I think the parents of this generation must have been related. Ugly consoles all round.
This one isn't that bad, but it's still not great. I wonder what the deal is with that blue light coming from the disc slot.
At least it has the advantage of fitting in a briefcase (which is one of my only problems with the Gamecube).
I wonder if it has to be on that grey stand thing. It wouldn't look too bad if it was just the black section.
ACWraith wrote:
However, I really don't see what was wrong with the old design, especially since they didn't add or remove buttons. Me either =( The PS2 layout on the controller was so good it was copied by basically every computer controller made. I'm definately going to look for a different controller upon release. | |
Shades wrote:
Where the hell is the ports, or buttons or wires for that matter? O.o;; Zoom in on the picture. The buttons are visible, the wires are probably in the back where we can't see them, and as for the ports, well, there's a thing on the front that kind of looks like it could fold open, and would reveal controller ports. | |
Shades wrote:
Where the hell is the ports, or buttons or wires for that matter? O.o;; I read on IGN that it's going wireless for the controllers. I hope they figured out a good system for charging the controllers. As for the buttons, they go down along side of the disc slot. | |
I can only hope that the Nintendo Revolution puts up some sort of fight against the on-going war of the consoles. Nintendo was really beginning to fade out with the Gamecube, despite the sheer genious of its games, people still flocked to the Playstation 2 and X-box for its powerful systems.
It's really a shame. I missed the good ole' days of having it plain and simple and having the Super Nintendo dominate the gaming market. | |
The Nintendo R has now confirmed:
A built in hard drive Connectivety to the net out of the box Dvd play back Backwards compatability. 3 of those things is what made either the Xbox or the Ps2 popular. Nintendo has been doing alot of planning latley and are now listening better to their fans. Also, PS3 and NR wont be out until summer or fall of 2006. That means they will have time to watch the Xbox 360 and see how it works out, and tweek their own systems accordintly. Nintendo has already the the Nintendo R WILL be stronger hardware wise, but their main concern is something else. I wish we knew what. There are 2 sets of specs out for the Nintendo R right now, and both of them rivial the PS3 and Xbox 360. Nintendo could always make a comback. And I believe they will. Go Nintendo! | |
Scoobert wrote:
The DreamCast is a good example of that, the graphics where way better than anything of its time, but it had few fun games, and they tended to get choppy. Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? -Thorg | |
Scoobert wrote:
I agree that those where good, but beyong that, there where few good games. At the time I would have agreed with you, but I noticed later on that it wasn't that the Dreamcast didn't have many good games it was that no one stocked anything related to the Dreamcast. It was a nightmare trying to find the console itself. When I got one could never find anywhere that even stocked games. On the rare chance a store did sell Dreamcast games they would usually only have a selection of five to ten random titles. A lot of stores that did stock games managed to miss the bigger titles (ie, not many places had Sonic Adventure I or II). I brought a lot of games that I normally wouldn't have even looked at just because there was nothing else to choose from. This gave me the impression that most of the games sucked, when really I was just playing games I didn't like because the ones I would have liked weren't an option. I notice the same thing happened to the Gamecube. From the day it was released it was banished into a tiny corner section of EB. A couple of five title wide shelves for games with no real attention grabbers near by. That's not to say the Gamecube would have been the most popular system ever if they gave new Gamecube titles a wall wide shelve each, with huge banners and special deals like they do with PS2 and XBox games, but it wouldn't have hurt it any. | |
Nathandx82 wrote:
It is bogus, no console company is going to beable to make a VR setup that won't cost far more than their consumers will beable to afford. Really? I owned a VR helmet for my old SNES. It's been doable for over a decade now, perhaps longer. I think the main drawback that's keeping VR helmets out of production for the current consoles are a lack of support in the games themselves. They'd be great for FPS, but most games have no real use for them. I used to play Mortal Kombat 3 with mine, turning my head made my character move left or right. There were two screens in the headset, with decent graphical support, so true 3D was possible, just not supported by any games available at the time. ~X | |
I find that last comment insulting. Are you saying I like the Playstation because Sony tells me to, and that I don't really like it, but am just a corporate pawn drooling on command? O.o That's not insulting Sony in the least, it's insulting the gamers who actually enjoy the PS.
I like Sony, I always have. If I ever do buy a next-gen system, the PS3 is my only choice. Why? Because I can play every PS, PS2 and PS3 game ever crafted on one system. Thousands of games to choose from, with many many more high-quality titles than either X-Box or Nintendo can shake a RAM stick at. PS3 is the best value for the buck, and they have proven to me that they can deliver on the hype, while at the same time catering to gamers by not making their old enjoyable titles obsolete with the new system. Nintendo is just now getting a clue, but it's too late for them to remedy their mistake. X-Box 360? :::shudder::: Microsux' name puts me off, but if they had the library of great games that PS has, I'd probably get it. To me, it's about the games, not how many teraflops the console can crunch. With the Playstation, the pool of titles to choose from is so vast, it would be almost impossible not to find 100 games you love. Can you say that about X-Box or this new Nintendo? ~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
X-Box 360? :::shudder::: Microsux' name puts me off, but if they had the library of great games that PS has, I'd probably get it. To me, it's about the games, not how many teraflops the console can crunch. With the Playstation, the pool of titles to choose from is so vast, it would be almost impossible not to find 100 games you love. Can you say that about X-Box or this new Nintendo? The Nintendo Revolution is backwards compatable...I hear. I think. I think it is. | |
Only as far back as the GameCube, I believe. You can't play NES, SNES or N64 games on it. If they made a system that could play any game created for any console Nintendo has ever made, then they'd have my money instead of Sony, since that would encompass far more games than Sony has now.
~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
Only as far back as the GameCube, I believe. You can't play NES, SNES or N64 games on it. If they made a system that could play any game created for any console Nintendo has ever made, then they'd have my money instead of Sony, since that would encompass far more games than Sony has now. It's entirely backwards compatible in a sense. You can download all of the previous titles of the NES/SNES but likely at a price. That is what's being said anyway. Anyhow, I think you're right Xoox. I'm definately getting a PS3. I'm not a Sony fan either, really. I don't really care for the PSP and didn't care for the PS1. | |
I heard something about the Revolution being able to download Nes/Snes/N64 games online. Sorta like piracy, except...legal.
http://the-magicbox.com/0505/game050517a.shtml | |
Xooxer wrote:
I find that last comment insulting. Are you saying I like the Playstation because Sony tells me to, and that I don't really like it, but am just a corporate pawn drooling on command? I am not saying that you specifically are, rather that it has that effect, which it does. Many people are exactly what you describe there. O.o That's not insulting Sony in the least, it's insulting the gamers who actually enjoy the PS. I do not see how such a blatant lack of honor would not be insulting. Rather, it insults Sony to a very high degree. As for the gamers, it is only insulting to those who fall into that category, though they often deny it is the case and therefor don't feel insulted in the same manner. I like Sony, I always have. If I ever do buy a next-gen system, the PS3 is my only choice. Why? Because I can play every PS, PS2 and PS3 game ever crafted on one system. Thousands of games to choose from, with many many more high-quality titles than either X-Box or Nintendo can shake a RAM stick at. PS3 is the best value for the buck, and they have proven to me that they can deliver on the hype, while at the same time catering to gamers by not making their old enjoyable titles obsolete with the new system. Nintendo is just now getting a clue, but it's too late for them to remedy their mistake. As I have already said to others, that has nothing to do with my point; however, I will touch on this topic as well. As for having the best value for the buck, I would have to disagree. I have just as much fun with a Gamecube as you have with a PS2, but the Gamecube costs less. I get the same end result at a lower cost. As for making old titles obsolete, I fail to see how that is the case. They aren't obsolete, they just aren't sold anymore. Similarly, I doubt all the old Sony games are still sold new. I still get just as much fun out of the N64 as I did before the Gamecube was released. And, as others have said, the Gamecube will have the ability to play older Nintendo games as well; however, I don't like the fact that they will charge a fee, even if it is a small one, as they have already made their money off those games and they should come already packaged with the system on a hard disk. As for delivering on the hype, I will merely bring up the fact that Sony has outright promised some things and not gone through with their word. As I recall, one of the Sony executives said, before the PS2 was released, that the PS2 would have significantly reduced load times such that they would be insignificant. There are various other promises I have heard of that they have not delivered, but I don't try to keep up to date on the Sony trivia and thus can't recall them. There is one thing that hyped up a lot of people that I merely laughed at though... when Sony patented that mind-interface technology that it had not even developed yet. If that is legal, why don't I go out and patent a nuclear fission rocket? I haven't developed it yet, but I will! The only clue I see Nintendo getting is that they have to pull back on their research and development of superior devices for the gaming industry in order to have more resources for the popularity contest. X-Box 360? :::shudder::: Microsux' name puts me off, but if they had the library of great games that PS has, I'd probably get it. To me, it's about the games, not how many teraflops the console can crunch. With the Playstation, the pool of titles to choose from is so vast, it would be almost impossible not to find 100 games you love. Can you say that about X-Box or this new Nintendo? Yes, I can find many more games from either Microsoft or Nintendo that I like than I can from Sony. The number of teraflops the console can crunch does not, in itself, make the console more fun, of course. However, having better components in the console does allow it to do more. Many games have been scaled down because the machine they were made for could not handle what was wanted, and that does degrade the quality of the game itself. Console power does have an effect on gameplay. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
There is one thing that hyped up a lot of people that I merely laughed at though... when Sony patented that mind-interface technology that it had not even developed yet. If that is legal, why don't I go out and patent a nuclear fission rocket? I haven't developed it yet, but I will! If this is bad commercial practice every company has violated it at least once. They didn't so much promise it to the users as they did scare their competition. How many times in software development do they promise things that don't make it through, or promise things to shake up the competition? Console power does have an effect on gameplay. Sure it does. I believe you when you say "Graphics do not effect gameplay" but to say a more powerful console can't come out with a better result from a game is wrong. You wouldn't be playing Mario Kart on the Atari would you? On another note, I do understand what you are saying. Like I said before, when the Playstation one first came out everyone at my school couldn't stop talking about it. They would constantly confront me with information about it when I honestly didn't care for it at all. I didn't care for the PS2 at all until I actually played it at my uncles house. I've never had the chance to play anything on the GameCube aside from Smash Brothers Melee -- and to me the N64 version was better. I've played many games on XBox and disliked all but Ninja Gaiden, and even it had many crappy sides to it. All in all, all the consoles are hyped up. If Nintendo didn't care about hype, they would release no information on their system until it was completed. | |
Sarm wrote:
I heard something about the Revolution being able to download Nes/Snes/N64 games online. Sorta like piracy, except...legal. Correct. The Gamecube is pretty much backwards compatable with Gameboy games if you have that add on thingy too. And I've got loads of SNES games that I found/stole/dug up in Animal Crossing- some more engrossing than the real game! (Except Donkey Kong JR. Math, that SUCKS.) | |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
If this is bad commercial practice every company has violated it at least once. I'm not talking about commercials. I'm talking about Sony patenting actual mind-interface technology that they had not even yet developed. Someone posted a link to some news site a while back which contained an article on it. Sure it does. I believe you when you say "Graphics do not effect gameplay" but to say a more powerful console can't come out with a better result from a game is wrong. You wouldn't be playing Mario Kart on the Atari would you? Is the second half of that paragraph directed at me? If so, it doesn't make sense. I had just said that console power does effect gameplay, then you agreed with me; but then you go on as if I said better power can't make better gameplay. I will assume the last part of that paragraph was not directed at me. I've never had the chance to play anything on the GameCube aside from Smash Brothers Melee -- and to me the N64 version was better. I've played many games on XBox and disliked all but Ninja Gaiden, and even it had many crappy sides to it. The Gamecube version of Super Smash Bros. only added new features, so I don't understand how you could like it less unless you have a problem with the features themselves. The new characters, new moves, new levels, shortcut to primary special attack. Either way, I think either version of it beats out all other games of its genre. No hidden moves that make people seem better just because they know how to execute some supersecret fatality move that nobody else knows. All in all, all the consoles are hyped up. If Nintendo didn't care about hype, they would release no information on their system until it was completed. Of course. And again, that's not the root of the problem. Overhype is closer to the root of the problem. Deserved hype is great. And about your second sentence, Nintendo usually does keep things much more secretive. Heck, I was told Nintendo even refused to show the Revolution controller at E3. | |
I agree, the controller is ugly. I think the console looks weird but I love the way it looks.