What are your pluses and minuses on current systems(xbox ps2 gamecube)? And what do you hope for in future system releases?

X-box:
+Powerful
+Many built in features
+Xbox Live
-DVD separate but reasonably priced (and i foudn that my universal remote works with it
-Lackage of RPGs and Flight sims

PS2:
+Good power
+Large game library
-Additions costly
-DVD problems
-2 controller ports

Gamecube:
+Portable
+Lotsa small addictive games
-No DVD/CD player
-Very little for the online

--The future--
:A built in hardrive is a definate most or somthing similar
:Online capabilities
:Game modding for consoles would be pretty cool

PS2

+Large selection of great games
+Great controller
+Don' t have to own DVD remote to use DVD capabilities
-Only two controller ports (unless you buy a multi-tap)
-No built-in hard-drive
-No built-in Network Adaptor

X Box

+Great graphics/sound
+X Box Live
+Built-in hard-drive
+Custom soundtracks
+Downloadable content
+Four controller ports
-Must own DVD remote for DVD playback
-X Box Live has a yearly fee
-Took two tries to get the controller right

GameCube
+Four controller ports
+GBA connectivity
+/- Lots of games appropriate for children
-Akward controller
-Short controller cord length (it almost forces you to buy a WaveBird)
-Almost no online support
-No DVD/CD support

For future consoles I' m hoping four controller ports and online play (espeacially cross-console online play) is the standard. All consoles should have built in hard drive (though things aren' t loking good for Microsoft' s next console). They should all be backwards compatible with games from the previous consoles.

For this generation of consoles I overall like PS2 the best.

XBOX
+Good graphix/5.1 sorround sound
+Alot of Good Online games
+Hard Drive (faster loading,DLC,Custom Soundtracks)
+4 controller ports
+XBOX LIVE
+exclusive FPS
+Headset plugs into controller.
+/- DVD remote only for the ppl who watch DVD' s

PS2
+gets GTA before XBOX
-Headset plugs into the console.
-No Good Online Games
-No Hard Drive(long loading time,no DLC,No Custom Soundtracks)
-2 controller ports
-Bad Graphix
-bad sound(only pro logic 2)
- -u HAVE to buy the memory card

GameCube
+4 controller ports
+MARIO,ZELDA
+O.K Graphix
-sound
-disks only hold 1.5 gigs
-no online
- -U HAVE to buy the memory card
-Cant play DVD' s

All the XBOX 2 needs is faster CPU more RAM,bigger Hard Drive and better video card.

I really don' t care about the next generation of systems. I' m so far behind with what we already have that I' ll never catch up as it is.

Russian, keep coments like " PS2: bad graphics and Sound" to yourself. Everyday you look dumber, and are loosing respect in the forums. (Also, I don' t want to see you owned again [:' (])

X-box:
+Sheer power
+positive move towards user configuration (custom OST etc)
+(almost) seamless PC conversions
-big, ugly and an aesthetic nightmare
-power will probably be never fully realised
-lacks support from Microsoft (they' re far too keen to talk about the future beyond xb)

PS2:
+Covers all genres better than competition
+assured investment, isn' t going to go the way of DC
+Backward compatibility
-Graphics showing their age
-poor network implementation
-poorly made

Gamecube:
+Sturdy, reliable construction
+Home to Nintendo franchises
-Home to Nintendo franchises ( if you don' t like ninty games, GC all but redundant)
-Poor 3rd party support
-poor network implementation

For me, the future of gaming would be subscription. Think about it: you buy a brand new game for £40. On the disc is...well, not a lot - yet. Instead, you download the game periodically, maybe once a week so you can play through it and actually look forward to seeing more of the game. Based on user feedback, games can be made easier or harder, have more items to collect or less.

Do not confuse this with patches. Patches fix a faulty game, the system I propose would allow for an evolution in game design. Hell, if it were done right, a real crap game could turn out to be a corker. No more sequels, no more add-ons, you' re constantly being fed a game over time. If it performs poorly at retail, then the " series" gets cancelled.

Obviously this would require a hard drive. In the next gen, I' d like to see less peripherals that do next to nothing i.e. memory card stands and dust covers for joypads.

I' d also like to see less of FIFA and EA in general. They' ve stifled the creativity of an entire industry by force-feeding us generic rubbish which gets sequel after sequel, only to see very little improved.

I' d also like to see more use made of interconnectivity between consoles and PC' s, mobile phones and the internet. Not necessarily networking per se, rather allowing the user to stay in contact with gamers via all means available and being updated with regards to network status etc.

but obviously, I doubt these ideas would come to fruition. They might in some form, but certainly not because the people at Sony scour forums everyday for the next big idea.

Gee...what' s the difference between Preacher' s post and Mobster' s post. Oh wait! I know! One is informed, one isn' t. Mobster, you' re just a sad excuse for a gamer.

The only change I might make to your list Preacher is that " power will never be fully realized" thing. That should actually be under the PS2. Developers everywhere were very familiar with the Xbox hardware from day one, and estimated that they could access 90-95% of the system' s power. Developers faced with the PS2 hardware were VERY lost, as evidenced by the huge leap in graphics from launch titles (Wild Wild Racing, Fantavision, Smugglers Run, TTT, etc.) to games like R&C: GC (which rivals almost anything on any platform, IMO), FF X/FF X-2, MGS 2, Silent Hill 3, and upcoming MGS 3 and GT 4. I' ve heard estimates of " power accessibility" from several prominent developers that say they MIGHT be able to access 70-75% of the system' s power.

The Xbox looked amazing from day one because developers had most all the knowledge and tools they needed. This is evidenced by the fact that games like Halo and DoA 3 are two of the best looking games on the system, and the visual leap in two and a half years doesn' t come close to rivaling the PS2 leap (from launch to now). Just look at the games. And most Xbox games still look better...but the PS2 is advancing. Pics of SH 3, MGS 3, and GT 4 should show that those kind of graphics simply weren' t possible on launch day.

I do admit that developers for PS2 deserve props. They managed to get around the lower ends of the system and make very nice looking games laltly. It' s similar to a gamer who likes harder games for the sheer challenge.

Altho I' m still an Xbox guy . Hopefully the PS3 will allow developers as much freedom as the Xbox did from the first day. Then maybe I' ll ,for the first time, go and buy my own Sony system instead of borrowing one occasionally to play PS2 exclusives.

True fathoms, the xbox' s architecture allowed for almost unrestricted tapping of the consoles power, but when you put it into perspective and think about it in relation to the PC, the xbox probably won' t achieve everything it could precisely because it' s architecture is so similar to the PC.

PC developers don' t push the limits of existing hardware, instead PC game development is a lazier affair than console development by far. Instead of squeezing what they can out of existing specs, they just take the decision to develop games based on new graphics hardware and higher specs.


Because the PC is a constantly evolving platform, there' ll never really be any need to make use of current hardware. I remember one PC game attempted it, I think it' s name was Outcast: it attempted to use voxel rendering rather than polygonal rendering.

Now that isn' t to say that the xbox has the same kind of open-ended and constantly evolving hardware base. What I' m saying is because the development method is so very similar to that of the PC that xbox development has become lazy, stagnant and lacking in flair: it' s like their waiting for a new xbox graphics card or something. PGR and PGR2 look almost exactly alike, whereas the leap from GT3 to GT4 is proof undeniable that any console is capable of more than what' s on the face of it, if developers can look beyond the face of it, that is.


So whilst I do agree that PS2 hasn' t hit a glass ceiling (of sorts) yet, I don' t think the Xbox dev tools have reached their full potential yet. The graphical and content leap from Halo to Halo 2 is proof enough of that.

PGR and PGR2 look almost exactly alike, whereas the leap from GT3 to GT4 is proof undeniable that any console is capable of more than what' s on the face of it, if developers can look beyond the face of it, that is.

I agree entirely, and that was very much my point. Heck, look at GT 3 compared to launch titles, and GT 3 was available only 8 months after the PS2 system release. However, I would question the leap from Halo to Halo 2...most of the screens I' ve seen aren' t in-game, and the in-game ones I' ve seen don' t project a significant leap from Halo. Although they SHOULD, seeing as how Halo will be a three-year-old game when Halo 2 is released. But even then, the consistent rise in graphics, especially drastic during the first year, on the PS2 is much more noticeable.

And I agree with the PC game part. I' m just not much of a PC gamer, and this is one of the major reasons why (coupled with the fact that there is a major lack of diversity and innovation over the past couple of years on PC).

Uh... Halo and Halo2 rely completely on gameplay graphics. So yeah, there is a pretty big jump there visually.

Besides first gen xbox games still look better than pretty much anything on the PS2 right now. I have yet to see anything top DOA3 yet on the PS2. I' m not trying to be fanboyish but it' s true. I really do admire how far the graphics have come on the PS2.

Please just quit Rampage. But yes, Halo doesn' t have a " second set of graphics" used for CG movies, it uses the in-game engine. I believe all devs should do that, so you may actually see gameplay in comercials instead of CG movies.

Just quit what? How is anything I said wrong? I even gave admiration for how far the PS2 has come in graphics.

I remember seeing the intro to soul calibur on Dreamcast and thinking: " bye bye FMV" .


The fact it looked so amazing in using real time character models just had me giggling like a little school girl. FMV is just a thorny issue for me, I still don' t know if I like it, even after all this time.

On the one hand, it' s like the developer is conceding that their vision of the game can' t be matched by the current hardware. That' s probably the case with every game made ever, but it does mean you' re brought out of the game world you' ve been so absorbed in and snapped back into reality. The biggest problem for me is the contrast between the two, Like Grandia II (PS2/DC). The FMV, whilst relatively good, was a behemoth compared to the in game 3D design. Being honest, I' d rather they just stuck with the 3D engine, or been smart and integrated it into the 3D engine, ala FFVIII (squall and bum chums on the battlefield).

but yes you' re right immortal, the use of FMV in commercials should be restricted. But if you think thats bad, you should' ve seen the CGI advert for EA' s Quidditch World Cup. the Ad was entirely CGI, not derived from the game or anything - just made specifically for the ad. Then they' ve got the nerve to say " footage not indicative of game" in small writing at the bottom.

So ok, the more informed gamer would be wary, but the target audience (kids and their parents) probably wouldn' t have a clue.

Newer games really should rely on ithe ingame engine. Splinter Cell did a pretty good job with this, though they touched up the cinematic moments a bit. Pandora Tomorrow is using full FMVs now. I was a bit sad to hear it but after seeing it I was impressed and feel it actually helped. That terrorist explosion scene shown in the trailer simply wouldn' t have looked good ingame.

I think the best way to tell the difference between Halo and Halo 2 is from the gameplay footage they released awhile back. There seemed to be more detail, but maybe that' s just me...

Also I think the biggest problem with the PS2 these days is the quality of the textures. Maybe the Xbox has ruined me or whatever but I do tend to notice the textures now more and more these days. If the PS2 could put the same quality of textures that are present on most Xbox games then I think people would be less harsh on the graphical output of the system.

This is true Yosh, but they have come a long way especially in games like Silent Hill 3 and it' s soon to be sequal. Overall though I do notice the difference, but I try not to let it take away my focus from the game.

When compared to the older games the change is huge. I played Smuggler' s Run awhile back and I was amazed at how dated the game looks these days compared to other PS2 titles. And of course games like Ico show that it doesn' t take incredible graphics to make a game beautiful.

I meant quit saying that PS2 games will never match XBOX games. Even if this is true, (not saying it is, I' m remaining nuetral here) I do not want to have another 3 pages of arguing.

True, a game can have decent graphics but a great style and make it a beautiful game.