XBA writes "Whoa, don’t close out that browser tab just yet! I didn’t answer the question yet! In fact, the question carries a lot of weight, demanding more than just a few seconds of thought and blurting out “360 4 lyfeeee!”
bunch of writers craving for attention by putting out articles like this.
You can tell you didn't even read the piece. Congratulations.
bhabuahaauahauhauahauahauahaha hhahahahahahaahahahaahbauaahau mauaauhauahauahuauhaaahhahahha ahhhahahahahahaahahahahahahaha cough cough cough.... damn accelerated ageing...
This is MS 2nd generation in the console business. It certainly is falling into place with the other "2nd gen" consoles from other companies. By that I am referring to its placement and popularity as compared to their 1st and (in some cases) later releases. Sega had a huge hit with the Genesis/Mega Drive as compared to their 1st: Master System. It even was widely more popular than their saturn and (from a total overall sales) dreamcast. Not to say those later systems were rubish but they just werent as widely accepted. Same holds true for Nintendo. The NES was huge but I would feel the SNES was even bigger. Besting the N64 and GC respectfully. The Wii has definitely turned things around for Nintendo. Sony had a runaway hit with the original PS1 but it was the PS2 that put them over the top. While the PS3 is far from equating the PS2 success, it is by far a spectacular machine. Heck..even look at Atari. Pong may have been their first home unit but it was the versatility of their 2600 that paved the way for gamings future. Not every company that has released a home console has been as fortunate to make it to the 2nd or even 3rd console release. Those that have, however, have felt the sting of what has come to be known as the "3rd Console Curse". This is where by their 3rd release does not reach the popularity level that their 2nd achieved. No doubt that MS will feel this should they go for round 3. To equate the success of the 360 with that of the PS2 and SNES would be correct from the point of view I have explained above. It is only the fanboys that would think it is absurd to put the 360 in the same category of other successful 2nd's.
Darth. Common sense doesn't work here.
No, bro. It's only fanboys that would put the 360 on the same level as the PS2 and SNES. The 360 had the worst failure rate in the history of consoles. Strike one. The 360 charges for online gaming in a day when online gaming comes equipped for free. But because the general consensus is that XboxLive is a great experience for those that have no choice but to pay, I guess you can call it even. The 360 has games like Halo and Gears of War and has to be compared against hundreds of games from every genre ever created. Strike three. The spin attempted by darthv72 only makes it look worse. The original Xbox tanked so hard that selling 50 million consoles in a day when people waste money on technology every minute of every day looks like a great thing to him. It isn't. It is completely absurd to think that the 360 is on the same level as the PS2 and SNES all because it was a bigger success than the terribly received Xbox.
repect to darth. atleast you explained your point unlike 90% of those that disagreed with you, no doubt coz you mentioned 360 isnt doing half bad. i remember microsft saying about 2-3 years ago that they had a 3 step plan. 1) to get the xbox brand out there. (xbox) 2) to make the xbox brand a house hold name xbox 360) 3) to further increase brand dominance and become market leader (xbox '720') (no i did not make this stuff up i do remember it) @biggest, atleast you explained why you disagree instead of the coutless disagree fairys roaming around the comments.
It's ok how you want to view it. I do have to correct myself in the comment about the NES/SNES. Seems I was wrong there. The NES still holds a lead of roughly 10mil over the SNES but the SNES did best the N64. NES: 60mil / SNES: 50mil / N64: 32mil Master Sys: 13mil / Genesis: 30mil / Sat: 9mil PS1: 103mil / PS2: 150mil / PS3: 48mil Xbox: 25mil / 360: 50mil These numbers are rounded approximations. I am not padding them to make one look better or worse. No spin really. Just facts. With the exception of the NES/SNES, my other examples of the 2nd gen systems besting the former is correct. Respect to you biggest for explaining your reason to disagree with me. Keep in mind that i said the 360 is in the same category of the PS2 simply because of how it faired against the original xbox. Not in the sense that it beats the PS2. I am trying to show the comparisons of the platforms against themselves not against each other. Please understand that.
"If Microsoft were to announce a new console tomorrow and cut production of the 360 at the end of the year, then it would go down in gaming history as one of the best consoles ever" "Without question, Xbox Live is the premier online gaming service in living rooms across the world, and might be the single greatest feature that a console has ever been able to boast over their competitors." tell me that doesnt sound immature? its NOT a very professional written article ! the title was clearly given to get hits.Its a personal opinion trying to gain attention
I think you need to go get an education and finish up High School English. Reading comprehension obviously isn't one of your strong points. No, that doesn't sound "immature." Do you even know what the word "immature" means? Dictionary.com is a very informative source in case you're confused.
--> "You can tell you didn't even read the piece. Congratulations." It's supposed to be "i can tell".......... Then again, I can see why you're so defensive of this article, with you being the submitter and all....... The entire article is just a really big "What if...".
""Whoa, don’t close out that browser tab just yet! ... let me fill you with bullsh*t first!"
@DavePsU I think you need to stop publishing up articles like that just flare up more fanboyism more than its needed.No one cares about your stupid articles! dont believe me? Read the comments below and as for your comment only people like you go up to dictionary.com for every sentence they write because I didn't know its being published in a book. I'll say what I want when I want because this is the comments section if I said immature I'll stand by it. peace
if MS announced a new console they would stop supporting the 360 within a month just like they did with the first xbox or have you forgotten.
@Dave Whoa, don’t close out that browser tab just yet! I didn’t answer the question yet! Is this the sort of writing that your education enabled? I hope you didn't write this and then insult anyone for being uneducated.
they had to stop it because nVidia stoped making the GPUs for the original xbox. therefor micro could not produce the xbox no longer.
"If Microsoft were to announce a new console tomorrow and cut production of the 360 at the end of the year, then it would go down in gaming history as one of the best consoles ever" All I can say is lol
no really 360?
I know enough from the title to not bother reading this, because the answer is emphatically "NO". I mean really? The PS2 is the most successful system of all freaking time. Nothing comes close.
Kinect did sell a whooping amount of consoles. I just want to see people's reactions when they finally open their eyes and find that the Kinect hype train will run out of steam very soon. People need games and so does Kinect if it is gonna continue to become successful. So far, Micros. has yet to deliver on the games end.
Bait.Has the Xbox 360 finally surpassed PS2/SNES? Switch: " However, the PlayStation 3 is quickly gaining ground from a sales standpoint, while also blowing the doors off of the 360 as far as 2011 exclusives are concerned. For me personally, it’s going to be difficult for any system to dethrone the SNES and PS2. Fortunately, Microsoft seem to be doing everything in their power to prove me and anyone else that doubts them wrong, and this can only lead to beautiful things down the road for everyone."
"Has the Xbox 360 finally surpassed PS2/SNES?" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOL!
So does the ps3. But what's your point
I like the ratio of the agrees and disagrees...
Wait did you just admit the 360 sucks???
I do most of my gaming on pc. So compared to pc both consoles suck. But since I play my 360 more and have way more games for it ( 360 60 games ps3 6 games) I would say the ps3 sucks more IMHO. But that's just me
@Urrakia34 He did LOL!
'Agree(11) | Disagree(33) | Report | Reply' lo exactly 1-3 ratio hahaha
Yeah cause agrees and disagree matter so much to me. Whatever will I do if the sonyfanboys don't give me agrees and bubble ups. You put too much value into what people think of your comments. Grow up kid @Ts-shoo I see you also failed to see that I said the ps3 sucks also as compaired to pc. Since that's my gaming system of choice. After twisted metal I will be selling my ps3 being that's it the only game I'm interested in on the ps3.
@Vega-so then you don't think they suck, they're just not your preference
If I recall correctly they are about 100 milion behind.
and people say there is no SDF LMFAO!
ps3 fanboy website FTW!
"Whoa, don’t close out that browser tab just yet! I didn’t answer the question yet!" Actually you did with that silly title . Closing it indeed
Any real gamer will list either the PS2 or SNES over the 360, and for good reason. The 360 still hasn't got a masterpiece game, maybe Halo 3 is close, I don't think so personally (Can you say Halo in the same sentence as Shadow of the Collossus with a straight face?). Even if we say it's a fact, Halo 3's a masterpiece, that's only one. Whereas the SNES and PS2 have a HUGE list of genuinely un-matched games.
Exactly. The 360 doesn't really have that defining game or franchise that gamers will unanimously name-drop 10 years from now when the 360 is discussed. It has had some great sellers, but I'm talking about game quality. Halo 3 was ok, but it wasn't Earth-shattering. Halo's best days were on the original Xbox. The closest to being defining would be the Gears of War games. But there's just something lacking about the 360's library in terms of variety. The PS3 for its part has Uncharted 2, which is, IMHO, the best game of this generation and perhaps the last 10 years. Plus it has Demon's Souls, which while being a bit of a sleeper has made a huge name for itself (a bit like Shadow of the Colossus did for the PS2).
The 360 lost the Mass Effect series. They have done nothing this gen except xbox live. Halo is a good series but shooters are a dime a dozen. Not one game Microsoft gaming studios has produced that I can say this game is generation defining. UC2, Heavy Rain, LBP, Flower... PS3 does have those type of games. WII with WII sports and Mario Galaxy. Xbox has nothing from first party studios. They are money slingers though so they will seem profitable and on top. #s do not lie though. To be honest after watching some international programming from Australia, Italy and such Microsoft is lucky that they are being proped up by the US market or it would be game over. Everything is in reverse everywhere else in the world. Get out of the bubble.
hahahahaha the 360 hasnt even surpassed the ps3........... ds,gba,psp, original gameboy,psx, or wii (in terms of top exclusives) or most other systems let alone the ps2 or snes
What a load of doodoo
N4G probably isn't the most objective website to propose this question to.
Super Metroid, Final Fantasy III, A Link to the Past, Legend of the Seven Stars, Donkey Kong Country? Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Dragon Quest VIII, Soulcalibur III, Katamari Damacy? Oh, but I guess the 360 has Gears of War and Halo, so... let's compare, right?
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. I personally don't think any console is or will ever be as good as the PS2 days. I've been gaming on home consoles since 1976 and am just going by my personal experiences with the different consoles I have owned over the years.
The XBox 360 is the Walker Texas Ranger of game consoles. Gamers in the U.S. love it because it provides a fountain of first person shooters for them to pretend they're packing automatic assault rifles and popping their friends' heads like grapes with a single shot. Outside of the FPS and sports genres, it doesn't offer much as far as pushing the gaming envelope. Comparing it to the PS2 or SNES as some sort of innovative gaming platform is either naive or uneducated. Yes, it offers great fan service to the cross section of gamers that are only interested in throwing a football or kill streaks, but when you look beyond that to other genres, other consoles do more and do them better. You don't have to look much further than a triple A exclusive like Alan Wake, an amazing game by all rights, that tanked on the 360 because of the needs and wants of the user base.
The PS2 has over 150 million sold... so the obvious and non-tard answer is a big honking NO.
Not even close....and it probably never will.
The Xbox 360's wins against every other console in online play but thats cause except for the PS3 and Wii the rest did not have that, and still they sold huge! And even with that one victory, you have to pay for it! On another note the PS2 has sold three times as many consoles as 360. The original and the 360 Xbox ares still more in the experimental stage, if Microsoft makes another sure it could easily make many improvements. But the 360 doesn't hold a candle against the PS2 or SNES and only wins against its competitors the Wii and PS3 in online.
No console can stand tall against ps2, both when it comes to games and sales. Biggest and strongest gaming library and the sales to prove it.
Sales mean nothing. PS2 was a excellent console, but better than the PSX and SNES? No.
Which is why he used sales AND games. The PS2 had more games. WAY more games.
The right way to view that is...sales do not reflect quality. They do, however, reflect popularity. In all honesty...sales do mean something. Looking back through the console history books will show it wasnt always the most powerful system that sold the most. Odd as that may seem. It is true for the 2600 vs ColecoVision, NES vs SMS, Wii vs 360/PS3. The popularity of those systems was driven by the versatility of the software. Each example didnt have the best games but it had what drives popularity. Titles that appeal to many different types of people. As opposed to systems that cater to only one type.
Only someone who lives and dies by Halo would even consider something like this. I have a PS2 collection made entirely of niche games, and every day, if I go looking on the internet, I can always find MORE wonderfully creative games for PS2 that I never knew existed. I can't say that about any current gen console. There is absolutely no comparison. Certainly not from Xbox 360.
I'm guessing the whoever wrote this nonsense is in his late teens early 20's and if that's the case, I can understand why he feels the 360 deserves an award for millions of console deaths and a handful of quality exclusives.. What I don't understand is how XBLA, better multiplats, THE GREATEST CONTROLLER EVER, and XBL all being better(in his opinion)than what the PS3 has to offer, somehow makes the 360 as good as the SNES or lol...The PS2. This reads like a forum post in a "Xbox vs PS3" thread and is clearly biased in favor of the author's favorite console.
Right -- Except Joe's favorite console is the PS3, lol.
So you've taken care of my last sentence. How about the rest? Even if he does favor the PS3, that has nothing to do with the misguided notion that the 360 has come close to the SNES or the PS2.
Can't address the rest. It's an opinion-based attack. I'm not going to attack your opinion and tell you you're wrong. You're entitled to it. But, as a side note, just remember the millions upon millions of console deaths the PS2 has as well upon its entire lifespan, not just launch ;)
How is it an opinion that the 360 being better than the PS3 topic has no place is this discussion? As for disc read errors, the PS2 had an acceptable failure rate. The same cannot be said of the 360. There is no defending that. It's simply the truth. Lastly, you've yet to address the handful of exclusives. The SNES and PS2 both destroy the 360's lineup in terms of quantity. This discussion is premature. Maybe by the end of this gen the 360 will have at least earned a place amongst the giants of the industry.
How is it an opinion? Because it's your opinion that it doesn't. It's not a fact. Obviously if I can disagree with you on the topic, it can't be fact, but only opinion. The disc read errors were not at an "acceptable" level, lol. People were receiving dead consoles out of the box when the PlayStation 2 launched. The only reason it wasn't as wide spread or as big of a problem as the 360's RROD is because the internet was not as massive as it is now in terms of gaming coverage. In 2000-2001, the internet was still finding a place in main stream society compared to 2006-Present. I went through 5 PS2s on my own, let alone what others went through. Where did I fail to address the exclusives? You never even mentioned it until just now. You can't fault a console for exclusives from the 7th generation forward due to development costs and third-party studios finding it more and more difficult to survive on exclusive contracts. This isn't 1993-1997 where development was cheap and one console owned 80% of the marketshare thus making mass-exclusivity viable (which is why SNES had so many great titles available). The same goes from 2000-2005 when the PlayStation 2 owned 70%+ of the marketshare and made exclusivity from third-party developers financially responsible. 2006-2011 you're looking at almost a 3-way split in market share. That means developers would have to sell 2-3x as many units now on an exclusive deal as they did before in order to have the same results. Obviously when your game is exclusive to a console that is owned by 70%+ of gamers, you're going to make enough money to justify costs...but when you're developing a game exclusively for 32% of gamers, it's not nearly the same. It's called financial responsibility. Look at company's like Free Radical and how Haze completely created a meltdown due to poor sales and exclusivity. Do you think they'd do things differently this time around? Hell yeah. You can't just compare a console side-by-side from separate generations...you can only measure them for what they've brought to the industry as a whole. It's just like comparing Wilt Chamberlain being able to score 100 points and asking why Michael Jordan never did it.
Interesting article. I normally see the "opinion" tag and just skip right past those, as they are normally a lot of nonsense. Roughly a year after the 360 came out, I still didn't decide to buy one as I wanted to wait to see what Sony was offering. I knew a few people that had one, so I could get to use it anyway. The thing I remember saying back then was how it reminded me a lot of the SNES. It had a decent and attractive presentation to it, and it's pricing and game line-up was extremely promising, both from 1st and 3rd party. It's launch games were good also. You could tell MS were serious and had produced a proper system for the hardcore...with just their second attempt. I still didn't buy one until that back end of 2007, though. The console has now served 6 years and is still strong, so that shows just how much of a success the console is. It has parallels with the SNES, but I wouldn't say it gets anywhere near close to matching that console for the quality of its software. The SNES turned into an absolute monster in it's twighlight years, whereas the 360 just seems merely content at still being out there. Oh, and one other thing: it seems MS has knicked the SNES' button colour scheme on the controller. Maybe that's something else that reminds me of the SNES.
This Article Make me LAUGH Lmao
Gotta be the biggest opinion crap I have bothered to read in awhile.
Worst introduction paragraph I have read in some time.
It's simply just a cycle people will always have something to complain about. Something will set the benchmark in gaming and then when new hardware / games come out they'll say, "Ohh well this *insert console or game* was so much better than *hardware or game appealing to specific audience*" It's just like an article I saw earlier today Gabe Newell said his favorite game was Super Mario 64 he said, "How many of you have played Mario 64? How many of you were really disappointed in Mario Galaxy?" - before raising his own hand. However before there was Super Mario 64 there was Super Mario World on the SNES which set the benchmark in platforming games at the time a successor will come and the previous title will be left to obscurity with an occasional mention once in a blue moon. This same scenario can happen with Super Mario 64.(Anyone notice how quickly no one talks about Modern Warfare anymore?) This same formula also works with Hardware as well. Remember how awesome the original Gameboy was? Ahh well screw that I got a Nintendo DS now! The only good I've seen of this article is fond memories of my childhood growing from the 4th generation of gaming to where it is now and seeing where it can go from there (Though very often I find myself going back to these more obscure games and consoles).
What an insult. On a gaming standpoint, 360 isn't even better than PS1 and NES let alone PS2 and SNES. Personally, I think this gen sucks compared to previous gens.
lol the bias in here is hilarious.
then why comment on it my friend?why!
because I'm no different DUN DUN DUNNNNNN