Xbox 360 Official Price

Not a chance. Atari firmly rooted the public concept of videogames being trite, pointless and juvenile with the 2600 and 5800 systems. If it hadn't been for Nintendo, they would have continued to be seen in that light and would have died in the mid-80's. Nintendo turned a throwaway timewaster into a bonafide industry. Nobody else cared enough to try and revive videogames after Atari so spectacularly fucked them up. If it hadn't been for the Big N, videogames would be a dead laughable fad, like Pogs.

Actually, Nintendo was simply the next step in video game evolution, just as SNES was next, then N64, PS1, PS2 and XBox, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that is the order of console evolution, just a broad course over the years. Nintendo might have been more successful in selling than Atari, but that is only because the quality was greater. The same can be said about PS2 right now. It is selling 100 times better than Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it resurrected the industry and brought it to the next level, does it?

Remind me where I said anything about Halo's GAMEPLAY being trite and cliche? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I said the plot has been done before, and in the very same paragraph, I said Zelda was guilty of the same thing. You're really grasping at straws here, Chauncey. Try again.

Sure, because every RPG plotline ever made hasn't already been done, right? Oh, and Halo's "evil aliens attack the world" plot is completely new and original too, huh? Spare me.

Just to nit-pick and be a severe anal itch, you didn't mention Zelda in the same paragraph. Actually, when I first read that paragraph, I took it as you taking an e-jab at Halo. The difference with Halo is that it actually is original in its own sense. Sure, they are aliens and you can't get away from that, but the whole premise is that the aliens worship these Halos, which is a destructive ring that annihilates planets, however, they don't even know that is it's purpose. They simply think it is a holy ground where they are supposed to go and colonize. Humans find the Halo, land on it, and the aliens then attack us. So technically, it is original in its own sense.

And I'm sure they really feel the sting when you say it, too. You keep crusading against a company that doesn't even know you exist, and I'll keep playing Zelda games. Deal?

I hardly see what SYG wrote as "crusading against a company". You seem to be on more of a crusade to suck off the inventors of "the Big N", as you put it. He simply said Nintendo has gay characters. I don't think anyone will argue that the Nintendo consoles are geared towards fantasy/kiddy characters and gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I love the Zelda series because the story is completely kickass, but the graphics, fighting sequences, etc. are extremely 6-10 year old-ish.

Actually, Nintendo was simply the next step in video game evolution, just as SNES was next, then N64, PS1, PS2 and XBox, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that is the order of console evolution, just a broad course over the years. Nintendo might have been more successful in selling than Atari, but that is only because the quality was greater. The same can be said about PS2 right now. It is selling 100 times better than Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it resurrected the industry and brought it to the next level, does it?

It's not the same thing, Titus. The videogames industry was in a state of steep decline as a result of Atari's buffonery. Developers were making nothing back on their games, hardware sales were slumping and the general public concensus was that console videogames would be dead in a few short years if the industry continued to progress in that manner.

Along came Nintendo, they started making creative games that were worth the buyer's 80 bucks, and they revived an industry that was on the brink of collapse. Sony isn't in the same boat. They joined the race as the entire industry was picking up steam. Granted, Sony one-upped Nintendo by turning the videogames industry from a nerdy hobby into a genuine multimedia threat, however the industry was in no danger of dying when Sony did so. It's not the same thing.

Just to nit-pick and be a severe anal itch, you didn't mention Zelda in the same paragraph.

I'm not knocking Halo anymore than I am knocking Zelda and it's tried and true "save the Princess" rountine in every single game. Halo did not create the "alien menace attacks the world" device, therefore Halo is not a pioneering bastion of innovative story. That's not a bad thing, but for SYG to try and claim that all Nintendo does is rehash old crap while Microsoft and Sony do nothing but excrete pure, creative gold is a load of absolute malarkey.

Yes I did. You and I are referring to two completely different posts. I've said nothing about Microsoft or Sony's games that can't be applied to Nintendo as well. The fact is, I merely levelled the playing field. The complaint from S2 AM was that Nintendo just rehashes old crap. The comment from SYG was that Nintendo simply rehashes old crap while Microsoft births nothing but sheer art at every turn. Both companies do their share of re-hashing and innovating. That was my whole point, which was so woefully taken out of context by S2.

So technically, it is original in its own sense.

I never said it wasn't. I merely said that the basic premise, that being "evil aliens attack the world" is no more innovative than Zelda's tried-and-true "save the Princess" routine. If you go into specifics, neither game is as cliched or rehashed as the basic premises would lead you to believe. That was my entire point, once again, completely manhandled by S2.

I hardly see what SYG wrote as "crusading against a company". You seem to be on more of a crusade to suck off the inventors of "the Big N", as you put it. He simply said Nintendo has gay characters.

I'm simply correcting ridiculous blanket statements. If someone was making the same generalized comments about hair gel or black people, I'd be saying the exact same things I'm saying now.

Plus, it's an opportunity to debate. You know me enough to know that I'm gonna jump at the chance when it's provided.

Plus, it's an opportunity to debate. You know me enough to know that I'm gonna jump at the chance when it's provided.

Oh, I know that, which is exactly why I decided to interject with my 2 cents and get in on the fun! So, here we go:

It's not the same thing, Titus. The videogames industry was in a state of steep decline as a result of Atari's buffoonery. Developers were making nothing back on their games, hardware sales were slumping and the general public consensus was that console videogames would be dead in a few short years if the industry continued to progress in that manner.

That isn’t entirely true. The video game industry was not in a steep decline directly because of Atari’s weak attempts to make better games, there were numerous reasons behind the sales slumps. Aside from the shortage of quality games, there was extremely aggressive marketing of cheaper home computers, combined with an overall weak economy during the mid-80’s. Like any introduction of a new and improved technology, there will be relapses in old technology, hence Atari’s sales dropping significantly. Now couple this with a poor economy and you suddenly get the claim that Atari royally screwed up the video gaming industry and Nintendo revitalized it. Truth is, it was a matter of various outside constraints that caused this thinking to arise.

Along came Nintendo, they started making creative games that were worth the buyer's 80 bucks, and they revived an industry that was on the brink of collapse. Sony isn't in the same boat. They joined the race as the entire industry was picking up steam. Granted, Sony one-upped Nintendo by turning the videogames industry from a nerdy hobby into a genuine multimedia threat, however the industry was in no danger of dying when Sony did so. It's not the same thing.

Again, this can be directly correlated to the computer industry. I know we are talking about consoles, but in essence, they should be included in this argument. During the time when Atari was floundering around, computer prices became extremely cheaper, and gave consumers the option to connect to a TV, which obviously offered better quality graphics, color, and sound. It was because of this insurgent of quality to the gaming industry, that Atari became sloppy and started releasing potentially huge hits way too early, and it showed in the final product. Perfect example was the E.T. game that was released and sold terribly.

Now, I can’t argue that Nintendo didn’t up the bar in the console gaming industry, but that wasn’t because Atari sucked and Nintendo was God. Nintendo simply saw what had happened to Atari because of computers introducing much higher quality, and like any good business, they adapted and evolved their platform to be competitive. If anyone is going to get the credit for saving the console gaming industry, it has to be home computers. Then again, they were also more than half the downfall for the slump in the console gaming industry.

I've said nothing about Microsoft or Sony's games that can't be applied to Nintendo as well. The fact is, I merely leveled the playing field. The complaint from S2 AM was that Nintendo just rehashes old crap. The comment from SYG was that Nintendo simply rehashes old crap while Microsoft births nothing but sheer art at every turn. Both companies do their share of re-hashing and innovating. That was my whole point, which was so woefully taken out of context by S2.

Now, I can’t speak for S2 and SYG, but I think their thinking was that basically all of Nintendos success is based off of their first generation gaming titles. I agree with you when you said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but at the same token, it appears as though the old saying “You can’t teach and old dog new tricks” applies to Nintendo as well. I mean, at least Halo’s success is based off an original idea based in the 21st century, and not some mid-1980’s idea that was a hit. Microsoft, to me, seems to be able to keep coming up with great gaming ideas, while Nintendo is literally functioning on one leg, made up of Zelda and Metroid… At least that is the only reason I bought and still own a Gamecube at the present moment. Online gaming was revolutionized by Microsoft, and their games just keep getting better and better. [/End of Microsoft Crusade]

That isn’t entirely true. The video game industry was not in a steep decline directly because of Atari’s weak attempts to make better games, there were numerous reasons behind the sales slumps. Aside from the shortage of quality games, there was extremely aggressive marketing of cheaper home computers, combined with an overall weak economy during the mid-80’s. Like any introduction of a new and improved technology, there will be relapses in old technology, hence Atari’s sales dropping significantly. Now couple this with a poor economy and you suddenly get the claim that Atari royally screwed up the video gaming industry and Nintendo revitalized it. Truth is, it was a matter of various outside constraints that caused this thinking to arise. Again, this can be directly correlated to the computer industry. I know we are talking about consoles, but in essence, they should be included in this argument. During the time when Atari was floundering around, computer prices became extremely cheaper, and gave consumers the option to connect to a TV, which obviously offered better quality graphics, color, and sound. It was because of this insurgent of quality to the gaming industry, that Atari became sloppy and started releasing potentially huge hits way too early, and it showed in the final product. Perfect example was the E.T. game that was released and sold terribly.

You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy.

Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.

Now, I can’t argue that Nintendo didn’t up the bar in the console gaming industry, but that wasn’t because Atari sucked and Nintendo was God. Nintendo simply saw what had happened to Atari because of computers introducing much higher quality, and like any good business, they adapted and evolved their platform to be competitive. If anyone is going to get the credit for saving the console gaming industry, it has to be home computers. Then again, they were also more than half the downfall for the slump in the console gaming industry.

I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.

Now, I can’t speak for S2 and SYG, but I think their thinking was that basically all of Nintendos success is based off of their first generation gaming titles. I agree with you when you said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but at the same token, it appears as though the old saying “You can’t teach and old dog new tricks” applies to Nintendo as well. I mean, at least Halo’s success is based off an original idea based in the 21st century, and not some mid-1980’s idea that was a hit. Microsoft, to me, seems to be able to keep coming up with great gaming ideas, while Nintendo is literally functioning on one leg, made up of Zelda and Metroid At least that is the only reason I bought and still own a Gamecube at the present moment. Online gaming was revolutionized by Microsoft, and their games just keep getting better and better. [/End of Microsoft Crusade]

And again, I can't see how it's fair to admonish Nintendo for doing something that works, and at the same time, Microsoft and Sony will be guilty of should they be given another decade with which to do so. As I've already pointed out, Ratchet & Clank will, by the end of this year, have seen four entries in five years, as will Jak and Daxter. GTA has been releasing sequels and updates consistently since 2001. Final Fantasy has seen a new installment on Sony consoles every single year since 1999. Resident Evil has been pumping out new titles non-stop since 1996. Why do these franchises continue to exist? Because they continue to sell.

On top of that, you can't praise Microsoft too much for releasing a lot of new IPs. It's their first generation. They can't release anything but new stuff.

And it's not as though Nintendo just sits on their hands and rebuilds the same game over and over again. You can't claim that they don't make new stuff, because that would indicate you haven't played a lot of the great new games they create. The Pikmin games are fantastic, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat is one of a kind, Animal Crossing is a must-own, Paper Mario, F-Zero GX and a large number of great 3rd-party titles like Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe and Baten Kaitos were introduced via Nintendo's console.

Not seeing the merits of Nintendo's library beyond Zelda and Metroid has nothing to do with them, but entirely to do with your own tastes. If those two franchises are the only thing that keeps your interest, that's not the fault of the developer. It's the same way with me and my PS2. I play it, I love it, but I don't own much beyond the three LOK games, the Ratchet games, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid and Devil May Cry. A lot of the Sony library just doesn't do much for me, and in particular, I'm not a giant fan of the controller. Does that mean it's Sony's fault for not catering to my desires? No.

Opinions are opinions, but it just strikes me as a little ridiculous to criticize somebody for doing something that works. Give Sony another decade and just see if they're not still riding the GTA-train. Give Microsoft another ten years and watch as Halo 12 continues to sell into the stratosphere. If they could sustain public interest in those franchises for another decade, you can bet your ass that they'll keep making the games. Nintendo has kept their biggest sellers alive for 20 years. That's not something to be condemned for, that's something to be congratulated on.

I'd like to get a revolution, is there an eta or a price yet??

2006. Most likely November. Price will absolutely be the lowest of the three, considering that it's going to be the least-powerful. I'd imagine close to $250 at launch.

The only next-gen console that I'm skittish about picking up is the PS3, to be quite honest. It's undoubtedly going to be the most expensive, it's huge, and the controller looks like compressed shit. The 360 is actually interesting me more and more. I hear that the controller is a work of art, and the size is a lot more manageable than the PS3 appears to be. If the console launches with a good Rareware title, I'll most certainly be picking one up.

Perfect Dark Zero and another Rare platformer are coming for launch or soon after. Yea I like the controller alot, and sheesh that damn PS3 is ugly and the controller looks uncomfortable and uncool. Silver is soo 90's.

Well I hope since Raziel got his last word in, he feels satisfied with himself, thus meaning that this pissing contest is over. I mean, if you want another rebuttle, I can happily supply it to you, but it would just argue the same pointless ideas from page one. You can continue to beleive what you do about NES, and think that your perverse insults are not such. I will continue believing what I believe, too. We disagree, period.

Gyration? Never really heard of it, I wonder if it will flop or not. If it is a success and is implimented, then people will finally be able to jerk their controller upward to jump, just like we ALL did when we first played Super Mario 64. You're all guilty, admit it.

To me, Perfect Dark Zero is the Zinge of first-person shooters. I'm sure you all played Rare's Perfect Dark for the Nintendo 64. That, my friends, was a revolutionary game. No it didn't create bots, but it capitilized on them, allowing the user to control the AI and difficulty of the bot, as well as some of their actions during the game. The weapons were outstanding. One must realize the leap in gaming technology Perfect Dark was for first-person shooters. The only resentment I ever had was the framerate, which I understood. Rare is known for great games, and I'm sure that Perfect Dark Zero will not only be a great game, but will bring new ideas with it to the playing field that create a fun and enjoyable experience for anyone who plays the game.

Oh yea, and I was just thinking as I played other xbox live games. With all this talk about revolutionary ideas, I feel it's only fair to say that Halo 2 created the matchmaking system. I wish other games would catch onto the idea, because I hate having shitty hosts who restart games when they aren't winning. For some reason, little kids always have the best connections.

I am pretty satisfied, to tell you the truth.

The Rev controller will still have a joystick, face buttons and triggers, as per usual. However, it will most likely also sport the gyration tech, as well as maybe one or two other surprises.

PDZero should be fun, but it's nothing I'm frothing over at the moment. I've seen a few screens and one video from E3 and it didn't look awe-inspiring. However, I'd bet money that what we saw was pre-beta, and that the game still has a ways to go before it's a finished product. If I decide to pick up a 360, which is becoming a likely possibility, I'll most certainly grab it.

You aren't to popular on this forum are ya buddy...

Warcraft 3 had a matchmaking system =/

Hell maybe "Skip-It" even did... I seem to recall something like that from my old "Skip-It" competition days.

Most multiplayer games nowadays have some sort of matchmaking system.... I was playing Fight Night for ps2 with matching making before I was playin Halo 2

Well I'm happy for you then Raziel

I wouldn't really know. I gave Warcraft III a spin when it first came out at a LAN party. I gotta tell ya, I didn't find it too intriguing. I think personally it lacked the strategy to be considered a decent RTS. The role-playing aspect just brought it down even further. I know it was supposed to be a hybrid, but not every hybrid is good... IE: "Pig & Elephant DNA just won't splice."

The user made maps and Scenarios were fun, though.

You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy.

Then how can you say Nintendo saved the console industry? You just said it right there, that technically, consoles didn't even exist. Without doing any research and just taking you on your word, which is usually correct anyway, Nintendo started the console gaming system, and cheaper, real home computers revolutionized gaming and saved Atari's royal screw up.

Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.

Alright, I guess we are simply arguing semantics then, because based on your previous paragraph, we are now saying the exact same thing, but you are taking a different route, or should I say opinion. I say home computers were upgrades to Atari, and NES was basically a brand-spanking new technology that started console gaming, while you say NES saved Atari's bumbling idiocy.

Either way, NES was great, agreed, but it really isn't any different than the progress of cars throughout history. Ford first built cars, but they didn't sell very a lot because they were intended for the rich. Then, mass production was introduced and manufacturing cars in bulk allowed companies to sell cars for cheaper, hence saving the automobile industry the same way the introduction of cheap home computers opened the door for Nintendo to revolutionize/begin the console gaming industry. Both opened the doors and paved the way to innovative thinking, which enabled other companies (i.e. car companies and NES) to become successful and change the way we looked at cars/games.

I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.

How could Nintendo save an industry that you said didn't even technically exist? They took one of the ideas from Atari, and because computers made the gaming industry more competitive and upped the scales of quality, NES made a console that changed gaming.

And again, I can't see how it's fair to admonish Nintendo for doing something that works, and at the same time, Microsoft and Sony will be guilty of should they be given another decade with which to do so. As I've already pointed out, Ratchet & Clank will, by the end of this year, have seen four entries in five years, as will Jak and Daxter. GTA has been releasing sequels and updates consistently since 2001. Final Fantasy has seen a new installment on Sony consoles every single year since 1999. Resident Evil has been pumping out new titles non-stop since 1996. Why do these franchises continue to exist? Because they continue to sell. On top of that, you can't praise Microsoft too much for releasing a lot of new IPs. It's their first generation. They can't release anything but new stuff.

First, that is a good point. Miscrosoft is new and had to come up with original titles and characters to get that base, true. Second, I'm not knocking on NES for pumping out sequel after sequel, because like I said before, I agree with your policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I guess I'm just waiting for the next gaming title that is original to come out from Nintendo that will attract the same future attention some of it's major hits of the past have... I haven't seen that in a while, so I'm a skeptic.

Also, we all grew up with the Mario and Zelda gaming titles, so we got addicted to the kiddy worlds and gameplay style. As I get older, and the technology gets better, I have more and more desire to play in a realistic gaming atmosphere. I'd like to see Nintendo get away from basing most of their games on the same style of play I loved in the early 90's...

Not seeing the merits of Nintendo's library beyond Zelda and Metroid has nothing to do with them, but entirely to do with your own tastes. If those two franchises are the only thing that keeps your interest, that's not the fault of the developer.

Well there is clearly something wrong with Nintendo, being it is the worst of the 3 major console sellers, by far. PS2 and XBox kill Gamecube in sales, and with the introduction of XBox 360 this year, it's all but a console killer for Gamecube..

Opinions are opinions, but it just strikes me as a little ridiculous to criticize somebody for doing something that works. Give Sony another decade and just see if they're not still riding the GTA-train. Give Microsoft another ten years and watch as Halo 12 continues to sell into the stratosphere. If they could sustain public interest in those franchises for another decade, you can bet your ass that they'll keep making the games. Nintendo has kept their biggest sellers alive for 20 years. That's not something to be condemned for, that's something to be congratulated on.

Again, I'm not criticizing them, I agreed with you. I actually am looking forward to seeing the progress of Microsoft over the next 10 years. If I was a betting man, I'd say they will surpass all console sales and original gaming hits by far. Already, XBox sales are catching up to PS2, which was by far a favorite just a few years ago. Microsoft simply has too much money to just burn for it not to be the best, and that makes me happy, because they will only keep raising the bar for everyone else to match.



Oh, and has anyone seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I only mention it because in it, Steve Carrel had a chair for gaming that broke up the controls into two pieces, one for each hand. Is that the same technology you are talking about that could be standard in gaming controls in the future?

Then how can you say Nintendo saved the console industry? You just said it right there, that technically, consoles didn't even exist. Without doing any research and just taking you on your word, which is usually correct anyway, Nintendo started the console gaming system, and cheaper, real home computers revolutionized gaming and saved Atari's royal screw up.

I said that the public separation between consoles and computers didn't exist. Nintendo saved electronic, TV-display game-playing devices. They created the rift between PCs and consoles, thereby allowing consoles to continue existing.

Either way, NES was great, agreed, but it really isn't any different than the progress of cars throughout history. Ford first built cars, but they didn't sell very a lot because they were intended for the rich. Then, mass production was introduced and manufacturing cars in bulk allowed companies to sell cars for cheaper, hence saving the automobile industry the same way the introduction of cheap home computers opened the door for Nintendo to revolutionize/begin the console gaming industry. Both opened the doors and paved the way to innovative thinking, which enabled other companies (i.e. car companies and NES) to become successful and change the way we looked at cars/games.

Sure, the parallel works. However, that doesn't mean it was destined to turn out this way. Both were the result of a gamble taken by a specific group of individuals and it paid off. You can't write off the significance of these events simply because it feels natural. There's no evidence to support the notion that anyone would have taken the gamble breathing life back into the console industry had Nintendo chosen not to.

How could Nintendo save an industry that you said didn't even technically exist? They took one of the ideas from Atari, and because computers made the gaming industry more competitive and upped the scales of quality, NES made a console that changed gaming.

I never said the console industry never existed. I said that the separation between consoles and computers didn't exist in the mind of the public until Nintendo made it so. People percieved consoles as being nothing more than toys. A fad destined to fail. Nintendo changed that perception. Nintendo did not invent consoles. They simply gave them public definition.

First, that is a good point. Miscrosoft is new and had to come up with original titles and characters to get that base, true. Second, I'm not knocking on NES for pumping out sequel after sequel, because like I said before, I agree with your policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I guess I'm just waiting for the next gaming title that is original to come out from Nintendo that will attract the same future attention some of it's major hits of the past have... I haven't seen that in a while, so I'm a skeptic.

I can fully understand that sentiment. I've been waiting for the next big thing from Nintendo as well, and although this generation has been spectacular in my opinion, the closest that they have delivered on the "next big thing" front was Metroid Prime, and that's still a resurrection of an older franchise.

Also, we all grew up with the Mario and Zelda gaming titles, so we got addicted to the kiddy worlds and gameplay style. As I get older, and the technology gets better, I have more and more desire to play in a realistic gaming atmosphere. I'd like to see Nintendo get away from basing most of their games on the same style of play I loved in the early 90's...

Yet, there are people, like me, who still prefer that style of gaming. Different strokes.

Well there is clearly something wrong with Nintendo, being it is the worst of the 3 major console sellers, by far. PS2 and XBox kill Gamecube in sales, and with the introduction of XBox 360 this year, it's all but a console killer for Gamecube..

Well, first off, the problem with Nintendo is image. Advertising, promotion and solid 3rd-party relationships are all weak areas for them, and it's what killed them this gen. Not to mention their stubbornness in regard to online expansion. The games themselves are not the problem, because Sony still kills on sales with cartoonish games like Ratchet and Jak. Advertising and image are the issue.

Second, the XBox, in worldwide numbers only stands a mere 1,900,000 units above Nintendo, the last time I checked NPD numbers. That's less than the population of Idaho. XBox is crushing Nintendo in terms of momentum, but the actual hardware numbers aren't anything to scream about.

On top of that, if you factor in handheld numbers, Nintendo is doing better than both of their competitors in terms of hardware sales.

Oh, and has anyone seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I only mention it because in it, Steve Carrel had a chair for gaming that broke up the controls into two pieces, one for each hand. Is that the same technology you are talking about that could be standard in gaming controls in the future?

First, I am literally dying as we speak because I haven't seen this fucking movie yet. Steve Carell is tumor-inducingly funny, and I've been aching to see this for months.

Second, I can't really comment because I haven't seen the film. However, I've seen people do some crazy modding shit like that before.

All of this Xbox and Nintendo bickering makes me want to just wait and get a ps3.

I said that the public separation between consoles and computers didn't exist. Nintendo saved electronic, TV-display game-playing devices. They created the rift between PCs and consoles, thereby allowing consoles to continue existing.

Gotcha. No doubt Nintendo did a great justice to the future of gaming, but lets agree that there were many factors that contributed, not just the brilliance of Nintendo.

Sure, the parallel works. However, that doesn't mean it was destined to turn out this way. Both were the result of a gamble taken by a specific group of individuals and it paid off. You can't write off the significance of these events simply because it feels natural. There's no evidence to support the notion that anyone would have taken the gamble breathing life back into the console industry had Nintendo chosen not to.

Of course it isn't destined. It was just something that came to mind when I was writing my response. The parallel seemed to great to ignore, in my opinion.

Yet, there are people, like me, who still prefer that style of gaming. Different strokes.

True enough, hence, half our debate gets settled.

First, I am literally dying as we speak because I haven't seen this fucking movie yet. Steve Carell is tumor-inducingly funny, and I've been aching to see this for months. Second, I can't really comment because I haven't seen the film. However, I've seen people do some crazy modding shit like that before.

Holy shit. You have to see this movie. To be quite honest, and this is an understatement at best, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It hits on all kinds of stereotypes, outlandish acting, comments, and actions. Steve Carell is friggin' hillarious, and so are his co-stars in the movie. They did a good casting job, and until you see this movie, you are missing out on great laughs. Please see this ASAP then write a review in the Reviews forum. I just wouldn't do the movie justice in a review, since half my review would be filled with, "Holy shit, this movie is hillarious!" types of lines..