Well, it's five years to upgrade the specific brand of consoles

For example:

SNES: 1991 N64: 1996 Gamecube 2001
Playstation: 1995 Playstation 2: 2000

So if you buy a Gamecube, you shouldn't have to buy a new system before 2006, 5 years from it's launch. But if you buy more than one brand, then you may upgrade one of your consoles sooner. For example, the PS3 will likely come out in 2005, 5 years after it's launch, but only 4 after the gamecube's launch.

Personally I usually only upgrade every 5 years as I generally only buy Nintendo systems at launch and wait for a price drop on my second console. The Dreamcast was the only non-nintendo system I've bought before a price drop.

I just don't see games that are beautiful graphically but with poor gameplay being all that commercially successful. Yes, I think that increasing the visual quality of a game has become a priority (heck, even each new entry in the Mario series looks better than the last), but still I think developers are still focusing on gameplay as the top priority.

They aren't commercially successful, yet they still are released in droves. I guess the developers bang them out inexpensively enough that they don't have to sell a ton of copies to make a profit.

And we didnt see any of that with the Playstation.

The console cycle may be 5 years. But in my opinion that's 2 years too long. The last 2 years of a system aren't what I would describe as golden. Just my opinion.

jolt is right

Id say the opposite. Thats about when developers start using all the potential.

Just because they come out with new stuff doesn't mean you have to buy it. My Geforce 2 still plays every game I buy just fine. A newer card might allow me to use some insanely high resolution settings, but even at 1024x768 all my games look at least as good as anything on the xbox or gamecube that I have seen thus far.

All in all, I think it's the best bet to go middle of the road in both cases - The high midrange video card at any given time will run about $120, not too bad. Same with video games - my current system of choice is the Dreamcast. I really don't think that the Xbox has any games that are actually more fun to play than the best DC games yet, and I really hated the gamecube games I have played. Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that both will come out with absolutely staggering games in the future. By that time I'll probably be able to pick up a system for $100, and will theoretically be getting something better than what the early adopters got for $300 as there will be a much more impressive library of great games available.

Ever consider that the reason there are so many bad games is because it takes a lot of skill, talent and most importantly time(and even a bit of luck) to make a great game? I don't think the focus on graphics is the major reason why there are a lot of bad games. I think the bigger reason is that publishers are often loath to allow the developers sufficient time to get a game concept executed properly. They rush a game to market and it ends up being terrible. Only the top development teams have the power to demand extra development time from publishers.

FYI, I split off the video discussion from the new video card thread and merged the resulting thread with the one that Josh Hinkle started.

While they were, technically, referring to your comments, and not you, this is not a welcome way of discussing things here. And in the context of this thread, throwing around words like "graphic whores" is also unnecessarily inflammatory.

Let's all try to keep the discussion a little more civil from here on out.

For what it's worth, I thought your SMB vs. Doom 3 joke was pretty funny myself. Using a wink is usually a good idea so people know you're joking though. Sometimes, in the heat of an argument, folks don't pick up on jokes as well as they usually do.

You're wrong. I read the magazine reviews and I see with my own eyes - this problem plagues console games the most. PC games that look great usually play great as well. PC games that suck or are average typically have sucky graphics to go along with it. Games like Extreme Paintbrawl have some of the worst graphics ever and the gameplay was even worse. I'd cite more examples, but you continually fail to back up any of your statements with a single fact so I figure why should I. Besides, I have a feeling you only read Nintendo Power, so you don't really know what you're talking about.

Once again - showing your ignorance... maybe you should drop this argument since it's based on nothing, has no facts to back it up, and is nothing more than a smear campaign against PC gamers. Look - the fact that I purchase the latest video card once in awhile doesn't do anything to the quality of games. Graphics card makers have been trying to keep up with the envelopes that PC game makers have been trying to push. PC Games take at least 2 years to be made - usually more with FPS games. They start working on their games based on the video card features that are available at the time they start. Occasionally, a game is near completion and they decide to add a few features of the newer video cards that have come out since they started the project. Game designers don't want to put their game out with such high system requirements that everyone has to buy the latest video card to play it. Are you nuts?

I don't take it personally actually because I know you have no clue what you're talking about... I do kinda take offense to the fact that you're just trying to push everyone's buttons.

This is a major reason indeed - and one that plagues consoles more often that PCs... console publishers are under constant pressure to deliver games within a certain timeframe so the console maker can have new games out the door every so often and there is only a 4 or 5 year window for each console, so the games have to all come out before the console dies. It's all about timing with consoles. PCs are going to be around for a long time and except for a few cases, most developers are given more freedom WRT time constraints.

Actually - developers start work on new killer ideas and games for the next gen console around this time and put out their crap during the end of a system's life because they want to be the big system seller for the next gen console. The earlier you get your game out when a new system comes along, the less competition you have. I don't know - actually it goes both ways depending on your companie's strategy.

Doom III isn't finished yet. by the time it is released, it's needs will be much higher as details of the game get more complex.

I say wait and see, this game will just be massive.

I remember PSX games came out in dozens per week and maybe One game every month would be worth the buy. there was a LOT of crap on psx.

That's because Doom 3's graphics, like many PC games, will be scalable...which is a point that most anti-PC zealots tend to overlook. There's no way the X-Box will be able to handle Doom 3 as well as a PC.

I doubt Xbox will be able to run a high detailed Doom 3, but it will be able to handle something.

as for Halo. Oh man, it's single player is pretty damn bad. levels that are pretty much exactly the same as each other gets old fast.

think of it this way. On PC, Halo will be able to get mod'ed out like no one's buisness. creating tons and tons of different game possibilities making replay for the game itself 100x's more. so you get some life span with your upgrading.


Wow. I can't believe me and trigger are on the same boat here. It's like bizzaro world.

I was thinking specificly of DK country and Conkers Bad Fur Day. Both took the hardware to new levels and both were among the last (if not the last) to come out on their consoles. Its obvious all the tweaks and optimizations have been found by that stage. Then Id say what youre referring to. The hoarding for the next gen. Like ED just now being released even though rumor has it they were nearly done with the N64 version and started damn near from scratch to give it to the Cube.

Definitely. Like I said, this is a problem that plagues both PCs and consoles.

The playstation was by far the worst in this regard, and next so some of Sega's crap add ons and odd ball systems like 3DO, I'd say the PS1 is my least favorite console of all time.

I got it just for FFVII, and there was really only a handful of games beyond that that I really liked.

Maybe Josh - you should stop making statements about PC games since you've admitted that you've never been a PC gamer - it would be like me talking to a bunch of doctors about which organs are the toughest to remove.

Gaming isn't exactly surgery. I keep on on PC games fairly well even though I don't play them on the odd chance that they'll start getting some exclusives that interest me enough to get into it.

I guess I'm not really referring to you, $150 sounds like a decent price for a video upgrade. More so to the people I seem to encounter playing online over the last 6-12 months. Always going on about their $300-400 GeForce4s (obviously they're don't have a nose for bargains, although the card is more exp in Australia) and how great it is.. of course then I frag them a few times and feel better .



Well I said prev that I thought that was a big flaw but I still love the game. As for mods, name me 1-5 good single player mods for any FPS game. Typically mods are all multiplayer, while single player is one area that has been sadly lacking in FPS games over the past few years.

Anyway I definitely agree that if they don't overhaul Halo significantly by the time it comes out on PC in 2003 then it won't stand up too well against the new crop of PC shooters slated for then. I don't even know why they're bothering, anyone who wants to play Halo will have played it on xbox by then.

Chris

as for those who "Don't have any bargin sense" when buying a g-force 4.. hmm, Guess you weren't around for the whole best buy screw up.

I spend alot of time balls deep but I aint giving gynecological advice.

I think you are all being extremely rough on Josh, especially you Trigger. I have read EVERYONE's comments, and what he has said hasn't struck me as very inflammatory, especially when compared to yours. You keep blindly stating how inferior consoles are in EVERY way, as if nothing good has ever come of one? You have some kind of elitist opinion about gaming that seriously I couldn't stand to read in your posts. Can't anyone have a civil discussion? Although in this case seriously why is anyone even bothering to have one? Some people are console gamers, some people are PC gamers, and some are both. They really are 2 completely different animals, although they are getting more and more similar. I don't think they are "light-years apart" as Trigger stated.
Everyone just take a breath and end this pointless debate. All I see is people getting frustrated and lashing out. Can't we all just agree to disagree, and enjoy our games that we prefer? I personally prefer console games since I don't like the mouse keyboard combo that most PC games think is the best way to play games. It's just a difference in taste, and I don't find the need to dis PC games because I also enjoy many PC games.