Blue Laser DVD drives (30Gb) in it. Even with that, I still doubt it will play PS1/PS2 games.
XBox2 could also change before launch, but it looks more likely it will based around the existing XBox, but updated with more power. This would indicate the presence of a DVD drive, so it would not *require* broadband.
As for Game Cube 2, we just don't know.
Sony PS3 will be quick, but we just don't know where they are going with the design. Some say Sony want PS3 to be a set top decoder that downloads games from the net via broadband. Does this mean, that PS3 won't have DVD, CD or any other type of disc drive? If it is a download box only, with no games on disc, that also rules out PS1/PS2 compatibility. I wouldn't go for a console like that, since I can't use it (no broadband in the area). In any case, I probably couldn't afford the sign up charges or monthly subscriptions that would follow. I just hope Sony stick one of their new Blue Laser DVD drives (30Gb) in it. Even with that, I still doubt it will play PS1/PS2 games.
XBox2 could also change before launch, but it looks more likely it will based around the existing XBox, but updated with more power. This would indicate the presence of a DVD drive, so it would not *require* broadband.
As for Game Cube 2, we just don't know.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
> In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do
> certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers.
>
> Criterion have said that Halo most definitely would be possible on
> PS2.
>
> What do you make of that?
I declare thee to be a PS2 fanboy :)
On a more serious note, my thoughts are:
Comparing the relative specs of the machines have been mentioned to be like comparing apples and bananas.
This leaves no facts whatsoever to base any arguments on, only personal opinion on the standard of the games. This makes debating on what the machines can do rather futile.
Therefore, I declare the Dreamcast to be the superior console.
> VenomByte wrote:
> In any case, I'm basing the comments about PS2 not being able to do
> certain games on what I've read in interviews with developers.
>
> Criterion have said that Halo most definitely would be possible on
> PS2.
>
> What do you make of that?
I declare thee to be a PS2 fanboy :)
On a more serious note, my thoughts are:
Comparing the relative specs of the machines have been mentioned to be like comparing apples and bananas.
This leaves no facts whatsoever to base any arguments on, only personal opinion on the standard of the games. This makes debating on what the machines can do rather futile.
Therefore, I declare the Dreamcast to be the superior console.
I heard about that as Well. Surprisingly I really dought Many Gamers would Purchase The PS3 Because most likely wont be able to Play the PS1 and PS2 Games on it. I wonder if Xbox2 will do the same?
Drunken Cow wrote:
> Xbox2 will come before PS3!!!!!
Oh, I'm coming, I'm coming I'm...
heh...
*runs*
> Xbox2 will come before PS3!!!!!
Oh, I'm coming, I'm coming I'm...
heh...
*runs*
Right judging by what I have read in here we can tell easily who owns what console(s).
:-)
Right from where I left off.
There isn't much in the way of difference between any of the consoles performace wise (even the dreamcast, it didn't "fail" due to performace of the machine thats for sure)
But whatever you chose you will be guarenteed a good experience, games of a high standard so why should be go on about one being better or worse than another?
We are being ripped off quite a lot by most of these companies yet a lot of people seem to stick up for them no matter what. Why?
Take it from me, experience the lot if you can, even if it means having a go in shops or at a friends but to stick with one console etc means you will miss out.
I know that is aside from the main post but it just seems like most of you are raising points that not only are more rumours than facts but also we do expect the performance of each to be different in each case, but when one is good in some areas it fails in many others.
Like with the XBox, you need a fairly new TV to get the highest graphics performance out of it.
The PS2 is tricky to design on and means that its potential may never be reached by developers. Etc etc the list could go on but I'm sleepy so it won't.
:-)
:-)
Right from where I left off.
There isn't much in the way of difference between any of the consoles performace wise (even the dreamcast, it didn't "fail" due to performace of the machine thats for sure)
But whatever you chose you will be guarenteed a good experience, games of a high standard so why should be go on about one being better or worse than another?
We are being ripped off quite a lot by most of these companies yet a lot of people seem to stick up for them no matter what. Why?
Take it from me, experience the lot if you can, even if it means having a go in shops or at a friends but to stick with one console etc means you will miss out.
I know that is aside from the main post but it just seems like most of you are raising points that not only are more rumours than facts but also we do expect the performance of each to be different in each case, but when one is good in some areas it fails in many others.
Like with the XBox, you need a fairly new TV to get the highest graphics performance out of it.
The PS2 is tricky to design on and means that its potential may never be reached by developers. Etc etc the list could go on but I'm sleepy so it won't.
:-)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> My PS2 has been vertical since purchase (at launch) and remains
> problem free.
Ditto
Although I've only had mine since July 2001. Thats still a bloody long time though! And my Bro has left the damn thing on all day sometimes when i'm not around!
> My PS2 has been vertical since purchase (at launch) and remains
> problem free.
Ditto
Although I've only had mine since July 2001. Thats still a bloody long time though! And my Bro has left the damn thing on all day sometimes when i'm not around!
It makes me mad that the Gamecubes original color is purple.:-D
½pint wrote:
> It makes ME mad the way standing your PS2 vertically makes it break.
> Although I have no conclusive evidence, I know it happens.
Okay, not sure if that's a ridiculous dig or not, but...
My PS2 has been vertical since purchase (at launch) and remains problem free.
> It makes ME mad the way standing your PS2 vertically makes it break.
> Although I have no conclusive evidence, I know it happens.
Okay, not sure if that's a ridiculous dig or not, but...
My PS2 has been vertical since purchase (at launch) and remains problem free.
Why - are you one of those 243 people who had faulty Japanese Xboxs?
It makes ME mad the way standing your PS2 vertically makes it break. Although I have no conclusive evidence, I know it happens.
It makes ME mad the way standing your PS2 vertically makes it break. Although I have no conclusive evidence, I know it happens.
½pint wrote:
> I just think people shouldn't have aggro against the Xbox just because
> it's made by Microsoft. I mean, that's the only reason people are
> arguing, is because of who it's made by. If it was made by Sony, the
> situation would be entirely different.
Actaully the Xbox just makes me mad because it scatches the games. That's all nothing else.
> I just think people shouldn't have aggro against the Xbox just because
> it's made by Microsoft. I mean, that's the only reason people are
> arguing, is because of who it's made by. If it was made by Sony, the
> situation would be entirely different.
Actaully the Xbox just makes me mad because it scatches the games. That's all nothing else.
Page: