The Most Bloody War of All?

[CronoTriggerfan]

There have been so many console wars up to this point, coming into this one, I didn't think it would be all that different. Sure, we've seen some famed sharp divisions before like back in the 16-bit era (man, those were the days ) but I don't think we've seen it ever get quite this violent. I mean, whenever current-gen gaming is brought up, be it on forums/online or with my friends in the "real world", it nearly always turns into a bloodthirsty argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never remember anything like this in past gaming generations. I don't want to turn this thread into yet another argument, but simply a discussion of arguments, if that makes any sense at all. Anyone else think this is our "bloodiest" console war yet?

CTFan

[Kurt_]

I have to say it's the least bloody. All 3 of he systems are so different that they appeal to very different crowds, thus there is little indecision.

PS3 = Rich Playstation fanboys, or hardcore HARDCORE fans of a PS3 only game.

Xbox 360 = A nicely distributed system. Good exclusive games (Halo 3), Xbox live makes it much fun (Except for Turbo ). I would say for this type of console it's a very good competitor.

Wii = Completely different. Strays from good graphics in exchange for unique gameplay. For those who like excessive waving.


In my opinion, of course.

That song is sooo true and hilarious!

[Turbo Tax 1.0]

Xbox 360 = A nicely distributed system. Good exclusive games (Halo 3), Xbox live makes it much fun (Except for Turbo ). I would say for this type of console it's a very good competitor.

meany


I agree though with kurt and CT
most people I talk to want or at least wanted a PS3 just because they like their PS2 so much, a few of my friends want a 360 instead now though.

[Kurt_]

Here's the blind wrath of a PS3 fan for you guys:
Over msn, and shortened because this goes on for a loooong time:


Martin = Blinded by PS3 fanboyism (he is referring to the PS3 to start)

Martin says:
yea it has good graphics

Kurt says:
that's ALL it has, martin

Martin says:
that's all that matters

Kurt says:
ok
Kurt says:
you're officially an ub3r n00b

Martin says:
hav u played the wii
Martin says:
the graphics r so crap its not worth 100 dollars
Martin says:
it's fun to play tho

Kurt says:
ok so the fun factor doesn't matter, but the graphics do? what do you use it for, porn?

Martin says:
oh yea

Kurt says:
well i'll be using my Wii for gaming, mostly

Martin says:
dats good, but the crap graphics might blind u

Kurt says:
graphics aren't everything. ever heard of the NES? It had 8 bit graphics and brought the entire world back from the gaming crash and Jack Thompson

Martin says:
well , it's crap, plus y dont the ppl just go play real sports

[ganonbanned]

the 16-bit era

[lifeisbetterwithketchup]

16-bit was probably the "bloodiest", but this gen is probably has the worst haters. There are so many people who absolutely hate PS3, and people who absolutely hate Wii. (There are some for 360, but they are mainly people who don't like Microsoft.)

[Limewater]

While I think it's probably a little insulting and offensive to describe a console war as bloody, I really think that the 16-bit era was much "worse" than this one-- at least in terms of console loyalty and "hating."

The reason for this is, I think, that these days it is much more common for someone to actually buy multiple systems within a generation. Just look at how many people have both a 360 and a Wii. During the 16-bit era, I only remember knowing two people who owned both a Sega Genesis/Megadrive and a Super Nintendo. People were not yet willing to spend such large amounts of money for what were still at that time considered children's toys.

Also, the licensing structure at the time still meant that if a title was to be developed on both platforms, there would likely be major differences, though it seems that relatively few major titles appeared on both platforms. Most of the really major, and really good games at the time seemed to be exclusives, with a few notable exceptions like NBA Jam and Mortal Kombat.

I think all of this made for a much more highly polarized video game market.

[Sparkfist]

The 16-bit era was the most bloody, by far. There were more comparisons by the companies about who was better, who had the better system, who had better games, ect. The current war is about the most tame. There is no public bashing of the PS3 by Microsoft, or Nintendo, and vise versa. Very boring to be honest. I like to hear people compete for who's the best (save for politics, that's just mud slinging), it's just something both informative and entertaining.

[ganonbanned]

While I think it's probably a little insulting and offensive to describe a console war as bloody, I really think that the 16-bit era was much "worse" than this one-- at least in terms of console loyalty and "hating."

The reason for this is, I think, that these days it is much more common for someone to actually buy multiple systems within a generation. Just look at how many people have both a 360 and a Wii. During the 16-bit era, I only remember knowing two people who owned both a Sega Genesis/Megadrive and a Super Nintendo. People were not yet willing to spend such large amounts of money for what were still at that time considered children's toys.

Also, the licensing structure at the time still meant that if a title was to be developed on both platforms, there would likely be major differences, though it seems that relatively few major titles appeared on both platforms. Most of the really major, and really good games at the time seemed to be exclusives, with a few notable exceptions like NBA Jam and Mortal Kombat.

I think all of this made for a much more highly polarized video game market.

how is it offensive?

[cowsgoquack101]

I think the 16 bit era was the bloodiest because most people could only afford one console. Not all three or at the least two.

But this one has the worst haters because many people have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[Kurt_]

I wasn't there for the 16-bit era. My parents weren't totally into the "spending mucho denaro on children who are very obsessive-compulsive and drop things they want after a week". So we got a hand-me-down NES (which barely worked because we didn't know about the cleaning and such) and maybe 2 additional games. Then we got an N64 and life was good.

I completely missed out on the 16-bit wars.

[Limewater]

how is it offensive?

The title of the thread is "The Most Bloody War of All," but the actual subject matter is about a bunch of whiny kids on the playgrounds arguing over whether the X-Box sucks because it doesn't have Pokemon or some other crap.

I mean, millions of real human beings have died in wars over the years. I think it's a little insulting to use the same terminology in regards to a console war.

It would be sort of like writing, "The Most Brutal act of Genocide in Human History" and then talking about the destruction and burial of all of the unsold E.T. The Extra Terrestrial Atari 2600 cartridges.

I mean, I guess the whole title and everything could be intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but that sort of thing is always very difficult to convey in this medium.

I'm not personally offended, or anything. I just think the topic could have been worded a little more tactfully.

[Gamelver]

This "war" only seems "bloodier" because the amount of stupid and/or ignorant people able to use the internet has drastically increased since the 16-bit console "wars".

[CronoTriggerfan]

The title of the thread is "The Most Bloody War of All," but the actual subject matter is about a bunch of whiny kids on the playgrounds arguing over whether the X-Box sucks because it doesn't have Pokemon or some other crap.

I mean, millions of real human beings have died in wars over the years. I think it's a little insulting to use the same terminology in regards to a console war.

It would be sort of like writing, "The Most Brutal act of Genocide in Human History" and then talking about the destruction and burial of all of the unsold E.T. The Extra Terrestrial Atari 2600 cartridges.

I mean, I guess the whole title and everything could be intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but that sort of thing is always very difficult to convey in this medium.

I'm not personally offended, or anything. I just think the topic could have been worded a little more tactfully.

Now that, kids, is being overly political correct.

I agree that the battle at the corporate level was much more intense during the 16-bit era, but not at the consumer level. Fanboyism is as high as it's ever been, and that's what this was supposed to be about, just to clarify.

CTFan

[Sparkfist]

Limewater, the title is doing it's job it's grabbing the audience's attention. I think that if someone were to make a thread that talked about "the bloodiest war ever" most would agree that its the American Civil War, then there's nothing to discuss. Just a simple question and a quick answer, maybe some discussion as those of you over seas don't study that and may disagree. But it's be a flat topic.

Also this console war isn't very blood because there are more people on the internet, in 1993-1995 there was hardly what we'd call the internet. If you want to say, there are more people that can voice their opinion about things. Before it was usually you and your friends that would argue about which console was the best. Now we have people blasting about how the 360 sucks because it's still a Microsoft product, the Wii is the best because of the controller (having never played one), and the PS3 sucks for having a price tag of $600.

That's not bloody that's more like politics in that it's mud slinging. Talking crap about your rival and doing nothing but damaging there character, at best. At least in the days of the Genesis and SNES it was about games and hardware capability, neither are really discussed anymore. It might be because those discussing don't have any experience or know about them, or it could be that the things that made each unique is no longer there.

Console today are more like computer, or it could be the other way around, and computer are more like video game consoles. So they're all the same now. Hardware is so generic that can we tell the difference between any system on a standard screen? And at the moment can we tell the difference betwen a 360 and a PS3 at 720i? Not likely.

And to add to why the 16-bit era was the most bloody, look at what kind of add-ons or accessories were released. Sega had the SegaCD and 32x released, Nintendo had game accessories like the bazooka. Things that really added to the game play, not media center add-ons like an HD-DVD player for $200.