fooflexible said: When you step back every system offers a satisfying game experience. To say any system just totally stinks is crazy. For example I owned a TurboGraphix 16 it failed on the market but I loved it. Back then I felt it was worth the purchase and still love it's games today.(Bonk on VC hoorah!) My brother owned the 3DO for the lousy system is was it still had a hand full of good games. Same thing goes for the failed Dreamcast which seems to have a huge cult following. And these new 3 systems are light years ahead of those systems. To say the Wii isn't innovative because motion sensing technology was being used in other industries is plain silly. They were the first to introduce motion sensing to a home console. If your only going to call a game system innovative if it has never ever seen before technology then your never going to see an innovative console period. Innovation is also defined by putting existing concepts together that no one had done before. Then you say the ps3 isn't doing what it's predecessors did, but you say ps1 introduced cd, and ps2 dvd with better graphics, isn't ps3 following that to a T with Blu-ray and even better graphics? Really what else could people ask of the ps3 other then a price cut. Also the 360 a console without a soul? how can anyone assume the 360 is the same thing as a PC and excuse all the exclusive games? Look at what's coming, have you seen shots of Alan Wake? It's the most amazing looking thing. Have you seen the sheer size of Mass Effect, and how amazing this game looks. Not to mention Halo 3, Blue Dragon, Too Human, and many more. You won't find that on the pc. You won't find it an coming anywhere but the 360. These systems are worth their weight in gold, and they deserve the fans they have.

AninParadX said: Yeah there lies on of the biggest problems of fanboyism. They stop to think about what is really happening. Maybe I am lucky but I usually get behind these marketing tactics very easily. I laughed my ass off when I heard the first time that Nintendo claims the Wii to be the "new generation". It has a nice ring to it, but it doesn´t mean really anything. It's not about pointing at Nintendo especially but it's the most obvious example for me. The only way out of it in my opinion is to be honest to yourself and don't act on emotions only.

AninParadX said: Lately I watched many forums and news posts very closely. I thought to myself why people are getting so aggresive when it comes to consoles. It seems it's not a war between the industry but more a war between fanboys. But what are the fanboys really doing? Generally their posting their opinions about their system of choice and can´t stand the fact that other people have a different opinion. But are the fanboys paid by the industry. No. Than why do they defend their system so damn hard? None of the three firms, Nintendo, MS and Sony, really cares about what people think they just want to sell their system. These three firms are manipulating the people in their own way. You can´t deny that fact at all. Still people become believers of their philosophy. People look behind that philosophy (ideology) and you realize that you are played in the worst way possible. Let's take a closer look what's really happening. Nintendo is trying to conivce the gamers that their system is the most inventive and therefore the future. But instead it isn´t that inventive at all. The wiimote isn´t a general new idea. It is used for a long time in different industries but no one seems to realize. I don´t want to say that it isn´t a good idea but don´t get caugh in a PR trap and defend the system emotionally. The main philosophy of Nintendo is to do sth different and therefore show how much better it is. It isn't better it's just different. Look at the DS. Nintendo is trying to sell outdated hardware (DS is a N64 with some new tweaks) and does make a lot of money with it. The same with the Wii. They are making a system which is outdated the time it came out. I understand that Nintendo wants to make profit but not on the backs of the consumers. They could have done a system with more hardware power (even Myamoto said he wanted HD support but knew their would be no profit in it). But instead Nintendo does sell a system which isn't that future proof, especially with rising HDTV sells. I don´t say the Wii or the DS is a bad system, but Nintendo is very tricky to lure people into believing, but thats what their business strategy is all about. Now Nintendo can sell their know brands with a new control all over again. I don´t think this is fair for the consumers which want "real" new experiences. Therefore I want real new gameplay experiences and new game ideas and not the good old story all over again. MS has and will always be a company that give people the feeling how superior their products are to other products. Why did Bill Gates get so mad when he saw the Apple ad? People only get mad when they know deep inside themself that the opinion is right. Otherwise people don´t get mad and can laugh about it. The same with the 360. MS promised and couldn´t fullfill the promise. But instead of acknowleding that they show-off their superority. There are not very much games that feel unique on the 360. Even Gears of War (great game!) is just another macho Ego-Shooter with ultra-cool graphics. Where are the online games that could prove how good the online service of the 360 really is. Why did Blizzard clearly state that their will be no WoW for the 360 because MS isn´t realizing how important the market really is. The 360 tries to be a PC in many ways and is just a bad rip off. But PC games had the mod experience and online shooter experience for a long time now. Why should they get a 360 what is the great difference? The unique feeling you get when playing a console is lost on the 360 imo. I don´t see any games coming out that give me a reason to buy a 360. Again it isn´t a bad console but a console without soul. That's the great disatvantage of the 360. It's just another MS wannabe product and the philosophy of superiority and american-based patriosim doesn't work elsewhere on the world. When Sony got in the console market I knew Sony would change it. They made the product the people wanted to have. CD support and 3D Graphics for the PS1 and DVD support and good graphics for the PS2. Maybe that's the big problem with the PS3 what's the big difference to his predecssors. Sony wants to make the PS3 a PC too and they fail totally. Instad they brought out a product that feels bulky and somewhat unfinished. I think it's out a year too soon. Now people tend to bash Sony and the PS3 all the time. The fact is that it's a great piece of technology but lacking the experience of the programmers. It is damn hard to program dual-cores and it's even harder to program 6 cores especially on the cell. Sony too wanted to play the superiority card and were caught in their own trap. They missed their goal to place a product in the market people want or need. Hastily they brought out the sixaxis control (which isn't that bad considering the fact that people are used to pads) because they saw people want a new experience. Sony did forget what is most important in the gaming market : the games. The PS2 had the same problem in the beginning and became one of the most succesful consoles ever. Therefore don´t hate PS3 but hate the programmers who aren't making enough effort to get used to the complex hardware of the PS3. Sony lost their own philosophy to make sth that is just good and instad they wanted to make sth that is ultra-super. I would prefer a console that is just good and has a lot of great games instead of being super on the paper. My personal prediction can´t be told in hardware sales numbers because I am not a prophet. But when I see how strongly people polarize when it comes to these three gaming machines I don´t see a clear winner. Instead I only see losers because that what people really want isn´t cared about. 10 years ago the first VR projects where discussed and some firms (Sega) tried to bring out a product in that region. The try was shattered and put in the dump. The hardware wasn't capable of doing. I played VR systems myself and liked the experience (heart beat rising and sweating like hell, maybe because it was so heavy ;) ) but hated the graphics and bad motion tracking hardware. Therefore I give Nintendo one extra point for realizing where the future does go but hell not with Gamecube*2 graphics. Graphics aren't that important for all games but in ego games it's the most important thing. For example look at Crysis. It will blow your mind (and your wallet when buying a new system) and give you a new more realistic experience. But is that wanted:NO. Crytek realized that and made a game that is better than life. Herein lies on possible future to bring games in a region where it's not ultra-realistic but becomes impossible in real life. Better than life and impossible in real life comes down to create worlds that are more like comics and anime and even movies. I want physics to be so damn realistic-unrealistic that when I kick someone I see a blast of light and slow-mo effects when I gets crunshed on the wall. Well that's what I want and therefore I write stories where I can realize these ideas.