Kind of quiet around here so I thought I'd just throw this out into the mix http://www.ve3d.com/poll.taf?action=archives&pollid=104

Depends on your criteria. For pure hardware raw power its the X-Box. For sheer game options its the PS2.

Id have to say if the question is best OVERALL CONSOLE you gotta go with the one with the ethernet port, internal hard drive and most graphical potential. Of course this completely discounts the most important part... the games. The best console doesnt really add up to much if you cant play the games you want on it.

Has to be the PS2. The only way to judge a console is by the games you can play on it. The PS2 has a years worth of games, opposed to a month and a half for the other two consoles, and their are more good games on it than the other consoles right now. This is a completely unbiased opinion as I don't have a PS2 and only have a Gamecube and Dreamcast.

If they mean most hyped console of the year, the xbox takes it . a console aint nothin w/o games to play it on, and there not enough really good games yet IMO. and considering the xbox is not even a month old, how can it be the console of the year?(last time i checked a year is 365 days) As much as i hate to say it, i think ps2 deserves the title. with the dreamcast dropout this year and the kickass titles that came out on the ps2, the black skinny box work hard this year, it deserves that title

dreamcast hands down

If we're talking about catalog, yes it would be PS2. Though when it comes to the actual game system, hands down, XBOX. I have both and I have to say I'm blown away at the difference in framerate of games, graphics, and load times on the XBOX. Really makes the PS2 look like an inferior gaming system. Unfortunately, the library of good games is slim for the XBOX right now. Tuesday I get my gamecube so it'll be interesting to see if my opinion changes. XBOX!!!!

Well if we are talking console then I say Gamecube. But if you are talking home entertainment computer system then I guess either PS2 or Xbox. But as far as gaming consoles go I say the Cube....as it is strictly a console.

I was originally leaning toward voting PS2, but upon looking back at the quality and variety of games available I think I'd have to throw my vote behind the Dreamcast.

I know the sun has already set on my DC (even though units are in production once again), but no console burned up as much time as my DC. PS2 would be my second choice as after a year of snowboarding and football games there are finally some nice titles coming out (MGS2, GTA3, etc.).

I guess I would put GameBoy Advance next as while it landed with a big splash, it has kinda disappeared in the Christmas "big-system" rush.

Rounding out the list would be the X-Box, as they have delivered some of their big guns (Halo, DOA3) while we're still really waiting for a good GameCube killer app (although Rogue Leader came close).

So for those with ADD:

1) Dreamcast - for sheer breadth and quality of titles
2) PS2 - lackluster start of year hurt them, but they are more than making up for it now
3) GBA - big splash followed by small ripples
4) X-Box - Followed up their launch with some quality titles
5) GCN - Still waiting for the masterpieces to come next year

1. DREAMCAST - $50 and tons of games not to mention it can play your favorite emus
2. PS2 - TONS of Games
3. GBA - TONS of Everything and soon everyone will have one.
4. XBOX - Excellent launch and won the hype wars
5. NGC - Too many flagship games delayed until next year.

I'm a big Nintendo Fan too. I love my NGC, but I just feel let down because I don't have the 3rd party games that I want, and some of the ones I want are 3-4 months behind the x-box/PS2.

Dreamcast - The console I played most of this year.

It's by far my winner for this year and last.

I too give 2 big thumbs up for dreamcast. Great games, great prices, awesome for multiplayer, butt loads of fun! Glad there's others that agree with me!

I almost said Gamecube because the games I've been playing for it have been ridiculously fun to play. Super Smash Bros Melee is a dream come true. There's so much about it thats awesome, like when I heard the Fourside music in it for the first time(remixed from earthbound) I was jumping for joy, or the Zelda temple music, nearly brought a tear to my eye .

But for the systems that just came out I think its too early to say if they are system of the year(maybe next year) even though they're great, I'm going to go with PS2 since it easliy has the most top quality games on any system. MGS2, DMC, FFX, GTA3, need I say more.

DC gets an honorable mention, lots of great games, awesome price, too bad sega cancelled it.

Dreamcast.

I'll vote for:

XBOX

For the power and potential.

We all know that the Xbox is the most powerful system of the big three, but based on the games available, I would have to say PS2.. However, it is an unfair comparison since the PS2 has had a one year head start.

As far as hardware goes, I don't think that the X-Box's power edge is sufficient to make it system of the year after four weeks. From the estimations I've read, there is less difference between any of these consoles than existed between the PSX and N64, or between the Dreamcast and the PS2.

Supposedly, all the systems can push about the same amount of geometry, and the main benefits are more RAM in the X-Box, and a few special effects, such as hardware support for bump mapping.

The X-Box was right to offer an Ethernet port in the box, but the hard drive is an undetermined quantity, as far as I'm concerned. Putting it in there makes the box bigger and more expensive, and makes it heavier, easier to break, and harder to move around. While the hard drive has improved load times, I don't think it improves gameplay in anything on the horizon. For game saves, I honestly prefer memory cards, since you can take the saves with you to play on someone else's system.

People say the differences, as far as size, are just cosmetic, but there is a practical use for the "pick-up-and-carry" design of the cube, and the PS2 is much easier to move around than the X-Box. I can carry a gamecube in a backpack, and the PS2 is small enough to carry on to a plane when I travel between home and school.

The X-Box, because of the heightened size and fragile nature of the hard drive, is essentially anchored in one place. Carting it to a friend's apartment is not just inconvenient, but also risky. PC gamers who regularly cart their computers to LAN parties won't be fazed, but the X-Box is the least portable console ever.

Unless it's priced very cheaply, I don't see hard drive add-ons selling well for either PS2 or GC, and I don't expect to see hard drives included in the next generation of consoles, though network plugs almost certainly will be.

Anandtech has a great article breaking down each console piece by piece. CPU, motherboards chipsets, video/audio components, right down to the T&L core instruction sets.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1566&p=14


Even without the specs you can see with your own eyes. The differences between the DOA2 versions of the DC and the PS2 were a dead heat but the NHL2002, Max Payne and Starfighter games all look and move signifigantly better on the Box.

It's really not that simple to compare the graphics capabilities of consoles. Eventhough it may appear that you've got the same game playing on two consoles, the same effort was probably not made to make that game look as good as it can on each console.

The better way to compare, I think, is to simply look at the best games for each console. Compare MGS2 & GT3 to Halo & DOA3 to Rogue Leader 2 & Wave Race. To my eyes, they're all in the same ball park. While the XBox has arguably more hardware muscle, I'm not sure that it translates to anything obvious on the screen.

Disagree. but that's OK!

wow, xbox and gamecube have only been out for about a month, and they still got votes for console of the YEAR....


my vote... dreamcast

PS2 had crap available for it for most of the year.

I agree-Next year-X-box

Playstation 2 Hands Down!

Maybe next year for gamecube and xbox since they were just recently released with very few and boring games. But I still think the PS2 will win next year.

Well, Max Payne is a PC port, and X-box is PC hardware, running on Direct X drivers. I think that the problems with Max Payne on PS2 are the results of a poor port, rather than PS2 hardware limits, especially considering that games as detailed, or more detailed than Max Payne look great on PS2. I expect XBox to have the best looking PC ports of any console, because there's hardly any alteration to make to get a PC game to run on the XBox.

Starfighter was retextured and reoptimized, but they could turn around and release the Special Edition version on the PS2. There's nothing there the PS2 can't do, and even IGN's XBox reviewer said that. Rogue Leader on GC looks much better than either version of Starfighter, but that doesn't mean GC is a more powerful piece of hardware.

As far as NHL, I haven't seen it on XBox, but I heard it was a pretty straight port, and that the biggest change was a couple of optimizations to the framerate. Once again, the improvements could be done on PS2. In fact, there was enough leftover power in PS2 that an entire vector unit in SSX Tricky and NHL 2002 is used for DTS sound. So there's plenty of power in the PS2.

NHL is an EA product. If anybody shoud know the PS architecture by now it should be its biggest supporter. How long will it take before developers start tapping all this "leftover power"? Ive been playing the PS2 version of NHL2002 just about every weekend ( well more watching than playing ) it gets overwhelmed when too much is going on onscreen. Thats not exactly EAs first PS2 title, yet their XBox version is smooth as a babys *** first shot out the gate.

As far as using an entire vector for sound... thats needed on PS2 titles. The box has isochronous channels dedicated to those functions to keep bandwidth that should be used for gameplay for use by gameplay. If you read the Anandtech article I linked to you can see its not really close. The article is from when the Cube was released and they could finally tear all three apart and directly compare them. Its certainly more than "a little more RAM" in the Box.

To see posts saying that more effort was taken porting titles to a new system compared to one thats been out for a year is a weak excuse, and not very believable. To discount Max Payne as "PC port" is slightly more valid but the fact that Starfighter had quite a bit more development time for the PS2 version than the Box's sort of makes you think its not a fluke. If this continues and next christmas we have superior versions of 95% of the PS2s strongest titles on the Box and a online network with Unreal Championship, Halo2 and all the 2Ks will that convince some of you Playstation die hards?

XBOX sucks.
Gamecube sucks.
PS2 sucks.

That is all I see and its threads like these that start all this debate. Seriously, some people really feel inferior because of a machine. Its just like people talking about who's sports car is faster. And you know what they say about those people.....