No, I have. I own an 360 and HDTV and have played GRAW, Oblivion, and Pefect Dark Zero. They're nice, but I just don't find them to be a huge leap over latter-day XBOX titles, compared to what we've seen in the past.

Joe Molotov

Complete opposite of what i think and im really hard to impress. Lost Planet in particular impressed the crap out of me.

Great, thanks for proof that you arent involved in future gaming for the most part by living in the past and playing snes games vs the latest top tier titles. This proves that you could care less if the ps3/xbox 360 didnt even exist and concludes your fanboyism is beyond recognition. Your opinion = meaningless.

p.s. - I feel sorry for your lack of gaming vision. You're missing out on some amazing gaming experiences by living in the past.

I can see what you're getting at, but you're overlooking several things.

1. First of all, add on peripherals don't work. If they released the Wii controller for the Gamecube, the majority of consumers wouldn't buy it. When the majority of consumers don't own the peripheral, 3rd party companies won't develop for it. This has been proven time and again.

2. The Wii supports built in Wifi for online gaming. Free online gaming to boot. While it doesn't have the same funcionality as Xbox Live, it will still allow you to play great games online with your friends. Many would argue that the friend code system provides a more enjoyable experience because you don't have to play with jerks or racist 12 year olds.

The built in Wifi can also interact with the DS providing even more ways to play games differently. It basically adds a touch screen controller to the already impressive Wii control abilities. Again, while this could be added into the Gamecube, most people wouldn't buy an expensive Wifi adapter for the cube.

3. Built in flash memory and built in Wifi allow for the Virtual Console. At launch, the Wii will be able to play Nes, Snes, N64, Sega Genesis, and Turbo Grafix 16 games. That's a few thousand games you won't be able to play on another console.

The built in flash memory will also get rid of the need for memory cards too.

4. The Wii does have upgraded graphics over the Gamecube. In fact, it's roughly 2-3 times more powerful than the Gamecube. I admit that I think the lack of HD support sucks, but most consumers won't use it this generation anyways. The lack of HD support also keeps the cost of the system down.

I could tear your post apart but i will however just concentrate on this one. Wow, all those games that couldnt be played on any other system.. EXCEPT FOR THE ORIGINAL SYSTEMS THEMSELVES! Your statement is comedy. Id rather play them on the original console and have a actual physical cartridge for my purchase vs some game that no one other then myself can play on my own console.

Again, not everyone is into nostalgia and most of those old games get worse as you try them, the fire isnt there for these old titles. Very few can get away with it, such as Punch Out, but a lot come out just looking sorry, and a lot of people out there will be realising this shortly.

First off, I dare you to attempt to "tear my post apart". Go ahead, I'd like to see you argue the rest of my points, because you'll fail and come out looking like a fool.

Console. Singular. I failed to point out nothing.

Your proposed better solution is to track down several old systems, which will cost a decent chunk of change. Nes and Snes systems sell for about $40-$60 each themselves. Not only that, but you have to find systems in good condition as the Nes is 20 years old and the Snes, TG16, and Genesis are roughly 15 years old. After buying all those old systems, you be pretty damn close to the cost of a Wii actually.

Then you have the issue of tracking down the games you want and then having to buy those as well. Some of the more rare Snes games can go for pretty large amounts. Games like Earthbound, Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger sell from anywhere from $30-$50 each.

Does the battery still work in that Final Fantasy Nes cartridge? Do you know how to solder to replace it?

Like I originally said, this is all added value built into the Wii.

Of course nostalgia won't be important to everyone, but nothing is important to everyone. I hate sports and racing games as I feel they're basically all the same and I don't have fun playing them. Do I discredit them for being on current gen systems? No, because there are people that like them and want to play them.

There are people who will buy a Wii just for this "added value" bonus feature, just as there are people who will buy a 360 for Halo 3 and a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4.

These are words to live by and the reason I actually like Nintendo's online service.

Also people seem to think that those of us that buy a Wii aren't buying anything else. I personally will own at least two, but why would I buy two similar consoles in the 360 and PS3 when I can own one of those and a Wii and have no game overlap at all instead of just a small handful of worthwhile exclusives and a ton of extra cost with a PS3 and Xbox360 ownership.

Both Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 support Wifi as well. No advantage there. 3 times the graphics of the Gamecube is pathetic compared to the Xbox 360 that has 7 times the graphics of the Xbox and the Playstation 3 which has 35 times the graphics of the Playstation 2. I swear to God I am so unbelevably confused at the excitment for the Wii. I never in a million years thought people could get excited over a new console because of something stupid as a new controller. The controller doesn't even look that good.

I believe only 1 of the 4 360 and PS3 models support WiFi out of the box. The others require additional cost. But, yes, all are capable of that feature.

It's been a while since I got my mathematics degree. Can you elaborate a bit more on how the 360 has 7 times the Xbox capabilities? And, if you have time, how the PS3=35*PS2. It is a little to early for me to try to figure this out...

Isn't this the same thing the Record Industry said about the iTunes store with Music?

I love the math. For some reason a system 35 times as powerful as a PS2 has graphics that are nearly identical to a system only 7 times more powerful than an Xbox. As mentioned over and over if it was all about graphics then the PS2 and DS would have both been failures. Gameplay is still king.

People who say that Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are identical are doing an unfair comparison. They are comparing second generation Xbox 360 titles to first generation Playstation 3 titles. Compare all Playstation 3 demos to Xbox 360s launch titles and it is clear the Playstation 3 is more powerful. Also since the Xbox is more powerful then the Playstation 2 those numbers are going to be smaller.

I never claimed the Wii's built in Wifi was an advantage over the other consoles. You said that a new system system has to be technically better than the previous and I gave several reasons why it was better.

As has already been pointed out, you just pulled numbers out of your ass there.

Your only concern appears to be graphics and you are the epitome of what is wrong with the gaming industry.

We are comparing them to all the real demos. Killzone 2 was not real. It was all prerendered. As was almost everything from E3 2005.

Comparing PS3 launch games, what little is left, vs 360 launch games isn't a fair comparison either. The devs will have much more time with final hardware on the PS3. Use GRAW as an example of the difference 4 months can make.

MGS 4, the best looking game shown so far and a 2nd gen PS3 game doesn't look any better than Gears of War. You can argue art style and little points, of course, but the fact that you can argue it proves my point.

Not at all. I had a PS2, X-box and Gamecube this gen and tried pretty much every popular game on them. Some I liked, most I did not. A much smaller number of games I'd rate as AAA than in prior generations. So I'm not missing anything.

Quit trying to talk like your opinion goes for everyone.

And no one is saying that it is there for everyone. People are just saying why the are excited about the Wii, what they think it innovative/appealing about it to them.

You're the only one trying to generalize your opinion beyond yourself.

I'm excited about the Wii, it's controller, potential innovative games and the Virtual Console. Do I think a lot of people will be? Who knows, but from the E3 buzz it seems pretty likely. But all I can say is I can't wait for it and will pick one up ASAP.

Will it sell like hot cakes and be the number 1 system? Highly unlikely and I really couldn't care less.

I care about playing games that I personally enjoy. Not about owning the number 1 system, or having what people like you think are the latests and greatest games.

Gaming is a silly little hobby to kill time when I have nothing better to do. Thus all that matters is that I'm playing games that I have fun playing. Simple as that.

It's not just the controller. It's that the games they showed looked incredibly fun to many of us, especially Mario Galaxies.

And the excitement for the controller is that it gives a new, more active way to interact with games, which is exciting for some of us who have had fun with more active games in the past (Donkey Konga, DDR, Guitar Hero etc.).

The point is people are excited to play new games that look fun to them, as that is the point of gaming.

Not to just marvel over graphics 35x better than the PS2. And I never thought in a million years that anyone would still buy into that Sony hype after the showing at E3. The PS3 graphics will be largely indistniguishable from the 360s.

http://www.ps3land.com/faq.php

The number 35x as good as the Playstation 2 has been circling for months. I did not make up the number. Also Resistance Fall of Man (A confirmed launch title) was playable in real time and both looked superior to any of the Xbox 360s launch titles. I know the Killzone thing was fake and I know that Sony tryed to make the improvement seem higher then it actually is but there is definutly a noticeable improvement between the two consoles.

Ok, there's a source, although I wouldn't trust ps3land.com to be objective when comparing things not on a spec sheet. But they're talking potential processing power, not graphical capabilities as you implied.

From the link you provided. "It is said to be 35x more powerful than the PlayStation 2 is."

It's a BS number that's speculatory. There's also a difference between theoretical performance and real time performance.

Resistance does look better than the 360 launch titles, but it's been in development as long as 2nd gen 360 titles.

The PS3 launch titles will have more time with final hardware. PS3 dev kits have had the Cell processor and a comparable video card for about a year already. Devs didn't get 360 final dev kits until 3-4 months before launch and had to have the games finished a month before that. Before that, they were running on underpowered Apple G5 systems.

Like I said before, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Not really. Resistance Fall of Man devolopers had only devolopement kits while the makers of Gears of War had the final console for half a year now. Despite this the games look pretty similar. Proof that Playstation 3 is more powerful but not by much. Nothing to make you trash your 360. Just noticeable improvements if your the kinda guy who looks for those things.