Sigh, fool, allow me to retort.
The transcendent.
This is the constant factor. It is unchanging. Whatever course the industry takes, it will partake in this factor - in order for any company to lead the industry, it must transcend it.
The "history of consoles" established this asserton. The Atari 2600 was the first commericialized console. The Nes was the first Japanese made console to offer games that strayed from the usual genre. The Sega Genesis was the first console to offer perfect arcade-like graphics and gameplay. The PSX was the first console to fully utilize a 3D world. Every other console that failed to be the first to transcend or revolutionize the industry - Saturn, Master System, 32X, Sega CD, 3DO, Jaguar, N64 - never capitilized on it.
What basis do you have that the XBox will TRANSCEND the industry? What are the ground breaking ideas that MS had, that others don\'t have already? The fact that it has a hard drive? The fact that it will have broadband support? Hmmm, great points. Do you forget that the PS2 will have the same things? In fact, the PS2 will have a BIGGER, BETTER hard drive than the XBox. As for broadband, the XBox will not even be able to use its capabilities for some time. If you are thinking, "Well, you can use the modem if you have your own ISP", well, there again, so can the PS2. Oh wait, maybe you think its transcending because MS has never done a console before. Hmmm, wrong again. Just because they have never done a console before, doesn\'t make them pioneers in the industry.
Oh, yeah you\'re right, XBox can play DVD\'s! Ohhhh, but you need to spend 30 bucks to buy a remote, just so you can watch \'em. Sorry, pal, hope you like getting ripped like that, \'cause after all, we ARE dealing with Microsoft. All the capabilities that the PS2 actually transcended the industry with that MS is COPYING, it was capable of doing right out of the box.
Ways PS2 transcended the industry:
It was the first to offer DVD support.
Full pressure sensitive control support.
USB support.
iLink support.
They even took the step of breaking out and calling it a "computer entertainment" system, rather than a video game system.
Everything on the XBox was designed to do something better than the PS2. To me, that isn\'t transcending, that\'s copying and trying to make it SEEM transcending.
The wavering support.
The quick fluctuation of support on the PS2 by such companies like Konami, Square, EA, and Namco is surely not a good sign. It took the Sega Genesis 4 years to draw the support of Capcom and SF2. It took the PSX 3 years to garner Square and FF7. It took the Xbox and GC 1 day to nab all of the top support from the PS2. This divergence is a scary thought when you take into consideration how quick and easy it was to careen. If the GC and Xbox can do this much damage on day one, imagine the kind of damage it can do in a year or two
There again, you are quite wrong. It seems to me, rather than wavering support, that companies have finally realized how much money they are losing when it comes to supporting new consoles. Know how much money Capcom lost snubbing the Genesis? Or how much money Square lost not developing for the PSX? No, dumbass, these developers aren\'t wavering at all, they are trying to better their financial standing. Something you know little of, sitting in front of your computer, using mommy and daddy\'s money for the ISP who provides you with the resources to type this bile. Yeah, there are a few games, but the majority of these companies you have stated will support ALL consoles, not just your XBox.
The huge disparity in graphics.
GT3 and Metal Gear Solid 2 are arguably the top graphical franchises for the system. These two games should be fairly contrasted to the top games of the two opposing systems. When you do a comparison, it is not accurate to compare the raw power of the consoles. The developemental process and the raw power should be the means for an accurate comparison. note: If we don\'t do that then the Saturn is technically just as powerful as the PSX - with games like Grandia and VF2 which not only matches but surpasses some of the top graphical franchises on the PSX. If we take Metal Gear Solid 2 and GT3 into comparison with DOA3 and Luigi\'s Mansion, we won\'t see much of a graphical leap, but if you delve deeper into the developemental process, you will see a stark contrast. GT3 and Metal Gear Solid have already been in developement a little prior to the PS2 launch. *Technically* both titles have already been in developement for 3 years. Both Luigi\'s Mansion and DOA3 have been in developement for no less than 2 years. With this assertion, the ratio in consideration of the graphical mean and the developemental process for each opposing systems is, give or take, 1.75:3.5. The PS2 is *technically* almost 2 times less powerful than the GC and Xbox. This should be constant because it is the controlled factor. Of course, through time, the developers will have a better grasp on the PS2 and the graphics will be better, but the same can be said of the Xbox GC thus the constant factor cannot be changed in anyway unless if any of the systems ceased production.
Ahh, you found a way to try and explain away some of the points people will undoubtably bring up against your "PS2 graphics SUCK!" statement. Yeah, I\'m real concerned about HOW developers get their job done, as long as they keep giving us the goods. Telling people raw power doesn\'t count is a weak and evasive argument.
When you say that games like MGS2 and GT3 have been in developmental stages way longer than games like Luigi and DOA3, could it be that they have been taking that long, not because of graphics, but because of the scope, level of detail and all-out HUGENESS of these titles? You are taking two game made by arguably two of the biggest perfectionists in the industry and stacking them up against shallow graphic-displaying-grab-the-whore games. NO comparison, boy. The scope and breadth of these games ALONE will eclipse anything realeased on launch day by either console, and that is what I\'m gonna buy MGS2 for, even though the graphics are reeeal sweet too.
Why didn\'t you bring up DMC? Oh, yeah, cause it was developed as long as either of the two examples given above and can definitely give them a run for their money, graphics-wise.
And as far as VF2 and Grandia surpassing the tops of PSX graphics, I\'d like you to site some examples of what you think the best graphical games of the PSX are, and why those two would beat them.
Your posts are funny. The whole time you sit there and say, "You guys are fanboys and graphics whores! Just look at the XBox\'s graphics and how the XBox brings life to the dead and walks on water, while feeding multitudes and flying around the earth so fast that it reverses time!"
I wish you could step out of your little world and see yourself for the hipocrite you really are.
