The thing is that the data leap to HD is not as big as it is made out. CDs held 650-700MB (less if there was formatting) maximum, without even a second layer. A single layer DVD holds 7.2 times the amount of data on a CD, which is greater than blu-ray's 5 times leap.

A tool? Hardly, sir.

If you were to read the entirety of my posts, from all treads, you'll realize that i'm anythig but a fanboy. I hold no loyalties to any sole manufacturer of video games.

However this is my response to your single cell minded accusation, you could've used your first post here to put your foot down rather than insert it into your mouth.

As i've said before, i owm all systems and am a fan of all video games.

know thy enemy before you attack, sir. then and only then you just may see it to victory.

 Well you still haven't given a good reason why it's a bad thing for the 360 to stick with DVD9, which was the impression of the OP.

Well, lord nightknight, IMO microsoft has not done anything bad but has taken a stand that video games don't need the extra space that formats like hd-dvd and blu-ray give to make video games.
Yet, more and more, we are seeing that games would like the freedom of that extra space. i.e. GTAIV. games of the sandbox nature that allow you to roam from place to place as you wish. all of that information is needed on one disc to hold that world together. rather than swithing discs when yuo go to one side of the map, and re-insert the other disc when you want to go back to the other side.
games that follow a certain story line may not need this space. but future games like GTA do.
I just personally think microsoft could've prooved their position by act, and not by bashing the competition, especially when we're seeing a rising demand for higher storage compasity.

The other gentleman would have recieved the same curtessy if he had asked a question rather than used my open thought question for a chance to accuse me of a title i feel i don't deserve.

I don't see this as a big issue. You can add 2 or 3 more discs as everyone else said, but if you haven't forgotten yet, they could use xbox 360's marketplace for download. For example, If they want GTA IV to be on one disc. They can add all the bonus stuff on the marketplace where people can download it for free if you have the game. I have a 120GB harddrive, and if you download 2gb worth of gameplay per game like that or less, you will be able to fill up 60 games. I doubt you will have 60 games that will have this problem.

yes they could, but they can't make a portion of the original game data a download. as some individuals purchased their core unit. all game have to fit the require media on the disc or discs.  to require a download for a console that does NOT feature a hard drive in all its marketable forms can't, and really just shouldn't, require a download. it passes off the core users as less of an important market than the hardcore gamers with LIVE.

 The thing is that a streaming game like GTA are also limited by RAM and disc read speeds, which the PS3 is also limited by, even with blu-ray. For example, the slow loading in the PS2 version of San Andreas caused a lot of pop-ups, even though the game had all the disc space it needed on the PS2's DVD. So a larger GTA game this gen would run into trouble, if it also exceeds the loading limitations of either system.

 Now HD uses more data, but compression is also a lot better this gen. If Gears of War had been on a last gen system, it likely would have taken up almost as much space as it does now, even though it would be in standard definition. 

I definitely agree here, the XBOX360 would not be successful AT ALL if it was $600 ;) and personally I prefer uber high quality! And FMV's have very important roles in some games, like developing backstory more effectively than in game, though weren't all the other GTA cut scenes done using the game's engine anyways? I'm not sure about Halo, never played more than the multi.

What I was getting at when I said scaling is the fact that the games are rendered at very low resolutions. for exampe, Fighting Spirit is rendered inside the Amiga at 256x320 pixels, a very common resolution for console and computer games at the time. The games are then scaled to fit the display almost always via pixel doubling. This is why these games will look better at small sizes, aka their native resolution - because at this scale you do not see much in the way of alaising or pixellation. However, at full size (aka double res) on a tv these problems become much more apparent. Do you understand now? It has nothing to do with PAL v NTSC.

Every decent emulator has a scanline option, just like every decent game was optimized for CRT scanlines.

So? I thought we were doing a straight comparison between consoles, in which case the age of the hardware matters. Besides, the 1200 came out in America in 1992 as well, so why use Europe unless you wanted to make for an unfair comparison? But why do that when you could make an unfair comparison between bad ports on a conole?

BTW, since you completly missed my point about Street Fighter 2 let me explain. You made an unfair comparison between a good amiga game, and a shite port on the SNES ; which you so resentfully claimed to be "highly acclaimed". So I duplicated what you did, making a comparison between a good SNES arcade port and a half assed Amiga version going so far as to mimick you're witty commentary. Didn't you wonder why I said "Fell free to claim it was a bad port, because thats exactly what I'm getting at."? 

My street fighter 2 post was not about how good/bad amiga games looked or how they played. It was about using rigged comparisons to try and make a point - something you missed entirely.

 I have not said the Amiga was a bad platform or had awful hardware, just that you use unfair comparions to make the system look better than it was, as well as an asinine comparison to the PS3 (which you have yet to get back to for some reason...) Sure, I critised Fighting Spirit, but thats because its a fighting game from 1996 that looks like it was made in 1986 - with poorly drawn characters to boot.

I did say it had a limited color palette, but thats true. Furthermore, the SNES is considered to have one of the most vibrant color palettes of any console of that era, actually being better than the PC engine. Before you post balbbing about 256 colors, this has nothing to do with the number of colors available or displayable - its about how vibrant the colors are. If you look at Amiga games you can clearly see it's 1980 roots, just like the Genesis. However, SNES, and to a lesser extent the PC engine, have better looking colors. Like I said, fighting Spirit makes this very evident with a 1980s color scheme that I find downright repulsive.

Find a list of commercially released 500 games and we'll talk 

For some strange reason I thought this thread was about MS blowing off a part of its body with a firearm called a "halo 3".  Then reading the first few posts it seemed the theme was whether having games on multiple discs is better than paying $200 more for a console. I see I was mistaken, it is actually an Amiga vs. NES thread. So 20 years from now I guess I'll be reading someone arguing how the "PS3 was so much better than a Wii there's no comparison, PS3 FOREVER!!!!". To which someone else will say "yeah, no comparison in the sales figures, WII FOREVER!!!!". Ahh, what a future.