Originally Posted by
Emerald Lance
I agree with everything you said, especially about why the Dreamcast fell (SEGA's lack of advertising). Everything, except this:
This sounds like something a Smash Bros tournament goer would say; that each side needs to be the same for the comparison to be "fair"; this is a contradiction. The point of which one is better is decided by one side being better than the other. Giving them both the same resources makes neither one of them better, it makes them both the same. Making them equal voids the contest.
I remember I was playing Melee one day during my high school days. Our high school had a video game club after school on Wednesdays, and kids would bring their Xboxes and Gamecubes to play Halo 2 and Melee. An acquaintance of mine was owning everybody on Melee that day with Marth. After they all lost, they said he should play against me and that I'd probably win. So I accepted his challenge and and we played. And then I found out why he kept winning: he insisted on tourney rules (most characters banned, Final Destination only, no items, 3 stock) in order to make everything "balanced" and "fair". I told him that, if he were really that good, he could win regardless of the conditions of the fight. That ticked him off, so in his pride, he excepted anything goes. I picked Samus (I was itching to prove my point) and he picked Marth, we played 5 stock with all items on, and the stage was Onnett; he lost extremely fast. And of course, he threw a fit, because I was being "cheap" by using items and projectiles. So I said we could play tourney rules as long as I could keep Samus, and he agreed. Final Destination, no items, 3 stock. Again, he lost. And again, he blamed it on my cheap playing. Feeling he had been cheated, he stormed off and left for home, after which I explained that the reason he lost wasn't because I was "cheap" but rather because he just sucked.
Smash Bros' Tourney rules were not made to "level the playing field" and "erase unfair advantages" as they put it, they were made so that people who blow @$$ at the game can feel like they're good at it; in reality, if somebody beats you, they don't do so because they're cheating (unless they are actually using a cheat device like AR) they do so because they are better than you. The same goes for consoles. 360 and PS3 are in the same console generation, they're competing for the same market, so it is a fair comparison. The one with the better stuff is the better system, period. Since the PS3 needs better resources to handle its own format to its fullest, the 360 has that above the PS3. Fairness be damned.