I'm Definetly Sick of this Bullcrap

edited November 2006 in Games
Okay..so next-gen consoles are pretty much all out, 'cept for the Wii coming Sunday...every gamer's happy, right? (rhetorical question ftw!)

WRONG

I've got some problems with these next-gen launches...and I'll start with numero uno.

1.Cheap-o 40-year-old-guys-lookin-to-make-a-buck

Okay, we all know that some crazy gamers are camping out in front of stores in roder to get their hands on some games. But the thing is, the campers aren't gamers. There's the business men. Okay, here's how it works. Some random idiots decide they need some quick cash, so they call some friends and start a project. They try to take up as much as the line as possible and buy as many systems as they can (which is bad enough). Then, the morons say, "Hey, bet a kid would pay good money for this stuff". They put it on E-bay for 3 times the price and viola! some dumbfart buys it, because the store ran out of stock. The store ran out of stocks because these losers buy the systems to make kids pay more and get there cheesy hands on some dough!! And with console prices rising, it's getting pretty pricey. It also makes me mad because not every family can afford this three-times larger price. Then the poorer families get screwed out of making Christmas a happy occasion for the kids. Some sweaty guy that lives with his mom takes these poor kids systems, and gives them to the rich kids? How fair is that? It makes me sick. These greedy jerks are ruining Christmases for children 'round the U.S.


2. Fighters (And I'm not talkin final fantasy)

I hate anyone who says one of the three things: "Xbox360 sucks", "PS3 sucks", "Nintendo Wii sucks". I'm tired of fanboys fighting over who's got the best system. So to be fair and unbiased, I will outline the pros/cons of the systems.


Wii

Pros: Nintendo fans have been waiting a long time for this one. It's cheap, and revolutionary.

Cons: The graphics don't really meet up to those of its peers.

Xbox360

Pros: Amazing graphics, and DVD compatability.

Cons: Over priced and not much different from the last Xbox.

PS3

Pros:Great graphics and sound and better overall look.

Cons: Extremely overpriced.

So I'm tired of these dumb fanboy arguments. Just shut up and enjoy your system.


Ranting complete. Any comments?

Comments

  • jcjc
    edited November 2006
    I'm not happy, but that's only because I want them all, even though

    a) all three suck in their own special ways (that I think outweigh the good qualities), and
    b) I am hell of broke

    Totally agree with you though.
  • edited November 2006
    Hey, I'm pissed too. Obsolescence sucks. There is no reason in hell that good games can't be made on all of the old systems, including and especially the GBA. I don't need better graphics, I want clever new games.
  • godgod
    edited November 2006
    You forgot to mention the senseless violence and theft in the lines. A guy in Hartford got shot.
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/17/technology/playstation.reut/?postversion=2006111710
  • edited November 2006
    Well you know, it's not wise to stand in the streets at 3:15 am in a line that makes it obvious that you have at least $600 on you.

    As far as "general new system anger" goes, I'm only really happy about the Wii, and that's because of all the new play possibilities. The rest seem to be overpriced graphics-machines with games that would only be just slightly worse on a current system.
  • edited November 2006
    HAHAHA! Capitalism at it's finest/lowest.
    ...PS3's are funny things. I could speculate and bitch about them all day, but in the end, I will simply choose not to buy one. Ever. If I succeed at becoming a game developer? I assure you I have no desire at all to support such a machine. The Wii sounds awesome for it's capabilities, but I do have my reservations about it. I'm a good bit of a Nintendo fanboy though, so I'll happily overlook some glaring concerns. The 360? All I can say is "Meh."

    I like PC's. Only problem is, that people are far less willing to pay for stuff on a PC like they will do on a console. It's weird.
  • edited November 2006
    hlavco wrote: »
    As far as "general new system anger" goes, I'm only really happy about the Wii, and that's because of all the new play possibilities. The rest seem to be overpriced graphics-machines with games that would only be just slightly worse on a current system.

    Yeah, I agree. The graphics race needs to come to an end, and I think that the Wii is just the console to end it.

    Oh man, I'm getting so giddy right now. Wii is so close. :D
  • jcjc
    edited November 2006
    Nice to know other people hate next-gen. Stef's got it right as far as I'm concerned-- I don't care about graphics (which wouldn't look that different on my tv anyway). I buy systems because they have games on them I'd want to play. If Metal Gear Solid 4 came out looking exactly like MGS3, on the PS2, I wouldn't be disappointed. I'd be so happy.

    I include the Wii because it's a gimmicky Gamecube controller bundled with a mandatory Gamecube+. I'd rather just have had a new $50 controller for the Cube.

    edit: I lol'ed at the "PC is better" remark. PCs have the same obsolescence issue as consoles, except you have to upgrade more often, it costs more, and there's no guarantee that any of the games will even work once you do.
  • edited November 2006
    Unfortunately, it's not that they're asking for high prices on Ebay. People are offering to pay that much.

    Yes, it is capitalism at work, but we have to remember: these people are not benefiting society. They have done nothing more than stick themselves in between delivery of the product from manufacturer to consumer, taking a profit for themselves. While they may rationalize and say "hey, these guys are willing to pay, so why not let them," we have to remember that every PS3 bought by a rich dude with too much money is one less PS3 for the hardcore gamer who saved up money for months to afford a PS3 and waited in line for days.

    Is it morally wrong? Yes it is. Is it legal? Unfortunately, yes. Free enterprise.

    And yes, we also have people who are using violence to get what they want. They are perpetuating the stereotype of the violent gamer, and you know that people like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton are masturbating to every news story they find.

    Let's hope the Wii has a happier release.
  • jcjc
    edited November 2006
    Every PS3 is a PS3 bought by a rich dude with too much money.
  • edited November 2006
    Wait, you mean some people actually buy consoles at launch? To play launch games? I've never understood that myself. I'd never buy a console unless there were at least half a dozen games on it I'd classify as "good" and two or three that I'd classify as "absolutely positively must have" which typically doesn't happen until a year after release at least.

    As for this generation of videogame systems, I really don't see the point. Look at it this way:

    1st gen - Pong clones: First home videogame systems ever.

    2nd gen - Atari, etc: First videogame systems that could play a variety of games.

    3rd gen - NES: First home videogame systems that could play reasonably complex games with multiple levels taking place in diverse environments, different styles of gameplay in a single game, and the rudiments of a plot. Still, the seams were really showing and you often really had to use your imagination to make things look like the things they were supposed to look like.

    4th gen - SNES, Genesis: Like the 3rd gen, but done right. Nearly every type of 2D game imaginable could be played on these systems, and they looked really nice. Sure, there were limits to how big the sprites could be or how smooth the animations were, and it was all still pretty low-res, but other than that there wasn't much difference between videogame graphics and an animated movie.

    5th gen - Playstation: Before we begin talking about Sony's breakout console, we should at least mention the plethora of other game systems that premiered at the beginning of this generation only to die out soon after. Systems like the 3DO, the Jaguar and the Saturn. All these had one thing in common: They were basically just a step up from the SNES and Genesis. Sure, their CD-ROMs allowed more storage space, they could display higher resolutions and had more processing power, but the games were basically the same as what we had in the 16-bit era but with better graphics, and no one cared. It was an era when everyone and their dog was launching a new, next-gen "32-bit" console, only to have them land with a resounding thud soon after.

    Then the Playstation came along. Due to its focus on 3D graphics, it could play games unlike any that had been possible in generations past, and the carry-over genres still looked completely different from their elder siblings. This was something new, something no one had seen before, and it sold like hotcakes. Still, while the Playstation was the first console to be able to display 3D graphics at a reasonably acceptable level, it still can't really be said that it did them well. The textures were non-filtered and constantly warping, the models were blocky and the draw distance was really pathetic in nearly all of the full 3D games (ie. Medal of Honor, Soul Reaver, etc.) Which brings us to...

    6th gen - PS2, Gamecube, X-Box: If the Playstation was the 3D equivalent of an NES, these systems were the 3D equivalent of the 16-bit era. Sure, many of the games played pretty much the same as what was around earlier, but these systems were finally able to do 3D well. The colours were brighter. Things actually looked like the things they were supposed to look like. Fog was barely noticeable. Sure, the seams around the polygons were still there, but you could easily make yourself not notice them.

    And now we have the new generation of systems, which provide us with pretty much nothing we haven't seen before. Yes, the graphics are better, but the previous gen's graphics were already good. There's more online play, but the previous generation had online play, too. You can play games by waving a stick around, but that could easily have been done as a peripheral for an older system. When it comes down to it, this latest generation of consoles look like nothing more than the 3DO redux, except that I don't see another Playstation shaking things up any time soon.
  • edited November 2006
    !!!!!!!!! wrote: »
    I lol'ed at the "PC is better" remark. PCs have the same obsolescence issue as consoles, except you have to upgrade more often, it costs more, and there's no guarantee that any of the games will even work once you do.

    Better? I didn't say they were better. I just said I liked them. Furthermore, your comments about obsolescence are quite misguided. In fact you are outright wrong and I feel I should correct you in so many ways. I can, at this moment, make a game to run on a dinosaur of a PC. I could distribute said game. This would suggest that an old computer is NOT obsolete. It may not be capable of running a lot of newer games, but it does not mean games can't or won't be made for it. Contrary, games are made all the time for PCs that will be compatible with computers that are over 10 years old. You don't HAVE to upgrade more often either. And the price is becoming a moot point considering the price of a PS3, not to mention all the peripherals and higher prices on games.
  • jcjc
    edited November 2006
    High-five, X'o'Lore. You rightly called me on some BS. You weren't making a value judgment, and I saw that soon after posting.

    Your argument, that old PCs are still a viable platform because there's always someone making some homebrew freeware game for it, highlights one of the only things that is exceptional about PC gaming. I guess the same thing is true for most consoles, but most (except for the totally sweet Dreamcast) require modding to play unofficial content.

    I was talking about retail games, and I thought you were too.

    Edit: oh, and lol #2 of the thread: the thought, thanks to DI, of buying another Sony console at launch. Not just because of the unremarkable-to-crappy launch lineup, but because all launch Sony consoles almost certainly malfunction, causing bitter tears. I bought two Sony consoles at launch, and haven't had to replace either. No way am I tempting fate by doing that again.
  • edited November 2006
    Why weren't the N64 and Dreamcast mentioned with that really long post? You gave multiple examples for all the other generations, then just made it seem like the Playstation was the one and only late nineties console.
  • edited November 2006
    Yeah. The Nintendo 64 did it better than the Playstation. Same decent but not fantastic 3D graphics, but it did it in cartridges, elmininating the need for loading times. Nintendo 64 wins the 5th generation.
  • edited November 2006
    A lot of people clearly disagreed with that. Game publishers were certainly on the disagreement side.
  • edited November 2006
    Nintendo 64 wins the generation? I don't quite agree with that.

    The problem that existed with the Nintendo 64 was the cartridges, which eventually caused Nintendo to abandon them. Cartridges were expensive, if any of the older people on the forums remember that. N64 cartidges sometimes got as high as $70. SNES cartridges weren't much better. I remember paying $75 for a new copy of Chrono Trigger at Target (don't get me wrong, it's arguably the best damned $75 I ever spent). The point is that games were continually getting expensive.

    Nintendo's motto at this time used to be along the lines of "We're Nintendo, so fuck you." Its grip on the gaming industry was tight. Then Sony entered the market by saying "Hey, if we use CDs, then they will be cheaper to produce, thus resulting in cheaper games for you consumers!" Then Sony rocked the market with $40 games that could do a lot more graphically, requiring a small wait in load times in excange.

    Then, Square Co, Ltd., seeing the possibilities of CD based games and the hindrances of cartridge based ones, decided to leave Nintendo to make FFVII with Sony, granting them exclusivity with the Final Fantasy series from then on. We all know how that worked out for Sony.

    But in the end, I think deciding what system wins a generation is ultimately subjective. That's just my two cents on that issue.

    (Edit: I forgot, there actually is a little bit of speculation as to why Square Co actually left Nintendo. The restrictive cartridge format was the most likely, but there is the possibility of monetary negotations. Nintendo may have been too greedy, and there are other rumors that Square wanted FFVII to be a multiplatform release all along, but none of those are substantiated. Regardless of what actually happened, Nintendo lost one of the most powerful franchises in the gaming market at this time).
  • edited November 2006
    hlavco wrote: »
    Why weren't the N64 and Dreamcast mentioned with that really long post? You gave multiple examples for all the other generations, then just made it seem like the Playstation was the one and only late nineties console.
    I didn't put the Sega Master System in the 8-bit era either.
  • edited November 2006
    Serephel wrote:
    if any of the older people on the forums remember that.

    I grew up on the N64, playing Kirby64 and Pokemon Stadium. I didn't buy my own games, but now I realize that it muct haved sucked for my parents.
  • edited November 2006
    Serephel wrote: »
    Then Sony rocked the market with $40 games that could do a lot more graphically, requiring a small wait in load times in excange.

    SMALL load times? I don't think so. Maybe you had some special PSX, but mine had terrible load times. Cartridges are still better than CD's for gaming (see: Nintendo DS and GameBoy Advance). Load times = failure.
  • jcjc
    edited November 2006
    Most SNES/Genesis games were $50, but high-capacity carts or carts with special chips in them cost more (like the Super FX games and Virtua Racing). Street Fighter II cost $80, and I totally jumped on it. It was worth it, but I wouldn't pay that now.

    Virtua Racing cost $90-$100, and Phantasy Star II cost about the same. Good riddance, cartridges, forever.
  • edited November 2006
    But CDs cannot offer this kind of extended technology. It's better to be able to add more things to the cartridge than to have to remake the console to handle better graphics. *coughPS3cough*
  • edited November 2006
    Personally, I'd prefer not to have to re-buy whatever new whatsit they're sticking into cartridges to get some special effect every time I buy a new game that uses it.