The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Let's finish this once and for all: There are NO Console Wars, not for us. We're the gamers, the beneficiaries of a struggle that will involve corporate giants from the Orient to the Occident, from East to West. No matter the result, we are the inevitable victors in this scenario. Every side has failed us and will continue to fail us in one way or another. But perhaps through their mutual determinism, their unstoppable need to demolish one another and reign supreme, we will (in the end) be the supreme victors after the collisions to come.
Let's be fair: None of these companies has made the supreme gaming system of all time. No matter one's fealty to the X-Box, the PS2, the Gamecube, or Dreamcast, none of these consoles is perfect or without cost, be it financial or otherwise.
MICROSOFT'S X-BOX
Some have hailed this system the supreme hybrid of the PC and console, the magic innovator bringing two remote cousins together into one powerhouse of a gaming package. After all, it plays DVDs, CDs, videogames, and is internet ready from the get-go. Is all that impressive? Of course. No matter how much one might hate Microsoft or want to introduce Bill Gates to their fist, it doesn't alter the very fact that all this variety is immensely catching. We all love having options, and it seems to give us a great many.
But there are problems, or potential ones, present with it.
1) Price: Estimates have situated its launch cost at somewhere between 350 and 400. This doesn't include any games, likely no additional controllers either. An X-Box controller will probably find an initial cost of about 25 to 45 bucks, and the games will be in the general arena of 55. So, in order to have a gaming experience at all, a single-player one at that, you'd likely have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-455 dollars. Add a second player to all of that, and you're closing in on the 500 mark, which is (to many gamers) a bit much.
2) Stability: Word has it that the system will come with a reboot disc. Immediately one has to wonder, "Is this thing stable or not?" Its OS [Operating System] is an edited version of Windows, with all sorts of tweaks and modifications. Windows, as we all know, is infamous for the Blue Screen of Death (TM) and as the cause of many a full-format.
'Safe Mode' has become a regular catch-phrase in many online communities. Sure, the X-Box comes with an 8 GB hard-drive. Imagine, for a moment, how many game files you might've saved on that; now imagine being forced to re-format your system for some reason, losing it all. Is this likely to occur? Maybe not. But is it possible? Yes. Microsoft and its legion of followers may talk about how it won't be unstable, how wondrous its OS will be, but I (and I'm not alone here) have to ask, "Since when has Microsoft produced anything that didn't suffer from numerous glitches? Why is it that they can strip down Windows, an often unstable system, and suddenly make it run without a catch?" These are major worries.
3) The PC: By marketing the X-Box as a hybrid of console and PC, Gates has inadvertently put it in direct competition with our computers. This is a battle without hope: the X-Box, even with all its nifty features, can't beat out a PC, not in terms of flexibility and power. PCs are behemoths; they're power-brokers from the beyond. We look at the X-Box's specs now and say, "Hey, those are pretty good," but what about a year from now? How fast does PC-based hardware evolve? FAST. What seems blazingly powerful now will look like a Tonka toy within a few months. The X-Box is stepping into the PC's territory, and that's NOT a good idea. In fact, this is likely going to be a problem with EVERY system that decides to be more than it's meant to be.
[There are other issues, but I'll stop there. Trust that I'm not trying to be unfair or paint the system in a negative light. I wish it the best of luck, but there are obstacles it'll be forced to contend with before success will be assured.]
SONY'S PS2
As with the X-Box, this system plays DVDs and CDs; but it allows PS2 owners to play PSOne games on it as well. It's got a fairly snazzy polygon count, some speed, but can't match the X-Box's internal power. It's also got a large number of developers, including the powerful SquareSoft; this makes many believe it's the premier RPG machine. Plus, despite being slightly small for Western hands, the Dual Shock is arguably the best controller ever invented. Also, let's be frank, SSX rocked.
Again, though, there are problems.
1) Backwards Compatibility: I sometimes wonder how much of a plus this REALLY is. I mean, if you were planning on buying a PS2, didn't you likely already have a PSOne? And, unless you're just into graphics (and not much else), is there really any reason to play PSOne games on it? I just question whether this is really one of the major selling points or not. I mean, if it doesn't come out with any great PS2-only games, why not just keep with the PSOne?
2) 4MBs VRAM: Do I really have to explain to anyone why this is a REALLY bad thing? I still can't comprehend the rationale behind this, what with the Dreamcast having 8. Sony just dropped the ball on this one.
3) Two Controller Slots: Ugh. Why? This is just a horrible, greedy thing to do. It's like Uncle Sony's saying, "Mwahahaha, I'll get that extra cash out of your pocket - you WILL buy a multi-tap!" It's bad, bad, bad.
4) Development Problems: So far, a vast majority of developers have whined on and off about how difficult the PS2 is to develop for. It's like the N64 of this Console War, where the time it takes to make a game forces so much money into development fees, that there's little reward; it also seems to incite many developers taking their games cross-platform. Not good, if you ask me, considering now there's likely to be Metal Gear Solid sequels on both X-Box and Gamecube as well; even SquareSoft is going to bring their future games to the X-Box, probably for this reason.
[Again, I've no malice for Sony; I do find their newest console a bit, well, disappointing. They made it less powerful than they should've and made it a hassle to develop for. If they were looking to make this Console War a challenge for them, they've done it. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and follow up with a brilliant PS3. I won't totally count Sony out; in fact, they'll likely still do well in the upcoming conflicts. But they needn't have made the competition so intense.]
NINTENDO'S GAMECUBE
After the N64's trials and tribulations, the 'Big N' seems poised to try again for console supremacy; this time, they seem a bit wiser with their marketing strategies and development kits especially. Frankly, the Gamecube has no additional, nifty features - no DVDs to play or CDs to listen to, even the internet will come later. But with overall gaming capabilities that rival, even at times supercede, the X-Box, along with a price tag about 200 bucks less, it's in good shape to make a go at it. But Nintendo's doing right where I think Microsoft's doing wrong: It's not confusing the issue, it isn't trying to make the console anything more than it's meant to be - a gaming machine. It's not trying to compete with PCs or be the all-purpose entertainment center, and it's not forcing you to pay extra for features you may not want. Plus, with its A-list of franchises (Can you say Zelda, Mario and Metroid?), it looks to offer the old classics of gaming many of us grew up on.
Problems or Potential Ones?
1) Pokemon-phobia: Simply put, this series (as a cartoon especially) has been so aggravating, I've known parents that wish Barney were still in power. Anything associated with it is likely to get bashed on a regular basis, even by people who buy the Gamecube. I suppose it's not even so much a problem seeing as it's a moneymaker, but it's a detriment, possibly, to expanding Nintendo's player base.
2) Kiddie Toy: Nintendo, due in part to Pokemon, has become synonymous with 'kiddie' games, and has found it difficult to appeal to older gamers. And oddly enough, the age-old franchises that have so far sustained Nintendo, such as Mario and Zelda, have been the source of this as well. I've mentioned this in another thread, but it's like a cartoon similar to Thundercats. When I was young, it was the thing; everyone I knew watched it. It was, to put it in a word, cool. I associate it with my childhood, infantile interests in strange (and often silly) quests of Liono and his comrades. By association, Zelda and Mario, even Metroid, suffer from the same thing: Since many of today's gamers played them when they were young, they consider them to be 'kiddie' stuff and refuse to play them. They prefer 'adult games' like Quake, Half-Life, and Metal Gear Solid; they'd rather not have anything 'cutesy'. [Strangely, I think Final Fantasy might have escaped this sort of association by shifting gears so drastically from fantasy to sci-fi, when it switched to PS.]
In other words, Nintendo has to offer titles that are perceived to be 'adult' in nature: games like Perfect Dark, Metal Gear Solid 2 (if possible), even one of the superbly popular FPSs around right now, be it Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Half-Life, or Quake. This MUST happen if they're to do well in the Console Wars.
3) Controller Familiarity: Though I'm intrigued by the design, I have to admit it looks freaky, not to mention uncomfortable. The bizarre nature of the N64's controller kept me (and many gamers I know) from giving it a chance till much later in the game; I'd suggest they not repeat this. If I may make another suggestion to Nintendo, send out copies of the controller to as many toy stores and gaming centers as possible, so that potential buyers might get more accustomed to it. Make it convenient for them to be as familiar with them as possible before the system's launch. Otherwise, it might scare them away and to controllers that look more, well, normal - like the PS2's for instance. [X-Box's is actually pretty strange too. Forgot to mention that earlier. Apologies for the oversight.]
Well, that's essentially all I have to say about it at the moment. I'm actually growing pretty sick of all this Console War stuff, so the point of all of this was to show that NONE of these things is perfect. They all have good points and bad ones. To be frank, the only reason I was trying to make suggestions to help Nintendo is because I want the war to be as dynamic as possible. The longer it takes, the more hard-fought it is, the more likely it'll be better for us. So, rather than just bash systems that aren't your CHOSEN ONE, why not make suggestions for it? If you don't like the PS2, say what might be done to make it more of a contender. Same goes for any of the systems really.
So, other than critiques of my novice-like evaluation, does anyone have anything more to add? Something I missed maybe? I left a few things out for the sake of some degree of brevity, which I failed at miserably. But hey...I've been building to this point for a while, as the conflicts continue to rage on over which will win and which will fall. I've grown sick of it, so I'm trying very hard to bring this debate to some level of closure.
It's time for the End-Game, for all of us to just forget about squabbling and forget about taking criticisms of these systems so seriously. If a critique is valid, just admit it; no one's attacking your child for crying out loud, so don't be so protective. These are machines, and each is rather impressive in its own right. So don't blatantly imagine that anyone is going to have a landslide victory, because that isn't going to happen.
[For those who noticed I didn't mention Dreamcast: Sorry, but Sega isn't making consoles anymore. This isn't a bad thing per se; in fact, I think they're brilliant for moving to software development exclusively. But whatever they do next, it'll have an effect upon these three; it won't somehow make the Dreamcast sprout wings and take the forefront, no matter how cool it is.]
Let's be fair: None of these companies has made the supreme gaming system of all time. No matter one's fealty to the X-Box, the PS2, the Gamecube, or Dreamcast, none of these consoles is perfect or without cost, be it financial or otherwise.
MICROSOFT'S X-BOX
Some have hailed this system the supreme hybrid of the PC and console, the magic innovator bringing two remote cousins together into one powerhouse of a gaming package. After all, it plays DVDs, CDs, videogames, and is internet ready from the get-go. Is all that impressive? Of course. No matter how much one might hate Microsoft or want to introduce Bill Gates to their fist, it doesn't alter the very fact that all this variety is immensely catching. We all love having options, and it seems to give us a great many.
But there are problems, or potential ones, present with it.
1) Price: Estimates have situated its launch cost at somewhere between 350 and 400. This doesn't include any games, likely no additional controllers either. An X-Box controller will probably find an initial cost of about 25 to 45 bucks, and the games will be in the general arena of 55. So, in order to have a gaming experience at all, a single-player one at that, you'd likely have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-455 dollars. Add a second player to all of that, and you're closing in on the 500 mark, which is (to many gamers) a bit much.
2) Stability: Word has it that the system will come with a reboot disc. Immediately one has to wonder, "Is this thing stable or not?" Its OS [Operating System] is an edited version of Windows, with all sorts of tweaks and modifications. Windows, as we all know, is infamous for the Blue Screen of Death (TM) and as the cause of many a full-format.
'Safe Mode' has become a regular catch-phrase in many online communities. Sure, the X-Box comes with an 8 GB hard-drive. Imagine, for a moment, how many game files you might've saved on that; now imagine being forced to re-format your system for some reason, losing it all. Is this likely to occur? Maybe not. But is it possible? Yes. Microsoft and its legion of followers may talk about how it won't be unstable, how wondrous its OS will be, but I (and I'm not alone here) have to ask, "Since when has Microsoft produced anything that didn't suffer from numerous glitches? Why is it that they can strip down Windows, an often unstable system, and suddenly make it run without a catch?" These are major worries.
3) The PC: By marketing the X-Box as a hybrid of console and PC, Gates has inadvertently put it in direct competition with our computers. This is a battle without hope: the X-Box, even with all its nifty features, can't beat out a PC, not in terms of flexibility and power. PCs are behemoths; they're power-brokers from the beyond. We look at the X-Box's specs now and say, "Hey, those are pretty good," but what about a year from now? How fast does PC-based hardware evolve? FAST. What seems blazingly powerful now will look like a Tonka toy within a few months. The X-Box is stepping into the PC's territory, and that's NOT a good idea. In fact, this is likely going to be a problem with EVERY system that decides to be more than it's meant to be.
[There are other issues, but I'll stop there. Trust that I'm not trying to be unfair or paint the system in a negative light. I wish it the best of luck, but there are obstacles it'll be forced to contend with before success will be assured.]
SONY'S PS2
As with the X-Box, this system plays DVDs and CDs; but it allows PS2 owners to play PSOne games on it as well. It's got a fairly snazzy polygon count, some speed, but can't match the X-Box's internal power. It's also got a large number of developers, including the powerful SquareSoft; this makes many believe it's the premier RPG machine. Plus, despite being slightly small for Western hands, the Dual Shock is arguably the best controller ever invented. Also, let's be frank, SSX rocked.
Again, though, there are problems.
1) Backwards Compatibility: I sometimes wonder how much of a plus this REALLY is. I mean, if you were planning on buying a PS2, didn't you likely already have a PSOne? And, unless you're just into graphics (and not much else), is there really any reason to play PSOne games on it? I just question whether this is really one of the major selling points or not. I mean, if it doesn't come out with any great PS2-only games, why not just keep with the PSOne?
2) 4MBs VRAM: Do I really have to explain to anyone why this is a REALLY bad thing? I still can't comprehend the rationale behind this, what with the Dreamcast having 8. Sony just dropped the ball on this one.
3) Two Controller Slots: Ugh. Why? This is just a horrible, greedy thing to do. It's like Uncle Sony's saying, "Mwahahaha, I'll get that extra cash out of your pocket - you WILL buy a multi-tap!" It's bad, bad, bad.
4) Development Problems: So far, a vast majority of developers have whined on and off about how difficult the PS2 is to develop for. It's like the N64 of this Console War, where the time it takes to make a game forces so much money into development fees, that there's little reward; it also seems to incite many developers taking their games cross-platform. Not good, if you ask me, considering now there's likely to be Metal Gear Solid sequels on both X-Box and Gamecube as well; even SquareSoft is going to bring their future games to the X-Box, probably for this reason.
[Again, I've no malice for Sony; I do find their newest console a bit, well, disappointing. They made it less powerful than they should've and made it a hassle to develop for. If they were looking to make this Console War a challenge for them, they've done it. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and follow up with a brilliant PS3. I won't totally count Sony out; in fact, they'll likely still do well in the upcoming conflicts. But they needn't have made the competition so intense.]
NINTENDO'S GAMECUBE
After the N64's trials and tribulations, the 'Big N' seems poised to try again for console supremacy; this time, they seem a bit wiser with their marketing strategies and development kits especially. Frankly, the Gamecube has no additional, nifty features - no DVDs to play or CDs to listen to, even the internet will come later. But with overall gaming capabilities that rival, even at times supercede, the X-Box, along with a price tag about 200 bucks less, it's in good shape to make a go at it. But Nintendo's doing right where I think Microsoft's doing wrong: It's not confusing the issue, it isn't trying to make the console anything more than it's meant to be - a gaming machine. It's not trying to compete with PCs or be the all-purpose entertainment center, and it's not forcing you to pay extra for features you may not want. Plus, with its A-list of franchises (Can you say Zelda, Mario and Metroid?), it looks to offer the old classics of gaming many of us grew up on.
Problems or Potential Ones?
1) Pokemon-phobia: Simply put, this series (as a cartoon especially) has been so aggravating, I've known parents that wish Barney were still in power. Anything associated with it is likely to get bashed on a regular basis, even by people who buy the Gamecube. I suppose it's not even so much a problem seeing as it's a moneymaker, but it's a detriment, possibly, to expanding Nintendo's player base.
2) Kiddie Toy: Nintendo, due in part to Pokemon, has become synonymous with 'kiddie' games, and has found it difficult to appeal to older gamers. And oddly enough, the age-old franchises that have so far sustained Nintendo, such as Mario and Zelda, have been the source of this as well. I've mentioned this in another thread, but it's like a cartoon similar to Thundercats. When I was young, it was the thing; everyone I knew watched it. It was, to put it in a word, cool. I associate it with my childhood, infantile interests in strange (and often silly) quests of Liono and his comrades. By association, Zelda and Mario, even Metroid, suffer from the same thing: Since many of today's gamers played them when they were young, they consider them to be 'kiddie' stuff and refuse to play them. They prefer 'adult games' like Quake, Half-Life, and Metal Gear Solid; they'd rather not have anything 'cutesy'. [Strangely, I think Final Fantasy might have escaped this sort of association by shifting gears so drastically from fantasy to sci-fi, when it switched to PS.]
In other words, Nintendo has to offer titles that are perceived to be 'adult' in nature: games like Perfect Dark, Metal Gear Solid 2 (if possible), even one of the superbly popular FPSs around right now, be it Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Half-Life, or Quake. This MUST happen if they're to do well in the Console Wars.
3) Controller Familiarity: Though I'm intrigued by the design, I have to admit it looks freaky, not to mention uncomfortable. The bizarre nature of the N64's controller kept me (and many gamers I know) from giving it a chance till much later in the game; I'd suggest they not repeat this. If I may make another suggestion to Nintendo, send out copies of the controller to as many toy stores and gaming centers as possible, so that potential buyers might get more accustomed to it. Make it convenient for them to be as familiar with them as possible before the system's launch. Otherwise, it might scare them away and to controllers that look more, well, normal - like the PS2's for instance. [X-Box's is actually pretty strange too. Forgot to mention that earlier. Apologies for the oversight.]
Well, that's essentially all I have to say about it at the moment. I'm actually growing pretty sick of all this Console War stuff, so the point of all of this was to show that NONE of these things is perfect. They all have good points and bad ones. To be frank, the only reason I was trying to make suggestions to help Nintendo is because I want the war to be as dynamic as possible. The longer it takes, the more hard-fought it is, the more likely it'll be better for us. So, rather than just bash systems that aren't your CHOSEN ONE, why not make suggestions for it? If you don't like the PS2, say what might be done to make it more of a contender. Same goes for any of the systems really.
So, other than critiques of my novice-like evaluation, does anyone have anything more to add? Something I missed maybe? I left a few things out for the sake of some degree of brevity, which I failed at miserably. But hey...I've been building to this point for a while, as the conflicts continue to rage on over which will win and which will fall. I've grown sick of it, so I'm trying very hard to bring this debate to some level of closure.
It's time for the End-Game, for all of us to just forget about squabbling and forget about taking criticisms of these systems so seriously. If a critique is valid, just admit it; no one's attacking your child for crying out loud, so don't be so protective. These are machines, and each is rather impressive in its own right. So don't blatantly imagine that anyone is going to have a landslide victory, because that isn't going to happen.
[For those who noticed I didn't mention Dreamcast: Sorry, but Sega isn't making consoles anymore. This isn't a bad thing per se; in fact, I think they're brilliant for moving to software development exclusively. But whatever they do next, it'll have an effect upon these three; it won't somehow make the Dreamcast sprout wings and take the forefront, no matter how cool it is.]
BTW, I would really rather I NOT win Gameaday for the previous posting; it was basically a summing-up of everything most of us have been saying in numerous places on these forums.
So, if there was any thought to giving me the award for this, please don't; there are other, more original topics being written about.
What I've just said isn't meant to dissuade anyone from posting on this thread; I just don't want anything for doing it.
So, if there was any thought to giving me the award for this, please don't; there are other, more original topics being written about.
What I've just said isn't meant to dissuade anyone from posting on this thread; I just don't want anything for doing it.
Let's finish this once and for all: There are NO Console Wars, not for us. We're the gamers, the beneficiaries of a struggle that will involve corporate giants from the Orient to the Occident, from East to West. No matter the result, we are the inevitable victors in this scenario. Every side has failed us and will continue to fail us in one way or another. But perhaps through their mutual determinism, their unstoppable need to demolish one another and reign supreme, we will (in the end) be the supreme victors after the collisions to come.
Let's be fair: None of these companies has made the supreme gaming system of all time. No matter one's fealty to the X-Box, the PS2, the Gamecube, or Dreamcast, none of these consoles is perfect or without cost, be it financial or otherwise.
MICROSOFT'S X-BOX
Some have hailed this system the supreme hybrid of the PC and console, the magic innovator bringing two remote cousins together into one powerhouse of a gaming package. After all, it plays DVDs, CDs, videogames, and is internet ready from the get-go. Is all that impressive? Of course. No matter how much one might hate Microsoft or want to introduce Bill Gates to their fist, it doesn't alter the very fact that all this variety is immensely catching. We all love having options, and it seems to give us a great many.
But there are problems, or potential ones, present with it.
1) Price: Estimates have situated its launch cost at somewhere between 350 and 400. This doesn't include any games, likely no additional controllers either. An X-Box controller will probably find an initial cost of about 25 to 45 bucks, and the games will be in the general arena of 55. So, in order to have a gaming experience at all, a single-player one at that, you'd likely have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-455 dollars. Add a second player to all of that, and you're closing in on the 500 mark, which is (to many gamers) a bit much.
2) Stability: Word has it that the system will come with a reboot disc. Immediately one has to wonder, "Is this thing stable or not?" Its OS [Operating System] is an edited version of Windows, with all sorts of tweaks and modifications. Windows, as we all know, is infamous for the Blue Screen of Death (TM) and as the cause of many a full-format.
'Safe Mode' has become a regular catch-phrase in many online communities. Sure, the X-Box comes with an 8 GB hard-drive. Imagine, for a moment, how many game files you might've saved on that; now imagine being forced to re-format your system for some reason, losing it all. Is this likely to occur? Maybe not. But is it possible? Yes. Microsoft and its legion of followers may talk about how it won't be unstable, how wondrous its OS will be, but I (and I'm not alone here) have to ask, "Since when has Microsoft produced anything that didn't suffer from numerous glitches? Why is it that they can strip down Windows, an often unstable system, and suddenly make it run without a catch?" These are major worries.
3) The PC: By marketing the X-Box as a hybrid of console and PC, Gates has inadvertently put it in direct competition with our computers. This is a battle without hope: the X-Box, even with all its nifty features, can't beat out a PC, not in terms of flexibility and power. PCs are behemoths; they're power-brokers from the beyond. We look at the X-Box's specs now and say, "Hey, those are pretty good," but what about a year from now? How fast does PC-based hardware evolve? FAST. What seems blazingly powerful now will look like a Tonka toy within a few months. The X-Box is stepping into the PC's territory, and that's NOT a good idea. In fact, this is likely going to be a problem with EVERY system that decides to be more than it's meant to be.
[There are other issues, but I'll stop there. Trust that I'm not trying to be unfair or paint the system in a negative light. I wish it the best of luck, but there are obstacles it'll be forced to contend with before success will be assured.]
SONY'S PS2
As with the X-Box, this system plays DVDs and CDs; but it allows PS2 owners to play PSOne games on it as well. It's got a fairly snazzy polygon count, some speed, but can't match the X-Box's internal power. It's also got a large number of developers, including the powerful SquareSoft; this makes many believe it's the premier RPG machine. Plus, despite being slightly small for Western hands, the Dual Shock is arguably the best controller ever invented. Also, let's be frank, SSX rocked.
Again, though, there are problems.
1) Backwards Compatibility: I sometimes wonder how much of a plus this REALLY is. I mean, if you were planning on buying a PS2, didn't you likely already have a PSOne? And, unless you're just into graphics (and not much else), is there really any reason to play PSOne games on it? I just question whether this is really one of the major selling points or not. I mean, if it doesn't come out with any great PS2-only games, why not just keep with the PSOne?
2) 4MBs VRAM: Do I really have to explain to anyone why this is a REALLY bad thing? I still can't comprehend the rationale behind this, what with the Dreamcast having 8. Sony just dropped the ball on this one.
3) Two Controller Slots: Ugh. Why? This is just a horrible, greedy thing to do. It's like Uncle Sony's saying, "Mwahahaha, I'll get that extra cash out of your pocket - you WILL buy a multi-tap!" It's bad, bad, bad.
4) Development Problems: So far, a vast majority of developers have whined on and off about how difficult the PS2 is to develop for. It's like the N64 of this Console War, where the time it takes to make a game forces so much money into development fees, that there's little reward; it also seems to incite many developers taking their games cross-platform. Not good, if you ask me, considering now there's likely to be Metal Gear Solid sequels on both X-Box and Gamecube as well; even SquareSoft is going to bring their future games to the X-Box, probably for this reason.
[Again, I've no malice for Sony; I do find their newest console a bit, well, disappointing. They made it less powerful than they should've and made it a hassle to develop for. If they were looking to make this Console War a challenge for them, they've done it. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and follow up with a brilliant PS3. I won't totally count Sony out; in fact, they'll likely still do well in the upcoming conflicts. But they needn't have made the competition so intense.]
NINTENDO'S GAMECUBE
After the N64's trials and tribulations, the 'Big N' seems poised to try again for console supremacy; this time, they seem a bit wiser with their marketing strategies and development kits especially. Frankly, the Gamecube has no additional, nifty features - no DVDs to play or CDs to listen to, even the internet will come later. But with overall gaming capabilities that rival, even at times supercede, the X-Box, along with a price tag about 200 bucks less, it's in good shape to make a go at it. But Nintendo's doing right where I think Microsoft's doing wrong: It's not confusing the issue, it isn't trying to make the console anything more than it's meant to be - a gaming machine. It's not trying to compete with PCs or be the all-purpose entertainment center, and it's not forcing you to pay extra for features you may not want. Plus, with its A-list of franchises (Can you say Zelda, Mario and Metroid?), it looks to offer the old classics of gaming many of us grew up on.
Problems or Potential Ones?
1) Pokemon-phobia: Simply put, this series (as a cartoon especially) has been so aggravating, I've known parents that wish Barney were still in power. Anything associated with it is likely to get bashed on a regular basis, even by people who buy the Gamecube. I suppose it's not even so much a problem seeing as it's a moneymaker, but it's a detriment, possibly, to expanding Nintendo's player base.
2) Kiddie Toy: Nintendo, due in part to Pokemon, has become synonymous with 'kiddie' games, and has found it difficult to appeal to older gamers. And oddly enough, the age-old franchises that have so far sustained Nintendo, such as Mario and Zelda, have been the source of this as well. I've mentioned this in another thread, but it's like a cartoon similar to Thundercats. When I was young, it was the thing; everyone I knew watched it. It was, to put it in a word, cool. I associate it with my childhood, infantile interests in strange (and often silly) quests of Liono and his comrades. By association, Zelda and Mario, even Metroid, suffer from the same thing: Since many of today's gamers played them when they were young, they consider them to be 'kiddie' stuff and refuse to play them. They prefer 'adult games' like Quake, Half-Life, and Metal Gear Solid; they'd rather not have anything 'cutesy'. [Strangely, I think Final Fantasy might have escaped this sort of association by shifting gears so drastically from fantasy to sci-fi, when it switched to PS.]
In other words, Nintendo has to offer titles that are perceived to be 'adult' in nature: games like Perfect Dark, Metal Gear Solid 2 (if possible), even one of the superbly popular FPSs around right now, be it Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Half-Life, or Quake. This MUST happen if they're to do well in the Console Wars.
3) Controller Familiarity: Though I'm intrigued by the design, I have to admit it looks freaky, not to mention uncomfortable. The bizarre nature of the N64's controller kept me (and many gamers I know) from giving it a chance till much later in the game; I'd suggest they not repeat this. If I may make another suggestion to Nintendo, send out copies of the controller to as many toy stores and gaming centers as possible, so that potential buyers might get more accustomed to it. Make it convenient for them to be as familiar with them as possible before the system's launch. Otherwise, it might scare them away and to controllers that look more, well, normal - like the PS2's for instance. [X-Box's is actually pretty strange too. Forgot to mention that earlier. Apologies for the oversight.]
Well, that's essentially all I have to say about it at the moment. I'm actually growing pretty sick of all this Console War stuff, so the point of all of this was to show that NONE of these things is perfect. They all have good points and bad ones. To be frank, the only reason I was trying to make suggestions to help Nintendo is because I want the war to be as dynamic as possible. The longer it takes, the more hard-fought it is, the more likely it'll be better for us. So, rather than just bash systems that aren't your CHOSEN ONE, why not make suggestions for it? If you don't like the PS2, say what might be done to make it more of a contender. Same goes for any of the systems really.
So, other than critiques of my novice-like evaluation, does anyone have anything more to add? Something I missed maybe? I left a few things out for the sake of some degree of brevity, which I failed at miserably. But hey...I've been building to this point for a while, as the conflicts continue to rage on over which will win and which will fall. I've grown sick of it, so I'm trying very hard to bring this debate to some level of closure.
It's time for the End-Game, for all of us to just forget about squabbling and forget about taking criticisms of these systems so seriously. If a critique is valid, just admit it; no one's attacking your child for crying out loud, so don't be so protective. These are machines, and each is rather impressive in its own right. So don't blatantly imagine that anyone is going to have a landslide victory, because that isn't going to happen.
[For those who noticed I didn't mention Dreamcast: Sorry, but Sega isn't making consoles anymore. This isn't a bad thing per se; in fact, I think they're brilliant for moving to software development exclusively. But whatever they do next, it'll have an effect upon these three; it won't somehow make the Dreamcast sprout wings and take the forefront, no matter how cool it is.]
Let's be fair: None of these companies has made the supreme gaming system of all time. No matter one's fealty to the X-Box, the PS2, the Gamecube, or Dreamcast, none of these consoles is perfect or without cost, be it financial or otherwise.
MICROSOFT'S X-BOX
Some have hailed this system the supreme hybrid of the PC and console, the magic innovator bringing two remote cousins together into one powerhouse of a gaming package. After all, it plays DVDs, CDs, videogames, and is internet ready from the get-go. Is all that impressive? Of course. No matter how much one might hate Microsoft or want to introduce Bill Gates to their fist, it doesn't alter the very fact that all this variety is immensely catching. We all love having options, and it seems to give us a great many.
But there are problems, or potential ones, present with it.
1) Price: Estimates have situated its launch cost at somewhere between 350 and 400. This doesn't include any games, likely no additional controllers either. An X-Box controller will probably find an initial cost of about 25 to 45 bucks, and the games will be in the general arena of 55. So, in order to have a gaming experience at all, a single-player one at that, you'd likely have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-455 dollars. Add a second player to all of that, and you're closing in on the 500 mark, which is (to many gamers) a bit much.
2) Stability: Word has it that the system will come with a reboot disc. Immediately one has to wonder, "Is this thing stable or not?" Its OS [Operating System] is an edited version of Windows, with all sorts of tweaks and modifications. Windows, as we all know, is infamous for the Blue Screen of Death (TM) and as the cause of many a full-format.
'Safe Mode' has become a regular catch-phrase in many online communities. Sure, the X-Box comes with an 8 GB hard-drive. Imagine, for a moment, how many game files you might've saved on that; now imagine being forced to re-format your system for some reason, losing it all. Is this likely to occur? Maybe not. But is it possible? Yes. Microsoft and its legion of followers may talk about how it won't be unstable, how wondrous its OS will be, but I (and I'm not alone here) have to ask, "Since when has Microsoft produced anything that didn't suffer from numerous glitches? Why is it that they can strip down Windows, an often unstable system, and suddenly make it run without a catch?" These are major worries.
3) The PC: By marketing the X-Box as a hybrid of console and PC, Gates has inadvertently put it in direct competition with our computers. This is a battle without hope: the X-Box, even with all its nifty features, can't beat out a PC, not in terms of flexibility and power. PCs are behemoths; they're power-brokers from the beyond. We look at the X-Box's specs now and say, "Hey, those are pretty good," but what about a year from now? How fast does PC-based hardware evolve? FAST. What seems blazingly powerful now will look like a Tonka toy within a few months. The X-Box is stepping into the PC's territory, and that's NOT a good idea. In fact, this is likely going to be a problem with EVERY system that decides to be more than it's meant to be.
[There are other issues, but I'll stop there. Trust that I'm not trying to be unfair or paint the system in a negative light. I wish it the best of luck, but there are obstacles it'll be forced to contend with before success will be assured.]
SONY'S PS2
As with the X-Box, this system plays DVDs and CDs; but it allows PS2 owners to play PSOne games on it as well. It's got a fairly snazzy polygon count, some speed, but can't match the X-Box's internal power. It's also got a large number of developers, including the powerful SquareSoft; this makes many believe it's the premier RPG machine. Plus, despite being slightly small for Western hands, the Dual Shock is arguably the best controller ever invented. Also, let's be frank, SSX rocked.
Again, though, there are problems.
1) Backwards Compatibility: I sometimes wonder how much of a plus this REALLY is. I mean, if you were planning on buying a PS2, didn't you likely already have a PSOne? And, unless you're just into graphics (and not much else), is there really any reason to play PSOne games on it? I just question whether this is really one of the major selling points or not. I mean, if it doesn't come out with any great PS2-only games, why not just keep with the PSOne?
2) 4MBs VRAM: Do I really have to explain to anyone why this is a REALLY bad thing? I still can't comprehend the rationale behind this, what with the Dreamcast having 8. Sony just dropped the ball on this one.
3) Two Controller Slots: Ugh. Why? This is just a horrible, greedy thing to do. It's like Uncle Sony's saying, "Mwahahaha, I'll get that extra cash out of your pocket - you WILL buy a multi-tap!" It's bad, bad, bad.
4) Development Problems: So far, a vast majority of developers have whined on and off about how difficult the PS2 is to develop for. It's like the N64 of this Console War, where the time it takes to make a game forces so much money into development fees, that there's little reward; it also seems to incite many developers taking their games cross-platform. Not good, if you ask me, considering now there's likely to be Metal Gear Solid sequels on both X-Box and Gamecube as well; even SquareSoft is going to bring their future games to the X-Box, probably for this reason.
[Again, I've no malice for Sony; I do find their newest console a bit, well, disappointing. They made it less powerful than they should've and made it a hassle to develop for. If they were looking to make this Console War a challenge for them, they've done it. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and follow up with a brilliant PS3. I won't totally count Sony out; in fact, they'll likely still do well in the upcoming conflicts. But they needn't have made the competition so intense.]
NINTENDO'S GAMECUBE
After the N64's trials and tribulations, the 'Big N' seems poised to try again for console supremacy; this time, they seem a bit wiser with their marketing strategies and development kits especially. Frankly, the Gamecube has no additional, nifty features - no DVDs to play or CDs to listen to, even the internet will come later. But with overall gaming capabilities that rival, even at times supercede, the X-Box, along with a price tag about 200 bucks less, it's in good shape to make a go at it. But Nintendo's doing right where I think Microsoft's doing wrong: It's not confusing the issue, it isn't trying to make the console anything more than it's meant to be - a gaming machine. It's not trying to compete with PCs or be the all-purpose entertainment center, and it's not forcing you to pay extra for features you may not want. Plus, with its A-list of franchises (Can you say Zelda, Mario and Metroid?), it looks to offer the old classics of gaming many of us grew up on.
Problems or Potential Ones?
1) Pokemon-phobia: Simply put, this series (as a cartoon especially) has been so aggravating, I've known parents that wish Barney were still in power. Anything associated with it is likely to get bashed on a regular basis, even by people who buy the Gamecube. I suppose it's not even so much a problem seeing as it's a moneymaker, but it's a detriment, possibly, to expanding Nintendo's player base.
2) Kiddie Toy: Nintendo, due in part to Pokemon, has become synonymous with 'kiddie' games, and has found it difficult to appeal to older gamers. And oddly enough, the age-old franchises that have so far sustained Nintendo, such as Mario and Zelda, have been the source of this as well. I've mentioned this in another thread, but it's like a cartoon similar to Thundercats. When I was young, it was the thing; everyone I knew watched it. It was, to put it in a word, cool. I associate it with my childhood, infantile interests in strange (and often silly) quests of Liono and his comrades. By association, Zelda and Mario, even Metroid, suffer from the same thing: Since many of today's gamers played them when they were young, they consider them to be 'kiddie' stuff and refuse to play them. They prefer 'adult games' like Quake, Half-Life, and Metal Gear Solid; they'd rather not have anything 'cutesy'. [Strangely, I think Final Fantasy might have escaped this sort of association by shifting gears so drastically from fantasy to sci-fi, when it switched to PS.]
In other words, Nintendo has to offer titles that are perceived to be 'adult' in nature: games like Perfect Dark, Metal Gear Solid 2 (if possible), even one of the superbly popular FPSs around right now, be it Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Half-Life, or Quake. This MUST happen if they're to do well in the Console Wars.
3) Controller Familiarity: Though I'm intrigued by the design, I have to admit it looks freaky, not to mention uncomfortable. The bizarre nature of the N64's controller kept me (and many gamers I know) from giving it a chance till much later in the game; I'd suggest they not repeat this. If I may make another suggestion to Nintendo, send out copies of the controller to as many toy stores and gaming centers as possible, so that potential buyers might get more accustomed to it. Make it convenient for them to be as familiar with them as possible before the system's launch. Otherwise, it might scare them away and to controllers that look more, well, normal - like the PS2's for instance. [X-Box's is actually pretty strange too. Forgot to mention that earlier. Apologies for the oversight.]
Well, that's essentially all I have to say about it at the moment. I'm actually growing pretty sick of all this Console War stuff, so the point of all of this was to show that NONE of these things is perfect. They all have good points and bad ones. To be frank, the only reason I was trying to make suggestions to help Nintendo is because I want the war to be as dynamic as possible. The longer it takes, the more hard-fought it is, the more likely it'll be better for us. So, rather than just bash systems that aren't your CHOSEN ONE, why not make suggestions for it? If you don't like the PS2, say what might be done to make it more of a contender. Same goes for any of the systems really.
So, other than critiques of my novice-like evaluation, does anyone have anything more to add? Something I missed maybe? I left a few things out for the sake of some degree of brevity, which I failed at miserably. But hey...I've been building to this point for a while, as the conflicts continue to rage on over which will win and which will fall. I've grown sick of it, so I'm trying very hard to bring this debate to some level of closure.
It's time for the End-Game, for all of us to just forget about squabbling and forget about taking criticisms of these systems so seriously. If a critique is valid, just admit it; no one's attacking your child for crying out loud, so don't be so protective. These are machines, and each is rather impressive in its own right. So don't blatantly imagine that anyone is going to have a landslide victory, because that isn't going to happen.
[For those who noticed I didn't mention Dreamcast: Sorry, but Sega isn't making consoles anymore. This isn't a bad thing per se; in fact, I think they're brilliant for moving to software development exclusively. But whatever they do next, it'll have an effect upon these three; it won't somehow make the Dreamcast sprout wings and take the forefront, no matter how cool it is.]