Best games of 2004?

Steel X

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
13,821
Reaction score
45
What is the best type of game of 2004?

Best Xbox game of the year

HALO 2 (duh :roll: )

runner up:

Riddick

Ninja Gaiden (hardest game EVER! damn...)

Best Playstation 2 game of the year

Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas

runner up :

MGS 3 : Snake Eater

(Personally, I would actually say Metal Gear Solid 3 : Snake Eater as one of the best games for PS2 of 2004)


Best GameCube game of the year

Metroid Prime 2 :Echoes (and I still haven't played that game yet...lol but seriously I was looking forward to Resident Evil 4...)

Best game ever made

HALO 2
 
For me -I'm going to list only xbox 'cuz that's what I had been playing in 2004.

1) Ninja Gaiden

2) Halo 2

3) TOCA Race Driver 2

4) Outrun 2

5) Burnout 3: Takedown
 
my truth

Champion Xbox game of the year

The Chronicles of RIDDICK
 
heh, too bad Halo 2 is on the XBox... If it was released for the PS2 or Gamecube, I just MIGHT try it... MIGHT... doesn't mean I will love it... But I will not buy a XBox just for Halo, that will be a big waste of money and XBox still have yet to bring out good games that will make me buy the XBox. Most of them suck and have absolutely no replay value except probably for Halo 1 & 2. I'm a hardcore game player coming from the days of Nintendo and Sega and I have yet to see a game that blow me away and got me glued to my seat and kept playing it till the wee hours like NES, Genesis and SNES games did. Thanks to today's pop culture and mindless teenagers drooling over the graphics rather than the game play and looking for cheats to beat some games (which is VERY PATHETIC and LAME), games suck now... Which is why I don't have an opinion on which game is the game of the year for 2004.
 
there are a bunch of great games for Xbox than just Halo...

you could try :

Ninja Gaiden

Dead or alive : Ulitmate

Invisible War

Shenmue II

Gulity Gear XX 2: Reloaded

(alot of online fighting games are getting popular around)
 
I'm interested in Ninja Gaiden, but not really interested in fighting games. After the 2D games turned into 3D, I lost interest in them. I used to love the Tekken series but now it's more like recycled games. That's true that I can challenge a lot of people online but fighting isn't my type anymore. I've grown out of it now. Maybe if the XBox drops down to like 30 to 40 dollars, I'd buy it for the hell of it. 150 dollars is expensive for me because I'd be buying something that will collect dust and my XBox library will be VERY small... Ninja Gaiden will definitely be one of them. What else? hmm.... nothing else... Maybe Halo 2 and I will take charities :D. Seriously, I don't want to say this again and again, but what other games will grab my interest in the XBox? That's how bad Xbox is to the general public because how many friends do I have right now that have a XBox? I would say maybe 1 out of 30 friends... Every time I talk to a friend for their opinion about the XBox (these who don't have one), they would say, "Oh boy they suck! The controller is too fat and I can't hold on to them, the XBox crashed on me when I played it at the local Electronic Boutique store, What games will I want to play? they got lame 'gay' games so I don't want to play them". The sad part is, you know that friend I said, 1 out of 30 people that I know, you know why he bought the XBox? He bought it because it can play DVD movies and have a hard drive. I asked him if he know what's the hard drive is for and he thought he can save files from the computer on the XBox like access DB files, spreadsheets, word documents etc. I told him no, that's for when you play a game online and it need a place to put the files on for faster loading time and he was like oh damn! then he don't want it. He only have 2 games for the XBox. One of them is Dead or Alive Volleyball and I asked him how often he play it, he said one time a month. He said he only use it to watch movies. Now he regrets buying the XBox and wish he got the PS2 instead cuz he saw a lot of games he know he will play and he didn't know the PS2 can run DVD movies. He's somewhat game illiterate so I had to educate him on the difference bewteen the XBox and the PS2 as well as the GCN.

Now about the XBox, these people who I met online who play this MMORPG I play, Ragnarok Online, also own a XBox. They are like in the 13-17 years range and I asked them what game do they play on the XBox, they all said Halo 1 & 2. Then I asked what else and they said nothing, just Halo. That's all? Wow that's LAME. I actually wrote out a Pro and Con list for the XBox. The pro only had like 3 points while the Con section had over 30 points. I tend to go with the one that outweighs the other.

All of what I said above is not a lie. It's factual and that's why I don't own a Xbox today. The graphics sucks, the game play is lousy, too many sports games, bulky console/bulky devices (i.e. controller), and it's made by the monopoly king, Microsoft. I don't want to contribute to something that support monopoly. No thank you sir.
 
PyrollisAhFiros, what you just said really shows how much you know about Xbox... and it ain't much.

All of what I said above is not a lie. It's factual and that's why I don't own a Xbox today. The graphics sucks, the game play is lousy, too many sports games, bulky console/bulky devices (i.e. controller), and it's made by the monopoly king, Microsoft. I don't want to contribute to something that support monopoly. No thank you sir.

Too many sports... on Xbox? Funny, PS2 has a lot of sport games too as well. Now to speak of monopoly, Sony does support monopoly too, period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making billions. Also not to mention the PSP... clearly an act of monopoly.

Graphics sucks? Bulky controllers? Bulky console? Factual? What a bunch of silliness. Apparently, somebody is a tad behind the times... Xbox has two different types of controllers, the original and the s-type controllers. The s-type controller is a smaller and designed a little different from the original.

But at least Microsoft haven't screwed their customers over yet like Sony just did. The slim model can't use hard drives, therefore... screwing SquareSoft over because they spent millions and a long time developing the Final Fantasy game that requires the use of a hard drive and can be played online. But that won't be happening now since they remodelled the PS2.

I used to own a Playstation, and I did enjoy it. I was interested in PS2 till... they released it. I didn't like what I saw, and saw how they tried to mislead the people by twisting their facts around especially on the emotion chip. Why should I support a product that isn't what it's claimed to be?

Not to sound like a fanboy, especially when I happen to own Gamecube too as well. I also hope that Sony will be straight with the customers on PS3 rather than misleading them around and maybe I'll buy it.

Electronic Arts is also monopolizing big time as of now. I didn't like how they took the NFL license away from everybody and kept for themselves. At least Xbox is doing it right rather than screwing their customers over.
 
By factual, I meant the comments said about the Xbox, not what the XBox is about, monopoly. And by monopoly, I meant Microsoft is everywhere we see, and yes so is Sony, but at least Sony did not try to pressure people into buying their product or making the market limited to Sony products only. But that also doesn't mean I fully support Sony and the Playstation market. I just like it because it has more games than the XBox does and they have a lot of 3rd parties that I like. The Xbox don't. The "Not a lie" was implied to the comments made by the people and their opinions on the XBox that's all. Sorry if I wasn't being clear on the "factual" part.

XBox released a s-type controller? I heard about that, but why didn't they do that in the first place? Common sense, they should have developed a controller that people can get used to, instead of making one that people can't get used to and then release a 2nd controller later. That's a good sign of poor market research and poor ergonomic knowledge. I've read a lot of magazines and a lot of readers as well as magazines said that the Playstation controller is the best ergonomical device ever released for the game console and I agree. That's lame about MS releasing a second controller to be the first controller's successor.

"Apparently, someone is a tad behind the times"? Well excuse me for not having a high interest in XBox because it didn't blow me away. It's completely understandable that I don't know anything about the XBox but I do know what I want, I want a console that comes out with a lot of games that will make my money worth. Have the XBox come out with a good library of games for me? FOR ME... not for everyone... Nope not to my knowledge. I have read some game reviews on the games for the XBox and they usually say it's a 5 or so.

Who's the monopoly king here? Microsoft because they are the people that started the monopolizing fad. MS bought out a few small companies like Bungie, because Microsoft was afraid of the competition as well as having a high desire for control over the gaming industry as well as everything else. It's the modern day Hitler for everyone. Yeah it's sad to see Sony going the way of Microsoft and the same goes for EA. I liked EA when they had Madden for the Super Nintendo, but when it went 3D, I lost interest right away because it's more bling bling than true game play. I played the most recent EA football game with my friend and I picked the lousy team. Guess what? I did a lot of passes and had 86% completion and they all resulted in a TD pass. I whupped him badly and he was playing one of the teams in the high 90's. Now that's crap. That's why I dropped sports right away. I loved sports and had a few titles like NHL '95, Madden Football '93 and '94 and more. They are the true successors of the sports genre but sad to see that today's games look crappy.

"Now to speak of monopoly, Sony does support monopoly too, period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making billions." Sony is not making a lot of money off entirely on games and the PS1 & 2, they also have a line of entertainment like T.V.s, Walkmans, Boom boxes and computers. People buy from Sony because Sony is a good brand name due to their quality and service on products. That's why they made a lot of money. Microsoft boomed to fame and glory because of one fricking operating system? Microsoft was already making billions of dollars before they released the Xbox and now they released the Xbox? I also read in an article a few years ago and Bill Gates made a comment on the gaming industry. He said that he will not go into the gaming industry because it's a waste of time and money. Look at Microsoft now... Another sign of monopoly and to add, hypocrisy.

"What a bunch of silliness"? excuse me for expressing a decent opinion and that's what I see when I played some of the games on the kiosk. They didn't grab my interest right away and I've played on many different kiosks and even on some people's Xbox at home, perfectly calibrated to the right color/hue and brightness. The graphics still look crappy to me because of the colors and how they utilized the graphics. I'm sorry if I don't like the Xbox and you are upset about that, but that's my opinion and I'm old school, I came from the days of 8-bit and 16-bit games and they had better graphics and color than the Xbox did, EVEN better than the PS2 and GCN.

Keep in mind, graphics is not one of the winning factors for me to open up to games in general. Game play value as well as REPLAY value is very important to me. Then I will know that 50 bucks is worth purchasing this instead of buying a game, knowing that it sucks in both value, one more for the shelf to collect dust. That's how I see the Xbox as. I have actually found some games for the PS2 and GCN that proves gameworthy but not to the level where I would rate it 90-100%.

PSP is another sign of monopoly? Care to elaborate on that? As far as I know about the PSP is that it's a device under Sony and slated for release in the spring time for competition against the Nintendo DS... how is that monopolizing the gaming industry? If Sony bought out Nintendo and changed the Nintendo DS to PSP, then that's monopolizing. Nintendo released a lot of portable devices from the Gameboy to Nintendo DS. Sega had Game Gear, TurboGrafx had TurboGrafx-16 and Sony had the Wonderswan in Japan. It's a normal sense of competition, not monopoly... If you have a supporting comment that show a sign of monopoly on the PSP, let me know and I'll consider it.
 
about the controller S...

yeah I believe Mircosoft should've released it along with the Xbox at the launch date however, the people in the West actually have bigger hands than the people in the East.

Asian people are actually smaller than the American people and nobody knows why...lol so the controller S was actually used for the japanese Xbox model but later on, many americans complained about the bulky large orginal Xbox controller...saying how big it is and not very comfortable, and the buttons on the right side are too close together, etc...Mircosoft decided to release the controller S into the west as well...just to be fair to both worlds...lol

that's all I know about the reason they release the controller S into America.
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
Who's the monopoly king here? Microsoft because they are the people that started the monopolizing fad. MS bought out a few small companies like Bungie, because Microsoft was afraid of the competition

No, they just wanted to crush the competitors, not compete with them. Just like Sony tried to keep the developers of the Grand Theft Auto games from developing for the others, but a loophole denied them that.

Sony is not making a lot of money off entirely on games and the PS1 & 2, they also have a line of entertainment like T.V.s, Walkmans, Boom boxes and computers.

Microsoft isn't making a lot off the games either. So, I would say both are monopolizing. Especially if they bombard the people at movie theatres with advertisements.

People buy from Sony because Sony is a good brand name due to their quality and service on products.

People are often brainwashed into thinking Sony provides good quality products. Luckily, they have the money to hide the truth. Yes, some of their products are great, but not all. I've seen many poor-made Sony TVs, especially the projection TVs. Same with their camcorders, not all of them are that great. In fact, I've seen Canon making better products than theirs. Though I do think their WEGA TVs, some of them are nice but overpriced.

Just because it's Sony... or Microsoft doesn't mean they are the best. In fact, I don't care too much for Windows operating systems due to the bloated coding and crap that they stuff it with.

Does McDonald's provide high-quality food? If not, then how the heck are they making billions off the people? Easy... they bombard them with advertisements and lure them. Something that Sony play well at.

Also, remember the BETA fiasco?

They tried to get a lock on the BETA format by not allowing anybody else to make BETA video players which is why JVC developed VHS video players and killed the BETA industry because everybody else was allowed to make their own VHS video players.

That's why they made a lot of money. Microsoft boomed to fame and glory because of one fricking operating system? Microsoft was already making billions of dollars before they released the Xbox and now they released the Xbox? I also read in an article a few years ago and Bill Gates made a comment on the gaming industry. He said that he will not go into the gaming industry because it's a waste of time and money. Look at Microsoft now... Another sign of monopoly and to add, hypocrisy.

Bill Gates said that more than a decade ago. People can always change their minds, can't they? Actually, at the time he had said it... he did have a point. It wasn't that big of a industry at the time. But now, it's even bigger than the film industry and maybe even the adult industry.

Nintendo boomed to fame and glory because of their playing cards. Then they went on to make toys, then Nintendo consoles.

"What a bunch of silliness"? excuse me for expressing a decent opinion and that's what I see when I played some of the games on the kiosk. They didn't grab my interest right away and I've played on many different kiosks and even on some people's Xbox at home, perfectly calibrated to the right color/hue and brightness. The graphics still look crappy to me because of the colors and how they utilized the graphics

I don't play on kiosks, it's the worst place to play a game. Especially with all the filthy germs on it.

I don't know about your experiences, but I've had good experiences. Apparently, some people just see it differently. Xbox itself is capable of generating powerful graphics, but bad gameplay can kill it. But many third-parties developers tend to neglect on both parts, or one.

I'm sorry if I don't like the Xbox and you are upset about that, but that's my opinion and I'm old school, I came from the days of 8-bit and 16-bit games and they had better graphics and color than the Xbox did, EVEN better than the PS2 and GCN.

For your information, I came from the days of 8-bit and 16-bit games too as well. I even had Atari 2600. Ain't getting upset here, but I do think that spreading information with bias on it. In fact, I was very wary of Xbox when it first launched. But now, I'm quite fond of it, and find many games worth playing on it. Though I do prefer Nintendo games due to the focus of gamplay on it. But there are still a large variety of good games to play.

Every console has its advantages and disadvantages... for example, Gamecube has the advantage of loading at a faster rate, sometimes virtually no loading screens in games like Metriod. Gamecube sometimes has the advantage of having the best graphics, due to a well-designed video card... where PS2 failed in. Especially after the misleading information that Sony gave out to the public on the emotion chip and more which caused me to back out of purchasing the console. I once owned a Playstation, and enjoyed it even though most games weren't good. There were a few, just like there were a few good games on Nintendo 64. But I kept Nintendo 64 because of the classics such as The Legend of Zelda, and other games.

Keep in mind, graphics is not one of the winning factors for me to open up to games in general. Game play value as well as REPLAY value is very important to me.

Same here, graphics rarely win me over. It's the quality of the gameplay that is important to me. I can play several Nintendo games without ever getting tired of them while I barely can stand to get through another re-play of Splinter Cell which is a great game, but low on re-play value in my opinion.

Then I will know that 50 bucks is worth purchasing this instead of buying a game, knowing that it sucks in both value, one more for the shelf to collect dust.

That's why I rent some before I make my decisions.

By the way, Xbox isn't my favourite console either.
 
Banjo said:
No, they just wanted to crush the competitors, not compete with them. Just like Sony tried to keep the developers of the Grand Theft Auto games from developing for the others, but a loophole denied them that.

I don't see how Sony is trying to crush the competitors, Sony haven't bought out a company yet. Microsoft already did with a few companies. If you are talking about making elusive titles for a certain console, that's normal, all the company have to do is sign an agreement to release this title on the Playstation 2 for a while then after the agreement is up, they can do whatever they want with the title, make a GameCube version of the game or whatever. Microsoft BOUGHT out the companies so they will ONLY make games for the XBOX till XBOX dies out or whatever. Like what Capcom did with Resident Evil series for the GameCube, they signed an exclusive agreement with Nintendo, then later on, they will be releasing RE:4 for the Playstation 2 or 3 and the XBox or Xbox 2 in the future. Did Nintendo buy Capcom out? No...

Microsoft isn't making a lot off the games either. So, I would say both are monopolizing. Especially if they bombard the people at movie theatres with advertisements.

I still don't see how Sony is making an attempt to control the gaming industry, all I see is Sony is trying to bring out games to rival its competitors, while Microsoft try to pressure some gaming companies into giving up their right and let Microsoft take over. The only good games that's keeping Microsoft alive are probably the Halo series and Ninja Gaiden. Maybe some more that I have not heard of yet, but that's pathetic compared to Sony and Nintendo, having a huge library of games that turned gold and silver present and past.

People are often brainwashed into thinking Sony provides good quality products. Luckily, they have the money to hide the truth. Yes, some of their products are great, but not all. I've seen many poor-made Sony TVs, especially the projection TVs. Same with their camcorders, not all of them are that great. In fact, I've seen Canon making better products than theirs. Though I do think their WEGA TVs, some of them are nice but overpriced.

That's true that people are often brainwashed because they want quality and they want what's best for them and that's what's ruining the market today. It's hard to find which companies that sell quality as well as reasonable prices but like you said, people are brainwashed. But that doesn't mean Sony is trying to monopolizing the market. Sony came out with the bulky walkman and downsized it to a very small Walkman. Will you still say Sony is trying to monopolizing the market? Sony is a company with a lot of innovations. Microsoft, on the other hand, don't have a lot of room for innovation, except for the first working operating system. They only have room for more and more companies that they will buy off in the next few years because they can't afford to have someone be one up above them. They want to be the KING of the world.

Just because it's Sony... or Microsoft doesn't mean they are the best. In fact, I don't care too much for Windows operating systems due to the bloated coding and crap that they stuff it with.

Does McDonald's provide high-quality food? If not, then how the heck are they making billions off the people? Easy... they bombard them with advertisements and lure them. Something that Sony play well at.

Also, remember the BETA fiasco?

They tried to get a lock on the BETA format by not allowing anybody else to make BETA video players which is why JVC developed VHS video players and killed the BETA industry because everybody else was allowed to make their own VHS video players.

Me too, I don't give a crap about Microsoft's operating systems as they continue to come out with stupid OSes like Windows ME. I'm also not saying that Sony is the BEST thing out there, but I'm just saying that Sony seem to be better than Microsoft based on monopoly, games and everything in general.

As for McDonald's, Ray Kroc did not have that idea in mind when he established the first McDonald's, he was looking for property that will sell his products. It was all about the property, not the food. He doesn't care back then, if it's quality food or not, but of course he still does care if it taste good or not, but he just want to find the property that will guarantee a lot of sales and now he have a lot of McDonalds all over the world. Not surprising if there's one on the moon soon.

Well BETA was stupid to start with. I didn't like BETA and if they were trying to lock out the format so no one will be able to make a BETA video player, that's a good sign of monopoly. Theodore Roosevelt said that he want to eliminate monopoly by allowing more than one company to make similar products to allow competition. If there is no competition, it is monopoly.

Of course, advertisement do play a very important role in our lives and it can be annoying at a certain point and not surprising with Nanotechnology coming, we will see more and more of advertisements. I do not base my decisions entirely off what they say in the advertisements. I do my research and I follow my intuition. Most of the time, my intuition would not fail me. I was skeptical when I bought the Jaguar 64, my intuition was telling me NO NO NO NO but I bought it anyways. A year later, Atari stopped making Jaguars. The Dreamcast came out, my intuition was saying the same thing, I didn't buy it but my roommate did. a year or two years later, the DC failed. Now Microsoft XBox came out, my intuition told me the same thing so that's why I'm still wary of the XBox. If you disagree with that, that's fine with me, just let me be with my intuition.

Bill Gates said that more than a decade ago. People can always change their minds, can't they? Actually, at the time he had said it... he did have a point. It wasn't that big of a industry at the time. But now, it's even bigger than the film industry and maybe even the adult industry.

Nintendo boomed to fame and glory because of their playing cards. Then they went on to make toys, then Nintendo consoles.

Yes but did Nintendo make an official comment saying that they will not make gaming consoles? No. They are a game company, making playing cards and such. It was expected that they would come out with something like the Nintendo Entertainment System and Super NES. It wasn't expected that MS would come out with the XBox because it's an operating system to start with and with what Bill Gates said, he mocked the gaming industry, yet he's in the gaming industry today?

I don't play on kiosks, it's the worst place to play a game. Especially with all the filthy germs on it.

I don't know about your experiences, but I've had good experiences. Apparently, some people just see it differently. Xbox itself is capable of generating powerful graphics, but bad gameplay can kill it. But many third-parties developers tend to neglect on both parts, or one.

Agreed but with the local Blockbusters renting the consoles for 3 days @ 10-20 bucks doesn't sound good to me. That's why I just wanted to take a glimpse, about 5 mins worth to see if it blow me away. If it sounds limited to you, maybe it is, but I did play over a hour or two worth of game play on several kiosks in my life time and to this day, it still haven't blown me away. I'm pretty sure Ninja Gaiden will do that to me, but the problem still lies: What other games should I get other than Ninja Gaiden that proves itself worthy for the Xbox?

For your information, I came from the days of 8-bit and 16-bit games too as well. I even had Atari 2600. Ain't getting upset here, but I do think that spreading information with bias on it. In fact, I was very wary of Xbox when it first launched. But now, I'm quite fond of it, and find many games worth playing on it. Though I do prefer Nintendo games due to the focus of gamplay on it. But there are still a large variety of good games to play.

Every console has its advantages and disadvantages... for example, Gamecube has the advantage of loading at a faster rate, sometimes virtually no loading screens in games like Metriod. Gamecube sometimes has the advantage of having the best graphics, due to a well-designed video card... where PS2 failed in. Especially after the misleading information that Sony gave out to the public on the emotion chip and more which caused me to back out of purchasing the console. I once owned a Playstation, and enjoyed it even though most games weren't good. There were a few, just like there were a few good games on Nintendo 64. But I kept Nintendo 64 because of the classics such as The Legend of Zelda, and other games.

That's also true that every console has it advantages and disadvantages and I found the XBox to be at a huge disadvantage for me. Lack of better game library, bulky console, sucky graphics and more. I thought the Nintendo 64 sucked as well because they were using the wrong color palette. They could have used the one for the SNES.
 
I had to truncate the previous message body due to it being over the 10K character limit. Anyways...

Same here, graphics rarely win me over. It's the quality of the gameplay that is important to me. I can play several Nintendo games without ever getting tired of them while I barely can stand to get through another re-play of Splinter Cell which is a great game, but low on re-play value in my opinion.

That's good to know :D, would you say most games are short now in length than it was back then? I.E. Bouncer? Graphics was awesome, but I beat the game in 1 hour? That sucked.

That's why I rent some before I make my decisions.

By the way, Xbox isn't my favourite console either.

Me too, I rent games all the time to make sure if it's something I should own in my extensive library. Being a reasonable consumer, it's one of the things you should do before buying a game @ 50 bucks. Read the reviews, listen to the people, read the forums or whatever and then rent the game, see if you like it, and want to play some more, then buy it. I totally agree with you, renting is better than buying it right away. I was stating that I will NOT buy a game just because the graphics are awesome and breathtaking. I will buy it after knowing that the game play as well as the replay value is awesome, then I will definitely want to own this title.

You have yet to state why the PSP is a part of Sony's attempt to take control over the gaming industry.
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
That's good to know :D, would you say most games are short now in length than it was back then? I.E. Bouncer? Graphics was awesome, but I beat the game in 1 hour? That sucked.

Actually, not much has changed. I can beat Super Mario Bros. in a very short period. Except for games like Legend of Zelda, these take HOURS. Some games are just long, some are short. Like Metal Gear Solid wasn't too long when it first came out on PS. I beat Yoshi's Story (don't laugh, at least it's a Nintendo product)... in like 40 minutes or less. Literally.

Some 8-bit titles has aged quite well, like Super Mario Bros. 3... still a blast to play to this day. So is Super Mario Bros. 2. I also enjoy playing old games from time to time. I also enjoy playing Icarus Kid, what a great game that one was.

You have yet to state why the PSP is a part of Sony's attempt to take control over the gaming industry.[/QUOTE]

Well, you'll have to excuse me for not responding to that question earlier. I wasn't able to slip in my opinion due to being in a hurry to be somewhere.

Now that I have the time. Why would Sony want to sell a handheld system with tons of unnecessary special features like the ability to play movies, music, etc? Why not just the games?

Apparently they think more is better in order to defeat Nintendo. They won the battle against Nintendo 64 because they had low fee costs in comparison. Sony is a competitor, and it is an obvious sign that they are trying to take a good portion of the handheld market by bringing in PSP.

Why make the PSP at all if they don't need the money? Really... Sony is almost as rich as Microsoft is. Why do they need to enter the handheld market at all? That's what I meant, they are obviously trying to monopolize the market by competing against the Game Boy which has dominated the market for like 15 years. They were doing great with both PS and PS2, yet they still want more?

I'm not saying that monopolizing is a bad thing. But it's just a very intense way of competing against the competitors. Microsoft is one of the worst when it come to that, no doubt. Just like they bought out Rareware which was a bad move in my opinion.

But I must say that I admire Nintendo for not showing any fears toward the competitors. Nintendo has a lot of pride in itself, clearly which is a good thing for a corporation. They don't show any signs of being greedy while both Sony and Microsoft have $$$ on their head and showing it.
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
I don't see how Sony is trying to crush the competitors, Sony haven't bought out a company yet.

Columbia, Tri-Star and MGM. Sure, they are not video game companies, but they are still companies that were bought out by Sony.

Microsoft already did with a few companies. If you are talking about making elusive titles for a certain console, that's normal, all the company have to do is sign an agreement to release this title on the Playstation 2 for a while then after the agreement is up, they can do whatever they want with the title, make a GameCube version of the game or whatever. Microsoft BOUGHT out the companies so they will ONLY make games for the XBOX till XBOX dies out or whatever. Like what Capcom did with Resident Evil series for the GameCube, they signed an exclusive agreement with Nintendo, then later on, they will be releasing RE:4 for the Playstation 2 or 3 and the XBox or Xbox 2 in the future.

Did Nintendo buy Capcom out? No...

Well, Nintendo did use to own half of Rareware then sold it off to Microsoft in a flash. Nintendo made a good move by dumping Rareware, no offense to these Rare lovers. Rareware used to be good, but not anymore.

I still don't see how Sony is making an attempt to control the gaming industry, all I see is Sony is trying to bring out games to rival its competitors, while Microsoft try to pressure some gaming companies into giving up their right and let Microsoft take over.

The only good games that's keeping Microsoft alive are probably the Halo series and Ninja Gaiden. Maybe some more that I have not heard of yet, but that's pathetic compared to Sony and Nintendo, having a huge library of games that turned gold and silver present and past.

I don't think Ninja Gaiden even make the top ten in best-selling games. Maybe MechAssault, Project Gotham Racing 1+2, Splinter Cell 1+2, and more. Though I don't care for MechAssault or Splinter Cell because they aren't my types. I prefer adventure-exploring games, which is easily found on Nintendo Gamecube. But I often play on Xbox against my friends over the internet.

That's true that people are often brainwashed because they want quality and they want what's best for them and that's what's ruining the market today. It's hard to find which companies that sell quality as well as reasonable prices but like you said, people are brainwashed. But that doesn't mean Sony is trying to monopolizing the market.

Sony came out with the bulky walkman and downsized it to a very small Walkman. Will you still say Sony is trying to monopolizing the market?

I recall many bad experiences that I have heard of from my hearing friends, even to this day about walkmans not lasting long enough. Somehow, it always get broken with a few months. It's either not built to last or just get mishandled.

So, if there are some truth to that Sony does build some of their products to last to a certain point. Then yes, it is monopolizing because they expect their customers to replace their walkman with new ones.

Sony is a company with a lot of innovations.

A lot of innovations? At times, yes... but they often end up screwing it up. Like the BETA video players, memory sticks, etc. Nobody but Sony use these memory sticks on their products. People are already pissed off at Sony over the MiniDisc players according to several reports a couple months ago.

Microsoft, on the other hand, don't have a lot of room for innovation, except for the first working operating system.

MS-DOS... wasn't even theirs to begin with. They bought it from a guy who made it in his basement. Xerox was the "inspiration" for Windows 3.1.... by stealing the Mac OS from Steve Jobs.

They only have room for more and more companies that they will buy off in the next few years because they can't afford to have someone be one up above them. They want to be the KING of the world.

Well, nothing's wrong with wanting to be the king of the world. But yes, I can see how many people end up getting hurt. But nobody said being in the market wouldn't hurt. It's like a battlefield out there.

Well BETA was stupid to start with. I didn't like BETA and if they were trying to lock out the format so no one will be able to make a BETA video player, that's a good sign of monopoly.

Actually, BETA was better than VHS. But what choice did they have since they weren't allowed to make their own BETA video players?

I was skeptical when I bought the Jaguar 64, my intuition was telling me NO NO NO NO but I bought it anyways.

Thankfully, I didn't buy that one. I had the same intuitions as you did.

The Dreamcast came out, my intuition was saying the same thing, I didn't buy it but my roommate did. a year or two years later, the DC failed.

I bought Dreamcast in an used condition at a cheap price a year after it was released. I was able to find many games being sold at a cheap price. It was worth my money, at least in my opinion because I got to have a lot of fun with Dreamcast even though I knew it wasn't going to last.

Now Microsoft XBox came out, my intuition told me the same thing so that's why I'm still wary of the XBox. If you disagree with that, that's fine with me, just let me be with my intuition.

So far, Microsoft is happy where it is now. In fact, Microsoft did manage to sell more consoles than Sony several times in the past few months. It was very obvious that Microsoft lost a lot of money on purpose to prepare for the coming Xbox Next.

Clearly, and it is working.

Yes but did Nintendo make an official comment saying that they will not make gaming consoles?

Official? It was a comment made when Bill Gates was asked the question. More of a blunt response, I'll say. It's not like they made a press release stating that they won't make games. Actually, they already were making games for the PC at the time, but not consoles. I believe the question was really in relation to developing a console, not games.

No. They are a game company, making playing cards and such. It was expected that they would come out with something like the Nintendo Entertainment System and Super NES. It wasn't expected that MS would come out with the XBox because it's an operating system to start with and with what Bill Gates said, he mocked the gaming industry, yet he's in the gaming industry today?

Sony wasn't a game company either. So?

What other games should I get other than Ninja Gaiden that proves itself worthy for the Xbox?

I can't answer that question, because I don't know what you like to play. Everybody has different needs. For example, if you want to play more RPG games... don't buy a Xbox. PS2 would be the better choice, but if you want first-person shooter games, then Xbox would be a good choice because there are a lot of these games. I don't play sports either, but there are still a large variety of different games. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place. But like I said, people has different needs.

That's also true that every console has it advantages and disadvantages and I found the XBox to be at a huge disadvantage for me. Lack of better game library, bulky console, sucky graphics and more.

I think all 3 consoles are kinda bulky to begin with. Gamecube is the one with the weakest third-party support, I have to say while PS2 having the strongest support. Xbox has a very solid third-party support, that I don't doubt. But on all 3 consoles, most third-party games are crap, just like most movies are crap. There are a few gems, there'll never be a lot of gems, just a few.

I thought the Nintendo 64 sucked as well because they were using the wrong color palette. They could have used the one for the SNES.

I was disappointed with Nintendo 64 too as well, but I still kept it because of a few games that are still worth playing to this day. Though, the controller... ugh.
 
Banjo said:
Columbia, Tri-Star and MGM. Sure, they are not video game companies, but they are still companies that were bought out by Sony.

Yeah they were losing money because they kept making lousy movies so Sony bought them out because they were on the market. Sony apparently had the money to buy them. They were willing to be sold while Bungie wasn't willing to be sold until Microsoft made a huge deal and Bungie reluctantly sold their company to Microsoft.

Well, Nintendo did use to own half of Rareware then sold it off to Microsoft in a flash. Nintendo made a good move by dumping Rareware, no offense to these Rare lovers. Rareware used to be good, but not anymore.

Oh wow! I forgot all about Rareware yeah, that canada company. You're right, when it was in its prime, everything was awesome, but now they made games that's not worth crap. I believe that's why Nintendo sold Rareware to MS because Nintendo don't want Rare anymore.

I don't think Ninja Gaiden even make the top ten in best-selling games. Maybe MechAssault, Project Gotham Racing 1+2, Splinter Cell 1+2, and more. Though I don't care for MechAssault or Splinter Cell because they aren't my types. I prefer adventure-exploring games, which is easily found on Nintendo Gamecube. But I often play on Xbox against my friends over the internet.

Hmm... I read in EGM and some other gaming magazines and I saw Ninja Gaiden being one of the top 10 games for the XBox... I have Splinter Cell 1 for the Playstation 2 and yeah it's alright, not my type but it's nice and all. Same here, I prefer Adventure/action platform games and yeah they can be found on the GCN.

I recall many bad experiences that I have heard of from my hearing friends, even to this day about walkmans not lasting long enough. Somehow, it always get broken with a few months. It's either not built to last or just get mishandled.

So, if there are some truth to that Sony does build some of their products to last to a certain point. Then yes, it is monopolizing because they expect their customers to replace their walkman with new ones.

Wow... maybe because they're abusing it, i.e. tossing it on the dining table, accidentally dropping it or left it on while they're gone? My mom had a Sony walkman and it worked fine for like 10 years. I don't know if it's still working now because she threw it out and got a new Sony walkman since it's more compact. She used it almost everyday. The same goes for Apple, their non replaceable batteries, for the IPod, last only 2 years and once it's out of power, you have to buy a new IPod. It's the market's way of getting people to keep on buying and buying, not what you call monopolizing the market. Monopolizing is more like buying companies out, selling ONLY one product with no competition. Similar to how Communism work, you buy only one pop brand, you buy only one line of clothings, you buy only one food brand, and the list goes on. Communism don't leave room for competition. They're all owned by the government to regulate things better but in other words, they're monopolizing the whole market.

A lot of innovations? At times, yes... but they often end up screwing it up. Like the BETA video players, memory sticks, etc. Nobody but Sony use these memory sticks on their products. People are already pissed off at Sony over the MiniDisc players according to several reports a couple months ago.

Microsoft wasn't perfect at first, they kept screwing up the OSes because they didn't make it clear for 3rd parties developers to understand the coding and structures. That's why they released Visual Basic so they can use it and Windows can easily understand the language.

MS-DOS... wasn't even theirs to begin with. They bought it from a guy who made it in his basement. Xerox was the "inspiration" for Windows 3.1.... by stealing the Mac OS from Steve Jobs.

Well, nothing's wrong with wanting to be the king of the world. But yes, I can see how many people end up getting hurt. But nobody said being in the market wouldn't hurt. It's like a battlefield out there.

Actually, BETA was better than VHS. But what choice did they have since they weren't allowed to make their own BETA video players?

Yeah Xerox's PARC, the first GUI based operating system with a mouse and Bill Gates stole that idea and bought MS-DOS from the guy living in the basement, is the first sign ever of monopolizing for Microsoft.

Yes nothing wrong with being king of course, but Microsoft is doing it illegally, they're rapidly eliminating competition along the way to the top, by buying them out and merge them into Microsoft. Just recently last summer, a company named Solomon, developed a data basing system that did tasks better than Access and Microsoft bought them out and now it's Microsoft/Solomon. Microsoft promised to create 5 to 10 thousand jobs here in this town I live in, then a few months later, they closed the doors and moved out of town. No one got a job at Microsoft, they were pretty PO'ed.

Thankfully, I didn't buy that one. I had the same intuitions as you did.

I bought Dreamcast in an used condition at a cheap price a year after it was released. I was able to find many games being sold at a cheap price. It was worth my money, at least in my opinion because I got to have a lot of fun with Dreamcast even though I knew it wasn't going to last.

So far, Microsoft is happy where it is now. In fact, Microsoft did manage to sell more consoles than Sony several times in the past few months. It was very obvious that Microsoft lost a lot of money on purpose to prepare for the coming Xbox Next.

Clearly, and it is working.

FYI, the Jaguar did have some good games like Iron Soldier and Aliens Vs. Predator. But it experienced the same problem NES did, you had to blow in the cartridge and then place it in the slot. If it doesn't work, repeat and rinse till it worked. That was lame.

DC did have some good games like Panzer Dragoon and Nights, but like XBox, I need to see more games that will make me want to play so I can buy the DC. It died out so I didn't bother buying one, even a used one.

Official? It was a comment made when Bill Gates was asked the question. More of a blunt response, I'll say. It's not like they made a press release stating that they won't make games. Actually, they already were making games for the PC at the time, but not consoles. I believe the question was really in relation to developing a console, not games.

Sony wasn't a game company either. So?

About Microsoft, I need to find that article but I don't know where it is, it was in one of the PC World magazines or something like that. I believe it might be just about the console, but he was also talking about games in general because he just want Windows to execute business applications only, not games. He don't want people to "abuse" Windows for games purpose. He rather to keep it decent for business only. I might be wrong but I need to find that article.

Yeah Sony wasn't a game company, but Sony invested in entertainment, and gaming is a part of entertainment so Sony can up and become a gaming company if they want to. Microsoft established the fact that they develop operating systems for PC and large companies to use, not for games.
I can't answer that question, because I don't know what you like to play. Everybody has different needs. For example, if you want to play more RPG games... don't buy a Xbox. PS2 would be the better choice, but if you want first-person shooter games, then Xbox would be a good choice because there are a lot of these games. I don't play sports either, but there are still a large variety of different games. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place. But like I said, people has different needs.

You just answered my question, I love RPGs and Adventure/Action games. I do like FPS games but it has got to the point where all I do is just frag people and that's all. Yes there are games like CTF and Bomb Run (I'm speaking of Unreal Tournament 2003) and they were fun, but a lot of people kept abusing it by using shotbots (instantly kill you once they see you...) Halo might be bot-free but Ive played Doom when it came out on the 3.5 disks as well as Duke Nuke'm. For me it's same old, same old. I'm not really looking in the wrong place, I have seen them all and I know which one can provide better entertainment for me, and you know what they are.

I think all 3 consoles are kinda bulky to begin with. Gamecube is the one with the weakest third-party support, I have to say while PS2 having the strongest support. Xbox has a very solid third-party support, that I don't doubt. But on all 3 consoles, most third-party games are crap, just like most movies are crap. There are a few gems, there'll never be a lot of gems, just a few.

I was disappointed with Nintendo 64 too as well, but I still kept it because of a few games that are still worth playing to this day. Though, the controller... ugh.

Microsoft was weak before they bought out the companies. At least Nintendo had the guts to keep on fighting even though they're lacking more support. Microsoft deleted that from the picture by buying out companies so they can gather in more support from 3rd parties along with their first parties.
 
Banjo said:
Actually, not much has changed. I can beat Super Mario Bros. in a very short period. Except for games like Legend of Zelda, these take HOURS. Some games are just long, some are short. Like Metal Gear Solid wasn't too long when it first came out on PS. I beat Yoshi's Story (don't laugh, at least it's a Nintendo product)... in like 40 minutes or less. Literally.

Some 8-bit titles has aged quite well, like Super Mario Bros. 3... still a blast to play to this day. So is Super Mario Bros. 2. I also enjoy playing old games from time to time. I also enjoy playing Icarus Kid, what a great game that one was.

Ahh yeah the good old days and yeah there were a lot of games that kept us busy! Yeah Super Mario Bros 3 is indeed awesome and still hold true to the replay value as well as did Final Fantasy 3 on the SNES for me.

I didn't laugh at you because I got Yoshi's Island but I have yet to try Story out.

Well, you'll have to excuse me for not responding to that question earlier. I wasn't able to slip in my opinion due to being in a hurry to be somewhere.

Now that I have the time. Why would Sony want to sell a handheld system with tons of unnecessary special features like the ability to play movies, music, etc? Why not just the games?

Apparently they think more is better in order to defeat Nintendo. They won the battle against Nintendo 64 because they had low fee costs in comparison. Sony is a competitor, and it is an obvious sign that they are trying to take a good portion of the handheld market by bringing in PSP.

Why make the PSP at all if they don't need the money? Really... Sony is almost as rich as Microsoft is. Why do they need to enter the handheld market at all? That's what I meant, they are obviously trying to monopolize the market by competing against the Game Boy which has dominated the market for like 15 years. They were doing great with both PS and PS2, yet they still want more?

I'm not saying that monopolizing is a bad thing. But it's just a very intense way of competing against the competitors. Microsoft is one of the worst when it come to that, no doubt. Just like they bought out Rareware which was a bad move in my opinion.

But I must say that I admire Nintendo for not showing any fears toward the competitors. Nintendo has a lot of pride in itself, clearly which is a good thing for a corporation. They don't show any signs of being greedy while both Sony and Microsoft have $$$ on their head and showing it.

I was simply reminding you :D

Well now, to ask why Sony should make the PSP, one should also ask why Microsoft should make the Xbox?

Yes when Playstation came out, Nintendo 64's sales declined and you didn't mention one more thing that most developers were looking for back then, storage capacity. PSOne came out with CD-ROM as their primary medium storage while Nintendo still want to use the cartridge. That was one of the reasons why Squaresoft backed out of the deal with Nintendo because Squaresoft want to do CDs but Nintendo won't so SS backed out and went to Sony.

It's all about the market, Sony want to be a part of the portable competition because they already have PSOne/PS2 to prove that they can do it. Microsoft had nothing to start with and then they made the XBox. They are already making billions of dollars and they don't even need a gaming console to boost up the industry. Probably, the real reason behind the XBox is because they know that one day, the government will eliminate, ban or remove Microsoft products from the computing market so they had to look for other sources of money so they won't end up being stuck with nothing in their hands. I have a hunch one day Microsoft's operating systems will die out and Linux will be superior. A lot of companies are heading toward Linux right now so it's not surprising why Microsoft wanted to have something for back up like the XBox.

Now, I'm pretty sure the reason why Microsoft hasn't come out with a portable device is because they already have a few. You find them in PDAs, using Windows' portable OS. Of course, it would not be surprising if MS release a handheld portable sometimes soon because of PSP. They are probably developing one as we speak but they're keeping it hush-hush. So if MS release a portable device, then what's the point of making one if they are already rich? Now that's not what I call monopolizing, I just call it a fair competition in the market, at least the audience get a choice of the products and play with it. I'm glad that PSP is coming out so I will see how well it do portable-wise because like you said, Nintendo has been dominating the market. I still fail to see how it is called monopoly rather than competition.

Yes that's also true that Sony is adding lucrative add-ons to the PSP but I believe it is because they want to test the new UMD storage medium for the PSP as well as their Wi-Fi capability to see how well they can do it portable-wise. Nothing's wrong with that, in my opinion. At least it's probably better than the Nokia N-Gage... I think that one sucked. I have yet to try it out. Can't blame Sony for trying to catch up with today's technology.

:D
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
Yeah they were losing money because they kept making lousy movies so Sony bought them out because they were on the market. Sony apparently had the money to buy them. They were willing to be sold while Bungie wasn't willing to be sold until Microsoft made a huge deal and Bungie reluctantly sold their company to Microsoft.

Bungie had a choice, but they allowed the temptation to get to them in the end. Therefore, it's their fault that they allowed Microsoft to buy them out.

Oh wow! I forgot all about Rareware yeah, that canada company. You're right, when it was in its prime, everything was awesome, but now they made games that's not worth crap. I believe that's why Nintendo sold Rareware to MS because Nintendo don't want Rare anymore.

Actually, British. :)

Silicon Knights is the Canadian company, and in my city too as well. Though they recently had halted the deal with Nintendo as a second-party development team due to interest conflicts.

Hmm... I read in EGM and some other gaming magazines and I saw Ninja Gaiden being one of the top 10 games for the XBox... I have Splinter Cell 1 for the Playstation 2 and yeah it's alright, not my type but it's nice and all. Same here, I prefer Adventure/action platform games and yeah they can be found on the GCN.

One of the best, yeah. But one of the top-selling games? I'll have to check that one.

Wow... maybe because they're abusing it, i.e. tossing it on the dining table, accidentally dropping it or left it on while they're gone?

Which is why I said that both may be due to mishandling, and building it to not last after a certain period. But in my personal opinion, it's the mishandling that cause the more damages. Just look at the PC computers that people buy... they basically destroy it within a month. Funny how many people are so careless, while some of my things are still in excellent conditions even after 10 years or more. Though I'll have to clean my 8-bit Nintendo sometimes soon which shouldn't be too difficult.

FYI, the Jaguar did have some good games like Iron Soldier and Aliens Vs. Predator. But it experienced the same problem NES did, you had to blow in the cartridge and then place it in the slot. If it doesn't work, repeat and rinse till it worked. That was lame.

I believe you, every console has its good games. Yes, I understand the problems with the cartridge. Just to let you know... you aren't supposed to blow into the cartridge. It'll just make the problem worse. By blowing into it, you are forcing the dust to go even deeper. Q-Tips and Alcohol come in handy when it come to cleaning games and cart consoles.

DC did have some good games like Panzer Dragoon and Nights, but like XBox, I need to see more games that will make me want to play so I can buy the DC. It died out so I didn't bother buying one, even a used one.

I don't think there was a Nights game on Dreamcast. That was Saturn, that I can recall. I had games like Typing of the Dead which I did enjoy. Hmm... now that I think of it... where did I put that dang keyboard?

Oh well. Though, Sega did pave the road to online gaming. Sure, it didn't last... but it did make an impact on the video game industry.
 
Since Banjo and PyrollisAhFiros debate/discuss about PS2/Xbox, I want to grab the opportunity to share my opinion... that I do find Xbox attractive and a powerful console but it is not for me. I unfortunately am a RPG freak. Like what Banjo said about RPG/PS2. I made a choice to pick one console that I will play mostly.

I am a hardcore Xenogears/saga fan, I am following where Monolith Soft go. If they somehow decide to make a Xenosaga game as exclusive game for Xbox. I will abandon PS2 at a drop of a hat for Xbox.

I can be honest with you people, I didn't play the games that much as of lately... Even though I still bought the new games but stack these upon other games and let it collect the dust :( (beside Xenogears/Xenosaga games, that is).

Interesting discussion, both of you guys (Banjo and PAF).
 
Back
Top