|
It seems like flame wars break out every single time a new gaming system is released that has any competition whatsoever. Sure, there are many people that stay out of it, but there are always plenty willing to defend their system of choice while attacking others, even far before their release. This is happening now with the 360, PS3, and Revolution, is still going on with the DS and PSP, and, in some places, hasn't stopped for older systems. Looking back, this has happened every single generation that I was old enough to pay attention to. But why do people spend so much effort fighting over this kind of thing? That is indeed an important question, and I have yet to hear a good answer to it.
One argument I commonly hear is that one system is "more powerful" than the others on the market. The problem with this argument is simple: more powerful systems generally cost more money, come out later in the generation, or both. Well, what if two systems come out at the exact same time, both have the same price, and one is more powerful (likely losing money on console sales that they hope to make up another way)? Well, the thing is, even if the system is indeed truly better and more powerful in every way for the same price, there is absolutely no guarantee that the games for that particular system will be worth playing.
Looking back over some of the more powerful systems such as the Nintendo 64 and Xbox, it's easy to see that these systems have very few games that appeal to gamers who favor RPGs. Each system released so few RPGs that I can probably count them on my fingers without using binary. The Xbox also had some of its more interesting RPG titles released for PC, further diminishing its value for RPGamers. This isn't to say that these consoles didn't have good games for them, just that their power is no guarantee of having a selection of games a particular player is interested in.
But what about games that are released for multiple systems at once? Off the top of my head, games such as Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, The Bard's Tale, and Mega Man X Command Mission come to mind. Ignoring cases such as Skies of Arcadia where bonus content is involved in the port/remake, is there really that much of a difference? Sure power and graphics weigh in a little more heavily when talking about fighting games such as Soul Calibur II, but I believe the controller is a more deciding factor in the games listed above. I personally would gladly give up any minor graphical enhancements I would gain by playing a game on a more powerful system if it means I get to use a controller I find much more comfortable.
In the end, how "good" or "powerful" a system is is irrelevant. Are some of the classics any less enjoyable simply because they're on less powerful machines? What really matters is a system's selection of games and which controller that particular player likes best. It's pointless to compare systems such as the PS3 and Revolution to the Xbox 360 this early on. Actually, it's a bit pointless to argue about this kind of thing at all. Other gamers may like different genres or controllers better. A system may be perfect for some people while it would be a waste of money for others, so let's stop the pointless quarreling. Besides, the truth is that you never know when some great game is going to be released for a system you previously laughed at.
|
RSS feed
iTunes