All in all, I''d have to agree, the guy''s a moron. But he does bring up some issues about the consoles that seem to be true. I think it is true that Nintendo has benefitted (and will continue to) by waiting. XBand was a perfect example of a new technology that Sega jumped on and released first, while the Nintendo version was refined and ended up being a lot more functional. Square bedamned, the N64 is flat out a better system. The game quality has suffered recently, but I think it''s safe to say that there is at least one N64 game I like for every PSX game I''ve played and said "Wow, it doesn''t suck." (And not counting Square, there is nothing on the PSX that competes with Goldeneye or Mario Kart 64). Also, the point about similar media will make a big difference. While it''s not certain the Dolphin''s hardware will outdo the PS2''s, there''s really no evidence that it won''t. And if that''s the case (and the Dolphin is less expensive), it would be a much more logical choice to go with Nintendo if a lot of the same games are being developed for both systems. Of course, there is the possibility that Nintendo isn''t "playing poker", and that they just don''t have the specs to compete with the PS2. But in competition with any other system released to date, Nintendo has always produced the better product (with the possible exception of Virtual Boy, which wasn''t really in competition with anything anyway). Ultimately though, it doesn''t matter, because if the Dolphin isn''t better than the PS2, it doesn''t look like that it''s that horrible to be stuck with a system pushing 66 million polys/sec, and I think the consumers win either way.

I think that whichever console is cheapest will be most popular, and it looks like dreamcast will be it. I know a lot of people only want to have the console with the best specs, it''s really what games the console has that counts. I might be biased saying that I think dreamcast will do the best, as I own one, but when I bought one, I only wanted Soul Calibur, but I now find myself desperate to buy a lot of the games. I also think that nintendo should concentrate on hand helds, because they''re so good at it - I found my old super mario bros game and watch the other day, it might be old and easy, but it''s still fun.

i couldn''t agree more. it''s the games that make the console. i bought a playstation just for ff7, and it was worth the money. i''ll also buy a dreamcast just for shen mue. i know a lot of people will call me a money waster, but in my opinion it''ll be worth it.

I know it''s been said to death, but the games a system has really do matter (the specs matter a little... just imagine FF7 or FF8 or Chrono Cross on the N64! It''s impossible!!)

...Hmm... I think the N64 was Nintendo''s suicide attempt...it doesn''t seem like they tried at all to make it... when I first saw some screenshots of games for the "Nintendo Ultra 64" (lol) back in 1995 in Nintendo Power, I was like, "WHOOOAA!!" It looked so cool! ... then when the piece of crap came out, it was nothing like the screenshots... it sucked. ... the only really good games for it are Mario Kart 64, Star Fox 64, and Goldeneye (it wasn''t thaaat great, ... unless you played multiplayer).

The PSX has GREAT games... FF7, FF8, Chrono Cross, Cool Boarders 3, Metal Gear Solid, Ridge Racer, Road Rash... and the N64 tries to imitate it with crap like, Quest 64 (*yeeehaw*! ...tch.), Ridge Racer 64, Road Rash 64 (did anyone see the commercials for these? they suck!)...

The N64 stuck with cartridges because they thought their audience was too stupid to notice they weren''t using CDs like competitors.... "we''re shunning them! haha!" <--Nintendo... idiots.


----------------------------
Chrono Cross rules forever
[img]http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Avatar/7985/cc-01.jpg[/img]