My 2 Cents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:...a&ct=clnk&cd=5

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...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:...a&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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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: