darthbane2k said:
When you use such a gross exaggeration to merely support your trolling, then yes - you are a fanboy.
Still namecalling, eh? That's all you got? Don't tell me you're not a Nintendo fanboy. And I KNOW you've been trolling around here a lot longer/more than I ever will. Again, you're just a hypocrite resorting to namecalling and putting words in other people's mouths to defend your flaming on others. You must be a hit with the ladies (or anyone, for that matter).
darthbane2k said:
I'm sure you're me, right? You know everything I'm thinking and believe in? You know, not everyone is a pessimistic fanboy such as yourself. People can root for more than 1 console at a time without buying them all, you know? But hey, you're a know-it-all that thinks I am against the Wii from succeeding, even though I clearly said I am for it? Too funny.
darthbane2k said:
You mean the WII cannot compete graphically with the PS3? Nintendo are far capable of producing a technologically superior console. N64 and Gamecube had 'better graphics' than PS1 and PS2 respectively. You can also argue that The Wii controller teechnology is far more superior than the dual shock(less) -redux offering from Sony.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... that's all I gotta say to this comment.
darthbane2k said:
Thats one heck of an assumption. How sophisticated was PS2's online features? You have no reason not to believe Sony?? I can give you a dozen. As far as telling the truth goes, Sony is as straight as a circle.
Where's your 12 reasons not to believe Sony? I sure don't see them listed here, even though you claim to have a dozen.
I can only think of a few and most are only from their production problems they seem to have with all their major launches. But hey, Microsoft has had the same issues too. Not too sure about Nintendo cuz I stopped paying attention to them since N64.
Again, YOU are ASSuming more than I am. But you're ASSuming based on your trust issues and hatred for Sony/love for Nintendo. I based my opinions off of Sony's online history. They may not have XBox Live's service, but they also didn't charge gamers $50/year to be able to play games online.
darthbane2k said:
The Xbox 360 is a GAMES CONSOLE, it is bought to play games first and foremost. The financial stability of Sony as a company is at risk due to 'Blu-Ray' - it is more important to them that the movie format succeed rather than the whole of SCE succeed (we all know what happened to Betamax and UMD). It is because of Blu Ray that the PS3 is so expensive and has been significantly delayed. How many home cinema enthusiasts or Techies use a console to play their movies anyway? With a half-assed playback functionality? If you like movies, you'll buy a dedicated player.
X360 is such focused gaming console, they're releasing a HD-DVD drive, right? Why would they feel the need to have something like that if they're such a "GAMES CONSOLE?" Hmm, maybe because they feel like their $400 console can't compete with PS3's Blu-ray technology without a similar product/add-on?
You're just hating on Blu-ray before it's even given a chance. You're wishing for BD to fail, but the fact is, it's only begun. I won't try and predict the future like you, but I believe BD will do just fine, even with haters/bashers like you. And if/when BD becomes the new accepted "next-gen" format, you'll have no choice but to give in or get left behind with DVDs. Either way, I could care less.
darthbane2k said:
Whether they are for you or not, you have to show titles as iconic as these a little more 'respect'.
Yeah, I 'respect' "iconic" titles that Nintendo rehashes a million times because they can't come up with new "icons" and "killer apps." Seriously, I do 'respect' them but that doesn't mean I have to like or play them. And most non-Nintendo fanboys feel the same way.