The War of the consoles! [Archive]

AndrewTaylor

15 Dec 2007, 17:35

I wonder if we should make the ability to read a requirement for registering here...

The Wii mainly appeals to those who have never played a console before, with it's user-friendly controls and devices such as the Wiimote (or whatever you call it).

The Wii, however, lacks next-gen graphics support, because most Wii games are cartoony (most. most. most.)

In my opinion, PS3 is better, placing aside the price tag. The graphics are a PUNCH. Wham.

I don't think the Wii does "mainly" appeal to those people. I think it does appeal to them, and the 360 appeals to them a bit less, and the PS3 appeals to them not at all, but the Wii has a lot to offer for experienced gamers -- not least the fact that it's the only console offering the experienced gamer something other than what they've already experienced.

Our Wii is hooked up to an HD TV, with the component cables, and it's very shiny. The graphics on the Wii are amazing; they could of course be better, but they don't need to, and given that the thing only costs £180 I don't think it's worth more-than-doubling the price to improve them any more.

Nintendo's way has always been to make something affordable even if it means deliberately holding back on the specs, and they make their games immersive by making them brilliant, not with graphics. (Although to be fair, Nintendo's first party games of late have all looked superb, far beyond what the hardware is supposedly capable of it you listen to detractors.)

Shadowmoon

15 Dec 2007, 17:46

I wonder if we should make the ability to read a requirement for registering here...

I don't think the Wii does "mainly" appeal to those people. I think it does appeal to them, and the 360 appeals to them a bit less, and the PS3 appeals to them not at all, but the Wii has a lot to offer for experienced gamers -- not least the fact that it's the only console offering the experienced gamer something other than what they've already experienced.

Our Wii is hooked up to an HD TV, with the component cables, and it's very shiny. The graphics on the Wii are amazing; they could of course be better, but they don't need to, and given that the thing only costs £180 I don't think it's worth more-than-doubling the price to improve them any more.

Nintendo's way has always been to make something affordable even if it means deliberately holding back on the specs, and they make their games immersive by making them brilliant, not with graphics. (Although to be fair, Nintendo's first party games of late have all looked superb, far beyond what the hardware is supposedly capable of it you listen to detractors.)

One reason why the wii is popular is definitely because it is cheap. When the PS3 came out, i couldn't beleive the price. £424.99! its now dropped to £299.99, which is quite good.

AndrewTaylor

15 Dec 2007, 17:55

its now dropped to £299.99, which is quite good.

It really isn't.

Shadowmoon

15 Dec 2007, 17:58

Its better than £424.99. But anyway the best console in my opinion is the wii. It is a clever console with lots of features on it.

Plasma

15 Dec 2007, 18:04

Oh, the bit about Wii does not have better graphics than the PS3 and Xbox360 is wrong?
Perhaps I should edit the post to display what you really said:
the PS3 and Xbox 360 is _ one console

Shadowmoon

15 Dec 2007, 18:07

Perhaps I should edit the post to display what you really said:

I don't understand you at all. Are you saying i should have said: the Xbox 360 and PS3 is one console? because thats what you put in when you edited my post.

Pigbuster

15 Dec 2007, 18:10

The correct grammar is... "the PS3 and Xbox360 are the best consoles for Shooting games...".

Now do you see how quickly that would've been resolved if you DID bother correcting that, Plasma? :p

Shadowmoon

15 Dec 2007, 18:32

I will watch my grammar in the future then.

farazparsa

15 Dec 2007, 22:32

Abstain. I don't see PC on there...:p

AndrewTaylor

15 Dec 2007, 22:40

Yeah! And "potato" isn't on there either!

Star Worms

15 Dec 2007, 23:57

Which is better? That's a difficult one to answer. They all have good and bad points, and these will also vary on factors such as whether you play alone or with friends, or the genre of games you tend to play.

pieman280

16 Dec 2007, 00:23

I think the Wii is the best. I think the worst system you can get is the PS3. it's such a rip-off. last I've heard it's $600. the only real advantage to the PS3 are there exclusive games and the graphics are better, but other than that there isn't a diffrnce from the xbox360. the Xbox360 looks like a great system however. it has good games, good graphics, it's still expensive, but It's not a rip-off.

the wii has had great reviews. it's said to have a lot of great games, regular graphics, the perfect price, and it's being sold out everywhere!

I just feel like the PS3 hates me and taunts me. it has some of the most amazing games you could dream of like a killzone2, resistance fall of man, and I've always wanted an area51 Game. but the price of the PS3 makes me want to burn it, push it off a cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom, and watch it break while laughing at it.

Pigbuster

16 Dec 2007, 03:21

Shadowmoon

16 Dec 2007, 08:10

Abstain. I don't see PC on there...:p

I wish i had put it on there. But i can't edit polls:mad: oh and pieman be carefull with what your saying, or this thread could turn into a flaming war.

AndrewTaylor

16 Dec 2007, 12:05

Refrain from flaming systems, please. It would be nice to have a console discussion without it resorting to that, for once.

I don't think he was flaming. He explained what problem he had with the PS3, and it's a perfectly reasonable objection. He just used some colourful imagery to make his point. And he said it had good games -- if he's trying to flame then he really sucks at it.

Nugget

16 Dec 2007, 12:43

robowurmz

16 Dec 2007, 14:06

Gaaah, not this again. You made a highly-debateable subject JUST to get views and a "popular thread" AGAIN, didn't you, Shadowmoron?

My choice; ALL OF THEM.
They all have good and bad points, but who cares when it all boils down to how well the games are programmed?

Reder8

16 Dec 2007, 17:13

I'd go for the Xbox 360...purely because Halo 3 rocks. I'm sure the Wii is good, but I haven't been on it and it looks more like sports and stuff... and I dislike sports greatly.

Shadowmoon

16 Dec 2007, 17:30

You got that right. Halo 3 is awesome:cool:

Star Worms

16 Dec 2007, 18:07

Xbox 360 and PS3 are really just upgrades from the previous ones, while the Wii is a revolution in gaming. I understand why it appeals to both experienced gamers and newcomers, because it's easy, fun and intuitive. But if you're totally not into trying new things, and just want to tap away on your controller like you always have, you buy Xbox or PS.

To me at least, the best combination would probably be Wii+PS3. The Xbox, on the other hand - compared to the Wii and PS3, it has introduced nearly nothing worth mentioning in the next-gen gaming experience.

PS3
+ Killer graphics, powerful, complete media-center.
- Expensive, not very good assortment of games at the moment, monotonous gameplay, noisy.

Wii
+ Great control system, inexpensive, varied range of games, fun to play with friends.
- Graphics, no other media, attracts cockroaches ... :p

In the end it comes down to personal preference.I wouldn't go so far to say that the Wii is revolutionary in gaming. In fact in some ways I don't see it as a good thing: I can just imagine the next generation of children learning to play sports indoors on a console game than outside in the real world. I was watching the Gadget Show a few days ago and they showed a bicycle that you could plug into your TV/console/whatever and ride. Seriously, what is this world coming to? Soon we'll have console games in the Olympics.

Nugget

16 Dec 2007, 18:24

* So, people think the wii is the best.
* As for the PS3- i wouldn't reccomend it as the top Christmas console at all.
* Xbox 360 i would say is great, but people will be adding the wii to their christmas lists.

And then this is your "that concludes it"? "End of discussion"? "I've had my attention"?

You know, when you first start a thread that isn't all that lousy, at least let the discussion close itself up, not just conclude it because you've heard what you wanted to hear, then run off and start another pointless thread just for the sake of it.

btw, every line in that post was null and void.

I wouldn't go so far to say that the Wii is revolutionary in gaming. In fact in some ways I don't see it as a good thing: I can just imagine the next generation of children learning to play sports indoors on a console game than outside in the real world. I was watching the Gadget Show a few days ago and they showed a bicycle that you could plug into your TV/console/whatever and ride. Seriously, what is this world coming to? Soon we'll have console games in the Olympics.

Good or bad, the concept of the Wii system is a revolution in gaming. Would you rather say it's better if the kids were playing Fifa on their PlayStation? That can hardly be called physical activity. The Wii isn't meant as a replacement for physical acitivity, but rather to encourage new and old players to get up from the couch and move about a little bit. The Wii doesn't act as my replacement, but has made me more physically active both in- and outside than I would have thought in the first place. Take it from me, I'm a child. ;)

Shadowmoon

16 Dec 2007, 18:27

I deleted it. Happy now?:rolleyes: and i am not creating threads for views. sorry nugget i didn't realise what i was doing, but i have took care of it.

MrBunsy

16 Dec 2007, 18:32

My choice; ALL OF THEM.
They all have good and bad points, but who cares when it all boils down to how well the games are programmed?Anyone for whom money is a finite resource?

*Splinter*

16 Dec 2007, 19:00

Good or bad, the concept of the Wii system is a revolution in gaming.

I still dont entirely see why? The controller is a different shape and... what? exactly?

AndrewTaylor

16 Dec 2007, 19:09

I still dont entirely see why? The controller is a different shape and... what? exactly?

It's cheap, accessible, and aimed at different people to all the other consoles. In a world where competitive consoles are all powerful graphics machines with two joysticks and six action buttons, I think that counts as a revolution.

*Splinter*

16 Dec 2007, 19:48

It's cheap, accessible, and aimed at different people to all the other consoles. In a world where competitive consoles are all powerful graphics machines with two joysticks and six action buttons, I think that counts as a revolution.

I dont doubt its different, though I would say calling it a 'revolution' would be rather over-selling it

FutureWorm

16 Dec 2007, 20:22

I dont doubt its different, though I would say calling it a 'revolution' would be rather over-selling it
they actually did call it a revolution while it was in development ahahaahahhaha

AndrewTaylor

16 Dec 2007, 20:31

Hey, yeah! And the Gamecube wasn't a dolphin!

MtlAngelus

16 Dec 2007, 20:35

I allways liked the name Dolphin better than Gamecube. :p

tal05

16 Dec 2007, 21:13

I'd go for the Xbox 360...purely because Halo 3 rocks.

Right'on!

Halo 3 is amazing!
Headshot! :rolleyes:
The only reason halo 3 is amazing is because of the online experience you get, otherwise all the campaign missions are poo

Plasma

16 Dec 2007, 21:29

I was watching the Gadget Show a few days ago and they showed a bicycle that you could plug into your TV/console/whatever and ride.
Umm...
That 'gadget' has been out for YEARS! I remember seeing it on one gaming program when I was young.
As you can see, it didn't quite catch on.

I'm sure the Wii is good, but I haven't been on it and it looks more like sports and stuff... and I dislike sports greatly.
Sports. Sports. I mean, c'mon! There's ony two well-known sports games on the console: WiiSports and Mario Strikers. The latter could hardly be considered 'sports' either, considering it's more about beating up the players than getting the ball in the net.
On the other hand, the 360 has a large repuation for driving games. Which, in case you've forgotten, is classed as a sport.

...the fact that I'm playing a golf game on the Wii right now is Zeor's fault. But in all fairness, it's the only game I've been playing all week.

AndrewTaylor

16 Dec 2007, 22:02

Sports. Sports. I mean, c'mon! There's ony two well-known sports games on the console: WiiSports and Mario Strikers.

That's not really true. Mario And Sonic At The Olympic Games is fairly well known, as is What's His Name's Pretty Good Golf Game (or whatever it's called; golf's not my thing).

(And Excite Truck, which surely counts ahead of Mario Football...)

Shadowmoon

17 Dec 2007, 07:33

And theres other sports games like Fifa O8. And Reder, the wii is for party games as well y'know. Its not just for sports.

yauhui

17 Dec 2007, 09:07

the 360 has a large repuation for driving games.

Nothing will beat the GT5 once it comes out! >:-(

Just because the 360 has PGR and Forza doesnt mean they're more stunning!

and oh, a highlight:

repu_ation

Nugget

17 Dec 2007, 15:22

I dont doubt its different, though I would say calling it a 'revolution' would be rather over-selling it

Have you been living under a rock, or what? :p

For 36 years we have tapped away apathetically on rectangular bricks, but now Nintendo introduced something brand new to gamers, for the hardcore ones and the n00bs - as AT said: It's cheap, accessible for all and provides a whole new experience in gameplay, and it's incredibly involving - compared to the other consoles who have been following the same pattern for years. That is, the basics of what is expected of them when they're upgrading consoles: Better graphics and more power. And there are those who settle with that.

But the Wii is so different from the other consoles currently at the market, and all others who have ever been made, that it's not just an upgrade - it's a revolution.

Reder8

17 Dec 2007, 16:05

And Reder, the wii is for party games as well y'know. Its not just for sports.

Yeah, I know, I just said sports because I meant things like kinetic and movement, etc. I know there are lots of party games. And I did say Sports and "Stuff".

*Splinter*

17 Dec 2007, 17:33

Have you been living under a rock, or what? :p

For 36 years we have tapped away apathetically on rectangular bricks, but now Nintendo introduced something brand new to gamers, for the hardcore ones and the n00bs - as AT said: It's cheap, accessible for all and provides a whole new experience in gameplay, and it's incredibly involving - compared to the other consoles who have been following the same pattern for years. That is, the basics of what is expected of them when they're upgrading consoles: Better graphics and more power. And there are those who settle with that.

But the Wii is so different from the other consoles currently at the market, and all others who have ever been made, that it's not just an upgrade - it's a revolution.

Wha?? I cant extract enough meaning out of that to argue with your points :confused: What exactly is new about the Wii apart from the controller?

Plasma

17 Dec 2007, 17:48

Wha?? I cant extract enough meaning out of that to argue with your points :confused: What exactly is new about the Wii apart from the controller?
Motion sensing, of course.

Unless you class that as 'controller'. In which case, your question is pointless, as it's the Wii's main feature. It's like saying "what's new about teh 360 aside from the power".

AndrewTaylor

17 Dec 2007, 19:02

Yeah, but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us!?

*Splinter*

17 Dec 2007, 19:47

Motion sensing, of course.

Unless you class that as 'controller'. In which case, your question is pointless, as it's the Wii's main feature. It's like saying "what's new about teh 360 aside from the power".

Yeah but the PS3 has motion sensing as well, and it has existed earlier. Noone would claim the PS3 is revolutionary just for its motion sensing

Shadowmoon

17 Dec 2007, 19:48

Didn't the Xbox 360 have a motion sensitive controller? I am pretty sure that the Xbox 360 elite had one.

Plasma

17 Dec 2007, 19:56

Yeah but the PS3 has motion sensing as well, and it has existed earlier. Noone would claim the PS3 is revolutionary just for its motion sensing
Simple gyro sensing was developed waaaay before either the PS3 or the Wii. But to have done it on such a scale as on the Wii, that you combine two motion sensors and a triple-axis aimer and make it the highlight of the console so that all games are based around it, is truly revolutionary.

Pickleworm

17 Dec 2007, 20:00

Uh, the games for the ps3 and the xbox360 do not revolve around motion sensitivity, whereas the wii games _MAINLY_ do.

Debates about consoles are so god damn stupid

Shadowmoon

17 Dec 2007, 20:01

Uh, the games for the ps3 and the xbox360 do not revolve around motion sensitivity, whereas the wii games _MAINLY_ do.

Debates about consoles are so god damn stupid

I think about 75% of the people replying here will disagree with you. Debates about consoles are great!

Plasma

17 Dec 2007, 20:22

Debates about consoles are so god damn stupid
Agreed. In any group console debate, you will always get:

1: A guy who participates in the debate even though he's only ever played one console.
2: A guy who completely ignores the library of games and additional hardware/software for each console and thinks the debate should be over purely the console alone.
3: A guy who thinks that the PC should also be debated, even when the topic at hand is specifically regarding next-gen consoles.
4: A guy who will always say that one major feature of a console is nothing more than a gimmick, and ignore any arguments against it.
5: A guy (or girl) who will prefer a certain console purely because of one or two exclusive series of games on that console.
6: A guy who accuses another person of only prefers a cetain console purely because of one or two exclusive series of games on that console, just because that person makes it clear that they really love one or two exclusive series of games on that console.
7: A guy who will prefer a certain console yet fail to give a decent argument as to why.
8: A "Paul" who will, at some point, drive the debate completely off-topic.
9: A guy who will list off a made-up schematic that supports his own opinion. (such as the post just above)
10: A guy who will claim someone else's neutral or rational comment to be 'fanboyism' or 'flaming'.

Plasma

17 Dec 2007, 21:45

I figured this was the best place to show my new signature.
Wow, you really missed thoe whole commotion regarding Shadowmoon and trying to take credit for starting threads, didn't you?

edit: Plasma, I don't understand a word of what you're saying. You're better off quiet.
[facepalm: active]

Pickleworm

18 Dec 2007, 01:27

I think about 75% of the people replying here will disagree with you. Debates about consoles are great!

But a console debate, at its base, is clarifying the obvious to people who don't understand it, and then after that it's basically 100% personal preference. If you like awe-inspiring graphics, go for the ps3. If you want games more suited for the party environment, go for the Wii. A console debate is based on the fact that one of these stances is somehow wrong and that's not true

The only time that actual "debate" comes up is when someone says something that simply isn't true and people correct him, or someone uses a word with any sort of subjective application and someone takes him on about it

Shadowmoon

18 Dec 2007, 07:18

But a console debate, at its base, is clarifying the obvious to people who don't understand it, and then after that it's basically 100% personal preference. If you like awe-inspiring graphics, go for the ps3. If you want games more suited for the party environment, go for the Wii. A console debate is based on the fact that one of these stances is somehow wrong and that's not true

The only time that actual "debate" comes up is when someone says something that simply isn't true and people correct him, or someone uses a word with any sort of subjective application and someone takes him on about it

Okay, but just don't say this thread is rubbish as well. Because its not.

Kelster23

18 Dec 2007, 18:36

5: A guy (or girl) who will prefer a certain console purely because of one or two exclusive series of games on that console.

I know who that was directed at.
Does anyone know if you can use the PS2 controllers for GH on the PS3?
Need to know so I know wether when I ever get around to getting some sort of new console, if I'd have to rebuy the game controllers anyway. You should be able to, right?

Plasma

18 Dec 2007, 18:40

I know who that was directed at.
In all fairness, the only games I know you play anymore are from the Guitar Hero and God of War series. So much so that the only time I hear you mention another game, most of the time, it's preceeded by the word 'deleted'.
And you haven't even touched Albatross18, even though you downloaded it the better part of a week ago.

Does anyone know if you can use the PS2 controllers for GH on the PS3?
You still haven't told me: what's wrong with your PS2?

Xinos

18 Dec 2007, 21:52

This poll is ridiculous. Why does any consol have to be the best?

MrBunsy

18 Dec 2007, 22:47

This poll is ridiculous. Why does any consol have to be the best?

It's a real world, sometimes one thing is actually better than another.

Metal Alex

18 Dec 2007, 22:51

It's a real world, sometimes one thing is actually better than another.

My toes are better than 1/4 of an average chair. Do you agree?

Pickleworm

18 Dec 2007, 23:29

My toes are better than 1/4 of an average chair. Do you agree?

Ha ha this is not merely funny, it is relevant and proves a point.

Plasma

18 Dec 2007, 23:31

My toes are better than 1/4 of an average chair. Do you agree?
Not really. Not only is a 1/4 chair have more use for everday abnormal tasks and whacking people over the head with, but your toes are too squishy for my liking.

MrBunsy

18 Dec 2007, 23:47

My toes are better than 1/4 of an average chair. Do you agree?

I did say sometimes, not always. Things aren't perfect, some things, sometimes, really are crap and no amount of opinion can change that. I don't think that is actually the case with these three consoles, in that they are sufficiently different and reasonably good in their own way that for one to be declared 'best' won't happen.

However, if we had a banana and a bucket of cyanide and asked you which is better for eating, could you really come up with a decent reason for the cyanide?

Dewey2

19 Dec 2007, 00:56

So here we go again. I'm going either Wii or 360.

Experience says: this will not end well.

I agree completely.

AndrewTaylor

19 Dec 2007, 22:16

However, if we had a banana and a bucket of cyanide and asked you which is better for eating, could you really come up with a decent reason for the cyanide?

Wouldn't have to listen to any more of this thread?

robowurmz

22 Dec 2007, 10:47

Wouldn't have to listen to any more of this thread?

By Jove! He's just made the first REASONABLE excuse for suicide! Well done that man! *Nobel Prize*

*Splinter*

22 Dec 2007, 11:45

By Jove! He's just made the first REASONABLE excuse for suicide! Well done that man! *Nobel Prize*

Except you wouldnt have to read this thread anyway.

Besides, there are plenty of reasonable excuses for suicide, especially if you dont believe in any kind of after-life

yauhui

22 Dec 2007, 15:43

Does anyone know if you can use the PS2 controllers for GH on the PS3?
Need to know so I know wether when I ever get around to getting some sort of new console, if I'd have to rebuy the game controllers anyway. You should be able to, right?

But.. But.. PS3 controllers are WIRELESS! :eek:

Shadowmoon

23 Dec 2007, 13:40

So here we go again. I'm going either Wii or 360.

I agree completely.

It won't go bad at all. It will end well. So far this thread is going well, with no flaming or spamming. The wii is quite different from any other console. PS3 and Xbox 360 are quite the same.

pieman280

23 Dec 2007, 18:29

Shadowmoon

23 Dec 2007, 18:40

yes, this thread is going really well.

a couple of days ago I found my friend at the mall and he was showing me the Wii on one of those playable demos they put out in stores. well I tried the wii and it was fantastic... but hard. the remote was just so weird for game play..... I just couldn't move well. it will take some getting used to, but I thought the gameplay and the possibilities were just mind blowing. I love the wii!:D

BTW, nice new avatar, shadowmoon.

Thanks. But i didn't create it. The remote is actually quite weird, and its probably the first console to feature a remote. I don't have a wii, but my cousin does. I was terrible when i first played it, but now i am used to it. The good thing is, Most of the games are fantastic. What game did you play? was it Super Mario Galaxy?

Metal Alex

24 Dec 2007, 01:16

However, if we had a banana and a bucket of cyanide and asked you which is better for eating, could you really come up with a decent reason for the cyanide?

A person about to suicide would pick the cyanide.

Anyways, what I mean is, at least with the Wii, that it's oriented in another way, quite different to the other 2. Has its pros and cons, but on another kind of thing.

AndrewTaylor

24 Dec 2007, 13:32

Thanks. But i didn't create it. The remote is actually quite weird, and its probably the first console to feature a remote.

The NES did.

Er, I assume "remote" means "a control pad that's squareish"? Otherwise I can see no way to say the Wii has one and the PS3 doesn't.

pieman280

24 Dec 2007, 16:43

was it Super Mario Galaxy?

lol, yes it was.:cool:

it was cool, but the new type of remote made it hard to do simple things. like dodge these ball shaped creatures.

Plasma

24 Dec 2007, 16:50

lol, yes it was.:cool:

it was cool, but the new type of remote made it hard to do simple things. like dodge these ball shaped creatures.
Oh, right. You mean you weren't used to the shape of the controller, and it being separated into two parts. Mario Galaxy doesn't make much use of the motion sensor.

yauhui

25 Dec 2007, 07:12

Just played the Wii last night at my cousin's house.

Had to admit I suck in golf.

The main cons for the Wiimote: It is difficult to differentiate the speed of the Wiimote/Wii remote movement. Like in golf. One small tap and the power gauge maxes out.

Plasma

25 Dec 2007, 08:34

The main cons for the Wiimote: It is difficult to differentiate the speed of the Wiimote/Wii remote movement. Like in golf. One small tap and the power gauge maxes out.
That's only for the golf game. I can't think of another game where you have to blindly predict what speed to move the wiimote at.

Nugget

25 Dec 2007, 14:48

I've been playing Wii for 5 hours straight. There is a heaven on earth.

AndrewTaylor

26 Dec 2007, 12:11

I've been playing Wii for 5 hours straight. There is a heaven on earth.

Like all good times, it comes with a hangover. In this case, inability to use your arm tomorrow.

Unless you're playing Mario Galaxy. That's pretty easy on the limbs.

Shadowmoon

31 Dec 2007, 19:34

The wii really can make you tired!

thomasp

31 Dec 2007, 19:40

The wii really can make you exhausted:D great for exercise:D
Studies have shown that the Wii is in fact no good substitute for exercise - playing on the Wii only uses 2% more energy (on average) than playing on regular computer games. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7155342.stm

If you get exhausted playing computer games at your age, you have some serious health issues that you should really get checked out.

Shadowmoon

31 Dec 2007, 19:42

So, your saying that you cannot get tired when playing a wii?

thomasp

31 Dec 2007, 19:46

So, your saying that you cannot get tired when playing a wii?
If you get exhausted, like you originally said, then you have serious health issues.

Tired after playing for a few hours, yes that's probably reasonable, but exhaustion - I'd get yourself to a doctor's asap.

Nugget

31 Dec 2007, 21:46

None of the Wii games are really more tiring than playing regular games, except for Wii Sports, (Boxing, tennis) which is very tiring in the long run.

pieman280

1 Jan 2008, 18:07

I've heard about people losing weight by playing the wii a lot. I bet they're just rumors though.:p

Some games can easily get you tired, but most of them are just about as tiring as a normal game.

MrBunsy

1 Jan 2008, 18:14

I've heard about people losing weight by playing the wii a lot. I bet they're just rumors though.:pI suppose if you skip meals to play on the Wii, it would be possible. Unlikely, however.

Shadowmoon

1 Jan 2008, 20:03

Well, the wii doesn't actually make you tired, well it does if you play it forever. But after a while you start to ache in your arms.

AndrewTaylor

1 Jan 2008, 20:35

It makes specific muscles tired, but that's not useful as exercise.

Shadowmoon

2 Jan 2008, 08:24

Reder8

2 Jan 2008, 22:26

I played on a Wii today, it didn't really say "wow" to me. Anyway, somehow I won at bowling, so it must be broken.

Shadowmoon

3 Jan 2008, 07:46

I played on a Wii today, it didn't really say "wow" to me. Anyway, somehow I won at bowling, so it must be broken.

The wii doesn't really shout "wow" to you when you first play it. When i played it for my first time i didn't enjoy it much:-/ but i soon got used to the controls and i really like the wii now.

SomePerson

3 Jan 2008, 23:25

The game that makes my muscles ache a lot is wii sports. Especially the boxing. Yesterday i tried out Guitar Hero III on my cousins new X360. The X360 is quite good, with awesome graphics. And Guitar Hero III is quite a good game too.

I've only played Guitar Hero II, which was pretty cool. But I prefer real guitar, honestly.:p And I could get a new guitar for cheaper than even a Wii, which is the main reason I refuse to buy any of the new consoles.:)

My vote would probably go to Dreamcast. It doesn't compare to the power of modern systems, but while it lasted it had some really fun games and I loved that system.

Shadowmoon

14 Jan 2008, 16:47

I've only played Guitar Hero II, which was pretty cool. But I prefer real guitar, honestly.:p And I could get a new guitar for cheaper than even a Wii, which is the main reason I refuse to buy any of the new consoles.:)

My vote would probably go to Dreamcast. It doesn't compare to the power of modern systems, but while it lasted it had some really fun games and I loved that system.

Dreamcast!:eek: i am really shocked:( how can you say that dreamcast is the best!

Muzer

14 Jan 2008, 19:03

Shadowmoon

14 Jan 2008, 19:06

All he said was that he wasn't going to buy any of the new consoles because he can get a guitar for cheaper. And he never bashed the other systems; he even said "It doesn't compare to the power of modern systems".

Yeah, i know. I am just shocked thats all. Not that his opinions are wrong, its just a bit weird. Opinions cannot be truly correct, anyway. I am just shocked.:eek:

BTW: I edited my post anyway.

MrBunsy

14 Jan 2008, 19:40

(opinions cannot be wrong or right)Yes they can.

Shadowmoon

14 Jan 2008, 19:46

Okay, i guess i got that wrong.

*edits post*

There's no such thing as a truly correct opinion tho.

An xbox 360 is quite cool. I played COD 4, the other day with my cousin.

MrBunsy

14 Jan 2008, 19:53

I played the demo of that on the PC the other day, not bad. Wouldn't buy it myself though.

There's no such thing as a truly correct opinion tho.Yes there is :p I think 0.999...=1. This can be proven. Yet, you will still find people who think otherwise.

Shadowmoon

14 Jan 2008, 19:57

You go by what you think, and i will go by what i think. I don't want to argue.:mad: and i don't want this to turn into a opinion discussion thread.

I must say, the graphics are awesome on the X360. When i played call of duty 4 i was stunned by the graphics. Amazing:cool:

Muzer

14 Jan 2008, 20:14

IMHO, the PS3's graphics are overrated. Now that the 360 has HD output, the graphics are easily as good as the PS3's. And I've heard that the online play on the 360 is truly immense, so when I get a 360 (no idea when that'll be) I'll almost certainly get an XBL subscription. Damn Bill Gates and his money making.

Fun fact: The Xbox is called that because bill, scared that the gaming computer market might drop since everyone seemed to be wanting to buy consoles then, wanted to join the console market himself. However, at first he didn't want to make a console of his own. He wanted to make a Direct X developer's kit for one of the existing consoles and charge people to use it to make games. His first choice was the Dreamcast as that could already run Windows CE (don't believe me? Try looking on the front of your own Dreamcast!), but partially due to the Dreamcast's failure looking likely and partially due to technical problems, he scrapped that idea and decided to make an entirely new console based on Direct X. He originally called it the Direct X Box, but it got shortened down to Xbox.

I got all this out of my memory which in turn was found on some website I can't remember (just that story, not my whole memory :p) so some of the details may be incorrect, or it may have been one of those annoying fake things that float around, I have no idea

EDIT: I just looked on wikipedia and there's a little bit about it there, so it's not all myths. Doesn't have the bit about the DC, though.

Shadowmoon

14 Jan 2008, 20:17

IMHO, the PS3's graphics are overrated. Now that the 360 has HD output, the graphics are easily as good as the PS3's. And I've heard that the online play on the 360 is truly immense, so when I get a 360 (no idea when that'll be) I'll almost certainly get an XBL subscription. Damn Bill Gates and his money making.

Fun fact: The Xbox is called that because bill, scared that the gaming computer market might drop since everyone seemed to be wanting to buy consoles then, wanted to join the console market himself. However, at first he didn't want to make a console of his own. He wanted to make a Direct X developer's kit for one of the existing consoles and charge people to use it to make games. His first choice was the Dreamcast as that could already run Windows CE (don't believe me? Try looking on the front of your own Dreamcast!), but partially due to the Dreamcast's failure looking likely and partially due to technical problems, he scrapped that idea and decided to make an entirely new console based on Direct X. He originally called it the Direct X Box, but it got shortened down to Xbox.

I got all this out of my memory which in turn was found on some website I can't remember (just that story, not my whole memory :p) so some of the details may be incorrect, or it may have been one of those annoying fake things that float around, I have no idea

Yep the Xbox 360 online play is immense. I went online on call on duty 4, and i loved it! i am also thinking of getting an Xbox 360 as well. There's really good players online.

*Splinter*

16 Jan 2008, 20:48

And I've heard that the online play on the 360 is truly immense, so when I get a 360 (no idea when that'll be) I'll almost certainly get an XBL subscription.

Of course, you COULD just get a PS3 and play online for free...

If you intend to play games online, the 'war of the consoles' is a beatiful slaughter by Sony :)

AndrewTaylor

16 Jan 2008, 20:54

Of course, you COULD just get a PS3 and play online for free...

If you intend to play games online, the 'war of the consoles' is a beatiful slaughter by Sony :)

This is a new version of "for free" that means "for a hefty up-front fee instead of a subscription", yes?

Metal Alex

16 Jan 2008, 21:57

If you intend to play games online, the 'war of the consoles' is a beatiful slaughter by Sony :)

The Wii is free too, you know?

*Splinter*

17 Jan 2008, 16:57

This is a new version of "for free" that means "for a hefty up-front fee instead of a subscription", yes?
I dont know how much it costs (and certainly cant be bothered to look) but I cant believe you would have to be subsribed too long before the PS3 would have been cheaper...
The Wii is free too, you know?

Yeah, have fun with that :rolleyes:

Metal Alex

17 Jan 2008, 17:00

Yeah, have fun with that :rolleyes:

Smash Bros Brawl :rolleyes:

*Splinter*

17 Jan 2008, 18:41

Smash Bros Brawl :rolleyes:

The exception that proves the rule!

Oh, sorry, thought I was in the Silly Game thread...

Muzer

17 Jan 2008, 20:33

The exception proves the rule was originally used in the old meaning of "prove" (test, for example in proof reading, proving ground, the proof of the pudding is in the eating etc), to mean the exception tests the rule and shows it may not be correct. It has however got mutated into something people with faulty rules say when they can't be bothered to think of a better one to say.

I read that from P.O.S.H. and other language myths.

And I have a PS3 (more accurately, my brother has one he never plays). I've just heard that the 360's online is even better.

Metal Alex

17 Jan 2008, 21:26

What I'm just saying is that if you have a console is to play games with more people with it, and have fun with them. With the Wii, you can see lots of offline games, but most being multiplayer, and guess what: they are fun! Having online is somewhat an extra.
The Xbox is something a bit different. It's a console that focuses on internet game most of the times, and gives all the support it can to it, like that headset, leaderboards, cutomization, guilds, etc.
The PS3's online capability is just ripped off a computer, for most games. You can perfectly play Team Fortress 2 on the PC, with a Mouse, and even play better (don't forget about typing, or modding). It just doesn't give anything new, and if the PS3 had to survive over that, it'd be lost. Luckily, it has those fancy graphics to survive. The only bad thing about that is that the developement to make good games that really use those to their full extent is too long and costly for them to be made. This ends in normal games being remade as much as they can, with nothing new to give, like any of those new Tennis games with super-duper graphics, that the only new thing that gives is that, and that everything's very smooth. This is why I think the poll up there doesn't say the PS3 is winning.

Oh, sorry, I thought I was in the war of the consoles thread... oh wait.

Kelster23

17 Jan 2008, 22:39

Playstation does have God of War :D

You can freely ignore this post by the way.

Plasma

17 Jan 2008, 22:48

Playstation does have God of War :D
...while Nintendo does have Super Mario and numberous spinoffs, Donkey Kong, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Starfox, Kirby and Warioware.

And that's why you don't try debate franchises when Nintendo are involved.

shadowman

22 Jan 2008, 23:27

*edits post*

That's a really bad habit.

I like the computer best, as long as vista is not present.

yakuza

25 Jan 2008, 20:52

...while Nintendo does have Super Mario and numberous spinoffs, Donkey Kong, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Starfox, Kirby and Warioware.

And that's why you don't try debate franchises when Nintendo are involved.

Well, depends on what you're debating, if it's about furries, then sure, Nintendo wins, hands down, however, if you're looking at sales, or quality or just general popularity, I don't see why the Sony exclusive titles aren't better than the Marios and Kirbys. I mean, of the top of my head there's the Metal Gears, the Final Fantasies, the Pro evolution soccers and I've probably missed one of the big ones.
Not saying they're better, I just find that saying Nintendo wins hand down on franchises to be way off.
Unless of course you're going to mention the difference between franchises and exclusive titles, which is fair enough really, but in the end, an exclusive title that keeps coming out in the same brand's system is the same thing.

Plasma

25 Jan 2008, 21:33

Well, depends on what you're debating, if it's about furries, then sure, Nintendo wins, hands down, however, if you're looking at sales, or quality or just general popularity, I don't see why the Sony exclusive titles aren't better than the Marios and Kirbys. I mean, of the top of my head there's the Metal Gears, the Final Fantasies, the Pro evolution soccers and I've probably missed one of the big ones.
Not saying they're better, I just find that saying Nintendo wins hand down on franchises to be way off.
Unless of course you're going to mention the difference between franchises and exclusive titles, which is fair enough really, but in the end, an exclusive title that keeps coming out in the same brand's system is the same thing.
-See, if you're going to argue something like that, you have to back it up with facts.
However, since I have easy access to Wikipedia, I'll do it for you:

List of top 10 best-selling franchises:
1. Mario (200 million)
2. Pokémon (164 million)
3. The Sims (90 million)
4. Final Fantasy (80 million)
5. Tetris (70 million)
6. FIFA (65 million)
7. Grand Theft Auto (65 million)
8. Madden NFL (60 million)
9. The Legend of Zelda (52 million)
10. Donkey Kong (48 million)

See, four of those franchises are owned by Nintendo. The only one that hasn't been on a Nintendo console is Grand Theft Auto, and thats only if you don't count the GameBoy Colour version of GTA1. None of those franchises are owned by Sony or Microsoft.

Top 20 best-selling console games of all time:
1. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green (Game Boy – 20.08 million approximately, 10.23 million in Japan, 9.85 million in US)
2. Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES – 18 million)
3. Nintendogs (DS – 17.79 million)
4. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2 – 15 million, may include PC and Xbox versions)
5. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (PS2 – 14.87 million)
6. Pokémon Gold and Silver (Game Boy – 14.51 million approximately, 7.6 million in US,[45] 6.91 million in Japan)
7. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (DS – 14.17 million)
8. Super Mario Land (Game Boy – 14 million)
9. New Super Mario Bros. (DS – 13.14 million)
10. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (GBA – 13 million)
11. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2 – 12 million)
Grand Theft Auto III (PS2 – 12 million, may include PC and Xbox versions)
13. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (DS – 11.71 million)
14. Super Mario 64 (N64 – 11 million)
15. Gran Turismo (PS1 – 10.85 million)
16. Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen (GBA – 10.66 million)
17. Super Mario Bros. 2 (NES – 10 million)
18. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day! (DS – 9.841 million)
19. Final Fantasy VII (PS1 – 9.8 million, includes Final Fantasy VII International)
20. Mario Kart DS (DS – 9.67 million)
Note: doesn't include games bundled with consoles, which are:
* Super Mario Bros. (NES – 40.23 million)
* Tetris (Game Boy – 33 million)
* Super Mario World (SNES – 20 million)
* Wii Sports (Wii - 17.85 million) (packaged with system in all regions except Japan)

Out of those 24 games, 18 of them are Nintendo's own. They produced all of the top 8 games. Likewise, Sony only produced two of the games, both from the one franchise; not counting FF7, as they only helped produce that in some countries, and not at all for the PC version. Microsoft produced none.

So, in short:
YOU ARE WRONG!

I mean, of the top of my head there's the Metal Gears, the Final Fantasies, the Pro evolution soccers
Metal Gear and Final Fantasy have both had games published for a Nintendo console; and the Pro Evo is still being published for a Nintendo console, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

AndrewTaylor

25 Jan 2008, 22:00

if it's about furries

What the hell?

I dont know how much it costs (and certainly cant be bothered to look) but I cant believe you would have to be subsribed too long before the PS3 would have been cheaper...

Welcome to real life, where "cheaper" is not the same as "free".

yakuza

25 Jan 2008, 22:12

-See, if you're going to argue something like that, you have to back it up with facts.
However, since I have easy access to Wikipedia, I'll do it for you:

List of top 10 best-selling franchises:
1. Mario (200 million)
2. Pokémon (164 million)
3. The Sims (90 million)
4. Final Fantasy (80 million)
5. Tetris (70 million)
6. FIFA (65 million)
7. Grand Theft Auto (65 million)
8. Madden NFL (60 million)
9. The Legend of Zelda (52 million)
10. Donkey Kong (48 million)

See, four of those franchises are owned by Nintendo. The only one that hasn't been on a Nintendo console is Grand Theft Auto, and thats only if you don't count the GameBoy Colour version of GTA1. None of those franchises are owned by Sony or Microsoft.

Top 20 best-selling console games of all time:
1. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green (Game Boy – 20.08 million approximately, 10.23 million in Japan, 9.85 million in US)
2. Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES – 18 million)
3. Nintendogs (DS – 17.79 million)
4. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2 – 15 million, may include PC and Xbox versions)
5. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (PS2 – 14.87 million)
6. Pokémon Gold and Silver (Game Boy – 14.51 million approximately, 7.6 million in US,[45] 6.91 million in Japan)
7. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (DS – 14.17 million)
8. Super Mario Land (Game Boy – 14 million)
9. New Super Mario Bros. (DS – 13.14 million)
10. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (GBA – 13 million)
11. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2 – 12 million)
Grand Theft Auto III (PS2 – 12 million, may include PC and Xbox versions)
13. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (DS – 11.71 million)
14. Super Mario 64 (N64 – 11 million)
15. Gran Turismo (PS1 – 10.85 million)
16. Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen (GBA – 10.66 million)
17. Super Mario Bros. 2 (NES – 10 million)
18. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day! (DS – 9.841 million)
19. Final Fantasy VII (PS1 – 9.8 million, includes Final Fantasy VII International)
20. Mario Kart DS (DS – 9.67 million)
Note: doesn't include games bundled with consoles, which are:
* Super Mario Bros. (NES – 40.23 million)
* Tetris (Game Boy – 33 million)
* Super Mario World (SNES – 20 million)
* Wii Sports (Wii - 17.85 million) (packaged with system in all regions except Japan)

Out of those 24 games, 18 of them are Nintendo's own. They produced all of the top 8 games. Likewise, Sony only produced two of the games, both from the one franchise; not counting FF7, as they only helped produce that in some countries, and not at all for the PC version. Microsoft produced none.

So, in short:
YOU ARE WRONG!

Metal Gear and Final Fantasy have both had games published for a Nintendo console; and the Pro Evo is still being published for a Nintendo console, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

I'm kind of talking about the present here, yes nintendo nowadays lead handheld sales, but if you notice, no gamecube game is close of making into the list, although there's a bunch of PS2 ones, that's basically last generation of home videoconsoles, since one guy said sony have God of War, which is a new generation game, and you replied how Nintendo had all of this and that, but I don't think Super Mario Bros 3 is all that relevant to the thread, now is it? Also, I never said Nintendo wasn't the leading sales in franchises, so I don't see how can I be wrong. Also note that Mario has more spinoffs than any other game, therefore it's easy for it to be leading in sales, specially since it's the second oldest franchise in the list.
So in short, in recent times, last generation that is, Sony's franchises (or exclusive titles) have been above Nintendo's, note I don't take handhelds into account since they're a completely different market, that's the reason they get games like PES, Metal Gear, FF and whatnot.
In conclusion, one guy mentioned God of War and you jumped at him saying Nintendo had the leading franchises, which is partially true, but it's irrelevant since most if not all of them are from the time Nintendo was the market leader (NES, SNES) or refer to handheld versions, which Nintendo still lead, but it's still irrelevant to the thread.
We'll what franchises sell more, the PS3 final fantasies and Metal Gears, or the Wii Marios and co. If history is constant, following last generation of home consoles, Sony is obviously going to take the lead on this one (obviously, Wii sports doesn't count).

Plasma

25 Jan 2008, 22:23

I'm kind of talking about the present here, since one guy said sony have God of War, which is a new generation game, and you replied how Nintendo had all of this and that, but I don't think Super Mario Bros 3 is all that relevant to the thread, now is it?
...
Hey Kiddo, news flash: God of War games has only been published for the PS2! You really need to get your facts straight before you enter a debate!
Moreso, no PS3 games or Xbox games made the list, while Wii Sports made more sales than any non-Nintendo game.

I'm kind of talking about the present here, yes nintendo nowadays lead handheld sales, but if you notice, no gamecube game is close of making into the list, although there's a bunch of PS2 ones,
As we're not talking about which last-gen console is the best, I can only presume you're talking about games from previous to this generation. In which case, it might help to notice that all of the non-handheld Nintendo games listed are avaliable for the Wii.

Also, I never said Nintendo wasn't the leading sales in franchises, so I don't see how can I be wrong.
And I quote, "I just find that saying Nintendo wins hand down on franchises to be way off."

Also note that Mario has more spinoffs than any other game, therefore it's easy for it to be leading in sales, specially since it's the second oldest franchise in the list.
That figure refers to the total sales of the 11 games of the main Mario series. And if the series having that many games is a bother to you, then you shouldn't have gotten in an argument about franchises.

So in short, in recent times, last generation that is, Sony's franchises (or exclusive titles) have been above Nintendo's, note I don't take handhelds into account since they're a completely different market, that's the reason they get games like PES, Metal Gear, FF and whatnot.
Yay, more facts! (ignore the numbers in square brackets, I just didn't feel like removing them this time)

Wii games that have sold one million copies or more.
* Wii Sports (17.85 million)[64] (packaged with system in all regions except Japan)
* Wii Play (9.23 million)[64]
* Super Mario Galaxy (5.19 million)[64]
* Mario Party 8 (4.35 million)[64]
* The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.3 million)[64]
* Super Paper Mario (2.16 million)[64]
* Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree (2 million)[64]
* Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (1.82 million)[65]
* Mario Strikers Charged (1.65 million)[64]
* Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (1.434 million approximately, 946,000 in US,[66] 488,000 in Japan)[67]
* Wii Fit (1.194 million in Japan)[67]
* Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (1.14 million)[64]
* Link's Crossbow Training (1.07 million)[64]
* Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock (1 million)[68]
* Rayman Raving Rabbids (1 million)[69]
* Red Steel (1 million)[69]
* Resident Evil 4 (1 million shipped)[70]
Hmm. The bottom four are the only non-Nintendo owned games, not including Mario & Sonic.

PlayStation 3 games that have sold one million copies or more.
* Resistance: Fall of Man (2 million)[133]
* MotorStorm (1 million)[134]
Yes, so far the PS3 has only had two games that have been documented as selling more than one million copies. Considering that neither of them are franchises, I think it's fair to say that Nintendo wins this round.

note I don't take handhelds into account since they're a completely different market, that's the reason they get games like PES, Metal Gear, FF and whatnot.
Metal Gear and Final Fantasy already had a number of games on Nintendo's non-handhelds, and PES 2008 is to be released on the Wii this quarter.

yakuza

25 Jan 2008, 22:28

...
Hey Kiddo, news flash: God of War games has only been published for the PS2! You really need to get your facts straight before you enter a debate!

I know that, I was talking in relation to your examples which most are 16bit games. I don't know were you're trying to get with remarks such as "kiddo". Either way, there was no need to go after someone who mentioned sony had God of War in this thread, we all know Nintendo have Mario, DK, Fox and a bunch of other talking animals, but when was the last time a Mario or Pokemon game beat a Final Fantasy or a Metal Gear in home consoles? We'd have to go back to the snes era I'm afraid. That's the point I'm trying to get, as far as Nintendo franchises are concerned, they have been constantly going dowhill as far as home consoles are concerned. Whilst the Sony exclusive titles are still getting a bunch of sales (see PS2-Gamecube/Gran Turismo-Mario Sunshine). So you tell me what will likely happen in this generation of consoles, will Pokemon (if that's even coming out) for the Wii break all sales record, will it beat Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear or the new Gran Turismo? Will Mario in space do? Since the n64 this is the most likely scenario were Nintendo's exclusive titles would be able to beat Sony's on home consoles, however it hasn't been the case since Sony released their first Playstation.

edit: No banjo then

AndrewTaylor

25 Jan 2008, 22:41

Actually, since Rare were bought out, "Banjo" is wholly owned by Microsoft.

Edit: and it was never that great anyway.

Plasma

25 Jan 2008, 22:58

Either way, there was no need to go after someone who mentioned sony had God of War in this thread
I didn't. I just said that Nintendo had more franchises when she (who is my girlfriend, by the way) mentioned Sony had God of War.

but when was the last time a Mario or Pokemon game beat a Final Fantasy or a Metal Gear in home consoles?
Mario Sunshine: 5.5 million copies sold
Metal Gear Solid 3: 3.6 million copies
And I don't know about Final Fantasy 12.
...Ups, looks like you lost out to facts again! Too bad!

will Pokemon (if that's even coming out) for the Wii
...It came out in 2006. Really, now you're just making a fool of yourself.

will Pokemon for the Wii break all sales record,
You're really expecting a spinoff of a handheld series to be the best-selling game ever?

yakuza

25 Jan 2008, 23:12

I

Mario Sunshine: 5.5 million copies sold
Metal Gear Solid 3: 3.6 million copies
And I don't know about Final Fantasy 12.
...Ups, looks like you lost out to facts again! Too bad!

Er, you seem a bit heated up by this debate, don't let it get to your head though, you can't just compare the games you choose to were your favourite plumber wins :confused:

For instance, FFX, on the PS2, had 6.6 million sales, added to the 3.2 million sales of FF12 and the 3 million sales of FFX-2, that's more than 12 million sales, more than all Mario franchises on the Gamecube, if we don't take Mario Kart and Super Smash into account, were Mario featured but was more of a mix of all the franchises. I'm also not taking into account the Grand Turismo and GTA series (exclusive to Sony home systems at that time) which sold around 50 million copies, more than all Gamecube games put together.

Metal Gear Solid 2, sold 7 million copies, added to MGS3 sales, that's more than 10 million sales, then again, beating the plumber or any other Nintendo franchise of the last generation. (Again, if we put Mario Kart, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros and whatever else together, they are on about 16 millions, which would be unfair, but either way still lower than Grand Turismo's 20 million or GTA's almost 40.)

It becomes pretty obvious when you compare the best two selling franchises of last generation Sony and Nintendo home systems and you realize GT3 sold almost three times more games than Super Smash Bros Melee.

If we add to this the Playstation and the N64 then Sony gets even a wider lead, in order for Nintendo to regain their lead we would have to go back to the SNES, but then again, Sony didn't have a console back then so how fair is that?

So, my original point stands, than in home systems, since Sony started making videogames, their exclusive titles have been heads and shoulders above the Nintendo franchises since the N64 came out. This might be the generation were it all changes though, seeing as Mario Galaxy has already more than 5 million sales and only two games have surpassed the 1 million mark for the PS3, all being said, no popular Sony exclusive title has yet been released. So yes, believe it or not, Sony's exclusive titles are better than Nintendo's, since when they started doing them they've been leading the market until now, and it's only now when it seems things might change, time will tell.

However this is not the case in the handhelds, which don't belong to this thread anyway.

This is from your own source, by the way.

(I didn't bother with your other comments as I see them to be irrelevant to the topic of discussion, if you want me to answer to any of them specifically, ask nicely)

Plasma

25 Jan 2008, 23:25

Er, you seem a bit heated up by this debate, don't let it get to your head though, you can't just compare the games you choose to were your favourite plumber wins :confused:
Your question was "when was the last time a Mario or Pokemon game beat a Final Fantasy or a Metal Gear in home consoles?"
I compared the latest games of the three (not Pokemon) franchises on the previous generaion, because that's what you asked. And actually, the answer should've been Super Mario Galaxy, but I forgot how many that sold.

If you ask a question, expect the answer to that question, and not another one in your head. If you had asked "Did Super Mario Sunshine beat Metal Gear Solid 2 or Final Fantasy X on sales", I would've said no. Likewise, if the debate was "did the best games from Nintendo franchises outsell the best games from Sony franchises in the previous generation of home consoles", I would've said no too. But considering how this thread is about the consoles of the current generation, we can either consider franchises as a whole, or franchises for this generation only.

(I didn't bother with your other comments as I see them to be irrelevant to the topic of discussion, if you want me to answer to any of them specifically, ask nicely)
I only asked one question, and it was rhetorical. I intend to debate: if you don't want to, then fine.

AndrewTaylor

25 Jan 2008, 23:25

I've edited your post to make a point. Try to guess what it is.

you can't just compare the games you choose to

...
more than all Mario franchises on the Gamecube, if we don't take Mario Kart and Super Smash into account,

...

Metal Gear Solid 2, sold 7 million copies, added to MGS3 sales, that's more than 10 million sales, then again, beating the plumber or any other Nintendo franchise of the last generation. (Again, if we put Mario Kart, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros and whatever else together, they are on about 16 millions, which would be unfair

...

However this is not the case in the handhelds, which don't belong to this thread anyway.

yakuza

25 Jan 2008, 23:31

And I quote, "I just find that saying Nintendo wins hand down on franchises to be way off."

And I do believe so, as I consider the 16bit era to be too outdated to even matter, and since we can only compare a competition of two brands when they're both actually competing, that is, 32/64 bit era when N64 and PSX hit the market, and seeing as since that time Sony's exclusive titles have beaten the Nintendo Franchises on home systems then well, my statement is correct, wouldn't you agree?

I've edited your post to make a point. Try to guess what it is.

It doesn't really matter, I still compared the scenarios was he to consider Smash Bros and Mario Kart to be pure Mario franchises (I consider SSB and Mario Kart to be different franchises, specially the first one, and I doubt I'm the only one), and even then, they'd be behind the Sony ones (Grand Turismo, whatever else). I don't see the point in picking on that, particularly, as it doesn't have anything to do with the general point I'm trying to make, and being witty, but if that makes you happy...

Plasma

25 Jan 2008, 23:56

And I do believe so, as I consider the 16bit era to be too outdated to even matter, and since we can only compare a competition of two brands when they're both actually competing, that is, 32/64 bit era when N64 and PSX hit the market, and seeing as since that time Sony's exclusive titles have beaten the Nintendo Franchises on home systems then well, my statement is correct, wouldn't you agree?
Nope. The N64's top-selling game, Super Mario 64, sold more copies than the PS1's top selling game, Grand Turismo. And I'm not going to count up individual franchises, because that would take too long.

I don't see the point in picking on that, particularly, as it doesn't have anything to do with the general point
What is your general point, exactly? You've been unclear about that. All I could gather was that some games on the PS2 sold more than on the Gamecube, and I think there was something about how you thought that was related to modern sales too, for some reason.

It doesn't really matter, I still compared the scenarios was he to consider Smash Bros and Mario Kart to be pure Mario franchises (I consider SSB and Mario Kart to be different franchises, specially the first one, and I doubt I'm the only one), and even then, they'd be behind the Sony ones (Grand Turismo, whatever else).
Yes, but you counted them up horribly wrong! A quick calculation of my own reveals that the Mario games from the gamecube certainly trounce the Grand Turismo games for the PS2, and it looks like that was the best-selling series of games on the PS2 aside from GTA, which we have no accurate figures for.

AndrewTaylor

25 Jan 2008, 23:58

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 00:13

You're being ridiculous anyway. The last generation was PS2 and Xbox games competing with Cube games -- and nobody bought Cube games because nobody had Cubes on which to play them. The quality, value and popularity of the games and franchises had no effect on that. Suddenly the Wii appears and Nintendo games sell while PS3 games flounder because only five people own PS3s (and they can't afford games after buying the console), and you start saying "yes, but last generation...".

You're picking and choosing what to compare. Even choosing sales figures as gospel is picking and choosing what to compare.

Personally, I'd also say that Mario is more valuable IP compared to than Final Fantasy than sales figures suggest, because you could, in all fairness, release the next Final Fantasy game under a different title and Square Enix wouldn't be able to stop you. Mario has a lot more unique qualities that competitors couldn't simply steal and get away with it (and if they did, they wouldn't have the advantage of having worked with them for years).

I guess I didn't make myself clear, I'm not choosing what games to compare, I'm saying, that from were Sony and Nintendo exclusive titles started to compete until now, Sony has a lead of sales overall, if you want to do the counting, go ahead and do so, but you only need to use the PS2 GTA and GT titles that are close to 50 millions to realize this.
So, and I repeat, my original point is, that in home systems, since Sony and Nintendo started to be direct competition until now, that is, from the N64/PS to the Wii/PS3, Sony's exclusive titles have been more succesful in home systems, if that's to change in this generation only time will tell, but so far it hasn't.

As for Mario being more valuable for that specific reason, think about it this way, no one stops another company from releasing a JRPG similar to Final Fantasy, and many have, yet no company other than Squaresoft/Square-Enix has been able to make one as popular and awarded as the Final Fantasies (other than other Square titles), even though in the SNES era, there was a bit more competition mainly from action JRPGS. And yes, they have little in common between each other than a few easter eggs to past titles and the genre, but all of them have been successful, which I believe is a better merit than milking the hell out of a succesful franchise, sure Mario invents himself title after title, but there's more work into making a whole new Final Fantasy story than having the great idea of a plataformer in Space, seriously, note I'm not talking about development here, I have no idea about how much it takes although I'm pretty certain the new Final Fantasies are on a bigger budget/time. About Marios features that repeat title after title, there's not as many as you would think, besides the characters of course (including the Stars), same could be said for the Final Fantasies where some characters appear in every game.

Metal Alex

26 Jan 2008, 00:25

Er, you seem a bit heated up by this debate, don't let it get to your head though, blah blah blah

Posting craploads of words in each post makes YOU look like the heated up guy. We are never going to change your facts. Never. You are just some close minded guy that would believe the world is totally flat even if anyone gets you to space to see it's wrong, without even considering the posibility. You will never change any point of view, so participating into a debate is totally pointless for you. Leave this place already.

Plasma

26 Jan 2008, 00:34

I guess I didn't make myself clear, I'm not choosing what games to compare, I'm saying, that from were Sony and Nintendo exclusive titles started to compete until now, Sony has a lead of sales overall, if you want to do the counting, go ahead and do so, but you only need to use the PS2 GTA and GT titles that are close to 50 millions to realize this.
So, and I repeat, my original point is, that in home systems, since Sony and Nintendo started to be direct competition until now, that is, from the N64/PS to the Wii/PS3, Sony's exclusive titles have been more succesful in home systems, if that's to change in this generation only time will tell, but so far it hasn't.
Okay, I've had enough:
Prove it!
Yes, I'm telling you to either shut up, or count up all the figures from Nintendo and Sony exclusives per console. ALL of them!
I'd do the same, but according to Wikipedia, WiiSports sold more copies than all PS3 games combined has been recorded of selling.

And if you want to prove the rest of your comments to be true, you have to count up the number of exclusives produced by Sony themselves.

but there's more work into making a whole new Final Fantasy story than having the great idea of a plataformer in Space, seriously,
...
About Marios features that repeat title after title, there's not as many as you would think, besides the characters of course (including the Stars), same could be said for the Final Fantasies where some characters appear in every game.
...
I think I'm about to start crying now...

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 00:45

About Marios features that repeat title after title, there's not as many as you would think, besides the characters of course (including the Stars), same could be said for the Final Fantasies where some characters appear in every game.

Did you ever play a Mario game? They're packed with clever recurring stuff. And "the characters of course" covers a lot of stuff -- enemy behaviour is a huge part of platform games, and the koopa-trooper is a classic. No non-Mario game could get away with an enemy even like a koopa-trooper. They'd be run out of town. The pipes are always there, too, as are "?" blocks, lakitu, mushrooms-that-make-you-grow (in 2D, anyway), music, and the increasingly complex level goal markers that make no sense but are brilliant anyway. What I'm saying is that if you were to take the next, as yet unannounced, Mario game, change all the characters, change all the music, change all the level themes, and remove all the branding from it, I would play it and think "this doesn't half smack of Mario". The fence-climbing bits of Mario Sunshine were from Mario World. The looping-choice-of-route rooms in Super Paper Mario were from the Japanese-only Mario II. More or less every part of Galaxy had a reference to something in Mario III. Super Paper Mario even borrowed some particular arrangements of blocks from early levels of Super Mario Brothers I. There's a very rich seam of IP in Mario that no other platform game can have.

A character in Final Fantasy is a name and a face and an outfit, perhaps a backstory, and I suppose a few moves as well, but they're purely incidental to the gameplay anyway. The continuity there is put in as a reward for loyal fans. In Mario it's the structure the game is built around.

WiiSports sold more copies than all PS3 games combined has been recorded of selling.

That's really, really cheating.

Wii Sports comes with the console. Nobody bought it standalone. Nobody asked to have it. The Wii outsold the PS3 and every Wii owner (outside Japan) has Wii Sports, so it automatically beats every PS3 game taken individually unless some people chose to buy two copies for some reason. Even Wii Play came with a controller at a time when the controllers were scarce, so including that is a little dodgy.

Stick to Galaxy. It's the perfect example of a fantastic game in a popular franchise deservedly selling like warm baked goods.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 01:12

Okay, I've had enough:
Prove it!
Yes, I'm telling you to either shut up, or count up all the figures from Nintendo and Sony exclusives per console. ALL of them!
I'd do the same, but according to Wikipedia, WiiSports sold more copies than all PS3 games combined has been recorded of selling.

And if you want to prove the rest of your comments to be true, you have to count up the number of exclusives produced by Sony themselves.

I have already stated them, note I've been saying home consoles all along, you don't have to count the PS3 at all, because with the other two Sony consoles it's enough. Taking into account the 5 most sold exclusive PS2 games, three GTA and two GT games (around 50 million between the five) sold more titles than all Gamecube or N64 listed on your source (which includes non exclusive/franchise) and that the top 5 Playstation one titles which include GT, FF, MGS and Tomb Raider (almost 50 million between the five) have sold more than all the Wii games listed (including Wii sports, which comes with the machine) I just don't see how you can argue against what I'm trying to say here, other than by taking offence as if you were some sort of football supporter.

Metal Alex, I don't understand what you're trying to prove here, pseudomoderating it seems. there's is no reason why I wouldn't change my mind, but there's really no argument against what I've said other than blind love for Nintendo. I'm not expressing my opinion, I'm stating a very simple fact concerning exclusive title sales since Sony and Nintendo started being direct contenders. Also, posting lots of text doesn't equal being heated up, in fact, the only reason I do is to leave little or no interpretation to be made so I don't have to explain myself over and over again, I know it doesn't work, but I try, thanks for your concerns now find yourself a place were you're found useful.

PS: approx 70million copies sold between Grand Turismo, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot and Metal Gear solid. I ignored the Resident Evil's close to 10 million sales although at that time they were Sony exclusive. I also ignored other titles because even though they were Playstation exclusive they haven't featured in all Sony systems and have, at one time or another, featured for another home console.

N64: approx 57million copies sold between, Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Party, SSB, Mario Tennis, Star Fox, Pokemon, Zelda, Yoshi. As with the PS, ignored other titles because even though they were N64 exclusive they haven't featured in all/most Nintendo home systems and have, at one time or another, featured or another home console.

PS2: approx 90 million copies sold between. GT, FF, MGS, God of War, Eye Toy. Could of added the Devil May Cry series and the PES series which have been pretty much Sony intensive, but hey, I'm trying to be objective here.

Gamecube: approx 37million copies sold between Mario, Mario Party, Mario Strikers, SSB, Pokemon, Zelda, Luigi, Pikimin, Paper Mario, Metroid.

Wii: approx 46million copies sold between Wii Sports, Wii play, Mario, Metroid, Zelda.

PS3: N/A

total: Sony 160 million copies Nintendo 140 My figures are approximations, I might have left out a title or two but none of them notable, which means no title which has sold more than 1 million copies has been left out so even if it has been done in a rush and is not exact I don't see how, with such a margin, there would be any significative differences. I also excluded a bunch of titles from the PS2 which have always been Sony titles, albeit not officially (see: Devil May Cry) For the record, I know FF and others aren't Sony Franchises, but since the begining of this debate I've labeled them as Sony exclusives (for home systems and since the PS1). So, if anyone wants to do theirs or has something remarkable to say about this one (and no, saying I left out Wii Jogging in the Mountains which sold 1 million copies is not remarkable, really) then please do so, but I see little point in debating my original point as much, if not all of it, has been already said. (and that's with Wii sports included, which isn't really fair)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Nintendo_GameCube

edit: AndrewTaylor,with characters I was also considering enemies, even the Stars I guess. I did forget about the pipes though I suppose. And yes, I've basically played every Mario game from the NES to the N64, and tried to play Sunshine but never got into it, I've also played every Final Fantasy game, even Mystic Quest (yeah, I know), and whilst the similarities between the FF might not be obvious as in the Mario titles they're still there, in a subtle way. There's also the abstract similarities, which have more to do with how the game feels or makes you feel, the stories, whilst most of them have nothing to do with each other, share the same kind of feel to them, and of course, there's things that repeat themselves in most games, most notably the Chocobos or the Moogles, which are pretty much Yoshi and the Toads of Mario. Yeah, anyone could make a similar game to Final Fantasy since there's very little trademark in their games, but there hasn't really been any console JRPG that has been near as successful as FF or other Square title (Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest).

Plasma

26 Jan 2008, 01:31

Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider
...Just so you know, Final Fantasy 7 and 8, and all of the Tomb Raider series, aren't Playstation exclusives. Which means subtract 32.1 million from that final figure of yours.
And I can spot several Nintendo exclusives you didn't include. Not to mention that all games from the SNES released after December 1994 need to be included too.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 02:01

I don't consider PC conversions to violate console exclusivity, because they are not the same market and therefore don't violate Sony's exclusivity contracts with the title devolopers, they are still Sony exclusive as far as consoles are concerned, the same reason I didn't count SNES games released after the N64 because a) they wouldn't have changed the outcome and b) Sony doesn't have a console in that generation so it's not fair competition. Also, you have spotted Nintendo exclusives, please state them, but make sure they have featured in most Nintendo home systems and haven't appeared in Sony or Microsoft consoles, or else we'd have to add a bunch of game to the Sony consoles as well, such as the PES titles, Resident Evil titles (the ones that didn't appear in the Nintendo home consoles) etc.
I knew you'd be picky, but please note that if we start being picky, specially in the PS2, the Sony margin would even be greater, that console has had a bunch of big selling exclusives in their respective time which I chose not to include due to the facts already mentioned, I also did consider Wii Sports into my sum, all of it to be as unbiased as possible probably doing Nintendo more of a favour, so be picky if you must, but please don't get to the point were it's silly.

Shadowmoon

26 Jan 2008, 10:13

Don't worry, it won't turn into a war. I think that Wii is the number 1 console for party games, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are the number one console for Shooting games like gears of war, Halo 3 e.t.c. The wii does not have better graphics than the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Or then again, it may. It looks like it is turning into one at the moment. I never knew that Pokemon and Mario were the top 2 selling franchises! i'm happy to hear that, because i like pokemon and Mario!:D

Plasma

26 Jan 2008, 10:25

PC counts. A Playstation exclusive is a game that was only published for Playstation systems, if it gets published for Windows too, then it's not much of an exclusive.

Also, just noticed that you added GTA into your PS2 figure. Considering that they are nowhere near exclusive, that's another 39 million gone from your figure! Even when we go with your own system, Nintendo still wins.

the same reason I didn't count SNES games released after the N64 because a) they wouldn't have changed the outcome and b) Sony doesn't have a console in that generation so it's not fair competition.
But the PS2 came out in December 3, '94, and the N64 came out in June 23, '96. I think it's only fair that the SNES games between those dates be included too.

SNES between the two above dates: (total, 15.04 million)
# Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (4.37 million approximately, 2.21 million in Japan,[39] 2.16 million in US)[45]
# Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (4 million)[43]
# Dragon Quest V (2.8 million in Japan)[39]
# Super Mario RPG (1.47 million in Japan)[39]
# Romancing SaGa 3 (1.3 million in Japan)[39]
# Kirby Super Star (1.1 million in Japan)[39]

but make sure they have featured in most Nintendo home systems and haven't appeared in Sony or Microsoft consoles, or else we'd have to add a bunch of game to the Sony consoles as well,
By that do you mean that the individual game hasn't appeared on any opposing systems, or that the franchise hasn't appeared on any opposing systems. Because if it's the latter, then your figures drop WAY down!

I knew you'd be picky,
So says the man who decided that handheld and pre-Playstation1 games aren't to be included.

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 13:07

Taking into account the 5 most sold exclusive PS2 games, three GTA and two GT games (around 50 million between the five) sold more titles than all Gamecube or N64 listed on your source
...because the console they were on outsold the GameCube and the N64. Why would people buy games for a console they haven't got?

the top 5 Playstation one titles which include GT, FF, MGS and Tomb Raider (almost 50 million between the five) have sold more than all the Wii games listed
...because the Wii has been out for about a year and the PSX has been out for about thirteen years. You really think those are comparable sales figures?

I don't get it. You're speaking a lot of sense in this thread, but you're mixing it in with moronic stuff like that. Why would you do that?

edit: AndrewTaylor,with characters I was also considering enemies, even the Stars I guess. I did forget about the pipes though I suppose. And yes, I've basically played every Mario game from the NES to the N64, and tried to play Sunshine but never got into it, I've also played every Final Fantasy game, even Mystic Quest (yeah, I know), and whilst the similarities between the FF might not be obvious as in the Mario titles they're still there, in a subtle way. There's also the abstract similarities, which have more to do with how the game feels or makes you feel, the stories, whilst most of them have nothing to do with each other, share the same kind of feel to them, and of course, there's things that repeat themselves in most games, most notably the Chocobos or the Moogles, which are pretty much Yoshi and the Toads of Mario. Yeah, anyone could make a similar game to Final Fantasy since there's very little trademark in their games, but there hasn't really been any console JRPG that has been near as successful as FF or other Square title (Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest).

No, I'm sure Square's games are excellent (although if so they're excellent examples of a genre I don't like so I wouldn't really know), and obviously having a trademark which people associate with excellent games is valuable, but trust me: Nintendo have about a dozen of those (although no such trademarks on any format will ever appeal to everyone).

I never likes Sunshine either, to be honest. It wasn't "Mario" enough -- even though it had most of the right characters. Which I think proves my point, in a funny kind of way.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 13:55

...because the console they were on outsold the GameCube and the N64. Why would people buy games for a console they haven't got?

...because the Wii has been out for about a year and the PSX has been out for about thirteen years. You really think those are comparable sales figures?

I'm not really comparing the PSX to the Wii directly, I'm comparing the PSX, PS2 and PS3 to the N64, Gamecube and Wii, however the PS3 doesn't get any title into the sum.

I don't get it. You're speaking a lot of sense in this thread, but you're mixing it in with moronic stuff like that. Why would you do that?

I totally agree that the reason the PS2 and PSX games sold more is largely due to the fact the consoles themselves sold more than their Nintendo counterparts. I originally made that comment so I didn't have to do the whole sum of games.

Plasma: We're talking about consoles here, and as far as they are concerned Final Fantasy and the GT series had a contract of exclusivity with the Sony home machines, and so did the PES games (which I didn't add to the sum just so you had one less thing to complaint about) until recent times, they are largely the reason why the Sony consoles were leading the market in recent times, so that exclusivity contract is actually relevant. PC and consoles didn't compete back then. It'd be stupid to say Mario is not Nintendo exclusive because they made a movie which everyone could see, even Genesis users.

About the SNES games you're adding to the sum that came out after the PS and N64 do you realize you're adding all the games like Romancing Saga and Dragon Quest which are by no means Nintendo Franchises... I don't think we should carry this any further, quite clearly you're refusing to understand.

I don't see how I'm being too picky, this is a console thread, I never included handhelds in the same category, they're also a totally different market, the home consoles do not compete with the handheld consoles, they do not steal each others market, they coexist, like Burritos and Yachts. Also, I don't see how not including the SNES is being picky, my original point was that since Sony and Nintendo started to compete Sony made a bigger profit out of their exclusive titles, it wouldn't be fair to include the SNES because Sony only started making games with the PS. Although I agree you should add the ~11 million of those SNES games that are actually franchises, even though I think it's silly, but seeing as you're just going to keep complaining. I was only trying to do a comparison between Nintendo franchises and Sony's most representative titles back then, which all happened to be exclusive at that time, I didn't add all the Sony exclusive titles because that wouldn't be fair, so I chose to add the titles everyone related to Sony at the moment they were mentioned, most of them, related to the time they were released, Grand Turismo, FF, GTA, Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot, etc... and compared them to a bunch of Nintendo franchises, Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Tennis, Luigi, SSB, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, Zelda, Pokemon, Pikimin etc... However you're trying to put my original comment down by being extremely picky and inconsistent, also incoherent (see: involving the PC), while you're at it, you might want to reconsider Link as a Nintendo franchise seeing as he appeared in a Playstation fighting game.

Muzer

26 Jan 2008, 13:57

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 14:06

Does that mean we get to take all the sales from Final Fantasy games off Sony's total and add it to Nintendo's then, since the sales were associated with the franchise and not the platform? I think that, if we're being reasonable about it, we actually do get to do that.

Muzer

26 Jan 2008, 14:10

I'm just saying that he's been going on and on about how Sony is better because they are the only consoles where you will find updated FF games. And FF originally started on the NES exclusively IIRC, so with your policy that, and I quote, "ignored other titles because even though they were N64 exclusive they haven't featured in all/most Nintendo home systems and have, at one time or another, featured or another home console."
EDIT again: sorry, I missed this bit: For the record, I know FF and others aren't Sony Franchises, but since the begining of this debate I've labeled them as Sony exclusives (for home systems and since the PS1). But that is again, applying different rules to both consoles, which is still not good, as I can't remember off the top of my head but I'm sure there were some franchises originally SMS/SMD exclusive that later switched to Nintendo without appearing on the Saturn. And, as we said, saying GTA is Sony exclusive is just plain silly, as we've already established that the PC does count, and that gaming PCs do compete with consoles; after all, why else did Microsoft release the Xbox, if not for fear of losing the gaming PC market with Direct X?

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 14:17

If I've learnt one thing since the noobs started to arrive, it's that yakuza is extremely stubborn and will do anything including making up crap (such as games being exclusive when they aren't) to invariably later look moronic when someone uncovers him, just to prove a point that is obviously not true.

I've never made up anything, Sony had a contract of exclusivity with a bunch of games, this contract is related to the market, it's stupid to involve the PC the same way it's stupid to add movies, because they are not direct competition and therefore are not mentioned in said contract. Because we're discussing consoles heres, and not PCs or Movies or games you play in a screen in general, then it's fair to say the Final Fantasies 7,8,9,10,12 and 13/13-X were/will be Sony home system exclusive and have always been titles everyone related to the Sony home systems. Also, I don't really get the point of your post, you do not prove or argument anything, you just share your opinion of me, which is out of place.

Just ignore him, he's just a little kid looking for arguments.

I'm not looking for arguments, I'm having an argument right now, maybe you're not used to seeing that in a forum, you might be more used to "Story threads" or the "Incredible Machine of ultimate spam", by all means stick to those threads, no one really asked or cares about your personal opinion on me, this thread is not the place to share it, use MSN or whatever.

Just to point out, as yakuza posted before I was finished, that mario movies obviously don't count, because they're not games. Computers allow you to play similar games to on consoles, the only difference being a mouse instead of an analogue stick, with the same types of games etc etc.

Wow that's an enlightening argument, did you go to business school? Exclusivity contracts are there to make sure the company, in this case, Sony, makes full profit of a franchise, in this case, Final Fantasy, the PC is irrelevant because Sony would have sold the same amount of titles even if the PC versions never saw the light of the day, that's the reason they are irrelevant, as are the movies, needless to say, we're discussing. Mario also featured in the Arcades, and Zelda appeared for Philips CD-I machine, but no one is making a big deal.

Final Fantasy is now going to be released on Nintendo consoles instead of Sony. As is Dragon Quest.

Whatever your source is, I suggest you change it.

And yes, I'm using my own set of rules, comparing the titles that most related to the Sony machines since the PS to the Nintendo franchises since the N64, if you think that's some sort of crazy set of rules then keep moaning, but take your Nintendo biased goggles off (and before accusing me, I own a NES, SNES, GENESIS, N64, PS2, GAMECUBE, WII AND PS3 and the Nintendo handhelds, if anything, I'm more of a Nintendo fan than Sony since my favourite games featured for the SNES and N64), FF featured for the PC, big deal, I don't know if you ever had a game conversation with more than one person, but in the PS/PS2 generation, the Final Fantasies, Metal Gears, GT and were Sony's presentation titles. They didn't come out in any of the other console home systems, that's why Sony led the market back then, which is the only point I'm trying to make, Sony did a better job with their exclusive titles than Nintendo did with their franchises, as sales reflect, and yes, it is largely due to the fact Sony sold more consoles, but Wii also sold many more than the PS3 and I still considered Wii into the chart, so there.

Plasma

26 Jan 2008, 14:25

Plasma: We're talking about consoles here, and as far as they are concerned Final Fantasy and the GTA series had a contract of exclusivity with the Sony home machines,
If by that you mean 'any Final Fantasy game after 9, not including spinoffs' then yes, they're exlcusive to Sony home machines. But that's just four games, surely that's not your argument.
And I really don't know where you got the impression that GTA is a Playstation-exclusive, considering the only Playstation-exclusive GTA game ever made was Libery City Stories. So will you please friggin' shut up about any rubbish regarding GTA as Playstation stuff!

About the SNES games you're adding to the sum that came out after the PS and N64 do you realize you're adding all the games like Romancing Saga and Dragon Quest which are by no means Nintendo Franchises...
Wait, wait, wait... we're talking about the company's own franchises? Well that's different. So let's look at Sony's IP. Out of the franchises you listed for your number of exclusives per console, what ones are owned by Sony. Hmm...
God of War and Eye Toy.
Gee, sorta sends out a message, doesn't it.

I don't see how I'm being too picky, this is a console thread, I never included handhelds in the same category, they're also a totally different market, the home consoles do not compete with the handheld consoles, they do not steal each others market, they coexist,
You mean like the way you say that the PC coexisted with consoles, or how the SNES coexisted with the PS1, or how the Xbox coexisted with the Playstation so you can count games that only appeared on those two consoles as Playstation exclusives?
Yeah. You're wrong. As in, really really wrong!

Also, you didn't reply to the part of 'Nintendo having more exclusives sold' when I corrected your post.

Muzer

26 Jan 2008, 14:27

http://wii.ign.com/articles/791/791938p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/rpg/finalfantasycrystalchronicles/index.html
http://kotaku.com/gaming/clip/final-fantasy-wii-ware-310065.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_Crystal_Chronicles:_The_Crystal_Bear ers

I know it could technically not be considered the same as it's Crystal Chronicals and I couldn't quite remember whether the one I read about was a mainstream one or a sub one, as I'm not that into RPGs, but it's still an RPG with I assume the same sort of gameplay, so it counts IMHO.

And Final Fantasy VI came out merely 2 months before the PS.

And FF XI was out on 360 as well. ***ED! Certainly NOT Sony exclusive. So you now have to take off all the FF games, because of that stupid policy.

EDIT: Wait. Why the hell is "pown" (without the 'o') censored? ***!

Dragon quest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_Swords:_The_Masked_Queen_and_the_Towe r_of_Mirrors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_IX:_Defenders_of_the_Sky
Yes, I know the second one is handheld, but remember it's a mainstream game (that's why it has numbers in the name, no?) and it's not on a Sony console.
And you only have to go back as far as VI in dragon quest to find one that's not Sony.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 14:32

Wait, wait, wait... we're talking about the company's own franchises? Well that's different. So let's look at Sony's IP. Out of the franchises you listed for your number of exclusives per console, what ones are owned by Sony. Hmm...
God of War and Eye Toy.
Gee, sorta sends out a message, doesn't it.

I never once said Sony franchises, if you're lost please reread before making me retype.

You mean like the way you say that the PC coexisted with consoles, or how the SNES coexisted with the PS1, or how the Xbox coexisted with the Playstation so you can count games that only appeared on those two consoles as Playstation exclusives?
Yeah. You're wrong. As in, really really wrong!

You've got a point here with the GTA games, for some reason I was totally ignoring the also came out for the Xbox, because they came out for the Microsoft system 3 years afterwards, I will edit my posts to reflect this.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/791/791938p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/rpg/finalfantasycrystalchronicles/index.html
http://kotaku.com/gaming/clip/final-fantasy-wii-ware-310065.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_Crystal_Chronicles:_The_Crystal_Bear ers

I know it could technically not be considered the same as it's Crystal Chronicals and I couldn't quite remember whether the one I read about was a mainstream one or a sub one, as I'm not that into RPGs, but it's still an RPG with I assume the same sort of gameplay, so it counts IMHO.

Chrystal Chronicles was a one time thing and it has nothing to do with the mainstream Final Fantasies (I-XIII), it's an action RPG, which believe it or not, it's a big deal when compared to the mainstream Final Fantasies, which were the ones that sold the millions, anyway, that started coming out in the SNES to then move to the Playstation.

Dragon quest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_Swords:_The_Masked_Queen_and_the_Towe r_of_Mirrors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_IX:_Defenders_of_the_Sky
Yes, I know the second one is handheld, but remember it's a mainstream game (that's why it has numbers in the name, no?) and it's not on a Sony console.
And you only have to go back as far as VI in dragon quest to find one that's not Sony.

I never considered Dragon Quest to be a Sony representative or exclusive title and never added it to my sum, so I appreciate you trying to be heard here, but please.

Muzer

26 Jan 2008, 14:43

Read my edit. For some reason my browser wasn't showing other posts despite refreshing.

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 14:45

EDIT: Wait. Why the hell is "pown" (without the 'o') censored? ***!

To make you talk like a human being. Spell the word correctly and it will get through.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 14:55

And Final Fantasy VI came out merely 2 months before the PS.

Er, so? When a new generation of home consoles comes out the past one becomes shortly irrelevant, it took a while with the SNES, but at the time the next Final Fantasy was out the SNES was long dead.

And FF XI was out on 360 as well. ***ED! Certainly NOT Sony exclusive. So you now have to take off all the FF games, because of that stupid policy.

FFXI was a MMORPG, a one time thing too. However it is true that Square-Enix are becoming more and more multiplataform, since the Gameboy advance came out they have been doing games for all the plataforms however the mainstream Final Fantasies still remain of Sony, originally planned for the N64, they just couldn't fit FFVII into a cartridge and since then the JRPG final fantasies have been coming out for Sony home systems and will continue to do so with FFXIII. They have done numerous remakes for the GBA and like you've said an action RPG for the Gamecube and a MMORPG that also appeared in Xbox, but I do not consider these to be mainstream Final Fantasy games (and no FF fan does, for the record) plus they never sold that much anyway. The logic behind this is that if anyone wants to play the "real" Final Fantasies they will buy a Sony console, which Sony made sure of obtaining seeing as the "real" FF's are the ones that sell the millions.

The Final Fantasies have been prety Sony representative, needless to say, 16 million users have played a Final Fantasy in a Sony home system whilst 5 million have played it in all together Nintendo, PC and Microsfot, and by Nintendo I mean all of the Nintendo consoles ever made including handhelds.

Plasma

26 Jan 2008, 15:07

Of course, I forgot! The MMORPG Final Fantasy was officially part of the main series, not a spin-off. So the Final Fantasy series has only been Sony-exclusive since it's last game.
Keyword: officially. For as long as Square-Enix say so, it counts as a main Final Fantasy game.

The Final Fantasies have been prety Sony representative, needless to say, 16 million users have played a Final Fantasy in a Sony home system whilst 5 million have played it in all together Nintendo, PC and Microsfot, and by Nintendo I mean all of the Nintendo consoles ever made including handhelds.
Sony representative, yes. But that doesn't make it a Sony franchise.

I never once said Sony franchises, if you're lost please reread before making me retype.
No, but you did say you were comparing Nintendo franchises. So unless you're taking a hypocritical angle on this, the same should apply for Sony.

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 15:09

the mainstream Final Fantasies still remain of Sony

...for as long as Square Enix decide this should be the case. Frankly with the way the PS3 is selling I'd not be at all surprised if there's a Wii or 360 version of FF14. If you buy a PS3 for the FF games, you're really just guessing. And it's an expensive gamble.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 15:16

...for as long as Square Enix decide this should be the case. Frankly with the way the PS3 is selling I'd not be at all surprised if there's a Wii or 360 version of FF14.

I believe Microsoft are after it already, the exclusivity of FFXIII for PS3 is actually being discussed according to not so reliable sources, but as it stands it is currently PS3 exclusive and is believed to be the title to save the console from its horrible start. However, as much as the Wii is owning the PS3 right now I don't think FFXIII is the kind of game that would benefit from it, for instance, I don't think it's aimed for its user base and it would take no benefit from the Wii remote, I mean, surely it could, but the Final Fantasies have never been about ability with the pad so it would be a move from their style line and we know how hardcore fans are in regards to these kind of things, there's also the hardware bit, not sure if the Wii could move it. But I don't discard future Final Fantasies for the Wii, not at all, specially if the Wii continues to sell like this. However I just don't think they'll be the typical JRPG Final Fantasies, Wii's great sales are largely due to their casual policy and many of the buyers are that, casual players, not the kind of people to get into a pure Final Fantasy.

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 16:51

I think the pointer in the Wii could do a lot for a game that's largely menu driven.

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 17:46

I wouldn't know, I haven't played the Wii enough to know how accurate that is, but to scroll down lists and lists of names with a pointer which I personally find a bit tedious to use to point at small things could be a bit tiresome, but like I said, that's from experience, or lack of it.

Muzer

26 Jan 2008, 17:50

yakuza

26 Jan 2008, 18:29

If you've browsed enough internet on the Wii (especially using the on-screen keyboard until the update for USB keyboard compatability came out), it's easy pointing to small things. If you play enough FPS, it's the same. If you don't play these, though, you'll find it a pain.

I'm not saying you can't master it, but it would be a pain having to use it for long sessions on a constant basis, more so than using a normal pad with the R1/L1 to scroll through pages and just scrolling. I bet it's useful when there's a lot of buttons that do different things on screen, but when browsing a list of say, items, were there's 50 of them on the screen see as just text, I imagine the PS2 pad would be more comfortable than having to raise your arm to point at the screen, specially since you'll be doing this a lot in the game.

AndrewTaylor

26 Jan 2008, 18:53

You really don't have to raise your arm. Using the Wii pad as a pointer to browse menus is no more physically demanding than playing a PS2 game. Less so, if anything, as it only takes one hand.

*Splinter*

27 Jan 2008, 19:33

PS3 costs more, it must be better :cool:

Shadowmoon

27 Jan 2008, 19:35

PS3 costs more, it must be better :cool:

Just because it costs more, it doesn't mean its better.:-/

*Splinter*

27 Jan 2008, 19:37

Just because it costs more, it doesn't mean its better.:-/

:eek:
****ing idiot

Shadowmoon

27 Jan 2008, 19:43

:eek:
****ing idiot

One thing that lets the PS3 down is its price. But really, you can't tell if a console is better from its price. Yes, the PS3 has killer graphics, but graphics aren't the only thing that a console needs. I mean, the DS is about £79.99. The PSP is like £40-£60 more, and the DS beats the PSP in sales, and popularity.

Thanks for insulting me.:mad:

*Splinter*

27 Jan 2008, 19:50

Before anyone else fails to spot the blindingly obvious: yes, my last two posts WERE a joke. ah-ha ha

On the franchise argument thats been going for a couple of pages (though forgive me for skipping the last few BOOKS but my eyes were bleeding): YES Nintendo has the 'biggest' franchises, of COURSE they do. They've been around for EONS. I'd have to disagree that theirs are best, but thats personal preference.

On the console-war in general: Yes the PS3 had a shoddy start (unless, like me, you only buy a new game every few weeks, which is surely enough), and No that doesnt mean its not going to dominate any less than the PS2 did.

On 'skipping the last few books': I know its a shoddy excuse, SUE ME.
On using the personal preference argument:.........................."...."

Shadowmoon

27 Jan 2008, 19:57

Kelster23

28 Jan 2008, 03:05

that gaming PCs do compete with consoles
... gaming PC market

If you're gonna include PC for exclusives, Nintendo does lose out too, EMULATORS! Like Project 64. Mario Party on your PC! So much for them only being on Nintendo.

And forget most new systems! I'm buying a NES! :cool:

MtlAngelus

28 Jan 2008, 03:09

The SNES beats the NES, hands down.

poninja

28 Jan 2008, 05:54

And forget most new systems! I'm buying a NES! :cool: awesome!! :D
The PSP is like £40-£60 morenope mine cost like 250$ :p ohh and you can do lots of thingies on PSP =D and it is the original PSP not lite :D

Plasma

28 Jan 2008, 07:58

If you're gonna include PC for exclusives, Nintendo does lose out too, EMULATORS! Like Project 64. Mario Party on your PC! So much for them only being on Nintendo.
....yeah, we're really talking about things that are actually legal!

Shadowmoon

28 Jan 2008, 15:53

awesome!! :D
nope mine cost like 250$ :p ohh and you can do lots of thingies on PSP =D and it is the original PSP not lite :D

Thats because- in Wales, which is in the UK we have different currency.:p

Muzer

28 Jan 2008, 17:50

$250 is still only £125 (Yeah, the US$ is worth **** all nowadays. And the GB£ isn't worth much either, but the US$ is worth less :p).

And don't say "In my country" like it's some unheard of place in Asia or Africa or South America or somewhere.

*Splinter*

28 Jan 2008, 17:51

....yeah, we're really talking about things that are actually legal!

Why the censorship? Stop picking and choosing your 'allowable' arguments, its CHEATING

Muzer

28 Jan 2008, 18:06

The same could be argued as the PS1 can be emulated, though not quite as succesfully, if you have virtual mounting programs.

yakuza

28 Jan 2008, 18:34

Muzer, you can't use simplicity as a rule, I'm sorry, just because they're called gaming PCs doesn't mean they're an actual notable competition to videogames, even though that's slowly changing, it is nothing short of irrelevant right now, for videogame companies.
But for the sake of simplicity, many people have both a PC and a home console, millions more than those who have two home consoles.

Muzer

28 Jan 2008, 19:24

yakuza

28 Jan 2008, 19:37

But you're still getting the same type of experience (especially with FF games, as it's mainly menu-based) with PC games, and that's pretty much what we're talking about. Besides, XI is officially part of the main series and it isn't Sony exclusive.

Officially? Because of the number? C'mon, it's a MMORPG. Seriously, let's just agree to disagree, but I'm pretty sure none of the people that have entered this debate is Final Fantasy fan or has played through their games.

And experience is irrelevant to the exclusivity contract Sony had. They don't care about it because it doesn't affect their Playstation final fantasy sales, do we have to go through all of this again?

Muzer

28 Jan 2008, 20:11

let's just agree to disagree

I don't agree to that.

[/Simpsons Quote]

Plasma

28 Jan 2008, 22:43

Why the censorship? Stop picking and choosing your 'allowable' arguments, its CHEATING
Sorry, you're right. Really, this argument is pointless, as all three consoles are just as stealable as the other.
...well, aside from that the Wii is much harder to steal right now, considering shops don't have them.

Officially? Because of the number?
Actually, I was going with 'Because Square-Enix made it official', but we can say because of the number. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

but I'm pretty sure none of the people that have entered this debate is Final Fantasy fan or has played through their games.
I am, and I've played through some, but not all, of their games. Most of the ones I've played would've been from the NES/SNES era.
Unless you mean a Final Fantasy fanboy. But it's unreasonable to expect that.

yakuza

28 Jan 2008, 22:52

Sorry, you're right. Really, this argument is pointless, as all three consoles are just as stealable as the other.
...well, aside from that the Wii is much harder to steal right now, considering shops don't have them.

Actually, I was going with 'Because Square-Enix made it official', but we can say because of the number. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am, and I've played through some, but not all, of their games. Most of the ones I've played would've been from the NES/SNES era.
Unless you mean a Final Fantasy fanboy. But it's unreasonable to expect that.

So we agree that Mario and Zelda are not nintendo exclusive because they appeared for different machines? Even if the Mario did for machines that didn't compete with consoles and the Zelda game was obsolete and nothing to do with the usual Zelda gameplay?

AndrewTaylor

28 Jan 2008, 22:55

No, Mario and Zelda are Nintendo exclusives because Nintendo own the ****ing IP.

I don't ask for much. Just avoid the really stupid questions and this will pass a lot faster and easier.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 00:04

Erm, they are Nintendo franchises but not Nintendo exclusive* (not divided or shared with others), since they've appeared in other formats than Nintendo's (see: Philips, Arcades).

I'm not asking for much either, all I'm asking is for a recognition of a contract that did exist. The contract of exclusivity that bounded the Final Fantasy series to the Sony home systems for them to exploit the franchise with out it featuring for the competition (which, for the 10000th time, doesn't include PCs or handheld consoles).

*as in, exclusively featured for Nintendo consoles.

Metal Alex

29 Jan 2008, 00:08

Erm, they are Nintendo franchises but not Nintendo exclusive (not divided or shared with others), since they've appeared in other formats than Nintendo's (see: Philips, Arcades).

I'm not asking for much either, all I'm asking is for a recognition of a contract that did exist. The contract of exclusivity that bounded the Final Fantasy series to the Sony home systems for them to exploit the franchise with out it featuring for the competition (which, for the 10000th time, doesn't include PCs or handheld consoles).

Nintendo can do with Mario whatever they want. Sony can't with Final Fantasy and the likes. End of story.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 00:53

Nintendo can do with Mario whatever they want. Sony can't with Final Fantasy and the likes. End of story.

I wonder what that has to do with anything... gosh...
You know what, it doesn't matter, it's pretty obvious there's an intention here of not understanding a simple concept as it seems you people seem to draw a connection between it and slagging nintendo or something, which never happened, yet you still went all defensive for some reason or another.

No, Final Fantasy is not a Sony franchise, and yes, there has been Square games for consoles other than Sony, I never once claimed the opposite. However Sony did have a contract of exclusivity regarding competition withe Squaresoft starting with FF7 up to FF10, excluding 11 which was a MMORPG and which was effective again as soon as 12 was released and for the time being it still applies for FF13 (though that's in the talks and might change), and yes, most gamers (and if you have a different experience please share) do relate the mainstream Final Fantasies to Sony home system. Now shoot me for saying that games that somewhat followed Final Fantasy's trajectory in relation to Sony have been successful. In fact, you can jump in the bandwagon and moan about things that I haven't said too, or do that the guy above and state something obvious and pretend to be debating or something, or do like Muzer and his "PC's steal console's market" made up crap. I really don't know, either way, back on the "real" topic:

Hay guys, Wii>all because you can play with friends and its the lulz.

Rarsonic

29 Jan 2008, 05:56

Hay guys, Wii>all because you can play with friends and its the lulz.

Isn't that a very important part of gaming?

See the Worms franchise.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 07:49

Erm, they are Nintendo franchises but not Nintendo exclusive*
Franchises are what we were arguing about in the first place!

The contract of exclusivity that bounded the Final Fantasy series to the Sony home systems for them to exploit the franchise with out it featuring for the competition.
Considering that wasn't the case for Final Fantasy XI, I'd like to see a source that they actually did. You did screw up over the GTA thing about this too, remember.

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 17:56

I'm not saying PCs steal console market; I'm saying that games ported to PC are often the same or similar to ones on console therefore it cannot be exclusivity.

AndrewTaylor

29 Jan 2008, 18:01

Erm, they are Nintendo franchises but not Nintendo exclusive

Only by your rather bizarre definition of the word "exclusive". Only Nintendo can make those games. They are only released on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo have, in the distant past, licensed them to other companies/formats, but this is rare and unlikely to happen again, at least not in the forseeable future, so how is that even remotely relevant?

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 18:28

Phillips: Nintendo liscenced phillips (IIRC) to make the consoles anyway, so they may as well be Nintendo consoles.

Arcade: They're still Nintendo's consoles, as it's their systems, or partially theirs.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 18:32

Only by your rather bizarre definition of the word "exclusive". Only Nintendo can make those games. They are only released on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo have, in the distant past, licensed them to other companies/formats, but this is rare and unlikely to happen again, at least not in the forseeable future, so how is that even remotely relevant?

It's not my bizarre definition of the word exclusive, it's the way I've been using it in context with what's been said. I don't know what part of the asterix in my last post you missed, but by the looks of it, you missed the whole part.

You take Muzer post per example, he doesn't understand that the only reason exclusivity contracts exist is money, he doesn't seem to understand that those contracts are bounded to sales and market as opposed to experience, when Sony and Squaresoft signed a paper saying FFVII, VIII, IX, X, XII would only feature in the home system market in Sony systems they did so because they knew both would be getting loads of money for it, it didn't stop Square from releasing it in the PC because that wasn't on the contract as a limitation, why? Because it would make Square win more money and Sony lose none, win-win situation. For some bizarre reason some people are trying to prove that said contract didn't exist, which would mean that it would have been easy for Microsoft to get said million sales games into their flamant new Xbox, which obviously, he couldn't.
Yes, there were numerous spinoffs for the handheld versions, same case applies, Sony doesn't lose any market share for games sold for handheld consoles, bingo.
The only reason XI was an exception is because well, the game itself was an exception, and probably also due to the fact that it sold more copies for Windows (being a MMORPG and all) and Microsoft used that to his favour, just an assumption.

I must admit it's gotten to the point I'm not really sure what your concerns is. I wasn't even using the argument of Mario and Zelda feautring for other non-nintendo systems as an argument on it's own, I was only lowering myself to the argument's of Plasma and Muzer. Just because Zelda appeared on a crap game in the Philips CD-i doesn't mean Zelda hasn't been totally related to Nintendo systems for ages now (ignoring the fact it's a Nintendo franchise), the same way that Nintendo DS having Chocobo Racing or Xbox having a FF MMORPG doesn't take away the fact that the mainstream Final Fantasies have been totally related to the Sony home systems ever since the games stopped featuring for the SNES.

I'm not saying PCs steal console market; I'm saying that games ported to PC are often the same or similar to ones on console therefore it cannot be exclusivity.

Look, I don't have that much time to waste, I'm sorry, I know you're trying hard to come up with some sort of revealing argument but you're just failing to read, so before making another post please do yourself a favour and read the posts in this thread before attempting to reply to it. Specially one of the hundreds were I explain that with contract of exclusivity I refer to the contract of exclusivity Sony had with mainstream Final Fantasies regarding HOME CONSOLES. I was only explaining the market issue with the PCs and videoconsoles as a bonus for you to be able to realize why it makes sense for Sony and Square not to include PCs as a limitation to their partnership.

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 18:36

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 18:41

But we're not talking about technicals and legal things here, we're talking about if it's possible to enjoy the same game on another system and therefore if not then that console is a good one to get as you'll get games you can't get anywhere else. We're taking about this from the consumer's POV, not the developer's.

No we aren't, you are, I never was, in fact, you joined a conversation I was having and decided to bring that up, the consumers point of view, nowadays it's different to how it was, but back when the PS and Nintendo 64 hit the market there was PC gamers and Videoconsole gamers, in fact, and this is purely an assumption, I believe the majority of people are still either and not both. That's the reason when having a conversation about games with videogame gamers the PC was an irrelevant topic. Needless to say, the people who played FF7 on the PC as opposed to the PS is so abysmal that it shouldn't even matter. By the looks of it you never had a PS, if you were related to said "community" you wouldn't be telling me what you are, because it would be more than obvious that the mainstream Final Fantasies have always been a Sony thing, in fact, many people regard to them as a Sony franchise in many communities, although that's technically wrong. Which is all I'm asking you guys to accept really, but you seem not to want/be able to.

Phillips: Nintendo liscenced phillips (IIRC) to make the consoles anyway, so they may as well be Nintendo consoles

No, please inform yourself. Hotel Mario,Link: The Faces of Evil, Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure weren't even developed by Nintendo, they were developed by Animation Magic and Fantasy Factory as far as I know.
Philips and Nintendo established an agreement later on to work on a CD-ROM enhancement for the SNES but what you've said is completely inaccurate.

AndrewTaylor

29 Jan 2008, 18:41

It's not my bizarre definition of the word exclusive, it's the way I've been using it in context with what's been said. I don't know what part of the asterix in my last post you missed, but by the looks of it, you missed the whole part.
I saw it, but it was wrong. Mario and Zelda are exclusive. They weren't for a couple of weeks in the early 90's or so, but they are.

Nintendo DS having Chocobo Racing or Xbox having a FF MMORPG doesn't take away the fact that the mainstream Final Fantasies have been totally related to the Sony home systems ever since the games stopped featuring for the SNES.

No, but the fact that Square could just as easily decide to give Microsoft or Nintendo the next exclusivity contract if they bid more or convince them they can deliver more sales must surely take away from the use of Final Fantasy in an argument over which console is the best buy?

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 18:47

If you're talking about Early 90s, FF definately must be disallowed. What console was FF on in early 90s?

And yes, it is about the consumer, otherwise these posts are offtopic, as this thread is about the best console, not best lot of contracts.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 18:49

I saw it, but it was wrong. Mario and Zelda are exclusive. They weren't for a couple of weeks in the early 90's or so, but they are.

Okay

No, but the fact that Square could just as easily decide to give Microsoft or Nintendo the next exclusivity contract if they bid more or convince them they can deliver more sales must surely take away from the use of Final Fantasy in an argument over which console is the best buy?

I guess, but that doesn't take away the fact that most people expect FFXIII to come for the PS3, even most of the Wikipedia userbase, and that there's very very few people who think it'll come out for the Wii, if any, mainly because it's of general opinion that the hardware capabilities of the Wii wouldn't be able to run it. There's a stronger case for Xbox, though.

If you're talking about Early 90s, FF definately must be disallowed. What console was FF on in early 90s?

.................................................. ..........................................

Where the hell did I say I'm talking about Early 90s?
You're not making any sense so either get a clue (by reading) or I'm just going to ignore you.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 18:55

What part of "Square-Enix made Final Fantasy XI officially part of the main series" don't you understand? Just because it's inconvenient to your argument or because it's different from the others doesn't mean you get any sort of opinion over S-E's.

You take Muzer post per example, he doesn't understand that the only reason exclusivity contracts exist is money,
[SNIP]
just an assumption.
That's a nice explanation as to why Square-Enix did make FF7, 8 and 11 PC games, but it doesn't explain why that makes it excempt from not being a Sony-console exclusive franchise.

because it would be more than obvious that the mainstream Final Fantasies have always been a Sony thing,
....what?
No, seriously. What?
So, even before Final Fantasy 7 was released on the PS1, and even before Sony announced they were making a console at all, people still thought Final Fantasy was a Sony thing?

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 18:58

Where the hell did I say I'm talking about Early 90s?
Hotel Mario: Released 1994
Link: The Faces of Evil: Released October 10, 1993
Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon: Released October 10, 1993
Zelda's Adventure: Released June 5, 1994

All before the PS1.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:03

What part of "Square-Enix made Final Fantasy XI officially part of the main series" don't you understand? Just because it's inconvenient to your argument or because it's different from the others doesn't mean you get any sort of opinion over S-E's.

It's not inconvenient for my argument, no one considers FFXI to be a mainstream Final Fantasy game, that's the reason why so many Final Fantasy fans haven't ever played, that's the reason why it doesn't come close in sales to the others, that's the reason why gameplay wise it has nothing to do with the other Final Fantasys.
Mainstream: Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group.

Surely the number after the name implies something sort of Mainstream. However I believe, style, gameplay, public, logistic and co are more important attributes to describe mainstream.
Also, did I ever say that FFXI wasn't officially main of the series? If I ever did I didn't mean to and chances are you misinterpretated me.

That's a nice explanation as to why Square-Enix did make FF7, 8 and 11 PC games, but it doesn't explain why that makes it excempt from not being a Sony-console exclusive franchise.

Because the PC is not a console.

AndrewTaylor

29 Jan 2008, 19:04

...mainly because it's of general opinion that the hardware capabilities of the Wii wouldn't be able to run it.

What? Of course it could -- the Game Boy Advance could play Final Fantasy. It's menu driven.

If Final Fantasy fans really think the Wii's graphics capabilities are somehow not good enough to let them enjoy a game then they're so tragic I'm not even going to bother listening to their opinions.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:05

Hotel Mario: Released 1994
Link: The Faces of Evil: Released October 10, 1993
Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon: Released October 10, 1993
Zelda's Adventure: Released June 5, 1994

All before the PS1.

Hahaha, right, that's like me coming up and saying:

Hotel? So now we're talking about Hotels?

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 19:07

About you saying that if FF cannot be counted because it's on PC, Mario can't be conted because it's on Arcade and Phillips consoles.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:08

What? Of course it could -- the Game Boy Advance could play Final Fantasy. It's menu driven.

If Final Fantasy fans really think the Wii's graphics capabilities are somehow not good enough to let them enjoy a game then they're so tragic I'm not even going to bother listening to their opinions.

It's been pretty clear you have little idea about the series but it never affected the debate, however, your last comment is just ignorant.

FFXIII clearly has little to do with the GBA games, youtube is your friend. I don't blame people for assuming that the Wii couldn't handle those graphics, but hey, I never said I was right.

About you saying that if FF cannot be counted because it's on PC, Mario can't be conted because it's on Arcade and Phillips consoles.

Do you realize you're agreeing with me making the PC, Arcades and Philips irrelevant like I've been trying to do all this time? That's why both Mario and FF are on my original list which is what originated this whole discussion. Funny isn't it? Even when you agree with me you believe your confronting me, are you trolling or something? Because it seems you don't put too much thought into your posts when you don't even bother to run a spellcheck on them. Like I said, I only mentioned the Arcades and Philips to make a mockery of your stupid arguments.

AndrewTaylor

29 Jan 2008, 19:14

It's been pretty clear you have little idea about the series but it never affected the debate, however, your last comment is just ignorant.

FFXIII clearly has little to do with the GBA games, youtube is your friend. I don't blame people for assuming that the Wii couldn't handle those graphics, but hey, I never said I was right.

I don't believe I ever mentioned the GBA games. My point is that the graphics depend on the choice of platform, not vice-versa. If the game was released on Wii, the graphics would be made to a level that the Wii can handle (which is several levels higher than people think if the developers know how to push it right). How is this not painfully obvious?

Do you realize you're agreeing with me making the PC, Arcades and Philips irrelevant like I've been trying to do all this time? That's why both Mario and FF are on my original list which is what originated this whole discussion. Funny isn't it? Even when you agree with me you believe your confronting me, are you trolling or something? Because it seems you don't put too much thought into your posts when you don't even bother to run a spellcheck on them. Like I said, I only mentioned the Arcades and Philips to make a mockery of your stupid arguments.

It doesn't work, though, does it, because the PC is currently available and the Philips CD-i (or whatever it was) is not. Final Fantasy games coming out on PC is something that happens in this millennium.

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 19:16

Who says I'm agreeing with you? I'm saying that Phillips and Arcade don't count because they're before 1995 (which is your stupid criteria), not because they're irrelivent. PC's FF is not before the PS1.

And if I was a troll, I'd be watched by now as AT is online.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:18

I don't believe I ever mentioned the GBA games. My point is that the graphics depend on the choice of platform, not vice-versa. If the game was released on Wii, the graphics would be made to a level that the Wii can handle (which is several levels higher than people think if the developers know how to push it right). How is this not painfully obvious?

Okay here it's how it went, I bolded some parts to make it easier for you.

I guess, but that doesn't take away the fact that most people expect FFXIII to come for the PS3, even most of the Wikipedia userbase, and that there's very very few people who think it'll come out for the Wii, if any, mainly because it's of general opinion that the hardware capabilities of the Wii wouldn't be able to run it. There's a stronger case for Xbox, though.

What? Of course it could -- the Game Boy Advance could play Final Fantasy. It's menu driven.

If Final Fantasy fans really think the Wii's graphics capabilities are somehow not good enough to let them enjoy a game then they're so tragic I'm not even going to bother listening to their opinions.

Note how we we're talking about FFXIII the next Final Fantasy to come out? Taking into account there's already videos of the game around the internet people believe those graphics can't be handled by the Wii, some people make a big deal about graphics, can't blame them.

About the never ending PC thing debate, look, if you really believe the Final Fantasies for PC are so important that they stop the heavy relation between FF and Sony home systems to the point most gamers relate the series to the PS and PS2 making them a classic Sony title, then so be it, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but this is coming from someone who has owned all the systems he's talking about and related in some way or another to the games. Heck, I know a bunch of people in RL and the internet who originally bought a PS2 for the Final Fantasies, now, who has bought a PC to play FF7? or a DS to play chocobo racing?

AndrewTaylor

29 Jan 2008, 19:23

Yes, but if Square Enix decided to make it a cross-platform release they're hardly going to put out promo material from the graphically-inferior version, are they?

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 19:23

Also, did I ever say that FFXI wasn't officially main of the series? If I ever did I didn't mean to and chances are you misinterpretated me.
So I was right then? You really did just mean FF 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12?
That's not a franchise. That's not a series. That's a bunch of games from a franchise or series that people enjoyed more than others. That qualifies for very little, when debating franchises and series as a whole.

Hahaha, right, that's like me coming up and saying:

Hotel? So now we're talking about Hotels?
Actually, it's more like you coming up and saying "Final Fantasy games before PS1 don't count".
Which you did.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:28

So I was right then? You really did just mean FF 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12?
That's not a franchise. That's not a series. That's a bunch of games from a franchise or series that people enjoyed more than others. That qualifies for very little, when debating franchises and series as a whole.

It is a series, if we're talking about costumer point of view here like someone said earlier then very few consider FFXI to be part of the series. It's something unique. It's like Worms Forts really, just that Team17 didn't choose to call it Worms 4: Forts.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 19:31

It is a series, if we're talking about costumer point of view here like someone said earlier then very few consider FFXI to be part of the series. It's something unique. It's like Worms Forts really.
No, it's not. Worms Forts was made as a spin-off of the main series, just like Final Fantasy: Crystal Cronicles. Final Fantasy XI was not made as a spin-off.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:34

No, it's not. Worms Forts was made as a spin-off of the main series, just like Final Fantasy: Crystal Cronicles. Final Fantasy XI was not made as a spin-off.

Why not? What's a spin-off for you? Isn't it a game that includes characters from another game and puts them in a completely different situation or game play? Surely making the series into a MMORPG is enough of a spin to call it a spin off? I mean, that's what the big majority of Final Fantasy fans that didn't buy the game think, I'm sure they want to hear what you have to say though.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 19:40

Why not? What's a spin-off for you? Isn't it a game that includes characters from another game and puts them in a completely different situation or game play? Surely making the series into a MMORPG is enough of a spin to call it a spin off? I mean, that's what the big majority of Final Fantasy fans that didn't buy the game think, I'm sure they want to hear what you have to say though.
I say that whether a game is considered a spin-off or not depends on whether a game is said to be a spin-off by the developers/publishers. Hence why a lot of series weren't considered spin-offs when they went through massive changes for 3D versions. Also hence why Donkey Kong and Mario Bros are part of the Super Mario series.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:43

I say that whether a game is considered a spin-off or not depends on whether a game is said to be a spin-off by the developers/publishers. Hence why a lot of series weren't considered spin-offs when they went through massive changes for 3D versions. Also hence why Donkey Kong and Mario Bros are part of the Super Mario series.

Right, that's pretty contradicting considering most of the Donkey Kong games have been developed by Rare. I mean, how can you consider a game like say... Donkey Kong 64 to be part of the Super Mario series, that's beyond me to be frank. Surely they were originally part of the same game, but it'd be quite silly to consider Donkey Kong not to be a series of their own by now, at least, from a personal point of view. In fact, wikipedia considers all the Donkey Kong games developed after the original Donkey Kong to be spin-offs of the original, which supports my definition of the term, characters of one game featuring in a different one with different gameplay and style.

On another note, these are the most awaited games in Japan according to Famitsu:

1. Final Fantasy XIII (PS3, Square Enix)
2. Persona 3 (PS2, Atlus)
3. Final Fantasy III (DS, Square Enix)
4. Resident Evil 5 (PS3, Capcom)
5. Metal Gear Solid 4 (PS3, Konami)
6. Kamaitachi no Yoru 3 (PS2, Sega)
7. Xenosaga Episode III : Also Sprach Zarathustra (PS2, Namco)
8. Blue Dragon (X360, Microsoft)
9. Gyakutensaiban 4 (DS, Capcom)
10. Seiken Densetsu 4 (PS2, Square Enix)

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 19:46

He said Donkey Kong, not the Donkey Kong series.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 19:48

Right, that's pretty contradicting considering most of the Donkey Kong games have been developed by Rare. I mean, how can you consider a game like say... Donkey Kong 64 to be part of the Super Mario series, that's beyond me to be frank. Surely they were originally part of the same game, but it'd be quite silly to consider Donkey Kong not to be a series of their own by now, at least, from a personal point of view.
...
Donkey Kong was the name of the very first game to star Mario! Of course I'm not talking about the franchise!

In fact, wikipedia considers all the Donkey Kong games developed after the original Donkey Kong to be spin-offs of the original, which supports my definition of the term, characters of one game featuring in a different one with different gameplay and style.
Actually, Wikipedia regards Donkey Kong (game) to be part of Mario's franchise, Donkey Kong Jr. and Donkey Kong 3 as sequels of that game without being part of the Mario main franchise, and DKCountry onwards as the main Donkey Kong series.

On another note, these are the most awaited games in Japan according to Famitsu
1. Final Fantasy XIII (PS3, Square Enix)
2. Persona 3 (PS2, Atlus)
3. Final Fantasy III (DS, Square Enix)
4. Resident Evil 5 (PS3, Capcom)
5. Metal Gear Solid 4 (PS3, Konami)
6. Kamaitachi no Yoru 3 (PS2, Sega)
7. Xenosaga Episode III : Also Sprach Zarathustra (PS2, Namco)
8. Blue Dragon (X360, Microsoft)
9. Gyakutensaiban 4 (DS, Capcom)
10. Seiken Densetsu 4 (PS2, Square Enix)
The complete lack of SSB:Brawl from that list, even when they themselves gave it a perfect score before it's released (and they only gave out a perfect score 6 times before!), makes me highly suspicious of it.

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 19:53

Exact linkage, yakuza?

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 19:56

Actually, scratch that comment about being skeptical of Brawl not being on that list. Now I'm more skeptical about Blue Dragon being on that list, considering it was released in Japan in 2006!
Really Yakuza, you aren't doing yourself any favours in this debate.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 19:57

The complete lack of SSB:Brawl from that list, even when they themselves gave it a perfect score before it's released (and they only gave out a perfect score 6 times before!), makes me highly suspicious of it.

Apparently that list was an old one, and apparently this is the one of April 2007.

1. (2 / 1) Dragon Quest IX NDS Square Enix 2,862
2. (1 / 2) Final Fantasy XIII PS3 Square Enix 2,694
3. (3 / 3) Biohazard 5 PS3 Capcom 1,985
4. (5 / 4) Persona 3: Fes PS2 Atlus 1,612
5. (4 / 5) Metal Gear Solid 4 PS3 Konami 1,558
6. (7 / 7) Monster Hunter 3 PS3 Capcom 1,126
7. (12/10) Odin Sphere PS2 Atlus 1,047
8. (17/20) Devil May Cry 4 PS3 Capcom 961
9. (8 / 9) Zelda no Densetsu: Phantom Hourglass NDS Nintendo 938
10. (9 / 8) Super Robot Taisen: Original Generations PS2 Banpresto 929
11. (10/12) Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors Wii Square Enix 798
12. (14/14) Lost Odyssey Xbox 360 Microsoft 771
13. (16/15) Final Fantasy XII Revenant Wings NDS Square Enix 763
14. (11/16) Everybody's Golf 5 PS3 Sony 749
15. (13/11) Super Smash Bros. Brawl Wii Nintendo 740
16. (18/17) Shining Wind PS2 Sega 659
17. (21/13) Crisis Core Final Fantasy VII PSP Square Enix 649
18. (20/24) Final Fantasy Versus XIII PS3 Square Enix 625
19. (15/19) Doubutsu no Mori [Animal Crossing] Wii Nintendo 623
20. (19/18) Final Fantasy Tactics: Shishi Sensou PSP Square Enix 620

And here, I found a source you shouldn't be able to doubt http://gonintendo.com/?p=12688

It seems that in Japan, people are mostly awaiting PS3 titles as far as home systems are concerned, and they don't have a thing for Xbox at all, but that was a given.

Krazy_92

29 Jan 2008, 20:12

Here is what I think about these consoles.

PS3:
The PS3 is not great, but its not bad. IMO this console has a great power for developing graphics and stuff like that. The problem is that the PS3 games are more expensive since the games are in the Blue-Ray format. There are alot of games for this console, however, there are just a few games which I like. (Metal Gear Solid Series, Final Fantasy Series, Gran Turismo Series and a few others.) If you got an old PS3 version, it's compatible with the PS2's and the PS's games.

Wii:
I haven't played this console alot, but I love Nintendo, it has ALOT of great games. There are good games for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 which you might miss out if you ONLY own this console. The graphics aren't good but the playing experience is really good.
You can also download games from the past NINTENDO consoles and the Game Cube's games are compatible with the Wii.

Xbox 360:
Like I said, the Xbox is a good console. Okay, every console has it's cons, right? If you are/were an/a owner of a 360, you can EASILY notice that it has alot of errors, especially the ring of death. However, if you fix it/have your warranty, those errors will be gone, forever. The Xbox Elite doesn't have these problems anymore. Also. there are games for the Original Xbox which aren't compatible with the 360. Okay, now for the good side of the 360, the controller is more confortable than the Wii's or the PS3's controller. This console also has the "Gamer Points" system, wow, that make you, the gamers, find the games even more challenging, you can even prove your friends that you did the (Insert your achievement here) challenge, what am I talking about?, your friends?.. you can show it to the WORLD!. The Xbox Live is GREAT, it's design is well done, IM, messages, all that is just reduced to pressing, one single button, in your controller. (God, I sound like I commercial.) This console is hella good if you are a hardcore gamer. If you love nintendo aswell, I would recommend you to buy this console and the Wii. Also, you can download alot of stuff from the Xbox Live market, Demos, Gamer Pictures.. Even Arcade games!, you can find titles such as Worms, Metal Slug, Geometry Wars, Lumines and much more. Now, not long time ago they added a new feature to the Xbox Live market, the Xbox Originals, you can download games from the Original Xbox to your 360 for a cheap price. You might say.. "Okay, but what if we don't have Xbox Live?". It's still a great console, it has alot of good exclusives and it has great graphics and like I said, it's confortable.

Conclution:
Code: Good, Bad.
PS3: Graphics, Expensive.
Wii: Playability, Alot of great games, Nintendo Retro Games, It's Graphics compared to the Xbox 360 or the PS3.
X360: Xbox Live, Achievements, Arcade Games, Xbox Originals, Errors, Its not compatible with some of the past Xbox games.

Xbox - 1st (WINS!)
Wii - 2nd
PS3 - 3rd

-------

If you have Xbox Live and If you play Guitar Hero, send me a private message.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 20:14

There's an unwritten rule with consoles, the one you buy is always the best one.

Krazy_92

29 Jan 2008, 20:18

There's an unwritten rule with consoles, the one you buy is always the best one.
That might be true, I was going to buy a Wii because I love nintendo, but belive me... Im having alot of fun with the 360.

EDIT:
If you disagree with my previous post, its okay.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 20:24

Eh, just to point out, unless you have an older version of the console, the PS3's backwards compatibility is even worse than the 360s. And that's only if you're living in the Americas, and mabye Asia (I can't remember if they sell 80GBs or not), because Europe and Australia don't even have backwards compatible models anymore. The only ones that have decent backwards compatibility are the Asian 20GBs and the American, and mabye Asian, 60GBs, both of which are no longer produced anywhere in the world.
Currently, the Wii is the only console to have near-flawless backwards compatibility. (by which I mean, I never heard of any problems with it, but there might still be some)

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 20:30

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 20:32

The only GC things that don't work on the Wii:
Gameboy Player (No interface)
Broadband/Dial-Up Adapter (No interface)
Unnofficial things like Freeloaders and Action replay (i.e. increased security)
If you have used the Wii Laptop mod on the internet somewhere (has anyone?), it only has 1 GC controller port and no memory ports

Muzer

29 Jan 2008, 20:35

European 80gb model

Does that exist? Don't you mean 60GB?

And yes, the imagination (IIRC) chip was removed (the main graphics chip in the PS2) in all except the original US and Asia 60GB and possibly 20GB, meaning software backwards compatibility is used, and with the even later models (Eur 40GB, possibly some US ones) there is none at all.

Although to tell you the truth, I have the 60GB EUR model and the only game I have that it can't play is some obscure PS1 game, and the error screen looks kinda cool as well.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 20:37

Does that exist? Don't you mean 60GB?

And yes, the imagination (IIRC) chip was removed (the main graphics chip in the PS2) in all except the original US and Asia 60GB and possibly 20GB, meaning software backwards compatibility is used, and with the even later models (Eur 40GB, possibly some US ones) there is none at all.

Although to tell you the truth, I have the 60GB EUR model and the only game I have that it can't play is some obscure PS1 game, and the error screen looks kinda cool as well.

Yeah my bad, 60gb. Most games work fine for me although in the example of MG2, the graphics are a bit pixely but nothing too notable unless you're actually paying attention to it.

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 20:38

I thought the only PS3 with limited backwards compatibility was the 40gb one. I have the European 80gb model and I've had no problems with any games of my PS2 collection although some of them do not look as good as in the PS2, specially Metal Gear 2.
A 40GB has NO backwards compatibility at all! The 80GB and Australian 60GB ones do, but as searching for games using Sony's backwards-compatiblity PS3 site showed me, a lot of the games don't work as good as they should. The other versions of the console have a much better backwards compatiblity, but they're not produced anymore.

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 20:41

A 40GB has NO backwards compatibility at all! The 80GB and Australian 60GB ones do, but as searching for games using Sony's backwards-compatiblity PS3 site showed me, a lot of the games don't work as good as they should. The other versions of the console have a much better backwards compatiblity, but they're not produced anymore.

The 4GB DOES have some backwards compatibility, it can play some PS1 games, so there.

Metal Alex

29 Jan 2008, 21:13

I'm already sick of these yakuza VS the world threads, can't we just lock this thing?

*Splinter*

29 Jan 2008, 21:19

Your debates are tedious to the max! This looks more fun and should finish the thread within the page :cool:

-------

Conclusion:(yes, I skipped the main bit, typing is dull)
Code: Good, Bad.
PS3: Power, games, controller, extras. 'w00t', or something, Expensive games.
Wii: Playability (lol) 'Family gaming', indeed. +smash brothers, full backward compatibility, Weakest. fanboy levels reaching critical mass - buying this console may therefore result in a nuclear explosion! really, I READ IT
XBox360/PS3Diet: err... its BEST at what, exactly?, Relatively expensive, online subscription fees(?!), **** games, ************ controller

PS3 - 1st (WINS!)
Wii - 2nd
XBox - 3rd

-------

whee

Metal Alex

29 Jan 2008, 21:21

fanboy levels reaching critical mass

...

PS3 - 1st (WINS!)
Wii - 2nd
XBox - 3rd

-------

whee

OH the irony...

*Splinter*

29 Jan 2008, 21:22

OH the irony...

Counts forum fanboys:
Sony - Couple
XBox - Few
Nintendo - **** loads

Besides, I never said the Wii was a bad console, in fact its rather good.
And more importantly Im capable of arguing about this without taking it all REALLY REALLY SERIOUSLY OMGIMGONNACRY

:\

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 21:23

I'm already sick of these yakuza VS the world threads, can't we just lock this thing?

So you want a thread locked because you don't like a certain person, nice. How about you just don't click on it? It's the actual clash of opinions that make threads interesting. You know, I don't see the point in the incredible machine thread or the pointless story threads that's why I don't click on it and even less post of them to ask for them to be locked, follow the example.

*Splinter*

29 Jan 2008, 21:25

So you want a thread locked because you don't like a certain person, nice. How about you just don't click on it?

But the thread could so easily be good, if only you and plasma didnt fill it with tedious repition

yakuza

29 Jan 2008, 21:33

But the thread could so easily be good, if only you and plasma didnt fill it with tedious repition

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Because someone who finds the following post/quote fun is either a young boy or just silly

Conclusion:(yes, I skipped the main bit, typing is dull)
Code: Good, Bad.
PS3: Power, games, controller, extras. 'w00t', or something, Expensive games.
Wii: Playability (lol) 'Family gaming', indeed. +smash brothers, full backward compatibility, Weakest. fanboy levels reaching critical mass - buying this console may therefore result in a nuclear explosion! really, I READ IT
XBox360/PS3Diet: err... its BEST at what, exactly?, Relatively expensive, online subscription fees(?!), **** games, ************ controller

PS3 - 1st (WINS!)
Wii - 2nd
XBox - 3rd

-------

whee

I mean, I rather read Plasma's posts than a clearly biased opinion without argumentation.

*Splinter*

29 Jan 2008, 21:41

Out of curiosity, how old are you?Guess! If you get it right you get 18 million points!

Because someone who finds the following post/quote fun is either a young boy or just sillyWell excuse me if I dont treat a meaningless debate on an online forum with the same gravitas as the death of a loved one

I mean, I rather read Plasma's posts than a clearly biased opinion without argumentation.

Well excuse me if this is all so pitiful that I cant take you seriously enough to call forth an actual opinion and commit it to type with sufficient ellegance and structure to communicate a valid point.

:rolleyes:

Plasma

29 Jan 2008, 21:48

I'm already sick of these yakuza VS the world threads, can't we just lock this thing?
I would've said 'No, I think Yakuza's stopped now' until Splinter came in, made a mock of the thread (if it was at least humorous...), and the two proceeded to get in another argument with each other!

So yeah. Lock thread now please!

*Splinter*

29 Jan 2008, 23:10

I would've said 'No, I think Yakuza's stopped now' until Splinter came in, made a mock of the thread (if it was at least humorous...), and the two proceeded to get in another argument with each other!

Phear my mad skillz, YARLY :cool:
etc

Krazy_92

30 Jan 2008, 02:07

XBox360/PS3Diet: err... its BEST at what, exactly?, Relatively expensive, online subscription fees(?!), **** games, ************ controller
Sorry, I have to disagree there. What is "expensive" for you? The online subscription fees are good, I will admit that BEFORE I thought it was a ripoff, but now I think its a good price, I mean... come on, it lasts for a whole YEAR. **** games and ************ controller? Wow, it has alot of great games and the controller is very confortable.

=O...

Does the word "Playability" even exist? I dont know if spelled it correctly.

Shadowmoon

30 Jan 2008, 16:53

Muzer

30 Jan 2008, 17:19

Sorry, I have to disagree there. What is "expensive" for you? The online subscription fees are good, I will admit that BEFORE I thought it was a ripoff, but now I think its a good price, I mean... come on, it lasts for a whole YEAR. **** games and ************ controller? Wow, it has alot of great games and the controller is very confortable.

=O...

Does the word "Playability" even exist? I dont know if spelled it correctly.

If you've read plasma's post, you'll see it's a complete mock of this thread

AndrewTaylor

30 Jan 2008, 18:34

Is this whole thread not parody?

Oh, dear.

*Splinter*

30 Jan 2008, 18:53

**** games and ************ controller? Wow, it has alot of great games and the controller is very confortable.
I was being somewhat unfair about the games, y'know, just for funsies.
However, I find the 360's controller to be an abominable piece of crap. Its poorly shaped and though its technically analogue the triggers and sticks are so light that they may as well be digital. The sticked are also poorly located on the controller in my opinion
Does the word "Playability" even exist? I dont know if spelled it correctly.
Im sure playability is a word, I was laughing at the fact that it is consistently trotted out on every occasion the 'good points' of the Wii are listed or discussed, as if other consoles are 'unplayable'.

AndrewTaylor

30 Jan 2008, 19:43

I was being somewhat unfair about the games, y'know, just for funsies.
However, I find the 360's controller to be an abominable piece of crap. Its poorly shaped and though its technically analogue the triggers and sticks are so light that they may as well be digital. The sticked are also poorly located on the controller in my opinion

I feel almost exactly the same way about the PS pad design. Since day one it's been square (notably unlike my hands), overcrowded with buttons and controls, and the sticks are positioned in a strange place, especially considering the (totally unsatisfactory) D-pad appears to have priority.

Nobody's got a gamepad totally right yet. The Cube's pad was fantastic, but the little afterthought of a Z-button was annoying and the button arrangement was a problem for some games (although great news for some others). The D-pad was irritating, too.

The N64's was pretty good, except for the right prong, which never really worked, and it could have used another analogue stick -- though four prongs would have been pushing it somewhat. Maybe something like the Wii's plug-in-extra-bits system...

Ah, sod it. Nobody will ever make a gamepad with no problems. It just can't be done.