You are really in for it now. I'm quite interested to see how Raziel takes it.

Btw, don't forget the quote from Slim:

You might like to get your post sorted out as well. It's all fragmented and you've messed up your first set of quotes.

Ya I know the quotes part really irritated me. Something happened with the spacing and it went crazy.

Uh Lenny.. ya got a little.. ya got a little... a little bit of crap around your mouth.

Unless this inflated egotistical turd decides he wants to ban me, there's not much he can do. His arguments are weak as is his intelligence.

There is nothing wrong with good, old fashioned debates among forum members. I don't really see any need for a ban, so you shouldn't worry. Anyway, most games are rips of other games nowadays, because there aren't many orginal ideas to come up anymore.

HALO was so great for a number of reasons. The gameplay was amazingly smooth and interactive. The graphics are bar-none, and the weapon selection was intense and original. The story line was new, but not the premise, and the multi-player option was ripped from Golden Eye, but took it to the next realm. The same can be said about Zelda, which is why these gaming titles are the most successful for their individual consoles.

I felt like I was reading the back of the video game box.

Absolutely nothing I posted in my last statement was taking your quotes out of context. I left the comments whole when extra text was required to covey the full meaning of the statement. Every claim I made about your post was dead-on, chump. You show me where I played it different and I'll show you a man with two dicks.

Remind me again what gameplay and story have to do with one-another, shit-squeeze? Remind me where I said anything about Halo's GAMEPLAY being trite and cliche? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I said the plot has been done before, and in the very same paragraph, I said Zelda was guilty of the same thing. You're really grasping at straws here, Chauncey. Try again.

Picking at straws again, S2. We weren't discussing PC games, we weren't discussing "Skip-It." We were talking about CONSOLE games. I figured you'd have enough grasp of context to understand that, but considering what a spectacular job you've been doing of mutilating every last word I've posted so far, it doesn't surprise me that the omission of a single word had your brain tied up in knots.

Oh, let's conveniently ignore the primary definition of the word, shall we?

Now, please, once again point me to to the place where I said you were "asinine". I labeled your behavior as asinine, which would fall under the first definition. Way to mangle my words, bro.

I edit my posts for grammatical and spelling errors, just as you did with your last one. Making asumptions only serves to make you appear as if "relating to or resembling an ass." Then again, making assumptions and taking statements horribly out of context seems to be your specialty.

You stooped to name calling before I did, Tastycakes.

You've got to be kidding me. I posted a fairly non-biased response to your statements and you responded with a flame-laced diatribe about my love-affair with Nintendo. I did no company bashing, game bashing or people bashing of any sort. I simply levelled the playing field by giving a different perspective

Let me congratulate you on yet another spectacular failure of an argument. You've managed to once again completely defile the original context of my statements and feebly attempt to stretch semantic nonsense into your own brand of insane logic. You turned this into a fight, goat-choker, not I. My original post was a mere response to your blanketed and generalized statements, and for it I was labelled an "idiot" and handed a basket full of flames.

Do you respond this way when anyone disagrees with you? Do you start tossing insults and throwing toys around when your parents call for tuck-in time? Are you completely incapable of engaging in a debate without your arguments degenerating into a series of muddled attacks and semantic backtracking? I simply presented my opinion on your statements, and immediately you start shoving words into my mouth and redefining the intent of every single sentence I posted. Read back through it, numbnuts. I was talking about videogames, you started whining about semantics.

I honestly have to say that, in my years as a longstanding member here, you are by far the worst opponent I've ever faced in a debate. It took you a single post before your arguments turned into trite "he said, she said" bickering. You've done nothing but backtrack and squabble over minor details to try and forge an argument out of absolute shit. You have no case, yet you continue to bicker over which definition of the word "asinine" you assumed I was using.

Just stop now. You're done. You are a hypersensitive, thin-skinned simpleton with no ability to hold his own in a genuine argument. You've done nothing to enrich the atmosphere or nature of this debate. You've taken a simple counterpoint to your ridiculous intitial statements and have turned this into a war of semantics. You lost the very second you tried to assume the intent behind my words, and guessed wrong.

Sit down and shut up, Sparky. You were dead yesterday.

Ow. I'm throwing in the towel for him.

Oh yeah, well he has a gun and can shoot you! So there! (Actually, I don't even know if communications officers carry a gun around regularly, do they?)

Actually, Nintendo was simply the next step in video game evolution, just as SNES was next, then N64, PS1, PS2 and XBox, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that is the order of console evolution, just a broad course over the years. Nintendo might have been more successful in selling than Atari, but that is only because the quality was greater. The same can be said about PS2 right now. It is selling 100 times better than Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it resurrected the industry and brought it to the next level, does it?

Just to nit-pick and be a severe anal itch, you didn't mention Zelda in the same paragraph. Actually, when I first read that paragraph, I took it as you taking an e-jab at Halo. The difference with Halo is that it actually is original in its own sense. Sure, they are aliens and you can't get away from that, but the whole premise is that the aliens worship these Halos, which is a destructive ring that annihilates planets, however, they don't even know that is it's purpose. They simply think it is a holy ground where they are supposed to go and colonize. Humans find the Halo, land on it, and the aliens then attack us. So technically, it is original in its own sense.

I hardly see what SYG wrote as "crusading against a company". You seem to be on more of a crusade to suck off the inventors of "the Big N", as you put it. He simply said Nintendo has gay characters. I don't think anyone will argue that the Nintendo consoles are geared towards fantasy/kiddy characters and gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I love the Zelda series because the story is completely kickass, but the graphics, fighting sequences, etc. are extremely 6-10 year old-ish.

I still think it's funny how Raziel claims not to take someone's words out of context, but continually does so. The only real reason that I even entertained that nonsensical idea of yours was an attempt to show you how juvenile of a tactic it actually was. An attempt that obviously failed, as I open the page and see that you have quoted me even more so than before.

I'm not going to quote you, Raziel, I don't really care to do so. I'd just be posting your diluted words a second or third time. As far as arguing goes, this one doesn't really exist. I've read what you've posted. You on the other hand, don't really seem to read what someone else posts, you just requote them and throw an insult their way. The argument of who started mudslinging doesn't exist. If you had read my last post, I'm sure that all of Zelaron and the world would agree. Your response to my original post was not only far out of line, and you threw the first insult by not only quoting what I said, bashing it(not offering a counter-proposal), then saying that anyone who would accept such views is asinine. That's too simple to ignore. Oh and no I didn't ignore the first definition. I actually considered posting them both, but the latter seemed to show more emphasis. Either way, it was still a negative comment on your part. If you're still wondering why my first slanderous comment was thrown your way, it was because you are an idiot. You took what I said, and then launched an argument as if my original post even contradicted yours.

I'm also sure that you're trying for an unachievable goal here. If everyone will simply thumb back through the posts, I'm sure you'll see where Raziel claimed that the NES was(not the father, because if I post that you'll take everyone's attention off the main point here and claim you never said 'father'), but instead said it was the savior of modern video games. I'm not quoting you exactly, because that's too primitive a way of debating, as you have proven already kid. I'm sure that all of Zelaron would again agree with me. I don't think I really have to prove the meaning of each and every word in your sentence, the overall meaning was conveyed. If you're going to argue about that, then just stop for a second before you dig up five quotes and write a meaningless paragraph and I guess try to impress people. Stop and think. Instead of arguing that point, MOST people would just say that they made a typo, forgot to include console, and console videogames is what they really meant to say. You didn't.

Raziel you seem to like to end each of your misleading logically blundering sentences about my posts with some sort of petword. This is the only time I will "quote" you. I.E. Tastycakes, goat-choker, butt-stain, chump, FUCK-PUP, crampy, skippy. You've been attacking me from the moment we started debating. I'm not sure if you're trying to establish some sort of superiority because of your obvious lack of intelligence, or you simply don't know much else. I think goat-choker is the only creative of the bunch. Please, dissect your own post and show me more creative name-calling if you wish, I don't care much for it. I could always make up names describing you: cum-dumpster, cockholster, cream puff, cock dock, sissy girl, pantywaste, etc...

That's not how you win a debate, though. I'm not sure the people you usually debate with, I haven't been here long enough to know or care. I'm not even sure of your tactics, you contradict yourself so many times, it's as if you're debating yourself. Anyways, I'd guess that most people got tired of you requoting them over and over and writing chapter long rebuttles that just show a few simple and already repeated ideas and simply gave up. However you used to win debates, it's not working this time. Your last three paragraphs are really just a reshowing of the last few paragraphs of your last post. You claiming victory over something you haven't come close to winning, I'm ridiculous to 'argue' with the great Raziel. Skimming through... I squander of small details? I start tossing insult first? I shoved words into YOUR mouth? Those paragraphs are really the only meaningful part of your debate, the rest is just the normal requoting. In this space that you could have put something useful, you've instead just described yourself.

First and foremost, the quotes are there for the sake of referencing your argumentative points. In an actual debate, opposing members counter each point in succession, taking them one at a time. Online, the equivalent to this is quoting another person, for the sake of referencing their individual arguments. If you want to boil this down into a mass of paragraphs that consist of one-sided scream-fests, you go right ahead. I'm doing you a courtesy.

How is calling your generalized comments "asinine" in any way an attack against you, S2? Explain that one to me, because criticizing one's actions and criticizing their identity are two completely separate things. I didn't call names, I didn't hurl insults. I merely observed that you posted a couple of lame, generalized blanket statements. Again, is this how you respond to all non-positive comments directed your way? Calling names and immediately launching into an offensive diatribe? Grow up, kid.

Too "primitive"? I suppose you're posting your thoughts onto the boards via telepathy then? Spare me your egomaniacal pablum. I already tossed this pathetic excuse of yours out the door. Quoting and referencing specific arguments is the online equivalent of an actual debate. What you're preaching is the online equivalent of a temper tantrum.

The fact of the matter is, you are the one that took a slightly negative comment as an attack and decided to start hurling insults. I'm not going to just sit here and be labelled an "idiot" by a mumbling buffoon like you, so I lashed back. You can't handle not being praised at every turn of the day? You can't handle a non-positive comment on your opinions? Tough shit. Ain't my bitch.

That's not how you win a debate? This stopped being a debate the moment you took a harmless comment as an attack and started hurling insults, Ponch. You can't win a debate because you can't handle the idea of being told you're acting like a twat without leaping off the deep and and turning a structured exchange into a bare-knuckle melee. Everything you've done since the moment you responded to me has been an absolute farce of rational thought. I never accused you of hating Nintendo, as you claim I did. I never stated that Nintendo excretes pure gold, while Microsoft re-hashes tired garbage, as you claim I did. And I didn't attack you until after you tried to bare your measly-ass fangs at me, as you'd like to convince yourself of otherwise.

Everything you've posted over the last 24 hours has been a total waste of your time, I can tell you that right now. You have the mental caliber to pretend like you're a sane, intellgent individual, but you don't have quite enough to actually be one. I repeat: you are a hypersensitive whiner that can't take a pinch of criticism without losing his head, you misconstrue every statement your opponent tries to make, and you attempt to use lame ass criticisms like "quoting" to divert attention away from the fact that you've already lost the battle. Honestly, I've never seen anyone crash and burn as badly as you have over the last few posts, and with each new entry that you post in this anthology of failure, you only bury yourself deeper in the mindless, backtracking stupidity of your own garbled nonsense.

Stop now. Everything you do is laced with failure. You reek of it.

It's not the same thing, Titus. The videogames industry was in a state of steep decline as a result of Atari's buffonery. Developers were making nothing back on their games, hardware sales were slumping and the general public concensus was that console videogames would be dead in a few short years if the industry continued to progress in that manner.

Along came Nintendo, they started making creative games that were worth the buyer's 80 bucks, and they revived an industry that was on the brink of collapse. Sony isn't in the same boat. They joined the race as the entire industry was picking up steam. Granted, Sony one-upped Nintendo by turning the videogames industry from a nerdy hobby into a genuine multimedia threat, however the industry was in no danger of dying when Sony did so. It's not the same thing.

Yes I did. You and I are referring to two completely different posts. I've said nothing about Microsoft or Sony's games that can't be applied to Nintendo as well. The fact is, I merely levelled the playing field. The complaint from S2 AM was that Nintendo just rehashes old crap. The comment from SYG was that Nintendo simply rehashes old crap while Microsoft births nothing but sheer art at every turn. Both companies do their share of re-hashing and innovating. That was my whole point, which was so woefully taken out of context by S2.

I never said it wasn't. I merely said that the basic premise, that being "evil aliens attack the world" is no more innovative than Zelda's tried-and-true "save the Princess" routine. If you go into specifics, neither game is as cliched or rehashed as the basic premises would lead you to believe. That was my entire point, once again, completely manhandled by S2.

I'm simply correcting ridiculous blanket statements. If someone was making the same generalized comments about hair gel or black people, I'd be saying the exact same things I'm saying now.

Plus, it's an opportunity to debate. You know me enough to know that I'm gonna jump at the chance when it's provided.

Oh, I know that, which is exactly why I decided to interject with my 2 cents and get in on the fun! So, here we go:

That isn’t entirely true. The video game industry was not in a steep decline directly because of Atari’s weak attempts to make better games, there were numerous reasons behind the sales slumps. Aside from the shortage of quality games, there was extremely aggressive marketing of cheaper home computers, combined with an overall weak economy during the mid-80’s. Like any introduction of a new and improved technology, there will be relapses in old technology, hence Atari’s sales dropping significantly. Now couple this with a poor economy and you suddenly get the claim that Atari royally screwed up the video gaming industry and Nintendo revitalized it. Truth is, it was a matter of various outside constraints that caused this thinking to arise.

Again, this can be directly correlated to the computer industry. I know we are talking about consoles, but in essence, they should be included in this argument. During the time when Atari was floundering around, computer prices became extremely cheaper, and gave consumers the option to connect to a TV, which obviously offered better quality graphics, color, and sound. It was because of this insurgent of quality to the gaming industry, that Atari became sloppy and started releasing potentially huge hits way too early, and it showed in the final product. Perfect example was the E.T. game that was released and sold terribly.

Now, I can’t argue that Nintendo didn’t up the bar in the console gaming industry, but that wasn’t because Atari sucked and Nintendo was God. Nintendo simply saw what had happened to Atari because of computers introducing much higher quality, and like any good business, they adapted and evolved their platform to be competitive. If anyone is going to get the credit for saving the console gaming industry, it has to be home computers. Then again, they were also more than half the downfall for the slump in the console gaming industry.

Now, I can’t speak for S2 and SYG, but I think their thinking was that basically all of Nintendos success is based off of their first generation gaming titles. I agree with you when you said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but at the same token, it appears as though the old saying “You can’t teach and old dog new tricks” applies to Nintendo as well. I mean, at least Halo’s success is based off an original idea based in the 21st century, and not some mid-1980’s idea that was a hit. Microsoft, to me, seems to be able to keep coming up with great gaming ideas, while Nintendo is literally functioning on one leg, made up of Zelda and Metroid… At least that is the only reason I bought and still own a Gamecube at the present moment. Online gaming was revolutionized by Microsoft, and their games just keep getting better and better. [/End of Microsoft Crusade] ;)

You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy.

Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.

I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.

And again, I can't see how it's fair to admonish Nintendo for doing something that works, and at the same time, Microsoft and Sony will be guilty of should they be given another decade with which to do so. As I've already pointed out, Ratchet & Clank will, by the end of this year, have seen four entries in five years, as will Jak and Daxter. GTA has been releasing sequels and updates consistently since 2001. Final Fantasy has seen a new installment on Sony consoles every single year since 1999. Resident Evil has been pumping out new titles non-stop since 1996. Why do these franchises continue to exist? Because they continue to sell.

On top of that, you can't praise Microsoft too much for releasing a lot of new IPs. It's their first generation. They can't release anything but new stuff.

And it's not as though Nintendo just sits on their hands and rebuilds the same game over and over again. You can't claim that they don't make new stuff, because that would indicate you haven't played a lot of the great new games they create. The Pikmin games are fantastic, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat is one of a kind, Animal Crossing is a must-own, Paper Mario, F-Zero GX and a large number of great 3rd-party titles like Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe and Baten Kaitos were introduced via Nintendo's console.

Not seeing the merits of Nintendo's library beyond Zelda and Metroid has nothing to do with them, but entirely to do with your own tastes. If those two franchises are the only thing that keeps your interest, that's not the fault of the developer. It's the same way with me and my PS2. I play it, I love it, but I don't own much beyond the three LOK games, the Ratchet games, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid and Devil May Cry. A lot of the Sony library just doesn't do much for me, and in particular, I'm not a giant fan of the controller. Does that mean it's Sony's fault for not catering to my desires? No.

Opinions are opinions, but it just strikes me as a little ridiculous to criticize somebody for doing something that works. Give Sony another decade and just see if they're not still riding the GTA-train. Give Microsoft another ten years and watch as Halo 12 continues to sell into the stratosphere. If they could sustain public interest in those franchises for another decade, you can bet your ass that they'll keep making the games. Nintendo has kept their biggest sellers alive for 20 years. That's not something to be condemned for, that's something to be congratulated on.

I'd like to get a revolution, is there an eta or a price yet??

2006. Most likely November. Price will absolutely be the lowest of the three, considering that it's going to be the least-powerful. I'd imagine close to $250 at launch.

The only next-gen console that I'm skittish about picking up is the PS3, to be quite honest. It's undoubtedly going to be the most expensive, it's huge, and the controller looks like compressed shit. The 360 is actually interesting me more and more. I hear that the controller is a work of art, and the size is a lot more manageable than the PS3 appears to be. If the console launches with a good Rareware title, I'll most certainly be picking one up.

Perfect Dark Zero and another Rare platformer are coming for launch or soon after. Yea I like the controller alot, and sheesh that damn PS3 is ugly and the controller looks uncomfortable and uncool. Silver is soo 90's.

If that Rare platformer happens to be a Banjo game, that's a guaranteed sale. PDZero should be pretty badass, too. The photos of the 360 controller look great, I just need to actually hold one before I can make a final judgment.

Honestly, I don't understand why Sony felt the need to redesign the controller. Granted, the Dual Shock 2 isn't my absolute favorite design, but it's a hell of a lot better than that ridiculous Boomerang looks. It's as though they just tossed functionality out altogether in the name of aesthetics. I'm really hoping that they do what Microsoft did with the S Controller, and offer an alternate design to that stupid, silver hunk of crap.

You realize the PS3 controller is alot smaller than it looks. It's actually smaller than the Dualshock, I think.

Also, Nintendo MAY have leaked it's controller design. Basically its supposed to be force responsive, sort of like a more high-tech rumble. Doesn't sound too impressive, but it could be cool. This is all rumor though.

It uses gyration technology, from the rumor mill. So, some games will appparently be manipulated by actually moving the controller. I can see force feedback being used in conjunction with it, so that moving the controller under certain circumstances would cause the controller to resist.

One of the coolest fan mock-ups I've seen had the controller actually separated into two handheld pieces, with buttons and joysticks of course. Imagine if you took the standard GCN controller and removed the chunk that connects the two handles, and you've got the basic idea. Completely wireless. Imagine playing a boxing game, or something to that effect, and every time you swung your fists you could feel the controller vibrate against your fist, as though actually striking your opponent.

That's the coolest theory I've heard as of right now. However, Nintendo has said it won't be as outlandish as most fan mock-ups have theorized.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it looks like a clumsy hunk of crap. It's just a small, clumsy hunk of crap.

Well I hope since Raziel got his last word in, he feels satisfied with himself, thus meaning that this pissing contest is over. I mean, if you want another rebuttle, I can happily supply it to you, but it would just argue the same pointless ideas from page one. You can continue to beleive what you do about NES, and think that your perverse insults are not such. I will continue believing what I believe, too. We disagree, period.

Gyration? Never really heard of it, I wonder if it will flop or not. If it is a success and is implimented, then people will finally be able to jerk their controller upward to jump, just like we ALL did when we first played Super Mario 64. You're all guilty, admit it.

To me, Perfect Dark Zero is the Zinge of first-person shooters. I'm sure you all played Rare's Perfect Dark for the Nintendo 64. That, my friends, was a revolutionary game. No it didn't create bots, but it capitilized on them, allowing the user to control the AI and difficulty of the bot, as well as some of their actions during the game. The weapons were outstanding. One must realize the leap in gaming technology Perfect Dark was for first-person shooters. The only resentment I ever had was the framerate, which I understood. Rare is known for great games, and I'm sure that Perfect Dark Zero will not only be a great game, but will bring new ideas with it to the playing field that create a fun and enjoyable experience for anyone who plays the game.

Oh yea, and I was just thinking as I played other xbox live games. With all this talk about revolutionary ideas, I feel it's only fair to say that Halo 2 created the matchmaking system. I wish other games would catch onto the idea, because I hate having shitty hosts who restart games when they aren't winning. For some reason, little kids always have the best connections.

I am pretty satisfied, to tell you the truth.

The Rev controller will still have a joystick, face buttons and triggers, as per usual. However, it will most likely also sport the gyration tech, as well as maybe one or two other surprises.

PDZero should be fun, but it's nothing I'm frothing over at the moment. I've seen a few screens and one video from E3 and it didn't look awe-inspiring. However, I'd bet money that what we saw was pre-beta, and that the game still has a ways to go before it's a finished product. If I decide to pick up a 360, which is becoming a likely possibility, I'll most certainly grab it.

You aren't to popular on this forum are ya buddy...

Warcraft 3 had a matchmaking system =/

Hell maybe "Skip-It" even did... I seem to recall something like that from my old "Skip-It" competition days.

Most multiplayer games nowadays have some sort of matchmaking system.... I was playing Fight Night for ps2 with matching making before I was playin Halo 2

Well I'm happy for you then Raziel :rolleyes:

I wouldn't really know. I gave Warcraft III a spin when it first came out at a LAN party. I gotta tell ya, I didn't find it too intriguing. I think personally it lacked the strategy to be considered a decent RTS. The role-playing aspect just brought it down even further. I know it was supposed to be a hybrid, but not every hybrid is good... IE: "Pig & Elephant DNA just won't splice."

The user made maps and Scenarios were fun, though.

Sony didn't patent the Dual Shock technology. Another company did and Sony used it without permission. As a result they were sued, meanign that most games in North America with Dual Shock function might have the Dual Shock bit taken out. I followed the story for a couple of days but not since so I haven't a clue what's happening.

I also seem to remember Sony saying that the pictures of the contoller are subject to change as they've not completely finished designing it. Chances are I dreamed this after the PS3 conference, but what they hey? It sounds like it's possible, so I'm gonna believe it. :p

Maybe if you try the controller you'll like it. Never judge a book by its cover Raziel, it may look like if you threw it out of the window it would come back and hit you, and a bit weird, but when you actually try it you might like it. This design could be more ergonomical than the Dual Shock controllers.

I must be the only one who still likes the PS3 here. :p

Don't forget that the PS3 is coming out not only in Silver but Black and White. Of course, that doesn't make it any more pleasing to those who don't like the shape, I'm just saying you don't have to have it in Silver. I quite like it in Silver,, it'll complete the collection:

- Grey Playstation
- White PS1
- Black PS2 (that no longer works :()
- Silver PS3

Now all I need is luminous orange and sky-pink. :weird:

yeah PGR2 had matchmaking... first game i played with it i recall... way before the H2 days

Then how can you say Nintendo saved the console industry? You just said it right there, that technically, consoles didn't even exist. Without doing any research and just taking you on your word, which is usually correct anyway, Nintendo started the console gaming system, and cheaper, real home computers revolutionized gaming and saved Atari's royal screw up.

Alright, I guess we are simply arguing semantics then, because based on your previous paragraph, we are now saying the exact same thing, but you are taking a different route, or should I say opinion. I say home computers were upgrades to Atari, and NES was basically a brand-spanking new technology that started console gaming, while you say NES saved Atari's bumbling idiocy.

Either way, NES was great, agreed, but it really isn't any different than the progress of cars throughout history. Ford first built cars, but they didn't sell very a lot because they were intended for the rich. Then, mass production was introduced and manufacturing cars in bulk allowed companies to sell cars for cheaper, hence saving the automobile industry the same way the introduction of cheap home computers opened the door for Nintendo to revolutionize/begin the console gaming industry. Both opened the doors and paved the way to innovative thinking, which enabled other companies (i.e. car companies and NES) to become successful and change the way we looked at cars/games.

How could Nintendo save an industry that you said didn't even technically exist? They took one of the ideas from Atari, and because computers made the gaming industry more competitive and upped the scales of quality, NES made a console that changed gaming.

First, that is a good point. Miscrosoft is new and had to come up with original titles and characters to get that base, true. Second, I'm not knocking on NES for pumping out sequel after sequel, because like I said before, I agree with your policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I guess I'm just waiting for the next gaming title that is original to come out from Nintendo that will attract the same future attention some of it's major hits of the past have... I haven't seen that in a while, so I'm a skeptic.

Also, we all grew up with the Mario and Zelda gaming titles, so we got addicted to the kiddy worlds and gameplay style. As I get older, and the technology gets better, I have more and more desire to play in a realistic gaming atmosphere. I'd like to see Nintendo get away from basing most of their games on the same style of play I loved in the early 90's...

Well there is clearly something wrong with Nintendo, being it is the worst of the 3 major console sellers, by far. PS2 and XBox kill Gamecube in sales, and with the introduction of XBox 360 this year, it's all but a console killer for Gamecube..

Again, I'm not criticizing them, I agreed with you. I actually am looking forward to seeing the progress of Microsoft over the next 10 years. If I was a betting man, I'd say they will surpass all console sales and original gaming hits by far. Already, XBox sales are catching up to PS2, which was by far a favorite just a few years ago. Microsoft simply has too much money to just burn for it not to be the best, and that makes me happy, because they will only keep raising the bar for everyone else to match. :)



Oh, and has anyone seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I only mention it because in it, Steve Carrel had a chair for gaming that broke up the controls into two pieces, one for each hand. Is that the same technology you are talking about that could be standard in gaming controls in the future?

I said that the public separation between consoles and computers didn't exist. Nintendo saved electronic, TV-display game-playing devices. They created the rift between PCs and consoles, thereby allowing consoles to continue existing.

Sure, the parallel works. However, that doesn't mean it was destined to turn out this way. Both were the result of a gamble taken by a specific group of individuals and it paid off. You can't write off the significance of these events simply because it feels natural. There's no evidence to support the notion that anyone would have taken the gamble breathing life back into the console industry had Nintendo chosen not to.

I never said the console industry never existed. I said that the separation between consoles and computers didn't exist in the mind of the public until Nintendo made it so. People percieved consoles as being nothing more than toys. A fad destined to fail. Nintendo changed that perception. Nintendo did not invent consoles. They simply gave them public definition.

I can fully understand that sentiment. I've been waiting for the next big thing from Nintendo as well, and although this generation has been spectacular in my opinion, the closest that they have delivered on the "next big thing" front was Metroid Prime, and that's still a resurrection of an older franchise.

Yet, there are people, like me, who still prefer that style of gaming. Different strokes.

Well, first off, the problem with Nintendo is image. Advertising, promotion and solid 3rd-party relationships are all weak areas for them, and it's what killed them this gen. Not to mention their stubbornness in regard to online expansion. The games themselves are not the problem, because Sony still kills on sales with cartoonish games like Ratchet and Jak. Advertising and image are the issue.

Second, the XBox, in worldwide numbers only stands a mere 1,900,000 units above Nintendo, the last time I checked NPD numbers. That's less than the population of Idaho. XBox is crushing Nintendo in terms of momentum, but the actual hardware numbers aren't anything to scream about.

On top of that, if you factor in handheld numbers, Nintendo is doing better than both of their competitors in terms of hardware sales.

First, I am literally dying as we speak because I haven't seen this fucking movie yet. Steve Carell is tumor-inducingly funny, and I've been aching to see this for months.

Second, I can't really comment because I haven't seen the film. However, I've seen people do some crazy modding shit like that before.

All of this Xbox and Nintendo bickering makes me want to just wait and get a ps3.

Nobody's bickering. It's a debate.

And it's not just Xbox and Nintendo...there was a lot about the PS3 when I made the threads.

As if I'm going to read a thesis on fourth (?) generation video game systems. Sum it up; who won?

Third gen I think.

We finally decided that the PS2 is great for single player, and the Xbox great for online multiplayer. Or did we decide that in the other thread...

Anyway, then I think Raziel came in, he and S2 AM debated...and I lost track of everything.

Out of who won...I don't think anyone did. We're all back at square one, some of us in the PS3 camp, more in the Xbox 360 camp, and Raziel debating with whoever tries to rip into the Nintendo camp.

Lol, it's more of writing books and not debating. Instead of writing gigantic responses, we should have debated each issue separately. As far as being as square one, I'd have to agree, we've gotten nowhere.

Gotcha. No doubt Nintendo did a great justice to the future of gaming, but lets agree that there were many factors that contributed, not just the brilliance of Nintendo.

Of course it isn't destined. It was just something that came to mind when I was writing my response. The parallel seemed to great to ignore, in my opinion.

True enough, hence, half our debate gets settled.

Holy shit. You have to see this movie. To be quite honest, and this is an understatement at best, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It hits on all kinds of stereotypes, outlandish acting, comments, and actions. Steve Carell is friggin' hillarious, and so are his co-stars in the movie. They did a good casting job, and until you see this movie, you are missing out on great laughs. Please see this ASAP then write a review in the Reviews forum. I just wouldn't do the movie justice in a review, since half my review would be filled with, "Holy shit, this movie is hillarious!" types of lines..

Agreed. There were numerous factors. To dispute such would be lunacy.

And, as I said, the parallel works well. The interesting thing is thinking about what state the automotive/videogame industries would be in had the key players been other people, with other ideals.

I'll most certainly do so. I've just recently procured a new car, meaning I don't have to persuade one of my friends to go see a movie starring a comedian they've never heard of. I've been waiting for Steve Carrell to earn a starring role since he left The Daily Show. He was the best thing that came out of that program, and he's been in desperate need of greater attention from the public in general. I'm stoked, to say the very least.

I saw the 40 Year Old Virgin the other day with my girlfriend and two friends. It's funny, because all the virgins in the audience never laugh at the sex jokes, while the couples do. Half of the theatre is just sitting in semi-awkward silence with boners while the other half laughs vigorously.

I thought the premise of the movie was ridiculous enough, but actually the humor is very rarely taken from that.. it's more from the outlandishly stereotypical behaviors and scenarios between the characters in the movie. All in all it was far more hilarious than I was expecting, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Best comedy in years. Comparable to Old School and Meet the Parents. I loved it, but haven't seen The Wedding Crashers yet. I heard 40 Year Old Virgin was funnier though.

I keep hearing that Wedding Crashers and Virgin are the best comedies of the year so far. I'm gonna have to check them both out soon.

Not to kick around a dead skunk here, but there's something I have to resurface. I didn't know much about the Atari. I never had one, and so I wouldn't really argue whether or not Computer games and Atari games had been separate before Nintendo. I, unlike yourself, don't manifest facts in my head and argue things which I know nothing about. So I did some research.

http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600

That place has practically the whole history of video games up until the release of the NES. It explains the many other vendors that competed with the Atari 2600. I know Raziel will be reading with excitment and an erection as he gets to the part that talks about how, in 1986, after an oversupply of systems, and as sales slowed for Atari, the NES was brought over from Japan. Credit to Nintendo, good marketing move, but they definitely didn't save an industry. If NES hadn't come from Japan, then one of Atari's competitors would have stepped into their place. That, and one key element you conveniently forgot, was the Sega Master System. That's one I do know about, and have actually played. It was technically better than the NES, and if the NES had never existed, probably would have been the leading developer for the next decade.

Atari was more successful than PC computers. I doubt the NES(released in 1986) brought a separation between consoles and the PC . Especially seeing as in 1981, IBM introduced the IBM PC. That was just the first computer with a microprocessor, they came in many varieties before that. The Apple comes to mind. Do you still think that Nintendo saved something Raziel? Japan is on list 1, you can move there if you like. If you read the history you'll realize there was much difference between the IBM Portable PC(unit with keyboard, operating system, programmable interface, media and printer ports, and attached screen), and the Atari 2600(cartridge fed, game machine).

If these aren't pure gaming consoles, let me know.
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/
I can only guess the whole time you've been saying 5800, you mean 7800.

I finally had time to read all the crap and write a response. Raziel if you read those two largest articles in my sources, you'll realize that you couldn't have been further from the truth with your "guessing." If you actually read them, instead of your ADD taking control, resulting in the creation of facts. I know you won't admit that you're wrong, so I'm curious to see how you'll lie your way out of this one.

Sources:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story071.htm
http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600

http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/