What is your favorite Last-Gen console?

Now is the time to carefully decide what last generation console was your favorite. Mine is the Xbox because of the memorable games, beautiful graphics, and I actually like the way the Xbox looks.

Great Xbox Games I Have Played (in no particular order)

Jade Empire
Star Wars Knights of The Old Republic
Shenmue II
The Cronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay
Halo series
Splinter Cell series
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Otogi series
Fable
Ninja Gaiden

I am just listing games that were Xbox exclusives, or just played better on Xbox i.e. Splinter Cell series.

Geez, it's a tough choice. All in all I think the previous gen was a good one with a lot of fine art on all systems. PS2 looks the oldest, but it has a staggering selection of games. GameCube had a lot of neat little overlooked gems. XBox had great graphics and a lot of A+ titles.

I'd go with XBox, reluctantly. GameCube just didn't have enough games to tempt me, personally, and although the PS2 sure has the numbers I think the XBox had a better ratio of good-to-bad games. Still, all three were excellent consoles.

I would have to put the PS2 in second place and Gamecube in last. The Gamecube was somewhat of a dissapointment for me. The only really good games were the first party games, and their really wasn't enough of them. Well, the Gamecube does have the best version of RE4 so I will give them that. The Gamecube is also starving for RPG's. The PS2 had alot of good games, but alot of crap also.

Doesn't Dreamcast belong to this generation?

PlayStation 2. It didn´t live up to my expectations after the awesome PS1, but still has an awesome selection of games. The Xbox is my least favourite console of the last gen; somehow none of the exclusive titles appealed to me. And it looks like a 1980 VCR.

Taking the Dreamcast in account is a bit hard because it died before Xbox and Cube were even released...but if we count it, it´s my no.2.

I consider the DC to be sort of a gen of its own. It's superior to the 64, PSX, and SAT in terms of technology but considerably behind the PS2, GC, and XBX. (If anyone wants to debate this, find someone else. On a screenshot basis, DC and PS2 were similar but in terms of practical application PS2 games were more advanced.)

So no, I don't think the DC should be added. Although I do LOVE my DC to death.

DC is part of that gen, just the same as 3DO is part of the PSX/Saturn generation. It just died early.

Technology isn't what counts regardless, but DC's "technologically inferior" status is certainly debatable -- PS2 games were never "more advanced" than Dreamcast games during the time that DC was still around or a recent memory; it was only years after the fact that PS2 games advanced beyond what was on Dreamcast (and who knows how much DC games would've improved if given the same amount of time?). And remember when tech stats were released for the PS2 port of RE4? Its poly counts and etc. were completely within the realm of what had been achieved on Dreamcast back in 2001.

But I digress.

Okay, so I'll play along for a sec. (Only for you, J-Factor.)

Regardless of how long it took, PS2 games eventually became much more complex and expansive than DC games were. And although the 'if only it had lived long enough' comment is a good try, it doesn't really stick with the DC. The DC was so easy to program for that you had games like Soul Calibur as launch titles. The PS2 was more complex and therefore had a longer learning period.

Mainly I'm talking about the difference in scope/complexity between offerings on the DC and the PS2. When you consider the load times in Half-Life DC (two weeks before release), can you really imagine most later PS2 games running on DC hardware? (And on GD-ROMs, for that matter?)

The way I see it, when the PS2 and DC were both alive they were certainly very close, but the difference in ease of programming meant that the DC was probably already pushing everything it had while the PS2 was still largely underutilized. in the end the PS2 was the stronger system if you compare games at near-maximum capability - the last two/three years of the PS2's cycle and the last year and a half of the DC's cycle.

What I was trying to say is that the DC was a bridge system that never saw the type of games that largely defined the previous generation, and because of that it doesn't really belong in a poll of the 'last-gen'. If we say the previous gen started in '99 and ended in '07, then the Dreamcast only saw the first sliver of the generation and certainly didn't take part in the heyday of the era circa '04, '05, etc.

But regardless of who's right, this is a pretty minor issue and it's still Vehemont's call to put the DC in.

I'm going to judge based on slightly different criteria, just to be an ass:

PS2: a little tricky to set up an exploit boot but once you do, you can run games from the hdd with about 80-90% compatibility. Running burns requires disc swapping. Homebrew pretty much blows due to the primitive open source SDK.

Xbox: so ridiculously easy to softmod it's just not funny. A softmodded Xbox can do anything a chipped one can. Can run games from hdd with nearly 99% compatibility. Homebrew is awesome because most of the homebrewers don't care about illegally using the XDK.

Gamecube: about as tricky to exploit as the PS2, but works well enough once it is. Still requires disc swapping. Everything on this system is crap unless you like tired Nintendo franchises and RE4. Homebrew is weak because I could never get it to work worth anything. (puts on flame-proof suit) The Gameboy player is pretty cool, though.

Winner: Xbox, because it's really easy to steal games for it and generally abuse the system in any way imaginable.

The X-Box was a PC with all the useful bits taken out and Halo is the only good game on it is vastly overrated. The gamecube is tosh. Therefore my vote goes to the PS2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Smith

The X-Box was a PC with all the useful bits taken out and Halo is the only good game on it is vastly overrated. The gamecube is tosh. Therefore my vote goes to the PS2.

---

Haha, best post on the forum for a bloody long time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Smith

The X-Box was a PC with all the useful bits taken out and Halo is the only good game on it is vastly overrated. The gamecube is tosh. Therefore my vote goes to the PS2.

---

Oh come on now, the Xbox is perfectly fine once you modify it until it's not really an Xbox anymore and play only unofficial software on it. Also, Halo is complete trash.

In the end, I think what turned out to be the Xbox killer app for me was Sonic 1 Megamix running on NeoGenesis. Either that or Forza. Go figure.

Yes, the Dreamcast belongs. If anyone wants to change their vote, tell me what you voted for and I'll swap it.

I have a tough time choosing, as games started to become the most boring they have ever been with the previous generation. Very few "pick up and play" type games. However the last generation did give us some of my favorite games ever like Shenmue 1&2, Super Monkey Ball 1&2 (GC versions only) and F-Zero GX.

ABUSE OF MODLY POWER!

Quiet, or I'll change your avatar!!!!

Watch it, or your squirting man-chicken dies... :p

Well I am glad you added the Dreamcast, because I was debating that myself when I started the thread. Can you guys explain your reasoning for not liking Halo other than "its overrated." True it does not have a groundbreaking story but it groundbreaking in other accounts. It proved that the genre can indeed be done on a console, had great grphics for the time, awesome A.I, and deep multiplayer. Millions of gamers can't be wrong. Don't give me, oh its complete tosh, Mr. Smith, give me some reason to believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vehemont

Millions of gamers can't be wrong. Don't give me, oh its complete tosh, Mr. Smith, give me some reason to believe you.

---

Sure they can. 50 million people voted for Bush and they were all wrong.
I never said Halo was tosh, I said the Gamecube was. Halo is overrated for a number of reasons and although it is quite good, lacks something that makes it awesome. I found the levels quiet dull and uninspiring, unlike Goldeneye and Blood (the two most awesomest FPS's ever and anybody who says otherwise is clearly insane) I did not have that buzz of excitement every time I turned a corner, opened a door, came into an open area. The weapons were lame (except that white sword thing, which was pretty cool) and the enemies lamer. For some reason Halo also remined me of Warhammer 40000, which is not a good thing. The only reason Halo is revered is because everything else on the Xbox is tosh.

I disliked Halo because the levels were so repetitive. I mean, Assault on the Control room had you going through the *same* geometry over and over. Most of the levels were like that. Also, I felt pretty helpless most of the time because the weapons just don't have that 'bite' to them.

And the multiplayer community has to be the worst in all gaming history.

Well, Genesis Knight you just have to know which weapons to use. Always keep the pistol with you (it is probably to powerful for it's own good) and during the campaign always switch out your assault rifle for a plasma rifle. (It is the only way you can beat the game on legendary.) The assault rifle and shotgun works good against the flood so keep that in mind also. Each enemy has weaknesses you just have to exploit them.

As for the multiplayer I prefer just to do lan parties so I do not have to play with the ignorant people online. Co-op is great too. I do agree that the levels can be repetitive at times (I hate the library) but most levels are good (especially The Silent Cartographer).

That FPS could be done on consoles had been proven long before Halo.
Goldeneye. Turok. Medal of Honor. Timesplitters 2. UT. Half-Life. Those were all excellent FPS on consoles. "Combat Evolved" is indeed a good title for Halo: It may have taken the genre a step further, but it was no revolution.
And FPS still play better on PC.

I disliked Halo because I dislike the genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genesis Knight

Okay, so I'll play along for a sec. (Only for you, J-Factor.)

Regardless of how long it took, PS2 games eventually became much more complex and expansive than DC games were.

---

I would certainly expect that games would become more complex over a period of several years. The fact that games of 2005 were more complex than games of 2001 is no reflection on the DC hardware.

Quote:

---

And although the 'if only it had lived long enough' comment is a good try, it doesn't really stick with the DC. The DC was so easy to program for that you had games like Soul Calibur as launch titles.

---

...and you had games that improved upon that over time. Shenmue II, Headhunter, Space Channel 5 Part 2, etc. were just as good as anything else on any other system when they came out, and were a big step above the launch lineup.

Quote:

---

The PS2 was more complex and therefore had a longer learning period.

---

Indeed, but games still improve after the 'learning period' hurdle is achieved. Genesis was a relatively simple system, easy to learn, and yet developers were still finding new ways to push the system 6-7 years after it was out.

There was a Dreamcast tech demo in 2001 that went over 8 million polygons per second, with multiple simultaneous effects. A tech demo that never saw any game application due to the death of the console.

Quote:

---

Mainly I'm talking about the difference in scope/complexity between offerings on the DC and the PS2. When you consider the load times in Half-Life DC (two weeks before release), can you really imagine most later PS2 games running on DC hardware? (And on GD-ROMs, for that matter?)

---

Most? Yes, absolutely. The vast majority of games released don't even push the hardware that they're on. Do you really think the DC would've had a hard time with Ratatouille? There's only a small handful of games on PS2 (and Xbox and Gamecube for that matter) that are even debatable as to whether or not they'd work on DC easily.

GD-ROMs would've been more of an issue than the actual Dreamcast hardware, but an issue that isn't that hard to overcome. Most multi-platform games did just fine on Gamecube, with discs only 1.5 gb in capacity (which isn't that much more). GD-ROMs might have necessitated a few cuts, but in 99% of cases, the entire core game would've fit fine.

Quote:

---

The way I see it, when the PS2 and DC were both alive they were certainly very close, but the difference in ease of programming meant that the DC was probably already pushing everything it had while the PS2 was still largely underutilized. in the end the PS2 was the stronger system if you compare games at near-maximum capability - the last two/three years of the PS2's cycle and the last year and a half of the DC's cycle.

---

I don't see any reason to believe that Dreamcast games in 2001 were already pushing the console to its limit. I don't think it's plausible to reach the boundaries of new hardware that quickly -- not just for DC, but in general. There are so many examples of old hardware being pushed in new ways, and I never saw any comments in 2001 from any programmers or anyone actually involved in game development that said "well, we've done everything that we can with this system."

Also, game development itself makes advances over time. It's really not apt to compare games that came out 4-5 years apart -- if the systems are exactly the same in capability, the newer games will be significantly better. If PS2 hardware was 80% as powerful as DC, it would still be true that its newer games were more advanced than DC's later games. So that is no reflection on any difference in hardware capabilities.

Quote:

---

What I was trying to say is that the DC was a bridge system that never saw the type of games that largely defined the previous generation, and because of that it doesn't really belong in a poll of the 'last-gen'. If we say the previous gen started in '99 and ended in '07, then the Dreamcast only saw the first sliver of the generation and certainly didn't take part in the heyday of the era circa '04, '05, etc.

---

Irrelevant, IMO.

Nearly all Dreamcast games ran in 480p. Not so with the Playstation 2. It had to be told to run in 480p, and it ate up extra CPU. The Dreamcast ran in 480p unless you told it not to and you worked for SNK. The PS2 was designed by pansies.

You make good points, J-Factor. I'll still think that the DC isn't quite last gen, but it's opinion and nothing more. On the other hand, some of your comments make me a bit prouder of the console.

EDIT: While we're on the subject, is there anywhere I can see that tech demo you talked about?

I always loved my Gamecube

J-factor, what you say seems a bit blue-eyed. Although I agree that the DC may not have seen it´s true limits. Who knows what the best the hardware could handle would look like? but undoubtedly it would be somewhat weaker than on PS2. The polygon-count in DC-games is too low; you cannot count demo-stuff, that is not neccessarily doable in gameplay. Even some games like Shenmue 2 have NPCs that have bodies as blocky as in a PSOne game, while on PS2, GC and Cube characters seem very well rounded, with more going on on-screen. You had to make compromises in that matter on DC. Therefor the V-RAM was bigger, altjough I believe that the polygon-count was more important. And the Cube and Xbox even beat the DC in the texture area.


The Dreamcast is behind the PlayStation 2´s power just as the PS2 is behind the Gamecube and the Cube is behind the Xbox.
It´s only logical; after all, the PlayStation 2 was released long after DC. Games like MGS 3, God of War, FF XII or any GTA are way beyond anything DC could handle. Hideo Kojima mentioned even MGS 2 would not have been possible on DC the way it was on PS2.

DC was great for it´s time, but had the weakest technology of the gen.

108 agrees with at least the concept of why I say DC isn't really last gen.

since i dont care about graphics in a game that much and gameplay is more important

i voted DC

i wont buy any hardware with the Sony brand name on it (the only reason i own a PS1 is because it was a xmas gift from a girlfriend who didnt know about my boycott and none of my games were bought retail) :D
the Xbox is just heavy :daze:
the games i own for my Xbox and GC are mostly compliations, and i paid a total of $100 for both systems with 9 games, the xbox cost me $100 with 7 games, and my GC i made money on actually in a trade for my Cuttle Cart 1, i got $150+a GC with 2 games and 4 atari 5200 carts and a 5200 rollerball controller :)

i have about 80 games for the DC and maybe 23 for the other 2 systems total
im also done buying anything after the xbox and GC as they are only computers posing as consoles, i have a computer and i paid less for it

ive played other games on the xbox and GC on friends systems but i didnt have as much fun as i do with my DC
maybe im just an old fart :( :cool:

ive rambled on long enough and some info didnt need to be posted just like alot of stuff in this thread :p

What a shame there wasn't a 5th option stating:

* I think they're all shite.

I was going to vote gamecube, which I do like but don't love. I consider it the best of a bad bunch really.

I don't consider Dreamcast of the same era as the other three, as it was in its prime before the other consoles had really begun - or even launched. But since its on the list thats the console I voted for, so many awesome games, Sega were really at their peak, pumping out tons of brilliant innovative games - compare how many games sega brought out for dreamcast to the trickle of games the other companies did, and still do release for their consoles - where are all the nintendo developed Wii games for example.
House of the Dead 2, Sonic Adventure, Crazy Taxi, Bass Fishing, Space Channel 5, Soul Calibur, Shenmue, these games were a breath of fresh air at the time, this was when PS1 and N64 were still the main consoles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 108 Stars

J-factor, what you say seems a bit blue-eyed. Although I agree that the DC may not have seen it´s true limits. Who knows what the best the hardware could handle would look like? but undoubtedly it would be somewhat weaker than on PS2. The polygon-count in DC-games is too low; you cannot count demo-stuff, that is not neccessarily doable in gameplay.

---

Actual DC games approached 6 million polygons per second at 60 fps. Even years later, lots and lots of games on PS2/Cube/Xbox were way less than that. Relatively few games exceeded it substantially.

Quote:

---

Even some games like Shenmue 2 have NPCs that have bodies as blocky as in a PSOne game, while on PS2, GC and Cube characters seem very well rounded, with more going on on-screen. You had to make compromises in that matter on DC. Therefor the V-RAM was bigger, altjough I believe that the polygon-count was more important. And the Cube and Xbox even beat the DC in the texture area.

The Dreamcast is behind the PlayStation 2´s power just as the PS2 is behind the Gamecube and the Cube is behind the Xbox.

---

I'm not saying Dreamcast is more powerful than Xbox, I'm just saying that it's not that much less that it's not comparable. DC is definitely much closer to PS2/Xbox/Cube than it is to PSX/Saturn. I'd even say that the distance between DC and PS2 isn't greater than the distance between PS2 and Gamecube.

Quote:

---

It´s only logical; after all, the PlayStation 2 was released long after DC. Games like MGS 3, God of War, FF XII or any GTA are way beyond anything DC could handle. Hideo Kojima mentioned even MGS 2 would not have been possible on DC the way it was on PS2.

---

Kojima is full of crap. And GTA3 is so not even close to being beyond DC's capabilities -- it has much worse graphics than many DC games.

Quote:

---

DC was great for it´s time, but had the weakest technology of the gen.

---

Yes, it did. But it's not leaps and bounds weaker.

The PS2 is to the DC what the SNES is to the PC Engine. That's about how much difference there is between the two consoles. And the SNES and PC Engine are somehow in the same generation despite the SNES launching years later. Therefore the DC and PS2 are in the same generation of consoles.

I win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Kojima is full of crap. And GTA3 is so not even close to being beyond DC's capabilities -- it has much worse graphics than many DC games.

---

Kojima is fucking awesome. And GTA would not be possible. It´s not all about the detail of graphics; it´s about the huge cities with masses of NPCs and events hapening while managing the graphics; I do not believe DC could pull it off. It even pushed PS2 to the limits.

BTW I find it fascinating that you can count polygons.

The only way GTA would work on DC would be to get some sort of streaming loadtime working a la Soul Reaver, but even then the clip range would probably be awful.

GTA3 was pretty simple. A "huge" environment doesn't mean much when the draw distance is crap, and everything is fugly. I consider GTA3 to be less advanced than Crazy Taxi 2.

Now, San Andreas, you might have a point with that one. But, just because there are a small number of PS2 games that would be problematic, impractical, or even impossible to do on DC, doesn't mean that PS2 royally trounces DC in hardware. Genesis has some games that wouldn't be feasible on SNES, but that doesn't make it leagues more powerful.

edit: I would like to reiterate that this is just a tangent, and the comparison in hardware capabilities has no bearing on whether or not DC counts as part of the same generation. I would also say that the DC's early death means nothing, too. Afterall, Jaguar was dead by the time N64 came out, and isn't remotely close in terms of power, but it's still in the same generation.

Personally I see the Dreamcast in the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube generation. I have no boring techonolgoical knowledge to backup this claim, but thought I would offer a lay opinion.

I see the Dreamcast in the last generation but, it just got left behind early on. The PS2 beat it because of the ability to be able to play DVD's.

Dreamcast for me. I got more enjoyment out of more games and still do.

Gamecube is the one I have. Never got a DC or PS2 (never even considered an Xbox). I didn't play it as much as I had played my PS1, but I got some major quality in place of quantity. Sonic Adventure 1&2, Mario Sunshine, Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Viewtiful Joe, Pokemon Colluseum, Smash Bros. Melee, and on and on. I'm kinda big on platformers and GC had those in spades, many of them very well done IMO.