The Great Console Debate

GoldenFalcon · Post by **GoldenFalcon** » 2004-04-10 12:18am

Alright, it was started in the chatroom and I think it's pretty interesting.

The point in question was: Do console games define the console itself?

StarshipTitanic said that the console's specs define the console, barring the games that are on it.
AnimeJet said that the console's games define it, as they show what the console can truly do.
I said that the usage of the console defines what the console can actually do, and decides if it sucks or not.

Now, opinions everyone?

AnimeJet · Post by **AnimeJet** » 2004-04-10 12:22am

It's not so much as they show what a console can do, but it.. sort of defines the console it self because the console is directly linked with its games. I wouldn't rate a console soley on its specs, if it didn't have any games, it would suck.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-04-10 01:15am

It's all about what games are on it. PS1 is dusty and ancient compared to HaloBox, but play Castlevania Symphony of the Night and learn to orgasm all over again. XBox may be the highest rendering capability, but it's fucking worthless if you want a lot of good games, they've been consistently mediochre so far because Microsoft thought it could just walk in and say, we're a gaming company now, develop things for our system.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-10 05:49am

Its all in the games. You can make as powerful a console as you want, but if it doesn't have any gmes I like on it, I won't buy it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-10 07:49am

you can have the most powerful console in the world but if it hasn't got a good selection of quality games it's not going to do very well marketwise.

the turbographx 16 proved this. while it may have been a powerful console for its time it just didn't have the lineup of games or companies backing it to keep up with the rest of the competition.

on the other hand Nintendo, Sony, & sega have always had their own signature games and characters. Nintendo has Mario, Metroid, Zelda and Castlevania. Sega has Phantasy Star and Sonic. Sony has the latest crop of Final Fantasy games and Metal Gear Solid.

the x-box. . .has. . .well, Halo, i guess. but for the most part without noticeable games a console isn't going to stand much of a chance in the markets

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-04-10 07:56am

It depends on the games. If the system doesn't carry any decent games it could be compared to having a top of the line PC but only being able to play minesweeper, solitare and the other windows games.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-04-10 08:52am

It's not the console, it's how you use it.

Take a look at the Super Nintendo. Now, some of the games might look like cheap 8-bit crap, but take a look at games like Donkey Kong Country and you see what the system's capable of.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-10 08:58am

I thought DKC was highly overrated, personally.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-04-10 09:56am

The modern game industry is getting so stupid to have competition in consoles. A console means nothing when developers make them for every console out their to get as much money as possible. The only thing that defines a console are exclusives and perk add-ons. Even these are getting far and few between. People want money, there is no money in making an exclusive game unless they payed you off. Console manufacturers themselves don't even make money off the hardware sales, in most cases they are actually taking a loss. Their money comes from the rights to make games for that console. So yes, it is about the games.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that in developing a console, the priority is (or should be) the developers to use them. Because their money comes from games alone, they want to make it nice and juicey looking for developers. The exception to this is Playstation where developers went to it because everyone had one. Even though it was the worst system structure and platform to design for.

"Duh hey Dusty! Iz dat Playstation two! Duuuuuude get one!" And thus you have the shittiest, most popular console born.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-10 10:31am

All in the games.

Seriously there are some oldies that I play more then anything current. Though Ninja Gaiden for the X-Box is at least something other then Halo and KoTOR for it. The system could damn well use more.

Sadly all in all I've become more picky and bit more cynical about the current state of gasming these days.

And moving G&C.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-04-10 12:08pm

Darth_Zod wrote: the x-box. . .has. . .well, Halo, i guess.

Do you people even own an Xbox???

Halo, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell 1&2, Otogi, Ninja Gaiden, Soul Calibre, Dead or Alive, Crimson Skies, Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Rallisport, ... just to name a few off the top of my head.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-04-10 01:29pm

Zoink wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote: the x-box. . .has. . .well, Halo, i guess.
Do you people even own an Xbox???

Halo, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell 1&2, Otogi, Ninja Gaiden, Soul Calibre, Dead or Alive, Crimson Skies, Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Rallisport, ... just to name a few off the top of my head.

And how many of those are exclusive? Hummm...NONE! Wow, the X-box is so l33t it has multi-platform games.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-10 01:46pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Zoink wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote: the x-box. . .has. . .well, Halo, i guess.
Do you people even own an Xbox???

Halo, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell 1&2, Otogi, Ninja Gaiden, Soul Calibre, Dead or Alive, Crimson Skies, Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Rallisport, ... just to name a few off the top of my head.
And how many of those are exclusive? Hummm...NONE! Wow, the X-box is so l33t it has multi-platform games.

Ninja Gaiden and so far DOA 3(and I believe Crimson Skies)

The only problem I have is that while that selection is good, I could do that for many systems with my personal preference.

Of those KoTOR, Ninja Gaiden and Halo have made the biggest splashes.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-04-10 08:20pm

The console itself is what makes the difference. There were things the Saturn just couldn't dream of doing versus the PSX. The games 'make' the console as in how people receive it and how much popularity it will garner. People flock to Halo, yet there really isn't too much of a library yet. The XBox itself is capable of great feats. Gamecube is the same way. In fact, it's very noticable in the magazine reviews that PS2 is really at the tail end of everything.

The 16 Bit wars really showed how it goes. Both systems have thier pros and cons. The Genesis was a heavy packer, but Nintendo had some games that people just gravitated too. (I grew up with a Genesis FYI). There's games I always remember that were said to be better on the SNES then the Genesis. Now I've gone back and tried some of these games, and really find that the Genesis really did have the edge.

It's the console itself, because it has the potential or lack thereof. All the games do is show people what it can do. In fact, the developers really have to know how to unlock that abililty in the machine.

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-04-10 09:48pm

I think when it was just SNES competing with Nintendo, it was. But now it's different. XBox, Game Cube and Playstation 2 show me all the same stuff, but only certain games will show up on certain systems. I can't get Halo on PS2, just like I can't play Double Dash on the Xbox.

Crimson Raine

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-04-10 10:39pm

I'd like to point out that I was trying for the most objective approach to a console, not the definitive answer to which one is the "best."

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2004-04-10 10:53pm

Games definitely make the console. Thus, I bought a Gamecube because of Super Smash Bros., Rogue Leader, and Metroid Prime. That, and I had no need for DVD playback in my console.

BTW, Crimson Skies was originally released in 2000 for PC. IIRC, the missions and plot are the same in the XBOX version, with a new rendering engine and upgraded graphics being the major differences.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-10 11:04pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:I'd like to point out that I was trying for the most objective approach to a console, not the definitive answer to which one is the "best."

True, going by specs is the most objective manner.

The interesting part about many older and some newer games is to see what tricks of programming can they pull. Doesn't make a game but can lead to some nice developments.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2004-04-10 11:23pm

The games obviously make the system. Without them you have a ridiculously overpriced paper weight.

Ledgend of Zelda, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Resedent Evil, Rogue Squadren thats why I bought the 'Cube over X-Box or PS2. Not for it's compact design, near perfect controller, or wires and shit inside.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-11 12:25am

Ghost Rider wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:
Zoink wrote: Do you people even own an Xbox???

Halo, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell 1&2, Otogi, Ninja Gaiden, Soul Calibre, Dead or Alive, Crimson Skies, Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Rallisport, ... just to name a few off the top of my head.
And how many of those are exclusive? Hummm...NONE! Wow, the X-box is so l33t it has multi-platform games.
Ninja Gaiden and so far DOA 3(and I believe Crimson Skies)

The only problem I have is that while that selection is good, I could do that for many systems with my personal preference.

Of those KoTOR, Ninja Gaiden and Halo have made the biggest splashes.

Let's not forget Panzer Dragoon Orta, one of the most original and downright fun action games I've played in years. There are also several AAA excluisives coming this year (Fable, Sudeki, True Fantasy Live, BC, Halo 2) which look amazing so far.

I'd also say that many of those that were not exclusive like KOTOR were only ported to the PC (thus irrelevent to the console market) and were in their best forms on the Xbox.

EDIT: What the Xbox really seems to be missing at the moment is RPG's (which should be somewhat rectified by Fable, BC and Sudeki due out this year) but really needs to be improved in the next generation of consoles.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-04-11 02:03am

The console itself is, of course, defined merely by its hardware, its OS, and that stuff; the games define the console's popularity (except when some consoles are new and all the company's fanboys are flocking to get it for no good reason except hype) and therefore, its final success.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2004-04-11 02:11am

Shogoki wrote:The console itself is, of course, defined merely by its hardware, its OS, and that stuff; the games define the console's popularity (except when some consoles are new and all the company's fanboys are flocking to get it for no good reason except hype) and therefore, its final success.

So your saying to pick consoles based on it's hardware and OS and not by what games it offers?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-04-11 03:19am

No, dolt, he meant that's what a console is.

[flamebait]Anyway, PC is superior

.[/flamebait]

constantine · Post by **constantine** » 2004-04-11 05:29am

X-Box definately owns the future, until the next gen of consoles comes out. With games like Fable, Sudeki, BC, True Fantasy Live, Halo 2, Half Life 2, Doom 3, Dead or Alive Ultimate, etc. the PS2 or the Gamecube can't compete with quality games like that. These are all exclusive, AFAIK.

Basically, the X-Box is going to have the best RPGs (which it already does in KOTOR and Morrowind), FPSs and the only 3D fighting game so far. As far as True Fantasy, who knows?

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-04-11 06:41am

constantine wrote:Basically, the X-Box is going to have the best RPGs (which it already does in KOTOR and Morrowind), FPSs and the only 3D fighting game so far. As far as True Fantasy, who knows?

Except the PC always has the highest of quality games. X-Box = retarded PC.