What system do you prefer?

[Guest Scotsman]

If you want to reply to this, give valid reasons why you like the system you chose over the other.  Try not to flame...everyone's got a right to an opinion

[Guest Bruin]

I perfer my XBox quite frankly. For one, everyone else I knew was either getting a GC or a PS2, and I wanted something different. I was following Halo ever since the 100MB Mpeg movie came out a year or two ago, and I was really interested in it. I played it briefly in a store, I really liked it. Later on, I played a couple of demos and had good fun with them.  I liked how everything felt and looked, I thought the control scheme was easy to get used to. One of the many deciding factors that pulled through however was that hardrive and not having to fuss with memory cards anymore, being able to rip CD tracks and listen to them in certain games, and not to mention the internet play. (I really hope you can do internet Coop with Halo I always liked Coop for whatever reason) The whole playing DVD's is what just about everything does (Not the GC unless you spend $400* ), but since I have my computer and consoles in the basement, it was nice having something that could play them down here.

 

Of course, I really liked some of the launch titles that the XBox had. NFL Fever 2002 is one of my favorite football games right after Tecmo Super Bowl on the NES. Halo is my favorite FPS on any system. Also, I'm really looking forward to some of the games that are currently in development right now for the XBox.

 

* = MarvinsALunatic first showed this on the old forum of a GC that was in Japan that cost $400 and was essentially the same as any normal GC, except that it had a plastic chrome covering that made the GC resemble a Toaster. Not to mention it played DVD's, but not region 1 (Nothing against this GC, but it just looked hilarious as a toaster with controller ports )

[Guest Brush with Greatness]

I'm going to have do a write in here and say the "SEGA DREAMCAST".

 

I just picked it up last summer and it has proven to quite possibly be the greatest system ever.  Face it, the Big 3 don't have the game libraries that the DC does.

 

Right now the PS2 probably has the best library of the three (because if has been around longer) but the only must have games for me would be...

 

GTA 3

Tony Hawk 3

Metal Gear Solid 2

 

When you go controller wise, I give the edge to the PS2.  Dreamcast has a similar feel but is minorly inferior.  I dislike the Gamecubes controller however, I dont have problems with the X-box controller.  I guess if I was a fanboy though I would bitch about it.

 

So right now, I prefer the Dreamcast.  My prediction, in the long haul, is that the X-box will come out on top.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Nintendo Gamecube.

 

Its a Video Game Console, nothing more, nothing less.  It doesnt play DVDs, but since when does a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE have to play DVDS to be considered a good VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. Just give me some great games and I'll be happy, thats the whole point of a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE.  Which of course is what Nintendo is known for.  And sure, I'll admit that the games out for the Cube are pretty thin right now, but I have 3 awesome games (SSB:M, SSX and Super Monkey Ball) so Im set until June.

Why June you ask, well thats when the games start rolling in (Remake of Resident Evil 1, Eternal Darkness, Wrestlemania x-8 and Star Fox Adventures) And as if that wasn't enough to empty my wallet, theres also the new Mario and Zelda games due out this year as well.

 

As for the hardware itself, its more than capable of allowing for some really great games 3 and 4 years down the road. Infact, the hardware is so good that Sega, Namco and Nintendo are using the hardware to make an Arcade board called the Triforce, which means some really cool Sega and Namco arcade games could be Gamecube Only down the road. The smaller disks wont be a problem, since Capcom has already announced that the first Resident Evil gamecube only release will be 2 disks instead of 1.  So no more complaints about the GC halfsized DVDs being inferior to regular DVDs.  Plus, the Gamecube runs quiet and very cool, generating almost no heat at all. The games load super fast, and the memory cards load up quickly as well (compared to some long load times for the X Box hard drive that I've heard discussed elsewhere) And I havent had any memory card problems as of yet, I have 3 games saved on a 59 Card and I still have 40 blocks left.  On top of that, it has been confirmed that Nintendo will be including memory cards with all games it releases in the near future at no extra cost.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

PlayStation 2 for all the obvious reasons.  Easily the best library of the three systems regardless of what genre of games you're into (except maybe FPS), easily the most must have games, the best games coming out this year (it's not even close imo, but then I'm a big fighting game fan and am drooling over the thought of both VF4 and TK4), DVD support out of the box, backwards compatibility, best controller, virtual guarantee that it will "win" the installed base wars and get the according boost in third party support, absolute guarantee that it will at least be around through the end of the generation (something that can't be said for either of the other two) etc etc.  It's not hard to justify PS2 as the best system of this batch.

 

It's only main weakness is tech specs, which imo is pretty much totally irrelevant now.  Wow, X-Box is capable of better graphics.  Snore, whatever.  I can go from SC to TTT to DOA3 and not care.  All the current systems, even DC, have good enough graphic capabilities that any game that developers can think of can be made on them.  The difference is in stupid things like polygon count and lighting effects, that you might notice for 15 minutes, but that don't effect gameplay at all.  The X-Box does have some other minor advantages, like better sound and its neat hard drive, but that's not enough to make up for the difference in library quality.

 

As for the competition, X-Box does have some darn good exclusive games, so it's a solid system too, much better than I ever thought it would be.  As for GC, I guess the best is yet to come.  Nothing great now though, and not much in the future that's guaranteed to be great.  First party Nintendo games aren't anywhere near as far ahead of the pack as they used to be, and unless Zelda and Mario really deliver, GC might be relegated to the party system niche, just like N64 before it.  And as much as Marvinisa keeps saying it, I still can't figure out how being able to play DVDs is a *bad* thing, heh.

[Guest The Notorious CRD]

I don't think Marvin ever said that the ability to play DVDs is a bad thing.  What he did say is that he doesn't understand why the ability to play DVDs is necessary for most gamers to think a console is worth owning.  I agree with him wholeheartedly.  I didn't buy Gamecube in the hopes of being able to watch movies on.  I already have a stand-alone DVD player that's better than the ones PS2 or Xbox come with.  Sure, it's nice that they can do it, but if you're basing  your decision on whether or not the console plays DVDs, I question your gaming pedigree.    J/K  I have a PS2 and I'm getting a Xbox in a couple of weeks but I want them for the games and not the fact that they can play DVDs.

[Guest TheBostonStrangler]

Well, I'd side with Nintendo. I've always played Nintendo consoles, although I'd love some other consoles (donations can be sent to me via PayPal). Why Nintendo? They're a proven commodity. I like platform games, and I know that I'll have Mario, Zelda, DK, Banjo-Kazooie, and tons of others. I like sports games, and I'll get the titles I'm interested in from EA and Sega. I like wrestling games, and Nintendo's have always been the best. Wrestlemania X-8 looks like it might continue that tradition, even if it's only because RAW and SD:JBI have sucked it hard.

 

Plus, money is a factor. Nintendo's console cost $100 less than either PS2 or XBox. That's two extra games with the system right there. I don't need a low-quality DVD player, since I already have a DVD player, so that's no big loss. I like the X-Box hardware, but the system has nothing, besides Halo, that I'd go out and buy. PS2 is nice, but I'm not a fan of the Dual Shock controller. It's growing on me, but I prefer Nintendo's (it feels so natural in my hands!). Plus, I guess I'd rather have Nintendo's exclusives than PS2's exclusives. The only game that I'd LOVE to have on Gamecube would be Grand Theft Auto III (greatest game I've played since Goldeneye). I can live without Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, etc. But I need my Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart, Metroid, and Wrestlemania. That's why I chose Nintendo. If I could choose another, I'd take PS2. Microsoft has potential with the console, but without games, and with that controller (those buttons suck), they won't do that well.

[Guest Bruin]

FINE! Since everyone continues to take what I said out of context, allow me to repeat and rephrase as nesscary.

 

The whole playing DVD's is what just about everything does

 

This was referring to how most PC's, play DVD's now, and the PS2's and XBoxes also play DVDs. HOWEVER, I'm in the basement and all I have down here is my computer that CAN'T play DVD's, and an old busted VCR.

 

but since I have my computer and consoles in the basement, it was nice having something that could play them down here.

 

I was just commenting on how it's a nice thing to have down here since I can't watch movies down here unless they're on TV. Geez, how'd you people think that this thing being able to play DVD's was this huge deciding factor? I merely said it was nice to have.

 

The only reason I mentioned the GC that played DVD's was because if anyone cares to remember from the older board.. There was constant complaining about how the XBox is so much more expensive. THEN, after a few very long posts about it by Marvin, he posted a link to a different version of a GC that had plastic chrome and could play DVD's. The kicker was he adressed the topic as "I wish I lived in Japan and had $400" (or something to that equivelant) after he was constantly saying how he'd never pay $300 for a console.

 

Once more, it seems like I must adress this.. HOW does having a hardrive make a console less of a console? I beleive we've had this conversation several times all ready and I've continually failed to see just how having a hardrive is going to kill off the console industry as some people have said before.

 

Finally, please, lets try not to get into the whole "My Controller is better than yours!!!!" type of argument once more. My head still hurts from the one we had back on the old forum. *_*

[Guest Big McLargeHuge]

nintendo gamecube - Knowing that alot of Nintendo's franchise games are coming to the console, I couldn't pass it up. X-Box's game, didn't really interest me. In the long haul, GCN's games intriguied(sp?) me more. My cousin has a PS2 and he visits all the time, so it wasn't really a priority for me to get it. The cube was cheaper. I already have a DVD player, and for some reason DVDs look odd when played on my cousin's PS2. The kicker was of course a next generation WWF game, metroid and Celda.As far as the controller goes. I love it. With the exception of the out of place z button, it's great.

 

This time around, I'm going with Nintendo. And the prospect of Nintendo, Sega and Namco collaborating for arcade games is awesome.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

The only reason I mentioned the GC that played DVD's was because if anyone cares to remember from the older board.. There was constant complaining about how the XBox is so much more expensive. THEN, after a few very long posts about it by Marvin, he posted a link to a different version of a GC that had plastic chrome and could play DVD's. The kicker was he adressed the topic as "I wish I lived in Japan and had $400" (or something to that equivelant) after he was constantly saying how he'd never pay $300 for a console.

 

Hmmph. It costs 400 to import a modded (plays american DVD's and GC games) Q (what the gamecube that plays DVD's is called in Japan) Im certain that if the thing ever sees the light of day in the US (Which it probably won't, officially of course) it would probably retail for $299 or less.  But I dont need it.  I just think it looks cool. You cant tell me that the silvery metalic finish on the Q doesnt make it the coolest looking console, and its still smaller than an X Box and only slightly larger than a US Gamecube.

 

Once more, it seems like I must adress this.. HOW does having a hardrive make a console less of a console? I beleive we've had this conversation several times all ready and I've continually failed to see just how having a hardrive is going to kill off the console industry as some people have said before.

 

Why didnt you just say it was me, as I do believe that I am the only one who even remotely believes that the Hard Drive in a console is the death of the Video Game console.  Its just like a DVD player functionality in a Video Game Console, why do you need it?  Memory Cards are faster, portable and more reliable (official cards only of course). The only thing hard drives are good for is for Developers who can release crappy games once MS and Sony get their online strategy figured out.  Instead of putting out quality games, they can release rushed out games and then require downloads for patches to fix it later. But no one believes me, for now...

 

.......

 

Plus, one thing I hadnt thought of, is that most of Sega's franchises are headed to the Gamecube. Rumors of a Super Smash Brothers 3 game featuring Sega and Nintendo franchise characters have been surfacing, as well as the rumor that Mario Kart for Gamecube will include Sonic (what the hell on that though, as Mario Kart has traditionally been only for characters in Mario games....). Count me in now on that. Imagine  Mario vs Sonic, Luigi vs Knuckles, Dr Robotinik vs Bowser in a SSB game...

[Guest Bruin]

Okay Marvin, I admit, with the Japanese GC that looks like a toaster, I was specifically talking about you. About the hardrive however, I was referring to roughly 4 other people, if the old board was still up, I could probably rummage through it and find their names. However, you were the one that quoted it as being the end of console gaming, so sorry for signaling you out there.

 

Now about the loading off of the HD as opposed to the Memory card, I still beleive that the HD is faster. Everything I load from the hardrive of my XBox is up within a second, never have I had to wait any longer than maybe 3 seconds at most and that came from loading my huge KMFDM playlist (I ripped all the CD's ) from the hardrive to listen to in a certain game. (The name of it escapes me at the moment ) The only thing with the hardrive I've seen that takes any real amount of time is ripping large amounts of tracks from a CD.

 

About patching (god I hate this subject, beating a Dead and rotten "government mule" by now..), everything is pure speculation right now. Nothing has been confirmed about the Multiplay feature except for increase in play modes via download, maps, features, etc etc. Nothing has been said about patching. Speaking that most patches for computers right now have mostly been for compatiability issues. (Except for certain games like a certain highly Hyped RPG that hardly works..) And with consoles, the last truly buggy game I've ever seen was the sequel to Vigilante 8.

 

Now one of the main things that made me want my XBox was because after seeing most of the GC's lineup for games, I really wasn't interested. Quite frankly, I'm tired of playing rehashed versions of older games. I don't care how many children haven't played Mario, I honestly don't think that making YET ANOTHER Mario game is the answer. I would rather perfer they would go and do something like pack all the previous Mario games on one disc. Now THAT'D be more interesting to see the whole evolution of Mario. Not just another generic Mario game.

 

-Edit for blatantly obvious spelling erros I should've caught before..

[Guest Boring_Liferik]

I'll go with X-box myself. The graphics can at times make Playstation 2 look like Super Nintendo with aids. With a larger library, it'd really be one sided.

[Guest HANSgerman]

Playstation2 and I'll get to the reason why...

 

Game Cube just flat out does not have the library (YET!!!), and I probably will come to like it once it comes out with some friggan games.  The system still feels childish, but I'm sure future titles will prove that wrong.  However why would I want to play the same old Resident Evil a second time though, even with some added perks???

 

Final thought: Fun games for this system will make me like this system more and nothing beats a cheaper price than the other two systems.

 

X-Box comes in a close second to the PS2 and that is because of just a few little things.  One is because I already owned a PS2 well before an X-Box and at the beginning about 90% of the games for both systems were the same so why would I buy a new system.  This is slowly changing though and more and more games are becoming exclusive.  The internet hook up is delicious as well.  Nothing beats 16 person Halo on boring Saturday afternoons.  

 

Final thought: This could become my favorite real soon with the internet hook up and more exclusive games.  The controller is really hard to get used to but it does get easier with time.

 

Finally My #1 choice of PS2 is that because of the games and because it beat the other two on the market.  I am not made of money here so I just bought this one system.  And now being addicted to FFX, MGS2, Dynasty Warriors, etc. has only reaffirmed my love with this system.  Also the DVD part is great because it's one less piece of equipment I have to lug into this tiny dorm room of mine.  

 

Final Thought:  Great games make a great system in my view and that's that.  Also being released before the other two systems helped big time.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

i have to say PS2 for the following:

doesnt make a waste out of my PS1 games (all 7 of them)

i dont have a dvd player

they seem to have the best library

besides if things turn ugly i can always get a gamecube when it gets even cheaper

[Guest jimmy no nose]

I don't think it's possible to call either of the other two systems better than PS2 at this point because of the lack of games so far.  PS2 already has some great ones out, but will have some good competition soon.

[Guest Flyboy212EAW]

I went with the Gamecube...

 

Well, when I got 250 bucks for X-Mas it was apprant that I went with the GC just because of price issue.

 

If I wanted to spend around 60 bucks extra for a DVD-player, I could've but I have a stand-only DVD-player already.

 

GC has some great titles coming out... I think GTA (the first one), RE (the remakes and all the others), WMX8 (I'm praying for Yukes/ex-team AKI on this one), Metriod Prime, Perfect Dark Zero, Star Fox Adventures (that game looks just yummy), Zelda (cel-shading doesn't effect me any), Mario Sunshine... and the list goes on.  Plus, as developers have stated... GC is the easiest console to develop for.

 

With SSBM, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron 2 RL, SAB2 (<-- the only three GC games I have), Super Monkey Ball, and others out already GC is hard to beat.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<< I'll go with X-box myself. The graphics can at times make Playstation 2 look like Super Nintendo with aids. >>

 

Oh please, that's just pure fanboyism talking.  There isn't some sort of universal X-Box graphics standard that's orders of magnitude higher than some universal PlayStation 2 graphics standard.  Quality of graphics nowadays is determined almost entirely by the game developer and how much effort they put into them, not by the hardware.  For example, Konami put tons of effort into MGS2's graphics, and as a result, it looks better than 95% of the games on X-Box.  X-Box is capable of graphics slightly better than the best PS2 can do, as shown by DOA3, but the difference is really not that big.

[Guest Bruin]

KOR, now what you said about the developers is entirely true.. However, lemme respond to this quickly.. (Yes, I need to quit responding to this thread all ready)

 

For example, Konami put tons of effort into MGS2's graphics, and as a result, it looks better than 95% of the games on X-Box.  X-Box is capable of graphics slightly better than the best PS2 can do, as shown by DOA3, but the difference is really not that big.

 

I'd take Halo's graphipcs over MGS2's any day of the week. The XBox is capable of much higher graphics quality than the PS2 mostly because of the technology involved (Do we really need to go into the whole nVidia debate again?) No it's not that big since most people can't tell the difference between the # of colors in a game and the # of polygons on a model just by looking. I know I sure can't tell the difference unless it's blocky

[Guest whatever]

As for right now, I would have to say the PS2. However if you asked me a year from now the same question and I would have to say the GC with the X Box close behind and the PS2 a distant 3rd. Right now in my opinion the GC is the worse by a wide margin, but most of the upcoming games look really fun. Also a lot of people bash the X Box but I think it's pretty darn good. I find the controller to be a lot better than the PS2 one.

 

Anyways to answer the question as of right now:

 

1) Playstation 2

2) X Box

2) GameCube

 

A year from now:

 

1) GameCube

2) X Box

3) Playstation 2

 

(I used to be a total Nintendo mark but now that I own all 3 I really don't have too much bias anymore, before that I would have said something along the lines of "Nintendo cuz it's kewl duh!". I'm glad to see how much I have progressed. Sorry about that, some self masterbatory writing there :-))

[Guest RetroRob215]

i have to say PS2 for the following:

doesnt make a waste out of my PS1 games (all 7 of them)

i dont have a dvd player

they seem to have the best library

besides if things turn ugly i can always get a gamecube when it gets even cheaper

I also have a PS2 and agree with most of your reasons.  I say most becuase my PS1 games don't work on my PS2 and I don't know why.  When I play one the screen just fshakes up and down.  Do I have to change the configuration or something in order to play the PS1 games?

 

About the DVD argument.  I don't have a DVD player and I don't really need a state of the art DVD player.  I did take that into account when I bought the PS2.  Quite frankly, I didn't want to pay for a console and a DVD Player because money doesn't grow on trees...

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Well, here are my reasons for the xbox.

 

PS2 is way too heavy on the RPGs and I hate RPGs.  Plus I have never really liked a PS game anyways.  A nintendo man I was.

 

GC is from Nintendo and I was burned from N64, aka the worst system ever.  Too many kiddie games, I want games that appeal to my age bracket, and thats who Xboxs' target market is.

 

So far I have loved the xbox, I never had a DVD player so right there its a keeper.  The built in harddrive means I can save any game I want to, so no starting over again for me!  The only real disappointment had been Raw and since I am a wrestling game freak and was expecting something better than NM it was a HUGE let down.  Hopefully some better games will come out in the future.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<< I'd take Halo's graphipcs over MGS2's any day of the week. The XBox is capable of much higher graphics quality than the PS2 mostly because of the technology involved (Do we really need to go into the whole nVidia debate again?) No it's not that big since most people can't tell the difference between the # of colors in a game and the # of polygons on a model just by looking. I know I sure can't tell the difference unless it's blocky. >>

 

Agreed about everything, including Halo, which I do think looks better than anything on PS2 and would probably need to have some of the lighting toned down a little if it were ported to PS2.  I'm just sick of hearing from fanboys like Boring_Liferik how their system's graphics are so much better than graphics on other systems.  All three systems are capable of 3D games with texture-mapped polygons that aren't visible to the eye, that's all that matters to me from a hardware standpoint.  Then it's just up to the developer to actually make appealing character models and enviornments and the like, and you're going to have successes and failures on all three systems.  Only fanboys think that all games on their system look great and all games on other systems look ugly, hehe.

[Guest El Luchadore Magnifico]

I've got a Gamecube myself.

 

I picked it for a few reasons. First off, I've always been happy with Nintendo, ever since the days of the NES. And when I was making my decison to purchase either an X-Box, PS2, or a Gamecube, I saw very little in the way of originality in either the X-Box or PS2. However, the Gamecube features innovative games like Pikmin and SSB:M, which are a refreshing break from other games that hype super-realistic graphics and 20 billion polygons.

 

That's another reason I'm not interested in the X-Box or PS2; a lot of their games have "realistic" graphics. Hell, I play video games to escape reality. Why would I want a game that reproduces it exactly?

[Guest goodhelmet]

Gotta go with PS2. They've got the graphics, the games, the DVD capability, and the best future in sight. Plus, they have the rights to Final Fantasy. that's all that matters.

[Guest mathbrat]

Playstation 2

 

First, to qualify my opinions, I don't watch too many movies so the DVD thing isn't a big deal.

 

Nintendo is very barely my choice for a system, for one reason. Mario, Zelda, Starfox, and the other Nintendo/Rare franchises will always be one place. Furthermore, it seems that they've somewhat solved the problem of 3rd party ports -Spy Hunter and NBA Street, both good games, will be appearing shortly on Gamecube.

 

I also like Playstation 2, but its the least advanced of the systems, is still expensive, and all my friends have it.

 

But being completely objective, Playstation 2 has the best games right now, end of story. Lets open the discussion againg six months from now.

[Guest Zero]

Sadly, Sony, but, it's hard to resist, they just have better games that can keep me playing for hours.

 

Hopefully, GameCube, or X-Box will start putting out alot of games this year, so I can actually sway my decision.. And, I oh-so want to.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

People talk about Mario and Zelda being played out, but then go ahead and say that they can't wait for Square to pump out another FF game. I know that technically each FF game is different, but its still basically the same formula of wander around and attack random bosses until your HP meter is max out so you can beat the end boss.  The only thing that seperates FF X from earlier FF versions are the graphics, which I've seen and can say that they look nice.  But the FF Series stopped being revolutionary in gameplay aspects a long time ago. Thats why I hate RPG's in general, they are all pretty much the same game,you just have different characters and slightly modified storylines to play by.

 

The last RPG I really enjoyed was Chrono Trigger for SNES or Earthbound for SNES.  

 

And for the constant "There are no games for the Gamecube" argument, the games are coming.

Better to wait for many great games then get burried in an avalanche of sub par games that arent worth even renting.

 

You can add UFC Throwdown to my list of games coming out for the Gamecube by the end of June that I plan on purchasing.

[Guest mathbrat]

marvin, everyone and their brother realizes Mario and Zelda will rock when they come, but we're asking what the best system, is RIGHT NOW, and that's ps2.

 

P.S. I have heard nothing saying that Final Fantasy, Mario, or Zelda are played out.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

In general, I hear people complain about Nintendo's franchises being played out, not necessarily on this board.  That and Nintendo only makes kiddie games.  A lot of that is going to change in just a few short months.  

 

I'll give it to you, that right now PS2 is the leader on the sole premise that it has more games.  But I didnt buy a GAMECUBE for right now, I bought it with the expectation that over the next 4 years + it would deliver solid fun games.  And while its been a little slow doing so over the first 3 1/2 months since its launch, I specifically remember the PS2 being a bit thin on games as well at this point last year.  

 

Time usually settles all arguments, and it will do so with this one as well.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Better to wait for many great games then get burried in an avalanche of sub par games that arent worth even renting.

That argument only works if there's evidence that the games that are coming out for NGC will actually be better than the games that are coming out for X-Box or PS2.  There's not.  How can you assume that future NGC games will be great when the first party launch games were so mediocre?  The only thing that's certain is that there will be less games for NGC, which is a bad thing, not a good thing.

 

The quantity versus quality argument only works if the system without quantity actually wins out in quality.  In the PS1/N64 days, the PS1 won both, by a good margin.  It looks like that might happen again with PS2/NGC, unless all the Nintendo first party games this year are every bit as unbelievable as all the Nintendo fans hope they'll be.