# Which system won this generation to you?



## Lurker2 (Oct 29, 2012)

Profit wise Nintendo won so don't argue about profits.
Profit wise it is
Nintendo>Microsoft>Sony

Inflation and Microsoft's ED division include multiple items such as the Zune so the numbers are only accurate to a certain degree.
_______Playstation ______Nintendo _______Microsoft
FY 2000 $722,000,000 ____$1,368,207,547
FY 2001 -$449,000,000____$677,000,000
FY 2002 $629,000,000 ____$896,000,000 ___-$1,135,000,000
FY 2003 $935,000,000 ____$834,000,000 ___-$1,191,000,000
FY 2004 $627,000,000 ____$993,000,000 ___-$1,337,000,000
FY 2005 $419,000,000 ____$1,056,000,000 __-$539,000,000
FY 2006 $69,000,000 _____$774,000,000 ____-$1,339,000,000
FY 2007 -$1,971,000,000 __$1,914,000,000 __-$1,969,000,000
FY 2008 -$1,080,000,000 __$4,323,000,000 ___$426,000,000
FY 2009 -$664,000,000 ____$5,691,000,000 __$169,000,000
FY 2010 $429,000,000 ____$2,500,000,000 ___$679,000,000
FY 2011 $435,000,000 ____$946,000,000 _____$1,320,000,000
Q1 2012 -$45.000,000 ____-$220,000,000 ____$352,000,000
Q2 2012________________________ $528,000,000
Total __-$56,000,000 _____$20,384,000,000 __-$4.032,000,000
G6 ____$2,883,000,000 ___$4,456,000,000 ___-$4,202,000,000
G7 ____-$2,827,000,000 ___$15,928,000,000 __$166,000,000

Wii Exclusives.
Animal Crossing City Folk
Another Code R
Arc Rise Fantasia
Battalion Wars 2
A Boy and His Blob
Castlevania Rebirth
The Conduit 1-2
Contra ReBirth
Deadly Creatures
Donkey Kong Country Returns
Elebits
Epic Mickey
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Series
Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn
Gradius ReBirth
Harvest Moon Series
House of the Dead 2-3-Overkill
Kirby's Series
The Last Story
The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword
MadWorld
Mario Kart Wii
Metroid Prime: Trilogy
Metroid Other M
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Nights Journey of Dreams
No More Heroes 1-2
Pandora's Tower
Pokémon Series
Red Steel 1-2
Rune Factory Frontier
Samurai Warriors Katana
Sin & Punishment Star Successor
Sonic Series
Super Mario Galaxy 1-2
Super Paper Mario
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Tales of Symphonia Dawn of the New World
Tatsunoko vs. Capcom Ultimate All-Stars
Trauma Center Series
Valhalla Knights Eldar Saga
Wario Land Shake It
WarioWare Smooth Moves
Wii Series
Xenoblade Chronicles
Zack & Wiki Quest for Barbaros' Treasure

PS3 Exclusives
3D Dot Game Heroes
Atelier Series
Demon's Souls
Flower
Folklore
God of War III
Gran Turismo 5
Heavy Rain
Infamous 1-2-Festival of Blood
Journey
Killzone 2-3
The Last of Us
Linger in Shadows
LittleBigPlanet Series
Metal Gear Solid 4
MotorStorm Series
Ratchet & Clank Series
Resistance 1-2-3
Siren Blood Curse
Starhawk
Tales from Space About a Blob
Tales of Xillia 1-2
The Unfinished Swan
Time Crisis 4-Razing Storm
Tokyo Jungle
Twisted Metal
Uncharted 1-2-3
Valkyria Chronicles
Warhawk
White Knight Chronicles 1-2
Wipeout HD
Yakuza 3-4

360 Exclusives
Ace Combat 6
Banjo-Kazooie Nuts & Bolts
Blue Dragon
Crackdown 1-2
Dead or Alive 4
DeaD Rising 1
Dust
Fable 2-Journey
Fez
Forza 2-3-4
Gears of War 2-3-Judgement
Geometry Wars 2
The Gunstringer
Halo Series
Infinite Undiscovery
Kinect Series
Lost Odyssey
Saints Row 1
Shadow Complex
'Splosion Man


----------



## chyyran (Oct 29, 2012)

Can be rephrased to

"What's your favourite 7th gen console"


----------



## Lurker2 (Oct 29, 2012)

Punyman said:


> Can be rephrased to
> 
> "What's your favourite 7th gen console"


I really want to edit the poll and add various things but alas I cannot. I'm sorry if this seems confusing but as you said I meant generation 7 devices.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 29, 2012)

The Wii.

Yes, I'm serious.

95% of the games that are great on the PS3/360 can be played on the PC and that isn't even part of any generation (endlessly changing like the immortal beast that it is).

The Wii brought motion-controls to the mainstream (used well in games like Red Steel 2, Wii Sports Resort and Skyward Sword). It had stellar third-party games like Monster Hunter Tri, GoldenEye 007 and Murumasa. It had the _best_ 3D platformers ever made (Super Mario Galaxy 1/2) and a load of other stellar first-party exclusives (Xenoblade, NSMB. Wii, Smash Bros. Brawl).

It definitely is the best console for me this gen (although I perfectly understand how some prefer the PS3/360 to it).


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2012)

soulx said:


> The Wii.
> 
> Yes, I'm serious.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure myself, I understand where you coming from. If the Wii had the same hardware to play ps3/360 games plus what it had/adds,
it would surely be a win for it.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 29, 2012)

I'd say it's between the PS3 and the 360, so it comes down to personal preferences.

While both are great consoles, and the PS3 has a great library of exclusives, I still tip my hat to the 360. Microsoft's console has the superior controller and the superior online service (plus, getting ME1 5 years earlier helps its case, too).


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 29, 2012)

360 for me.

PS3 might have "better graphic capabilities" but the 360 just wins it for me on the controller area.
Besides I like the 360 more then the PS3.
Otherwise I wouldn't be spamming in the 360 hacking area ;p


----------



## lokomelo (Oct 29, 2012)

Video games are made for profit. You say that you dont want to discuss profit, but this is just the right measure. 

When wii was released, one of the slogans was "cheap and fun". At that time I thought that it was a step on wrong direction, but since Mario Kart release the things became clearer Wii is about fun and not performance. Xbox, and PS3 games are fun too, but they demand more from the player, more focus. more time and maybe this goes against the modern way of life.
I think that the technological limitations was, ironicaly, one of the causes of Wii's success.


----------



## 431unknown (Oct 30, 2012)

I won because I got to play alot of great games.


----------



## narutofan777 (Oct 30, 2012)

the best console for me is the ps3. best exclusives and its getting 4 more that I know of. ff versus, the last of us, beyond, nino kuni.


----------



## Lurker2 (Oct 30, 2012)

lokomelo said:


> Snip


It isn't that I don't want it discussed, I don't want an argument about it. I put the numbers out there so there is no reason for someone to say well MS made more money than Nintendo when it didn't etc.


----------



## Ethevion (Oct 30, 2012)

For me it's the XBox 360 mainly thanks to the Forza series. There are other games I play, but they aren't exclusive so I wont mention them. Close behind the 360 is the Wii for only 1 game. Pokemon Rumble! I know that sounds ridiculous but I had an insane amount of fun with that game. New Super Mario Bros. was another great game on there. I wont say PS3 is bad because it definitely isn't, but it just isn't what I like.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

Punyman said:


> Can be rephrased to
> 
> "What's your favourite 7th gen console"


Precisely. If sales aren't being considered, then I really don't see how else anyone can argue which console "won" this generation, aside from personal preference.


soulx said:


> The Wii.
> 
> Yes, I'm serious.
> 
> ...


The Wii was my favorite console too and I agree with most of your points here, but I don't think it's fair to say "95% of PS3/360 games can be played on the PC," as a reason. Considering the need for gaming PCs which so many people don't have, it's essentially a console itself for the sake of this discussion (why isn't it one of the options in the poll)? You might as well be saying "95% of PS3/PC games can be played on the 360," and it would be just as weightless of an argument. Just my $0.02.


----------



## EbraamMorcos (Oct 30, 2012)

ps3 because of the uncharted series


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 30, 2012)

EbraamMorcos said:


> ps3 because of *Valkyria Chronicles*


 
Fix'd.
That's my vote. Despite using my 360 infinitely more, hell I even used my Wii more...VC completely sold the PS3 as my favorite console this gen, alone. But it also had other gems like Demon's Souls and Tales of Graces F to back it up as well.


----------



## EbraamMorcos (Oct 30, 2012)

the uncharted series will always live in our hearts.


----------



## Clarky (Oct 30, 2012)

I would probably go for the Wii myself. As mentioned before a good selection of what I wanted to play from the 360 and PS3 was availble on the pc and despite the Wii's short comings I do believe some devs did work well around the limitations. Somewhere between the lines of the Wii retail games, VC selection and WiiWare i really enjoyed it for all it's worth and am quite happy to move onto the Wii U now


----------



## chyyran (Oct 30, 2012)

EbraamMorcos said:


> the uncharted series will always live in our hearts.


 
The Uncharted series isn't dead, it's not only living in your hearts, it's living in real life..
Then again, a game franchise has no life to begin with.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Oct 30, 2012)

PS3 with a close second Xbox 360.
THOSE EXCLUSIVES

Wii was good but I just couldn't find joy in any of the games.


----------



## EbraamMorcos (Oct 30, 2012)

Punyman said:


> The Uncharted series isn't dead, it's not only living in your hearts, it's living in real life..
> Then again, a game franchise has no life to begin with.


the uncharted series is living in my heart right now, weather its alive or not.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 30, 2012)

The wii.

I know the other consoles have better graphical power, but so what? The majority of those games are shooters...and I prefer those on keyboard and mouse. Worse: the majority of games also aim for realism...and I don't WANT realism. I get enough of that in real life.

Still, the major reason for it is because on consoles, platformers are my favorite kind of game. And the wii has that in spades.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

For the people who say the Wii, I'm surprised no one has mentioned dedicated local multiplayer games. So few PS3/360 games have that, and the ones that do are almost all shooters (nothing wrong with that, but a change of pace is nice). The one huge exception I can think of is the LEGO series games, which are also available on Wii.


----------



## emigre (Oct 30, 2012)

Personally I go for 360/PS3 as I play nothing but grey realistic shooters particularly as 13*32+32=_x _of its library of games are already available on PC. As an anti-social hermit, I get a rock hard erection over the lack of dedicated local multiplayer games, in favor of online multiplayer where I can be racially abused by a twelve year old.


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 30, 2012)

Easily the Wii.
I believe that trying to put heaps of power in a console is doomed to fail.
Not only is it much better to use a PC if you crave power, but devs have to go on huge budgets to make a game on a powerful system.
The Wii mostly wins though because of it's awesome titles.


----------



## DiEnd (Oct 30, 2012)

Everyone failed.
PS3 sucked at start, then it turned out that Sony left PSN barely defended (you know how it ended) and here we have the first region-locked game.
Wii brought motion controls to the masses and region-locked Russia from the going into the internet.
Xbox 360 had red ring of death.
I beleive that this is the worst console generation at all.


----------



## Hadrian (Oct 30, 2012)

This gen I was a Nintendo/PC gamer. For me that was the most sensible way to game, I get everything Nintendo has to offer as well as the best of what consoles had to offer on the PC as well as games that simply don't work at all well on a console. I simply preferred the Wii only titles to PS3/360 only. Sadly the last couple of years Nintendo had so little for the Wii what with it's "core" titles not selling so well and with them developing for the 3DS and Wii U but then I have a PC and that made up for that.

Overall the 360 won, it stole more time from gamers and that is more important than sales. It had ALL of the big console titles that weren't published by Sony. The PS3 had better exclusives for me but then I never felt that Gears of War or Halo were that special whereas God of War & Uncharted were. The PC rose up to be a very dominating platform, mainly due to Steam which offered a better way to buy digitally, connect with other gamers and had sales that killed your bank account...however most PC gamers just pirated the shit out of most of the big league titles but supported the smaller titles like Minecraft. For me games like that and others really pushed gameplay forward while the consoles just had games that could have been played on the PS2/Xbox/GC only a lot prettier. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles and while they did motion control a lot better than Sony & Microsoft, they seemed to have abandoned it mostly for the Wii U. They did very well at getting none gamers to buy into the Wii but they didn't do so well at keeping the "core" crowd on board and in the end they are the ones that matter because they're the ones who spend more on games. Most people who bought a Wii only break it out for parties and the latest fitness/dance title.

Next gen seems very open, it depends on who has what. I really don't think that graphically it's going to be a huge advancement compared to N64 to Gamecube or PS2 to PS3. I think Nintendo has a good shot at getting the "core" crowd back, it just needs to get the big guns out but so far I think they've done brilliantly well to get a very good launch line up and implement some excellent features without having a monthly subscription fee, just a shame that Ubisoft has used the controller a lot better with ZombieU than Nintendo has with any of their games. I think it has a better chance of having most of the big hitters for the next 3-4 years than the Wii did as well as the Nintendo greatness that we come to expect so we won't have months of not playing a damn thing. I'm worried about Sony, they cannot afford another pricey console release but they also need to at least match what Microsoft have in terms of power and features. They're going in to the next gen in 3rd place and with the Vita as a potential failure (which sadly I don't ever see coming out of the rut it is in) Microsoft have a huge install base, they stole a lot of Nintendo and Sony gamers this gen but then they do stuff like Kinect which for a pricey peripheral has sold extremely well, hasn't done what it promised to and when you see the words "Kinect only" your mind thinks "piece of shit game". Their next console will probably have a more advanced version of Kinect instead of being a lot more powerful. For me the winner of the next gen will be whoever has the best features rather than power, it's kinda wide open until we see exactly what Sony & Microsoft have to offer and I really don't see them releasing new consoles until 2014.


----------



## shoyrumaster11 (Oct 30, 2012)

For me, i'm generally a PC/Nintendo/Sony gamer so, you know what i think won! Yes, the PS3! Despite the amount of times PSN got hacked and the advanced processor in the system! I think Sony did another stunning job for their time! But. Since i'm no fanboy or graphics hound, the Xbox 360 definitely get's a few points from me, too! But as for the Wii. Sorry Nintendo, but your'e not really my favorite anymore so, very little points go to you!

*Gold Medal*: Sony's PS3
*Silver Medal*: Microsoft's Xbox 360
*Bronze Medal*: Nintendo's Wii

Maybe next gen, Nintendo may at least get a Silver, or maybe a Gold if it can beat the PS4 or Xbox 720. Who knows. At least Ninty are still giving us a glimpse of what the next gen systems will be!


----------



## Ace Overclocked (Oct 30, 2012)

Gaming's been going to the worse in this gen...
I'm between the Wii and ps3, leaning to the wii for lots of reasons...
Also i never got the Realism and graphics craze, real life is the most realist game with the best possible graphics...


Spoiler



The ps2 still wins


----------



## Master Mo (Oct 30, 2012)

It is not an option here but the most fun I defintely had with my NDS... Amazing Machine!


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

If I'm being completely honest with myself, I feel that the DS outdid all the consoles. Maybe this is just because I really like handheld gaming, but there are just so many games on that system that really captivate me. And though it wouldn't be fair to count the 3DS (since that's more of a "next gen" handheld, along with the Vita), the addition of the 3DS as a new system that you can still play DS titles on only made it that much better.


----------



## emigre (Oct 30, 2012)

Master Mo said:


> It is not an option here but the most fun I defintely had with my NDS... Amazing Machine!


 
That's like being asked what your favourite fruit is and answering with lettuce.


----------



## celcodioc (Oct 30, 2012)

It's a draw IMO. Each system has its pros and cons.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 30, 2012)

I have long maintained the PS3 and 360 are more or less identical and a good PC does most of what they do (and often better). I had a wii, but I felt no attachment to it and no desire to maintain one and could possibly +1 a "after having a go on the wii for a couple of hours you would nothing by never playing one again".

Time wise- probably my DS. Mainly through tetris DS being the thing I usually use to occupy my hands, although there was an awful lot I enjoyed there.
If I have to pick a non portable probably the 360 although PC could get there and I played my 360 via my PC monitor and in my PC chair with the thing usually being obscured by my PC. To that end the 360 was just a bit less work than installing a PC game for essentially the same effect. 

Loser- online games for me. I had liked online play at one point in time.... today I can not summon the tiniest bit of will to participate in it.

Winner- after the utter banality of the PS2, the GC and the xbox as far as most things went this go around had new and interesting ideas that were merely glimpsed before now a staple of the games.


----------



## PJM (Oct 30, 2012)

I can't really decide between the 360 and Wii. I own all 3 systems, but the PS3 hasn't been turned on in over a year.

Between the PS3 and the 360, they are very similar, but Xbox Live decided it for me, with PSN being... just horrible. I'm not even talking about when they were hacked and it was down for what seems like forever, but in general, the only con with Live over PSN is price, and I'd gladly pay for PSN if it meant having a better service. I do like being able to use my own Bluetooth accessories with my PS3, and in that regard, I'd say the PS3 hardware is better, but it's not about hardware, it's about the whole experience, and nothing can touch the 360.

The Wii has games, great games, and no matter how much I love my Xbox, I always end up using my Wii just as much for gaming. I love how I can use my 360 for everything, streaming TV and movies from my desktop, media center, Netflix, Zune... err Xbox Music... just everything, but I have more fun gaming on the Wii, and when I'm playing games like Donkey Kong Country Returns, I don't even think about how it's not in HD, a beautiful game is a beautiful game.

Basically, the 360 does so many things right, and the Wii is for games, I can't choose because I use them equally.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 30, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> For the people who say the Wii, I'm surprised no one has mentioned dedicated local multiplayer games. So few PS3/360 games have that, and the ones that do are almost all shooters (nothing wrong with that, but a change of pace is nice). The one huge exception I can think of is the LEGO series games, which are also available on Wii.


I gotta say that this was indeed the major selling point to my girlfriend. Not "just" that she went ape over Kirby Epic Yarn, but that you could play together and have fun together (where it doesn't really matter that skills are unbalanced).

But to myself...no. It's not really a miracle, though: sharing the same screen is better than splitscreen. And that gives an edge to platformers and even casual games over racers and shooters (unless the latter is an on-rails shooter, obviously).


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 30, 2012)

I would say the PS3 but I'm bias since I don't have nor played a large amount of XBOX 360 games.


----------



## emigre (Oct 30, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I would say the PS3 but I'm bias since I don't have nor played a large amount of XBOX 360 games.


 
Hasn't stopped most people in this thread.


----------



## Fear Zoa (Oct 30, 2012)

Its hard for me to say. I own all three and the xbox 360 gets the most use by far, but the ps3 does have some great games (uncharted series, God of war, Littlebigplanet, etc) And the wii had great nintendo games as usual but lacked in the 3rd party department (Nobody buys a nintendo console for third parties though) so I really have no idea who wins. If I had to name one i'd choose the cop out and say us gamers won...its been a great generation of consoles. Don't get me wrong it had its faults but all in all it was great. 

Also kudos to all the indie pc devs, they are doing a hell of a good job this gen (pcs don't follow gens but you know what I mean)


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 30, 2012)

For me personally, none of the home consoles won for me.
I found most of the games for the PS3/360 to be fun, but there are far too many sandbox and FPS games for me to enjoy them anymore. Not to mention a serious lack of offline gaming.
I am also a survival horror fan and a lot of the horror games in this generation seriously sucked, most of them just used cheap jump out scares.
Then when it comes down to something like Nintendo, the Wii had it's fair share of fun games, but far too much shit to dig through to get to them. At this point I don't even use my Wii anymore for gaming, I mostly use it for Netflix and Hulu Plus.

I say the DS is pretty much the only system in this generation I think won it for me. It had a far wider variety of games as well I find myself playing my DS far more than the other systems.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

Wever said:


> I gotta say that this was indeed the major selling point to my girlfriend. Not "just" that she went ape over Kirby Epic Yarn, but that you could play together and have fun together (where it doesn't really matter that skills are unbalanced).
> 
> But to myself...no. It's not really a miracle, though: sharing the same screen is better than splitscreen. And that gives an edge to platformers and even casual games over racers and shooters (unless the latter is an on-rails shooter, obviously).


That's one of the main reasons for me, actually. I want to actually be able to play games with my girlfriend, without having to buy a second TV, second console, pay for a second online subscription, and pay for a second copy of the game. -_- It's ridiculous.


----------



## Thomas83Lin (Oct 30, 2012)

Overall I'd say the Wii, as of now though i'm mostly catching up on the ps3


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

The 360 for me. Great games, wonderful online infrastructure, and the most comfortable controller. The Wii would be a close second though.


----------



## OneUp (Oct 30, 2012)

I'd say Wii.  I liked its exclusives over the other systems.

360 was too unreliable for me to like it at all. (Every console we have had a RROD at least once)  Plus, its exclusives were shooting games primarily, which I don't care for as much.

PS3 I might end up liking as much as Wii, but I don't have one to compare with currently.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

Sterling said:


> The 360 for me. Great games, wonderful online infrastructure, and the most comfortable controller. The Wii would be a close second though.


Except for that dpad. GAH! DX There were good third party controllers with better dpads though, so it's not that bad.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Except for that dpad. GAH! DX There were good third party controllers with better dpads though, so it's not that bad.


Good point. That D-Pad sucked some major ass. The later revision with the twist out 8 to 4 point system was great though. The controllers were also built like a tank too.


----------



## emigre (Oct 30, 2012)

I have a 360 style controller for my PS3. Apart from the fact the D-pad actually functions properly.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 30, 2012)

Wikipedia has a marvelously laid out chart which should be added to the OP.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 30, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Precisely. If sales aren't being considered, then I really don't see how else anyone can argue which console "won" this generation, aside from personal preference.
> 
> The Wii was my favorite console too and I agree with most of your points here, but I don't think it's fair to say "95% of PS3/360 games can be played on the PC," as a reason. Considering the need for gaming PCs which so many people don't have, it's essentially a console itself for the sake of this discussion (why isn't it one of the options in the poll)? You might as well be saying "95% of PS3/PC games can be played on the 360," and it would be just as weightless of an argument. Just my $0.02.


I'm simply stating how _I_ felt about the console. Owning a capable PC allowed me to play the vast majority of the games on the PS3/360 leaving only exclusives (which I think the Wii had the best exclusives). 

And PCs wouldn't really work in the poll as they aren't bound by _generations_ like inferior consoles.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 30, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Good point. That D-Pad sucked some major ass. The later revision with the twist out 8 to 4 point system was great though. The controllers were also built like a tank too.


Really? I used the "twist out" revision controller a couple times myself, and aside from that little added feature, I didn't see any difference in the dpad's quality.


soulx said:


> I'm simply stating how _I_ felt about the console. Owning a capable PC allowed me to play the vast majority of the games on the PS3/360 leaving only exclusives (which I think the Wii had the best exclusives).
> 
> And PCs wouldn't really work in the poll as they aren't bound by _generations_ like inferior consoles.


I suppose that makes sense.


----------



## AngryGreek766 (Oct 30, 2012)

hardware=ps3 
games=wii


----------



## Fazermint (Oct 30, 2012)

The Wii has the best game collection IMO. For me, that's what counts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 30, 2012)

Right then, prepare for a wall of text.

This generation was pretty interesting in the sense that all three major players offered quite unique machines with different strong points. Profits aside (Nintendo won in that regard, it's hard to deny that), all three consoles deserved their moments in the spotlight, and those reasons are:


The Wii was the most popular system mostly because of its price point - it was easy to buy and even easier to use, making it the perfect system for children and adults alike. The Wii's motion controller alone started a new trend in gaming, which shows exactly how influential the system was. It wasn't as accurate as the PSMove controller when it came to motion on axes (unless it was coupled with the Motion+ or if the sensor was built-in, but there are very little games that take advantage of it), but on the otherhand, the use of an IR Sensor instead of colour-tracking technology was perfect for Arcade-style shooters such as House of the Dead and Resident Evil Chronicles and did not require the use of a camera like the Move in order to operate, which successfuly cut the price and made it both accessible and accurate. I find it more comfortable and logically laid-out than the PSMove and my only gripe with it is that till the end of its life, the Wiimote and the Nunchuck were connected with a wire rather than communicating with eachother over radio. The system may have not been the beefiest, but it certainly had a few interesting games, especially the first-party ones. It definitely didn't keep up with the times hardware-wise, effectively stopping most multiplatform games from being released for it, but this "fault" backfired with a good few solid exclusives which were designed specifically for the WiiMote. Some of them were ported to the PS3 once PSMove was released, but not all of them, so they're another strong point of the system. The most important thing about the Wii was that it was just "fun to use" - perhaps it was gathering dust by the end of its lifecycle, but whenever there was a party, I'd take my Wii along and it always livened it up as it had quite a few games which did not require a lot of dedication to be played and were perfect for quick "matches"... and of course, they had Local Multiplayer, now a dying breed! I value it highly, although its hardware limitations were a huge let down to me... then again, you get what you pay for, right? The system had another glaring fault... no headset functionality! Fair play, there was a Wii Speak add-on, but hardly any games used it, so it doesn't deserve much attention... then again, we can't forget Wii's Balance Board - with the right approach, the console could be a good fitness tool - more so than the 360 or the PS3 which had its equivalents, but with no "weighing" functionality, limiting their "progress checks".

The XBox 360 is not a console I personally own, however I do play it often since both my girlfriend and her brother are avid XBox gamers and I have to say, it has one of the most comfortable pads to date. Once I grabbed the device, getting used to its layout was really easy. Unlike others, I will not personally complain about the D-Pad as I have not used it much - most contemporary games used it for some non-important functions, but I can understand how a low-quality D-Pad would be a let down for Virtual Console fans, so it is an issue. The 360 introduced the most advanced "camera" system to date - the Kinect certainly re-defined motion tracking in video games... problem being that while the device itself "worked", implementing its use was a task contemporary programmers apparently had issues with. I heard reports that placing the system alone could be an issue - the players were always too close or too far, making the device complain, so it was certainly "quirky". I've used it only once - playing Star Wars Kinect. It "worked", but it was quite frustrating when the character would "live its own life" rather than mimic my motion and there were times when I sincerely wished that I had a controller in my hands. When games are hard not because of their sheer difficulty, but because the controller just isn't working, it's an obvious fault of the system. Complete lack of tactile input was a bad idea - Sony learned that lesson with the first EyeToy, Microsoft had to learn it, still. From a hardware standpoint, the XBox was very traditional - three cores with two threads and an AMD GPU - a setup programmers were used to. 512MB RAM was just about enough - shame that this memory had to be shared between the CPU and the GPU. In some setups, this gave the XBox the upper-hand over the PS3, in others it was the opposite. Despite having lower calculation power than the PS3, the XBox had tricks up its sleeve to match overall performance. The PS3 had a stronger GPU, but thanks to the embedded 10MB eDRAM, the XBox 360 easily outclassed it bandwidth-wise. The CPU took the back seat during this generation, so that particular weakness did not set the XBox back... in fact, it gave it some edge. Programming for its tripple-core was infinitely easier than programming for the CELL CPU, and the 360 versions of multiplatform games were usually more "refined" until Sony refined its Software Development Kit. It's also hard to forget about Live - easily the best online service on the consoles. It has everything one could ask for... if only it were free... The console had to go through a lot of bad press due to the initial RROD problems, it almost became a meme... but it went out of the war with its head held high.

The PS3 was the strongest platform of all three, but also the one that was most misunderstood. In the beginning of its lifespan it suffered from a lot of backlash due to YLOD's, similarily to XBox's RROD's, programmers had issues and often complained about the difficulties of programming for the CELL CPU, despite its raw horsepower, the split-memory setup was also a hurdle to jump over - 256MB RAM System Memory and 256MB VRAM practically had the edge over XBox's unified memory system due to its much higher bandwidth, but it was more restrictive... The GPU was stronger, but lacking in bandwidth in comparison to the XBox 360... but... It was very traditional. It was a console that was worthy of the Sony name - it featured the well-known Dual Shock controller, now with embedded SIXAXIS control which intoduced a degree of motion controls, it offered great graphics, it had a BluRay player built-in, basic PSN membership was, and still is free in comparison with Live, and just like Live, it features a lot of content outside of gaming - it was a powerful center, hub of entertainment, not "just a console", moreso than the XBox in my opinion due to the BluRay functionality, its web browser (although XBox 360 got one by the end of its lifecycle, it's a bit late) and other typically multimedia functionality. The later addition of the PSMove as well as the EyeToy added even more to the already fun package - the controllers could be used in any setup - with or without the off-hand controller, and they were not tied together with a cable like the Wii's. The PS3 easily "equalized" features of the 360 and the Wii - it had free Online like the Wii, but it was of high quality much like Live. It had a motion controller like the Wii, but a tracking device as well, like the XBox. It had strong specs of the 360 (if not stronger, that will always be debatable), but at the same time it had a good few Wii ports. It had strong third-party support, but also plenty of typically-Sony franchises under its belt... To me, it was the "default" console, it was "the best of both worlds" and each PS3 gamer could "adjust" it to his or her preferences.
For all those reasons, I am reluctant to choose the clear winner of this generation. In fact, I usually have this problem... because... They're all good. They're just good in their respective fields. That is all.


----------



## mightymuffy (Oct 30, 2012)

Pretty hardcore question! Been a closer generation, this, that's for sure.... PS2 ruled the roost last gen for me, with GC 2nd and.... ugh.....

How times change though! This gen it's possibly the other way round.... PS3, for me, definitely my least favourite... there's 2 of em in the house, I'm also a Plus user, but I just don't really rate it, and the pad for some reason I can't stand - WTF? I've always loved the PS1/2 pads, but (possibly after spending so much time with the 360 pad), I end up with cramp.... I can see why it has its fans, and I don't want to sound like I'm dissing the machine, but it's just been a bit of a disappointment for me..

Wii vs 360 for me then..... nnnnggh... up until a couple of years or so ago I'd have probably picked the Wii: that was getting all my gaming time, with some classic titles, great party games, then there's the softmod/emulation side of things.... now though I'm gonna say the 360: simply a better all round package for me than the PS3, with some real classic titles available, and what a year for XBLA we've had this year! Fez, Spelunky, Trials Evo, Minecraft, loads more.... and this is with a shitty Summer of Arcade to boot!

360 then for me - just! Wii 2nd!


----------



## Master Mo (Oct 30, 2012)

emigre said:


> That's like being asked what your favourite fruit is and answering with lettuce.


TBH, if the thread asks for my favourite system I honestly do think the handhelds are missing, therefore I think it is kind of legitimate to answer with NDS, even though like I said it and the PSP are missing in the poll...

I would have picked one of the others but the DS was just too outstanding of a gaming system!!!


----------



## suppow (Oct 30, 2012)

the wii, no contest.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 31, 2012)

I think of it like this. This generation is a marathon, and the Wii ran faster than the competition. The Wii won, but having not done a steady stride instead of the overexerted sprint that it did, it suffered a heart attack, and has died sooner than the rest.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 31, 2012)

Sales, Wii obviously. 
However i would have to say that even though its atrocious RRoD and bloated menu system, the 360 really transformed how online games will be played in the future.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

BortzANATOR said:


> However i would have to say that even though its atrocious RRoD and bloated menu system, *the 360 really transformed how online games will be played in the future.*


Eh, everything _revolutionary_ about the 360's online was done on the PC years ago. For free.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Eh, everything _revolutionary_ about the 360's online was done on the PC years ago. For free.


No one plays games on PC.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

BortzANATOR said:


> No one plays games on PC.









_Can't tell if serious._


----------



## suppow (Oct 31, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> I think of it like this. This generation is a marathon, and the Wii ran faster than the competition. The Wii won, but having not done a steady stride instead of the overexerted sprint that it did, it suffered a heart attack, and has died sooner than the rest.


live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse behind lol.


----------



## Lurker2 (Oct 31, 2012)

BortzANATOR said:


> No one plays games on PC.


In many foreign countries people only play PC games. In Russia, some say that if steam did not exist piracy would be near 100%. Games just cost too much in those countries but PC gaming is a huge industry in said countries. Why else would Ubisoft and Capcom release most of their games on PC?

Overall the 360 definitely grabbed a large chunk on the market from Sony.
Nintendo lost some of the "bro" gamers with the Wii but might be able to grab them back with the Wii U.
Sony has just lost money and the top spot in the market.

I say the Wii won.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> _Can't tell if serious._


joke and im also pointing out the invalidity of your comment. 
This thread is about the past console generation lol not PCs. So... who cares about PC gaming.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Eh, everything _revolutionary_ about the 360's online was done on the PC years ago. For free.


Achievements, integrated chatting and message system regardless of which game is being played, cross-game chat, information on who from your contact list plays what game at any given time to facilitate sending invitations, which mind you, are embedded in the system and all sorts of related functionality perhaps were available, but not in any form of a unified system. XBox Live was the first "Online Gaming Service" of its kind and it taught all the other players how to manage those things - previously such functions belonged in entirely separate applications. The revolution started with the XBox, and since then has been progressing - saying that XBox Live did not shape online gaming as we know it is like saying that the invention of sandwiches did not change much about our daily breakfast habits.

There may have been *similar* systems around, but A) They were not that popular and B) They were worse, plain and simple.

I'm not a big fan of XBox Live's subscription policy and I too think that it should be a free service, but I acknowledge its influence over everything related to online gaming.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 31, 2012)

The only part of 360s pay for LIVE plan i dont mind, is that im hoping that the money goes back into the LIVE system so it can be upgraded and made better. 

PSN...


----------



## mehrab2603 (Oct 31, 2012)

My vote goes to PS3 simply because of it's awesome exclusives and free online play that is now on par with Live.


----------



## AceWarhead (Oct 31, 2012)

360. Dem Halo games and several others just won it for me.
People saying the Wii... aren't really true with themselves.
3rd party games were mostly crap, with the occasional good game. Most were party games or ripoffs of Wii Sports or Wii Fit.
Graphics capabilities coulda been much more. And no, the "grafix dunn matter" argument does not work. Graphics add to the gameplay. And the Wii's should have been a lot better.
I'm no Micro-fanboy, I love Ninty and grew up with it, but I think they only won because of the family appeal and their new motion control. If not for the family appeal, the units sold would have been much smaller.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Achievements, integrated chatting and message system regardless of which game is being played, cross-game chat, information on who from your contact list plays what game at any given time to facilitate sending invitations, which mind you, are embedded in the system and all sorts of related functionality perhaps were available, but not in any form of a unified system. XBox Live was the first "Online Gaming Service" of its kind and it taught all the other players how to manage those things - previously such functions belonged in entirely separate applications. The revolution started with the XBox, and since then has been progressing - saying that XBox Live did not shape online gaming as we know it is like saying that the invention of sandwiches did not change much about our daily breakfast habits.
> 
> There may have been *similar* systems around, but A) They were not that popular and B) They were worse, plain and simple.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of XBox Live's subscription policy and I too think that it should be a free service, but I acknowledge its influence over everything related to online gaming.


Well let me introduce you to GameSpy Arcade (on the PC) as one example. It featured system-wide messaging, voice-chat, an account system as well as server browsing all the way back in early 2000, long before the 360 released.

Achievements were done in some games before (E-Motion on the Amiga for one), just not in a system-wide implementation like the 360.

Aside from the few frivolous improvements you've mentioned, you're essentially paying $60 for a P2P online service. But this isn't the place to be talking about my gripes with online gaming on consoles. It's just that the majority of these things aren't really revolutionary when you consider the fact that PC gaming had most of this long before the 360.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Well let me introduce you to GameSpy Arcade (on the PC) as one example. It featured system-wide messaging, voice-chat, an account system as well as server browsing all the way back in early 2000, long before the 360 released.
> 
> Achievements were done in some games before (E-Motion on the Amiga for one), just not in a system-wide implementation like the 360.
> 
> Aside from the few frivolous improvements you've mentioned, you're essentially paying $60 for a P2P online service. But this isn't the place to be talking about my gripes with online gaming on consoles. It's just that the majority of these things aren't really revolutionary when you consider the fact that PC gaming had most of this long before the 360.


GameSpy was not working in-conjuntion with all PC games of its time though, and it wasn't exactly ideal - I'd know, I used GameSpy to play Fallout Tactics online. Also, mind you, the XBox Live system started with the XBox, not the 360, plus Achievements are system-specific, not game-specific - games merely state requirements to get them.

As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of the subscription fee, but I do like the way the system works.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> GameSpy was not working in-conjuntion with all PC games of its time though, and it wasn't exactly ideal - I'd know, I used GameSpy to play Fallout Tactics online. Also, mind you, the XBox Live system started with the XBox, not the 360, plus Achievements are system-specific, not game-specific - games merely state requirements to get them.
> 
> As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of the subscription fee, but I do like the way the system works.


My point is just that all the underlying technologies was there and used long before Xbox Live. All Microsoft really did was take all of this, bring it to the consoles and give it a nice name. It's not really anything new or revolutionary (for the PC that is).


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Eh, everything _revolutionary_ about the 360's online was done on the PC years ago. For free.


There's no denying that the 360 definitely made it mainstream, though. And with much less hassle.


AceWarhead said:


> 360. Dem Halo games and several others just won it for me.
> People saying the Wii... aren't really true with themselves.
> 3rd party games were mostly crap, with the occasional good game. Most were party games or ripoffs of Wii Sports or Wii Fit.
> Graphics capabilities coulda been much more. And no, the "grafix dunn matter" argument does not work. Graphics add to the gameplay. And the Wii's should have been a lot better.
> I'm no Micro-fanboy, I love Ninty and grew up with it, but I think they only won because of the family appeal and their new motion control. If not for the family appeal, the units sold would have been much smaller.


-"Anyone who thinks X system is the best is wrong"
-"Also, I'm not a fanboy"
Trying to argue that a particular system "factually" can't be the best in the eye of the beholder really doesn't help your case for not being a fanboy (or in this case, anti-fanboy), regardless of your history as a fan of the company. Just saying.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 31, 2012)

The PS3 won this gen for me only because it has the games I was looking forward to and enjoy playing.


----------



## TheRedfox (Oct 31, 2012)

PS3, the only console with games worth to play :3


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> There's no denying that the 360 definitely made it mainstream, though. And with much less hassle.


Only on home consoles.


----------



## GameWinner (Oct 31, 2012)

The Wii may have won in sales but in my opinion the PS3 won.
Better exclusives.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2012)

I already went but there have been some interesting posts in the meantime.

On the xbox live being revolutionary. I would argue it is the wrong word, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing; those that bring together either disparate or competing technologies and apply a high degree of polish are somewhat celebrated with a great example being the iphone (nothing great compared to what had existed in various countries before and some regards worse before I even consider the locked down nature of it all). Likewise in general science those that work their whole lives to improve things fractions at a time are certainly allowed to stand just as tall as those that completely rocked the boat and discovered something entirely new. Also [insert jab at achievements].


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Only on home consoles.


...which are the mainstream way to play games, even more so back then.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> ...which are the mainstream way to play games, even more so back then.


So what?

The argument was about whether Xbox Live was _revolutionary_ for online gaming in general and "transformed" the way things were done (which it didn't). Not about how popular gaming on home consoles vs. gaming on the PC is.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 31, 2012)

Nintendo won handheld

in console to be honest i dont know i think we all lost there was nothing big that happen i mean it was the same as lat gen


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> So what?
> 
> The argument was about whether Xbox Live was _revolutionary_ for online gaming in general and "transformed" the way things were done (which it didn't). Not about how popular gaming on home consoles vs. gaming on the PC is.


Nintendo is constantly credited for revolutionizing touch screen and motion controls, when they weren't the originator of either. They just popularized and perfected the concept and made it mainstream, hence "revolutionizing" gaming in that way. The same thing with Xbox live. It popularized and perfected a less-used concept and made it mainstream. That's pretty revolutionary in my book. A revolution means nothing if it doesn't affect that many people.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 31, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Nintendo is constantly credited for revolutionizing touch screen and motion controls, when they weren't the originator of either. They just popularized and perfected the concept and made it mainstream, hence "revolutionizing" gaming in that way. The same thing with Xbox live. It popularized and perfected a less-used concept and made it mainstream. That's pretty revolutionary in my book. A revolution means nothing if it doesn't affect that many people.


Touch-screens and motion-controls as we know now were not used in mainstream videogames until Nintendo used it with the Wii and DS. Before that, they were solely relegated to R&D efforts in some companies aside from a few gimmicky peripherals and primitive implementations like the EyeToy (which is more like Kinect than the Wii). That's different from online gaming which was done long before on the PC.

The vast majority of the features (messaging, voice-chat, an account system and more) that Xbox Live has _were_ done before on the PC. And contrary to what you seem to think, the PC was not a dead platform for gaming even back then so it's perfectly okay to compare the two. 

Claiming that Xbox Live revolutionized online gaming (in general) is wrong. It did not introduce many significant new features (and even brought _limitations_ with some things like P2P online gaming instead of with servers). While it did bring online-gaming mainstream on the consoles, it did not revolutionize online gaming as a whole.

tl;dr:


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Touch-screens and motion-controls as we know now *were not used in mainstream videogames* until Nintendo used it with the Wii and DS. Before that, they were solely relegated to R&D efforts in some companies aside from a few gimmicky peripherals and primitive implementations like the EyeToy (which is more like Kinect than the Wii). That's different from online gaming which was done long before on the PC.
> 
> The vast majority of the features (messaging, voice-chat, an account system and more) that Xbox Live has _were_ done before on the PC. And contrary to what you seem to think, the PC was not a dead platform for gaming even back then so it's perfectly okay to compare the two.
> 
> Claiming that Xbox Live revolutionized online gaming (in general) is wrong. It did not introduce many significant new features (and even brought _limitations_ with some things like P2P online gaming instead of with servers). *While it did bring online-gaming mainstream* on the consoles, it did not revolutionize online gaming as a whole.


I bolded the parts where I think you contradicted yourself. You keep changing your argument: One moment, Nintendo revolutionizes something by making it mainstream, but then Xbox is NOT revolutionizing something by making it mainstream. Which is it? The same rule must apply to both.

And I never said PC was a dead platform, but there's no denying that it was nowhere near as mainstream as console gaming.

But even if you're right, there's no way to deny that Xbox, at the very least, revolutionized online gaming on consoles at least.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I'll let you have the last word before letting this go.

Edit: Also, just because motion controls and touchscreen gaming was "less" mainstream than online multiplayer on the PC was doesn't make it any more valid of an argument.



soulx said:


> tl;dr:


ROFL


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 1, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I bolded the parts where I think you contradicted yourself. You keep changing your argument: One moment, Nintendo revolutionizes something by making it mainstream, but then Xbox is NOT revolutionizing something by making it mainstream. Which is it? The same rule must apply to both.
> 
> And I never said PC was a dead platform, but there's no denying that it was nowhere near as mainstream as console gaming.
> 
> ...


Comparing motion-controls/touch-screens which were not used before (mainstream was the wrong word to use - aside from a few primitive implementations) in video-games and online gaming (account system, messaging, voice-chat, etc.) which was done before on the PC doesn't work. The only way that argument would work is if online gaming on the PC was primitive and lacked many of the features of Xbox Live. Which it didn't.

And you can't try to argue that the PC wasn't as popular as a platform so the Xbox brought it mainstream. PC gaming was still very relevant, even back then.

But I don't see what the popularity of the platform has to do with all of this. This argument from the beginning was about online gaming in general. While Xbox Live did bring a lot for online gaming on *consoles*, the PC had all of that long before it. Thus, it didn't *"revolutionize"* anything in terms of online gaming or bring much new to the table (aside from achievements but that was done on a game-wise basis before). It merely brought what was already done on the PC to home consoles.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 2, 2012)

Motion controls are complete horseshit so if Nintendo "popularized them" they get deadlast.

I dunno, all the consoles were pretty solid. I'd say three way tie between Xbox 360, PS3, and PC though. I only really played the Xbox 360 though so I'm not gonna say the others are superior. They just all had good games.

The Wii, I'd say it had the best Nintendo first parties in a long time, definitely better than the GC and N64, but the third party stuff was mostly fizzle and pop and the actual overall library was really quite limited. The issue with Nintendo consoles over the past 15 years or so is that they're REALLY limited in terms of content. Like they have oogles of platformers but jackshit when it comes to RPGs. No, Xenoblade and Last Story don't fill that gap at all. I'm hoping the Wii U changes this a bit since it's not horribly limited like all their other consoles (well, at the moment) but I'm not sold.


----------



## emigre (Nov 2, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Xenoblade and Last Story


 
HI OVERATED RPGS!!!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 2, 2012)

emigre said:


> HI OVERATED RPGS!!!


 
Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.

And a system isn't saved by two JRPGs anyway, it should have some variety. Like western RPGs. When was the last time Nintendo got a good western RPG? Actually, when was the last time Nintendo got a western RPG?


----------



## suppow (Nov 2, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.
> 
> And a system isn't saved by two JRPGs anyway, it should have some variety. Like western RPGs. When was the last time Nintendo got a good western RPG? Actually, when was the last time Nintendo got a western RPG?


(ignoring the graphics issue) Fallout 3, or Oblivion on the Wii would have been awesome.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 2, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Motion controls are complete horseshit so if Nintendo "popularized them" they get deadlast.


Did you just not like them, or did you think they didn't work well? A lot of games definitely misused/poorly implemented motion controls, but I think a lot of Wii games proved that motion controls could make an otherwise archaic game feel cutting-edge (Metroid Prime Trilogy), be subtly used to enhance gameplay while being otherwise unused (Super Mario Galaxy), and be seamlessly integrated into gameplay as much as traditional controls (Skyward Sword).


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 2, 2012)

I really liked the motion controls, I don't know why some people complain so much (probably just suck at them).  The Conduit, Conduit 2, and MPT are examples.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 2, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> I really liked the motion controls, I don't know why some people complain so much (probably just suck at them). The Conduit, Conduit 2, and MPT are examples.


The motion controls can take some getting used to. I know I sucked at them at first, so I didn't care for them much. But instead of just whining about how much they sucked and giving up, i just kept at it and eventually got good at it over the course of a week or two. Now I love them. I understand that there's something to be said for intuitive easy controls that don't really need to be "learned," but remember this: All "intuitive" control schemes were unintuitive at one point because they had never been heard of. Give in 5 to 10 years, and I guarantee you motion controls will be seen as much second nature to the general gaming public as traditional controls are.


----------



## emigre (Nov 2, 2012)

For some games motion controls were used brilliantly. like RE4 for aiming, but there was a number of games which forced it upon the gamer and was just implemented necessarily, for example Sonic Colours where you had to shake the wiimote ti transform; I ended up just using my classic controller to play the game.


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 2, 2012)

Motion controls are both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes they are added well but sometimes they are used poorly, blame the developer for using them.

PS3's sixaxis sucked overall. Guiding your glaive in dark sector and your dragon in Lair was difficult.
PS3 move was good.
Wii's motion control was a double edge sword, blame the developer.
360 had the Kinect which added voice controls to certain games. Though the motion controls for it range from poor to great, it is usually the fault of the developer.
The PS Vita had moments in Uncharted and Assassin's Creed where it was added foolishly but Fifa implemented the use perfectly.
The 3DS has had some problems but hopefully people learned from it and the DS.


----------



## suppow (Nov 2, 2012)

i loved motion controls for FPS and other random games,
*but* i _*hated*_ them when they got in the way of the game,
example: *Donkey Kong Country Returns*
i loved the old SNES DKC and still am pretty good at them,
but DKCR i just cant play it (and i hate that), the motion controls broke it.
IT NEEDS BUTTONS!




Lurker2 said:


> The PS Vita had moments in Uncharted and Assassin's Creed where it was added foolishly but Fifa implemented the use perfectly.


i'm not familiar, how did Fifa use them?


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Nov 2, 2012)

soulx said:


> (aside from achievements but that was done on a game-wise basis before).



Am I the only one who fucking hate these achievements? When you're playing they just pop out taking your attention away, and c'mon many of them are just silly "Step in point X", "Do something you've already done in a slightly different way", "Tell a joke to X NPC". Not to count it kind of leave you with the feeling you haven't really aprecciated the game even though you're not planning to play it again.


----------



## suppow (Nov 2, 2012)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Am I the only one who fucking hate these achievements? When you're playing they just pop out taking your attention away, and c'mon many of them are just silly "Step in point X", "Do something you've already done in a slightly different way", "Tell a joke to X NPC". Not to count it kind of leave you with the feeling you haven't really aprecciated the game even though you're not planning to play it again.


i like them, but
i hate how cheap and easy to get they are (just to make people feel good)
i hate how useless they are (dont unlock anything, cant do anything with the points)
they're just to show ##### points, fuck that, that was for the arcade days, man. 
i couldnt care less about score points nowadays


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 2, 2012)

suppow said:


> i like them, but
> i hate how cheap and easy to get they are (just to make people feel good)
> i hate how useless they are (dont unlock anything, cant do anything with the points)
> they're just to show ##### points, fuck that, that was for the arcade days, man.
> i couldnt care less about score points nowadays


If you use the 360 you can get points and reward depending on how high your gaming score is.





suppow said:


> i'm not familiar, how did Fifa use them?


Selecting a specific spot to shoot a goal and other things.


----------



## ForteGospel (Nov 2, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Achievements, integrated chatting and message system regardless of which game is being played, cross-game chat, information on who from your contact list plays what game at any given time to facilitate sending invitations, which mind you, are embedded in the system and all sorts of related functionality perhaps were available, but not in any form of a unified system. XBox Live was the first "Online Gaming Service" of its kind and it taught all the other players how to manage those things - previously such functions belonged in entirely separate applications. The revolution started with the XBox, and since then has been progressing - saying that XBox Live did not shape online gaming as we know it is like saying that the invention of sandwiches did not change much about our daily breakfast habits.
> 
> There may have been *similar* systems around, but A) They were not that popular and B) They were worse, plain and simple.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of XBox Live's subscription policy and I too think that it should be a free service, but I acknowledge its influence over everything related to online gaming.


didnt steam did this kind of thing long before the xbox?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2012)

ForteGospel said:


> didnt steam did this kind of thing long before the xbox?


Not in an in-game basis. XBox Live works somewhat "behind" the games, Steam is just a download platform with a very basic Steam overlay for everything else.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Xenoblade was so boring when I tried it. Like I'm not JRPG enthusiast but it was seriously dull. And I was able to play at least 10 hours of FFXIII before getting bored.


Need I repeat that you can't judge an 100 hour game by only playing about an hour of it. That's like judging Deus Ex: HR to be a shit game by the first 15 minutes of it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 4, 2012)

soulx said:


> Need I repeat that you can't judge an 100 hour game by only playing about an hour of it. That's like judging Deus Ex: HR to be a shit game by the first 15 minutes of it.


 
I shouldn't have to wade through hours of shit to realize it's good. If a game is boring off the bat then I just won't play it. Games are meant to be fun, it shouldn't take more than an hour for me to be interested. If they don't do that then it's poor game design, end of discussion.

The combat was rather bland, story seemed full of interesting characters and plots, art was generic, and I saw no reason to play it over a good game.

EDIT: And Human Revolution is far from the shining pinnacle of WRPGs. The game itself takes way too long to pick up traction and even when it does, it's really half assed in a lot of areas and full of flaws. I had fun with it but to hold it up as a great game among WRPGs is a complete mistake.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

Xenoblade was terribly overhyped and really isn't deserving of the fanfare it received

/JRPG enthusiast.

Thought you never should judge a JRPG from an hour. You need to give it a few hours before it can really get started. Unless its Dragon Quest cos y'know Dragon Quest is shit.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 4, 2012)

emigre said:


> Xenoblade was terribly overhyped and really isn't deserving of the fanfare it received
> 
> /JRPG enthusiast.
> 
> Thought you never should judge a JRPG from an hour. You need to give it a few hours before it can really get started. Unless its Dragon Quest cos y'know Dragon Quest is shit.


 
Or most JRPGs could just be shit if they take forever to become actually interesting. Like I don't expect explosions and everything within the first hour but I expect it to be more than boring quests and dull combat. They could establish a universe worth caring about that isn't full of generic JRPG protagonists with generic JRPG settings.


----------



## DS1 (Nov 4, 2012)

They all lost to me because I didn't buy any of them.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Or most JRPGs could just be shit if they take forever to become actually interesting. Like I don't expect explosions and everything within the first hour but I expect it to be more than boring quests and dull combat. They could establish a universe worth caring about that isn't full of generic JRPG protagonists with generic JRPG settings.


 
Just Another Gamer is going to come here and defend the honour of the Japanese Role Playing Game.

In all seriousness, some JRPGs are super shit whilst some are very good. Saying that I do enjoy the cliches, its like watching a shit horror movie.


----------



## suppow (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I shouldn't have to wade through hours of shit to realize it's good. If a game is boring off the bat then I just won't play it. Games are meant to be fun, it shouldn't take more than an hour for me to be interested. If they don't do that then it's poor game design, end of discussion.
> 
> The combat was rather bland, story seemed full of interesting characters and plots, art was generic, and I saw no reason to play it over a good game.





Guild McCommunist said:


> Or most JRPGs could just be shit if they take forever to become actually interesting. Like I don't expect explosions and everything within the first hour but I expect it to be more than boring quests and dull combat. They could establish a universe worth caring about that isn't full of generic JRPG protagonists with generic JRPG settings.


agreed, a good game should be able to catch you from the start, not by being flashy, but by being good.
and games that make you sit through walls of text dialogue between characters that you dont care about or dont even know and say nothing interesting (specially to advance the story), with the pretext of "wait for it, it's a good game", is in fact not a good game.

if it is a good game, it'll *make* you care about the story by just *playing* it, and it will make you seek out more dialogue and more background story/info on your own, by just being interesting, *not* by making you sit thru walls of text.

_*specially*_ when you cant skip it. bad design choice.


----------



## kylster (Nov 4, 2012)

Overall the Wii won me over cause of the vast majority of titles unavailble on the other consoles; I'm sure somebody has mentioned that most xb360 games can be bought for pc or also available on ps3 albeit there are some uncommonly exclusive title for ps3 also. Also Wii games seemed to be the most hacked or giving that extra life to say for over-all-play-ability. 

Let us take a look at some of the funner games for Wii:

FF Crystal Bearers
LoZ Twilight Princess
LoZ Skyward Sword
Tales of Symphia
Punch Out
NSMB + All the hacked community copies
Metroid Prime
Metroid Other M
I'm sure you all can think of more


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

It's funny how people can judge games *they have not fucking played*.


----------



## YoshiInAVoid (Nov 4, 2012)

DS1 said:


> They all lost to me because I didn't buy any of them.


Yeah same. There's absolutely no reason to buy any of this generation's consoles as the next generation will be backwards compatible with them. I always skip a generation of consoles


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

YoshiInAVoid said:


> Yeah same. There's absolutely no reason to buy any of this generation's consoles as the next generation will be backwards compatible with them. I always skip a generation of consoles


 
Looking at the weak backwards compatibility offered by the 360 and PS3, that's not exactly a given thing.

Plus, of all the generations to skip, it seems like you've picked the longest one. 7 years and counting... that's a lot of great gaming experiences to catch up on.


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> It's funny how people can judge games *they have not fucking played*.


 
Welcome to the Internet. Fanboy dethrones logic in this sick strange yet highly erotic world.



kylster said:


> FF Crystal Bearers
> Tales of Symphia




Horribly average games. For the latter, I'm being fucking kind beyond belief.


----------



## YoshiInAVoid (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Looking at the weak backwards compatibility offered by the 360 and PS3, that's not exactly a given thing.
> 
> Plus, of all the generations to skip, it seems like you've picked the longest one. 7 years and counting... that's a lot of great gaming experiences to catch up on.


I don't need to play every game ever released in the last 7 years. Just the good ones. There are tonnes of reviews now and they're all dirt cheap second hand.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I shouldn't have to wade through hours of shit to realize it's good. If a game is boring off the bat then I just won't play it. Games are meant to be fun, it shouldn't take more than an hour for me to be interested. If they don't do that then it's poor game design, end of discussion.


The game in question aside (as I haven't played Xenoblade), I agree with you. No game should take a ridiculously long time to interest you. In my opinion, Chrono Trigger, Radiant Historia, and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga all stand out as examples of great JRPGs with excellent beginnings that kept you engaged from the start. It doesn't even have to be action-packed: Chrono Trigger had very little action for the first 45-60 minutes, but it kept you engaged by keeping you actively involved in moving events forward and telling a refreshing story.

This is the reason I dropped Borderlands after about 90 minutes of playing it. The characters were colorful and entertaining and the graphics were beautiful, but I was bored to death and really didn't feel like wading through who knows how much more time of tutorials and fetch quests before getting to the main game. I'll make exceptions for games in series that I already really like and force myself to trudge through long beginnings (I'm looking at you, Skyward Sword), but aside from that, I generally won't tolerate it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> It's funny how people can judge games *they have not fucking played*.


 
If this is relating to my points then the whole point I have been making is that I did play the game, found it to be boring within an hour, and decided to not flog myself with a 50+ hour adventure through mediocrity just to say "I have played this game thoroughly and I can say it's bad."


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

YoshiInAVoid said:


> I don't need to play every game ever released in the last 7 years. Just the good ones. There are tonnes of reviews now and they're all dirt cheap second hand.


 
As I said, that still leaves a lot of great gaming experiences to catch up with on top of whatever else comes out.


----------



## Chary (Nov 4, 2012)

Honestly, I say the Wii. Any game that I like on my 360 can easily be played on Steam/PC. Not to mention how great the First Party Nintendo titles were, and a few third party games (Which you can't get on any other system). Great console overall.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> It's funny how people can judge games *they have not fucking played*.


How do you know the people in question haven't played said games?


----------



## kylster (Nov 4, 2012)

emigre said:


> Welcome to the Internet. Fanboy dethrones logic in this sick strange yet highly erotic world.
> 
> Horribly average games. For the latter, I'm being fucking kind beyond belief.


 
I really enjoyed that game but you may refer to me as a Final Fantasy Fanboy lol but I'm not quite that pathetic lol


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

Have I mentioned Xenoblade is hilariously overrated?


----------



## emigre (Nov 4, 2012)

kylster said:


> I really enjoyed that game but you may refer to me as a Final Fantasy Fanboy lol but I'm not quite that pathetic lol


 
Great you enjoyed it but for the wider "these are the funnest/best/bestest/great games console debate," they fall short.


----------



## suppow (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> In my opinion, Chrono Trigger, Radiant Historia, and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga all stand out as examples of great JRPGs with excellent beginnings that kept you engaged from the start.


sure, M&L is made by Intelligent Systems, but i dont think it'd qualify as a JRPG.
 =P


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

suppow said:


> sure, M&L is made by Intelligent Systems, but i dont think it'd qualify as a JRPG.
> =P


Eh. It's not a traditional JRPG, that's for sure.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

suppow said:


> sure, M&L is made by Intelligent Systems, but i dont think it'd qualify as a JRPG.
> =P


 
So a Japanese RPG doesn't qualify as a Japanese RPG?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> So a Japanese RPG doesn't qualify as a Japanese RPG?


That's what I was gonna say. I looked up Intelligent Systems, and they're a Japanese company.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> If this is relating to my points then the whole point I have been making is that I did play the game, found it to be boring within an hour, and decided to not flog myself with a 50+ hour adventure through mediocrity just to say "I have played this game thoroughly and I can say it's bad."


Maybe by using an analogy, I can make my point clear: 

When J.K. Rowlings sent the first few chapters of Harry Potter to publishing agencies, all of them said it was _shit. _Only one agency thought it was good.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Maybe by using an analogy, I can make my point clear:
> 
> When J.K. Rowlings sent the first few chapters of Harry Potter to publishing agencies, all of them said it was _shit. _Only one agency thought it was good.


 
That's more of an "It'll never catch on!" sort of thing, so it doesn't exactly work here.

Just because a game is huge is not an excuse for it to have an unengaging, dull opening. If the opening of a game fails to offer anything that would capture a player's interest, the blame lies with the developer, not the player.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Maybe by using an analogy, I can make my point clear:
> 
> When J.K. Rowlings sent the first few chapters of Harry Potter to publishing agencies, all of them said it was _shit. _Only one agency thought it was good.


How the heck does that have anything to do with this??


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> That's more of an "It'll never catch on!" sort of thing, so it doesn't exactly work here.
> 
> Just because a game is huge is not an excuse for it to have an unengaging, dull opening. If the opening of a game fails to offer anything that would capture a player's interest, the blame lies with the developer, not the player.


I completely agree. Incidentally, Xenoblade Chronicles captured my heart from the very beginning. 


xwatchmanx said:


> How the heck does that have anything to do with this??


Analogy: the cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the HP thing) to another subject (Premature dismissal of games).


----------



## suppow (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Eh. It's not a traditional JRPG, that's for sure.


exactly. 


Gahars said:


> So a Japanese RPG doesn't qualify as a Japanese RPG?





xwatchmanx said:


> That's what I was gonna say. I looked up Intelligent Systems, and they're a Japanese company.


i get (both) your point, but i'd argue it's a misnomer. 
like i said "sure, it's made by Intelligent Systems", that is, acknowledging that it's japanese - they're a subsidiary of Nintendo,
and made other games like Fire Emble for example, which i guess would be a "TJRPG" (?)
if you actually care about my point, i could elaborate. but i guess you know what i meant.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Analogy: the cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the HP thing) to another subject (Premature dismissal of games).


 
He was saying your analogy was shit.


----------



## suppow (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Maybe by using an analogy, I can make my point clear:
> 
> When J.K. Rowlings sent the first few chapters of Harry Potter to publishing agencies, all of them said it was _shit. _Only one agency thought it was good.


i guess that would apply more to a scenario like Nintendo (a publisher) turning Pokemon down several times,
rather an a player not wanting to play a whole game.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Analogy: the cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the HP thing) to another subject (Premature dismissal of games).


I know what analogy means.


Guild McCommunist said:


> He was saying your analogy was shit.


Precisely.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> He was saying your analogy was shit.


How very mature of you.


suppow said:


> i guess that would apply more to a scenario like Nintendo (a publisher) turning Pokemon down several times,
> rather an a player not wanting to play a whole game.


You're probably right. I still believe a premature dismissal of a game is an inadequate evaluation of a game.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> How very succinct and to the point of you.


 
Fixed that for ya.

(Edit: Plus, your response to xwatchmanx was incredibly condescending and patronizing. I think you lost any sort of "maturity high ground" in this matter from the get-go.)



Fazermint said:


> I completely agree. Incidentally, Xenoblade Chronicles captured my heart from the very beginning.


 
Ok, that's great for you, but there's obviously disagreement here on that point. Is that view only legitimate as long you agree?


----------



## suppow (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> You're probably right. I still believe a premature dismissal of a game is an inadequate evaluation of a game.


prematural dismissal of *anything*, and then proceeding to qualify it as a whole, is wrong. (games, books, films, songs, people etc)
you can only qualify as far as you know of it.
"the game started out slow and it bored me to death" - fine.
"i only played the beginning and it was so boring, the game is shit" - not fine.

but then again, i think games (due to their nature) should be engaging from the start.
otherwise go read a book, when i want a story i do.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> (Edit: Plus, your response to xwatchmanx was incredibly condescending and patronizing. I think you lost any sort of "maturity high ground" in this matter from the get-go.)


 I didn't mean to be condescending. The guy literally asked wtf I was talking about, so I explained it. If I offended you xwatchmanx, I'm sorry because that was not my intention.





Gahars said:


> Ok, that's great for you, but there's obviously disagreement here on that point. Is that view only legitimate as long you agree?


 Disagreement is the basis of this discussion. I simply stated my opinion on the matter, and for some reason I get bitched at for doing so.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> I didn't mean to be condescending. The guy literally asked wtf I was talking about, so I explained it. If I offended you xwatchmanx, I'm sorry because that was not my intention.


It's cool. I wasn't offended.


----------



## Disorarara (Nov 4, 2012)

Personally, the Xbox 360 won this generation for me, It's got a solid library of both retail and downloadable games that's not matched on either the PS3 or Wii, and has a solid online infrastructure that if you can ignore it's price and users, is actually quite excellent.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

Funny to see the Wii leading the poll here, but this is a Nintendo site...

It's far easier to name a dozen quality titles from the PS3 or 360 library than it is from the Wii library.  I give it to the 360 based on the game quality to price point ratio along with a far better online service (you get what you pay for...).  Sony definitely had the console with the most potential but they squandered it all away with poor decisions and dev's weak utilization of the power available to them.  Nintendo made their money off of a gimmick.  I don't think motion controls themselves are a gimmick.  It's the idea of foregoing any sort of technological leap to put out a console where motion control was the only thing it had going for it.  Can you imagine what kinds of adventures Mario, Link, and Samus would have had if the Wii had any sort of power behind it?


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 4, 2012)

GBAtemp is filled with hipsters (). Almost every other site I've been to regards Xenoblade Chronicles as the best RPG of this generation. Granted, I haven't played more than 10 hours but I enjoyed what I tried (music was amazing too).

But I disagree Guild. With a game this long, you can't just outright dismiss it without even getting to the meat and bones of it. Judging a game that's about 100 hours long after only playing 1 hour is ridiculous.


----------



## Disorarara (Nov 4, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Funny to see the Wii leading the poll here, but this is a Nintendo site...
> 
> It's far easier to name a dozen quality titles from the PS3 or 360 library than it is from the Wii library. I give it to the 360 based on the game quality to price point ratio along with a far better online service (you get what you pay for...). Sony definitely had the console with the most potential but they squandered it all away with poor decisions and dev's weak utilization of the power available to them. Nintendo made their money off of a gimmick. I don't think motion controls themselves are a gimmick. It's the idea of foregoing any sort of technological leap to put out a console where motion control was the only thing it had going for it. Can you imagine what kinds of adventures Mario, Link, and Samus would have had if the Wii had any sort of power behind it?


 
You've articulated what I've been thinking but too lazy to type. I find it a little funny how much everyone else's shortcomings boosted the 360.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 4, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Funny to see the Wii leading the poll here, but this is a Nintendo site...
> It's far easier to name a dozen quality titles from the PS3 or 360 library than it is from the Wii library. I give it to the 360 based on the game quality to price point ratio along with a far better online service (you get what you pay for...). Sony definitely had the console with the most potential but they squandered it all away with poor decisions and dev's weak utilization of the power available to them. Nintendo made their money off of a gimmick. I don't think motion controls themselves are a gimmick. It's the idea of foregoing any sort of technological leap to put out a console where motion control was the only thing it had going for it. Can you imagine what kinds of adventures Mario, Link, and Samus would have had if the Wii had any sort of power behind it?


The Wii would probably win this poll regardless of where it's being held. Between the three, the Wii has sold the most units. This shows us that gameplay remains the most important success factor for games, while hardware power, though still important, gets a secondary role. If you have trouble naming quality titles for the Wii, you either don't know that many games or we have a very different definition of quality titles


----------



## dgwillia (Nov 4, 2012)

PS3, best exclusives. Its heaven for an RPG/Fighting fan like myself, everything got even better after they added Playstation Plus, now I'm just swimming in games.

My 360 barely gets any play lately outside of Halo and a few downloaded games, and I literally just played my Wii last week for the first time in about 6 months (Because I had to trade in my PS3 toward a new model and was without it for 2 weeks)


----------



## Arras (Nov 4, 2012)

I voted for the Wii because it has the most unique exclusives. The PS3 and Xbox aren't bad consoles, but the vast majority of the library is the same and you can usually play these games on a PC as well, but better. Besides, I own both a Wii and PS3 and I used my Wii about 20 times as much.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> The Wii would probably win this poll regardless of where it's being held. Between the three, the Wii has sold the most units. This shows us that gameplay remains the most important success factor for games, while hardware power, though still important, gets a secondary role. If you have trouble naming quality titles for the Wii, you either don't know that many games or we have a very different definition of quality titles


 
the number of units moved is moot when you consider how many people played Wii Sports at a friend's house, bought a Wii, played it for a month, and never touched it again...  Gameplay is surely the most important success factor for games...but there are only so many ways you can wag a not-quite-so-accurate wand around and call it new or innovative.  Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, and Metroid Prime were great fun when I first bought my Wii.  But once you've played those games, you've seen everything the Wii has to offer.

Please, list 12 Wii games worth buying the console for.  I think I already did 1/4 of the work for you...


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 4, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Funny to see the Wii leading the poll here, but this is a Nintendo site...


^This redundant damage control response got old a LONG time ago. "Oh, the only reason so many people like *insert Nintendo product here* the best is because this is a Nintendo site." Please. GBAtemp started out as a ROM-hosting site for a Nintendo handheld... today, it's far from a "Nintendo site." We have dedicated sections for all major (and many minor) platforms, most of which have large user bases, not just the Nintendo sections. GBAtemp is nothing more than a namesake now, not an actual representation of the site's content. Heck, the GBA section is even one of the less active sections on the forum.


----------



## AngryGreek766 (Nov 4, 2012)

I actually find it quite funny that anyone on here says 360 lol..what a shitty piece of hardware compared to the ps3 also barly any exlusive games besides FPS and u gotta pay for a bunch of shit. I have one i have 4 games dead rising,mass effect, saints row, tales of vesperia only because i cant get those on ps3. In my book the only reason anyone would actually say the 360 is the best is they couldnt afford a ps3 6 years ago when they came out and got a xbox instead bought games on live and now are stuck with it so they defend it. Microsoft is garbage.

Winner PS3 runner up Wii


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 4, 2012)

Wii Exclusives.
Animal Crossing City Folk
Another Code R
Arc Rise Fantasia
Battalion Wars 2
A Boy and His Blob
Castlevania Rebirth
The Conduit 1-2
Contra ReBirth
Deadly Creatures
Donkey Kong Country Returns
Elebits
Epic Mickey
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Series
Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn
Gradius ReBirth
Harvest Moon Series
Kirby's Series
The Last Story
The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword
MadWorld
Mario Kart Wii
Metroid Prime: Trilogy
Metroid Other M
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Nights Journey of Dreams
No More Heroes 2
Pandora's Tower
Pokémon Series
Red Steel 1-2
Rune Factory Frontier
Samurai Warriors Katana
Sin & Punishment Star Successor
Sonic Series
Super Mario Galaxy 1-2
Super Paper Mario
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Tales of Symphonia Dawn of the New World
Tatsunoko vs. Capcom Ultimate All-Stars
Trauma Center Series
Valhalla Knights Eldar Saga
Wario Land Shake It
WarioWare Smooth Moves
Wii Series
Xenoblade Chronicles
Zack & Wiki Quest for Barbaros' Treasure

PS3 Exclusives
3D Dot Game Heroes
Atelier Series
Demon's Souls
Flower
Folklore
God of War III
Gran Turismo 5
Heavy Rain
Infamous 1-2-Festival of Blood
Journey
Killzone 2-3
The Last of Us
Linger in Shadows
LittleBigPlanet Series
Metal Gear Solid 4
MotorStorm Series
Ratchet & Clank Series
Resistance 1-2-3
Siren Blood Curse
Starhawk
Tales from Space About a Blob
Tales of Xillia 1-2
The Unfinished Swan
Time Crisis 4-Razing Storm
Tokyo Jungle
Twisted Metal
Uncharted 1-2-3
Valkyria Chronicles
Warhawk
White Knight Chronicles 1-2
Wipeout HD
Yakuza 3-4

360 Exclusives
Ace Combat 6
Banjo-Kazooie Nuts & Bolts
Blue Dragon
Crackdown 1-2
Dead or Alive 4
DeaD Rising 1
Dust
Fable 2-Journey
Fez
Forza 2-3-4
Gears of War 2-3-Judgement
Geometry Wars 2
The Gunstringer
Halo Series
Infinite Undiscovery
Kinect Series
Lost Odyssey
Saints Row 1
Shadow Complex
'Splosion Man


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 4, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> The Wii would probably win this poll regardless of where it's being held. *Between the three, the Wii has sold the most units. This shows us that gameplay remains the most important success factor for games*, while hardware power, though still important, gets a secondary role. If you have trouble naming quality titles for the Wii, you either don't know that many games or we have a very different definition of quality titles


I will bet you a million bucks that if you hold this poll on an unbias site, either the 360 or the PS3 will win hands-down. The Wii sold the most units because it was the cheapest and it was marketed as a console for young audiences - the 360 and the PS3 were aimed at the core gamer. It's not really appropriate to use the word "mature audience" and "children", but just for the sake of the argument, numbers-wise, there's more "children" than "mature gamers" and the Wii greatly benefitted from that, becoming the no.1 gift on holidays of all-sorts. It was designed to be easy on the wallet and kid-friendly, that's the secret to its success. Additionally it was marketed as a fitness tool to widen the target crowd, but I doubt that had a huge impact - at the end of the day, the Wii sold due to good marketing strategies and an accessible price point - the magic of the WiiMote helped, of course, but not the "gameplay".


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> ^This redundant damage control response got old a LONG time ago. "Oh, the only reason so many people like *insert Nintendo product here* the best is because this is a Nintendo site." Please. GBAtemp started out as a ROM-hosting site for a Nintendo handheld... today, it's far from a "Nintendo site." We have dedicated sections for all major (and many minor) platforms, most of which have large user bases, not just the Nintendo sections. GBAtemp is nothing more than a namesake now, not an actual representation of the site's content. Heck, the GBA section is even one of the less active sections on the forum.


 
damage control?  what damage is there to control?  are you trying to argue against the fact that the vast majority of tempers registered here because of homebrew/piracy/hacks/mods available for Nintendo products?  Please compare the Wii, DS, 3DS, and GBA traffic to the traffic the other consoles get and then get back to me.


----------



## EyeZ (Nov 4, 2012)

I voted the PS3 as i did own all 3 consoles in the poll at the same time, and the PS3 is the only console i have kept.

The 360 was the console if you wanted fps's and the wii,  to me, was just too gimmicky, i tired of motion control very quickly.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> the number of units moved is moot when you consider how many people played Wii Sports at a friend's house, bought a Wii, played it for a month, and never touched it again... Gameplay is surely the most important success factor for games...but there are only so many ways you can wag a not-quite-so-accurate wand around and call it new or innovative. Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, and Metroid Prime were great fun when I first bought my Wii. But once you've played those games, you've seen everything the Wii has to offer.
> 
> Please, list 12 Wii games worth buying the console for. I think I already did 1/4 of the work for you...


Exclusive games, you mean? Let's see now. First I'll list games I've actually played (it's rather short, since I've only had my Wii for about 7 months, and money has been scarce until recently).

-Super Mario Galaxy
-New Super Mario Bros. Wii
-Kirby's Return to Dream Land
-Zelda: Twilight Princess
-Zelda: Skyward Sword
-Metroid Prime Trilogy (Prime 1 and 2 with added motion controls)
-Super Smash Bros. Brawl
(Note: The only game I got that wasn't that great was Metroid: Other M, and I still had a bit of fun with that)

Now, for other exclusive Wii games I haven't played, based on general reviews and/or player response...

-Donkey Kong Country Returns
-Super Mario Galaxy 2
-Metroid Prime 3
-A Boy and His Blob
-Pandora's Tower
-Xenoblade Chronicles
-Kirby's Epic Yarn
-Sonic Colors
-Sonic and the Secret Rings
-Red Steel 2
-Epic Mickey
-The Last Story
-Mario Kart Wii
-Sin & Punishment: Star Successor
-No More Heroes
-No More Heroes 2
-Super Paper Mario
-Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
-WarioWare: Smooth Moves
-Wario Land: Shake it!

There you go. Just off the freaking top of my head (quickly referring critical scores on Wikipedia for the ones I was unsure about, just to be safe), I named more than double the amount of Wii games you asked for, and all of them are exclusives. And only 2 of them are ports/dual releases from the GameCube (Metroid Prime Trilogy and Twilight Princess).

Aside from that, contrary to popular belief, the Wii did get some decent multiplats, even though it was nowhere near as many as it would've been with more power. Rayman Origins, all the LEGO games, most CoD games, and many of Activision's games (for example) got pretty decent "downports" for the Wii.

I'm not saying that the Wii was "factually" the best by any means. There are good reasons to consider any of the three major consoles the best of this generation, in my opinion. But it's stupid to make these dated, BS claims like "the Wii has no games" when it very clearly does, arguably even more decent exclusive titles than either of the other consoles.


Old8oy said:


> damage control? what damage is there to control? are you trying to argue against the fact that the vast majority of tempers registered here because of homebrew/piracy/hacks/mods available for Nintendo products? Please compare the Wii, DS, 3DS, and GBA traffic to the traffic the other consoles get and then get back to me.


The damage control being "boohoo, the Wii is winning this poll, i'mma just brush it off as the result of this being a Nintendo site!" when it's balanced decently among all the major consoles. And why people came here has NOTHING to do with whether there's a dramatically bigger Nintendo community here. Many of those Nintendo fans do in fact own and play other companies' consoles (like myself). Also remember, the Wii and DS are DRAMATICALLY easier to pirate/play homebrew on, so of course it's going to attract more users for that reason that for the same thing on PS3 or 360.


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

reverse-fanboy detected.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

Lurker2 said:


> Wii Exclusives.
> House of the Dead 2-3-Overkill //Not a Wii exclusive
> No More Heroes 1-2 //No More Heroes 1 is not a Wii exclusive
> Sonic Series //Not all are exclusive (Unleashed, Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity and Sonic & Sega All-Star Racing are available on non-Nintendo platforms)


Just clearing up the confusion.

Also, mind you, the Wii has a lot of exclusive titles mainly because it's unable to properly support multiplats. If I were to compose a list of which console has the most "multiplatform games", the Wii would fall far behind its competitors. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a game is exclusive or not - what matters is if it's fun or not.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Just clearing up the confusion.
> 
> Also, mind you, the Wii has a lot of exclusive titles mainly because it's unable to properly support multiplats. If I were to compose a list of which console has the most "multiplatform games", the Wii would fall far behind its competitors. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a game is exclusive or not - what matters is if it's fun or not.


That's why I didn't include any games like "Transformers: Cybertron Adventures" on my list which were obviously nothing more than "replacements" for the more AAA-versions of the game on PS3/360 (if you know what I mean).

And my bad on No More Heroes 1.

Also, one note: I don't think the Wii being "unable to properly support multiplats" is quite as accurate as "it was impractical/too expensive to put them on there." Any time a multiplat game went on the Wii U, it basically had to be remade from the ground up to work on the more limited hardware. The companies that did this tended to do a pretty decent job of it (like I said before, a bunch of Activision's games), but you can't blame the rest of companies for not doing it, for obvious reasons. I think the fact that the Wii versions of certain multiplats (id est, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed) critically fared BETTER than their 360/PS3 counterparts just adds to my point.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 5, 2012)

congratulations on listing wii exclusives, though, what I asked of you was to list 12 games worthy of a console purchase.  how many people do you think ran off and bought a Wii for A Boy and His Blob or Red Steel?  Now you can wiki the PS3 and 360 exclusives list and find that they are both more than twice as long and include more "critically acclaimed" games.



xwatchmanx said:


> The damage control being "boohoo, the Wii is winning this poll, i'mma just brush it off as the result of this being a Nintendo site!" when it's balanced decently among all the major consoles. And why people came here has NOTHING to do with whether there's a dramatically bigger Nintendo community here. Many of those Nintendo fans do in fact own and play other companies' consoles (like myself). Also remember, the Wii and DS are DRAMATICALLY easier to pirate/play homebrew on, so of course it's going to attract more users for that reason that for the same thing on PS3 or 360.


 
and thank you for re-iterating my point.  This site has a dramatically bigger Nintendo community.  Therefore, you can expect any poll to skew towards Nintendo.


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Just clearing up the confusion.
> 
> Also, mind you, the Wii has a lot of exclusive titles mainly because it's unable to properly support multiplats. If I were to compose a list of which console has the most "multiplatform games", the Wii would fall far behind its competitors. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a game is exclusive or not - what matters is if it's fun or not.


agreed, a reason a play more often on my wii than the other *for me* is the difference between the type of games on the Wii and the ones on 360/PS3/PC.
i like FPS, but i found that whenever i found a new game to play on my 360 it ended up being another FPS more or less.
and it's been said before, but most multi-plat you can play on pc.
when it comes to exclusives between 360 vs PS3, i think the PS3 might win. i dont know

*it depends on what type of games you like*.


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> congratulations on listing wii exclusives, though, what I asked of you was to list 12 games worthy of a console purchase. how many people do you think ran off and bought a Wii for A Boy and His Blob or Red Steel? Now you can wiki the PS3 and 360 exclusives list and find that they are both more than twice as long and include more "critically acclaimed" games.
> and thank you for re-iterating my point. This site has a dramatically bigger Nintendo community. Therefore, you can expect any poll to skew towards Nintendo.


i dont think trolling will get your point any farther.
if you bought a wii and didnt like, and then ended up with buyer's remorse, that's fine
but you dont have to take it out on others.

lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Also, one note: I don't think the Wii being "unable to properly support multiplats" is quite as accurate as "it was impractical/too expensive to put them on there." Any time a multiplat game went on the Wii U, it basically had to be remade from the ground up to work on the more limited hardware. The companies that did this tended to do a pretty decent job of it (like I said before, a bunch of Activision's games), but you can't blame the rest of companies for not doing it, for obvious reasons. I think the fact that the Wii versions of certain multiplats (id est, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed) critically fared BETTER than their 360/PS3 counterparts just adds to my point.


You see, that's the thing with Wii multiplats - they're not multiplats. More often than not, the entire game was made from the ground up and has nothing to do whatsoever with the source material. Force Unleashed and Force Unleashed 2 for the Wii are *not* the same game as on other platforms and should be considered separate entities entirely. The system was unable to run certain engines and developers resorted to making entirely exclusive ones, but that doesn't make their games multiplatform - that's just confusing naming.

The only games on the Wii that I can think of that is actually multiplatform outside of the ones I mentioned were Call of Duty games - the core engine did not require a whole lot of horsepower and when the graphics were downscaled, you could pretty much release the same games on all three platforms. In other cases, the games were written from the ground up for the Wii, and that scratches them off the multiplatform list in my opinion.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> congratulations on listing wii exclusives, though, what I asked of you was to list 12 games worthy of a console purchase. how many people do you think ran off and bought a Wii for A Boy and His Blob or Red Steel? Now you can wiki the PS3 and 360 exclusives list and find that they are both more than twice as long and include more "critically acclaimed" games.
> 
> and thank you for re-iterating my point. This site has a dramatically bigger Nintendo community. Therefore, you can expect any poll to skew towards Nintendo.


All the games I listed got good reviews. and when I say good, I mean they all got mostly 80% (or the equivalent) or higher.

And I didn't reiterate your point. I simply pointed out that just because someone is more likely to come here for homebrew/piracy of Nintendo games doesn't mean they don't play other systems as well, and just don't come here for the homebrew/piracy reasons for other systems because they aren't as accessible for that purpose. In the end, unless a mod came here and decided to show us some list of active users in each section, etc, there's no way for you to conclude that there's a larger Nintendo community here. And there's DEFINITELY no way to conclude that the Temp is "a Nintendo site." But I don't think pointing out facts to you will do anything, so I'll stop here.


Foxi4 said:


> You see, that's the thing with Wii multiplats - they're not multiplats. More often than not, the entire game was made from the ground up and has nothing to do whatsoever with the source material. Force Unleashed and Force Unleashed 2 for the Wii are *not* the same game as on other platforms and should be considered separate entities entirely. The system was unable to run certain engines and developers resorted to making entirely exclusive ones, but that doesn't make their games multiplatform - that's just confusing naming.
> 
> The only game on the Wii that I can think of that is actually multiplatform outside of the ones I mentioned were Call of Duty games - the core engine did not require a whole lot of horsepower and when the graphics were downscaled, you could pretty much release the same games on all three platforms. In other cases, the games were written from the ground up for the Wii, and that scratches them off the multiplatform list in my opinion.


I'm pretty sure the Spider-Man games were the "same" too (downports with worse graphics). Also some games you mentioned, like Sonic Unleashed. The way I see it, if the content is generally the same, it's the same game.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Nov 5, 2012)

Haven't seen much good games in this gen.
The most i liked are Mario Kart Wii,Little Big Planet,COD MW3 and.... ehhh... yeah that's it.
No one won this generation cause all were shit.

...........

Well Handhelds are consoles too.
If they are in too then DS won for me.
It had many good games.
The PSP was not bad too but DS had better games.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'm pretty sure the Spider-Man games were the "same" too (downports with worse graphics). Also some games you mentioned, like Sonic Unleashed. The way I see it, if the content is generally the same, it's the same game.


Well, like I said - Call of Duty was from the top of my head and I did say that the earlier mentioned titles still apply.

As for Force Unleashed 2, it has a completely different story on the Wii than on other consoles, so the content is not the same, which is what I'm getting at. Not sure about Force Unleashed 1, but I'd wager that it follows a similar scheme.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, like I said - Call of Duty was from the top of my head and I did say that the earlier mentioned titles still apply.
> 
> As for Force Unleashed 2, it has a completely different story on the Wii than on other consoles, so the content is not the same, which is what I'm getting at. Not sure about Force Unleashed 1, but I'd wager that it follows a similar scheme.


My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....
> 
> Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.


Entirely possible story-wise, not sure how it looked engine-wise, but I'll bite - so Force Unleashed 1 can be considered multiplat, however, I know for a fact that it's not the case with Force Unleashed 2, as I played it both on the Wii and the 360 and they're completely different games.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 5, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> Disagreement is the basis of this discussion. I simply stated my opinion on the matter, and for some reason I get bitched at for doing so.


 
The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that you make posts like this, criticizing others for doing something you later say you agree with.



soulx said:


> Almost every other site I've been to regards Xenoblade Chronicles as the best RPG of this generation. Granted, I haven't played more than 10 hours but I enjoyed what I tried (music was amazing too).


 
And I've never heard that claim being made on any site beyond GBAtemp; I don't think that verdict is quite as popular as you're making it out to be. I've seen generally positive reactions to the game, but that's about the extent of it.

EDIT: 


xwatchmanx said:


> Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.


 
Just a nitpick, but the Wii version had multiplayer; the other versions did not.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

Force Unleashed on the Wii was such utter shit. The motion controls were fucking awful, graphics were ugly, and the game itself is just crap.

Also a console with downports is just kinda a bad console. Saying "Oh it has X, just a worse version" feels like your console is just a worse console.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

Force Unleashed on the Wii was such utter shit. The motion controls were fucking awful, graphics were ugly, and the game itself is just crap.

Also a console with downports is just kinda a bad console. Saying "Oh it has X, just a worse version" feels like your console is just a worse console.


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 5, 2012)

I might of messed up a bit on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_3-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_360-only_games
I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I've probably spent more time on my 360 then my Wii.
The honest truth is the Wii had more exclusive games though some of them were games remade for the system as said above.
You might like the 360/PS3 more for the multiplatform games, exclusives, graphics and online features.

All systems have their random exclusive indie and JRPGs on them. Some series have their games ported to PC later. The list below only covers games that may or will have a sequel so that is why Banjo-Kazooie and some others are missing. I might of also missed some games series
Microsoft has Halo, Forza, Gears Of War and Fable series as exclusives.
Playstation has God of War, Gran Turismo, Infamous, Killzone, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Uncharted and Yakuza series as exclusive though Yakuza may go multiplatform.
Nintendo has Animal Crossing, Donkey Kong, Kirby. Mario Kart-Party-Paper-Platformer, Metroid, Pikimin Super Smash, Wario and Zelda series as exclusives


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....
> 
> Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.


i own both version, i could check it out. havent played it in forver, but from what i remember they had the same basic core gameplay, but were different games.
either way it was a bad game, and it was hyped as the next Jedi Knight Academy or whatever. =/


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

The problem with this thread is lack of objective direction - you can't objectively state which console was "the best" without clear direction on what you mean. Do you mean graphics? Do you mean the specs? Do you mean the controllers? Do you mean online features? Without clear gradation, one cannot objectively judge something. There will always be a glimmer of subjectivity in every opinion, but it has to remain a glimmer.

That said, the thread has the "to you" portion, which allows for favourism, so hey!


----------



## gamefan5 (Nov 5, 2012)

The moment I saw the thread's title, I thought it was way to general. 
So people are gon' keep bashing to each other about which console is best...
Just for that, I rather not say which one I thought was the best for this generation 'cause no matter which side you're in, you're gonna get bashed at.


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

gamefan5 said:


> The moment I saw the thread's title, I thought it was way to general.
> So people are gon' keep bashing to each other about which console is best...
> Just for that, I rather not say which one I thought was the best for this generation 'cause no matter which side you're in, you're gonna get bashed at.


so much for freedom of speech lol


----------



## _acid_ (Nov 5, 2012)

*overall* i think the 360 or ps3 or pc take this generation, they had lots of games from respected developers, everyone remembers fondly all the triple a titles that have been released, but the wii just didnt have 3rd party support like the others. all the crap bogged down the system's potential.


----------



## gamefan5 (Nov 5, 2012)

suppow said:


> so much for freedom of speech lol


Bitch plz, in GBAtemp, freedom of speech barely exists when it comes to preference over something. XD


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 5, 2012)

Gahars said:


> And I've never heard that claim being made on any site beyond GBAtemp; I don't think that verdict is quite as popular as you're making it out to be. I've seen generally positive reactions to the game, but that's about the extent of it.


http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/xenoblade-chronicles (92/100)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=440547
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454123
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/06/xenoblade-chronicles-review-a-cut-above/
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/xenoblade-is-the-best-jrpg-ive-played-this-gen.250144597/


Xenoblade being the best (J)RPG of this generation or in recent years is a claim that has been made _a lot_.


----------



## Clarky (Nov 5, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....
> 
> Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and* no multiplayer*.


 
wrong way round mate  the Wii version was the only one to have a multiplayer mode, a one on one fighting one. There was one unique level in the game too but I believe it came as DLC to the other formats


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

soulx said:


> Xenoblade being the best (J)RPG of this generation or in recent years is a claim that has been made _a lot_.



Metacritic Score of Xenoblade Chronicles 91/100, Metacritic Score of Fallout: New Vegas 84/100, Sounds legit.
[email protected]
IGN? Really?
Mind you, remember that Xenoblade carries the curse most Wii games have to live with. Reviewers tend to stress it a whole lot... It's a great game... _for Wii standards_. I'm afraid I could think of numerous games which top Xenoblade without sweat - I dedicated a few hours to it and it was a tad of a borefest, even though I _*really*_ wanted to like it due to the hype. I dig the exploration, the open world, I even dig the battle system... but... the game is just _so slow_ for some reason, at least that's the impression I'm getting. I don't like the pacing and I don't like the fact that the player has very little "direction" - soon after the Monado got passed to Shulk, I embarked on an epic exploration quest, and to be honest, I got lost with no idea what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go, and the amount of time I spent jumping around the map looking for stuff was not rewarded with epic gear - it turned out to be a grind fest of killing rabbits and other assorted woodland critters rather than doing something constructive.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Metacritic Score of Xenoblade Chronicles 91/100, Metacritic Score of Fallout: New Vegas 84/100, Sounds legit.
> [email protected]
> IGN? Really?
> Mind you, remember that Xenoblade carries the curse most Wii games have to live with. Reviewers tend to stress it a whole lot... It's a great game... _for Wii standards_. I'm afraid I could think of numerous games which top Xenoblade without sweat - I dedicated a few hours to it and it was a tad of a borefest, even though I _*really*_ wanted to like it due to the hype. I dig the exploration, the open world, I even dig the battle system... but... the game is just _so slow_for some reason, at least that's the impression I'm getting. I don't like the pacing and I don't like the fact that the player has very little "direction" - soon after the Monado got passed to Shulk, I embarked on an epic exploration quest, and to be honest, I got lost with no idea what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go, and the amount of time I spent jumping around the map looking for stuff was not rewarded with epic gear - it turned out to be a grind fest of killing rabbits and other assorted woodland critters rather than doing something constructive.


Come the fuck on.

Metacritic is used to indicate that most critics adored the game and I'm not even going to try to argue against your banal disapproval of the other sites, though.

What I have issue with in your post is your use of 'for Wii standards'. No fucking shit, when judging the visuals of the game, you have to consider the limitations of the platform. I'm not going to criticize the PSP God of War games for not looking as good as the PS3 games. Or the DS Assassin's Creed games for not matching the visuals of the console AC games. Xenoblade looks stellar for the Wii and *there's nothing wrong with that*.

>criticizes a game for being slow
>has only played the first few hours

Okay then.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

soulx said:


> Come the fuck on.
> 
> The Metacritic is used to indicate that most critics adored the game and I'm not even going to try to argue against your banal disapproval of the other sites, though.
> 
> ...


I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for. As for the pacing, it's incredibly important. A game has to have a firm grip on the player from the very first few minutes, let alone hours. I gave Xenoblade a chance, even more of a chance than I did with a lot of other titles and it failed to impress - liking or disliking it is entirely subjective. If I drop skittles into a bucket and then fill the bucket with black licorice, I'm not going to dig through countless black licorice pieces to get to the skittles - I don't like black licorice. Either the game serves me the experience I want right off the bat or it doesn't - I don't need to finish the entirety of a game to establish that it's boring if I played it one whole day and didn't like it - it's as simple as that.

Metacritic is not a good source of intel in that kind of a debate as it rounds up scores from vastly different platforms with vastly different horizons of expectations of the target audience. You can't simply limit yourself to a two or three digit number in reviewing a game - tastes are subjective and simply cannot be rounded up in such a fashion, at all.

You can use rounded-up scores when talking about games on the same platform, but not when the platform is vastly different. What is acceptable and highly-rated on a Wii may be incredibly average on a PC, and in fact vice-versa.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for.


I think it's also fair to note that, at least at the time of the American release, Xenoblade was even MORE of a godsend, since the Wii was basically dead at that point. Before that, the last real noteworthy exclusive games we got were Zelda: Skyward Sword and Kirby's Return to Dream Land.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 5, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for. As for the pacing, it's incredibly important. A game has to have a firm grip on the player from the very first few minutes, let alone hours. I gave Xenoblade a chance, even more of a chance than I did with a lot of other titles and it failed to impress - liking or disliking it is entirely subjective.
> 
> Metacritic is not a good source of intel in that kind of a debate as it rounds up scores from vastly different platforms with vastly different horizons of expectations of the target audience. You can't simply limit yourself to a two or three digit number in reviewing a game - tastes are subjective and simply cannot be rounded up in such a fashion, at all.
> 
> You can use rounded-up scores when talking about games on the same platform, but not when the platform is vastly different. What is acceptable and highly-rated on a Wii may be incredibly average on a PC, and in fact vice-versa.


So essentially, you think that critics/users gave Xenoblade a pass because it was better than most other Wii games. Well that's a ridiculous stance to hold. A game will be criticized for its faults and praised for what it does right regardless of whether it's on the Wii or another platform. Being on the Wii doesn't make critics or users more _lenient_.

For an 100 hour game, you gotta play more than an hour or so to get a feel for it. From what you said, you reached the part where you get the Monado meaning that you hardly even progressed far from the intro. You don't have to like the game but to outright dismiss it when you haven't even played a reasonable amount of it is foolish.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 5, 2012)

_*We could continue chit-chatting about how unfair it is that some people just don't like Xenoblade Chronicles for whatever reason,*_ or we could head straight back to the subject proper, which is, *which console in our opinion was the best last generation.*

I've been thinking about it a little bit more, and as I said earlier in this thread, I find all three to have something unique about them, but I'm leaning towards 360/PS3... I've had loads of fun playing on the Wii, but outside of a few titles, it fell short of my expectations. The 360 was loads of fun as well, each time I'm over at my girlfriend's, I thoroughly enjoy using it, however I do find the PS3 to be the more well-rounded system, and I don't particularily condone paying for online features... I'm not casting my vote just yet, I just can't decide. It would probably be easier for me if I owned the 360/PS3 - my contact with them has been quite limited, which is both a good thing and a bad thing, as it nullifies any favourism I may have, but also lowers the accual experience I have with the system on a day-to-day basis, not on a particular instance basis.


----------



## Disorarara (Nov 5, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> The Wii would probably win this poll regardless of where it's being held. Between the three, the Wii has sold the most units. This shows us that gameplay remains the most important success factor for games, while hardware power, though still important, gets a secondary role. If you have trouble naming quality titles for the Wii, you either don't know that many games or we have a very different definition of quality titles


 
The Wii sold so many units because it was the hottest new thing around when it came out, everybody and their grandmother bought one. Wasn't there some article somewhere that said something to the effect that millions of Wii consoles are sitting in closets collecting dust?


----------



## chris888222 (Nov 5, 2012)

"Win" is an absolutely vague word. In terms of sales, the Wii obviously won.

I would go for 360 actually. Despite having to pay for live, the overall experience was the best of all. 
I really hope Wii U can catch up very much against the next gen competitor hardware. So far it looks very promising.


----------



## suppow (Nov 5, 2012)

i guess it all boils down on average to when one started gaming (age, and console/era)

i own all 3, PSX, PS2, and PS360, but i just feel bad for people who's first console was one of those.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 5, 2012)

I was actually hesitant to buy a Wii console initially, as I felt the Wii controller and the motion controls were gimmicky. My friends had one, and we always used GC controllers to play SSBB (which isn't as good as SSBM imo).
In hindsight I'm really glad I got a Wii anyway. The gimmicky controls I was afraid of came to define the system and, with proper game design, worked really well. Perhaps the game I've enjoyed the most on the Wii is LoZ Skyward Sword, which, on top of being an awesome game, utilized the Wii's control scheme to its fullest potential.


----------



## emigre (Nov 5, 2012)

This is easily one of my favourite threads. Not on the same level as "TWEWY port on ios," but still pretty hilarious in its own right.

EDIT: Fazermint has had an absolute mare.


----------



## DS1 (Nov 5, 2012)

YoshiInAVoid said:


> Yeah same. There's absolutely no reason to buy any of this generation's consoles as the next generation will be backwards compatible with them. I always skip a generation of consoles


 
Well, to me it's more like every system has had a pitiful library up until last year. Even now that there are a few games I want to play, each console is still too expensive (well, the Wii is reasonable, and if that 50 price cut happens, the 360 will be, too). Once a system is cheap enough I'll get one, but I'd never buy a new console assuming it'd have backwards compatibility. I think these days you can count on not having backwards compatibility, and then paying double or triple what you would for a used copy by having to download a digital copy (and then having to risk losing access to those games when you lose cable to a storm, as was the case for me the past week).


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

DS1 said:


> Well, to me it's more like every system has had a pitiful library up until last year. Even now that there are a few games I want to play, each console is still too expensive (well, the Wii is reasonable, and if that 50 price cut happens, the 360 will be, too). Once a system is cheap enough I'll get one, but I'd never buy a new console assuming it'd have backwards compatibility. I think these days you can count on not having backwards compatibility, and then paying double or triple what you would for a used copy by having to download a digital copy (and then having to risk losing access to those games when you lose cable to a storm, as was the case for me the past week).


 
$250, $200, and $150 is not cheap enough? Really?

I mean the consoles were overpriced as fuck on release, Wii being the exception, but nowadays they're quite affordable. And better tech equals a higher price, it's just the cost of progress.

And for used copies, why would I buy a new console for last gen games? The Xbox 360 has rather decent original Xbox compatibility, minus a few exceptions (notably Timesplitters FP) but overall it's solid. Original PS3s have complete PS2 compatibility, newer ones don't but a PS2 is like $50 nowadays, if that. The Wii has full compatibility.

Even then, most defined "last gen games" that are distributed digitally are maybe like $10-$15. Not to mention it offers up rarities. It's the only way to get an English version of Sin and Punishment, for example, and Sony released some hard to find PS2 games on their shop (like God Hand and a few choice others).


----------



## Daemauroa (Nov 5, 2012)

well, if it's sales that matters people have to say Nintendo's consoles did pretty well. I think mostly because they were more family orientated than others. however, this is only an opinion, but I do think the PS3 was a quality console. however, I do think you mustn't rate a console for itself, but for its games. I did make my choice by looking at the games which I would like to play, and that's why I picked the ps3. I must say there are some titles on the Xbox360 that I would have wanted to play too, but at that time the ps3 seemed more suited for me. 

btw, is de nitendo ds a 6th gen console? because these things did pretty damn well in my oppinion.


----------



## DS1 (Nov 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> $250, $200, and $150 is not cheap enough? Really?
> 
> I mean the consoles were overpriced as fuck on release, Wii being the exception, but nowadays they're quite affordable. And better tech equals a higher price, it's just the cost of progress.
> 
> *And for used copies, why would I buy a new console for last gen games?* blahblahblahblahblah


 
I have no idea, that's why I was questioning the person who replied to my post, and not you.

And no kidding, I know that the consoles are VERY reasonable for the technology, but if you're just using them to play games (no BluRay, netflix, etc.), it makes it a lot harder to justify the the cost.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

DS1 said:


> I have no idea, that's why I was questioning the person who replied to my post, and not you.
> 
> And no kidding, I know that the consoles are VERY reasonable for the technology, but if you're just using them to play games (no BluRay, netflix, etc.), it makes it a lot harder to justify the the cost.


 
I brainfarted, I meant "Why buy a new console for last gen games?" My bad.

I don't see that as a waste honestly. If you get mileage out of your console, it's worth the price. I mean it feels like just as much of a waste to use a console only for games nowadays.


----------



## Treeko (Nov 5, 2012)

Xbox 360,I think it had the best balance between being a totally gaming oriented console and a Entertainment console,I think Microsoft also won because of Xbox live,sony on the other hand provided the best looking games ever on a console and yes it did have the advantage of Bluray but that's not all that makes a console good does it?and this is coming from a owner of both systems.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

Treeko said:


> Xbox 360,I think it had the best balance between being a totally gaming oriented console and a Entertainment console,I think Microsoft also won because of Xbox live,sony on the other hand provided the best looking games ever on a console and yes it did have the advantage of Bluray but that's not all that makes a console good does it?and this is coming from a owner of both systems.


 
As a longtime Xbox Live user, the service is rather shit compared to PS+. It's overpriced and the "features" it offers are basically necessities. It doesn't feel like a "Gold subscription", it feels like a mandatory subscription to use the console effectively.


----------



## emigre (Nov 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I mean it feels like just as much of a waste to use a console only for games nowadays.


 
I would completely agree with you there. My PS3 works quite nicely as a media centre. I get to use BBC iPlayer and 4OD for free(And ITV player but ITV is shit). Than use the subscription services in Netflix and Lovefilm. Use DVDs and Blu Rays on it. And finally watch videos over USB. When I bought my Triple, I actually never thought about the multimedia elements of it and its turned out to be a great bonus.


----------



## emigre (Nov 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> As a longtime Xbox Live user, the service is rather shit compared to PS+. It's overpriced and the "features" it offers are basically necessities. It doesn't feel like a "Gold subscription", it feels like a mandatory subscription to use the console effectively.


 
Don't you need a Gold account to use fucking Netflix on the console?

EDIT: Microsoft tried to pull that trick with iPlayer.


----------



## Treeko (Nov 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> As a longtime Xbox Live user, the service is rather shit compared to PS+. It's overpriced and the "features" it offers are basically necessities. It doesn't feel like a "Gold subscription", it feels like a mandatory subscription to use the console effectively.


Overpriced?sorry to say this did you totally miss the 1$ a month offers they have going each week,compared to PS+ where if you are a member only then will you be able to access content you have downloaded through your PS+ account,face it Microsoft had the best online experience to offer this time,let the new comer a chance people,and as your profile shows you are in USA,they have even better offers there.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

Treeko said:


> Overpriced?sorry to say this did you totally miss the 1$ a month offers they have going each week,compared to PS+ where if you are a member only then will you be able to access content you have downloaded through your PS+ account,face it Microsoft had the best online experience to offer this time,let the new comer a chance people.


 
The $1/month offers are quite rare. They increased the price of gold to like $60+ a year. Even with the deals, you're paying for a year's worth of services provided for free on the Playstation Network or now Nintendo Network. I mean if you pay for Playstation Plus, you get free games every month, a persistent Playstation Store discount, better deals, better cloud storage, and it carries over to your Vita. For Xbox Live, you get weekly discounts on only a few items (most of the discounts are mediocre anyway), some cloud storage, and access to features you should have for free (able to use Netflix, Facebook, play online, etc).

Xbox Live is a complete and utter rip off.


----------



## Treeko (Nov 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The $1/month offers are quite rare. They increased the price of gold to like $60+ a year. Even with the deals, you're paying for a year's worth of services provided for free on the Playstation Network or now Nintendo Network. I mean if you pay for Playstation Plus, you get free games every month, a persistent Playstation Store discount, better deals, better cloud storage, and it carries over to your Vita. For Xbox Live, you get weekly discounts on only a few items (most of the discounts are mediocre anyway), some cloud storage, and access to features you should have for free (able to use Netflix, Facebook, play online, etc).
> 
> Xbox Live is a complete and utter rip off.


I understand the part of facebook,Netflix,other apps(one's which should be) to have free access to them,but as you said in your previous comment that it is overpriced,and to tell you the truth it's not overpriced,as for online play to be free I am okay to pay for that as it provides better online play options than PSN,and as for PS+ this is a true ripoff,why should I have to be a member constantly to have access to the content I have already downloaded as a member?now we are comparing to totally different online experiences which will lead to a pointless argument,I don't mean to start a flame war between console's here,I prefer the xbox 360 over my ps3 than that means its about personal preference,do you certainly think that everyone will take part in your opinion?same goes for me I know many will not part in my opinion,but there some which will,same goes for you,so its just about personal preference,I hope this doesn't effect my relationship with you as fellow GBAtemp user


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 5, 2012)

Most of my Wii usage actually comes from using it as a Netflix device and for watching shows that I put on a USB through WiiMC. Might not be in HD but as long as the video has a high bit-rate, I don't really notice.


----------



## DS1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I brainfarted, I meant "Why buy a new console for last gen games?" My bad.
> 
> I don't see that as a waste honestly. If you get mileage out of your console, it's worth the price. I mean it feels like just as much of a waste to use a console only for games nowadays.


 
Yeah that's my point, I would only use it for games, so it seems like a waste.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 6, 2012)

Typical GBATemp.

Licks Nintendo's anus like it's just another day at the office.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

Disorarara said:


> The Wii sold so many units because it was the hottest new thing around when it came out, everybody and their grandmother bought one. Wasn't there some article somewhere that said something to the effect that millions of Wii consoles are sitting in closets collecting dust?


 
The Wii was this generation's Furby or Tickle-Me Elmo...


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Typical GBATemp.
> 
> Licks Nintendo's anus like it's just another day at the office.


 
ITS BECAUSE THEY GREW UP WITH NINTENDO!!!




















In which case, does that mean Nintendo were grooming them all these years?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Typical GBATemp.
> 
> Licks Nintendo's anus like it's just another day at the office.


 
You forget GBAtemp has literally the worst opinions on the internet.

protip: opinions aren't subjective, they are quite shit at times.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 6, 2012)

>Your favourite console didn't win
>BAAWWWWW, GBATEMP IS FULL OF FANBOYS

Let the circle jerk commence.


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> You forget GBAtemp has literally the worst opinions on the internet.
> 
> protip: opinions aren't subjective, they are quite shit at times.


 
N64>>>PSX BECAUSE OF IT WAS MY CHILDHOOD AND I DIDNT THINK METAL GEAR SOLID, CRASH BANDICOOT, SPYRO, FINAL FANTASY, LUNAR,TOMB RAIDER CATLEVANIA:SOTN,CHRONO CROSS, PARASITE EVE, SUIKODEON, GRAN TURISMO, TEKKEN, SOUL BLADE, STREET FIGHTER, WIPEOUT,PARAPPA THE RAPPER, SILENT HILL, ODDWORLD COMBINED WAS AS GOOD AS JET SKI ON N64.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

soulx said:


> >Your favourite console didn't win
> >BAAWWWWW, GBATEMP IS FULL OF FANBOYS
> 
> Let the circle jerk commence.


 
lol at soulx suggesting he isn't a fanboy


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 6, 2012)

soulx said:


> >Your favourite console didn't win
> >BAAWWWWW, GBATEMP IS FULL OF FANBOYS
> 
> Let the circle jerk commence.


 
The circlejerk was already here, albeit for a different thing.

Technically we're circlejacking.


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> lol at soulx suggesting he isn't a fanboy


 
lol at soulx for thinking he holds credibility on here.

Heck, I have more credibility than soulsnatcher.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 6, 2012)

soulx said:


> >Your favourite console didn't win
> >BAAWWWWW, GBATEMP IS FULL OF FANBOYS
> 
> Let the circle jerk commence.


 
GBATemp is full of fanboys. That is a fucking fact.

Moreover, go sit in the corner and fap by yourself while murmuring about the Vita's poor sales.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> lol at soulx suggesting he isn't a fanboy


My Vita, 3DS, PC game collection and Wii say otherwise.

But continue on with the circlejerk.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

soulx said:


> My Vita, 3DS, PC game collection and Wii say otherwise.
> 
> But continue on with the circlejerk.


 
Vita? So the very system you railed against for months has been buried comfortably in your closet the whole time?

And I'd be upset too if I was left out of this circle-jerk, especially since I have emigre on one side and Guild on the other...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 6, 2012)

soulx said:


> My Vita, 3DS, PC game collection and Wii say otherwise.
> 
> But continue on with the circlejerk.


 
It's a circlejack.

You can't have a circlejerk about a dissenting opinion. A circlejack is a combination of "circlejerk" and "hijack". Essentially you find a circlejerk and take control of the thread with the intention of disrupting the circlejerk. The thread was a circlejerk about how GBAtemp loves getting their colons pounded by Nintendo and we circlejacked it to show that.

If anything the current circlejerk is on GBAtemp's awful opinions, not really consoles any more.

And thus The Magnificent Seven have ruined yet another friend.

EDIT: Also thought I'd point out that you disproved your fanboyism by saying half the consoles you own are Nintendo.


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

Now this thread is starting to challenge the "TWEWY on ios," as my favourite thread of all time. So juvenile but yet so brilliant...

Shakespeare's _Twelfth Night_ would stuggle to meet this thread's riotous disorder.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Vita? So the very system you railed against for months has been buried comfortably in your closet the whole time?
> 
> And I'd be upset too if I was left out of this circle-jerk, especially since I have emigre on one side and Guild on the other...


 
Did you forget that I'm behind you?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Did you forget that I'm behind you?


You're leaving the circlejerk territory and enter gangbang land - retreat to your pre-assigned position Hyro...


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> It's a circlejack.EDIT: Also thought I'd point out that you disproved your fanboyism by saying half the consoles you own are Nintendo.


Turns out I'm a bigger Nintendo Fanboy than soulx - GBC + GBA + NGC + Wii + Famiclone (I GUESS it counts as Nintendo-related) + DS = 6 consoles versus PSP + PS1 + PS2 = 3 and Sega Mega Drive + Dreamcast = 2. No Microsoft consoles, unless you count PC, in which case, I do have one... Who would've thought...

Now, Mind you, the PS1 was bought for a six-pack of beer and I never played it, not even once - just turned it on a few times to adjust the laser. The PS2 was bought pre-owned for whole $30 because the one I got for free was damaged. The Mega Drive was a gift, the Dreamcast was bought pre-owned for aprox. $100 because hey - Sega. The PSP was a gift, it was pre-owned.

All my Nintendo consoles were bought brand new to support the company.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Did you forget that I'm behind you?


 
you're behind me?  then wtf has been in front of me this whole time?!?!


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> You forget GBAtemp has literally the worst opinions on the internet.
> 
> protip: opinions aren't subjective, they are quite shit at times.


 
In fairness Guild, I think Stormfront has the worst opinions on the internet. Wanking over San Fransisco Rush 2049
on N64 is probably better than believing in racial supremacy.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> And I'd be upset too if I was left out of this circle-jerk, especially since I have emigre on one side and Guild on the other...


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

I suggest soulx trades his Vita and uses the money to buy a sense of humour.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

emigre said:


> I suggest soulx trades his Vita and uses the money to buy a sense of humour.


 
I'd sell him mine for a Vita


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 7, 2012)

SoulX has been in the closet a Vita owner this whole time?

I kid, I kid


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

emigre said:


> In fairness Guild, I think Stormfront has the worst opinions on the internet. Wanking over San Fransisco Rush 2049
> on N64 is probably better than believing in racial supremacy.


 
Honestly I'm not quite sure if white supremacy is a much worse belief than console fanaticism.

It's horrible to hate someone based on their race, religion, or creed. It's fucking batshit insane to hate someone for the type of video games they play.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Honestly I'm not quite sure if white supremacy is a much worse belief than console fanaticism.
> 
> It's horrible to hate someone based on their race, religion, or creed. It's fucking batshit insane to hate someone for the type of video games they play.


In everyone's defense here, I don't think anyone has "hated" anyone based on the games they play in this thread.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> In everyone's defense here, I don't think anyone has "hated" anyone based on the games they play in this thread.


 
I think people here genuinely hate me not for my general dickishness but for my refusal to whack off to Shigeru Miyamoto.

In fact my general dickishness has proven to be quite a redeeming attribute in life and has netted me many valuable friends and deterred many morons.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think people here genuinely hate me not for my general dickishness but for my refusal to whack off to Shigeru Miyamoto.
> 
> In fact my general dickishness has proven to be quite a redeeming attribute in life and has netted me many valuable friends and deterred many morons.


 
True story.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think people here genuinely hate me not for my general dickishness but for my refusal to whack off to Shigeru Miyamoto.
> 
> In fact my general dickishness has proven to be quite a redeeming attribute in life and has netted me many valuable friends and deterred many morons.


Actually, I think people here genuinely hate you because you'd rather wack off to pretending you don't have any partiality or preference to any game company, unlike the rest of us foolish fanboys.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Actually, I think people here genuinely hate you because you'd rather wack off to pretending you don't have any partiality or preference to any game company, unlike the rest of us foolish fanboys.


 
Honestly I rarely play video games nowadays. I spend most of my time on the internet or something. In contrast to my other hobbies, it has definitely taken a back seat to film/TV, Magic the Gathering, and trolling this site.

EDIT: Like the last game I played was Torchlight II over LAN with a friend. Before that it was some games across my PSP/DS/GBA while I had a power outage. Before that, I couldn't even remember.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Honestly I rarely play video games nowadays. I spend most of my time on the internet or something. In contrast to my other hobbies, it has definitely taken a back seat to film/TV, Magic the Gathering, and trolling this site.
> 
> EDIT: Like the last game I played was Torchlight II over LAN with a friend. Before that it was some games across my PSP/DS/GBA while I had a power outage. Before that, I couldn't even remember.


What about our 10 hour Persona session last week...?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> What about our 10 hour Persona session last week...?


 
Guild's not a weaboo.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Guild's not a weaboo.


 
maybe you don't really know him...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> What about our 10 hour Persona session last week...?


 
I didn't have power last week


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> maybe you don't really know him...


 
I don't. I just know that Guild has never touched a JRPG is his life.

/sarcasm.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Honestly I rarely play video games nowadays. I spend most of my time on the internet or something. In contrast to my other hobbies, it has definitely taken a back seat to film/TV, Magic the Gathering, and trolling this site.
> 
> EDIT: Like the last game I played was Torchlight II over LAN with a friend. Before that it was some games across my PSP/DS/GBA while I had a power outage. Before that, I couldn't even remember.


It feels a bit like that for me too. Mostly cuz I have a full time job now, and I'm so exhausted afterward (standing on your feet for 8 hours with only one break to sit down can be painful) that I usually don't play games at all until later at night, unless it's on one of my portables. I got Halo 4 at the midnight launch, and I STILL have yet to play it more than once, even though I love what I've played so far.


----------



## SinHarvest24 (Nov 8, 2012)

Technically Nintendo.


But i don't really consider the Wii on par with ps3/360.

You have to consider the time gap between consoles and what the consoles are aimed at, in respect to audience.

Nintendo goes full-blown "Make that money!!"

While ps3/360 is like "We're what separate the men from the boys"


Even still i won't really be able to make a choice yet until all 3 next-gen consoles are released.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

SinHarvest24 said:


> i won't really be able to make a choice yet until all 3 next-gen consoles are released.


Why would next gen consoles have any bearing on your choice for current gen consoles?


----------



## SinHarvest24 (Nov 8, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Why would next gen consoles have any bearing on your choice for current gen consoles?


To mark the end of this generation?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

SinHarvest24 said:


> To mark the end of this generation?


...?


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 8, 2012)

Going on with why some hate Guild, it isn't because everyone else is a biased Nintendo fanboy who hates you. It's because of the way you act in various threads.

You claim that you have no bias towards or against any videogame company yet you post these silly jabs (which you seem to find so witty) in news threads (particularly Nintendo ones) that you know will incite people and then later claim that you're just "joking". And sometimes it seems like you genuinely believe the shit you post but disguise it as a joke to hide your delusions.

And there are a couple of vocal members (you know who you are, _*cough* Hyro-Sama *cough*_) who seem to have an superiority complex going into various threads and whining about the Nintendo fanboys polluting this forum and how everyone except for them is so biased.

But from the very start, it should have been clear that a thread like this wouldn't work on GBAtemp. Everyone is too busy getting all pissy about fanboys and shit and crying about the fact that _DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS_. This forum is just too immature for this kind of thing.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

soulx said:


> Going on with why some hate Guild, it isn't because everyone else is a biased Nintendo fanboy who hates you. It's because of the way you act in various threads.
> 
> You claim that you have no bias towards or against any videogame company yet you post these silly jabs (which you seem to find so witty) in news threads (particularly Nintendo ones) that you know will incite people and then later claim that you're just "joking". And sometimes it seems like you genuinely believe the shit you post but disguise it as a joke to hide your delusions.


Plus he criticizes people for putting Nintendo on a pedestal while jacking off about how great doing the same thing to Valve is in the same post. True story.

Bye! *Jumps off Guild hate train*


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 8, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Plus he criticizes people for putting Nintendo on a pedestal while jacking off about how great doing the same thing to Valve is in the same post. True story.
> 
> Bye! *Jumps off Guild hate train*


 
Yes soulx doesn't do that at all and is the pinnacle of members on GBAtemp.

People hate me because they get massively buttmad when I say "Nintendo is bad." It's a fucking video game company, not your mother.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes soulx doesn't do that at all and is the pinnacle of members on GBAtemp.
> 
> People hate me because they get massively buttmad when I say "Nintendo is bad." It's a fucking video game company, not your mother.


I didn't say SoulX doesn't do that. In fact, I purposely made a point of not mentioning him.

Sure, he seems incredibly anti-Vita biased, especially lately since his Vita news thread got closed, but that's it. And I don't see him being a hypocrite about it.

The problem with you is less of the fact that you have an opinion ("I think Nintendo sucks") and more of the way you state it as fact ("Nintendo absolutely sucks, its motion controls suck, and anyone who likes it is clearly retarded"). That's an exaggeration, but you have said stuff to that effect not necessarily about Nintendo stuff, but about stuff you dislike in general.

Anyway, I'm jumping off the hate train for real now.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 8, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> I didn't say SoulX doesn't do that. In fact, I purposely made a point of not mentioning him.
> 
> Sure, he seems incredibly anti-Vita biased, especially lately, but that's it. And I don't see him being a hypocrite about it.


 
But why am the one getting shit on this site when people are doing the EXACT SAME THING on the flip side of opinions?

If I say "The Wii U sucks" I get people reporting and crying and complaining. We have dozens of members go "Vita is dead" or "Vita sucks" or the like and no one gives a shit.

This site is like your bowels: one way and full of shit.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But why am the one getting shit on this site when people are doing the EXACT SAME THING on the flip side of opinions?
> 
> If I say "The Wii U sucks" I get people reporting and crying and complaining. We have dozens of members go "Vita is dead" or "Vita sucks" or the like and no one gives a shit.
> 
> This site is like your bowels: one way and full of shit.


I edited my post before I saw this.

Normally I would say nothing for either of you guys, but you're the one who brought up about how people hate you just because they're butthurt, etc. And it warranted a response.

And last I checked, you're the one who reported an "anti-Vita thread" just because you didn't like what the OP said. I see people get mad at BOTH sides, not JUST Nintendo threads or JUST Sony threads.

anyway, seriously. Bye now. take the last word if you will. I really am sorry to you and everyone else I semi-derailed into this discussion.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes soulx doesn't do that at all and is the pinnacle of members on GBAtemp.
> 
> People hate me because they get massively buttmad when I say "Nintendo is bad." It's a fucking video game company, not your mother.


Except this discussion isn't about me, is it?

You consistently rile people up with your foolish comments in multiple threads and then claim that everyone else is simply overreacting and is a Nintendo fanboy. Grow the fuck up.

@xwatchmanx To clarify on all that, I'm not biased against the Vita or Sony. Or obviously, I wouldn't have bought one. 

I think it's a nice system. I just disagree with a lot of Sony's decision and think that arguing that the Vita isn't failing miserably is to put it bluntly, delusional. But let's get back to the topic at hand.


----------



## Lurker2 (Nov 9, 2012)

I wouldn't say that I hate Guild but he is stubborn and eggs people on occasionally. I say this thread was perfectly fine until Foxi4 and SoulX started arguing. Still I think moderators should stop most negative threads unless it has important new information about a console or company. Example of something not important sales of said device were poor unless they were previously good. An example of an important negative thread is the one about THQ Darksiders 2 not doing that well.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 9, 2012)

Why does every thread seem to be "Let's bitch about Guild" thread?

Like seriously, can I not get some peace and quiet around here without people twisting their panties into a large wad?

Also, I'm not gonna take shit from someone who does the same as me but isn't even remotely joking about it. If you want credibility, earn it. Otherwise, instead of derailing the topic further, we can get on topic. But that probably won't happen because everyone wants to take their jabs at me so I'll let the hate flow through you all.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 9, 2012)

You bring it upon yourself with the way you act in multiple threads. Don't want people bitching about you, don't give people reasons to.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Nov 9, 2012)

Guild should make a "Vita game recommendations thread" as an answer to SoulX's 3DS thread. Just so I have an excuse to make some popcorn and stay on GBAtemp all day.

ANYWAY, 'bout those systems... lots of reasons to like one of them, huh?


----------



## Nah3DS (Nov 9, 2012)

again? this is the same old thread over and over
a mod should ban you all


----------



## Clarky (Nov 9, 2012)




----------



## emigre (Nov 9, 2012)

I think both Literate Valwin and Guild McVitaism are both huge dickheads.


----------



## Qtis (Nov 9, 2012)

PS3 for me. Simply because that's the only console taking my (rare) free time if I want to play something. Uncharted, Infamous, ME2&3 (multi-plat, yada yada yada), MW2, AC, Crysis, etc. Also gotta say that Netflix on the PS3 has so far been the best experience for the service so far. And oh, free online.

The Wii was a bit of a let down because of the specs/graphics for many purely beautiful games (Zelda on Dolphin? O____O), but had great exclusives. Biggest lack of multi-plats (for people saying that a new computer can do things and shizl, I've preferred to having a console for gaming and a laptop for Uni/work. Not that I couldn't play games with my laptop). Still one of the best consoles in terms of having a Gamecube also in the same console. If only it had perfect emulation for those rare games that can't be found anywhere anymore.

ps. Stop derailing the topic and let it be. Sometimes it works just as well as arguing over opinions (stating opinions =/= facts). The temp is a pain quite often because people don't let each other have different opinions.


----------

