Xbox 360 Official Price

You are really in for it now. I'm quite interested to see how Raziel takes it.

Btw, don't forget the quote from Slim:

Arguing with Raziel is like a cripple slapping a cruise missile.

You might like to get your post sorted out as well. It's all fragmented and you've messed up your first set of quotes.

Ya I know the quotes part really irritated me. Something happened with the spacing and it went crazy.

Uh Lenny.. ya got a little.. ya got a little... a little bit of crap around your mouth.

Unless this inflated egotistical turd decides he wants to ban me, there's not much he can do. His arguments are weak as is his intelligence.

There is nothing wrong with good, old fashioned debates among forum members. I don't really see any need for a ban, so you shouldn't worry. Anyway, most games are rips of other games nowadays, because there aren't many orginal ideas to come up anymore.

HALO was so great for a number of reasons. The gameplay was amazingly smooth and interactive. The graphics are bar-none, and the weapon selection was intense and original. The story line was new, but not the premise, and the multi-player option was ripped from Golden Eye, but took it to the next realm. The same can be said about Zelda, which is why these gaming titles are the most successful for their individual consoles.

HALO was so great for a number of reasons. The gameplay was amazingly smooth and interactive. The graphics are bar-none, and the weapon selection was intense and original. The story line was new, but not the premise, and the multi-player option was ripped from Golden Eye, but took it to the next realm. The same can be said about Zelda, which is why these gaming titles are the most successful for their individual consoles.

I felt like I was reading the back of the video game box.

Where to start, where to start. I mean I could do the same thing you seem to like to do. Take snippets from other people's arguments, and defile them. For talking about context you certainly are a hypocritical one.

Absolutely nothing I posted in my last statement was taking your quotes out of context. I left the comments whole when extra text was required to covey the full meaning of the statement. Every claim I made about your post was dead-on, chump. You show me where I played it different and I'll show you a man with two dicks.

Of course, of course.

Remind me again what gameplay and story have to do with one-another, shit-squeeze? 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.

Well I thought "VideoGames" was pretty much the equivelant of "Electronic Games". You sure got me here, though. I mean when we factor in the counting Skip-it, Giga-Pets, Tickle-me Elmo, and your battery operated Barbie car, "Electronic Games" really does take on a much broader view.

Picking at straws again, S2. We weren't discussing PC games, we weren't discussing "Skip-It." We were talking about CONSOLE games. I figured you'd have enough grasp of context to understand that, but considering what a spectacular job you've been doing of mutilating every last word I've posted so far, it doesn't surprise me that the omission of a single word had your brain tied up in knots.

You don't have to call someone Shit, to call them Shitty. AS-I-NINE - of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

Oh, let's conveniently ignore the primary definition of the word, shall we?

1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment <an asinine excuse> 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass

Now, please, once again point me to to the place where I said you were "asinine". I labeled your behavior as asinine, which would fall under the first definition. Way to mangle my words, bro.

Now it's Console Videogames. I'm not so sure, but if I were you, I would have edited my post so I didn't look like a jackass.

I edit my posts for grammatical and spelling errors, just as you did with your last one. Making asumptions only serves to make you appear as if "relating to or resembling an ass." Then again, making assumptions and taking statements horribly out of context seems to be your specialty.

Oh yes, I'm way out of line.

Raziel you're an idiot

You stooped to name calling before I did, Tastycakes.

I believe I left most of your futile arguing in context.

You've got to be kidding me. I posted a fairly non-biased response to your statements and you responded with a flame-laced diatribe about my love-affair with Nintendo. I did no company bashing, game bashing or people bashing of any sort. I simply levelled the playing field by giving a different perspective

Let me congratulate you on yet another spectacular failure of an argument. You've managed to once again completely defile the original context of my statements and feebly attempt to stretch semantic nonsense into your own brand of insane logic. You turned this into a fight, goat-choker, not I. My original post was a mere response to your blanketed and generalized statements, and for it I was labelled an "idiot" and handed a basket full of flames.

Do you respond this way when anyone disagrees with you? Do you start tossing insults and throwing toys around when your parents call for tuck-in time? Are you completely incapable of engaging in a debate without your arguments degenerating into a series of muddled attacks and semantic backtracking? I simply presented my opinion on your statements, and immediately you start shoving words into my mouth and redefining the intent of every single sentence I posted. Read back through it, numbnuts. I was talking about videogames, you started whining about semantics.

I honestly have to say that, in my years as a longstanding member here, you are by far the worst opponent I've ever faced in a debate. It took you a single post before your arguments turned into trite "he said, she said" bickering. You've done nothing but backtrack and squabble over minor details to try and forge an argument out of absolute shit. You have no case, yet you continue to bicker over which definition of the word "asinine" you assumed I was using.

Just stop now. You're done. You are a hypersensitive, thin-skinned simpleton with no ability to hold his own in a genuine argument. You've done nothing to enrich the atmosphere or nature of this debate. You've taken a simple counterpoint to your ridiculous intitial statements and have turned this into a war of semantics. You lost the very second you tried to assume the intent behind my words, and guessed wrong.

Sit down and shut up, Sparky. You were dead yesterday.

Ow. I'm throwing in the towel for him.

Oh yeah, well he has a gun and can shoot you! So there! (Actually, I don't even know if communications officers carry a gun around regularly, do they?)

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.

I still think it's funny how Raziel claims not to take someone's words out of context, but continually does so. The only real reason that I even entertained that nonsensical idea of yours was an attempt to show you how juvenile of a tactic it actually was. An attempt that obviously failed, as I open the page and see that you have quoted me even more so than before.

I'm not going to quote you, Raziel, I don't really care to do so. I'd just be posting your diluted words a second or third time. As far as arguing goes, this one doesn't really exist. I've read what you've posted. You on the other hand, don't really seem to read what someone else posts, you just requote them and throw an insult their way. The argument of who started mudslinging doesn't exist. If you had read my last post, I'm sure that all of Zelaron and the world would agree. Your response to my original post was not only far out of line, and you threw the first insult by not only quoting what I said, bashing it(not offering a counter-proposal), then saying that anyone who would accept such views is asinine. That's too simple to ignore. Oh and no I didn't ignore the first definition. I actually considered posting them both, but the latter seemed to show more emphasis. Either way, it was still a negative comment on your part. If you're still wondering why my first slanderous comment was thrown your way, it was because you are an idiot. You took what I said, and then launched an argument as if my original post even contradicted yours.

I'm also sure that you're trying for an unachievable goal here. If everyone will simply thumb back through the posts, I'm sure you'll see where Raziel claimed that the NES was(not the father, because if I post that you'll take everyone's attention off the main point here and claim you never said 'father'), but instead said it was the savior of modern video games. I'm not quoting you exactly, because that's too primitive a way of debating, as you have proven already kid. I'm sure that all of Zelaron would again agree with me. I don't think I really have to prove the meaning of each and every word in your sentence, the overall meaning was conveyed. If you're going to argue about that, then just stop for a second before you dig up five quotes and write a meaningless paragraph and I guess try to impress people. Stop and think. Instead of arguing that point, MOST people would just say that they made a typo, forgot to include console, and console videogames is what they really meant to say. You didn't.

Raziel you seem to like to end each of your misleading logically blundering sentences about my posts with some sort of petword. This is the only time I will "quote" you. I.E. Tastycakes, goat-choker, butt-stain, chump, FUCK-PUP, crampy, skippy. You've been attacking me from the moment we started debating. I'm not sure if you're trying to establish some sort of superiority because of your obvious lack of intelligence, or you simply don't know much else. I think goat-choker is the only creative of the bunch. Please, dissect your own post and show me more creative name-calling if you wish, I don't care much for it. I could always make up names describing you: cum-dumpster, cockholster, cream puff, cock dock, sissy girl, pantywaste, etc...

That's not how you win a debate, though. I'm not sure the people you usually debate with, I haven't been here long enough to know or care. I'm not even sure of your tactics, you contradict yourself so many times, it's as if you're debating yourself. Anyways, I'd guess that most people got tired of you requoting them over and over and writing chapter long rebuttles that just show a few simple and already repeated ideas and simply gave up. However you used to win debates, it's not working this time. Your last three paragraphs are really just a reshowing of the last few paragraphs of your last post. You claiming victory over something you haven't come close to winning, I'm ridiculous to 'argue' with the great Raziel. Skimming through... I squander of small details? I start tossing insult first? I shoved words into YOUR mouth? Those paragraphs are really the only meaningful part of your debate, the rest is just the normal requoting. In this space that you could have put something useful, you've instead just described yourself.

First and foremost, the quotes are there for the sake of referencing your argumentative points. In an actual debate, opposing members counter each point in succession, taking them one at a time. Online, the equivalent to this is quoting another person, for the sake of referencing their individual arguments. If you want to boil this down into a mass of paragraphs that consist of one-sided scream-fests, you go right ahead. I'm doing you a courtesy.

How is calling your generalized comments "asinine" in any way an attack against you, S2? Explain that one to me, because criticizing one's actions and criticizing their identity are two completely separate things. I didn't call names, I didn't hurl insults. I merely observed that you posted a couple of lame, generalized blanket statements. Again, is this how you respond to all non-positive comments directed your way? Calling names and immediately launching into an offensive diatribe? Grow up, kid.

I'm not quoting you exactly, because that's too primitive a way of debating, as you have proven already kid.

Too "primitive"? I suppose you're posting your thoughts onto the boards via telepathy then? Spare me your egomaniacal pablum. I already tossed this pathetic excuse of yours out the door. Quoting and referencing specific arguments is the online equivalent of an actual debate. What you're preaching is the online equivalent of a temper tantrum.

The fact of the matter is, you are the one that took a slightly negative comment as an attack and decided to start hurling insults. I'm not going to just sit here and be labelled an "idiot" by a mumbling buffoon like you, so I lashed back. You can't handle not being praised at every turn of the day? You can't handle a non-positive comment on your opinions? Tough shit. Ain't my bitch.

That's not how you win a debate, though.

That's not how you win a debate? This stopped being a debate the moment you took a harmless comment as an attack and started hurling insults, Ponch. You can't win a debate because you can't handle the idea of being told you're acting like a twat without leaping off the deep and and turning a structured exchange into a bare-knuckle melee. Everything you've done since the moment you responded to me has been an absolute farce of rational thought. I never accused you of hating Nintendo, as you claim I did. I never stated that Nintendo excretes pure gold, while Microsoft re-hashes tired garbage, as you claim I did. And I didn't attack you until after you tried to bare your measly-ass fangs at me, as you'd like to convince yourself of otherwise.

Everything you've posted over the last 24 hours has been a total waste of your time, I can tell you that right now. You have the mental caliber to pretend like you're a sane, intellgent individual, but you don't have quite enough to actually be one. I repeat: you are a hypersensitive whiner that can't take a pinch of criticism without losing his head, you misconstrue every statement your opponent tries to make, and you attempt to use lame ass criticisms like "quoting" to divert attention away from the fact that you've already lost the battle. Honestly, I've never seen anyone crash and burn as badly as you have over the last few posts, and with each new entry that you post in this anthology of failure, you only bury yourself deeper in the mindless, backtracking stupidity of your own garbled nonsense.

Stop now. Everything you do is laced with failure. You reek of it.

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.

If that Rare platformer happens to be a Banjo game, that's a guaranteed sale. PDZero should be pretty badass, too. The photos of the 360 controller look great, I just need to actually hold one before I can make a final judgment.

Honestly, I don't understand why Sony felt the need to redesign the controller. Granted, the Dual Shock 2 isn't my absolute favorite design, but it's a hell of a lot better than that ridiculous Boomerang looks. It's as though they just tossed functionality out altogether in the name of aesthetics. I'm really hoping that they do what Microsoft did with the S Controller, and offer an alternate design to that stupid, silver hunk of crap.

You realize the PS3 controller is alot smaller than it looks. It's actually smaller than the Dualshock, I think.

Also, Nintendo MAY have leaked it's controller design. Basically its supposed to be force responsive, sort of like a more high-tech rumble. Doesn't sound too impressive, but it could be cool. This is all rumor though.

It uses gyration technology, from the rumor mill. So, some games will appparently be manipulated by actually moving the controller. I can see force feedback being used in conjunction with it, so that moving the controller under certain circumstances would cause the controller to resist.

One of the coolest fan mock-ups I've seen had the controller actually separated into two handheld pieces, with buttons and joysticks of course. Imagine if you took the standard GCN controller and removed the chunk that connects the two handles, and you've got the basic idea. Completely wireless. Imagine playing a boxing game, or something to that effect, and every time you swung your fists you could feel the controller vibrate against your fist, as though actually striking your opponent.

That's the coolest theory I've heard as of right now. However, Nintendo has said it won't be as outlandish as most fan mock-ups have theorized.

You realize the PS3 controller is alot smaller than it looks. It's actually smaller than the Dualshock, I think.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it looks like a clumsy hunk of crap. It's just a small, clumsy hunk of crap.

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.