Which game system is the best?

EvilPurpleMonkey · Post by **EvilPurpleMonkey** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:55 am

Pfft, your just a fanboy. Nintendo Wii. It has or will have Brawl, Metroid 3, Red Steel, Twilight Princess and a bunch of other games which I can't be bothered to name. The 360 looks good too. Can't wait for Fable 2!

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:58 am

also once you have ps3, there isn't a lot left to buy unless you want it (games etc) the online is free, easy to set up and fun. (and let's face it, games are at their best online.)

i've been trying to set up xbox live on my xbox for a few months now, (although to be fair it was because we couldn't find anywhere to stick the ethernet except in the back of the p.c, we should be having another go now we have a router.)

the problem with xobox live is that it put me out of 20 quid (40 if i'd been there a few months earlkier)

rocky8179 · Post by **rocky8179** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:21 am

Hey,

What do you guys and gals think about Blockbusters decision to stock Blue Ray disks instead of HD?? HD will be available online but this is still a blow to HD and a boost for Blueray.

Sources:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/17/bloc ... -war-over/

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/06/18/b ... y-over-hd/

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:27 am

rocky8179 wrote:Hey,

What do you guys and gals think about Blockbusters decision to stock Blue Ray disks instead of HD?? HD will be available online but this is still a blow to HD and a boost for Blueray.

Sources:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/17/bloc ... -war-over/

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/06/18/b ... y-over-hd/

Coincidence that the PS3 has a built-in Blu Ray player?
I think NOT!

Face it, the PS3 is the cheapest Blu Ray player out there.

rocky8179 · Post by **rocky8179** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:45 am

Minister Masket wrote:Face it, the PS3 is the cheapest Blu Ray player out there.

Yes it does and this decision could greatly help out the PS3 in the video game market.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:03 pm

Chad22342 wrote:
AAAVforce wrote:I can see that a lot of ppl like wii. I was just wondering...are there any "M" games on wii?

I doubt it...And I doubt there ever will be...I hate Nintendo

I <3 Nintendo for the same exact reason. I don't play M games.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:04 pm

Also, N64, you can not compair with some of the great games they had on it. GCN, and Wii are also really good.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:06 pm

willis wrote:
edocsil wrote:wii is the best system they just need more good games
They are coming out with new ones soon. Super smash brawl will be a goodin, as well as super mario galaxy and others

YA, Brawl shall be AWESOME!

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:08 pm

reverend_kyle wrote:
n8freeman wrote:im, ps2 for 2 reasons only

GUITAR HERO!!!

and its way cheaper than 360

after that, the Wii.

Why, because video game developers besides nintendo are retarded.. They don't realize that most people couldn't give a f*ck about excellent graphics and put all their money and dev into that. While nintendo put all their money and dev into making something different that is fun and fills you with a wow that is too good to be true feeling. Guitar hero is where playstation got it right, and made something totally different and way fun, and the fact that it is rolling in money and people were lined up at target 2 days ago when the encore 80's version was supposed to come out even though it was delayed a week speaks volumes. People don't want to do the same thing with better graphics. They want change, and for it to actually be fun.

kind of, I want to play the old sytle of games too, but I argee that graphics don't matter much, and that Guitar Hero is the only thing that Playstation got right.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:12 pm

Minister Masket wrote:The Wii won't last long. It's victory is short lived. Soon people will tire.

I don't argee, maybe it will, but some people will still like it, and Nintendo fanboys like me, will still play it for sure.

The PS3 has so much going for it ATM: Haze, MGS4, Ratchet and Clank 4, plus many others. The Wii has no proper good games at all. Even the 360 is quiet on the games front. This is where the PS3 will win, the sustainability.

Who are you trying to kid? The Wii, has and is going to have good games. The 360 might, but hey I don't play those games.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:14 pm

Minister Masket wrote:Face it, the PS3 is the cheapest Blu Ray player out there.

True, but that makes it good as a Blu Ray player, not a Video Game Console.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:14 pm

w00t 7th post in a row. :lol:

kalishnikov · Post by **kalishnikov** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:15 pm

The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:28 pm

kalishnikov wrote:The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

Graphic don't matter much, I'm a semi-serious gamer, and I think the Wii is better, maybe that's because of my choices in games though. It's fun for the games, that Nintendo does make for it.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

As I said graphics aren't every thing.

Blastshot · Post by **Blastshot** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:02 pm

Fircoal wrote:
kalishnikov wrote:The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

Graphic don't matter much, I'm a semi-serious gamer, and I think the Wii is better, maybe that's because of my choices in games though. It's fun for the games, that Nintendo does make for it.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

As I said graphics aren't every thing.

Sport Games:
Most of them end up being new versions of the old with a bit better controls, new teams, players ect. But sport games would die if the graphics didnt get better. Most sport gamers are die hard fans of a team, they wanna see football players pummelling each other, sweaty as hell, they wanna see Shaq(SPELLING?) dunk it ect. The graphics rule the game.I havnt seen any sport games for nintendo in a while.

RTS games:
You need detail, detail means graphics. If you cant understand your map well, well, your screwed. depending on the game the graphics need to be decent-good graphics. i havnt heard too many of these on Nintendo games.

1st person (Shooter usually)games:
Weather it be running from monsters or slicin and dicin people up, the better the graphics, the more the mayhem! If you can see every drop of blood spill from a guys chest, you wanna cut the next open and watch em bleed! Or if its Tomb Raider...graphics rock... :wink:

. For 1st person, its simply funner with graphics.

RPGs:
Graphics=Greatness, although graphics arent needed, you want to see the scratches on your sheild and sword, the blood on your armor, the shining blade as it maims someone. Great graphics are better.

All in all i like the PS3, ive played most of the series on PS2 and love the games. Nintendo games are sissy/party games, bent on silly games ect. (most anyway, but metriod will never live up to Ratchet,Jak, or the other "Classics".)

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:12 pm

Blastshot wrote:
Fircoal wrote:
kalishnikov wrote:The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

Graphic don't matter much, I'm a semi-serious gamer, and I think the Wii is better, maybe that's because of my choices in games though. It's fun for the games, that Nintendo does make for it.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

As I said graphics aren't every thing.

Sport Games:
Most of them end up being new versions of the old with a bit better controls, new teams, players ect. But sport games would die if the graphics didnt get better. Most sport gamers are die hard fans of a team, they wanna see football players pummelling each other, sweaty as hell, they wanna see Shaq(SPELLING?) dunk it ect. The graphics rule the game.I havnt seen any sport games for nintendo in a while.

RTS games:
You need detail, detail means graphics. If you cant understand your map well, well, your screwed. depending on the game the graphics need to be decent-good graphics. i havnt heard too many of these on Nintendo games.

1st person (Shooter usually)games:
Weather it be running from monsters or slicin and dicin people up, the better the graphics, the more the mayhem! If you can see every drop of blood spill from a guys chest, you wanna cut the next open and watch em bleed! Or if its Tomb Raider...graphics rock... . For 1st person, its simply funner with graphics.

RPGs:
Graphics=Greatness, although graphics arent needed, you want to see the scratches on your sheild and sword, the blood on your armor, the shining blade as it maims someone. Great graphics are better.

All in all i like the PS3, ive played most of the series on PS2 and love the games. Nintendo games are sissy/party games, bent on silly games ect. (most anyway, but metriod will never live up to Ratchet,Jak, or the other "Classics".)

I see you didn't mention Side scrollers, or Platformers, like Mario and Kirby.

Also RPGs, I would say there are more important things then graphics, but it can add some stuff to it. (Old Pokemon Graphics, vs. New :lol:

)

And what "Classics" are you talking about, there are many that Nintendo have.

Blastshot · Post by **Blastshot** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:21 pm

Fircoal wrote:
Blastshot wrote:
Fircoal wrote:
kalishnikov wrote:The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

Graphic don't matter much, I'm a semi-serious gamer, and I think the Wii is better, maybe that's because of my choices in games though. It's fun for the games, that Nintendo does make for it.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

As I said graphics aren't every thing.

Sport Games:
Most of them end up being new versions of the old with a bit better controls, new teams, players ect. But sport games would die if the graphics didnt get better. Most sport gamers are die hard fans of a team, they wanna see football players pummelling each other, sweaty as hell, they wanna see Shaq(SPELLING?) dunk it ect. The graphics rule the game.I havnt seen any sport games for nintendo in a while.

RTS games:
You need detail, detail means graphics. If you cant understand your map well, well, your screwed. depending on the game the graphics need to be decent-good graphics. i havnt heard too many of these on Nintendo games.

1st person (Shooter usually)games:
Weather it be running from monsters or slicin and dicin people up, the better the graphics, the more the mayhem! If you can see every drop of blood spill from a guys chest, you wanna cut the next open and watch em bleed! Or if its Tomb Raider...graphics rock... . For 1st person, its simply funner with graphics.

RPGs:
Graphics=Greatness, although graphics arent needed, you want to see the scratches on your sheild and sword, the blood on your armor, the shining blade as it maims someone. Great graphics are better.

All in all i like the PS3, ive played most of the series on PS2 and love the games. Nintendo games are sissy/party games, bent on silly games ect. (most anyway, but metriod will never live up to Ratchet,Jak, or the other "Classics".)

I see you didn't mention Side scrollers, or Platformers, like Mario and Kirby.

Also RPGs, I would say there are more important things then graphics, but it can add some stuff to it. (Old Pokemon Graphics, vs. New )

And what "Classics" are you talking about, there are many that Nintendo have.

Uhh...what the frick are side scrollers? By platformers you mean a character that wont die(Humor)? The only platformers ive ever played is super mario on my super nintendo when i was 3, and that one brawling game for the gamecube so i didnt feel i could do that and be accurite, because i left out driving games as well because ive never played a game just for drivin if it aint at walmart or sumtin. Closest ive got there is Liberty city, or i played driver2 and the italian job for Ps1 but that was a while back.
RPGs, yeah there are more important things than graphics, but graphics are needed. I dont understand what you mean by "but it can add some stuff to it. (Old Pokemon Graphics, vs. New :lol:

)" could you rephrase that?
And by classics i was just meaning the Classic PS games (Well, they are considered classsics round here anyway) Like Sly Cooper,Jak,Ratchet and Clank. The series unique to the Playstations.

EDIT----
Ive played several Zelda games, but they were the Zelda for Super Nintendo and Zelda: Ocarnia of time remake for the Gamecube

Fircoal · Post by **Fircoal** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:28 pm

Blastshot wrote:
Fircoal wrote:
Blastshot wrote:
Fircoal wrote:
kalishnikov wrote:The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

Graphic don't matter much, I'm a semi-serious gamer, and I think the Wii is better, maybe that's because of my choices in games though. It's fun for the games, that Nintendo does make for it.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

As I said graphics aren't every thing.

Sport Games:
Most of them end up being new versions of the old with a bit better controls, new teams, players ect. But sport games would die if the graphics didnt get better. Most sport gamers are die hard fans of a team, they wanna see football players pummelling each other, sweaty as hell, they wanna see Shaq(SPELLING?) dunk it ect. The graphics rule the game.I havnt seen any sport games for nintendo in a while.

RTS games:
You need detail, detail means graphics. If you cant understand your map well, well, your screwed. depending on the game the graphics need to be decent-good graphics. i havnt heard too many of these on Nintendo games.

1st person (Shooter usually)games:
Weather it be running from monsters or slicin and dicin people up, the better the graphics, the more the mayhem! If you can see every drop of blood spill from a guys chest, you wanna cut the next open and watch em bleed! Or if its Tomb Raider...graphics rock... . For 1st person, its simply funner with graphics.

RPGs:
Graphics=Greatness, although graphics arent needed, you want to see the scratches on your sheild and sword, the blood on your armor, the shining blade as it maims someone. Great graphics are better.

All in all i like the PS3, ive played most of the series on PS2 and love the games. Nintendo games are sissy/party games, bent on silly games ect. (most anyway, but metriod will never live up to Ratchet,Jak, or the other "Classics".)

I see you didn't mention Side scrollers, or Platformers, like Mario and Kirby.

Also RPGs, I would say there are more important things then graphics, but it can add some stuff to it. (Old Pokemon Graphics, vs. New )

And what "Classics" are you talking about, there are many that Nintendo have.

Uhh...what the frick are side scrollers? By platformers you mean a character that wont die(Humor)? The only platformers ive ever played is super mario on my super nintendo when i was 3, and that one brawling game for the gamecube so i didnt feel i could do that and be accurite, because i left out driving games as well because ive never played a game just for drivin if it aint at walmart or sumtin. Closest ive got there is Liberty city, or i played driver2 and the italian job for Ps1 but that was a while back.
RPGs, yeah there are more important things than graphics, but graphics are needed. I dont understand what you mean by "but it can add some stuff to it. (Old Pokemon Graphics, vs. New )" could you rephrase that?
And by classics i was just meaning the Classic PS games (Well, they are considered classsics round here anyway) Like Sly Cooper,Jak,Ratchet and Clank. The series unique to the Playstations.

EDIT----
Ive played several Zelda games, but they were the Zelda for Super Nintendo and Zelda: Ocarnia of time remake for the Gamecube

1) Yes, that's what Side-scrollers are. Where you try to get to the other side of the screen.

I mean it can make it a bit better. And I'm saying that it can change the game a bit. Compair graphics of the first, and later ones.

Aries · Post by **Aries** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:32 pm

I love the Wii, it's a great system

I would like at some time to try PS3 though, cuz I had PS2 and 1 before the Wii. I've never had an XBox though

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:41 pm

The Wii is a great system if your just looking for random fun, like bowling and golf or perhaps the new Zelda game but for a serious gamer it's just not up to par. Graphically and statistically it's only slightly better then the Gamecube. Nintendo isn't even trying to compete with the other's as far as processor and graphics go, they're sticking to the fun factor to be it's selling point, and you can't beat it for the price.

My brother's got a 360, I've got a PS 3, and my girlfriend has a Wii, after playing all 3 regularly for a few months I've gotta say the PS 3 is top of the line with 360 in a very close second. The only reason the 360 comes in second is because the PS 3 had an additional year and a half of development and technology into it. I've played both on my HD tv with a HDMI cable and I can safely say that the graphics (texture, smoothing, frame rate, etc.) is better on the Playstation as well as loading times and overall reliability.

The Cell Processor is the way of the future as far as gaming is concerned.

At the risk of entering war of the fanboys... here we go.

Ok, firstly the thing about serious gamers. I'm a pretty serious gamer, I play games obsessively to the end (finishing the hardest difficulty, unlocking all the secrets), we're talking I have to get all 290 trophies in SSBM, type obsessive. I've played some decent ladder play in online games too, mostly strategy games, I never had the connection to compete in FPS or anything similar. My score on CC could be further evidence that I take playing games a little (too) seriously.

Anyway the point that the wii is not for serious gamers is bull. Games like Twilight Princess and others mentioned are serious gamer games. Also Nights: Journey of Dreams, if it hasn't been mentioned already should be enough to convince most gamers to buy the console.

I guess the problem is defining what a serious game is. To me a serious game is just a really good game. Something like Smash Bros is a serious game, because it's fun, it's got great depth and is well balanced. So what if the characters are cartoon-y, it's the game play that matters.

To others a serious game has to be "mature" and "serious" in a more conventional sense, i.e. the theme of the game should be such. Though it should be noted that in general if you're caught in by that sort of thinking you're probably not really a "serious gamer", but rather a gamer who likes to be thought of as a serious person.

I will concede that the Wii has attracted a lot of casual gamers, indeed Miyamoto's keynote speech in accepting his lifetime achievement award at the GDC emphasized the idea of appealing to a larger audience, referencing his efforts to make a gamer out of his wife. However this is exactly the sort of position the original playstation went after with mainstream marketing and games like tombraider. Does that mean the playstation was not a serious gamers console?

Blastshot wrote:
Sport Games:
Most of them end up being new versions of the old with a bit better controls, new teams, players ect. But sport games would die if the graphics didnt get better. Most sport gamers are die hard fans of a team, they wanna see football players pummelling each other, sweaty as hell, they wanna see Shaq(SPELLING?) dunk it ect. The graphics rule the game.I havnt seen any sport games for nintendo in a while.

RTS games:
You need detail, detail means graphics. If you cant understand your map well, well, your screwed. depending on the game the graphics need to be decent-good graphics. i havnt heard too many of these on Nintendo games.

1st person (Shooter usually)games:
Weather it be running from monsters or slicin and dicin people up, the better the graphics, the more the mayhem! If you can see every drop of blood spill from a guys chest, you wanna cut the next open and watch em bleed! Or if its Tomb Raider...graphics rock... . For 1st person, its simply funner with graphics.

RPGs:
Graphics=Greatness, although graphics arent needed, you want to see the scratches on your sheild and sword, the blood on your armor, the shining blade as it maims someone. Great graphics are better.

All in all i like the PS3, ive played most of the series on PS2 and love the games. Nintendo games are sissy/party games, bent on silly games ect. (most anyway, but metriod will never live up to Ratchet,Jak, or the other "Classics".)

Yeah, graphics are nice, obviously better graphics are better than worse graphics, nobody gonna say they're not.

But games have reached the point where there's not too much difference between good graphics and excellent graphics. I mean for all intents and purposes did you need any more realistic graphics than what you see in something like Twilight Princess or Resi 4? Sure it's nice, but it doesn't make that much difference to the overall game.

What really matters is gameplay, whether it be immediately available fun for the casual gamer and/or greater depth for the more "serious" gamer.

Also I think you've a slightly skewed view of what are considered classic games... I mean if you look at any games media top lists, of 100 best games ever or some such, you're unlikely to find Jak or Ratchet or any of those folk there.

Shadowstar · Post by **Shadowstar** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:21 pm

Wii not for hard-core? Wii games can't compare?

I've never played the PS3 or the 360, actually I HAVE played them (but for only a few seconds at stores).

What I'm saying is, there are 3 Wii games coming out this year ALONE that many a gamer are wanting:

Metroid Prime 3 - Expecting the title of the greatest FPS on a console.

Super Mario Galaxy - Originally supposed to be easy, Miamoto told the designers to make it hard. Seriously, look up videos of the game, and tell me whether or not you want it.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Nuff said.

As well as several other titles.

One thing that Xbox has going for it would be it's online capabillities. Nintendo kinda sucks at good online. But PS3? $600 on graphics alone? I think Sony may have screwed up on that part. Sure, graphics, although they don't make a game, are good, but $600? That's a rip-off...

Hitman079 · Post by **Hitman079** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:59 pm

Shadowstar wrote:Wii not for hard-core? Wii games can't compare?

I've never played the PS3 or the 360, actually I HAVE played them (but for only a few seconds at stores).

What I'm saying is, there are 3 Wii games coming out this year ALONE that many a gamer are wanting:

Metroid Prime 3 - Expecting the title of the greatest FPS on a console.

Super Mario Galaxy - Originally supposed to be easy, Miamoto told the designers to make it hard. Seriously, look up videos of the game, and tell me whether or not you want it.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Nuff said.

As well as several other titles.

One thing that Xbox has going for it would be it's online capabillities. Nintendo kinda sucks at good online. But PS3? $600 on graphics alone? I think Sony may have screwed up on that part. Sure, graphics, although they don't make a game, are good, but $600? That's a rip-off...

ok, i'll give you super smash brothers brawl..but Metroid being the greatest FPS for console? no f'in way. there's Halo and Call of Duty, that take the cake as the best FPS's ever made. i have never liked the mario games, and i think making new ones in 3D and whatnot is like making PacMan in 3D.

Shadowstar · Post by **Shadowstar** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:24 pm

Hitman079 wrote:
Shadowstar wrote:Wii not for hard-core? Wii games can't compare?

I've never played the PS3 or the 360, actually I HAVE played them (but for only a few seconds at stores).

What I'm saying is, there are 3 Wii games coming out this year ALONE that many a gamer are wanting:

Metroid Prime 3 - Expecting the title of the greatest FPS on a console.

Super Mario Galaxy - Originally supposed to be easy, Miamoto told the designers to make it hard. Seriously, look up videos of the game, and tell me whether or not you want it.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Nuff said.

As well as several other titles.

One thing that Xbox has going for it would be it's online capabillities. Nintendo kinda sucks at good online. But PS3? $600 on graphics alone? I think Sony may have screwed up on that part. Sure, graphics, although they don't make a game, are good, but $600? That's a rip-off...

ok, i'll give you super smash brothers brawl..but Metroid being the greatest FPS for console? no f'in way. there's Halo and Call of Duty, that take the cake as the best FPS's ever made. i have never liked the mario games, and i think making new ones in 3D and whatnot is like making PacMan in 3D.

Really, best console FPS, at least regarding controls. But that's just a prediction, we'll see when it comes out.

As for Mario, it's not like Pacman in 3d. Super Mario Bros (considered by some as the greatest game of all time, as it brought video games back from the dark ages) was the first smooth side-scrolling platformer, and Super Mario 64 was the first 3d platformer, the first 3d console game, and has been widely regarded as one of the greatest games of all time (Halo also being one of them, but that's beside the point). Galaxy is expected to the true sequal to Super Mario 64 after Sunshine's failure.

The games that are out for Wii right now I'm not so interested in. But it just came out, give it time. Same goes for PS3, but it's very expensive to work on such a system.

pancakemix · Post by **pancakemix** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:40 pm

n8freeman wrote:im, ps2 for 2 reasons only

GUITAR HERO!!!

and its way cheaper than 360

Guitar Hero is being released for all systems this time. Also, my view of the PS2 is a little unsatisfactory, as I got screwed over with a crappy lens for reading the discs.

Hitman079 wrote:ok, i'll give you super smash brothers brawl..but Metroid being the greatest FPS for console? no f'in way. there's Halo and Call of Duty, that take the cake as the best FPS's ever made. i have never liked the mario games, and i think making new ones in 3D and whatnot is like making PacMan in 3D.

Halo's overrated. Fun, but overrated. If everyone hates Halo 3 I'll be laughing my head off. I always confuse Call of Duty with Medal of Honor, I can't tell the difference. I played one of them, it sucked. How about Gears of War? It's much better than both of those.

Your comparison of Mario to Pac-man is laughable. Pac-man is an arcade game, Mario is an adventure game. That's 2 different genres. At least try to make an accurate comparison next time.

IMO, the Wii s the best. I haven't been around here lately, and that's because I'm addicted to the Virtual Console. I'm anxiously awaiting Monday at noon when I can download the new releases. Sick, I know, but classic games are my thing.

Hitman079 · Post by **Hitman079** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:02 am

yeah, but i don't like mario because i'm just not into games like that..adventure..it's too hard for me anyways. i like halo only, and the rest suck..halo 2 absolutely ruined the weapons, and i've always hated the xbox controller. as for CoD and MoH, call of duty is much better in my opinion. i've only played the original call of duty, but i've played medal of honor: rising sun and frontline. Frontline was pretty good, but the terrible AI and unbalanced game in your favor (health packs decorate the map) in rising sun ruined it for me. basically this is the easiest way to distinguish- in MoH you have no allies, but you yourself can take 20 hits or more..in CoD you can only take a few and then the health packs come in handy.

Which game system is the best?

Which game system is the best?

Blockbuster

Re: Blockbuster

Re: Blockbuster

Re: Blockbuster