For some people, yes it can be that simple. Look at the consoles, how many games are out that are exactly the same as other old ones EXCEPT for more levels and much better graphics. There are some people that ONLY want an engrossing story line and don't care about visuals at all, and that's their choice. Some play in online RPGs that are like messageboards (like those listed here) because they find those more interesting. No big deal, no desire to bash them for not playing super-flashy action games like the ones I do (or what most of the big console games are). I am simply asking what it is you find interesting in a game. I mean, what other advances are there right now in gaming? The main pushes in technology have come in faster processing, better audio, and of course better graphics handling. There aren't any new processors coming out that claim to enhance the story line or increase the originality of the games played on it.
 
It's easy to boil almost all of the games coming out down to another game that came out long before, but you seem to be finding something SO new and different in new games that you have a PS2 and not a Nintendo reliving the excitement of Zelda on a 13" TV.

Just finished Halo, and it kicked ***. Game was fun from start to finish. I hope it does come to PC for MP support. Man was that a hell of a ride.

Damn, going that fast, did you even have time to notice all the pretty pictures on the screen?
 

Yeah it was a beutiful game. Tho most of the time your getting shot at and are just trying to run.

With Microsoft, although making consoles is new territory for the software giant, it can barely be described as an underdog with its $US500 million marketing war chest. So far, Xbox tops its competition with hardware grunt. The console is powered by an Intel 733MHz CPU and swims along with 64MB of RAM and the latest GeForce-based video card.
Some have criticised it as a glorified PC but Microsoft has taken a "whatever gets the job done" approach: its theoretical performance is double that of the PlayStation 2, not to mention it also has DVD-playback and HDTV support built in.
However, a games console is only as good as its games, and if there's any weak link to be found in the Xbox, it's the games. Microsoft doesn't have a flagship title - nothing that screams Xbox in the same way Gran Turismo screams PlayStation 2 or how Mario personifies Nintendo.
With time, Xbox's library of quality software is likely to grow if one follows the "if you build it, they will come" mantra.

Halo is flagship. The GC isn't gonna have Mario till next summer and the real PS2 flagship game "Metal Gear Solid 2" is being outsold by a number of new titles for the XBOX and GC. I'll take Halo and DOA 3 anyday versus GT3. I have all systems and I can honestly say that the first generation of XBOX games are more polished then the PS2 games that have recently come out. Bottom line is XBOX has two killer titles as of lauch. Whereas with the PS2 we had to wait a year for MGS2 and GT3, and will have to wait till summer 2002 for Mario on GC.

Quote:Palos:

My money will go to the first one that will support Divx decoding Looks like the XBOX could be it. It's just a matter of time

Actually technically that would be the PS2. The reason for this is that LINUX is out (or will be shortly) for the PS2, and you can watch divx movies under linux

That will catch on kinda like bleem.
 
 
Wouldnt be kewl unless it was hardware driven, having to switch disks from a boot disk sucks.
 
Having to load linux then play divx would suck even more

Personally I prefer PS2 for the next reason:
 
1 - I don't want more microsoft (X-box)
2 - I already a A PC (X-box)
3 - I have more than 7 year (gamecube)
4 - I thinks i have moral (x-cube and gamecube)
5 - PS2 have better graphics than Gamecube (ps2)
6 - I don't have DVD so why buy another machine for that (ps2)
7 - Most of the Game I like (FF Serie, CC, Bof) are compatible (ps2)
8 - Al the games PSX(ecep ff4, 5, 6) are compatible (Ps2)
9 - I don't remember more
 
(sorry for my english )