Posted November 17, 201311 yr I don't know when you'll get this through your firetrucking skulls. The sega thing was more powerful than the nes The neogeo and the like were more powerful than snes Ps1 was weakest of its gen Ps2 was weakest of its gen Wii was weakest of its gen. And yes, it's still top selling
November 17, 201311 yr The PlayStation One is the most powerful of it's generation. If it wasn't, Sony would never have entered the video game industry. The PlayStation 2 is more powerful than the Nintendo GameCube.
November 17, 201311 yr Author Popular Post The PlayStation One is the most powerful of it's generation. If it wasn't, Sony would never have entered the video game industry.The PlayStation 2 is more powerful than the Nintendo GameCube. I don't think you've actually researched anything.
November 17, 201311 yr I don't think you've actually researched anything. I don't think you've ever used a 64 or GameCube.
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post The PlayStation One is the most powerful of it's generation. If it wasn't, Sony would never have entered the video game industry. The PlayStation 2 is more powerful than the Nintendo GameCube. You don't know what you're talking about, both of those are wrong. Here are a couple of articles I found with a quick search: PS1 vs Sega Saturn: http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SATPScompare.htm PS2 vs GameCube (and others): http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post The PlayStation One is the most powerful of it's generation. If it wasn't, Sony would never have entered the video game industry. The PlayStation 2 is more powerful than the Nintendo GameCube. N64 was actually more powerful, developers just took more advantage of the PS1. and the PS2 was the weakest
November 17, 201311 yr You don't know what you're talking about, both of those are wrong. Here are a couple of articles I found with a quick search: PS1 vs Sega Saturn: http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SATPScompare.htm PS2 vs GameCube (and others): http://www.theverge.com/products/compare/1678/1668/1680/1666 I wasn't counting the Sega consoles.
November 17, 201311 yr N64 was actually more powerful, developers just took more advantage of the PS1. and the PS2 was the weakest Could the 64 play pre-rendered movies? Didn't think so. The PS2 was more powerful than the GameCube.
November 17, 201311 yr sega completely counts I wasn't counting it though. Our whole argument was about PlayStation-Nintendo-Xbox.
November 17, 201311 yr Honestly, this getting annoying. People buy and like whatever consoles they please for whatever reasons. That shouldn't be any skin off of your back. Who CARES what's more powerful and what specs they have and whatever else? I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that hardware shouldn't sell consoles, but if it does, I really don't care, since it's not a selling point for me.
November 17, 201311 yr Author Could the 64 play pre-rendered movies? Didn't think so. The PS2 was more powerful than the GameCube. the ps1 used discs which had more space, more room for pre rendered movies. And again, you don't know what you're talking about.
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post I wasn't counting the Sega consoles. You shouldn't discount a console that almost sold 10 million units. Yes, it didn't win the generation, but it was a major contender. If you think that the PS1 is more powerful than N64, provide some proof. (I think they're about equal but I'm having trouble finding an article that proves it one way or the other.) And if you think that the PS2 is more powerful than the GameCube, provide some proof. Don't just make definite statements like "x is more powerful" like it's a fact, when it's based on nothing.
November 17, 201311 yr Honestly, this getting annoying. People buy and like whatever consoles they please for whatever reasons. That shouldn't be any skin off of your back. Who CARES what's more powerful and what specs they have and whatever else? I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that hardware shouldn't sell consoles, but if it does, I really don't care, since it's not a selling point for me. We're actually in the middle of argument about PlayStation-Nintendo-Xbox. The kid just decided to make a topic about hardware. the ps1 used discs which had more space, more room for pre rendered movies. And again, you don't know what you're talking about. And again, you're the kid.
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post Could the 64 play pre-rendered movies? Didn't think so. The PS2 was more powerful than the GameCube. It could, but it's restricted by the catridges not having much disc space. N64 cartridges are only ~64MB, so it doesn't have the freedom like the PS1 does to store lots of pre-rendered movies. But this says nothing about how *powerful* the console is. I've heard that the N64 is more powerful, but the PS1 has more space available for assets, movies, etc. This makes it a trade-off. The PS2 is absolutely not more powerful than the GameCube, where's your proof?
November 17, 201311 yr You shouldn't discount a console that almost sold 10 million units. Yes, it didn't win the generation, but it was a major contender. If you think that the PS1 is more powerful than N64, provide some proof. (I think they're about equal but I'm having trouble finding an article that proves it one way or the other.) And if you think that the PS2 is more powerful than the GameCube, provide some proof. Don't just make definite statements like "x is more powerful" like it's a fact, when it's based on nothing. The PlayStation One used CD-ROM, 64 used cartridges. The PlayStation 2 used DVD-ROM and the GameCube used those tiny compact discs.
November 17, 201311 yr We're actually in the middle of argument about PlayStation-Nintendo-Xbox. The kid just decided to make a topic about hardware. Yeah, and it's a stupid and childish argument. @Cucco Did you make this thread for the sole purpose of arguing about this with Sora96?
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post The PlayStation One used CD-ROM, 64 used cartridges. The PlayStation 2 used DVD-ROM and the GameCube used those tiny compact discs. But you're not saying "PS1 games / PS2 games had more storage", you were saying "PS1 / PS2 are more powerful", which is different (and wrong).
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post N64 was actually more powerful, developers just took more advantage of the PS1. and the PS2 was the weakest Just wanted to add that the reason the PS1 was much more popular to develop on was because of the amount of data that could be efficiently stored on a disc (plus how much cheaper and quicker it was to produce) as opposed to a cartridge at the expense of load times. Of course, that's not to say that the N64 had some impressive feats like how Capcom was able to condense a 2-disc game like Resident Evil 2 down into a single cartridge without much being taken out.
November 17, 201311 yr Author Yeah, and it's a stupid and childish argument.@Cucco Did you make this thread for the sole purpose of arguing about this with Sora96?No it's been bugging me for a while
November 17, 201311 yr No it's been bugging me for a while Alright. But Tails's earlier thread tells me otherwise.
November 17, 201311 yr Author We're actually in the middle of argument about PlayStation-Nintendo-Xbox. The kid just decided to make a topic about hardware. And again, you're the kid.Are you referring to my age or my name? That doesn't change the fact that you can't back up your argument Alright. But Tails's earlier thread tells me otherwise.I got the topic on my mind again from it
November 17, 201311 yr Popular Post Just wanted to add that the reason the PS1 was much more popular to develop on was because of the amount of data that could be efficiently stored on a disc (plus how much cheaper and quicker it was to produce) as opposed to a cartridge at the expense of load times. Of course, that's not to say that the N64 had some impressive feats like how Capcom was able to condense a 2-disc game like Resident Evil 2 down into a single cartridge without much being taken out. Another big aspect was that Nintendo also pissed off a lot of the third parties with the cartridges by requiring all cartridge manufacturing to be done by Nintendo. Third-party companies couldn't manufacture their own cartridges, they had to pay Nintendo to do it = more money for Nintendo, upset third-parties.
November 17, 201311 yr Regardless, I'm done with this topic. I don't want our argument taken out of context. My original post (with clear thoughts) can be found here: http://kh13.com/forum/topic/66065-i-wonder-which-will-win-the-new-gen-of-consoles/?p=1292538
November 17, 201311 yr The PlayStation One is the most powerful of it's generation. If it wasn't, Sony would never have entered the video game industry. The PlayStation 2 is more powerful than the Nintendo GameCube. Dreamcast was the most powerful more than Ps1 Sony didn't enter the console race based on power,otherwise if we compared We can see a huge difference between the in-game graphics of FFIX and Ocarina of time Ps2 was weaker than the first Xbox too But that didn't matter anyway because Sony's consoles had cheaper prices than the Dreamcast,N64,and Xbox and that's a huge reason for why they were selling Weaker hardware=less production cost=cheap price Dude no one here is hating on Sony CALM THE SHIT DOWN.......We get it Sony is God in the form of an Electroic company No one here is saying anything against Sony,we're praising them because they managed to have many great games despite the limitations of the hardware back then Power doesn't matter that much if developers weren't creative I never bought any of my consoles based on their power I bought them because I want to play games that I want to play I have both a Ps3 and a Wii and I'm happy with both especially my Wii Edited November 17, 201311 yr by Metal Snake
I don't know when you'll get this through your firetrucking skulls.
The sega thing was more powerful than the nes
The neogeo and the like were more powerful than snes
Ps1 was weakest of its gen
Ps2 was weakest of its gen
Wii was weakest of its gen. And yes, it's still top selling