By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Game Over! on 22 December 2007
Edit Thread

 Game Over! said:

TWRoO said:

If we are talking hardware quality, GC pwns all of this and last gens home consoles.

Hardware quality consists of a number of things IMO;

physical durabilty [GC>XB>>>>PS2]
electronic durability [GC>>>XB>>PS2]
design [GC>PS2>>>XB] (PS2 slim would be above GC though)
hardware capabilities (tech specs) [XB>GC>>>>PS2]
controller (yes it is part of hardware) [GC>>PS2>>>>XBsmall>>>>>>>>>>>XB]
practicality of design [PS2>>GC>>>>>>XB]

by the way i basically made all that up on the spot.

looking at my recently made up list, and taking into account various weighting i am going to apply to stuff (ie controller is more important than the design)

I can easily see GC>>>>>PS2>>XB.
What was wrong with the GC was it set of on the wrong foot and had a poor selection of third partys on board etc

If i apply the same things to this gen I would say
Wii>PS3>>>360 (you can tell i don't put much of a weight onto tech specs)

 

None of the above however manages to affect the sales much... sales are down to games and marketing for the most part.


You can't just add that together like design is as important as hardware capabilities. For the first, the design is a personal subject. I, for example, think that PS2 Slim doesn't look well at all, it's just a practical design. It's no question for me that the Xbox was better in this spot. By the way, do you look on the console or the screen when you play? The hardware capabilities are more important than all other spots together! (maybe not controller capabilities). And, the small Xbox controller is the best ever made (the 360 controller doesn't have the White and Black buttons). I'd say that the GC controller is the worst. It almost looks like a toy. REMEMBER: The more buttons, the higher possibility!

Why was the PS2 so popular then? IT'S CHEAPER!!! Many of my friends that bought a PS2 like 4 years ago wanted to change to an Xbox some weeks later. They thought that the difference in tech specs was less than the difference in price. The Xbox was clearly the best old-gen console, like the PS3 is now. The reason because the PS3 is so unpopular right now is the PRICE!!!

Sony earned enough with money on the PS1&2 to be able to make some high spec consoles, like PSP and PS3. Microsoft and Nintendo earned too few money, so they had to do worse consoles now!

You know why Oddworld just went on the Xbox? Because of the graphics! It was planned to be a PS2 exclusive, but the console was too crappy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The PS2 is clearly too overrated...


 I'd change these spots to (including Dreamcast in some spots):

Physical durabilty [GC > XB > both PS2] (Didn't change anything!)
Electronic durability [GC > XB > both PS2] (Didn't change anything!)
Design [PS2 > XB > GC > PS2 slim > DC] (Yes, PS2 slim is really awful!)
Hardware capabilities (tech specs) [XB > GC > both PS2 > DC] (Of course!)
Controller [XB > PS2 > GC > XB duke > DC] (Because of the white and black buttons on the XB controller, which gives more possibilities, and the GC controller looks like a toy for kids...)
Practicality of design [DC > PS2 slim > GC > PS2 > XB] (The XB takes too much space...)

However, I can clearly see XB > GC/PS2 > DC. The XB should have been dominating that generation, and the GC and PS2 should have been equal in the marketshare.

This gen the PS3 would replace the XB, and the 360 the PS2. Wii will of course replace the GC! Both XB and PS3 have been the most hardcore consoles in their respective gens, and both have the least of causal games...