Halo = an above-average FPS, currently available on PC if I really want to play it that badly.
Ninja Gaiden = a hard-as-hell action game. Not my favorite genre, and one well represented on PS2 (the Jak games, the Sly games, Prince of Persia, Ape Escape 2, many more), but if they ported to PS2 I might rent it.
KOTOR = a Star Wars RPG. I would rather eat a broom than play a Star Wars RPG.
Halo 2 = NOT OUT YET ON XBOX. Thus, it is quite difficult to determine how good the finished product will be, how it will compare to the original, or if it'll be visibly banging its head against the hardware limitations of the Xbox. Twenty-five years of gaming experience have taught me never to write off a game as a buy-the-system-for-this masterpiece before it ships; I still hear echoes of my Atari 2600-owning friends in my heads, mocking me for owning an Intellivision in 1981 because "Atari's getting PAC-MAN and you're not and it's going to be AWESOME!"
Doom 3 = SEE ABOVE, and playable on PC (as soon as I break down and get Windows XP, anyway).

I'm looking at the Xbox's Release Dates page on IGN right now, and here's what catches my eye at all between now and the end of the year:

* The Bard's Tale - also on PS2, I'll get it there.
* OutRun 2 - vague curiosity, saw it in a shore arcade. A rental.
* Pinball Hall of Fame - also on PS2, I'll get it there.
* Doom 3 - I own a PC, I'd get it there.
* KOTOR 2 - Bleah.
* Prince of Persia 2 - also on PS2, haven't played the first one yet.

Which means I'm balancing OutRun 2 against GTA: San Andreas, a handful of promising RPGs, Gran Turismo 4 if I get in a driving-game mood, and oddballs like Rumble Roses. ADVANTAGE: PS2. And the NEXT Xbox game that looks interesting (Jade Empire) isn't out until March, is more of a "hey, that's a great concept" thing than a sure-fire success, and release dates that far in advance are always overoptimistic.

I'm not saying that the Xbox is an oversized lump of green-and-black shit with nothing going for it; there are some games for it that are interesting. I'm saying that as a PS2 and PC owner, there were no visible reasons at launch for me to buy an Xbox -- and here, a couple of years later, there STILL aren't. Only the N64 is lower on my contemporary-consoles-to-buy list.

Doom 3 is out on pc, but the specs are way too high. Honestly, Doom 3 is the reason I bought Xbox. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan and I really did not like KOTOR because of the lack of action and the lack of control you have to choose how you complete the missions. I love RPGs, but i need a lot of action, and that's why i love action rpgs, like the new X-men. Xbox 2, will definitely blow PS3 out of the water, or else it should. We'll see what happens with Halo 2. At my EBgames, over 17,000 copies have been pre ordered.

My system is not what I would call a speed-demon, but Doom 3 runs surprisingly well. I think all the "Doom 3 will bring your PC to it's knees!" bullshit was simply designed to sell more copies of the game.

VSP makes compelling arguments to stay away from the Xbox, and I guess the only reasons I can cite for preferring the Xbox are:

1. The graphics. I know it's a subtle difference, but the PS2 just looks grainier to me.
2. The controller. To hear people discuss the PS2 controller, you would think they're talking about the second coming. I was one of the few people who liked the DC controllers, and I really like the Xbox controllers, they fit better in my hands.
3. The Xbox ships with a hard drive. Is that a stupid argument for the Xbox over the PS2? Yeah. But it's still cool to be able to save games right out of the box without buying a memory card.

I *know* the PS2 is a better buy for the money, and I kind of think the GC is a bigger bang for the buck than the PS2, but for some reason, I just really love the Xbox.

So that you can play Doom 3 on a system with an under-800MHz processor?

(Not that that necessarily matters. For example, the PS1 was roughly equivalent to a Pentium-90 in terms of processor speed, according to a developer with whom I've corresponded in the past, but its dedicated-gaming-platform nature allowed it to do tricks that a general P-90 couldn't. I'm just noting that I've read my share of Doom 3 reviews that said "it really shines when you crank the resolution way way up," and I'm not sure what kind of resolution an Xbox version will be able to support.)

Until Microsoft and Sony release the specs for the systems and lists of launch titles, is there much point in speculating about this?

Beyond that, it always takes at least a year or so after release to truly see how consoles compare -- allow the developers time to get the second wave of games and beyond on the shelves, learn some newer coding tricks, and use more of the consoles' potential.

Wait, 17,000 copies at one EBGames? Remind me to go somewhere less crowded on release night.

Don't get me wrong, Bungie doesn't misfire often; I expect that Halo 2 will be a state-of-the-art bang-bang, especially considering that Halo was the _only_ reason to buy an Xbox for its first year or so, and MS thus has a huge interest in helping ensure that Halo 2 also sells systems. But $200 is a lot for one game ($150 console + $50 disc) if I'm not crazy about anything else for the system.

See the thing is, if you're some 16 year old kid and want to play doom III or Halo 2, would you rather spend $150 on a consol that can run it perfectly or God knows how much on a computer that in the end would also run it perfectly, but at a much greater end expense. Consols have always, and will continue to be, a source of CHEAPER video gaming for the recreational gamer.

Hey, I'm not debating that, as I rarely use my PC for intensive gaming. (Morrowind's about as hard as I've pushed my Ti4200, and the newest FPS I have on it is Serious Sam.) I buy 98% of my games on consoles.

The question is whether the Xbox can run Doom 3 "perfectly," or merely adequately. Time will tell on that. (Not to mention that I suspect that mods will be easier to implement on PC than on Xbox, and the modding community is half the reason that the Doom series was such a roaring success in the first place.)

I honestly disagree. PS2 and Xbox both have advantages and disadvantages, but in my opinion, Xbox is better because it has great games, better graphics, most of the time, and stores the memory on the hard disk which means more memory stores. Also, FYI, I BELIEVE the production of GameCubes has been discontinued. Another question, do you think this should have happened, or keep GC in production, especially with DS coming out. But then again, one is portable, one isn't. And how is PSP going to do with PS3 coming out. Again, part of it is the different forms, one being portable, one having better graphics. Well, to each his own.

The GameCube is currently as irrelevant in America as the Xbox is in Japan. There are exclusive games coming for the Cube that are interesting -- Metroid Prime 2, Baten Kaitos, Resident Evil 4, perhaps Geist -- but very little in the way of cross-platform games coming its way. Those who enjoy the big N's franchises will get more mileage out of it.

The portables will have little to no impact on the consoles, and vice versa. Nintendo has a long and storied history of destroying all competition in the portable world, despite the GB's and GBC's decade-long technical inferiority to their major competitors (Game Gear, Lynx, Nomad, TurboExpress, NGPC). That certainly hasn't helped the Cube, even with GC-GBA tie-in games available.

The DS will hit American shelves first, will be cheaper, and will have the first-party Nintendo franchises; game, set and match. The PSP has potential and a much nicer screen, but it will be arriving post-Christmas, won't have Nintendo's killer apps at launch, will likely be more expensive, and will have a shorter battery life. None of those are killer flaws, but they are handicaps when going up against a 9000-pound gorilla like a Nintendo portable. Sony needs a _killer_ game library of third-party titles at or very soon after launch to make the PSP viable.