<<
<< So are you going to pay $300 for hype, and a handful of games LATER? Or $200 for pure gameplay joy, and a handful of games NOW?
Like the ancient Atari Jaguar, which relied on hype like PS2, and monetary backing (IBM, Atari) like Microsoft, but fscked up in gameplay:
DO THE MATH. 
>>
Do you play games or just read other people's opinion? I ask, because you've now bashed the XBOX for not having any games worth playing while you've never played a single one.
And your reason for hardware not to be a deciding factor is flawed, too. Sure, if you want to play the same games over and over, then sure, hardware doesn't matter. But, if you actually want to advance along with the gaming community, then you will see that hardware does affect things. If I buy an XBOX because it has an ethernet port built in then I'm g@y?
I think you need to realise that gaming isn't limited to a machine and a controller anymore. Now, you have the internet which opens up a whole new world in gaming. Why in the hell would you buy a new console if you're not interested in the latest and/or greatest?
And if the unit also doubles as a DVD player so I can move my current one to the bedroom, why wouldn't that be a selling point to me? Here's a new car, but there's no radio. There are plenty of radio manufacturers so you'd be better off buying the latest Harmon receiver. You are buying this car to transport your body, not listen to music.
Practice what you preach. >>
1. Where did XBox get bashed for lack of games worth playing? In fact, I made not one reference to a single game title/character, except for Mario, Sonic and Crash Bandicoot, who ironically is a PSX/Sony staple.
2. I never said advancement wasn't good. I said the following:
***Aesthetics are part of the gaming experience too. But if they overshadow the game (i.e. 'I won't play Street Fighter cause it's not in 3D', or 'WTF? Zelda looks like a cartoon!'), you are G@Y. Games are to be played FIRST.***
***It's always nice to get a little more, but you don't pay for the 'little more' primarily. ***
For Joe Sixpack, that reads:
Extra stuff is cool, but they don't make the system. How could you be a gamer buying a system to watch movies *primarily*? And how could you be a gamer that will not play a good game because of a perceived "dumb concept" or "graphics that aren't great/3D"?
3. Advances in gaming are awesome! The analog controller, true force feedback, removable memory cards, larger discs, better graphics, internet gameplay, etc... Give 'em to me! However, don't try to tell me "PS2 and XBox have DVD, and GC doesn't, so GC is a waste" or "XBox has a HDD, and GC doesn't, so it's kiddy" I want to play games-all kinds of games, and on all kinds of machines; but I do want to play games. You buy the machine for the whole package-not *one* "selling point".
AS for that car example, would you buy a Mazda MP3 solely on the basis of MP3 playing? The car is for DRIVING first, isn't it? If that car was crap, handling was shot, and when hit, it folds up like the Oakland A's (cheap Yanks boosting
), would you buy it? All I said was that the primary feature of a game console, game playing, should be what comes first. I never said that the other features don't matter...
READ FIRST, JUDGE LATER.
[edit] And I have played GC, own PS2, and have played XBox games on "engineering samples" (I forget the name of what they call protoypes) when I was able to visit Acclaim Studios, a software house in Queens, NY. So neener
[/edit]
Facebook
Twitter