The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
For the first time since my existence began on this technologically advanced planet, I have been forced to submit to having just one console from each gaming era, if I was lucky. In the golden-old days of gaming, I had the ZX Spectrum. In the 8-bit era I managed to aqquire a better model ZX Spectrum. In the 16-bit era, my brother had a Super NES. In the 32-bit era my brother had a Nintendo 64. In the 128-bit era (looks like gaming skipped a heartbeat), things have changed. My brother and I combined, have managed to get one of every console of the 128-bit era between us. That is the Playstation 2, the GameCube, the X-box, the Dreamcast and the Game Boy Advance.
"Show off!" I hear some of you say in your jealousy, others of you should have more sense than to be too concerned about what different consoles I have and will be enjoying the consoles you have. For me, however, it gives me the chance to express an honest and fair opinion on all the consoles, and considering this may be the only time in my life where I'll have every current console on the market, I am going to take the opportunity now whilst I still have the chance.
Style:
Each console has its own certain style. And although style shouldn't really make or break a console, it can cause many different arguments between people about which console looks the best.
The console I would consider in having the best casing would be the GameCube. It is small, it is cool and with the choice of two colours there's no excuse for anyone not to buy it 'because its purple'. It's small design means it's portable and can be taken virtually anywhere which can't be said for my second choice, the X-box. The X-box, although looks cool, weighs around a tonne (which is not good if you're trying to walk half a mile home from the nearest bus stop is it?), but it sits nice and steadily on any stand (big and strong enough to support it), whether it be a table, TV cabinet shelf or just your bedroom floor. The Dreamcast would be my next choice when it comes to looks. It's small, white (which is unusual for a console seeing as developers used to go for the cheap grey colour plastic *cough*Nintendo*cough*) and it's shape makes it look simple. Because it doesn't have a lime-green blob on it or any purple areas it can suit any colour scheme in a room. What doesn't seem to go with anything is the perculiar shaped Playstation 2. It's slanted, it's crinkle-cut (although the X-box is too), and Sony sell stands for it to be kept vertical and horizontal! Where's the logic in that? I mean, is a rectangular console really going to have a problem with lying flat on one of it's larger sides? Sure, the upright feature may have seemed a great novelty at first, but when your three year old cousin pushes it, vertical stand or no vertical stand, it makes a mighty fine crash when it falls. There was just no logic involved in the design at all and it's a wonder more people still don't come out with the "radiator" and "toaster" comments, even though the console looks more like...well it doesn't look like anything in fact! The blue light on the front is the only part of the design I like, so I'm glad I don't have to have the Playstation 2 in my room.
You may have noticed in the extremely large paragraph comparing the consoles that I missed out the Game Boy Advance. In my opinion, it doesn't really compete for style. It's a different type of console altogether, fitting in the hand, having it's own screen and being it's own controller. The only comparisons I would be able to make in this respect would be with other handhelds such as the Game Boy Color, the Game Boy and the Game Gear, and considering they're not current generation, I see no point.
Controllers:
What is a games console without some method of input? Well it's a waste of space. A game needs something to play it with. In old fashioned cases it was a dice and counters, in the twenty-first century it's buttons and sticks. This is why the feeling of comfort and the easiness of being able to reach buttons with your thumbs and fingers is exremely important to the enjoyment you recieve whilst playing games.
One again I have to say the GameCube's controller stands out a mile when it comes to the the feel and the ease of use in games. Although looking like something Duplo made, the controller feels like it was designed for the games and not the other way around. The sticks are in easy reach for people with large or small hands and the majority of the buttons don't make you feel like you're giving your thumbs a workout to try and press them. The analogue shoulder buttons have been moulded perfectly for fingers to be placed over the top and their extra 'click' function, although not used in many games as of yet, replaces the need to putting extra stress on the control sticks. The only problem I have with the controller is the Z button. Although it makes you wonder why there wasn't another button on the left side of the controller, the Z button isn't so easy to press and makes me almost have to reposition my hand just to use it. The controller just doesn't feel right for both the R and the Z button to be used the same time, which is a bit of a bummer when you want to use secondary functions in weapons on games such as TimeSplitters 2 and Turok Evolution.
Despite the comments made about Microsoft 'not being experienced enough in home videogames', they've made a bloomin' good start! However, they haven't really done anything with reguards to making a decent controller other than to make it look good. They've shaped it like an 'X', which although it matches the console, doesn't make for a good shaped controller. It feels a little too big and bulky and to reach the Start and Back buttons required you to move your right hand (or left depending on which you prefer). However, despite the initial comfort problems, Microsoft have put together a fairly decent controller. They've taken the trigger elements of the Dreamcast controller, the four coloured A, B, X, Y buttons of the Super NES controller, and have followed the design of the Nintendo GameCube's controller of putting the sticks in a non-symmetrical way making sure thumbs don't collide when they are pushed towards each other. What Microsoft have also managed to do is make the analogue action buttons (A, B, X and Y) feel like analogue action buttons, as opposed to the Playstation 2s which feel very much alike the Super Nintendo's action buttons. Now when you're racing in Sega GT 2002, you feel the need to apply more pressure to accelorate which you know you can do because the X-box controller can cope with it.
Microsoft have listened to the complaints of the many from the United Kingdom and Japan and have released a smaller controller, named Controller S. Atleast they listen to public opinion (*cough*Nintendo*cough*) but to me, personally, I prefer the larger bulkier version of the X-box controller. The Controller S just feels too small and doesn't fit snuggly in my hands like the GameCube's controller. I suppose the Japanese, stereotyped to have most their body parts smaller than western people, really must have smaller hands if that's what they feel more comfortable with.
Next up is the Game Boy Advance. Although it is a handheld games console, it still has it's controls, and can also be used as a GameCube controller depending on the games. I have to admit that, although it's not perfect, the addition of shoulder buttons has made the Game Boy Advance that little bit more fun by allowing games to feature more functions. However, these shoulder buttons feel cheap and tacky and could have been better designed for people with larger fingers. Nintendo could have added a couple extra action buttons to the normal A and B featured on Game Boys too, maybe then Super Nintendo ports would feel much more comfortable to play.
The Dreamcast's controller is a little less ergonomic and a little more basic than the competitors devices. It's unusual shape does have it's advantages though. The console was able to use Visual Memory Units, memory cards with screens and buttons on them, which sometimes boosted the games by adding extra little effects (like Cupil's chard-finding abilities in Skies of Arcadia). However, this does not make for a comfortable controller. Although the trigger buttons make for very good analogue input, as Microsoft have observed, the action buttons feel too far apart and the analogue control stick is just too cheap and tacky for gamers who have played the other three consoles to get a grips with. For example, you push up on the controller and the actual stick turns about 90 degrees as you do so. Although you're still pushing up, you feel like there's added pressure on your thumb as the skin in contact with the stck is twisted slightly. Overall, however, the Dreamcast's unique style of controller is better than the final, unmentioned controller.
The Playstation 2. Although the console's look was changed, Sony only added a bit of colour to the mould as far as they were concerned with their controller. Don't get me wrong, it's not the worst controller ever designed, but it's over the hills and far away from being perfect. First of all, the controller is too small. Although it's width is only millimetres smaller than the GameCube's controller, it has no depth. There's nothing to grip onto, which makes actually using the controller fairly difficult indeed. Much alike the Dreamcast's controller, the action buttons are too far apart, and unlike all the competition featuring dual analogue control, the sticks are too close together making for a lot of thumb bashing in the annoying, non-Mario Party way. The only advantage the Playstation 2 controller has, in my opinion, is the shoulder buttons. They make for some good easy reach buttons to be used in shooting games.
Format:
They type of storage for the actual games themselves is now considered extremely important, moreso than it once was. Years ago it didn't seem too important how long loading seemed to take. People were happy enough to wait up to half hour for their ZX Spectrum games to load, whereas other could boast much quicker loading times whilst using some form of cartridge or magnetic disc such as the 5" and the 3.5" floppy diskettes. However, now people know technology can provide us with instantaneous loading, people can't stand waiting ten seconds let alone ten minutes, so quick transfer of data is vital for keeping the punters happy.
This is where the Game Boy Advance actually prevails. Because the game is stored on a removeable circuit board and connectsdirectly to the Game Boy Advance, there is very little, if any, loading involved. The only problem is the cartridges used for Game Boy Advance games are so small, they can easily be lost, which is poor design of Nintendo considering they aim the Game Boy Advance at the younger audience.
Nintendo have also got the crown of having the fastest loading times on their TV-based console, the GameCube. It uses unique ODs (although 'Optical Disc' is the general term for any kind of CD, DVD, or storage medium scanned by light) that are 8 centimetres in diametre. This allows for some very quick loading that in comparison with the other consoles on the market, is nothing at all. The disadvantage, as far as multiformat gamers are concerned, is that the console can not play audio CDs and DVDs, unlike the other two consoles.
Microsoft and Sony have gone with the DVD format to put their games onto. This means their consoles can play DVD movies as well as games. In a market where more is usually (but not necessarily) better, this increases fierce competition and raises the stakes, as well as allowing me to watch Red Dwarf series one without actually buying a DVD player.
Sega went for the cheapest approach (maybe why their console isn't on the market now?) and used normal CDs to store games on. Although they modified the game discs to run on a specialised Dreamcast format. This was their method of preventing pirate copies to be produced of Dreamcast games, however it didn't take long at all for somebody to find away to copy them. Because their discs are the old CD format, they don't hold as much data as the other OD formats and games take longest to load.
Features:
As with all the consoles, we have seen many features and we are still to see some, promised to us by the console developers for the future. Some features can be the deciding factor for some people such as online play or backwards compatability, whereas others are just little somethings that make gaming that little bit more fun.
This is where the GameCube again comes out on top. With the aid of the Game Boy Advance and GameCube to Game Boy Advance link cable, gamers can download mini-games from one format to the other, use the Game Boy Advance as a controller with an additional screen, and with this level of interactivity comes the potential for a huge amount of possibilities in the future, such as the Game Boy E-card reader being used to transfer data from collectors cards to GameCube games (Animal Crossing being the one most recently mentioned) opening up new features in them. The GameCube also has three extension ports (two for modems) which could be used in the future, one example being a GameCube add-on like the DD was to the Nintendo 64.
For the Microsoft fans, the X-box comes next with a lot of features ready out of the box! First up is the ability to play DVDs - though Microsoft cunningly programmed the DVD player to only work with a remote meaning you'll have to spend some extra pennies to play them. Another cool feature is the ability to play audio CDs on the X-box. Although the Playstation 2 and Dreamcast boast the same ability, Microsoft have gone one better by allowing you to copy your favourite songs onto the X-box hard disk drive so that they can be used in compatable games! The hard disk is Microsoft's biggest feature though. With it, the only need for a memory card is to transfer data from one X-box to the other, and that's not likely to happen often. Microsoft also boasts internet play out of the box - though a cable to plug the X-box into the telephone line has to be bought seperately, and nobody is too certain of the costs yet, but whatever happens, I personally can't see myself taking up any online play features with any console unless I can use my own ISP and not get charged extra for playing games I have already paid up to forty quid for.
Sony comes up next, only just beating the Dreamcast with features in that it can play DVDs. The Playstation 2 is expected to go online sometime next year allowing for internet play on a number of titles.
The Dreamcast is sadly last on the list. The VMU system was a flop, requiring extra batteries to sustain it, and the arcade system allowing you to continue your games was not widely used (maybe for fear someone else might take your VMU?). The Dreamcast did use the feature of being able to play CDS though and a few of the Dreamcast discs themselves had extra content such as PC desktops.
Games:
The actual fun experienced in the games depends on personal preferences, but the range of games available can still be measured.
Nintendo come up top trumps with a general selection of games for all ages, although not exactly matching the amount of games the Playstation 2 has going for it, the GameCube has only been out for six months and already has a strong line up with Resident Evil, BMX XXX and Eternal Darkness as some examples for the late-teens to adult, and Super Mario Sunshine, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle and Crash Bandicoot as some examples for the younger audience.
The Playstation 2 comes in second place with a huge library of games, though some could argue that it isn't a fair comparison considering there are still a lot of Playstation One games being played on the Playstation 2, which, although having a back-catalogue of games is a good thing, doesn't do any good for those who want just Playstation 2 games. In saying that, there are many games for every age on the Playstation 2 including the highly acclaimed Grand Theft Auto series and the Final Fantasy series.
The Game Boy Advance comes next, boasting many a game since 1989. As the Game Boy Advance is aimed for everyone, it can play any Game Boy games from the past including the original Tetris all the way to Yoshi's Island, which was originally seen on the Super Nintendo.
Next it's the X-box's turn. It has been out for much longer than the GameCube in the United Kingdom, yet can't boast many more games. Microsoft, in aiming the console at the older market, have not got so many of the cute and cuddly games on them but do have some exclusives for the adults such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Project Gotham Racing.
The Dreamcast has to, sadly, come in last, despite having some of the best games ever created in it's library - Skies of Arcadia being one of them. The Dreamcast just had too many arcade ports and didn't focus on what people wanted to play at home. So even though they may have made brilliant games that were successful in the arcades, it wasn't enough to boast the best library of games around.
Verdict:
You see, I'm not one of these people who's interested in sales. I don't care if Playstation 2 is still going strong in the market, or if Sega have stopped production of the Dreamcast. Somebody's favourite console could be the worst for someone else! So, based on my opinions and statements above, this is the order I'd put the consoles in, from best to worst in the 128-bit era:
1. Nintendo GameCube
2. Microsoft X-box
3. Sega Dreamcast
4. Game Boy Advance
5. Sony Playstation 2
Yes, you'd be right to disagree. Who am I to say this is true and final. Everybody has their favourites and will interpret the facts in a way to suit them. But this topic wasn't typed to start arguments, just to put my opinions across and allow you to do the same. I have got the ability to play any of these five consoles whenever I am at home, and I took the opportunity to make as fair a comparison as I could. If you disagree with me, say why, but please, please, please don't criticise a console you haven't played!
"Show off!" I hear some of you say in your jealousy, others of you should have more sense than to be too concerned about what different consoles I have and will be enjoying the consoles you have. For me, however, it gives me the chance to express an honest and fair opinion on all the consoles, and considering this may be the only time in my life where I'll have every current console on the market, I am going to take the opportunity now whilst I still have the chance.
Style:
Each console has its own certain style. And although style shouldn't really make or break a console, it can cause many different arguments between people about which console looks the best.
The console I would consider in having the best casing would be the GameCube. It is small, it is cool and with the choice of two colours there's no excuse for anyone not to buy it 'because its purple'. It's small design means it's portable and can be taken virtually anywhere which can't be said for my second choice, the X-box. The X-box, although looks cool, weighs around a tonne (which is not good if you're trying to walk half a mile home from the nearest bus stop is it?), but it sits nice and steadily on any stand (big and strong enough to support it), whether it be a table, TV cabinet shelf or just your bedroom floor. The Dreamcast would be my next choice when it comes to looks. It's small, white (which is unusual for a console seeing as developers used to go for the cheap grey colour plastic *cough*Nintendo*cough*) and it's shape makes it look simple. Because it doesn't have a lime-green blob on it or any purple areas it can suit any colour scheme in a room. What doesn't seem to go with anything is the perculiar shaped Playstation 2. It's slanted, it's crinkle-cut (although the X-box is too), and Sony sell stands for it to be kept vertical and horizontal! Where's the logic in that? I mean, is a rectangular console really going to have a problem with lying flat on one of it's larger sides? Sure, the upright feature may have seemed a great novelty at first, but when your three year old cousin pushes it, vertical stand or no vertical stand, it makes a mighty fine crash when it falls. There was just no logic involved in the design at all and it's a wonder more people still don't come out with the "radiator" and "toaster" comments, even though the console looks more like...well it doesn't look like anything in fact! The blue light on the front is the only part of the design I like, so I'm glad I don't have to have the Playstation 2 in my room.
You may have noticed in the extremely large paragraph comparing the consoles that I missed out the Game Boy Advance. In my opinion, it doesn't really compete for style. It's a different type of console altogether, fitting in the hand, having it's own screen and being it's own controller. The only comparisons I would be able to make in this respect would be with other handhelds such as the Game Boy Color, the Game Boy and the Game Gear, and considering they're not current generation, I see no point.
Controllers:
What is a games console without some method of input? Well it's a waste of space. A game needs something to play it with. In old fashioned cases it was a dice and counters, in the twenty-first century it's buttons and sticks. This is why the feeling of comfort and the easiness of being able to reach buttons with your thumbs and fingers is exremely important to the enjoyment you recieve whilst playing games.
One again I have to say the GameCube's controller stands out a mile when it comes to the the feel and the ease of use in games. Although looking like something Duplo made, the controller feels like it was designed for the games and not the other way around. The sticks are in easy reach for people with large or small hands and the majority of the buttons don't make you feel like you're giving your thumbs a workout to try and press them. The analogue shoulder buttons have been moulded perfectly for fingers to be placed over the top and their extra 'click' function, although not used in many games as of yet, replaces the need to putting extra stress on the control sticks. The only problem I have with the controller is the Z button. Although it makes you wonder why there wasn't another button on the left side of the controller, the Z button isn't so easy to press and makes me almost have to reposition my hand just to use it. The controller just doesn't feel right for both the R and the Z button to be used the same time, which is a bit of a bummer when you want to use secondary functions in weapons on games such as TimeSplitters 2 and Turok Evolution.
Despite the comments made about Microsoft 'not being experienced enough in home videogames', they've made a bloomin' good start! However, they haven't really done anything with reguards to making a decent controller other than to make it look good. They've shaped it like an 'X', which although it matches the console, doesn't make for a good shaped controller. It feels a little too big and bulky and to reach the Start and Back buttons required you to move your right hand (or left depending on which you prefer). However, despite the initial comfort problems, Microsoft have put together a fairly decent controller. They've taken the trigger elements of the Dreamcast controller, the four coloured A, B, X, Y buttons of the Super NES controller, and have followed the design of the Nintendo GameCube's controller of putting the sticks in a non-symmetrical way making sure thumbs don't collide when they are pushed towards each other. What Microsoft have also managed to do is make the analogue action buttons (A, B, X and Y) feel like analogue action buttons, as opposed to the Playstation 2s which feel very much alike the Super Nintendo's action buttons. Now when you're racing in Sega GT 2002, you feel the need to apply more pressure to accelorate which you know you can do because the X-box controller can cope with it.
Microsoft have listened to the complaints of the many from the United Kingdom and Japan and have released a smaller controller, named Controller S. Atleast they listen to public opinion (*cough*Nintendo*cough*) but to me, personally, I prefer the larger bulkier version of the X-box controller. The Controller S just feels too small and doesn't fit snuggly in my hands like the GameCube's controller. I suppose the Japanese, stereotyped to have most their body parts smaller than western people, really must have smaller hands if that's what they feel more comfortable with.
Next up is the Game Boy Advance. Although it is a handheld games console, it still has it's controls, and can also be used as a GameCube controller depending on the games. I have to admit that, although it's not perfect, the addition of shoulder buttons has made the Game Boy Advance that little bit more fun by allowing games to feature more functions. However, these shoulder buttons feel cheap and tacky and could have been better designed for people with larger fingers. Nintendo could have added a couple extra action buttons to the normal A and B featured on Game Boys too, maybe then Super Nintendo ports would feel much more comfortable to play.
The Dreamcast's controller is a little less ergonomic and a little more basic than the competitors devices. It's unusual shape does have it's advantages though. The console was able to use Visual Memory Units, memory cards with screens and buttons on them, which sometimes boosted the games by adding extra little effects (like Cupil's chard-finding abilities in Skies of Arcadia). However, this does not make for a comfortable controller. Although the trigger buttons make for very good analogue input, as Microsoft have observed, the action buttons feel too far apart and the analogue control stick is just too cheap and tacky for gamers who have played the other three consoles to get a grips with. For example, you push up on the controller and the actual stick turns about 90 degrees as you do so. Although you're still pushing up, you feel like there's added pressure on your thumb as the skin in contact with the stck is twisted slightly. Overall, however, the Dreamcast's unique style of controller is better than the final, unmentioned controller.
The Playstation 2. Although the console's look was changed, Sony only added a bit of colour to the mould as far as they were concerned with their controller. Don't get me wrong, it's not the worst controller ever designed, but it's over the hills and far away from being perfect. First of all, the controller is too small. Although it's width is only millimetres smaller than the GameCube's controller, it has no depth. There's nothing to grip onto, which makes actually using the controller fairly difficult indeed. Much alike the Dreamcast's controller, the action buttons are too far apart, and unlike all the competition featuring dual analogue control, the sticks are too close together making for a lot of thumb bashing in the annoying, non-Mario Party way. The only advantage the Playstation 2 controller has, in my opinion, is the shoulder buttons. They make for some good easy reach buttons to be used in shooting games.
Format:
They type of storage for the actual games themselves is now considered extremely important, moreso than it once was. Years ago it didn't seem too important how long loading seemed to take. People were happy enough to wait up to half hour for their ZX Spectrum games to load, whereas other could boast much quicker loading times whilst using some form of cartridge or magnetic disc such as the 5" and the 3.5" floppy diskettes. However, now people know technology can provide us with instantaneous loading, people can't stand waiting ten seconds let alone ten minutes, so quick transfer of data is vital for keeping the punters happy.
This is where the Game Boy Advance actually prevails. Because the game is stored on a removeable circuit board and connectsdirectly to the Game Boy Advance, there is very little, if any, loading involved. The only problem is the cartridges used for Game Boy Advance games are so small, they can easily be lost, which is poor design of Nintendo considering they aim the Game Boy Advance at the younger audience.
Nintendo have also got the crown of having the fastest loading times on their TV-based console, the GameCube. It uses unique ODs (although 'Optical Disc' is the general term for any kind of CD, DVD, or storage medium scanned by light) that are 8 centimetres in diametre. This allows for some very quick loading that in comparison with the other consoles on the market, is nothing at all. The disadvantage, as far as multiformat gamers are concerned, is that the console can not play audio CDs and DVDs, unlike the other two consoles.
Microsoft and Sony have gone with the DVD format to put their games onto. This means their consoles can play DVD movies as well as games. In a market where more is usually (but not necessarily) better, this increases fierce competition and raises the stakes, as well as allowing me to watch Red Dwarf series one without actually buying a DVD player.
Sega went for the cheapest approach (maybe why their console isn't on the market now?) and used normal CDs to store games on. Although they modified the game discs to run on a specialised Dreamcast format. This was their method of preventing pirate copies to be produced of Dreamcast games, however it didn't take long at all for somebody to find away to copy them. Because their discs are the old CD format, they don't hold as much data as the other OD formats and games take longest to load.
Features:
As with all the consoles, we have seen many features and we are still to see some, promised to us by the console developers for the future. Some features can be the deciding factor for some people such as online play or backwards compatability, whereas others are just little somethings that make gaming that little bit more fun.
This is where the GameCube again comes out on top. With the aid of the Game Boy Advance and GameCube to Game Boy Advance link cable, gamers can download mini-games from one format to the other, use the Game Boy Advance as a controller with an additional screen, and with this level of interactivity comes the potential for a huge amount of possibilities in the future, such as the Game Boy E-card reader being used to transfer data from collectors cards to GameCube games (Animal Crossing being the one most recently mentioned) opening up new features in them. The GameCube also has three extension ports (two for modems) which could be used in the future, one example being a GameCube add-on like the DD was to the Nintendo 64.
For the Microsoft fans, the X-box comes next with a lot of features ready out of the box! First up is the ability to play DVDs - though Microsoft cunningly programmed the DVD player to only work with a remote meaning you'll have to spend some extra pennies to play them. Another cool feature is the ability to play audio CDs on the X-box. Although the Playstation 2 and Dreamcast boast the same ability, Microsoft have gone one better by allowing you to copy your favourite songs onto the X-box hard disk drive so that they can be used in compatable games! The hard disk is Microsoft's biggest feature though. With it, the only need for a memory card is to transfer data from one X-box to the other, and that's not likely to happen often. Microsoft also boasts internet play out of the box - though a cable to plug the X-box into the telephone line has to be bought seperately, and nobody is too certain of the costs yet, but whatever happens, I personally can't see myself taking up any online play features with any console unless I can use my own ISP and not get charged extra for playing games I have already paid up to forty quid for.
Sony comes up next, only just beating the Dreamcast with features in that it can play DVDs. The Playstation 2 is expected to go online sometime next year allowing for internet play on a number of titles.
The Dreamcast is sadly last on the list. The VMU system was a flop, requiring extra batteries to sustain it, and the arcade system allowing you to continue your games was not widely used (maybe for fear someone else might take your VMU?). The Dreamcast did use the feature of being able to play CDS though and a few of the Dreamcast discs themselves had extra content such as PC desktops.
Games:
The actual fun experienced in the games depends on personal preferences, but the range of games available can still be measured.
Nintendo come up top trumps with a general selection of games for all ages, although not exactly matching the amount of games the Playstation 2 has going for it, the GameCube has only been out for six months and already has a strong line up with Resident Evil, BMX XXX and Eternal Darkness as some examples for the late-teens to adult, and Super Mario Sunshine, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle and Crash Bandicoot as some examples for the younger audience.
The Playstation 2 comes in second place with a huge library of games, though some could argue that it isn't a fair comparison considering there are still a lot of Playstation One games being played on the Playstation 2, which, although having a back-catalogue of games is a good thing, doesn't do any good for those who want just Playstation 2 games. In saying that, there are many games for every age on the Playstation 2 including the highly acclaimed Grand Theft Auto series and the Final Fantasy series.
The Game Boy Advance comes next, boasting many a game since 1989. As the Game Boy Advance is aimed for everyone, it can play any Game Boy games from the past including the original Tetris all the way to Yoshi's Island, which was originally seen on the Super Nintendo.
Next it's the X-box's turn. It has been out for much longer than the GameCube in the United Kingdom, yet can't boast many more games. Microsoft, in aiming the console at the older market, have not got so many of the cute and cuddly games on them but do have some exclusives for the adults such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Project Gotham Racing.
The Dreamcast has to, sadly, come in last, despite having some of the best games ever created in it's library - Skies of Arcadia being one of them. The Dreamcast just had too many arcade ports and didn't focus on what people wanted to play at home. So even though they may have made brilliant games that were successful in the arcades, it wasn't enough to boast the best library of games around.
Verdict:
You see, I'm not one of these people who's interested in sales. I don't care if Playstation 2 is still going strong in the market, or if Sega have stopped production of the Dreamcast. Somebody's favourite console could be the worst for someone else! So, based on my opinions and statements above, this is the order I'd put the consoles in, from best to worst in the 128-bit era:
1. Nintendo GameCube
2. Microsoft X-box
3. Sega Dreamcast
4. Game Boy Advance
5. Sony Playstation 2
Yes, you'd be right to disagree. Who am I to say this is true and final. Everybody has their favourites and will interpret the facts in a way to suit them. But this topic wasn't typed to start arguments, just to put my opinions across and allow you to do the same. I have got the ability to play any of these five consoles whenever I am at home, and I took the opportunity to make as fair a comparison as I could. If you disagree with me, say why, but please, please, please don't criticise a console you haven't played!
Page:
Edgy wrote:
> Mind you, the Nintendo fans could complain about my placing of the
> Game Boy Advance.
No, you're entirely right. The GBA doesn't have a vast amount of excellent NEW titles, but tonnes of conversions. This is good for young gamers who haven't played the originals, but not so good for older, wiser people like us. And the screen itself is a bit of a problem, so I think where you put the GBA is fair.
> Mind you, the Nintendo fans could complain about my placing of the
> Game Boy Advance.
No, you're entirely right. The GBA doesn't have a vast amount of excellent NEW titles, but tonnes of conversions. This is good for young gamers who haven't played the originals, but not so good for older, wiser people like us. And the screen itself is a bit of a problem, so I think where you put the GBA is fair.
I bet the S.O.N.Y. attack force start piling in complaining that I stuck the Playstation 2 at the bottom of the pile. (that's Sony Only Nancy Yokels ;)).
Mind you, the Nintendo fans could complain about my placing of the Game Boy Advance.
Either way, it's up to them.
Glad to see that I'm not the only person who doesn't think the Playstation 2 is better than any of the other current consoles though. :)
Mind you, the Nintendo fans could complain about my placing of the Game Boy Advance.
Either way, it's up to them.
Glad to see that I'm not the only person who doesn't think the Playstation 2 is better than any of the other current consoles though. :)
An all round fair analysis, and a legthy one at that. Well Done. I agree 100% with the final verdict, and you were right to put the PS2 at the bottom of the pile.
El Blokey wrote:
> I still think that despite it being the oldest console, the PS2 is
> amazing with lots of exclusives like Smackdown Shut Your Mouth, and
> Grand Theft Auto. At the very least it's on a par with the NGC and
> XBOX. Despite what many people say, the Dreamcast's best games (with
> the exception of a few such as Shenmue and Skies of Arcadia) didn't
> have much of a shelf life, and pretty much all of them have been
> equalled or bettered in the next generation (GT3 and PGR MSR, for
> instance) or ported with added bells and whistles to other consoles
> (Shenmue II, for instance). The DC was great, but it's not quite as
> good as any of the three next gen consoles.
>
> Nintendo, like you say, have more than enough high-quality exclusives
> to warrant a purchase, the XBOX has the brilliant Halo and a few new
> titles on the horizon such as Steel Battalion and Splinter Cell, and
> the PS2 has a wealth of support and titles, with everything from stuff
> like Kingdom Hearts to Ico to Tekken.
I think the PS2 should be nowhere near the top. I'll explain this in two ways, in a good:bad ratio and then quality for the generation. In terms of good:bad, the PS2 is the console of choice for developers. It has the largest user base, and consequently anybody just out there to make money will go for it. That way, there are a tonne of crap games, and a fair amount of good games. Let's go on the basis that for every 10 bad or mediocre games, there is 1 good game. 10:1. Now, if this ratio was the same with the Xbox or GameCube, they'd fail. They'd only have about 3 good games, which is pathetic (I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but... you know).
Another way to do it is compare the quality of these 'good exclusive' titles with others. Granted, games such as Devil May Cry, Pro Evo and GTA3 don't have equally great counterparts on other consoles, but neither do Mario Sunshine, Halo or Splinter Cell. The thing is, Nintendo has got a very strong line up of first and second party titles, and so does the Xbox. However, naming titles such as Smackdown and Grand Theft Auto is pretty poor. We all know GTA3 and Vice City are amazing, but that's just as bad as an Xbox fan only mentioning Halo, or GameCube fan only mentioning Sunshine. WWE is pretty damn poor. I'm sorry, but it is. As a fighting game, it is edging on the OK, but it's wrestling. Fat, greasy spandex clad men grappling in a phoney, scripted environment. Come on. Compared to some of the quality titles on other consoles, the PS2 does feel a bit shallow. Granted, there are a lot of 7 or 8 out of ten titles in the PS2 catalogue, but I think very few excluse 9's and 10's. Whereas, the GC and Xbox have equal numbers of 9 and 10 scoring games. If you get what I mean. The PS2 has strength in numbers, but these are mainly sub-80% numbers.
The thing is, Blokey bloke, I think you only want the PS2 at the top because it's what you're playing at the moment. To say the Dreamcast's games didn't have much shelf life is stupid. On the grand scale, NO games had large shelf lives. But the fact is, there was so much great, retrotastical gaming on the Dreamcast that made it a classic console to the older more sophisticated gamers. Trust me - if you actually had a Dreamcast, you wouldn't be saying that.
The overall fact is that no opinions can be formed by people with only one console. You have to sit down with a console, twenty games and finish them all to form a decent opinion about that console. Yet, having only have played Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo and Smackdown, you can't then put down other consoles. I know you tried to keep your comments on an acceptable level, and I do think you're so much higher up than other users. I just think that you should play everything to get a good opinion. Don't go slagging off a game without playing it, and the same goes with the hardware. And next gen updates? I've yet to see anything to match Shenmue, SoA, Sonic Adventure, Powerstone or Chu Chu. And that's out of the five games in my Dreamcast collection.
> I still think that despite it being the oldest console, the PS2 is
> amazing with lots of exclusives like Smackdown Shut Your Mouth, and
> Grand Theft Auto. At the very least it's on a par with the NGC and
> XBOX. Despite what many people say, the Dreamcast's best games (with
> the exception of a few such as Shenmue and Skies of Arcadia) didn't
> have much of a shelf life, and pretty much all of them have been
> equalled or bettered in the next generation (GT3 and PGR MSR, for
> instance) or ported with added bells and whistles to other consoles
> (Shenmue II, for instance). The DC was great, but it's not quite as
> good as any of the three next gen consoles.
>
> Nintendo, like you say, have more than enough high-quality exclusives
> to warrant a purchase, the XBOX has the brilliant Halo and a few new
> titles on the horizon such as Steel Battalion and Splinter Cell, and
> the PS2 has a wealth of support and titles, with everything from stuff
> like Kingdom Hearts to Ico to Tekken.
I think the PS2 should be nowhere near the top. I'll explain this in two ways, in a good:bad ratio and then quality for the generation. In terms of good:bad, the PS2 is the console of choice for developers. It has the largest user base, and consequently anybody just out there to make money will go for it. That way, there are a tonne of crap games, and a fair amount of good games. Let's go on the basis that for every 10 bad or mediocre games, there is 1 good game. 10:1. Now, if this ratio was the same with the Xbox or GameCube, they'd fail. They'd only have about 3 good games, which is pathetic (I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but... you know).
Another way to do it is compare the quality of these 'good exclusive' titles with others. Granted, games such as Devil May Cry, Pro Evo and GTA3 don't have equally great counterparts on other consoles, but neither do Mario Sunshine, Halo or Splinter Cell. The thing is, Nintendo has got a very strong line up of first and second party titles, and so does the Xbox. However, naming titles such as Smackdown and Grand Theft Auto is pretty poor. We all know GTA3 and Vice City are amazing, but that's just as bad as an Xbox fan only mentioning Halo, or GameCube fan only mentioning Sunshine. WWE is pretty damn poor. I'm sorry, but it is. As a fighting game, it is edging on the OK, but it's wrestling. Fat, greasy spandex clad men grappling in a phoney, scripted environment. Come on. Compared to some of the quality titles on other consoles, the PS2 does feel a bit shallow. Granted, there are a lot of 7 or 8 out of ten titles in the PS2 catalogue, but I think very few excluse 9's and 10's. Whereas, the GC and Xbox have equal numbers of 9 and 10 scoring games. If you get what I mean. The PS2 has strength in numbers, but these are mainly sub-80% numbers.
The thing is, Blokey bloke, I think you only want the PS2 at the top because it's what you're playing at the moment. To say the Dreamcast's games didn't have much shelf life is stupid. On the grand scale, NO games had large shelf lives. But the fact is, there was so much great, retrotastical gaming on the Dreamcast that made it a classic console to the older more sophisticated gamers. Trust me - if you actually had a Dreamcast, you wouldn't be saying that.
The overall fact is that no opinions can be formed by people with only one console. You have to sit down with a console, twenty games and finish them all to form a decent opinion about that console. Yet, having only have played Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo and Smackdown, you can't then put down other consoles. I know you tried to keep your comments on an acceptable level, and I do think you're so much higher up than other users. I just think that you should play everything to get a good opinion. Don't go slagging off a game without playing it, and the same goes with the hardware. And next gen updates? I've yet to see anything to match Shenmue, SoA, Sonic Adventure, Powerstone or Chu Chu. And that's out of the five games in my Dreamcast collection.
There are no facts that govern which console is the best, other than sales figures and the likes. The facts I mentioned are information that probably is available on the SR network, but I compared the facts and gave my opinion on which ones made which console the best for me.
This era is considered the 128-bit era - despite the consoles not actually being 128-bit. The Game Boy Advance is a console in this era, so that's why I included it.
The Nintendo 64 had two-32 bit processors (or so I've read) and so that wasn't true 64-bit anyway.
The Nintendo 64 had two-32 bit processors (or so I've read) and so that wasn't true 64-bit anyway.
Edgy as far as I can see this is just a post about your opinions and not what the facts are. There are no facts concerning which is the best console but what I read was basically just information for each console which is already on the SR information database. However I think that the time you have put into desiging the post warrants a GAD because it is well written and clearly expressed with some good points thrown in and amongst, if not as original as I hoped!
umm, shouldn't it have been the year - year era's, after all, GBA is 32 bit, and N64 is 64 bit, so you can't put them into "bit eras", also, the GC, PS2 and X-Box are more than 128bit
Wow, well done for reading all of that :)
I did wonder whether to change that bit about the Game Boy Advance as I typed it, but decided not to, atleast it tested to see whether anybody read it lol.
I understand what you're saying about the Dreamcast, but to me it's the better system. Sure, it may not be as powerful, and sure it may not have a DVD function, but I have enjoyed the games more on the Dreamcast than I have the Playstation 2, as is the case with the Game Boy Advance, so on my list, Playstation 2 stays at the bottom.
I did wonder whether to change that bit about the Game Boy Advance as I typed it, but decided not to, atleast it tested to see whether anybody read it lol.
I understand what you're saying about the Dreamcast, but to me it's the better system. Sure, it may not be as powerful, and sure it may not have a DVD function, but I have enjoyed the games more on the Dreamcast than I have the Playstation 2, as is the case with the Game Boy Advance, so on my list, Playstation 2 stays at the bottom.
Some top stuff here Edgy, Probably the most honest post i've heard all day.
Although I do disagree with the "games" section of your post, The Xbox does have alot of quality titles, and many more to come.
Although I do disagree with the "games" section of your post, The Xbox does have alot of quality titles, and many more to come.
Page: