Jump to content
darklord

Which Current Gen Console is the Best?

Recommended Posts

Yes but i have not nor ever will buy or even look at a wii what games are there to suite the hardcore gamer?! red steel?..*cough*...Fail..cough* some stupid dancing game? or maybe one of the 10 billion different golf games? i dont think so.

the Xbox has 1 good game in my opinion and that is gears of war microsoft.was so scared of sony they went and payed a load of money to get dlc which is still coming to ps3 anyway. (better late than never)

no games for under 17? three words, Little big planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "elite" Xbox has a blueray drive i think but its no more reliable than the normal Xbox and will melt in a year anyway.

PS3 is win!

Oh yeah, because the PS3 doesn't have any hardware failures. :rolleyes:

The Xbox360 Elite doesn't have a bluray player, but that hardly matters since I can rent HD movies over the internet with netflix and save my DVD-Rom drive for things like games. Neither do I have to install games onto my Xbox 360 - the option is there, but load times are generally not a problem for the Xbox because their media of choice (Dual Layer DVDs) doesn't have a w f u l read times (because of the storage size of a bluray disc, it takes forever to fetch data from it which is what forces installs to HDD for PS3 titles).

I have owned two xbox360s since they came out, and neither has ever had a hardware failure/RRoD'd. Instead, I've been playing all of the good games that you can play on your PS3 with better graphics, faster load times, and with better online support. I don't mind paying a small fee once a year for my Live subscription because the service is by far the best implementation of online gaming in the console market.

Enjoy your overpriced bluray player, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enzo i didnt mean to say that we use the PS3 just cause it has a bluray player.:frown:

Its a nice bonus that comes along with whatever the XBOX 360 can muster up, all in one sexy looking piece of machinery. Heh, it saves your costs for a bluray player doesnt it?

All of the games on the XBOX and PS3 are quite better than the Wii ones so the only thing that remains is ONE BIG GAME UNSEEN ON BOTH!

Well since the Wii is not getting too much of support in this debate how about we have a little bet like thing?:creep:

The one which comes up with a Pokemon game first, WINS!!:biggrin:

How long i have awaited for something like that -_-....... both awesome games AND POKEMON! wouldnt that just be the Epitome of Epicness for that console?:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a nice bonus that comes along with whatever the XBOX 360 can muster up, all in one sexy looking piece of machinery. Heh, it saves your costs for a bluray player doesnt it?
If I had a use for a bluray player, maybe. What you don't realize is that all 3rd party games look best on the 360. Examples? In list form, of course!

-Fallout 3: higher resolution textures, higher static object view distance, better shading

-Assassin's Creed: Higher innate contrast, better shading

-GTA IV: View distance, innate contrast

-Call of Duty 4: Higher res textures, better shading

Those are just examples. The PS3 claims to be a graphics powerhouse capable of delivering HD content that blows the 360 away, but so far it has yet to actually do that. That's because sony is insanely stupid and always makes it's architectures preposterously difficult to code efficiently for. Cell is a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with the part about Sony being stupid; they took backward compatibility out of their system, didn't they?

But surely the superior graphics in Xbox games are the fault of the developers and not the hardware itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont really rate any of them

the wii is aimed at little kids and families and is primitive compared to the other 2 plus waving that control around makes my arm ache.

the xbox 360 has lame pads and to me somehow feels too corperate, its like they only done it because MS are loaded and want to dominate everything.

and the ps3 is too expensive but is the only 1 i will ever buy cause im a massive FF fan (i know the xbox is getting FF13 but i hate the pads)

PS3 ftw mainly due to their perfect pads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok here i go i have done some ExTreME study on all three systems and i have a good idea of which is best.

Fist the Wii. i find that the wii is fun....when you have others to play it with. it has great backward compatibility (that includes Virtual Console) and it is very fun to play. online play on games is not the best but it is still fun (except brawl when you are trying to fight and the lagg is freaking unbearable i mean seriously your better sticking to playing with your friends) i love it and it is fun again with others around but when it comes to single player playing there are a handful of games. i got my wii to play with my family and they never want to play or never can so i got soo bored i brewed it so i can get at least a decent time out of it. so in short wii is fun and great...if you have others to play with you.

Next Xbox 360. great backwards compatibility with xbox and great single player games. the best console for online play easily but what i do not like is that you have to pay to play online and that is the main reason i do not like it too much. i love playing with my friend and i love playing online but when money gets involved i have to say no sir i will take a rain check. so in short very great single player games and multiplay games but when online game comes around get ready to dig into your pockets

i won't do the ps3 just yet because i only got like 3 hours of play time with one.

but out of the three i would say that it all depends on PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF GAMES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I'll throw in my 3 cents.

Each system is great within itself. They all have certain aspects that make them stand out. :tongue:

The Wii has some amazingly engrossing games. I got lost in Twilight Princess, Metroid, and Galaxy for DAYS (and that says something, because currently, all I do is sit around and play games). Super Smash Bros. Brawl is by far one of the most fun games to play in a group. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity is the most excellent racer I've ever played, and I HATE racers. | However, this system also has some of the most repulsive games I've ever heard of. Red Steel, for example. Need I say more? If I want to exercise, which I DON'T, I'll go outside and do it. Metroid is the only game that utilized the Wiimote well. They need to focus less on party games and more on classic Nintendo characters. Galaxy was amazing. Why'd they quit? :confused:

The PS3 is a veritable gem. Devil May Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, and most importantly, Metal Gear 4, was/were insanely addicting. Not to mention the fact that online is free (MGO for the win). | However, the PS3 failed miserably at trying to copy the 360's addicting achievement system, and the backwards compatibility, oh dear. The first release couldn't play PS2 games, and the second release couldn't play PS1 games. On top of that, NO memory card support at all. BIG bummer for Final Fantasy fans like myself. :frown: I went out and bought a used PS2 just to cover for that.

Finally, the 360. I've heard nothing but complaints about this system, and I'm here to tell you, you people are either too dramatic or I am one insanely lucky guy; I've had mine since the day after it came out, and it hasn't crashed on me yet. It runs so perfect it's actually kinda scary.

Anyway, the 360. Games are phenomenal. Oblivion, Soul Calibur 4, Street Fighter 4, Sonic UNLEASHED. All are so addicting, and the obtaining of achievements is really, REALLY addicting. In fact, I'd have gotten DMC4 and Assassin's Creed for the box too, except they were gifts. | Only problem with it is the online. Its so EXPENSIVE! Who has the money for that?

I gotta say, the Box has my support. And yes, I own all three systems, plus some. :biggrin: What someone needs to do, is put the Graphic craziness and playability of the box with the fun and group gaming of the Wii and mix it all together with the free online of the PS3. :grog:

/end Rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But surely the superior graphics in Xbox games are the fault of the developers and not the hardware itself?
The hardware in the PS3 is technically superior (at least, most of it). The problem is, developers are having trouble learning the tricks it takes to make visually stunning games for the PS3 because while the hardware is more powerful, the layout of it is a mess. The PS2 had the same issue (although in it's case, it was outclassed by both of the other consoles on the market). Really, by the time the PS3 really starts to consistently out-do the xbox graphically (as developers learn how to write for the PS3 better), Microsoft will have already released a new console to the market anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll join this ever revolving totally opinionated discussion that isn't going to change anything.

I own all three. I have games for all three. I use all three. Just wanted to say that.

Firstly, the Wii. The Wii is a group console. Nearly all the games for the Wii (other then the standard complete crap movie games) are based around group play, and many of them do it really well. Mario Kart and SSBB are the best examples, but I've found a TON of enjoyment in the Wii Sports Resort. Also, the Virtual Console was a fantastic idea by Nintendo. I can say with confidence that Nintendo has the best ideas for how to sell a console. However, the console is based around families and groups of friends, not the current violent teenage generation. Still, the Wii has released titles that I enjoy, and the Virtual Console is always good.

Secondly, the PS3. I'd like to respond to a few things. Some people, earlier, mentioned that most people have a dvd player near their TV. My PS3 replaced it. PS3 can do Bluray and DVDs with one of my favorite player interfaces ever, and I bought a special PS3 remote accessory that works amazingly well. Thats another thing, the PS3's controller and add-on system is a hundred times better then Nintendo's, including their charging system. Even better, no matter what you people say, I have played some PS3 games that look truly stunning on a 42" HDTV, and all of them come with dolby digital 5.1 surround sound. As far as gaming experience, the PS3 is the best, by a large margin. However, PS3 has a lot of extra crap that I don't like. The online environment is half-assed. It works okay with some games, but for most, its better to look away. Still though, PS3 has more good games then the Wii, and its price has come down. Its worth it for Bluray though and anyone with an HDTV thats watched The Dark Knight on Bluray can't help but agree with me.

Finally, the Xbox 360. Without a doubt, Microsoft has done a fantastic job of attracting the general teenage gamer population with a stunning array of violent, bloody, gory, and excessively disgusting games that after playing once or twice end up being incomprehensibly addictive. Not only that, but the X360 has a sizable amount of games suitable for younger gamers (and for less violent ones). Still though, after playing Bluray PS3 games, its hard to appreciate what the Xbox does. Not only that, but I've gotten the least enjoyment out of my Xbox based on my little appreciation for the popular violent games of today. And my Xbox has broken. The only reason I got it fixed was because my dad works at Microsoft, and brought me to work so I could take a shuttle to the Xbox department and give it directly to the hardware management crew. The online system is stunningly well done, for hardened gamers at any rate. For the rest of us, its just another geek badge for those with too much money.

In summary, the Wii is best for party enjoyment, the PS3 is best for when you want to be stunned, and the X360 has the best games. I think having all three is the best choice because theres no way to pick just one and get full enjoyment.

If I had to have just one, I'd take the PS3. I rely on it for all movie watching, and full 1080p HD games are hard to pass up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had to have just one, I'd take the PS3. I rely on it for all movie watching, and full 1080p HD games are hard to pass up.
They are incredibly easy to pass up when they look better on the other guy's console.

Most games on either HD consoles are upscaled to 1080p rather than rendered at 1080p to begin with, by the way. Blu-Ray as a format for games is hard to appreciate when you have to spend time copying one to your HDD. The appeal to console gaming used to be "pop a game in, sit down, and play". Blur-Ray just isn't a good format for games right now, but Sony doesn't care when it has a good opportunity to push a format on it's unwitting customers.

As soon as there is a game in the works that is so massive that it can justify blu-ray, a game that just simply could not have been done on a single Dual Layer DVD, Sony can have their cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, none of them really agree with me. The Wii focuses on multiplayer too much. As a huge fan of RPGs, you can see why this is a turn off. The XBox360. RPG fans usually don't like online first person shooters and 11 year old kids yelling rasist profanities at them. PS3. It can play movies and what not, but it's game libary in the RPG department is seriously lacking. Hell, it's lacking in ALL game departments.

I'd rather stick to my SNES because of great games like Final Fantasy VI. If Final Fantasy XIII's battle system isn't as Fu€k up as it looks like in the trailers, I suppose it would have to be the PS3. Until I play it, however, I stand nuetral. ~STBE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hardly know anything about the XBOX360 or the PS3, so I can't really vote on this, however I do know that unlike the XBOX360 and PS3, the Wii has great motion capabilities, and its games target everyone, not just experienced gamers.

If the capabilities are so great, why did they need motionplus? Even with motionplus, I was disappointed with WiiSports Resort. I got it remembering myself drooling over the swordplay that I'd be able to do, only to find out that all I could do was swipes and holding B to block...my little brother STILL pwns me by swinging the WiiMote like a maniac, not thinking about anything... Hell, half the time he doesn't even look at the TV...

So before I go quote crazy, I'm going to run down my thoughts on this topic:

PS3: Several different versions since release makes it very confusing to keep track of which has what features. The iffy question of backwards compatibility turned me off, because if I got a PS3, I didn't want to keep my PS2 plugged in for PS1 games, old Guitar Hero, and so on.

It's great that the online service is free, but it also seems like they put next to no effort in running it. Slow, lag, lag, lag, lag....even though Xbox Live has it's fair share of idiots, I like to think that needing a [parent] credit card is kind of like Darwinism.

Xbox 360: Now here's how to make a new system. Like, almost everything is backwards compatible, excellent online service (really worth the price, if I owned one), a good selection of games, gets most of the major releases that go out on all systems, usually gets some bonus exclusives. The price is pretty decent...

Oh wait, what's that? These things break? A lot? And the warranty sucks, and stores are trying to stop selling store warranties?

Fuck that. If I pay a few hundred bucks for something, I shouldn't have to send it back in and get it fixed. And if I do, it should be fixed for free instead of the ridiculous "1 year general, 3 years ring of death, after that get lost" warranty.

There's a thread in the Something Awful Forums for the 360 discussion. They had to make a seperate thread for Broke 360s because it just dominated the general thread. The thread starts with cautious speculation and optimism. Now everyone pretty much says "it's a question of when, not if, it's going to break."

Wii: Backwards compatibility, much more affordable on almost all fronts, a decent enough online store. Online play for games is pretty much crap, but I've always enjoyed playing video games with people in the same room, not elsewhere. Gets a majority of the big releases (though a lot of 3rd parties like Spider-Man 3 just give it a crap PS2 port). a good selection of games, and pretty much everyone can play Smash, Kart, and sports. And I won't have to send it in if it breaks, because it probably won't.

I'm going with the Wii. The PS3 has a bunch of crap that I don't need. The 360 does too, but less so. In a video game system, I want to play VIDEO GAMEs. Not watch movies and listen to music and surf Youtube and IM peeps and Blu ray this and whatever. Seriously, most people have a DVD player on their TV and in their computer. You don't need a video game system to play DVD movies also.

Think of how much cheaper PS3 and 360 would be if they didn't have all those extra features?

At the same time, the popular Wii games don't need super next Gen graphics. Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Wii Sports, Fit, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and many others are all pretty basic games. You don't need excellent graphics to enjoy them.

There's no doubt that the graphics on the PS3 and 360 are better, but the people who play those systems are more likely to play games that require more graphics, more memory, online connectivity, etc... Not the case for the Wii.

Can you think of a single system that doesn't have a ton of shovelware? Yknow, crap 3rd party games that get made anyway because they sell big, usually to a little kid audience?

Seriously, look through any "List of [insert console here] games" on Wikipedia. There's tons of crap games on every system in history.

Until recently (with my DS and Wii), I never owned more than 4 games for any system, except my first, Sega Master. And I love Sega Master games. Just because Super Bible Fishing Expedition II was on there didn't subtract from the joy I got from Rampage, Paperboy, and Cloudmaster.

There's really quite a few games (like, really, a lot) that would do well for a general gaming audience. It's just, as you "kind of" note, the heavily marketed games are done for the gamer demo.

It's nothing new that video games simulate real life activities. Mario Kart, tons of sports titles, and so on. All the Wii really added was some type of motion, and if my memory isn't too foggy, even that isn't completely new.

Like what?

Mario Kart? Regular Wii mote works fine, as well as Gamecube controllers. There might be some games out there that require new add ons, but those mostly apply to every other console as well (Rock Band)

That's mostly due to the 3rd party games that were ported from PS2 versions with little/no though (I'm looking at you, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance). First party games are MUCH better at actually utilizing the Wii mote. I can only hope 3rd party games will eventually catch up.

The crazy thing is Nintendo had a press conference and the spokesperson was all worried that Wii sales started slowing down. And then every RUINED FOREVER idiot out there posted that press conference and saying "L00K!11!!! NINTENDO FAILED"...but it's still the biggest selling console. So what that sales slowed down. It can't stay on top of monthly charts forever.

There's only a handful of games that are exclusive to the PS3 (being compared to the 360 library).

So hooray, you based it on version exclusives? Not that that's bad, but it isn't exactly blowing my mind :eek:

While I agree with your point, but again, another post that isn't blowing my mind.

How's this bad? They took a gamble because they saw that Gamecube wasn't attracting the "hardcore" gamers, and the only popular titles were aimed at "casual" gamers (Kart and Smash). They took a gamble on it, it worked, seems good that they're shifting their focus.

So..if they spread out these releases, you'd be okay?

As for Pokemon, unfortunately, it's not done by 1st party affiliates.

Pokemon's license is owned by Nintendo. They license someone to make games for the consoles (ala 2nd party). These people range from making decent games (Stadium 1+2) to crap games (Colo and xD, Ranch). And GameFreak, the only people who seem to know how to make a Pokemon game, refuse to work on consoles.

So yeah, we're probably never going to get a decent console game (though I think a Contest game, similar to how it's done in the anime, would be GREAT on the Wii).

PS3: They fixed most of your problems with it. If you walk into a gaming store and buy a shiny (or matted actually) PS3 today, you're very likely to choose between 2 or 3 different sizes of storage space in a PS3 Slim. Although there is no backwards compatibility for PS2 games as of yet, they have had BC for PS1 games since day 1. And contrary to popular belief, Sony puts a lot of effort into the online part of the PS3. And, other than when I was using my neighbor's wi-fi which was laggy in the first place, I've experienced NO LAG online in any game other than the buffers in games like Soul Calibur IV.

Wii: Yes, I fully understand what you mean by every console ever has had a ton of shovelware. But be realistic here. How can you honestly tell me that the Wii has a normal ratio of good quality games an shovelware? Yes, the NES had a vast library of shovelware, but most of it was still enjoyable to play and hard to beat at that! Just play Rush'n Attack for 5 minutes and tell me it isn't a Contra/Ninja Gaiden shovelware clone. But it still is extremely addictive and no pushover.

I play my 360 the most. It consistently outperforms the supposedly "superior" PS3. Cross Platform games always look best on 360 when they are put next to eachother. The 360 has the best online experience and it's big sellers are a blast to play.
If I had a use for a bluray player, maybe. What you don't realize is that all 3rd party games look best on the 360. Examples? In list form, of course!

-Fallout 3: higher resolution textures, higher static object view distance, better shading

-Assassin's Creed: Higher innate contrast, better shading

-GTA IV: View distance, innate contrast

-Call of Duty 4: Higher res textures, better shading

Those are just examples. The PS3 claims to be a graphics powerhouse capable of delivering HD content that blows the 360 away, but so far it has yet to actually do that. That's because sony is insanely stupid and always makes it's architectures preposterously difficult to code efficiently for. Cell is a mess.

The only reason for the "superior" graphics on multiplatform 360 games is because the graphics are the same for both because the developers, instead of making two sets of graphics for the two consoles, make one set of graphics and then port them over to the respective systems. The PS3's then get upscaled from 720p to 1080p making the textures and such LOOK more crisp and defined on a 360 because the upscaling blurs them essentially. But on the other hand, look at FF XIII. On the 360, it needs 4 discs! And still, FOR FF XIII THE 360'S GRAPHICS AND AUDIO WILL NEED TO BE COMPRESSED ON THE 4 DISCS TO FIT. YES, COMPRESSED, WHICH WILL DISTORT THEM! The PS3, on the other hand, needs only a single Blu-Ray disc and doesn't need any compression whatsoever. And have you seen the previews for it!?

Graphics aren't everything either. The PS3 still excels in raw power. I take it you've heard of MAG? it runs at 30 f/s and is only 720p. But that's to compensate for 256 players at once. And to anyone who says that they don't ever leave 256 player in the same area, think again. Last night, I was in a match of Domination of SVER (my team) defending against Raven and we had two crafty Officers in Charge. They ordered both factions to attack the same area and IT...WAS...AWESOME!!!!! (

)
Honestly, none of them really agree with me. The Wii focuses on multiplayer too much. As a huge fan of RPGs, you can see why this is a turn off. The XBox360. RPG fans usually don't like online first person shooters and 11 year old kids yelling rasist profanities at them. PS3. It can play movies and what not, but it's game libary in the RPG department is seriously lacking. Hell, it's lacking in ALL game departments.

I'd rather stick to my SNES because of great games like Final Fantasy VI. If Final Fantasy XIII's battle system isn't as Fu€k up as it looks like in the trailers, I suppose it would have to be the PS3. Until I play it, however, I stand nuetral. ~STBE

They are getting a lot of RPG's online in the Playstation Store...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I know there are plenty of RPGs in the PS one Classics section. But I already own the great RPGs for my PS1. Final Fantasies 7, 8, 9, Legend of Dragoon, etc. What I'm saying is that it lacks in the PS3 RPG department. ~STBE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS3: They fixed most of your problems with it. If you walk into a gaming store and buy a shiny (or matted actually) PS3 today, you're very likely to choose between 2 or 3 different sizes of storage space in a PS3 Slim. Although there is no backwards compatibility for PS2 games as of yet, they have had BC for PS1 games since day 1. And contrary to popular belief, Sony puts a lot of effort into the online part of the PS3. And, other than when I was using my neighbor's wi-fi which was laggy in the first place, I've experienced NO LAG online in any game other than the buffers in games like Soul Calibur IV.

You do know I made that post like, over a year ago, right?

At the time, they had re-vamped the PS3 to have no backwards capability.

Maybe it's just me, but if you need to re-vamp and re-release the console several times over the course of 1-2 years, maybe they could've held off on the release date.

Wii: Yes, I fully understand what you mean by every console ever has had a ton of shovelware. But be realistic here. How can you honestly tell me that the Wii has a normal ratio of good quality games an shovelware?

Because good is subjective. I can't define what's good for you because I don't know. What I can say, though, is that shovelware games for video game consoles have been coming out for decades. And for some reason, the Internet erupts in a rage over the Wii's, but don't dare criticize the shovelware on the SNES, NES, Sega Master, Sega Genesis, PS1, PS2, or the 360 or PSP, etc...

And moreso, very few, if any one, is going to like anything even close to the majority of games released on any one console.

Does this make a system bad? No. It just means you only like X amount of games.

I love the 64. But I only own like 6 N64 games. It is not a bad system just because I only own 6 out of hundreds or thousands.

Yes, the NES had a vast library of shovelware, but most of it was still enjoyable to play and hard to beat at that!

Shovelware isn't , by definition, a "bad game". It's usually defined as a game that's thinly veiled as an advertisement for some franchise. Many movie-based games fall into this category, as well as Barbie games and stuff like that. These are not the same as a bad game, like, I don't know, Superman 64 was.

And as for games being "hard to beat", there's a difference between challenging and frustrating. Maximum Carnage was frustrating. Zelda games though are usually considered challenging, but enjoyable, not frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know I made that post like, over a year ago, right?

At the time, they had re-vamped the PS3 to have no backwards capability.

Maybe it's just me, but if you need to re-vamp and re-release the console several times over the course of 1-2 years, maybe they could've held off on the release date.

(I was fully aware of that...)

It was not an issue of holding off on the release date, it was a matter of cutting costs to increase the low sales numbers. I am sure you are fully aware of the PS3's debut price of $600. Because it was that high, not many bought it because it was so expensive. I know I wanted it but didn't have $600 burning a hole in my pocket...

And in my opinion, it was a good buisiness decision,

Because good is subjective. I can't define what's good for you because I don't know. What I can say, though, is that shovelware games for video game consoles have been coming out for decades. And for some reason, the Internet erupts in a rage over the Wii's, but don't dare criticize the shovelware on the SNES, NES, Sega Master, Sega Genesis, PS1, PS2, or the 360 or PSP, etc...

Many don't criticize it on old systems because:

1. old shovelware is not current, and thus not on the minds of most (it's water under the bridge)

2. Nintendo had more higher rated games on their systems (as did Sony, SEGA, and Microsoft)

However, they do criticize the Wii because they are not many good games on it. Do not say good is subjective, I know perfectly well. But when I say good, you understand what I mean. A game that is not glitchy, frustrating, or a waste of money. An example of a current good game is Super Mario Galaxy. How many other Wii games do you know of that stand up to that quality?...

And moreso, very few, if any one, is going to like anything even close to the majority of games released on any one console.

Does this make a system bad? No. It just means you only like X amount of games.

I love the 64. But I only own like 6 N64 games. It is not a bad system just because I only own 6 out of hundreds or thousands.

According to this backup of the official US N64 game listing released by Nintendo before they released it, there was only 292 Nintendo 64 games in the US.(Yes, I counted them.) Even the NES only had 794 licensed games according to Wikipedia. (There is one numbered link to the right of every game listed. Scroll to the bottom and see the last number is 794.) Please don't exaggerate the numbers to try to prove a point.

And just because you own 6 doesn't mean that there aren't more that are are good quality games...

Shovelware isn't , by definition, a "bad game". It's usually defined as a game that's thinly veiled as an advertisement for some franchise. Many movie-based games fall into this category, as well as Barbie games and stuff like that. These are not the same as a bad game, like, I don't know, Superman 64 was.

This is the definiton of shovelware according to urbandictionary.com:

"1. shovelware

1. Software that is hastily made, without proper testing, and 'shoveled' down consumers throats in order to make some quick cash.

2. Software that is preloaded onto a computer, that does nothing but slow down performance and does nothing beneficial, but is added in order to increase price or add appeal into purchasing a computer.

1. Battlefield 2: Special Forces Expansion Pack is a recent example of shovelware; it causes CTD's, system failures, massive performance decreases, and addresses NONE of the original game problems.

2. Frank bought a computer just because it had a lot shovelware preloaded onto it, and now it takes 45 minutes to start up."

(The parts in italics are the usages...)

Take note of the first definition in particular. That sounds like a bad game to me... (It isn't just limited to Barbie and movies, Superman 64 is included as well...)

And as for games being "hard to beat", there's a difference between challenging and frustrating. Maximum Carnage was frustrating. Zelda games though are usually considered challenging, but enjoyable, not frustrating.

Although as closely knit the two are, I do see your point. But even the "challenging" games can be "frustrating" if you get stuck. Especially if you believe that you have systematically exhausted all of your options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I was fully aware of that...)

It was not an issue of holding off on the release date, it was a matter of cutting costs to increase the low sales numbers. I am sure you are fully aware of the PS3's debut price of $600. Because it was that high, not many bought it because it was so expensive. I know I wanted it but didn't have $600 burning a hole in my pocket...

And in my opinion, it was a good buisiness decision,

Good right now. No reason they couldn't have done it a year or two ago.

Many don't criticize it on old systems because:

1. old shovelware is not current, and thus not on the minds of most (it's water under the bridge)

But for anyone who has ever played those systems, it's relevant to keep in mind, especially if one considers these old systems their favorites. It's a double standard if someone loved the N64 or SNES and ignored the shovelware but criticize a future system for having too much. Shovelware, in my opinion, does not indicate quality of a system because there's usually little to nothing the game console manufactutrer can do about it. But if you're going to praise one despite shovelware, you shouldn't detract from other consoles BECAUSE of it.

However, they do criticize the Wii because they are not many good games on it. Do not say good is subjective,

But it is subjective.

A game that is not glitchy, frustrating, or a waste of money.

Glitchy is somewhat definable and objective. Frustrating or "waste of money" is very, very subjective. To the average Wii owner, Pokemon Battle Revolution would be a "waste of money." But to someone with 4th gen core Pokemon games on the DS, it gives them easy access to certain items, some exclusive bonus Pokemon, and a world wide 3d environment to compete in from players around the world.

According to this backup of the official US N64 game listing released by Nintendo before they released it, there was only 292 Nintendo 64 games in the US.(Yes, I counted them.) Even the NES only had 794 licensed games according to Wikipedia. (There is one numbered link to the right of every game listed. Scroll to the bottom and see the last number is 794.) Please don't exaggerate the numbers to try to prove a point.

And just because you own 6 doesn't mean that there aren't more that are are good quality games...

You completely missed my point. Hundreds or thousands or a million or a zillion, it doesn't matter how many games are released on a console for the sake of this argument. Using a number I guessed at proved my point just as well. That no one is going to like much, if not most, hundreds (or thousands or millions or zillions) of games released on a console.

I don't know what video games you play, but I stick to ones that I like. And I don't play the ones I don't like. I don't see why people rate a console lower just because there's a bunch of other games out that don't appeal to them. Because that's likely true for every console.

This is the definiton of shovelware according to urbandictionary.com:

"1. shovelware

lol urbandictionary is not an actual dictionary.

Again shovelware is not just a bad game or waste of money or whatever. Bad is extremely subjective and just because I don't like a game doesn't make it a game of poor quality. Games that are rushed through development or hastily ported mostly to cash in and promote a franchise quickly. These are very objective terms of measurement and still allow a game to be favored or not in an individual's eyes and still have a factual definition of shovelware. These are usually, as I mentioned earlier, games tied in to some type of franchise such as games based on a movie.

A clone of a game can still be a good game to someone, no matter how much you don't like it. So hence, saying clone/shovelware as if they're interchangeable is misrepresenting both words.

Also, ironically, Rushn Attack came out BEFORE Ninja Gaiden. 1985 vs 1988. If anything, Gaiden is the clone, not Rusn'n Attack.

You yourself said every console has a ton of shoveware on it. Then you said how could I think the Wii has a similar amount of shovelware on ti as others. Simple. You said it yourself. Every console has "a ton" on it.

Although as closely knit the two are, I do see your point. But even the "challenging" games can be "frustrating" if you get stuck. Especially if you believe that you have systematically exhausted all of your options.

Maybe to someone with patience like me. But when games are marketed to a younger audience, I know I wouldn't have put up with the bullshit that was Dobbleganger in Maximum Carnage when I was young(er).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wii... Some decent games there. Does not look too bad on a Component input. Gamecube backward compatibility. You do get a little exercise playing the games (some of them).

360... For racing games I prefer the controller. Some decent titles available. Very good online service (though you pay for it). Chat to others regardless of game you are playing. The new motion capture device looks too expensive for the average gamer. Not sure how it would be with some games.

PS3... Mine is backard compatible. Decent games (again) though let down by the complications of developing games for it which can result in slightly inferior graphics. Put triggers on my controllers which improves them a lot. Use mine as a browser, though it does have a tendency to freeze. Playstation Plus seems a good deal but I can play online without it so I will save my money. Playstation move... controllers are more expensive than the standard one. Not sure how good it will actually be. Probably closer to the Wii than the 360 system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...