BreakmanX.com

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:48 am**

http://www.gamespy.com/solefood/november03/sf12/

What the bleeding hell?? Content is king??? Xbox OBVIOUSLY has the dominant online content; I think only PS2 fanboys would argue otherwise. The thing is, Psylancer isn't a PS2 fanboy, I know this from his previous posts. In fact, I think I know exactly what he's doing, and it's starting to piss me off.
It seems like Psylancer's been posting a lot of posts lately that contradict the widely-accepted opinions of the gaming community. Between this and recent posts defending the N-Gage, he just seems like he's trying to swim upstream, and not very gracefully at that. Really, I think he's trying to play devil's advocate all the time, but the way he does it, all calm and acting all reasonable and shit (despite the loosey-goosey logic he uses), pisses me off more than anything. If it were some crazy fanboy rant, I could easily dismiss it, but so calm and rational, I just wanna punch him. Psylancer, if you're reading this by chance, I'm sure you're a great guy and gamer, but I wanna get other people's opinions on this. Is Psylancer performing the necessary evil by playing devil's advocate to the underdogs of the gaming world, or is he going too far?

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:43 pm**

Devil's Advocate or not, he's simply wrong. Xbox live is the best online solution for gaming, and anyone who's given both a fair shake would know that. Doing something like this only puts "silly" bullets in the Ps2 fanboy's "silly-guns." Super lame, and a lot of respect lost from me. In other words, I think his article is a bad idea and only gives fuel to the ignorant that would actually buy this stuff. Check out his current playing list:

The Return of the King (Xbox)
Tony Hawk's Underground (PS2)
Top Spin (Xbox)
Win Poker (PC)
Britney's Dance Beat (PS2)

This guy does write some good reviews, but unless he is just trying to suck up to Sony... I can't understand why he'd do this. I mean the amount of cheaters on Ps2 online alone should destroy it.

I'm a believer in the notion that if something has already been said well by someone else, that it is much more efficient just to quote them. So, I give you Tycho on the subject:

Tycho wrote:It was easy to think of EA's offering and Microsoft's offering as fungible initially. EA was doing theirs for free, and Microsoft had a pay service, and obviously free is... nice. But while I was being desiccated by Las Vegas nights soaked with alcohol, it seemed to me that their service is free because it sucks. It's free because it is so without ambition that it can be offered for nothing, until such time as they want to charge for it. Why else would they reserve the right, why else would they go through all the trouble?

I've spent enough time on Live with recent titles that it's impossible for me to compare the two approaches. You don't sign in to Live, you don't create a password, you push A. Every game supports voice and a universal friends list I can view from the web. I have a hard disk built in for content. There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it later, it's so you can put in a cable and access the Internet. You assholes.

That is all to say nothing about game invites. If I'm playing a game by Ubi Soft, I can still receive invites to play games from other developers - each publisher doesn't have it's own little fairy land where I can only play games with other people who have their games. I can be playing Crimson Skies and get an invite to play Ghost Recon. If I say yes, the tray pops out and I put in the other disc. Then, it joins me automatically. When I can do that with games from EA, I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, they need to act like big people and make choices that are of value to consumers.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:35 pm**

oh, its the same thing they did for windows. they just want everythign to follow one simple template. Just like when microsoft came out with the first windows. Is to acsess. Very conformed so that onc eyou learn the system you know how to do it all, and they make the games a part of the system. PS2 games are good and unique and all but everything they do they have to start from scratch and do it all by themselves. Xbox on the other hand isn't just a machine that runs the game. It has software and progams that actually binds the game to the system and makes their games unique. Playstation games and game cube games on anyother system would be as great. But if you put xbox games on either o those to they will lose their conectivity.
Just like windows it isn't the the hardware that matters(it helps alot though) it is the software. They don't make games for Xbox that are online, they make them for xbox live. If Xbox and PS2 switched their online services, PS2 would obviously win. Less hardware, but a user freindly system.
Ya know what......i forgot why i started typing and have probably gone on and on on the wrong topic so.....ummmmmm

bye!

BreakmanX.com

Gamespy's silly... noo, more like stupid

Gamespy's silly... noo, more like stupid