By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Luck on 24 February 2014
Edit Thread
Zod95 said:
Luck said:
Zod95 said:
Spazzy_D said:
Just want to say, but graphically at least, the 6th gen consoles were pretty clearly Xbox > Gamecube > PS2 > Dreamcast.

PS2 was the most powerful console when it was launched. That is being cutting-edge. Otherwise, NES was not cutting-edge either.

Yeah, and the Wii U was the most powerful console when it launched so it's cutting-edge.

You are mostly (See my previous post) trying to make ''Truths'' out of highly subjective assumptions that you are seing as ''Facts''.

And when a fact is presented to you, like in this case (Raw power = Xbox > Gamecube > PS2 > Dreamcast) , you are using twisted and silly logic to make it fit your way of thinking.

Wii U was only the most powerful console on paper. It never had the best game in graphics. PS2 did.

Wii U is a piece of 7th gen tech launched 1 year before its 8th gen competitors. PS2 is a 6th gen piece of tech launched 1 year before its 6th competitors. I think the difference is pretty obvious.

Of course you can see Game Cube as a much more powerful console than PS2, eventually almost as powerful as the PS3, while seeing WiiU as almost a PS4. I can't prevent that. I just can stick to my "twisted logic".

Yes, it is twisted logic how you are comprehending one of the weakest 6th gen console as cutting-edge tech while ditching the hardware of the Gamecube.

By the way, I was just being sacarstic about the Wii U.