|
I never fostered any sense of loyalty to one brand so never saw the point in arguing over which is better. By the time I got into console gaming in a big way, I had enough cash to buy all of them which makes arguing about it completely retarded.
|
Yes. But what's annoying is that any attempt at informative hardware comparison (which is useful for people that own both systems and want to know which version to get) also gets lumped into "lol fanboyism." What I
liked about the Nintendo/Seaga era was that magazines could talk about color palettes and sound channels and tell you which version of a game was superior. Yeah, there were buzzwords like "blast processing," but there was far less technobabble to hide behind, and no one with eyes was going to claim that, say,
Earthworm Jim looked better on the Genesis than the SNES. Nintendo/Seaga competition taught me that brand loyalty is stupid, but hardware matters.
Currently, it takes arcane divination just to figure out rendering resolutions, and the instant you try to say, "The 360/PS3 port is technically superior," you get drowned in a wave of furious spittle.
|
Quote:
The first few PS games were actually pretty shitty but 16 and 17 year olds were always going to choose Wipeout with it's techno music and Tomb Raider with her big tits over Star Fox and his cartoon animal chums. It's only really now that more people are buying based on quality alone rather than brand image...
|
What. Of course the PS1 had a library full of trash (as all consoles do), but stuff like
Ridge Racer had no competition at launch, much less
Wipeout.
Air Combat,
Tekken,
Jumping Flash!,
Warhawk,
Doom--all first-generation titles, and all without peer on consoles at the time.
I see no evidence that current consumers are becoming more discerning; if anything, I think it's the opposite, since the Internet has made it easy to find a community that will support anyone's taste, no matter how awful.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
Similar Threads
Worm