Which one better. Xbox or PS3?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry, do the majority of gamers still play NES, SNES, Genesis, Game gear? No? Oh, I wonder why... Oh right, it's because newer systems have replaced the older ones and then time made the older ones disappear from mainstream gaming lol, silly me. I wonder how that happened...

5th, 6th and 7th generation consoles are still worth playing.
Limited amount of time makes playing all of the countless thousands of classic games impossible.

So ?
Big whoop, mister Sarcastic.

If mainstream gamers want to box themselves into a corner, then they can do that if they wish.
But that in no way negates the solid fact that they do have the option to play single player or offline co-op games if they choose to.

You can pretend otherwise if you wish, but the fact remains that nobody has to do anything just because the majority of other people seem to be doing it.
If the majority of people were stabbing themselves up the nose with scissors, then would you be debating that nobody else has any option but to do the same thing ?
What's that ? No ? Well, there you go then.

In fact, if you actually look then you'd also see that many people are perfectly happy to buy (and assumedly play) re-released Megadrive, Gamegear, NES games etc on their newer consoles. As in, games which are identical to the original versions... not even tarted up new versions. Of course, many retro console emulators remain popular. Me oh my, silly me for thinking this is true... just because it obviously is.


So yeah, you can follow the herd wherever you go if you wish, but there's no good reason to expect everybody else to do that if the herd are flowing in a stupid or self-defeating direction ; because there is always the option to do something else.

lmao, you really are laughable. Not only have you completely missed my point altogether, but you've also implied that I've said that people don't have a choice in whether or not they're going to play one kind of game over another lol.
People always have a choice in what they play, of course, but that counts for absolutely nothing in the gaming industry because there are always better options that appeal to people more than older games do. That's the way it's been for the entirety of the existence of games, they evolve into something new, and the old is left on a shelf by all but the few who remember the oldest stuff. The mainstream's ease of access to newer and better games and consoles will always exceed the older games and consoles by enormous amounts, meaning that when newer consoles come out and they don't allow for single player or whatever on a huge scale, people who like that aspect of gaming are going to be left with the old, and eventually that gets very very boring. After that, the older stuff will become inaccessible and the newer generations of gamers will be left with only one kind of game play experience: online. I personally enjoy single player games, but with the dwindling amount of good games with single player out there right now, I have to play older games that I've played and beaten 500 times over. If games were to go completely online, people like me would be stuck with those games.
In fact, to prove my point, pick 5 games, now those 5 are the only ones you can play for 6 years. That'd get rather boring don't you think? Try it with every form of media that you see/play/listen to, I guarantee you'll quickly make the choice to find new material.

Oh my goodness, the irony of you calling me laughable is in itself laughable.

(1) I seriously doubt that you have played every single player game in existence "500 times" ... as you imply.

(2) Why on earth should I only choose 5 or 6 games ?
As things are now, I already own hundreds of perfectly good games.
Even if no further games or consoles were ever made, I would still have all of those to play (including many which I've not played yet) , as well as a bountiful supply being available on Ebay, Steam etc... if I ever ran out.

I snigger in your general direction, given that for the past few hours I've been playing a single player game which I've already completed twice... it's a PS2 game which was tarted up with hi-res graphics for the PS3 and Xbox 360. I have been enjoying every bit of it.

Of course, if you seriously think there would be no demand for older games with graphical enhancements of this sort in future generations of console then you might want to do some actual market research instead of falling back on ridiculous strawman arguments like "if you played only 5 games for 6 years then you would get bored, so this makes it essential to buy new games consoles."

seriously... I LOLz at the flimsiness of your argumentation.

1. I never said I've played every single player game, and I certainly didn't imply that. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, you're sitting there and coming to baseless conclusions and honestly think that is somehow a point to be made, that's why you're laughable, you can't even carry a valid point without making sh*t up. If you are doing any "lolz" at my argument, it's because you're so limited by your own random fiction in this conversation that you can't even figure out what I'm talking about. Honestly that in itself is the funniest part of this whole conversation because you can't even realize it, you just throw up random crap and expect it to fly magically into the real world as if it were somehow truth.

2. Because that emphasizes the point I'm trying to make, which was not that people need to "buy new consoles", rather that new consoles and development are limiting us with their crap, but since you obviously can't understand that, this conversation is over. I'll not waste my time further with such a useless conversation.

What a waste of time.

I seriously doubt that you have played every good single player game in existence 500 times.... that's ridiculous to claim, as even you admit yourself.
I would bet a zillion £££ that there are hundreds of good single player games in existence which you've never even played before.
If you'd rather play games which you've played "500 times" though, then that's your choice to make.

Which games have you played "500 times" from previous generations of console ?
I suspect this doesn't even cover 1% of the good single player games, somehow....


I do not find the current developments in games consoles to limit my gaming endeavours in the slightest.
If you choose to allow them to do that, then again... that's entirely your choice to make.

Maybe you should consider the tosh you write for a bit longer before hitting the "submit post" button, because some of the nonsense you come out with is just bizarre.

And yes, it is a waste of time talking to you.
I quite agree.

For the last time, I've never claimed to have played "every single player game in existence", that's just one example of the nonsense that you've pulled out of your *ss to try to pass your posts for real points. The fact is, you haven't held a real point since the start of the conversation, which brings me to the second highlighted sentence: You're the only one here who's posting nonsense here, and let me say that it's so far beyond bizarre that there isn't a word for it. Reread my posts very carefully, then come back and try again. Or not, I personally don't care, arguing about it with you is about as pointless as trying to make a brick wall speak by magic, useless and infinitely disappointing.

.. and yet you seriously seem to have taken the notion that the amount of good single player games is somehow "dwindling" ... and honestly seem to believe that you are somehow obligated to play "older games which [you] have beaten 500 times over".
I actually find it extremely unlikely that you have "beaten" even one single player game 500 times, especially since you never even bothered to answer my question about that.... preferring to froth pointlessly instead.

Given that you just seem to be rambling and spouting nonsense while making no actual coherent points with any merit, I seriously doubt that engaging in the epically futile and pointless endeavour of reading your witterings any more 'carefully' would be worthwhile.

If you imagine that when new consoles are released, every person on the planet will be forced to burn or permanently delete their entire collection of single player games except a select 5 of their choice (which are the only ones they can play for the next 6 years, with further purchase or free download of games being impossible), then you are completely out of touch with reality.

Or maybe the issue here is that you just don't appreciate the concept of single player games.
See the thing is, by definition such games require a single player.... that being a single (one) person.
This is not like multiplayer games... which by definition require a multiple number of people (that is, more than one).
See the thing is... if other people stop playing multiplayer games ... that's the ones which need more than one person to play... this does make it impossible for people to play them when they want to.
On the other hand.... single player games (which I hope you can manage to remember only need one person to be played) only need a single person who wishes to play them, in order for the game to commence successfully.

See, what you don't seem to have grasped (and I have perhaps wrongly assumed this was stark staringly obvious) is that every single player game can be played by a person on the relevant console for that game, regardless (and independent of) what the mainstream consumerist masses are all doing regarding games consoles.

Excellent way of describing precisely what you're doing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than to fill your need to continue said useless conversation, especially when it's being based on nothing but assumptions and completely untrue statements. Feel free to continue talking to yourself because unless you reread my posts you won't be able to form any real point that I'd be interested in whatsoever, especially since you're points so far have been riddled with obvious subversives that were created from your misunderstanding of what has been said, as well as you making things up trying to say that I have said things that I haven't. A careful reread of my posts would show that to be the case but since you want to remain in said ignorance I will no longer entertain the notion that you're worth speaking with on the subject matter. Good day.

Yes, yes... you have no idea what actual point you were even making, and are now refusing to bother even explaining what you were prattling on about.
Many of your previous comments make no sense, and so rather than explain yourself you have resorted to making petty comments and refusing to make any constructive comments. I doubt that many people can actually make sense of your sentence salad comments, and I see no point in further discussion with somebody who avoids direct questions in favour of rambling on and making a feeble effort to snipe from the sidelines.
You don't seem to have a good grasp on gamer dynamics and the concepts involved in the gaming industry, and I have seen this in other topics as well as this one.
I seriously doubt that re-reading your posts will yield any meaningful information, or would be any less pointless than it was the first time.

My, you know... you really shouldn't go upsetting yourself by getting all riled up like this.
Why not chill out with a nice single player game, like I've been doing.

One of you seems to be saying that the game industry should not lose focus on single player games, and the other is saying that you can just play older games if that is a problem. Somewhere along the line Ladywoofwoof has taken something Jaden has wrote to mean that they have played all good old games.

I don't think that is very fair, I too think that game companies should have focus on single player games, as it would be great to see the genre evolve beyond having terrible or unfair AI, better stories, good graphics, and other ways that does not make me have to rely on strangers in games which I tend to find uncomfortable.

Not really.

I think it's a certainty that 'the gaming industry' is unlikely to completely reject single players for an entire generation of consoles made by different manufacturers.
The original claim was that after the next generation of consoles is produced then people might have no option but to pay up for yearly subscriptions to all of the computer games which they play - which is also extremely unlikely.

Some game developers make games which are exclusively single player, and some others do not.
Some developers make paid subscription games, and many pothers do not.
It it unlikely that such variety will ever vanish.

Game developers "should" (and will) make whichever games they wish to make, and/or will produce games which they can make profitably.

However, the point I was making is that even in the event that for some bizarre reason every game producer in the entire world decided to dedicate themselves to only making multiplayer subscription only games for an entire generation of consoles... there would still be plenty of non-subscription single player experiences around which are perfectly good, which it is perfectly possible to play if people want to. I seriously doubt that any gamer has played all of them already... and certainly not 500 times, whatever they might claim... so there ought to be plenty of choice among them.