can we stop pretending either console was good?
Can we stop pretending either console was good?
Other urls found in this thread:
gamespot.com
twitter.com
Who's pretending?
No, they were both fine consoles with solid libraries.
Just be cause they sold like shit due to format mistakes doesn't make that any less true.
Can we ban OP for being a faggot with bad opinions?
>not good
mario 64
perfect dark
Zelda:OOT
Zelda:MM
Bomberman 64
Geomon Ninja
Diddy Kong Racing
goldeneye
Space Station Silicon valley
Bankjo Kazooie
Banjo Tooie
Starfox
Mario Kart
Mario Parties
Mischief Maker
Conker
Blast Corps
Pilot Wings
format mistakes? the only format mistake nintendo made was ever switching to disks
I too hate video games.
How do these two compare to WIIU?
Both have much better libraries than Wii U
>good
Yeah, because both were great. Especially the N64 for platformers, collect-a-thons, and fun multiplayer games.
I also owned a PS1 for all the RPGs and horror games.
Or was this suppose to be a shit posting thread for poorfags who could only afford one?
no one besides nintendo bebes ever said they were any good. both have fucktarded controllers and shitty libraries
typical sonygger
You realize the whole reason Square broke their exclusivity and moved FF to Playstation was because producing those games on carts was too expensive, right?
It might be find now that you can make small carts with big storage spaces pretty cheap but it wasn't smart back then.
FF is shit anyway so no big loss for ninty
They were okay just outclassed utterly by PS2.
No, The Wii and DS was where nintendo died.
>Zelda with only a touch screen
>Zelda with motion plus only
N64 is worth having just for the god-tier wrestling games.
>Nintendo makes literal masterpieces that change the landscape of the industry forever on their consoles
>babbies complain because theres not enough mediocre 3rd party shit or a DVD player to justify their purchase
this is why the game industry is shit
consumers just don't know what is good for them
Depends on what you wanted
N64 was the definition of quantity vs quality when compared to the PS2.
The N64 had some solid 10/10s but a small library
the PS1 didn't have as many revolutionary games as N64 but had a large plethora of really good ones.
gamecube was nintendo's last good console
whoops, meant PS1
Lol classic nintendrone
Well idk about you OP but i had lots of fun with both.
The money is always right.
Sorry sony doesn't make consoles as well as nintendo I didn't choose to be a nintendrone but the industry gives me no other viable choice.
PC + Nintendo is the way to go anything else is pointless
thanks for the blog but nobody asked.
>my opinions are facts
kys
thanks for the (You) :)
Defective hardware, counting repaired units as sold and selling your console in third world countries years later will do that for sales.
tell me why my opinion is wrong
>The money is always right
But Nintendo actually made more money than Sony with the GC and GBA despite the PS2 outselling both combined.
yeah, actual 3rd party support boosts sales.
surprising i know.
N64 was good.
Every Nintendo console since N64 is garbage though.
source: your ass
by your logic the 360 should be the best selling console of all time
but the PS3 beat it
>n64 was good
>gamecube was garbage
wow what a shit opinion
But doesn't make money, Nintendo makes more on their own first party games.
The PS2 was fairly reliable, the breakdown rate was very low.
The 360 had a fucking 35% failure rate, and that didn't help sales at all.
>muh quality
The N64 had fucking trash too
It had Daikatana for gods sake
Not to mention the other mediocre piece of shit games like Starshot 64 (more like Starshit), Bust a Move, Jet Force Gemini, Pokémon Snap and so on
See? Classic nintendrone. You girls are hilarious.
i'm not going to spoonfeed you
Implying its all about money. Sony achieved complete... global... saturation
The audience changed. Also the amount of people willing to spend upwards of $70+ for a game in the late 90s was small. Especially by that time when the PS1 had a shit load of $15-$30 greatest hits games.
Gamecube was just meh overall. XBox is the winner of that generation far as quality goes imo.
Listen up little edgy kiddo!
I'm as "Sonygger" as sonygger can get these days, but there are certain things that need to be left untouched and two of those things are the N64 and the Gamcube.
Both systems were amazing with great libraries and many masterpieces that became classics.
Thus said, little edgy shits who go through a rebelious and contrarian phase and weren't even around when those console launched such as yourself will never be able to change history.
Just like the nigger revisionists who try to WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIIIET everything.
TL;DR STFU and wait till your balls have dropped and always listen to what older people have to say, because they have been longer on this hunk of spinning dirt and therefore speak from valuable life experience which you still lack.
The Wii sold a shit ton and it didn't have much third party support (other than shovelware).
Obviously underage, they lost a class action lawsuit over this bullshit.
gamespot.com
>The PS2 was fairly reliable, the breakdown rate was very low.
Absolute bullshit.
You don't even know how consoles work do you?
Sony gets a cut of every sale of every PS2 disk.
Please do some research before spouting stupid fucking nonsense.
...
PS2 >>> Xbox
Not even a debate.
Gamecube was legendary, 64 was indeed mediocre
The 360 didn't beat the PS3 but it broke down more.
Your logic is flawed and you are wrong, accept it.
But why? multiplats ran way better on the xbox and it had better exclusives
>The PS2 was fairly reliable, the breakdown rate was very low.
Not him, but it was actually fairly high relative to what is normal, 360 just made every other console look indestructible. PS2 was known for failing occasionally, with disc dries often being the problem, it did have a higher failure rate than the Xbox or Gamecube and most consoles released prior as well. 1-2% is normal, perhaps even a little high, PS2 was certainly well above that.
No one is pretending. We already know they were excellent consoles.
Nice bait though.
retard
>Wii didn't have 3rd party support
you're really dumb, dude
see
Then why did Nintendo make more money selling fewer games and fewer consoles?
Sony always were willing to push the hardware envelope even if it means selling at a loss
Meanwhile Nintendo are the biggest fucking kikes in the business who charge ridiculous prices for decade old hardware in a new packaging
Fuck them
>better exclusives
It is a debate. The xbox had vastly better video quality with most games worth anything supporting at least 480p and the best for multiplats. Some fun party games like cell damage that also was part pf the pretty great launch line up.
You're delusional, my man.
But the money is always right
Legendarily bad maybe
It had fuckall games
Even first party sucked
The best GC game was a fucking PS1 remake
The PS3 was also 600 fucking dollars at launch and was supported for way longer than the 360.
>Sony always were willing to push the hardware envelope even if it means selling at a loss
Delusional.
Nope, not even close.
PS2 had Bully and Final Fantasy.
Move along.
ok
>Sony always were willing to push the hardware envelope even if it means selling at a loss
The PS3 cost $800 to make and was sold for $600
PLEASE stop taking about shit you clearly don't fucking know anything about.
underage
Delusional?
It's literally what they did for PS2 and 3
3 almost bankrupted them
>always
>gives a single example without countering my example that proves him wrong
Are you pretending to be stupid?
FF wasn't that great in 6th gen. Way too cinematic and was the start of shit quality.
Bully is pretty trash. Good reddit game.
XBox with its SEGA sequels is hard to beat.
in what way did the ps2 push the hardware envelope it was the weakest of its gen
Both PS3 and 360 are still supported today though? 360 never stopped getting support, where did you get that idea?
>delusional
>that's exactly what they did
fucking idiot
That doesn't make it the cheapest.
DVD player and expensive custom CPU.
Xbox is never the winner
original Xbox was definitely the best console Microsoft ever made but even then it was mediocre
PS2 still had more games and GC had better exclusives and better hardware
>reddit boogeyman
all opinions invalided and trashed.
You are objectively wrong and have lost.
>3 almost bankrupted them
So then why is that good?
>PS2
The PS3 maybe, but the PS2 was weak.
Except the only console that even comes close to applying to is the PS3.
Xbox hardware was better than GC. The video cards traded back and forth in certain areas, but there's no question everything else about it edged it out.
Bully was god-tier, fuck you
It's good for consumers and for technology advancement.
your shit taste is showing.
GC did not have better hardware than the Xbox. They were comparable but Xbox was a little stronger.
B-but they had zelda and mario a-and...
>comes close
>It's good for consumers and for technology advancement.
Because it was a product that cost so much most consumers didn't buy it and used a processor architecture that no console will ever use again?
maybe this is true on paper but all I know is there is no Xbox game that looks as nice as Metroid Prime or Windwaker or F-Zero GX etc...
even if the Xbox was technically stronger devs didn't utilize its hardware nearly as well as they did on GC
It's not good for anyone. Consumers get expensive hardware they'd rather pay less for and possibly fewer/lower-quality games, the maker loses billions of dollars because loss-leading doesn't work with video game consoles.
Nothing consoles do is advancing technology, they repackage old hardware and make it cheaper and more efficient to work with.
Maye if the PS3 hadn't been a $600 turd, it would have sold better and had better support early on. Maybe the PS4 wouldn't be a completely redundant shitbox with 50% of its library being comprised of ports and 7th gen re-releases if Sony hadn't taken massive, billion-dollar losses on the PS3 and instead made something more accessible for developers and more affordable for customers.
It's a shitty slow paced game with more dialogue than a RPG.
Stupid long load times
Excourt missions simulator
The game only got popular because of reddit shit. Member that Bully game?.
but they did buy it
Ok. Same with the PlayStations then
>inb4 nintendrone
Probably, but I don't consider load times 2-3 as often, or regular frame drops and overheating to be good.
Can't comment on the Xbox though
GC games looked great because Nintendo made them themselves, but first-party stuff like Halo 2 looks really nice on Xbox too, I'd say better than anything on GC at least on a technical level. Most third-party devs just ported to Xbox and GC from PS2.
>Just be cause they sold like shit due to format mistakes doesn't make that any less true.
They sold like shit because they had shit game libraries. That's the single-most important reason why any console sells like shit.
>didn't buy it
>it outsold 360
You're objectively wrong, sorry.
kys
Only once they started releasing the cost reduced models, with components removed.
can we stop pretending OP exists?
fuck you, asshole
typing certain strings of words, like your OP post should ban you and melt your fucking computer, burning down your house and any other way you can get back on this site.
fucking children
PS4 and Xbone have arguably he worst libraries in recent memory, yet people still bought them. Half the games on both platforms are shit you could play on 360 and PS3.
You don't need "good" games to sell your platform, you need games that appeal to a wide audience.
They had disappointments, but they were good consoles.
really, so you're going to gloss over the fact that the PS2 was one of the cheapest DVD players on the market that also happened to play games
I don't think you understand why parents or couples would buy the system, it's value not library