I couldn't have said it better myself

Ziggy: You must not know much about video game systems. XBox 360 doesn't just have better graphics than the Xbox, there's so much more internally to a game system than graphics.

Also, the whole sensor thing has been done before when some of those games you buy in the toy section. There's one in the toy section of a lot of stores that is a baseball bat and you plug it into your TV and swing the baseball bat and it replicates it on screen, I've played on before and they're pretty precise and are a very similar concept to the Wii.

As I said, the technology behind a PS3 and XBox 360 is probably twice (or 3 times) more expensive as the technology in a Wii.

Speaking of XBOX, does the original still have LIVE? If so, we could all buy an XBOX, get PSO, and play online, it's the only version of PSO that's still online. At all. Plus, it's $5.

Xbox still has live I'm pretty sure.

And those toy games have weaker tech that is less effective and doesn't function at a level anywhere near that of a wii. I know the 360 has more harddrive space and a better processor and the cost of technology doesn't prove effectiveness. The PS3 costed $850 to make at some points, but that doesn't make it the best.

Originally posted by ziggy

---

Whoa, that's a lie! Eye toy's tech was nothing compared to what's in the wii. If you stick your hand in front of the camera than you automatically get a high score on most games.

Next off, those kinds of controllers only are sold for enhancing the games. Most of the time, those controllers when made for the wii still use it's virtual tech anyway. How are motion sensors in video games old? The 360 and PS3 aren't advanced enough for them. Those systems still use typical controllers as they did when game systems just came out. That's old technology.

Now explain how the Wii isn't innovative.

---

The 360 and PS3 don't support them which is different then can't use them. So don't get ahead of yourself buddy. And the fact that use the Wii's tech anyway just proves its old technology repackaged.

As for eye toy being nothing compared to the Wii's tech. No duh its about 4 years older and is on a much older weaker system, all i said was that it was the original motion gaming for consoles. If you want exact comparisons go to an arcade. They have better motion boxing and better motion FPS game. Your not going to be able to say the Wii's hardware is anywhere near innovative. If your looking for something actually innovative about the Wii you going to have to look at software esk things.

And how easy is it to BUY one of those arcade games? It isn't possible. Besides, each one of those arcade games is limited to one and only one game. And the CONCEPT of the tech in the wii is old but different and newer that things like eyetoy.
And what is so innovative about the 360 and PS3?

What's innovative about...
XBOX360: Red Rings of Death, never had that before. What a NEW way to be tortured!
PS3: Being basically a brick that made Sony lose tons of money. That's new.

My point exactly, but don't forget the original ring of death that would appear on the game discs themselves!

I know. I could never hear the end of it when my friend Ian had a 360 a few years back and the disk melted

Originally posted by lbock3

---

What's innovative about...
XBOX360: Red Rings of Death, never had that before. What a NEW way to be tortured!
PS3: Being basically a brick that made Sony lose tons of money. That's new.

---

PS3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

Thats innovation. You clearly need a definition of what innovation is. Making a tech better isn't innovation. You have to actually implement something new yourself not slightly improve on an already made technology. I never said the 360 was innovative. The only innovative thing the original X-Box brought was Live which was an actual online console community. If Nintendo was innovative they would of made sensors and used something like an eye toy so you their Wii could do more then just keep track of like multiple body parts rather then 1 remote.

I'm sorry to say it. Nintendo has just been leech when it comes to new things. Its survived off making great games and many of them I love. When you compare the Wii to the 360 and PS3 its far inferior and in the technology world usually the better products fail to the better advertised product.

"and in the technology world usually the better products fail to the better advertised product." - Remlee

And that is exactly why the Dreamcast went under sooner than it should. Had way better games then both the PS2 (at the time) and N64 but it stood no chance.

It had no chance because Sega went full speed and left everyone behind; Dreamcast was the first HOME CONSOLE on earth to bring online multiplayer games. And it's a dang shame it went out like it did

The Dreamcast was the first on many things

-First 128 bit system
-First successful online multiplayer
-First console to use discs bigger than 700 MB (they used something called GD but I forget how much data they could hold)
-First to implement a memory card with a screen which could be used as a handheld gaming system and also used as a screen during some video games (actually the only)
-Introduced cellshading games (i think they did)

And on top of the things they introduced, they also had an excellent collection of games.

Anyway

There are much more important things then consoles lol. Lets see IPX/SPX is better then TCP/IP, Token Ring is better then Etehrnet, the Iphone is garbage compared to others, the wonder swan was much better then the gameboy just lacked the great games to push it forward. Probably a lot more then I know/can think of.


And if you actually look into why the Dreamcast failed. The reason is poor advertisement.

That's the same reason that beta failed. It may have been a good product, but advertising is necessary to back it up.

Apparently if you hit people in the face with ads of your product constantly, they're more likely to cave in and buy it to shut you up.

Originally posted by lbock3

---

Apparently if you hit people in the face with ads of your product constantly, they're more likely to cave in and buy it to shut you up.

---

Or if you put big numbers on it as well don't forget about that option

Yeah, as Mark Twain said, "There's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." and I think he was right. They put statistics that are only half right to get people to buy.

Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot?