My 2 Cents

[Busyman™]

The Wii is an excellent party game system and I'd recommend if you have company over often.

It is great from young and old. The included Wii Sports is absolutely great.

It has built in Wifi so as long as there is an open access point, it is on the internet.

The 360 is great for the hardcore gamer. It has great games RIGHT NOW and has the best online of all the systems.

On Xbox Live you can see whatever anyone on your friend's list is doing, you can then chat, they can join in a game (like GOW), you get game demos automatically, and extra content for games you already own.

Right now the PS3's online plan looks shit and I don't see anyone being better than Xbox Live. With what you get for Live, it is well worth the $50 a year.

That's less than $5 a month.

[maebach]

thanks for the summary, I was gonn make a thread on that soon anyways.

[Busyman™]

Also in terms of best value on paper, the PS3 wins hands down.

Sony PS3 - $600

Blu-Ray Disc player
60 GB HD
wireless controller
Bluetooth
HDMI connector
CompactFlash, SD, and Memory Stick Duo slots

Xbox 360 Premium - $400

headset
20 GB HD
wireless controller
3 USB ports


The PS3 has

40 GB more HD pace
Has a multitude of card slots
Bluetooth
A HDMI connector
1 more USB port

Now if you spend $200 for a 360 HD-DVD player, you are now at the cost of a PS3 and without the things above.

The 360 does come with a headset
The HD-DVD player can work with a computer instead of a 360
Has the best online
Has the most next-gen games (many are quite good too)

Both systems have their backwards compatibility flubs.
The PS3 won't work with about 200 older games.
The 360 works with games that are made compatible (which really can be all of them).


Btw, Resistance: Fall Of Man is quite good. I wouldn't put it up there with GOW but it is good. It's not as pretty as GOW either.

[GepperRankins]

Also in terms of best value on paper, the PS3 wins hands down.

Sony PS3 - $600

Blu-Ray Disc player
60 GB HD
wireless controller
Bluetooth
HDMI connector
CompactFlash, SD, and Memory Stick Duo slots

Xbox 360 Premium - $400

headset
20 GB HD
wireless controller
3 USB ports


The PS3 has

40 GB more HD pace
Has a multitude of card slots
Bluetooth
A HDMI connector
1 more USB port

Now if you spend $200 for a 360 HD-DVD player, you are now at the cost of a PS3 and without the things above.

The 360 does come with a headset
The HD-DVD player can work with a computer instead of a 360
Has the best online
Has the most next-gen games (many are quite good too)

Both systems have their backwards compatibility flubs.
The PS3 won't work with about 200 older games.
The 360 works with games that are made compatible (which really can be all of them).


Btw, Resistance: Fall Of Man is quite good. I wouldn't put it up there with GOW but it is good. It's not as pretty as GOW either.
i'd say you get less for your money on a ps3. you can put bluetooth and half a dozen memory card slots on your PC $40.

HDMI and blu-ray are potentially unnecessary.


so if we're not talking about games. 40 gig more HDD is the only solid advantage the ps3 has

[Hairbautt]

This actually clears a few things up for me, thanks. But arn't PS3 games still in development for the most part.

It's hard keeping up with these console wars.

[Busyman™]

This actually clears a few things up for me, thanks. But arn't PS3 games still in development for the most part.

It's hard keeping up with these console wars.

Any game that it isn't ready to come out is basically in development.:huh:

Funny enough I like the 360 better than them (consoles) all so far.

GOW is great and Xbox Live is killer.

Now I wish some genious would come out with a wireless mouse and keyboard for the 360 (not unless any USB peripheral would do).

[Jon L. Obscene]

so if we're not talking about games. 40 gig more HDD is the only solid advantage the ps3 has

But the ps3 is a "Games" system, so we are talking games and the graphics alone in a ps3 would cost you more than twice a ps3 price and a blue ray drive is currently $600 US.

I seriously do want the PS3 , having read the specs that really count it beats the 360 hands down, for example it doesn't share the ram between cpu and gpu like the 360 does.

I do like the 360, it's a good system but I'm a little dissapointed at the false advertising Mr. Gates used, we got the 20gb bundle, it actually has a 14gb drive in it, thats quite a chunk to lose, plus to bring it anywhere near the quality of the ps3 with reguards to drives etc it will add 50% of the purchase price to the 360 at present.

Over all it's a good system, I like the use profile idea, no more accidently writing over save games and stuff.

I will make a proper comparison when I do get the ps3, might be a while though lol

Jonno :cool:

Edit: btw BM.... you have waaaaaaaayyyy too much money lol

[Busyman™]

so if we're not talking about games. 40 gig more HDD is the only solid advantage the ps3 has

But the ps3 is a "Games" system, so we are talking games and the graphics alone in a ps3 would cost you more than twice a ps3 price and a blue ray drive is currently $600 US.

Wha?:blink:

I seriously do want the PS3 , having read the specs that really count it beats the 360 hands down, for example it doesn't share the ram between cpu and gpu like the 360 does.

Specs are shit without a developer taking advantage of it.

I do like the 360, it's a good system but I'm a little dissapointed at the false advertising Mr. Gates used, we got the 20gb bundle, it actually has a 14gb drive in it, thats quite a chunk to lose, plus to bring it anywhere near the quality of the ps3 with reguards to drives etc it will add 50% of the purchase price to the 360 at present.

It's a 20 GB drive with 13 GB that are user accessible.

Over all it's a good system, I like the use profile idea, no more accidently writing over save games and stuff.

I will make a proper comparison when I do get the ps3, might be a while though lol

Jonno :cool:

Edit: btw BM.... you have waaaaaaaayyyy too much money lol

Why do you say that?:huh: I actually am a miser and buy only if proper research is done.:snooty:

[Jon L. Obscene]

lol I was kidding in a jealous way cos you got all 3 <_<

Jonno :cool:

Edit:

Specs are shit without a developer taking advantage of it

This is true, but it's taken xbox game developers a year to come up with GOW has it not?
And how would you compare one of xbox's launch titles say.... Call Of Duty 2 (one of my favourites on PC) vs PS3's Resistance?
From what I've seen Resistance looks far better and has upgraded controls and gameplay yet this is a launch title with PS3 so imagine what they can do in a years time. And seriously, no one can dispute that previous PS games have set so many benchmarks in the gaming world for graphics, controls, gameplay, longevity, AI etc etc.
Also the 360 at present and for the forseeable future only has dual layer dvd to work with, give EA, Rockstar, Eidos etc a while to get to grips with it and I can see games on the PS3 being of such magnitude to the likes we and Xbox have never imagined.
For instance, the size of game of GTA or Final Fantasy on an 8.5gb disc. Then think about them on a 50gb disc.
Personally I think the PS3 is the first true Next-Gen gaming system and the 360 and wii are simply upgrades of old technology and thinking.

Like I said, I do like the 360 but in a years time I think the PS3 will bury it.

[NikkiD]

From the furious typing going on in the other room, I'm guessing he's working on a longer reply.

[j2k4]

From the furious typing going on in the other room, I'm guessing he's working on a longer reply.

Jonno types "furiously"? :huh:

[Busyman™]

lol I was kidding in a jealous way cos you got all 3 <_<

I don't have a PS3.

Jonno :cool:

Edit:

Specs are shit without a developer taking advantage of it

This is true, but it's taken xbox game developers a year to come up with GOW has it not?
And how would you compare one of xbox's launch titles say.... Call Of Duty 2 (one of my favourites on PC) vs PS3's Resistance?
From what I've seen Resistance looks far better and has upgraded controls and gameplay yet this is a launch title with PS3 so imagine what they can do in a years time. And seriously, no one can dispute that previous PS games have set so many benchmarks in the gaming world for graphics, controls, gameplay, longevity, AI etc etc.
Also the 360 at present and for the forseeable future only has dual layer dvd to work with, give EA, Rockstar, Eidos etc a while to get to grips with it and I can see games on the PS3 being of such magnitude to the likes we and Xbox have never imagined.
For instance, the size of game of GTA or Final Fantasy on an 8.5gb disc. Then think about them on a 50gb disc.
Personally I think the PS3 is the first true Next-Gen gaming system and the 360 and wii are simply upgrades of old technology and thinking.

Like I said, I do like the 360 but in a years time I think the PS3 will bury it.

1. The 360 is clearly next-gen.
2. The Wii clearly is not.
3. The PS3 will possibly bury the 360 for reasons unrelated to be being a next-gen gaming console.
It's backwards compatible.
It has a next-gen movie player built-in.

The games don't even have to be better the 360 games and it'd win out. Also Sony has great exclusives.

Tbh, I don't see PS3 games outshining 360 games by any stretch.

A good benchmark is to see how multi-platform games turn out on both systems.

Last go round the Xbox clearly won that.

Also I heard Resistance is 17 GB. I doubt we'll see many games on the dual layer discs.

The biggest mistake M$ made was not incorporate HD-DVD into the console. This wasn't entirely M$'s fault though.

[Mr. Peabody]

Actually the main reason Sony went with the Blue-ray drive was
it's a major backer of Blue-ray dvd movies.
What better way to insure sales by incorperating it in thier next product.
If storage is in question what's to stop Xbox360 from bringing games on a multiple disc format if not already,it's been done with the Final Fantasy series on Ps1.

I'm not a big console player now adays,not since Ps1.
Had a Ps2 for little more then a year before it crapped out,since then I've been a strictly Pc gamer and never looked back.

[Jon L. Obscene]

1. The 360 is clearly next-gen.

Not really, they have simply upgraded graphics and sound and cpu, everything else is pretty much the same. The only thing "Next-Gen" about it is the personalisation of profiles etc.


2. The Wii clearly is not.

Not gonna argue there.


3. The PS3 will possibly bury the 360 for reasons unrelated to be being a next-gen gaming console.
It's backwards compatible.

The 360 is backwards compatible too.


It has a next-gen movie player built-in.

True. Although I personally think the PS3 will win through with it's games and not simply the movie player.


The games don't even have to be better the 360 games and it'd win out. Also Sony has great exclusives.

I did say that.


Tbh, I don't see PS3 games outshining 360 games by any stretch.

Using media capable of utilizing over 5 times the size? you don't see that? really?


A good benchmark is to see how multi-platform games turn out on both systems.

Benchmark is first, setting a standard. And the 360s best to date is GOW correct? 10 hours of gameplay in a relativly easy game, yes like I said elsewhere it's a good game but far from great IMHO, look 1 year hence with the PS3 and THEN we'll see who sets real benchmarks.


Last go round the Xbox clearly won that.

Wasn't the Xbox released around a year after the PS2? so it should have done although it didn't, yet the PS3 has already caused more of a stir than the 360 did and the PS2 outsold the Xbox 2-1 in canada (although I cannot find a link I do remember reading that as does Nik). and in may PS2 was still outselling the Xbox 360 in the U.S.


Also I heard Resistance is 17 GB. I doubt we'll see many games on the dual layer discs.

Why?
And resistance is a "Launch" title.


The biggest mistake M$ made was not incorporate HD-DVD into the console. This wasn't entirely M$'s fault though.

True. That and simply being Microsoft lol

@Mr. Peabody....
If storage is in question what's to stop Xbox360 from bringing games on a multiple disc format if not already,it's been done with the Final Fantasy series on Ps1.

But by the same token whats to stop game companies bring out multiple disc games for PS3, the Xbox cannot possibly keep up using dvds. To make resistance they would need 3 discs yes?

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

Just to clarify, Nik found the link I was talking about. I was wrong :( PS2 didn't outsell xbox 2-1............it outsold it 4-1 :P lol

http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=8498&page=2

The following argument a guy has said about at least 25% of sony's figures are boosted, that still (if true) makes it 3-1.

So who won the last console war?

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Aww crap, I posted that under Nikki's account......D'oH!

NikkiD :cool:

Pps: getting wrong for posting under her name wiv bad gramar.....and speling and stuff like vat huh cor.

[Busyman™]

Not really, they have simply upgraded graphics and sound and cpu, everything else is pretty much the same. The only thing "Next-Gen" about it is the personalisation of profiles etc.

What do you think next-gen is? :lol: As long as the graphics, sound, and CPU is enough, then it's considered next-gen.


2. The Wii clearly is not.

Not gonna argue there.


3. The PS3 will possibly bury the 360 for reasons unrelated to be being a next-gen gaming console.
It's backwards compatible.

The 360 is backwards compatible too.

Agreed but what system has more games out of the box? The PS3.


It has a next-gen movie player built-in.

True. Although I personally think the PS3 will win through with it's games and not simply the movie player.

The thing that puts the PS3 over the top is the Blu-Ray player though. Many people look at the price of the players now ($800 and up), see the PS3 for $600, and consider it a bargain on that alone.


The games don't even have to be better the 360 games and it'd win out. Also Sony has great exclusives.

I did say that.

Where?


Tbh, I don't see PS3 games outshining 360 games by any stretch.

Using media capable of utilizing over 5 times the size? you don't see that? really?

I don't think it'll be utilized to the fullest. With PS2, games that utilized it's full potential didn't come out 'till in the end systems cycle. From what I read, the PS3 is even harder to program games for.


A good benchmark is to see how multi-platform games turn out on both systems.

Benchmark is first, setting a standard. And the 360s best to date is GOW correct? 10 hours of gameplay in a relativly easy game, yes like I said elsewhere it's a good game but far from great IMHO, look 1 year hence with the PS3 and THEN we'll see who sets real benchmarks.

Agreed. The only drawback to GOW is it's shortness. I beat it in 2 sittings and it was less than 10 hours.


Last go round the Xbox clearly won that.

Wasn't the Xbox released around a year after the PS2? so it should have done although it didn't, yet the PS3 has already caused more of a stir than the 360 did and the PS2 outsold the Xbox 2-1 in canada (although I cannot find a link I do remember reading that as does Nik). and in may PS2 was still outselling the Xbox 360 in the U.S.

I'm talking how good the system was and not how much it sold.

The PS2 came out before the Xbox and was backward compatible so should have sold more.

The Xbox came after so it should have had better graphics. The stir for the PS3 is about the same around as the 360. I remember people camping out for the 360 as well.


Also I heard Resistance is 17 GB. I doubt we'll see many games on the dual layer discs.

Why?
And resistance is a "Launch" title.

Again, I just don't think it'd be utilized. DVD-9 was around with PS2 and there were maybe 10 games that came out in that format. I just don't think it'll be games needing over 25 GB and if so, it'll be a handful.


The biggest mistake M$ made was not incorporate HD-DVD into the console. This wasn't entirely M$'s fault though.

True. That and simply being Microsoft lol

What does that mean?

@Mr. Peabody....
If storage is in question what's to stop Xbox360 from bringing games on a multiple disc format if not already,it's been done with the Final Fantasy series on Ps1.

But by the same token whats to stop game companies bring out multiple disc games for PS3, the Xbox cannot possibly keep up using dvds. To make resistance they would need 3 discs yes?

Jonno :cool:

Well because the games would cost a shitload. Unlike DVD, Blu-Ray is brand spanking new and costs a motherfucker. Cost in manufacturing won't go down for years.

Now let's take one of the Xbox's biggest games, Ninja Gaiden. If you made that game in HD, it wouldn't need over 25 GB let alone 75 GB (1 50 GB & 1 25 GB disc). Ninja Gaiden was 6 GB.

[true_neo]

Again, I just don't think it'd be utilized. DVD-9 was around with PS2 and there were maybe 10 games that came out in that format. I just don't think it'll be games needing over 25 GB and if so, it'll be a handful.I believe (this is my total fanboi opinion in no way backed up by anything resembling facts :P) that they simply couldn't utilise that amount of space without just filling it with FMV's with the technology present at that point.
I heard a few months ago that game developers are now looking for a new kind of technology to compress textures, which will allow say your armour to fatigue in combat (ie show signs of wear and tear), cloth items to look "darker" when it's raining, et cetera. Until that technology is discovered, however, they would need to package 10+ full-size texture files to achieve the same effect. This could quite well fill up a 50 GB disk.

I've heard various complaints about the online feature in PS3, something about browser not being good and no background download available.
Couldn't this be fixed through firmware/software updates?
Also, are the rumours about FREE online service in the PS3 true?
Either ways, I don't see myself as a big user of that feature (even if it is free), so personally it doesn't wager against the PS3.

[Jon L. Obscene]

What do you think next-gen is? :lol: As long as the graphics, sound, and CPU is enough, then it's considered next-gen.

No not really, it's not just graphics etc. I think you also have to take into account periferals, hardware the way it's built, plus the media it uses, for example the PS, Dreamcast both were Next gen with the jump to CD, the Xbox and PS2 moved to dvd.......now the Xbox 360 is STILL on dvd, it still has the removable HD etc, the PS3 uses Blue ray and multimedia card reader both have not been done before out of the box. Wireless controllers are nothing new. I've heard people say about the Red Steal controllers, realistically they are nothing more than Light guns which have been around for years.


Agreed but what system has more games out of the box? The PS3.

lol now you're arguing with me that the PS3 is better?


The thing that puts the PS3 over the top is the Blu-Ray player though. Many people look at the price of the players now ($800 and up), see the PS3 for $600, and consider it a bargain on that alone.

And look back to 2000 when the PS2 came out, how much was a DVD drive and media, especially dual layer.


I did say that.

Where?

plus to bring it anywhere near the quality of the ps3 with reguards to drives etc it will add 50% of the purchase price to the 360 at present.

Actually thought I'd been more specific than that but it's basically what I meant.


I don't think it'll be utilized to the fullest. With PS2, games that utilized it's full potential didn't come out 'till in the end systems cycle. From what I read, the PS3 is even harder to program games for.

Not true, Final Fantasy x was massive with supurb graphics and sound and came out very early on, GTA vice city was also pushing the PS2's media and hardware and came out what 2 years ago? and both on 1 disc.
And besides, game developers have new technology to work with giving them more freedom to do what they have wanted to in years before.


Agreed. The only drawback to GOW is it's shortness. I beat it in 2 sittings and it was less than 10 hours.

Yes and I think possibly because they conentrated too much on looks, a mistake Sage learned only too well with the Mega-CD.

Onto insane mode then?


I'm talking how good the system was and not how much it sold.

The PS2 came out before the Xbox and was backward compatible so should have sold more.

The Xbox came after so it should have had better graphics. The stir for the PS3 is about the same around as the 360. I remember people camping out for the 360 as well.

Not true in both points, the 360 is back compatable and I think PS3 sales will pass it quickly.
As for camping out etc, I don't remember anyone being killed, stabbed, beaten, robbed at gunpoint for a 360, many examples of that with the PS3, as stupid and rediculas as it maybe it shows the impact it has had.


Again, I just don't think it'd be utilized. DVD-9 was around with PS2 and there were maybe 10 games that came out in that format. I just don't think it'll be games needing over 25 GB and if so, it'll be a handful.

Thats the point, thats what developers are always striving to do.
But I guess only time will tell.


True. That and simply being Microsoft lol

What does that mean?

Sony has much much better PR and commands a hell of a lot more respect from the public, I know many people who did and wont by an Xbox simply because it's microsoft. It was meant as a kind of joke in the same way you type M$.


Well because the games would cost a shitload. Unlike DVD, Blu-Ray is brand spanking new and costs a motherfucker. Cost in manufacturing won't go down for years.

You mean like DVD's when they first came out?


Now let's take one of the Xbox's biggest games, Ninja Gaiden. If you made that game in HD, it wouldn't need over 25 GB let alone 75 GB (1 50 GB & 1 25 GB disc). Ninja Gaiden was 6 GB.

And make the same game with Next-gen graphics, sound and gameplay and it'll be a hell of a lot bigger no? Tripple the graphics, tripple the size of game , you end up with 18gb.....you said yourself resistance is 17gb...how big is that game in terms of longevity?

@Neo...
that they simply couldn't utilise that amount of space without just filling it with FMV's with the technology present at that point.

Didn't they say the same thing about dual layer dvd?


I heard a few months ago that game developers are now looking for a new kind of technology to compress textures, which will allow say your armour to fatigue in combat (ie show signs of wear and tear), cloth items to look "darker" when it's raining, et cetera. Until that technology is discovered, however, they would need to package 10+ full-size texture files to achieve the same effect. This could quite well fill up a 50 GB disk.

Yes I've read similar things.

As far as this "Can't fill media" and "Media is too expensive" arguments I think you should try looking back in time, when they could squeeze 16mb onto a cart, then how will they fill 700megs, then how will they fill 4.5 then 8.5gig, notice how it goes up 10-20 times the size each time? And they've never had any real problems doing it, it just usually takes a year or so to get to grips with the system capabilities.

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

No not really, it's not just graphics etc. I think you also have to take into account periferals, hardware the way it's built, plus the media it uses, for example the PS, Dreamcast both were Next gen with the jump to CD, the Xbox and PS2 moved to dvd.......now the Xbox 360 is STILL on dvd, it still has the removable HD etc, the PS3 uses Blue ray and multimedia card reader both have not been done before out of the box. Wireless controllers are nothing new. I've heard people say about the Red Steal controllers, realistically they are nothing more than Light guns which have been around for years.


Agreed but what system has more games out of the box? The PS3.

lol now you're arguing with me that the PS3 is better?


The thing that puts the PS3 over the top is the Blu-Ray player though. Many people look at the price of the players now ($800 and up), see the PS3 for $600, and consider it a bargain on that alone.

And look back to 2000 when the PS2 came out, how much was a DVD drive and media, especially dual layer.


I did say that.

Where?

plus to bring it anywhere near the quality of the ps3 with reguards to drives etc it will add 50% of the purchase price to the 360 at present.

Actually thought I'd been more specific than that but it's basically what I meant.


I don't think it'll be utilized to the fullest. With PS2, games that utilized it's full potential didn't come out 'till in the end systems cycle. From what I read, the PS3 is even harder to program games for.

Not true, Final Fantasy x was massive with supurb graphics and sound and came out very early on, GTA vice city was also pushing the PS2's media and hardware and came out what 2 years ago? and both on 1 disc.
And besides, game developers have new technology to work with giving them more freedom to do what they have wanted to in years before.


Agreed. The only drawback to GOW is it's shortness. I beat it in 2 sittings and it was less than 10 hours.

Yes and I think possibly because they conentrated too much on looks, a mistake Sage learned only too well with the Mega-CD.

Onto insane mode then?


I'm talking how good the system was and not how much it sold.

The PS2 came out before the Xbox and was backward compatible so should have sold more.

The Xbox came after so it should have had better graphics. The stir for the PS3 is about the same around as the 360. I remember people camping out for the 360 as well.

Not true in both points, the 360 is back compatable and I think PS3 sales will pass it quickly.
As for camping out etc, I don't remember anyone being killed, stabbed, beaten, robbed at gunpoint for a 360, many examples of that with the PS3, as stupid and rediculas as it maybe it shows the impact it has had.


Again, I just don't think it'd be utilized. DVD-9 was around with PS2 and there were maybe 10 games that came out in that format. I just don't think it'll be games needing over 25 GB and if so, it'll be a handful.

Thats the point, thats what developers are always striving to do.
But I guess only time will tell.


True. That and simply being Microsoft lol

What does that mean?

Sony has much much better PR and commands a hell of a lot more respect from the public, I know many people who did and wont by an Xbox simply because it's microsoft. It was meant as a kind of joke in the same way you type M$.


Well because the games would cost a shitload. Unlike DVD, Blu-Ray is brand spanking new and costs a motherfucker. Cost in manufacturing won't go down for years.

You mean like DVD's when they first came out?


Now let's take one of the Xbox's biggest games, Ninja Gaiden. If you made that game in HD, it wouldn't need over 25 GB let alone 75 GB (1 50 GB & 1 25 GB disc). Ninja Gaiden was 6 GB.

And make the same game with Next-gen graphics, sound and gameplay and it'll be a hell of a lot bigger no? Tripple the graphics, tripple the size of game , you end up with 18gb.....you said yourself resistance is 17gb...how big is that game in terms of longevity?

@Neo...
that they simply couldn't utilise that amount of space without just filling it with FMV's with the technology present at that point.

Didn't they say the same thing about dual layer dvd?


I heard a few months ago that game developers are now looking for a new kind of technology to compress textures, which will allow say your armour to fatigue in combat (ie show signs of wear and tear), cloth items to look "darker" when it's raining, et cetera. Until that technology is discovered, however, they would need to package 10+ full-size texture files to achieve the same effect. This could quite well fill up a 50 GB disk.

Yes I've read similar things.

As far as this "Can't fill media" and "Media is too expensive" arguments I think you should try looking back in time, when they could squeeze 16mb onto a cart, then how will they fill 700megs, then how will they fill 4.5 then 8.5gig, notice how it goes up 10-20 times the size each time? And they've never had any real problems doing it, it just usually takes a year or so to get to grips with the system capabilities.

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

"Next-Gen"

I thought this was the 7th generation of the consoles which inlcudes PS3, Wii and Xbox 360. The term "Next-Gen" is an oxymoron, especially if you're applying it to a console like Xbox 360 which has been out for a year. :dabs:

[mildthrill]

Maybe this is the wrong time to interject my thoughts since it's already been decided that the Wii in NOT next gen, but I'd like to argue that that's just not true!

I would say the generation gap is when there's a change or refinement in the way games are played that makes previous games feel out-dated.

Case in point: when the N64 came out, it wasn't the increased power alone that pushed the games forward, it was that combined with analog joystick. N64 and later PS1 games were being played in a way that couldn't be done before, and a new generation was born.

The NGC, PS2, and birth of the Xbox didn't have any new concepts driving it, but what it did do was do everything the previous generation did, and 10X better. Any veteran of Halo or other generational FPS who went back to play the previous generations great FPS GoldenEye of Perfect Dark (which were the shit in their day!) found them at the least clunky and very out-of-date. Again Graphics did play its part, but it was that combined with all other refinements that set this generation apart.

So my question with this new generation is what will, or have the big three done to set this generation apart gameplay-wise other then juice up the hardware? Am I going to get into these new systems and years later go back to play xbox or ps2 to find it unbearable to play for more then just novelty sake because the 360, ps3, and wii are just that much more refined?

The wii (imo) is the only one, that I see, capable of making me feel that way. I can imagine, once developers fully master the mechanics of the wiimote, that it would make playing a FPS where it takes moving a little joystick to aim the reticle then fire feel annoying instead of just pointing and cappin' bitches!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to claim that the 360 and PS3 AREN'T next gen; I'm simply making an argument that the wii is. Do I think that more powerful hardware would have made the wii better? Yeah, I am definitely bummed about the lack of HD, but even with only slightly better then last gen graphics, I still see it as fully capable of making me feel differently about how games should feel and play.

As far as how that plays out in the console wars, or if the wii can deliver on its potential, that's a wait and see situation. However I was in line Sunday morning at the local toy' r us with about 30 other adults/parents, and when the store manager came out to hand out tickets for consoles, when he asked who was there for a PS3, no-one responded. Everyone was there to get a wii only (not that there were any PS3's anyway). :dabs:

[Cheese]

Double post. :dabs:

[Cheese]

Maybe this is the wrong time to interject my thoughts since it's already been decided that the Wii in NOT next gen, but I'd like to argue that that's just not true!

I would say the generation gap is when there's a change or refinement in the way games are played that makes previous games feel out-dated.

Case in point: when the N64 came out, it wasn't the increased power alone that pushed the games forward, it was that combined with analog joystick. N64 and later PS1 games were being played in a way that couldn't be done before, and a new generation was born.

The NGC, PS2, and birth of the Xbox didn't have any new concepts driving it, but what it did do was do everything the previous generation did, and 10X better. Any veteran of Halo or other generational FPS who went back to play the previous generations great FPS GoldenEye of Perfect Dark (which were the shit in their day!) found them at the least clunky and very out-of-date. Again Graphics did play its part, but it was that combined with all other refinements that set this generation apart.

So my question with this new generation is what will, or have the big three done to set this generation apart gameplay-wise other then juice up the hardware? Am I going to get into these new systems and years later go back to play xbox or ps2 to find it unbearable to play for more then just novelty sake because the 360, ps3, and wii are just that much more refined?

The wii (imo) is the only one, that I see, capable of making me feel that way. I can imagine, once developers fully master the mechanics of the wiimote, that it would make playing a FPS where it takes moving a little joystick to aim the reticle then fire feel annoying instead of just pointing and cappin' bitches!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to claim that the 360 and PS3 AREN'T next gen; I'm simply making an argument that the wii is. Do I think that more powerful hardware would have made the wii better? Yeah, I am definitely bummed about the lack of HD, but even with only slightly better then last gen graphics, I still see it as fully capable of making me feel differently about how games should feel and play.

As far as how that plays out in the console wars, or if the wii can deliver on its potential, that's a wait and see situation. However I was in line Sunday morning at the local toy' r us with about 30 other adults/parents, and when the store manager came out to hand out tickets for consoles, when he asked who was there for a PS3, no-one responded. Everyone was there to get a wii only (not that there were any PS3's anyway). :dabs:

Good post. The Wii is the only next-gen console I'd consider lowering myself to purchase because it is offering me a different type of gaming experience that I can't have on the PC. The other two next-gen consoles are, to me, just improved versions of what has gone on before with extras I don't want or need.

[Busyman™]

Maybe this is the wrong time to interject my thoughts since it's already been decided that the Wii in NOT next gen, but I'd like to argue that that's just not true!

I would say the generation gap is when there's a change or refinement in the way games are played that makes previous games feel out-dated.

Case in point: when the N64 came out, it wasn't the increased power alone that pushed the games forward, it was that combined with analog joystick. N64 and later PS1 games were being played in a way that couldn't be done before, and a new generation was born.

The NGC, PS2, and birth of the Xbox didn't have any new concepts driving it, but what it did do was do everything the previous generation did, and 10X better. Any veteran of Halo or other generational FPS who went back to play the previous generations great FPS GoldenEye of Perfect Dark (which were the shit in their day!) found them at the least clunky and very out-of-date. Again Graphics did play its part, but it was that combined with all other refinements that set this generation apart.

So my question with this new generation is what will, or have the big three done to set this generation apart gameplay-wise other then juice up the hardware? Am I going to get into these new systems and years later go back to play xbox or ps2 to find it unbearable to play for more then just novelty sake because the 360, ps3, and wii are just that much more refined?

The wii (imo) is the only one, that I see, capable of making me feel that way. I can imagine, once developers fully master the mechanics of the wiimote, that it would make playing a FPS where it takes moving a little joystick to aim the reticle then fire feel annoying instead of just pointing and cappin' bitches!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to claim that the 360 and PS3 AREN'T next gen; I'm simply making an argument that the wii is. Do I think that more powerful hardware would have made the wii better? Yeah, I am definitely bummed about the lack of HD, but even with only slightly better then last gen graphics, I still see it as fully capable of making me feel differently about how games should feel and play.

As far as how that plays out in the console wars, or if the wii can deliver on its potential, that's a wait and see situation. However I was in line Sunday morning at the local toy' r us with about 30 other adults/parents, and when the store manager came out to hand out tickets for consoles, when he asked who was there for a PS3, no-one responded. Everyone was there to get a wii only (not that there were any PS3's anyway). :dabs:

The Wii has a new controller that's actually not new. (Xavix)

That does not make it next-gen in the least to me.

It is, however, fun.

Light gun, dance mat, trackball, paddles.....oh my.

[Busyman™]

No not really, it's not just graphics etc. I think you also have to take into account periferals, hardware the way it's built, plus the media it uses, for example the PS, Dreamcast both were Next gen with the jump to CD, the Xbox and PS2 moved to dvd.......now the Xbox 360 is STILL on dvd, it still has the removable HD etc, the PS3 uses Blue ray and multimedia card reader both have not been done before out of the box. Wireless controllers are nothing new. I've heard people say about the Red Steal controllers, realistically they are nothing more than Light guns which have been around for years.

So you are saying that the 360 isn't next-gen cuz it doesn't offer games on a larger storage medium? The games could be on cartridge and they came out the same, they are the same.


Agreed but what system has more games out of the box? The PS3.

lol now you're arguing with me that the PS3 is better?

Huh? No, I'm not a fanboy of either. I simply said that the PS3, and the PS2 before it automatically have a fanbase.


The thing that puts the PS3 over the top is the Blu-Ray player though. Many people look at the price of the players now ($800 and up), see the PS3 for $600, and consider it a bargain on that alone.

And look back to 2000 when the PS2 came out, how much was a DVD drive and media, especially dual layer.

DVD was already out for years.


I did say that.

Where?

plus to bring it anywhere near the quality of the ps3 with reguards to drives etc it will add 50% of the purchase price to the 360 at present.

Actually thought I'd been more specific than that but it's basically what I meant.

Yeah cuz that wasn't the same at all. I was simply saying that Sony would win regardless if the 360's game quality was on par with it. Again, Sony has the huge base.


I don't think it'll be utilized to the fullest. With PS2, games that utilized it's full potential didn't come out 'till in the end systems cycle. From what I read, the PS3 is even harder to program games for.

Not true, Final Fantasy x was massive with supurb graphics and sound and came out very early on, GTA vice city was also pushing the PS2's media and hardware and came out what 2 years ago? and both on 1 disc.
And besides, game developers have new technology to work with giving them more freedom to do what they have wanted to in years before.

GTA VC's graphics were not great at all. FFX had great cutscenes. They both were no powerhouses.


Agreed. The only drawback to GOW is it's shortness. I beat it in 2 sittings and it was less than 10 hours.

Yes and I think possibly because they conentrated too much on looks, a mistake Sage learned only too well with the Mega-CD.

Onto insane mode then?


I don't know if concentrating on graphics shorted the game since it also plays well. However, they could have had the game perfect if:

1. They shoulda nixed Casual mode. The game is too easy that way and people will always start there for there first impression. They shoulda called it easy. I woulda skipped it then. Insane mode is excellent. In some cases, 3shots and you're dead. It is the perfect difficulty. Locusts are harder to take down. They are monsters they are supposed to be and not just soldiers with different skin.

I don't know how it took you even 10 hrs to complete.:P I finished the game in two long sittings....but that might just be my higher skill level.:snooty:

2. They shoulda had at least 2 more levels. The game ending on the train was a bummer. (it was a nice level though)

AND WHY THE FUCK YOU DIDN'T GET TO FIGHT THE BROMAK!



I'm talking how good the system was and not how much it sold.

The PS2 came out before the Xbox and was backward compatible so should have sold more.

The Xbox came after so it should have had better graphics. The stir for the PS3 is about the same around as the 360. I remember people camping out for the 360 as well.

Not true in both points, the 360 is back compatable and I think PS3 sales will pass it quickly.
As for camping out etc, I don't remember anyone being killed, stabbed, beaten, robbed at gunpoint for a 360, many examples of that with the PS3, as stupid and rediculas as it maybe it shows the impact it has had.

But the Xbox had no precursor and so no immediate fanbase. The PS3 has had a fanbase since the PS1. The move up to the next system didn't short the consumer their games.

There were robberies and camping out for the 360. Sony learned from M$ about having shortages to stir up hoopla on a system. The people also learned.

For instance, I learned to get myself some PS3s since I didn't think of getting in on the 360 craze. 360 profit selling was going strong for 2 months after it launched. People remember that and jumped in (and also robbed) to get on the next bandwagon.


Again, I just don't think it'd be utilized. DVD-9 was around with PS2 and there were maybe 10 games that came out in that format. I just don't think it'll be games needing over 25 GB and if so, it'll be a handful.

Thats the point, thats what developers are always striving to do.
But I guess only time will tell.


True. That and simply being Microsoft lol

What does that mean?

Sony has much much better PR and commands a hell of a lot more respect from the public, I know many people who did and wont by an Xbox simply because it's microsoft. It was meant as a kind of joke in the same way you type M$.


Well because the games would cost a shitload. Unlike DVD, Blu-Ray is brand spanking new and costs a motherfucker. Cost in manufacturing won't go down for years.

You mean like DVD's when they first came out?

Okayyyyy....The PS2 didn't come out when DVDs came out. I think it was 3 years after. In the current case, they are bringing out a format with the system.

That's a big difference.


Now let's take one of the Xbox's biggest games, Ninja Gaiden. If you made that game in HD, it wouldn't need over 25 GB let alone 75 GB (1 50 GB & 1 25 GB disc). Ninja Gaiden was 6 GB.

And make the same game with Next-gen graphics, sound and gameplay and it'll be a hell of a lot bigger no? Tripple the graphics, tripple the size of game , you end up with 18gb.....you said yourself resistance is 17gb...how big is that game in terms of longevity?

I haven't beat Resistance yet. Now if that game is the same length than GOW then what? The graphics are on par with GOW if not slightly worse.

[GepperRankins]

i spent my wii money on the 360 instead. not worth getting for few months IMO. i'll probably get it the minute it is.


i gotta say even as a nintendo fanboy, xbox360 is way ahead of the wii and it's got nothing at all to do with the hardware.

the first game i played that i considered next gen was animal crossing on the DS and that's because it's (almost) seamlessly multiplayer. it's 2006 and nintendo still won't use online properly. the only online game that we can guarantee will make it to wii is farcry.


i've only played four games and about twenty demos and as far as the multiplayer goes i could never say "it could do with....". the way the games work online so seamlessly, even with split screen; it seems bizarre that nintendo can only just get limited features online multiplayer on the odd game.


forget what PR people say, for now and the foreseeable future, microsoft pwn nintendo and it's because of the intuitive gameplay and interface

[GepperRankins]

Now let's take one of the Xbox's biggest games, Ninja Gaiden. If you made that game in HD, it wouldn't need over 25 GB let alone 75 GB (1 50 GB & 1 25 GB disc). Ninja Gaiden was 6 GB.


which mong said this? high definition has nothing to do with texture sizes or compression or anything like that :pinch:

[Jon L. Obscene]

So you are saying that the 360 isn't next-gen cuz it doesn't offer games on a larger storage medium? The games could be on cartridge and they came out the same, they are the same.

Pretty much, IMO a next-gen system is one which upgrades everything which Sony have done, graphics, cpu, sound, memory, drives, periferals, media, design, extra's, online etc etc etc the list goes on, the only thing 360 did was graphics, cpu and sound and made stick on skins for the front.


DVD was already out for years.

Yes but look at the price of it when the PS2 came out, up until maybe 2 years ago dvd media and hardware was expensive.


I did say that.

[QUOTE]Yeah cuz that wasn't the same at all. I was simply saying that Sony would win regardless if the 360's game quality was on par with it. Again, Sony has the huge base.

This is true but there's is a reason for that..because the PS systems are better!


GTA VC's graphics were not great at all. FFX had great cutscenes. They both were no powerhouses.

I never said GTA had wonderful graphics.
And I'm sorry but they were both huge powerhouses, FFX was the biggest game to date with the best visual arts and GTA VC was GTA 3 but twice as big in every way.



I don't know if concentrating on graphics shorted the game since it also plays well. However, they could have had the game perfect if:

1. They shoulda nixed Casual mode. The game is too easy that way and people will always start there for there first impression. They shoulda called it easy. I woulda skipped it then. Insane mode is excellent. In some cases, 3shots and you're dead. It is the perfect difficulty. Locusts are harder to take down. They are monsters they are supposed to be and not just soldiers with different skin.

Agreed 100%


I don't know how it took you even 10 hrs to complete.:P I finished the game in two long sittings....but that might just be my higher skill level.:snooty:

What do you call a long sitting?
I don't actually know how long it took, I included while it was on so that includes piss breaks, drink breaks, homework help breaks etc.


2. They shoulda had at least 2 more levels. The game ending on the train was a bummer. (it was a nice level though)

Yeah agreed, interesting and fun level but not a "Final" level by any means.
We see that all too often in games of late.


AND WHY THE FUCK YOU DIDN'T GET TO FIGHT THE BROMAK!

Yeah would have made a good pre-final boss.


There were robberies and camping out for the 360. Sony learned from M$ about having shortages to stir up hoopla on a system. The people also learned.

For instance, I learned to get myself some PS3s since I didn't think of getting in on the 360 craze. 360 profit selling was going strong for 2 months after it launched. People remember that and jumped in (and also robbed) to get on the next bandwagon.

Thats actually a good point well made.


Okayyyyy....The PS2 didn't come out when DVDs came out. I think it was 3 years after. In the current case, they are bringing out a format with the system.

That's a big difference.

This is true but I still don't think it will take as long to come down in price because the interest will be higher. And like I said above, dvds were still at a very high price when the PS2 came out, I guess it's another thing only time will tell.


I haven't beat Resistance yet. Now if that game is the same length than GOW then what? The graphics are on par with GOW if not slightly worse.

Well like I've said lots of times, Resistance is a Launch title, GOW is the flagship 1 year on. And from what I've heard resistance is a fair bit longer.

@The..... Of course the 360 pwns the Nintendo Urine.
I reckon Nintendo will be the next giant to be knocked off the gaming platform and the only thing that might save it is it's apeal to children because there are more kids games on the system.

@Mildthrill.... No, the wii is not a next gen system and no the hand thingies are nothing new as BM said, hell I had a light gun 20 years ago for my spectrum, it's the same thing.

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

you can't put a definition on "next-gen". consoles have a 5-6 year life cycle then the next increment is released. nintendo wii is as "next gen" as the PS3.

fact.

[Jon L. Obscene]

That is true yes, but I think when it comes to gaming systems the definition is there and not just a normal next in line generation thing.
For instance, no one would class the Sega saturn as next gen, but by your logic it is.
Difficult argument really, one which I couldn't find an answer to on google :o

Although I did come accross this, kind of ironic given the arguments.

Urban dictionary, 7th example of the definition of "Next Generation"

The Nintendo Wii

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=next+generation

:lol:

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

That is true yes, but I think when it comes to gaming systems the definition is there and not just a normal next in line generation thing.
For instance, no one would class the Sega saturn as next gen, but by your logic it is.
Difficult argument really, one which I couldn't find an answer to on google :o

Although I did come accross this, kind of ironic given the arguments.

Urban dictionary, 7th example of the definition of "Next Generation"

The Nintendo Wii

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=next+generation

:lol:

Jonno :cool:
yeah, because the sega saturn is being released this month :lol:


we're moving from the 6th generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_generation_consoles

to the 7th generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_generation_consoles


so for anyone playing anything from the 6th generation, the 7th generation is the next generation, or "next gen" if you will.

i hope that cleared up the confusion :)

[Cheese]

That is true yes, but I think when it comes to gaming systems the definition is there and not just a normal next in line generation thing.
For instance, no one would class the Sega saturn as next gen, but by your logic it is.
Difficult argument really, one which I couldn't find an answer to on google :o

Although I did come accross this, kind of ironic given the arguments.

Urban dictionary, 7th example of the definition of "Next Generation"

The Nintendo Wii

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=next+generation

:lol:

Jonno :cool:
yeah, because the sega saturn is being released this month :lol:


we're moving from the 6th generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_generation_consoles

to the 7th generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_generation_consoles


so for anyone playing anything from the 6th generation, the 7th generation is the next generation, or "next gen" if you will.

i hope that cleared up the confusion :)

Yeah, that's pretty much the industry definition of the "generations". You can argue that the Wii is a poor example of a 7th gen console but you can't argue it isn't a 7th gen console, that'd be mental.

So really, given that all the 7th gen consoles are out now, a "next-gen" console would be an 8th gen console. Something we won't see until like 2012...

[Busyman™]

Pretty much, IMO a next-gen system is one which upgrades everything which Sony have done, graphics, cpu, sound, memory, drives, periferals, media, design, extra's, online etc etc etc the list goes on, the only thing 360 did was graphics, cpu and sound and made stick on skins for the front.

I say it's sound, graphics, cpu. This affects how it looks, it sounds, and how fast it computes. If you bump those 3 up a decent notch, that's next-gen. Everything else is secondary.

If there are 2 systems but one has a bigger drive, big hootie if their games look, play, and sounds the same. The same goes for whether it uses SD slots versus it's own proprietary slots.

And actually one should include the online component in the next-gen discussion. The Xbox has had a robust online component for years and now it's better.


DVD was already out for years.

Yes but look at the price of it when the PS2 came out, up until maybe 2 years ago dvd media and hardware was expensive.

Not as expensive as Blu-Ray media......not by a longshot.


I did say that.

[QUOTE]Yeah cuz that wasn't the same at all. I was simply saying that Sony would win regardless if the 360's game quality was on par with it. Again, Sony has the huge base.

This is true but there's is a reason for that..because the PS systems are better!

No PS systems were first and have always maintained a lead.


GTA VC's graphics were not great at all. FFX had great cutscenes. They both were no powerhouses.

I never said GTA had wonderful graphics.
And I'm sorry but they were both huge powerhouses, FFX was the biggest game to date with the best visual arts and GTA VC was GTA 3 but twice as big in every way.

They weren't graphical powerhouses. They were large games.



I don't know if concentrating on graphics shorted the game since it also plays well. However, they could have had the game perfect if:

1. They shoulda nixed Casual mode. The game is too easy that way and people will always start there for there first impression. They shoulda called it easy. I woulda skipped it then. Insane mode is excellent. In some cases, 3shots and you're dead. It is the perfect difficulty. Locusts are harder to take down. They are monsters they are supposed to be and not just soldiers with different skin.

Agreed 100%


I don't know how it took you even 10 hrs to complete.:P I finished the game in two long sittings....but that might just be my higher skill level.:snooty:

What do you call a long sitting? 2-3 hrs
I don't actually know how long it took, I included while it was on so that includes piss breaks, drink breaks, homework help breaks etc.


2. They shoulda had at least 2 more levels. The game ending on the train was a bummer. (it was a nice level though)

Yeah agreed, interesting and fun level but not a "Final" level by any means.
We see that all too often in games of late.


AND WHY THE FUCK YOU DIDN'T GET TO FIGHT THE BROMAK!

Yeah would have made a good pre-final boss.


There were robberies and camping out for the 360. Sony learned from M$ about having shortages to stir up hoopla on a system. The people also learned.

For instance, I learned to get myself some PS3s since I didn't think of getting in on the 360 craze. 360 profit selling was going strong for 2 months after it launched. People remember that and jumped in (and also robbed) to get on the next bandwagon.

Thats actually a good point well made.


Okayyyyy....The PS2 didn't come out when DVDs came out. I think it was 3 years after. In the current case, they are bringing out a format with the system.

That's a big difference.

This is true but I still don't think it will take as long to come down in price because the interest will be higher. And like I said above, dvds were still at a very high price when the PS2 came out, I guess it's another thing only time will tell.

1st law of greed and business - you sell for what you think you can get. If tooooo many jump on the current price tag....it'll remain high. Ever notice that Halo was one of few games that didn't go down in price for a long time?

Keep in mind that Sony loses money on every sale of the PS3 so they will try to sustain the current price point as long as possible and drop when sales wane a bit.


I haven't beat Resistance yet. Now if that game is the same length than GOW then what? The graphics are on par with GOW if not slightly worse.

Well like I've said lots of times, Resistance is a Launch title, GOW is the flagship 1 year on. And from what I've heard resistance is a fair bit longer.

@The..... Of course the 360 pwns the Nintendo Urine.
I reckon Nintendo will be the next giant to be knocked off the gaming platform and the only thing that might save it is it's apeal to children because there are more kids games on the system.

@Mildthrill.... No, the wii is not a next gen system and no the hand thingies are nothing new as BM said, hell I had a light gun 20 years ago for my spectrum, it's the same thing.

Jonno :cool:

It is a bit different though. It's like a light gun with a broader spectrum.

The Xavix was doing the same thing though.

[Busyman™]

That is true yes, but I think when it comes to gaming systems the definition is there and not just a normal next in line generation thing.
For instance, no one would class the Sega saturn as next gen, but by your logic it is.
Difficult argument really, one which I couldn't find an answer to on google :o

Although I did come accross this, kind of ironic given the arguments.

Urban dictionary, 7th example of the definition of "Next Generation"

The Nintendo Wii

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=next+generation

:lol:

Jonno :cool:

Plus many called the Wii, Gamecube 1.5.

I have said that really all it adds is a new controller and a (so far) weak online component.

The graphics bump is akin to a same generation graphics cards by the same manufacturer but one is $50 more.:ermm:

As I said before, they could have added the Wiimote to the GC.

Take a look at what development went into the Wii......it went into the controller.:crazy:

[Cheese]

Difficult argument really, one which I couldn't find an answer to on google :o


I had to laugh at that, given that if you put "Next-gen console" or the like in Google you'll get articles about the three 7th gen consoles with Nintendo's "next-gen" console always getting a mention. So basically what you're saying is that you couldn't find an article to back up your position on Google.

Though I'd avoid using Google to back up a weak argument. Personally I'm going by the experience I accrued by being frontline during the Great 5th Generation Console War. That was a proper console war not like the limp wars we get these days, with over half a dozen consoles you stubborn fools could have argued didn't belong in that generation.

[maebach]

I was thinking of buying a Wii, but now that I knowq the graphics are not amazing Im questioning it. Does anybody here have a Wii, and have some good things to say about it? I will mostly play shooters, and soccer/basketball games.

[Busyman™]

I was thinking of buying a Wii, but now that I knowq the graphics are not amazing Im questioning it. Does anybody here have a Wii, and have some good things to say about it? I will mostly play shooters, and soccer/basketball games.

The Wii is fun. The new Zelda is great but it's a great game with Gamecube graphics.

For me, the Wii is a party console + Zelda.

Red Steel sucks ass. Imo it's not worth $250 at all.....unless you never had a Gamecube.

In that case....

Get Resident Evil 4, Zelda OOT, WW, and TP and call it a day. It comes with Wii Sports.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok, @the..... The links you post say the 360, wii and PS3 are 7th generation correct?
So what was the Saturn? I didn't mean was IS it, I mean what WAS it.

The 360, and PS3 cannot possibly be 7th generation by your reckoning, the 360 is 2nd and the PS3 is 3rdand the Wii is 5th.
They can't be 7th and if you say they are then what was first?
Sega cd? Mega drive? Master system? 3do? Jaguar? Atari Sixer? Atari four?the Odyssey ? Channel F? there's 9 examples of different "Generations" of gaming consoles.

So the link you posted makes no sense, when did these generations start? and like I said about the saturn, if you look at Nintendo vs Sega it goes....

Master system vs NES
Mega Drive (Genesis) vs SNES
Mega CD vs N64?
Saturn vs N64?
Dreamcast vs Game cube

But the Mega cd was a next gen system.

So I'll go back to the quote Chese made of my post and ask, find a definition of "Next Gen game consoles" on google, I couldn't, please show me cos I really am interested in what is truely classed as "Next-Gen"

@Cheese.... After reading my above post please explain to me what was the 5th gen wars and what consoles were involved and why it was 5th gen.

@BM.... You and I could argue this forever, I think the only way this will be settled is to wait and see.

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

Ok, @the..... The links you post say the 360, wii and PS3 are 7th generation correct?
So what was the Saturn? I didn't mean was IS it, I mean what WAS it.

The 360, and PS3 cannot possibly be 7th generation by your reckoning, the 360 is 2nd and the PS3 is 3rdand the Wii is 5th.
They can't be 7th and if you say they are then what was first?
Sega cd? Mega drive? Master system? 3do? Jaguar? Atari Sixer? Atari four?the Odyssey ? Channel F? there's 9 examples of different "Generations" of gaming consoles.

So the link you posted makes no sense, when did these generations start? and like I said about the saturn, if you look at Nintendo vs Sega it goes....

Master system vs NES
Mega Drive (Genesis) vs SNES
Mega CD vs N64?
Saturn vs N64?
Dreamcast vs Game cube

But the Mega cd was a next gen system.





Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_and_video_games#First_generation_.281972-1977.29

That's pretty much how the gaming press, the gaming industry and your informed gamer sees it. It has more to do with the release dates of competing consoles than anything else though that is not the sole factor. The 360 is not a 2nd generation console because it was the second console Microsoft released as you incorrectly attempt to define it, rather it is a 7th gen console (which you could call "next-gen" but really that term should be used for the PS4, X720,etc) because it came out in the loose window defined by the releases of competing machines.



So I'll go back to the quote Chese made of my post and ask, find a definition of "Next Gen game consoles" on google, I couldn't, please show me cos I really am interested in what is truely classed as "Next-Gen"As I've said, using Google to back up your arguments is really flawed. Though if you insist, try Googling what's in your quote, it takes you to many articles (http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12100DQDEHF0) about (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/5B47C6B2-0191-4825-80C9-F6EBCA0E3B23.html) the (http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6464_7-6551960.html) three (http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2006/11/16/report-9-million-next-gen-game-consoles-will-sell-in-fourth-quarter) new (http://www.craxtion.com/content/view/800/2) consoles (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54216.html). Further, "Next-gen" is an oxymoron. It means nothing, it's something advertisers use to sell more machines and I'm dismayed that supposedly logically thinking people are taken in by this crap. If you take it, as I and many others do, to mean 7th gen then the Wii is "next-gen".


@Cheese.... After reading my above post please explain to me what was the 5th gen wars and what consoles were involved and why it was 5th gen.Easy. It was between the consoles released around 1994-1999, the main combatants were PS, N64 and Saturn.


However, these aren't hard and fast rules. Some leeway seems to be given because it's not the black and white issue you want to paint it as, though I believe that the definitions I have given are pretty much the way most informed people see the issue of "generations of consoles". Personally, I'm amazed that anybody would question this. :dabs:

[GepperRankins]

Ok, @the..... The links you post say the 360, wii and PS3 are 7th generation correct?
So what was the Saturn? I didn't mean was IS it, I mean what WAS it.

The 360, and PS3 cannot possibly be 7th generation by your reckoning, the 360 is 2nd and the PS3 is 3rdand the Wii is 5th.
They can't be 7th and if you say they are then what was first?
Sega cd? Mega drive? Master system? 3do? Jaguar? Atari Sixer? Atari four?the Odyssey ? Channel F? there's 9 examples of different "Generations" of gaming consoles.

So the link you posted makes no sense, when did these generations start? and like I said about the saturn, if you look at Nintendo vs Sega it goes....

Master system vs NES
Mega Drive (Genesis) vs SNES
Mega CD vs N64?
Saturn vs N64?
Dreamcast vs Game cube

But the Mega cd was a next gen system.

So I'll go back to the quote Chese made of my post and ask, find a definition of "Next Gen game consoles" on google, I couldn't, please show me cos I really am interested in what is truely classed as "Next-Gen"

@Cheese.... After reading my above post please explain to me what was the 5th gen wars and what consoles were involved and why it was 5th gen.

@BM.... You and I could argue this forever, I think the only way this will be settled is to wait and see.

Jonno :cool:
did you put that post in a food blender or sth?


this is the 7th generation because it's been decided that it's easiest to describe this as the 7th generation.

regardless of any particular consoles family tree. the 7th generation is the 360, the PS3 and the wii.

trying to refer to a cycle of consoles designed to rival each other as "sonys third, microsofts second, nintendos fifth and the first that sega wont play a part in as a hardware company" is harder than saying "7th generation"

it's the 7th cycle of home consoles since they decided the point to start counting.

this system of referring to generations is a standard the hardware industry, the software industry and gaming media have decided works.

[Cheese]

More reading if you're up for it: http://www.haftamag.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=202

That's pretty much a standard type of article dealing with "generations" that I've seen time and time again in commercial magazines and the trade magazines like CTW since I sold Nintendo Entertainment Systems and Master Systems in my mate's computer shop. I expect to see the same articles again in 5 years time but fronted by information about the 8th gen consoles.

[hungrycow]

PC- FPS/RTS PC- MMO
Wii Gamecube
Xbox/Xbox 360 PS1/PS2


l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l-----l

Super-Casual Regular Gamer HardXCore

This is how each system does the on the good 'ol casual scale in my eyes. :shifty:

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Cheese....... Thank you, thats a very interesting read and just what I was looking for, your other links are not what I was looking for but the wikipedia is a good link. And a year span would make sense.......if not for a few obvious flaws in it's theory.

Firstly, going by that link Sega managed to get 2 "Next-Gen" consoles out in 1 Generation step.......TWICE! and one Next Gen addon in the middle.

4th generation (1989-1994)

The Mega drive (Genesis) (1989)
The Mega cd (1992 )

Both 4th generation systems yet both clearly "Next-gen"

The Sega 32x (1994) actually an add-on but acording to the link that counts as do handhelds. This falls under either 4th or 5th gen, depends what time of 1994 4th gen stopped and 5th gen started.

Then 5th generation systems......1994-1999

The Sega Saturn (1994) (pushing a little close to 4th gen which combined with the 32x could in essence mean Sega had 4 Next-gen systems in 1 Generation)
The Sega Dreamcast (1998) (Which aparently is a 5th AND 6th generation system that is of the same gen as the N64, Playstation, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox? )

Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".

My point being I spose is that the pages you find online or in mags or on TV to say what is and isn't a next gen system are contradictory crap and you're simply believing whatever they tell you, whereas the likes of myself and Busyman are going by an unwritten rule about whats Next-gen based on what the machine can actually do, otherwise you end up with console after console all Next gen in the same gen which makes no freaking sense whatsoever.

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

@Cheese....... Thank you, thats a very interesting read and just what I was looking for, your other links are not what I was looking for but the wikipedia is a good link. And a year span would make sense.......if not for a few obvious flaws in it's theory.

Firstly, going by that link Sega managed to get 2 "Next-Gen" consoles out in 1 Generation step.......TWICE! and one Next Gen addon in the middle.

4th generation (1989-1994)

The Mega drive (Genesis) (1989)
The Mega cd (1992 )

Both 4th generation systems yet both clearly "Next-gen"

The Sega 32x (1994) actually an add-on but acording to the link that counts as do handhelds. This falls under either 4th or 5th gen, depends what time of 1994 4th gen stopped and 5th gen started.

Then 5th generation systems......1994-1999

The Sega Saturn (1994) (pushing a little close to 4th gen which combined with the 32x could in essence mean Sega had 4 Next-gen systems in 1 Generation)
The Sega Dreamcast (1998) (Which aparently is a 5th AND 6th generation system that is of the same gen as the N64, Playstation, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox? )

Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".

My point being I spose is that the pages you find online or in mags or on TV to say what is and isn't a next gen system are contradictory crap and you're simply believing whatever they tell you, whereas the likes of myself and Busyman are going by an unwritten rule about whats Next-gen based on what the machine can actually do, otherwise you end up with console after console all Next gen in the same gen which makes no freaking sense whatsoever.

Jonno :cool:
fuck you and your unwritten rules.

the written rule is that this is the 7th generation. end of.

it's not a "believing what they tell you" thing. it's a standard used to refer to home console life cycles. you and busyman are being wrong. fact

[Jon L. Obscene]

It's not a "Believing what they tell you thing" but you do believe what they say and take it as gospel?

Good argument, well presented :rolleyes:

Wait, wasn't it you that said you can't put a definition on "next-gen". just before you defined it as being a life cycle? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

It's not a "Believing what they tell you thing" but you do believe what they say and take it as gospel?

Good argument, well presented :rolleyes:

Wait, wasn't it you that said you can't put a definition on "next-gen". just before you defined it as being a life cycle? :huh:

Jonno :cool:
first off, by saying you can't put a definition on it, i meant you can't say a next gen console must have a new kind of media drive, more controller functionality or faster graphics. there's no sliding scale of how next gen it is. it's possible to fall into a grey area, but it's really judged on release date and not much else.


second. there's a difference between opinions and standards. using release date to categorise consoles is not an opinion, it's a standard. a lot of people agreed it's the smartest way to do it so it became the way it's done.

now sure you can have your opinion of what a "generation" is. until you can get vast majority of people to agree with you, you are actually wrong.

note the word "actually". it means you're really really wrong. very wrong indeed

[Jon L. Obscene]

So like I said, it is possible to have 2, 3 or even 4 "next-gen" consoles all in the same generation? is that what you are saying? because thats exactly what a time scale definition is and I have proved it using your sources.

And I'm sorry if it's too complicated for most to grasp that a true Next Generation system requires new technology etc and not just simple upgrades but if this 7th generation is from 2004-2010 for arguments sake will a hyperthetical PS4 released in 2009 be 7th or 8th?....by your reckoning it will be 7th meaning either the PS3 or the PS4 is NOT a Next Generation system.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: btw, I'm only wrong in your eyes because YOU choose to believe what the media tells you, thats your problem, not mine, I'm not a robot and I form my own opinions based on nearly 24 years of gaming experience.

[GepperRankins]

So like I said, it is possible to have 2, 3 or even 4 "next-gen" consoles all in the same generation? is that what you are saying? because thats exactly what a time scale definition is and I have proved it using your sources.

And I'm sorry if it's too complicated for most to grasp that a true Next Generation system requires new technology etc and not just simple upgrades but if this 7th generation is from 2004-2010 for arguments sake will a hyperthetical PS4 released in 2009 be 7th or 8th?....by your reckoning it will be 7th meaning either the PS3 or the PS4 is NOT a Next Generation system.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: btw, I'm only wrong in your eyes because YOU choose to believe what the media tells you, thats your problem, not mine, I'm not a robot and I form my own opinions based on nearly 24 years of gaming experience.
i don't know how many times we have to explain to you. it's a standard based on date. that's all. i suppose if you want to use "true next generation" as a way to not mean 7th generation that's fine. but don't say that any of the 7th generation consoles aren't 7th generation consoles

[Jon L. Obscene]

Nope, still don't agree with that because there's only been 2 Xbox's and 3 Playstations so it's impossible to be 7th otherwise that will mean I'm 10,000,000th generation of my family not 14th.
Again, the time scale does not work, period! It makes no sense reguardless of what the media says, they constantly contradict themselves on the subject as I have already explained.

But if YOU want to follow them then be my guest, but does that mean you belive them when they tell you a certain game is great too?. Like I said, I'll form my own opinions of Next Generation machines and games.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: And besides, this "Standard" you speak of.....who determined that? which Governing body of the gaming industry came up with that crap?

[GepperRankins]

Nope, still don't agree with that because there's only been 2 Xbox's and 3 Playstations so it's impossible to be 7th otherwise that will mean I'm 10,000,000th generation of my family not 14th.
Again, the time scale does not work, period! It makes no sense reguardless of what the media says, they constantly contradict themselves on the subject as I have already explained.

But if YOU want to follow them then be my guest, but does that mean you belive them when they tell you a certain game is great too?. Like I said, I'll form my own opinions of Next Generation machines and games.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: And besides, this "Standard" you speak of.....who determined that? which Governing body of the gaming industry came up with that crap?
it's gone 5am and i'm cranky so i'll probably end up saying something silly, but...


there is no one governing body, but between all the developers, manufacturers, journalists, designers, everybody! everybody involved and even those that aren't decided this is how to judge things because it makes things simple.

now i don't know if j2k4 is paying you to wind me up or something but you're a fucking retard. i don't know if you don't realise, but people don't have the synchronized births they work out for technology. so your family tree can't be compared to an overall family tree. so you can stick that analogy up your arse.


as far as following is concerned. that's a good thing to do with standards because it stops people getting confused. i'll make my own mind up about the morality of abortions. i'll follow what most people decided are the generations of computer consoles though, because trying to go by a different way to catagorise will only confuse anybody who i would ever try to converse with about consoles.

there are grey areas but it makes perfect sense 99% of the time

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ah....huh.......well like I said, if you wish to follow that then fine, I will follow my opinion since I see no evidence of everybody going by this so called standard.
I'll ignore the childish abuse simply cos thats what you do and I'm used to it.
As for making sense, I think I proved it doesn't and anyone with half a braincell can see that it doesn't makes sense anywhere near 99% of the time, it's seriously flawed and since it does follow the same theory as a family tree my analogy is fine.

PS3 = Next-Gen
Xbox 360 = Semi-Next-Gen
Nitendo Urine = Breaks peoples TV's and coffee cups and is NOT Next Gen.

Oh and fyi, no one is paying me to wind you up and nor am I trying to in any way, I'm having a discussion about gaming on a discussion board in the gaming section. Doing nothing different to that which you are doing.
You never know, one day I might agree with YOU about something.

G'Night chap :)

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,800 for console "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.11 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 62,800 for wii "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 48,400 for "playstation 3" "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 59,400 for "xbox 360" "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.09 seconds)


about 50,000 is enough for me anyway :happy:

[Jon L. Obscene]

I don't really understand your point but........

Results 1 - 10 of about 45,100,000 for Next gen. (0.22 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,780,000 for playstation 3 next gen console. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,270,000 for Xbox 360 Next gen console. (0.20 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360,000 for Nintendo wii Next gen console. (0.16 seconds)

6.7 million is enough for me :P

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

I don't really understand your point but........

Results 1 - 10 of about 45,100,000 for Next gen. (0.22 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,780,000 for playstation 3 next gen console. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,270,000 for Xbox 360 Next gen console. (0.20 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360,000 for Nintendo wii Next gen console. (0.16 seconds)

6.7 million is enough for me :P

Jonno :cool:
oh sorry. was i coming accross as saying that none could be considered next gen consoles? my bad. i was trying to say that all three were the same generation. that must be where the conflict was. accept my apologies please

[Cheese]

@Cheese....... Thank you, thats a very interesting read and just what I was looking for, your other links are not what I was looking for but the wikipedia is a good link. And a year span would make sense.......if not for a few obvious flaws in it's theory.

Firstly, going by that link Sega managed to get 2 "Next-Gen" consoles out in 1 Generation step.......TWICE! and one Next Gen addon in the middle.

4th generation (1989-1994)

The Mega drive (Genesis) (1989)
The Mega cd (1992 )

Both 4th generation systems yet both clearly "Next-gen"

The Sega 32x (1994) actually an add-on but acording to the link that counts as do handhelds. This falls under either 4th or 5th gen, depends what time of 1994 4th gen stopped and 5th gen started.

Then 5th generation systems......1994-1999

The Sega Saturn (1994) (pushing a little close to 4th gen which combined with the 32x could in essence mean Sega had 4 Next-gen systems in 1 Generation)
The Sega Dreamcast (1998) (Which aparently is a 5th AND 6th generation system that is of the same gen as the N64, Playstation, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox? )

Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".

My point being I spose is that the pages you find online or in mags or on TV to say what is and isn't a next gen system are contradictory crap and you're simply believing whatever they tell you, whereas the likes of myself and Busyman are going by an unwritten rule about whats Next-gen based on what the machine can actually do, otherwise you end up with console after console all Next gen in the same gen which makes no freaking sense whatsoever.

Jonno :cool:

The thing is you can't call a console "next-gen" forever, sooner or later you have to define what generation it belongs to. If you're calling a console "next-gen" then it stands to reason there is a generation system in place, a "next gen" console is leaving a generation behind it. The links I've provided show what is the acceptable view on this to most people.

As with any grouping this way things are up for debate. I, for one, have no problem with Sega having more than one console in a generation. The Genesis and Mega Cd are too closely related to call different, for instance. Arguments about classifications don't make it flawed, debates like these rage in much more serious fields (for instance, animal classification, world history, natural history).


Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".We're talking about the generations of consoles, why bring up games? GOW is a game for a 7th gen or next gen console. It also could be described as a next-gen game, but that means something different and is not classified in any way. Really, that is when I think it is more acceptable to say for you and Busyman to make your own opinions up, a game is only "next-gen" when it offers something new that hasn't been done before (though let's not get bogged don by discussions of what a "next gen" game is, just accept it is different to being a game for a "next gen" console).


It's not a "Believing what they tell you thing" but you do believe what they say and take it as gospel? I don't. I believe the general workings of the 7 generations classification to be the most correct answer, however I am aware of its flaws like I am aware of the flaws in evolution theory or in classifying literary periods.

However, I find it far more acceptable (and so do most people) than just saying "This console is next-gen because it has lots of new hardware". Please tell me what is and isn't "next gen" out of the past consoles, what do you call a console like the Playstation which was "next gen" in its day now. If you accept that the PS was next gen at its time but is not now you are already subscribing to a theory of classifying consoles by generations, now you just have to argue how that works.


Nope, still don't agree with that because there's only been 2 Xbox's and 3 Playstations so it's impossible to be 7th otherwise that will mean I'm 10,000,000th generation of my family not 14th.
Edit: And besides, this "Standard" you speak of.....who determined that? which Governing body of the gaming industry came up with that crap?It doesn't have to be official or announced by a governing body to be standard. However, if you were speakng to an XBox designer, games developer or Bill Gates himself and you said, "The 360 sure is a nice 2nd generation console" then they would look at you like you were a mad man or as if you were stupid.

Now, and this is the tricky part so I hope I don't lose you here, the 360 is a second generation Microsoft console. This is because it is the second console that they have made. So, are you still with me? So...

The 360 is a second generation Microsoft console that belongs to the seven generation of consoles as a whole.


Semi-Next-GenWhere do you get this nonsense from? :lol:

Really, I think Gepper may be right, someone has put you up to this. That's a good one, you got me there.


In conclusion, the generation system is the best way to group consoles. The term "next-gen" is an oxymoron at best, if you couple this by having no discernable generations behind it then it means absolutlely nothing. It is not gospel however, it is not written up on high, it is something that has come about organically. However, if I was talking to someone in the console trade, games trade or someone who had truly had "nearly 24 years of gaming experience" then I would expect them to know, or have an idea of what I meant, when I said "The 5th gen consoles are when it really kicked off" or "The 6th gen consoles were pretty crappy".

I think the problem you're having is confusing "next gen" for meaning "groundbreaking".

[NikkiD]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

[Cheese]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.



The articles you've read are getting "next gen" and "groundbreaking" confused as well. :dabs:

Personally I haven't seen any articles to suggest that the Wii doesn't belong in the 7th Generation, they stopped using Bits to decide gaps in generations so they should/are probably stopping worrying about the hardware. You can't deny it is a competitive console released in the same timeframe as the other 7th gens, which in my mind makes it 7th gen. History can be revised though, so when the dust settles on this console war we'll be able to better argue Wii's place in the 7th Gen.

Good post (you not me). I'll leave the "next gen" games for now, that's an even more confusing issue. Though I agree in part with what you're saying there.

[GepperRankins]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.
i've never heard "the wii is not next gen" from any respectable source. from any source at all really except jonno and busyman, and i've been fanatically following the major blogs and three of the top gaming websites for a year or so.


please to be not making shit up. kthx

[MCHeshPants420]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.
i've never heard "the wii is not next gen" from any respectable source. from any source at all really except jonno and busyman, and i've been fanatically following the major blogs and three of the top gaming websites for a year or so.


please to be not making shit up. kthx

I think we have to accept that "next gen" has more than one meaning, otherwise we doom ourselves to an argument even more pointless than which console is "best". If you look at it with the generations of consoles in mind then Wii is 7th gen and thus "next gen". However, if you look at it with the generation of consoles removed from your mind and base your "next gen" opinion solely on hardware, graphics and all that funky stuff then you can argue that Wii is not "next gen".

[Busyman™]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

Hot damnit, someone got it!:happy:

I don't know what's so hard about "next-gen". Great post.

You don't need friggin' Google or whatever to define what it is. You don't need a game mag to say "the Wii is not next-gen" to say it's so. Many have already called the Wii, Gamecube 1.5.

If you come out with another game console and it's basically the same as the one before it but with a new controller then when someone says "that's not next-gen" they aren't saying 'that's not the system that came out after the previous system from the same manufacturer'. Jeez.

:stars:

Who cares what 7th gen 5th gen whateverthefuck? The Atari Jaguar came out and was billed as next-gen (by Atari no less) but was a piece of shit. Sure it was a new generation of Atari console but no one but Atari would bill it "next-gen". When I buy a new game console, I'm looking for a technological bump with games to utilize it.

One could argue that today's next-gen console has PC's last-gen graphics. I would say the gap is closing but unlike consoles, PC graphics cards are constantly upgrading. Consoles get a set GPU and it stays that way for at least a 5-year or so cycle.

[Cheese]

One could argue that today's next-gen console has PC's last-gen graphics. I would say the gap is closing but unlike consoles, PC graphics cards are constantly upgrading. Consoles get a set GPU and it stays that way for at least a 5-year or so cycle.

DX10 is going to be "next gen" in the "groundbreaking" definition (obviously not in the console generations definition...), but it's going to cost an arm and a leg for early adopters (the PS3 will seem like small change in comparison). You'll need at least a DX10 card and Vista, which ain't going to be cheap for a while. The next ATI card is going to break the £500 mark I reckon.

I'm probably going to forego my usual January upgrade until summer and splurge on a DX10 system then.

On topic: The 360 is running some form of DirectX 9, what are the other two next-gens using?

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok, we've all made what I think are valid points for our arguments.
I will accept that some sources say that these 3 consoles are 7th generation.
Although the argument still stands that there are many many sources that say the wii is NOT next gen including Nintendo!

@The... you want links..Google is your friend..

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:al_gy7H-MBIJ:www.gamespot.com/news/6152265.html+the+wii+is+not+next+gen&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=5

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=the+wii+is+not+next+gen&meta=

Gamespot is perfectly reputable and states clearly there what I said way back in this thread, that the wii is not Next Gen but will do well due to it's target audience of children's/family games fans.

So if we look at it by date then acording to some sources all 3 are 7th Generation, but.......if one or more of them is not a "Next-Gen" system by technology terms (which I actually think even in laymens minds is the meaning of "Next-Gen") then those that are not next gen will be 6th.

Also you stated that a generation is the consoles lifespan which is 5-6 years, but that doesn't wash either given that the Playstaion was released in 1994/95 and Sony announced in March 2006 they will not make anymore consoles or games for it, meaning it's lifespan was 10-11 years which basically throws the age/life/years span theory out the window.

I have also seen articles saying the Wii is the only Next Gen system but clearly going on technology it's not and no one can dispute that, fan or not.

One thing I will say for Nintendo as a gaming company, they have stood the test of time more than any other brand and for that have my respect even though I've never been a fan.

Here's another link from cnet reviews, this guy pretty much says exactly what I have been saying in this entire thread.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zc-5iT-bpmAJ:reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4864-6464_7-31355103.html%3Fctype%3Dmsgid%26messageSiteID%3D7%26messageID%3D1360372%26cval%3D1360372+which+is+true+next+gen&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

The term "Next-Gen" is determined by technology, to be next gen it must have new next generation technology , and this a fact that is undisputable by anyone.

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman™]

And another note

I wouldn't automatically say don't get a Gamecube 1.5 Wii.

I look at it like the games Taboo or Outburst.

It's social gaming that can be the life of the party.

Like with the bowling on Wii Sports, 12 of us played (4 at a time) while others watched and we just had fun. The game wasn't great looking but it looked "good enough" to play and be merry with it.

We had similar fun with Tennis (you can play doubles) and Baseball.

[Busyman™]

One could argue that today's next-gen console has PC's last-gen graphics. I would say the gap is closing but unlike consoles, PC graphics cards are constantly upgrading. Consoles get a set GPU and it stays that way for at least a 5-year or so cycle.

DX10 is going to be "next gen" in the "groundbreaking" definition (obviously not in the console generations definition...), but it's going to cost an arm and a leg for early adopters (the PS3 will seem like small change in comparison). You'll need at least a DX10 card and Vista, which ain't going to be cheap for a while. The next ATI card is going to break the £500 mark I reckon.

I'm probably going to forego my usual January upgrade until summer and splurge on a DX10 system then.

On topic: The 360 is running some form of DirectX 9, what are the other two next-gens using?

$500!!!:pinch:

[NikkiD]

I can't and haven't argued that the Nintendo Wii won't hold it's own in the market or that it isn't a solid console. Nintendo's biggest strength has always been family oriented games/systems, and I think it will probably still hold that market, given the titles and the price of the system. Bravo for them, young kids need games which are suitable for them too, and as a parent, I applaud Nintendo for keeping up the steady stream of E rated games.

My reason for arguing that it doesn't fall into the same class as the other two 7th generation systems is based on the system's capabilities. My reason for buying the new systems (I say systems because I own a 360 and plan on purchasing a PS3 in the near future) is for two reasons. One, I'm not comfortable sitting at the computer for long stretches to play games, even if they are free, and two, because I still want the mind blowing graphics and sound experience that most newer PC games have. From everything I've seen so far, the Wii doesn't measure up in this capacity. It looks like a slightly upgraded GameCube for graphics, and although the GameCube was (and still is) a fantastic system, it's not near the quality of the other two. As far as "making shit up", I'm talking about articles on gamespot, in the Toronto Star (the newspaper I read online), the Toronto Sun (another newspaper I read online), Canoe's WHAM! Gaming (a Canadian online news service, which has rarely steered me wrong), Electric Playground (a television game review show) and a salesperson at EB Games. I'm not simply "making shit up".

I don't really like the 360 at this point, but that's mostly because I have always been a Playstation user and the Xbox and the 360 controllers are just too big and chunky for my hands to play them comfortably. It's a hard stretch for me to reach the LB and RB (keeping in mind that I'm 5'2" with tiny hands) and I frequently get killed in games where I need to use these buttons trying to stretch for them quickly enough. Well that and the fact that after two weeks it is already crashing constantly, and one of the games that came with the system, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter has not worked once.

I'm sure I will like the PS3 more, and it has little to do with hardware actually. It's simply personal preference. I've always loved the Playstation and PS2, I have hundreds of games for the two systems, and many of the titles I love are only available on the PS systems. The Resident Evil series (which has expanded to other systems now), the Onimusha series (which just became available for PC last year), the Ratchet and Clank series (actually make that pretty much any Insomniac games, I've loved all of them) among them. Given that most of these games were (I say most, because like I said, the REs have become available for other systems over the last few years) Sony exclusives, their next incarnations probably will be as well.

[Cheese]

DX10 is going to be "next gen" in the "groundbreaking" definition (obviously not in the console generations definition...), but it's going to cost an arm and a leg for early adopters (the PS3 will seem like small change in comparison). You'll need at least a DX10 card and Vista, which ain't going to be cheap for a while. The next ATI card is going to break the £500 mark I reckon.

I'm probably going to forego my usual January upgrade until summer and splurge on a DX10 system then.

On topic: The 360 is running some form of DirectX 9, what are the other two next-gens using?

$500!!!:pinch:

Erm, that's nearer $1000 with a straight monetary conversion. Though I notice you chaps always get your electronic goods at a substantially lower price than us Brits.

[Cheese]

this a fact that is undisputable by anyone.


Really? People are disputing this fact all across the interwebs in much the same way as we are.

[NikkiD]

this a fact that is undisputable by anyone.


Really? People are disputing this fact all across the interwebs in much the same way as we are.

It really is like banging one's head against a wall, isn't it? Everyone has their favourite systems and will argue based on what they like best.

[Cheese]

My reason for arguing that it doesn't fall into the same class as the other two 7th generation systems is based on the system's capabilities.

This is what I have concluded from this debate. That the Wii is a 7th gen console but it is not in the same class as the other two 7th gen consoles.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Is that the best you can do? :lol:

Well you said that you don't understand why anyone would question your point....but clearly I did and in a way you can't argue against given the fact you took the only comment that didn't have that much to do with the topic and argued that.

Good post Cheese, well presented point, I'm really impressed and don't know how on earth I will come back to that :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

Really? People are disputing this fact all across the interwebs in much the same way as we are.

It really is like banging one's head against a wall, isn't it? Everyone has their favourite systems and will argue based on what they like best.

I can understand that, but to say something is "undisputable" is very strong. The meaning of the word being "not open to question". The fact that we have had a debate (and an interesting one at that) about this subject suggests, at the very least, that this matter is open to question.

Sorry, just my little bugbear with that kind of polarizing statement.

[NikkiD]

Is that the best you can do? :lol:

Well you said that you don't understand why anyone would question your point....but clearly I did and in a way you can't argue against given the fact you took the only comment that didn't have that much to do with the topic and argued that.

Good post Cheese, well presented point, I'm really impressed and don't know how on earth I will come back to that :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

You prove my point well sweetheart. :frusty:

I leave you boys to your arguments now as I need a shower and would like to make dinner before Jericho starts.

[Busyman™]

$500!!!:pinch:

Erm, that's nearer $1000 with a straight monetary conversion. Though I notice you chaps always get your electronic goods at a substantially lower price than us Brits.

Good point. I didn't pay attention to the monetary mark.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok Cheese, I will retract that statement of dispute as you say it clearly is in dispute.
I was using the statement very loosly but if it bugs you I will retract it right here.

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

Ok Cheese, I will retract that statement of dispute as you say it clearly is in dispute.
I was using the statement very loosly but if it bugs you I will retract it right here.

Jonno :cool:

Ok. I did write a post in reply first but felt we were just going over old ground, we can dig up sources to back up our positions all day/night long. I did have to comment on that last statement though because I found it to be a bit silly.

I've made my conclusion, shifted my point of view slightly as detailed in my last post to Nikki. You and others have obviously made up your own minds, cool. Though you all will know what consoles I mean if I say in the future, "Wow, these 7th gen consoles are so overated, it's not like the good old 5th gen days when gameplay mattered".

[Busyman™]

Really? People are disputing this fact all across the interwebs in much the same way as we are.

It really is like banging one's head against a wall, isn't it? Everyone has their favourite systems and will argue based on what they like best.

I don't....too much.

I take every system on their merits. I will never understand fanboys that downplay other systems JUST because they like another.

As I did with the last generation I will treat all 3 systems as one.

Consider my one gigantic console will cost over $1000.

I will have nice party games for my Wii. I'll also get their paltry number of good exclusives.

The 360 and PS3 will be kind of a wait and see. Right now you can't go wrong with good exclusives like Halo 3 for the 360 but I will need to see how the multiplatform games fare under both umbrellas.

Last go round I got everything for the Xbox that was multiplatform. The games looked, played, and loaded better on the Xbox so it was no brainer.

The PS2 and GC were relegated to exclusives (my, the PS2 had many).

RE4, God Of War, Devil May Cry, RE0 and so forth.

I wonder if GOW will remain an exclusive. I think for M$ to really hit home, they need more great exclusives. They will need to develop their own games or acquire a great already established game studio. Rare and Bungie weren't enough.

[GepperRankins]

Ok, we've all made what I think are valid points for our arguments.
I will accept that some sources say that these 3 consoles are 7th generation.
Although the argument still stands that there are many many sources that say the wii is NOT next gen including Nintendo!

@The... you want links..Google is your friend..

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:al_gy7H-MBIJ:www.gamespot.com/news/6152265.html+the+wii+is+not+next+gen&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=5

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=the+wii+is+not+next+gen&meta=

Gamespot is perfectly reputable and states clearly there what I said way back in this thread, that the wii is not Next Gen but will do well due to it's target audience of children's/family games fans.

So if we look at it by date then acording to some sources all 3 are 7th Generation, but.......if one or more of them is not a "Next-Gen" system by technology terms (which I actually think even in laymens minds is the meaning of "Next-Gen") then those that are not next gen will be 6th.

Also you stated that a generation is the consoles lifespan which is 5-6 years, but that doesn't wash either given that the Playstaion was released in 1994/95 and Sony announced in March 2006 they will not make anymore consoles or games for it, meaning it's lifespan was 10-11 years which basically throws the age/life/years span theory out the window.

I have also seen articles saying the Wii is the only Next Gen system but clearly going on technology it's not and no one can dispute that, fan or not.

One thing I will say for Nintendo as a gaming company, they have stood the test of time more than any other brand and for that have my respect even though I've never been a fan.

Here's another link from cnet reviews, this guy pretty much says exactly what I have been saying in this entire thread.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zc-5iT-bpmAJ:reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4864-6464_7-31355103.html%3Fctype%3Dmsgid%26messageSiteID%3D7%26messageID%3D1360372%26cval%3D1360372+which+is+true+next+gen&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

The term "Next-Gen" is determined by technology, to be next gen it must have new next generation technology , and this a fact that is undisputable by anyone.

Jonno :cool:
ok, ok, you got me. :rolleyes:


i don't know how to explain this. it is a 7th generation console and it is "next gen" in comparison to the 6th generation. ok, you got that? no? read it again until you do.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok here's my point in simpler terms for you.
The thing about time span generations that I see as being wrong/flawed is that you have overlap.
Such as the Saturn which is 1994. 1994 was the end and the beginning of 2 generations so in effect it could be placed in either, when in actual fact it wasn't in direct competition with any other systems in either generation, the same is true of the dreamcast, it should be in 5th generation given what it was in competition with.
Then the 6th generation is 1999-2006 putting the PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii in the same generation as the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox and Gamecube.

In actual fact the 6th generation overlaps the 7th by 2 years and you're telling me these are simple terms to understand?

Go and explain it to your gran and tell her that the Dreamcast isn't as good as the ps2 but they both 6th, then the ps2 is in the 6th and so is the PS3 but the PS3 is 7th while the Xbox is 6th and the 360 is 6th by date but also is 7th like the PS3.....blah blah blah doesn't make sense!!!!
The system should work more along the lines of 1989-1994 for the 4th generation and then 1995 - 1999, then 2000 - 2004 and so on.


The system is very badly flawed.
THAT is my argument against this style of catorgarising.

The actual way most consumers set generations is by the wars Megadrive, NES..., PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.....PS3, 360, wii etc.
I do that to an extent but I don't classify a certain set of consoles as Next Gen, I say that for example "the Wii is Nitendo's answer to the PS3, the PS3 is next gen the Wii is not"
I don't number the generations either because logically it can't be done unless you break the generations more cleanly as stated above. If that were the case I would concede and agree that numbered generations can be used but until then I personally think it's too badly flawed a system.

My personal viewpoint on them all I've already stated and at some point will (hopefully) own all 3 because as BM said it gives you a broarder gaming experience.
The Wii as stated will be more party fun, the 360 we bought more to fill the gap and please Nikki's son, we wouldn't have bought it had the PS3 been available and personally I'm not overly impressed with the system nor games available although there are games I like.

@Cheese's comment about gameplay, I think all consoles have been through that, the first games are usually trying to show off graphics ala GOW, good game, too short but looks great. All systems are guilty of this it usually takes the game designers about a year to 18 months to get to grips with the system and even then it still comes down to personal preference which is the bottom line .

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

Ok here's my point in simpler terms for you.
The thing about time span generations that I see as being wrong/flawed is that you have overlap.
Such as the Saturn which is 1994. 1994 was the end and the beginning of 2 generations so in effect it could be placed in either, when in actual fact it wasn't in direct competition with any other systems in either generation, the same is true of the dreamcast, it should be in 5th generation given what it was in competition with.
Then the 6th generation is 1999-2006 putting the PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii in the same generation as the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox and Gamecube.

In actual fact the 6th generation overlaps the 7th by 2 years and you're telling me these are simple terms to understand?

Go and explain it to your gran and tell her that the Dreamcast isn't as good as the ps2 but they both 6th, then the ps2 is in the 6th and so is the PS3 but the PS3 is 7th while the Xbox is 6th and the 360 is 6th by date but also is 7th like the PS3.....blah blah blah doesn't make sense!!!!
The system should work more along the lines of 1989-1994 for the 4th generation and then 1995 - 1999, then 2000 - 2004 and so on.


The system is very badly flawed.
THAT is my argument against this style of catorgarising.

The actual way most consumers set generations is by the wars Megadrive, NES..., PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.....PS3, 360, wii etc.
I do that to an extent but I don't classify a certain set of consoles as Next Gen, I say that for example "the Wii is Nitendo's answer to the PS3, the PS3 is next gen the Wii is not"
I don't number the generations either because logically it can't be done unless you break the generations more cleanly as stated above. If that were the case I would concede and agree that numbered generations can be used but until then I personally think it's too badly flawed a system.





I can see where you're coming from, I really can, but I did say originally that:


It has more to do with the release dates of competing consoles than anything else though that is not the sole factor. I think the system works quite well and is relatively easy to explain and understand, though you seem to disagree with this. No biggie.

[Busyman™]

Ok here's my point in simpler terms for you.
The thing about time span generations that I see as being wrong/flawed is that you have overlap.
Such as the Saturn which is 1994. 1994 was the end and the beginning of 2 generations so in effect it could be placed in either, when in actual fact it wasn't in direct competition with any other systems in either generation, the same is true of the dreamcast, it should be in 5th generation given what it was in competition with.
Then the 6th generation is 1999-2006 putting the PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii in the same generation as the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox and Gamecube.

In actual fact the 6th generation overlaps the 7th by 2 years and you're telling me these are simple terms to understand?

Go and explain it to your gran and tell her that the Dreamcast isn't as good as the ps2 but they both 6th, then the ps2 is in the 6th and so is the PS3 but the PS3 is 7th while the Xbox is 6th and the 360 is 6th by date but also is 7th like the PS3.....blah blah blah doesn't make sense!!!!
The system should work more along the lines of 1989-1994 for the 4th generation and then 1995 - 1999, then 2000 - 2004 and so on.


The system is very badly flawed.
THAT is my argument against this style of catorgarising.

The actual way most consumers set generations is by the wars Megadrive, NES..., PS2, Gamecube, Xbox.....PS3, 360, wii etc.
I do that to an extent but I don't classify a certain set of consoles as Next Gen, I say that for example "the Wii is Nitendo's answer to the PS3, the PS3 is next gen the Wii is not"
I don't number the generations either because logically it can't be done unless you break the generations more cleanly as stated above. If that were the case I would concede and agree that numbered generations can be used but until then I personally think it's too badly flawed a system.

My personal viewpoint on them all I've already stated and at some point will (hopefully) own all 3 because as BM said it gives you a broarder gaming experience.
The Wii as stated will be more party fun, the 360 we bought more to fill the gap and please Nikki's son, we wouldn't have bought it had the PS3 been available and personally I'm not overly impressed with the system nor games available although there are games I like.

@Cheese's comment about gameplay, I think all consoles have been through that, the first games are usually trying to show off graphics ala GOW, good game, too short but looks great. All systems are guilty of this it usually takes the game designers about a year to 18 months to get to grips with the system and even then it still comes down to personal preference which is the bottom line .

Jonno :cool:

Check out Lost Planet. There's a demo on XBL for it. The 360 is looking pretty good on the game front.

I hope that you are using XBL. If not, you are shutting out a big chunk of your gaming experience.

If you know how to wire telephone I suggest you wire a jack for broadband near your TV. It'll actually cost less than the wireless adapter for the 360.

I'm have a couple more rooms to run (I'm rerunning with more streamlined jacks).

The gameplay and graphics of GOW are great. It justs needs 2 more or so levels.

The 4th gaming system is actually the computer. Next year I'm going hook-up a nice media PC for my big screen TV. Playing on a computer sucks in comparison.

I figure

a nice DX10 card
Vista PC with horizontal case
wireless 8-button mouse and wireless keyboard
PS2 type controller
wired broadband connection (running 2 jacks now)

I was going to buy a nice big HDTV monitor but that was a dumb idea and clocker clocked me over the head for that one.:wacko:

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Cheese.... I'm glad you see my point, that obviously means I explained myself reletively well. I do understand the system and it would work quite well if divided a little tighter, thats my only major problem with it I guess as I already explained and I just wanted you to get where I was coming from, although I did enjoy reading through that list, good link. But in 5 or 6 years or whenever the next load of consoles hit I will apreciate you calling them the 8th generation, my guess is the PS4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo P00 lol.

@BM... thats been my plan for a while but obviously quite a bit more pricey than a console, a pc hooked up to the tv purely for gaming.
And no as yet we havn't hooked up the XBL but it's a possibility after xmas and I will probably take your advice on the jack.
Lost Planet looks good from what I've seen, I am interested in Bioshock, from what I've read it sounds good but as always the proof is in the pudding.
Just finished Dead Rising, not a bad game by all accounts, again too short (maybe 10% on GOW) but there's a multitude of endings and ways to play it although it doesn't serve enough interest for me to play them all but worth a look if for nothing more than to kill a couple of thousand zombies with pretty much any weapon you can think of.

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

i dunno how it works in canadia, but in england we get about 6 metres of cat-5 in the box with the premium system. just plug that into your router or PC with internet connection sharing.

xbox live is mental. it doesn't even feel like i'm being ripped off

[Busyman™]

@Cheese.... I'm glad you see my point, that obviously means I explained myself reletively well. I do understand the system and it would work quite well if divided a little tighter, thats my only major problem with it I guess as I already explained and I just wanted you to get where I was coming from, although I did enjoy reading through that list, good link. But in 5 or 6 years or whenever the next load of consoles hit I will apreciate you calling them the 8th generation, my guess is the PS4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo P00 lol.

@BM... thats been my plan for a while but obviously quite a bit more pricey than a console, a pc hooked up to the tv purely for gaming.
And no as yet we havn't hooked up the XBL but it's a possibility after xmas and I will probably take your advice on the jack.
Lost Planet looks good from what I've seen, I am interested in Bioshock, from what I've read it sounds good but as always the proof is in the pudding.
Just finished Dead Rising, not a bad game by all accounts, again too short (maybe 10% on GOW) but there's a multitude of endings and ways to play it although it doesn't serve enough interest for me to play them all but worth a look if for nothing more than to kill a couple of thousand zombies with pretty much any weapon you can think of.

Jonno :cool:

Yeah Dead Rising seems like a huge demo.

I'd like to see Stubbs The Zombie for the 360. That game was decent on the Xbox. There are lots aof possiblities there.

XBL is less than $5 bucks a month and almost any game you own is expanded. I got 3 extra levels on the original Splinter Cell from XBL for instance.

You also get XBL Arcade and demos. I remember getting demos for my PS1 and 2 when sent back a games warranty card.

This is 10 times better.

Also if you are on my friends list then for instance I can see that you're playing GOW and join in co-op stylee.

With Google Checkout you can get $20 off $50 so grab a XBL "kit" from there. I think I saw a kit with the camera and headset for $70.

[Jon L. Obscene]

i dunno how it works in canadia, but in england we get about 6 metres of cat-5 in the box with the premium system. just plug that into your router or PC with internet connection sharing.

Yep, 6m cable, pity in order to route the cable along the wall so it's not being tripped over or stood on it would require approx 9m to the tv/xbox, so BM's idea is more than feasable.

@BM... Yeah like I said probably in the new year we'll get it although I'm suprised that you wanna go co-op with me lol, I wanna kick your ass lol, seriously though it would be a giggle and you never know what they'll come out with in the future for it. As for the kit, I dunno we got a headset with the package, I actually think it came with 30 days of XBL silver pack but I havn't read it so not sure....too lazy lol

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman™]

i dunno how it works in canadia, but in england we get about 6 metres of cat-5 in the box with the premium system. just plug that into your router or PC with internet connection sharing.

Yep, 6m cable, pity in order to route the cable along the wall so it's not being tripped over or stood on it would require approx 9m to the tv/xbox, so BM's idea is more than feasable.

@BM... Yeah like I said probably in the new year we'll get it although I'm suprised that you wanna go co-op with me lol, I wanna kick your ass lol, seriously though it would be a giggle and you never know what they'll come out with in the future for it. As for the kit, I dunno we got a headset with the package, I actually think it came with 30 days of XBL silver pack but I havn't read it so not sure....too lazy lol

Jonno :cool:

XBL Silver is standard and always free.

There are different Gold packs with varying extras:

XBL: 13 months - $50
XBL Vision: 12 months, headset, 3 XBL Arcade games (UNO, Robotron 2084, Totemball), camera, 200 Marketplace points. - $80
XBL: 12 months, headset, 1 Arcade game Billiards, 200 MP points - $60





GOW has deathmatches also.

[maebach]

I was thinking of buying a Wii, but now that I knowq the graphics are not amazing Im questioning it. Does anybody here have a Wii, and have some good things to say about it? I will mostly play shooters, and soccer/basketball games.

The Wii is fun. The new Zelda is great but it's a great game with Gamecube graphics.

For me, the Wii is a party console + Zelda.

Red Steel sucks ass. Imo it's not worth $250 at all.....unless you never had a Gamecube.

In that case....

Get Resident Evil 4, Zelda OOT, WW, and TP and call it a day. It comes with Wii Sports.

cool, so is the 360 the best system for the money (value) then?

[Busyman]

The Wii is fun. The new Zelda is great but it's a great game with Gamecube graphics.

For me, the Wii is a party console + Zelda.

Red Steel sucks ass. Imo it's not worth $250 at all.....unless you never had a Gamecube.

In that case....

Get Resident Evil 4, Zelda OOT, WW, and TP and call it a day. It comes with Wii Sports.

cool, so is the 360 the best system for the money (value) then?

Right now I'd say yes....and that's with paying the extra $50 for XBL.

[grchl3]

I gotta agree with what you said about the wii & ps3. Although the ps3 seems like a good deal on paper, coz its bundled with the blue ray player, I'm probably gonna go with the wii coz it looks like more fun and its cheaper. Also it'll take a while for the battle between hd-dvd & blue ray to sort itself out, and I really don't feel like becoming an early adopter on that one.