2005's Console Hardware In Review

Next Generation is running an examination of the 2005 hardware announcements from the big three console companies. They look at details and benchmarks released so far for the next-gen consoles. From the article: "The wraps were taken off the PlayStation 3 at Sony's pre-E3 press conference. Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."

Comments

Re:FIST SPORT!

[Sage of Lightning]

You know there is an alternative to both evil corperations: NINTENDO!

Oh god, I am going to defend microsoft

[SmallFurryCreature]

1. Installable on whose OS? 2. MS has had similar campaings with its butterfly logo. 3. MS even had fake evidence in an actual court. Much of the x-box early material was later shown to be faked as well. 4. At least Sony keeps them running, MS just cancels its MMO's.

No sony is just still a padawan, MS is the true dark lord of the sith.

What would be real scary if the two join up.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[oGMo]

MS can have the honor of having their logo visible on a plastic box in my living room if they put out the best gaming system out there.

Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.

Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.

This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.

This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.

So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.