Yes, honestly.

Get in the channel.

For me, the games. Why would I care about the specs of a system if there weren't any games that utilize them well?

Hands down. It's the games. Enough RPG-friendly companies backing up a console will get me out to the stores to shell out $300. I'll never buy a Nintendo or Microsoft console unless they start churning out some killer RPGs. (Which Square may end up doing for the next generation.)

marcoxnoto said:
Hands down. It's the games. Enough RPG-friendly companies backing up a console will get me out to the stores to shell out $300. I'll never buy a Nintendo or Microsoft console unless they start churning out some killer RPGs. (Which Square may end up doing for the next generation.)

Have you been looking at the 360's RPG support? It's beginning to look pretty good. With the Mist Walker games and Enchant Arm (RPG by From Software) on the list.

GAMES!!!! The xbox and the gc have better specs than the ps2 but the ps2 outsells because it has the games to back it up. It doesn't matter what's under the hood, if it has no good games then it isn't doing what it is supposed to do, which is play games.

i think i'd rather spend the money on a console that i'd actually use, therefore i'd by the console for the games. why get one with nicer graphics if there are no games available that i would buy? then again, i bought x box over a year ago, and only own two games for it, so i guess i did both...

I can't honestly see anyone saying 'for the specs'. I mean what the hell is the point in owning a console if you don't like the games that have been made for it?

Nephtis said:
I can't honestly see anyone saying 'for the specs'. I mean what the hell is the point in owning a console if you don't like the games that have been made for it?

Obviously someone did, or else we wouldn't be here voting on it.

Yeah well I got that, I just wanted to point out how flawed and baseless such an argument would be. Aside from the poll being 8-0, no one has mentioned any reasons against going for the games.

9-0 actually, and while I said games, there are valid arguments to be made in the specs favor. For example, despite system b's lack of better games, for the sake of argument, lets say that system b still had decent games, and so for some videophile's out there, system b would be better than system a.

But you'd still be buying it primarily for the games, not the specs.

Well if the specs included a toaster I might be inclined towards toasty goodness.

And if the specs included various other non-game console things I'd be more inclined too. I just don't see how all of this 'bigger penis' type mentality works. I mean I'm happy to play Super Nintendo games. The games are good, I don't care what the specs are.

Maybe it's because I'm not one of those people that insists on having the latest graphics card on my PC, I upgrade when I need to as opposed to having 'l33t' specs.

My mini ps2 has a built in modem, is 'bout the size of a handheld DVD player, so I can hook them together, lose no room(cept for the cords.) and play games on trips n shite. Innit dat coooooOOOOLLLL. PENIS.