Speculation: Xenon cpu 360 gflops?

[Acert93]

2. If you can buy only one console, then you should've bought a PS2 this generation if it's about the games (+ PS1 B/C to boot). And in all likelyhood PS3 will continue to have the most games again

Your arguement would sound good... if it did not ignore the fact games are an aquired taste that varies from individual to individual (impacted by experience, skill, preference, theme, and what their friends play). e.g. I do not/will not play games in the GTA mold and a lot of the mature themed games the PS2 has do not ignite even the slightest interest in me (not to mention the biggest platform tends to get the most shovelware); yet I very much like Zelda, Mario, etc... games and the volume Nintendo provides is more than I have time/money for.

In my personal case, if I had known I would have had broadband, an Xbox would have been the best platform for me personally because I could have played my friends games like Halo2. Well, I will alter that: The Xbox w/ Live! would have been the second right behind the PC. I have played BF1942 for 3 years now. It is one of the best games I have ever played--and my favorite multiplayer games. In that same time frame I have also gotten to enjoy games like HL2, FarCry, WCIII, RtW, WoW, on and on. The PC still has the best game lineup for my tastes; and for online Xbox cannot be beaten among the consoles. See, some of us really like playing other humans and get bored with singleplayer games. So you cannot put gamers into a little box and say what is best for everyone.

That said my GCN has serviced me well--better than a PS2 would have--and games like Mario Party, Mario Kart, Rogue Leader, SSBM, Waverace, SMS, ZWW, MP, Pikmin and so forth have been more than enough for me--and those games are child friendly. I believe Nintendo still makes the best family-friendly games in quantity and releases them on a regular basis. The PS2 and Xbox have their share of quality games, even family-friendly ones, but Nintendo 1st Party games a pretty safe bet.

Sony does not have a singlular grip on every genre of games being produced today--to even suggest that if a gamer is only concerned about games they should get a PS2 is laughable! There is no denying the PS2 has some great games, and there is no denying its success. I will even go out on a limb: The PS2 has been the best console gaming platform this generation for most gamers. I am in no way Anti-PS2... But the launch had nothing that appealed to me and the big sellers are not only games that usually do not appeal to me, but games that make me feel gaming is going in the wrong direction for my tastes.

And I had a PS, and it collected dust next to my N64 which--which always drew a large crowd (GoldenEye, PD, Mario64, Wrestling, Conkers and other 4 player native games not to mention Mario64/ZOoT). So PS2 backwards compatibility = SQUAT for me. Why would I want something I already have and do not use?

Not everyone has the time/money/interest to play every single game. Most of us pick up 3 or 4 games a year and we choose quality titles that appeal to us. So while some gamers may love GTA3 and GTA:SA, others will prefer Halo2 and and KotOR, and others MP and WindWaker. Once you accept that you will realize that gaming, being about the games, does not = PS2 for all gamers. Many yes, but definately not all inclusive as you suggest. Not by a long shot.

 

[Fox5]

Doesn't sound well balanced like he said it was.

Well balanced != equivalant. GPUs and CPUs do different tasks. You would not want a 360GFLOPS Sound chip now would you

That being said, those numbers have no basis in facts. Just wait until May...

Hmm, that'd be some awesome sound....
Or you could use it to render some spiky hair and pachinko machines.

BTW, microsoft may have missed the opportunity to buy squaresoft, but they didn't seem that interested in Japanese support anyhow. Buying squaresoft(and then having all its employees leave and go to other companies) may have hurt sony, but it probably wouldn't have helped xbox much. They bought Rare and Bungie though, which both produce games that interest Western gamers very much.(or at least Rare did on the n64, on the n64 rare was practically an equal developer to nintendo, but with a more western and mature style) Too bad Rare went pretty much to waste this generation, even remakes of Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day early on this generation could have had a big effect, but now they're too late to have much meaning and Rare should have been releasing incredible games with brand new ideas by this point in time.

 

[j^aws]

... Your arguement would sound good... if it did not ignore the fact games are an aquired taste that varies from individual to individual (impacted by experience, skill, preference, theme, and what their friends play). e.g. I do not/will not play games in the GTA mold and a lot of the mature themed games the PS2 has do not ignite even the slightest interest in me (not to mention the biggest platform tends to get the most shovelware); yet I very much like Zelda, Mario, etc... games and the volume Nintendo provides is more than I have time/money for.
...

Errr...NO. Try reading before you post. Because,

...
We can argue the toss about what makes a better game, that's the consumers personal preference.
...

I've placed it in bold just in case you miss it again. And that biggest 'shovelware' with the biggest market is so 80's...OMG, this is new info! Choose the games you want, ignore the ones you don't. Simple.

...The PC still has the best game lineup for my tastes; and for online Xbox cannot be beaten among the consoles.
...

This is the console forum, who's talking about PC games? If PC gaming is your priority, then "it's all about da' GAMES" logic would mean that you'd choose a console that doesn't have the same ports and would offer OTHER GAMES.

...
See, some of us really like playing other humans and get bored with singleplayer games. So you cannot put gamers into a little box and say what is best for everyone.
...

Dude, what the hell are you talking about??? I'm not trying to put anyone in a box. Read my posts again, there were TWO options, AND OPTION 1 was pretty flexible, i.e.,

...
1. Buy all three consoles or as many as you can afford (I have 4 from this gen).
...

That option has plenty of degrees of freedom...

...
Sony does not have a singlular grip on every genre of games being produced today--to even suggest that if a gamer is only concerned about games they should get a PS2 is laughable!
...

Errr...who said that??? Dude, RE-READ my post again with a clear UNBIASED HEAD. There was option 1 and 2 as above.

Because,

...
But from a larger library, there'll be a larger pool of games for the consumer to like. The PS3 will have access to PS2 library and PS1 (though still not officially confirmed).
...

If you were objective and meant what you said, i.e. "it's all about da' GAMES!", then it should be pretty clear without giving a toss about graphics or specs (as you so clearly tried to emphasis in your earlier post), that you would have access to the entire PS2 AND PS1 library. Option 2 is about owning only one console that you could afford. Who cares what you like...I was talking about CONSUMERS in general and NOT about YOU and NOT about HARDCORE gamers but CONSUMERS. Go and count the numbers of PS1 and PS2 games that are available and if "it's about da' GAMES"...and not specs or graphics, then there should be something to please everyone. And judging by the numbers there are plenty of satisfied Playstation customers. For option 2, I could've chosen XBOX or GC but I chose PS2 because it has the largest games library that also includes PS1.

It's simple really, the most popular platform has the most games (software) and the most choice of games for consumers taste. If you haven't worked it out yet, this is why Windows is still dominant because it has the most software. AND didn't you say your preferred platform was the PC??? Oh before I forget didn't you say "it's all about da' GAMES!" AND no, it' not about the GAMES YOU LIKE. It's about the GAMES the market likes, i.e. TEH CONSUMERS.

...
But the launch had nothing that appealed to me and the big sellers are not only games that usually do not appeal to me, but games that make me feel gaming is going in the wrong direction for my tastes.
...

Let me remind you "it's about da' GAMES!"....who said CONSUMERS had to buy at launch? Who's talking about YOUR TASTES? If you HAD to take option 2 with PS3, then you'd still have access to PS2 and PS1 libraries (remember who cares about specs and graphics, if B/C improves graphics too, then all the better).

...
And I had a PS, and it collected dust next to my N64 which--which always drew a large crowd (GoldenEye, PD, Mario64, Wrestling, Conkers and other 4 player native games not to mention Mario64/ZOoT). So PS2 backwards compatibility = SQUAT for me. Why would I want something I already have and do not use?
...

Yep, again, not talking about YOU here but there are OTHER CONSUMERS in the world ya know...

...

Not everyone has the time/money/interest to play every single game. Most of us pick up 3 or 4 games a year and we choose quality titles that appeal to us. So while some gamers may love GTA3 and GTA:SA, others will prefer Halo2 and and KotOR, and others MP and WindWaker. Once you accept that you will realize that gaming, being about the games, does not = PS2 for all gamers. Many yes, but definately not all inclusive as you suggest. Not by a long shot.
...

YEP...thank you again for being specific with games and talking about YOU. Oh yes, I posted this,

So it's all about da' GAMES?

I'm gonna put my gamer neutral hat on and without mention to any 'specific games' here's my simple personal recommendation below,

1. Buy all three consoles or as many as you can afford (I have 4 from this gen).

2. If you can buy only one console, then you should've bought a PS2 this generation if it's about the games (+ PS1 B/C to boot). And in all likelyhood PS3 will continue to have the most games again.

We can argue the toss about what makes a better game, that's the consumers personal preference. But from a larger library, there'll be a larger pool of games for the consumer to like. The PS3 will have access to PS2 library and PS1 (though still not officially confirmed). This is my gamer neutral opinion with my gamers hat on.

Now if you want to throw in power into the equation go figure...The same logic has worked for me since the 8bit days...All IMHO.

Thank you for ignoring the obvious and stating the obvious so succinctly.

I've seen the same rhetoric every generation since 8bit days.

 

[ims]

Oh for gods sake Jaws give it a rest man, you sure do like to rant.

Cheers

Im

 

[Acert93]

Errr...NO. Try reading before you post.

You know, I started to reply to your entire post, but I am not going to waste my time going through every statement when you want to be so silly as to indicate I did not read your post. You obviously are trying to obscure the fact you said something stupid. You also took a lot of what I said (like about preferences and the mere mention of the PC) way out of context, showing you just want to argue. Yeah, whatever.

You made a stupid comment--live with it Jaws. Option #1 was a) unrealistic for the average consumer and b) does not negate comment #2. The fact you would even put that forth as a defense is laughable.

The point was is I said it was about the games, and one of your comments was that if it was about the games consumers, if only getting one console, should have got the PS2.

2. If you can buy only one console, then you should've bought a PS2 this generation if it's about the games

I clearly showed that "the Games" is not a static entity that is equivalently measured by all gamers the same--therefore your comment that if you only bought one console you should get a PS2 is just wrong. Speaking in generalities about consumers and gamers as a total entity is definately forcing millions upon millions of gamers into a box.

I am telling you Jaws that is a wrong statement--especially for people who like to play online or people who like family oriented games they should not have got the PS2 if it was the only console they bought. What, you think family oriented gamers are that small a demographic? No wonder some of you developers cannot stay in business

The fact that you cannot realize your all encompassing statement alienates MILLIONS of gamers is sad. The fact you cannot even began to comprehend that a parent would rather have their children play silly Mario games than to be exposed to prostitutes and gang banging shows how little you understand about demographics and that not all gamers are you, and that the PS2 is not for all gamers--actually, 1/3 of gamers are not PS2 gamers, which constitutes a very large segment of people. "The games" does not necesitate the PS2 if you only get one console--that point is totally lost on you. The fact that large segments of consumers are better off GAME WISE with something other than the PS2 is lost on you. "About the games" is going to mean something different to every gamers. Trying to make generalities based on that statement about consumers and what is best for consumers in general--especially when we are talking about next gen which has no games yet--is silly.

"if you can buy only one console" is an errant, horse-blinder, narrow vision statement that is just plain wrong. The fact you claimed to be unbias and neutral--and accusme me of otherwise--is laughable.

 

[j^aws]

Acert,

ROFL

I hear the same shit every generation. Let me put it in plain simpler English.

I will recommend to anyone, anyone who can only have one console, yes one console, the system with the largest collection of games. No IFs or BUTs, I will always recommend the console with the largest collection of games. BUY THE CONSOLE WITH THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF GAMES.

At this moment in time, this is the PS2. Now if Xbox or GC had the largest collection of games instead of PS2, then I'd recommend them instead. The name of the console is IRRELEVANT. Simple logic dictates that the largest collection of games will have something for everyone. IT"S SIMPLE. I'm fully aware of what all the other consoles are capable of, as I own them ALL. I also own PC's, MACs, Laptops, PDA's, Phones, Handhelds. But I'm not gonna go into a 50 page essay on the finer points of each platform even though I know their strengths and weaknesses, I OWN THEM ALL. Stop writing 50 page essays on the finer point of gaming, blah, blah, blah...this is wrong, that is wrong etc. I can spew out the same predictable rhetoric. I know the finer points of gaming believe me, I've seen this shit for decades. I care not to do this because you can't really go wrong with a SIMPLE RECOMMENDATION, i.e.

If it's all about da' GAMES, and you can only choose one console, buy a PS2 because it has the most games. If you can afford more consoles, then all the better.

SIMPLE. If you believe that it's wrong, so what...It's MY recommendation and I'll do it without a flinch thank you very much. If someone's already made up their mind that they'd prefer another console I'm not forcing anyone. And please don't give me this hardcore gamer crap and save the world from gaming BS.

You on the other hand you can recommend what you want based on your IF's AND BUT's. I'll keep it simple for one console as 80+ million consumers can't be wrong and there's something for everyone from kids to grannies. Now if they wanted a second console, then I'd be more inclined to go into the finer details of the XBOX or the GC to complement the PS2.

You can recommend what you like. Stop blowing this out of all proportions and the laughable suggestion that I'm trying to cover something up. Or that it's some narrow minded vision. It's not a difficult concept to grasp,

If it's about the games, buy the console with the most games.

AND LET ME REMIND YOU THAT I OWN ALL THE OTHER CONSOLES AND OTHER GAMING PLATFORMS.

<Now where's the huge f'ing rolleys when you need them>

 

[pc999]

But if I want to play console FPS and western RPG, or Nitendo (like?) games , WHY THE HELL WOULD I BUY A PS2

 

[j^aws]

But if I want to play console FPS and western RPG, or Nitendo (like?) games , WHY THE HELL WOULD I BUY A PS2

Simple. I'm not forcing you, you seem to know what you like buy what you want. If you choose a GC or XB then that's fine. However, this is not about graphics or specs but about the games and if it's about the games then you're also missing out on the entire PS1 and PS2 collection. Have you tried every PS1 and PS2 game to say that's not for me? That's a HUGE collection of games you're missing out on. And if you look hard enough, you're likely to find what you want providing you don't care about graphics or specs.

 

[pc999]

No one had tried every game for every platform, this is one of the problems of your argument. Humans need (in this cases, at least) to chosse by probability, and especific games then we go to ...

The second problem is that you exclud those who want to play only (e.g.) Zelda and Mario games , those only chosse by the games, and would never go for PS2.

Anyway good try.

 

[j^aws]

No one had tried every game for every platform, this is one of the problems of your argument. Humans need (in this cases, at least) to chosse by probability, and especific games then we go to ...

The second problem is that you exclud those who want to play only (e.g.) Zelda and Mario games , those only chosse by the games, and would never go for PS2.

Anyway good try.

It's simple. These people have already made their minds up. It's their choice to ONLY have a GC or an XB and ignore ALL the PS1 AND PS2 games. And my recommendation will be fuitile but my recommendation will still apply. This is why there are about 20 mil XB and GC users but 80 Mil PS2 users. It basically boils down to games. It's the games that ultimately sell the platform and if you truly don't care about graphics or specs, then the platform that has the most games should satisfy you're gaming needs. However some people will sacrifice all these games for others on the GC or XB. Then they'll moan that there isn't enough third party support for said platform.

 

[pc999]

Just to make my point:

Oceans had o lot more life form than land ( I think , if not invert), but I like dogs, cats, birds, bugs.... and there is no way of ocean lives apeall more to me.

It is that what we are saing, PS2 can have 10X more games but not the right ones.

 

[j^aws]

Just to make my point:

Oceans had o lot more life form than land ( I think , if not invert), but I like dogs, cats, birds, bugs.... and there is no way of ocean lives apeall more to me.

It is that what we are saing, PS2 can have 10X more games but not the right ones.

Yes, of course. Exactly why I own ALL consoles as I'm interested in ALL good games and my point 1. But those extra PS2 games STILL satisfy most gamers only owning a PS2 who don't see the need to change to GC or XB, hence my point 2.

As I said, it's a simple recommendation. My simple point is this, buying the console with the most games every generation will satisfy most consumers, most of the time. If you have a strong affinity for games on the other platforms then that's cool. No ones forcing you to do anything. And I don't see this changing next generation with PS3 having the most games, IMO.

Of course, this could change with Rev or X2 but what compelling reason is there to expect otherwise? I've heard all the countless debates on this and it will still boil down to the platform with the most games available for it satisfying most consumers, IMO. The three players have never been more competetive so it will be interesting to see things unfold...

 

[Teasy]

If only it was as simple as 'games sell consoles'. Games do sell consoles of course, but marketing hype and plenty of PR bullshit sell as many if not more.

 

[j^aws]

If only it was as simple as "games sell consoles", but its not. Games sell consoles to a degree, but so does marketing, hype and plenty of bullshit

Oh sure I agree. Things are never really black and white. Five kids discussing this in a playground 20 years ago,

Kid1: "Mine has more colours on screen!"

Kid2: "Bah...mine has a larger colour pallete!"

Kid3: "Meh...mine has a higher resolution!"

Kid4: "Lame...that's bad art!"

Kid5: "Losers!...Go and get laid!"

Same shitz, different playground!