Weeee, got me a Dreamcast.

[FastRobPlus]

>>which - in 2004- is better,
>>dreamcast or xbox

>>not in terms of technical specs but in terms of fun and so on

[color=0000FF]For me, each generation feels less fun than the last.  I'd say get an Atari VCS.

On the other hand, Xbox is the most "classic" of the current game consoles.  That is, the same folks that made so many great C64, Atari 800, Amiga, ST, and 3DO games are still around in some form or other, and many of them making Xbox games.  

For example, when NFL Fever launched, I mentioned to the lead designer that the coin toss looked exactly like something in the old Amiga game "TV Sports Football."  

He responed: I designed TV Sports Football!

Also - anybody remember/like the game Hired Guns?  You won't find a game that matches the original design spirit of Hired Guns more closely than Digital Anvil's "Brute Force"  It could almost be a Hired Guns II.

And the music is by Jesper Kyd.[/color]

[FastRobPlus]

>>So in terms of games machines, you could call the Xbox the Amiga of 2004?

Hmm... Maybe better to say that the designers whose games we loved on the Amiga are still making the games they want to make, and many are exclusively Xbox.  "Fable" by Peter Molyneux comes to mind.

I think the difference is that quite a few adults were raised on Nintendo/Sega and have come to expect games that echo the style of those machines.  Those of us coming from early personal computers and game consoles such as Amiga, C64, Atari, Spectrum, Amstrad, etc. might be able to relate better to the US/European flavor of Xbox titles.

"Grabbed by the Ghoulies" comes to mind here.  It was developed by Ultimate: Play the Game/RARE and I loved it, but it was slammed by reviewers.  The game is great but I suspect younger reviewers expected a Japan-styled game (coming from RARE), and didn't understand the pace and style of Ghoulies.