I want everybody who reads this to give me their opinion on which is the better console far as hardware, games, design, and anything else you can think of.

NOOOOOO! Don' t start that not here, the happy place, not this place noooooo!!!

Ya sorry I just know now where this will go...

Absolutely not.

Not unless you have a viable reason why we should do that, like you' re trying to decide on a purchase or something.

The Atari 2600 beats them both hands down. None of them will ever have AAA titles the caliber of E.T. for the 2600!

Sorry, but for any serious gamers out there, who want to take this question seriously, the answer is obvious. It' s all about the quality of the product, and the ability of the parent company to stand behind there product. I don' t want something that after having for 2 hours is going to leave a sour taste in my mouth. I want something that I can enjoy instantly, and want to come back for again again. That' s why I would definetly choose the Whopper over the Big Mac. What were we talking about again??

Having spent a great deal of time with both of them, I would recommend going for the Xbox. It' s a better system in the loing run. However, i would also suggest holding out as the new systems will be released relatively soon (within the year I believe).

However, i would also suggest holding out as the new systems will be released relatively soon (within the year I believe).

I highly doubt it. 2006 is much more likely.

It' s a better system in the loing run.

Completely subjective, and dependent entirely upon the gamer. It' s why we won' t answer such a question here.

Chiming in...

First, you need to determine what game genre(s) you enjoy.

Then, you should pick the system with the games that best provide the enjoyment you seek.

If you are lucky enough to buy both...and they both have what you' re looking for...then buy both.

Otherwise, refer to the first item...

If none of this makes any sense to you, then refer to fathoms subjectivity statement in the post prior to his one...he' s right, you know.

im gonna say the ps2 for way better games

Withoing giving a long winded reason at the moment I' d pick the X-Box anyway. I just enjoy my X-Box more and have actually sold nearly all of my PS2 games for things like Burnout 3, Fable, Ninja Gaiden and the like.

AHHHHHHHG

I highly doubt it. 2006 is much more likely.

Really? I thought the new X-Boxes where coming out some time in 2005
With that new Cell chip only being finished in mid 2005 the PS3 will probably be 2006 sometime
And no idea on the Nintendo Revolution.

I have my opinion of which is better but really it' s about the games, not the consoles. You buy the console to play the game so buy the one that plays the games you want.
Therefore, they are all good in their own way and one being " better" than another is the opinion of the owner which is based on the games he/she enjoys.

Raven: No MS official or rep. will say that they expect their new console in 2005. The last one I spoke to said " early 2006 at best." That was only a few months ago.

this again!?!? i think someone wants KIKIZO to bust into a free-for-all brawl or something. i am going with the PS@ hands down. Why? backwards compatiabily. if you want FFT, are you going to the X-box? no. if you want Xeongears, you go to X-box? No. if you want FF 7 or any good RPG, where are you going to go? my PS2 never let me down with the games that it has. I think ppl are get so nuts about Halo is brcause they have TWO games that are really good. i look at game mags and online gaming mags, i see PS2 with like 10 good games and the X-box with like one REALLY good one. all the good games that come out for the X-box 9 times out of 10 it is for the PS2 anyway. Hell, why is no one saying anything about the Gamecube? that is good but Halo is the thing to beat so we NEED these things so X-box owners feel like X-box almost did not die. even the owners said " With out this game, X-box would have gone under" ................. if a SINGLE game saved it, what is to say that the next time they make a game that sucks they get sucked under. i NEVER heard Sony say " whoa. that was a close one. With out Jumping Jack Flash we would have gone under.!" PS2 makes RPGs and the X-box bypass it like they have it like that. X-box tries for the uber new Genre without trying to make a base for it. Brtue Force? Yakusa Missions?that Demon dude who flew around and killed stuff?(ogotri? I Think). those games are bad not because they were bad, there were just missed by the ppl. X-box has sports and Halo, that is it. and not games that the PS2 has. they do not count. Why? Because while the X-box looks better, the PS2 has it and all the PS2 only games to go with it. More games on the PS2, bottom line.

It all depends on if you want Quantity over Quality.

Xbox holds superior sound and graphics, PS2 has a lot more 3rd party support.

And about backward compatibility...what the heck is Xbox gonna be backward compatible with?! Its the first time out for the company. I can also remember quite a few exclusives that helped X-box besides Halo.
-Crimson Skies
-Ninja Gaiden
-Fable
-Amped
-Knights of the Old Republic
-Morrowind
-Unreal Championship
-PGR

Halo basically is to X-box what GTA or Final Fantasy is to PS2. Heck if PS2 didnt have square-enix do you think it would still be doing as good as it is? It may still have been number one in the console race but the margin could' ve been a lot tighter.

Ahg I dont know why I let myself get sucked into this topic, I just don' t see a point to claiming one over the other. They both have theres highs and lows and can almost cancel eachother out in a side by side comparison.

It all depends on if you want Quantity over Quality.

That' s a difficult argument to uphold when GameRankings lists almost twice as many PS2 titles that have 80%-90% or higher...

And as far as Square-Enix and FF goes, Sony and their first-party franchises of Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank, Twisted Metal, and SOCOM, all out-sell every Xbox franchise in existence with the exception of Halo.

But like you said, it' s impossible to say. Quantity is not subjective, but quality is. So for some people, your argument would stand for a certain system, despite what the numbers say.

I say own BOTH. I have for years; works out just fine for me. Sure, I have a lot more PS2 games, but then again, I' ve had it for two years longer. And yeah, I' ve spent a lot more time with the PS2, but that' s because RPG' s take a LONG time to complete.

Who cares which console, what games do you want to play? Thats the important bit. Glad to see most ppl on this forum agree with that and don' t fall into the usual console wars.

Get both if you can afford.

Why not a Gamecube too!?

Stephen Rowley is correct. It' s sad that the only way you can enjoy all the great games out there is by spending hundreds of pounds on all the current generation consoles (much like I' ve done). But then again the competition breeds creativity.

Personally I' m more of a fan of the Xbox although I own both. By the way if you call it an " X-Box" or " XBox" for that matter, I may have to bludgen you. It' s " Xbox." They are both great systems with similar libraries of games, but for me the exclusive titles, hard drive, and Xbox LIVE make Xbox the clear choice. Just my two cents.