Anything besides Graphics?

I hope you understand my evaluation of everything BC.....The one point is this when you have so much power in your hands, why put it to waste with some of the lame-a** games that developers have randomly made for the original Xbox??.....The developers' excuse on the majority was that they were missing this and this out of the original Xbox's hardware.....Now they have this really suped-up machine in the Xbox 360, they should have no excuses not to "man up" to the upper epsilion of next generation games....
 
Of ocurse we hold the developer and publishers to task when a game doesn't come out good. But when you call a game "lame-ass"... who gets to decide what's lame-ass and what isn't? There are all kindsof games that have their own following that the rets of us may not like. I have no interest in horse racing simulators but Tecmo obviously has a market there, for example.

I just don't think we can automatically absolve Microsoft of all fault right off the bat. Look at the Sega Saturn. Do you wantto blame the developers for the lack of quality titles on that console? I mean, it had internal memory, it was designed to run 2-D games extremely well and did so, it really had more than developers at the time were asking for. But the archetecture was so obtuse that it was nearly impossible to program. Obviously, Sega has some blame there, we can't just say "well, the developers didn't try hard enough."
 
I was using my opinion when i used the term "lame ass"....Sorry......You have stated valid points....And i'm not saying the 360 or Microsoft do not have faults......Everyone by now has heard of the 360 crashes and the shortages of the console at stores....Both of these are not on the developers, Microsoft dropped the ball on those 2......I have just been responding to the original poster of this thread....Telling him exactly what this "Beautiful Piece of Art" has to offer......I hope no one takes offense to anything that i have expressed over the past 2 days..... :melting:
 
I played Call of Duty 2 on the 360. I must say, that game kicks ass. Not graphically though. It looks good, yes, but it doesn't look that much better than the Xbox. Fun, fun stuff though.
 
I can agree with that BC.....Although i did see that game being demoed at Walmart on a LCD HDTV, i can say it does look alot better than that of the Original Xbox..........Take it from me....I have both HDTV and Xbox and i can say no game i've had, as of recent, has graphics like the Call of Duty for the Xbox 360
 
I'm so slow - sorry cuinneas...

I was about to put the smack down on Spuds for erroneously assuming you were male (his idea of gamers apparantly doesn't stretch beyond the stereotypical teenage male)

:wink:
 
I must admit I made the same assumption about your gender cuinneas. Not because of typical gamer stereotypes, but because of typical MyGamer poster stereotypes. After all, 95% of the people who post here are male.
 
I believe the X-Box 360 will end up being a spectacular failure. I thought Sega jumped the gun when it released the Dreamcast a year before the competition, but Microsoft has not only done the same exact thing, but at a time when the ORIGINAL X-Box was still selling well. Furthermore, the 360 fails to bring anything truly new to the table other than improved graphics, which you can bet the PS3 and Revolution will surpass anyway.
 
Uh, have you read up on the competition to the Xbox 360......PS3-BlueRay drive=unstable......Revolution contoller=hello, nice to hang the wall........Read the specs on the 360 and then tell me it has nothing to offer....Sorry, if i seem harsh......But to the naked eye, the 360 looks like another console with a new remote....put to the tech guru, this is THE CONSOLE most people have been waiting for.......Just remember
 
For now, I'm with Squish on this one. The 360 just seems like it came out way too early, and MS is conceding the one huge advantage they've had: in the current-gen, the XBox was the graphics powerhouse. Every multiplatform game looked best on the XBox. This most likely won't be true anymore, though it's hard to actually say. The PS3 will almost cetainly have better capabilities than the 360, but we don't know about the Rev. In any case, the differences in capability won't be as apparent as they have been. Think about it; when we were comparing a 333MHz system to a 733Mhz system, there's a huge difference, but if you compare, say, a 2.5GHz system and a 3GHz system, the difference starts to become academic.

Anyway, yeah I wonder how it will turn out with MS having first launch. First launch has traditionally not done well. The original XBox could have easily run right up to the PS3 launch. The fact that MS did do this suggests to me that they didn't think they could compete with Sony on equal footing, and wanted to build a customer base ahead of time to have an advantage. There's also the possibility of a price drop; even a $50 price drop near the PS3 launch would have an impact.

When it comes down to it, specs have never won anything. The PS2 is the undoubted champion of the current-gen, and it has the worst specs (unless you include the Dreamcast). It's all up to what you can offer gamers in the way of content, and in this round it seems like it will not only be games that are the deciding factor but also online capabilities -- but this too can make less difference than planned, just ask Sega. Nintendo is the wildcard, because it seems liketheir plan is to bring gaming back to its roots with fun, immersive play. Let's be honest, if you haven't been playing games for the last five or ten years, you're going to look at the Xbox or PS2 controller and be turned off by the complexity there. The Rev controller suggests a natural simplicity and undaunting concept that could make it the crossover console. There's a reason games like Dance Dance revolution are popular amongst "non-gamers", and it's because they're easy to learn and they make sense. So we'll see where that goes.

It's a bit too early to call. Bill Gates himself predicted that the next console war won't be decided until 2007.
 
All somewhat valid points BC......But i beg to differ about the specs not being of major importance.....I have played the PS2 with an unbiased mind.....And the Gamecube, for that matter....They still do not compare to the Xbox.......This is coming from a "former" Nintendo Fanboy....I realized with Microsoft that you can have fun, interesting games AND you can have the power of a great machine.......Both.....Who would have thought, huh??....And for that matter, specs do play alot in Sony's new system....BlueRay....'nuff said.....If the tech companies don't have it down pat....I doubt Sony will either.......Just my opinion.....
 
asylum_boy said:
But i beg to differ about the specs not being of major importance.....I have played the PS2 with an unbiased mind.....And the Gamecube, for that matter....They still do not compare to the Xbox..
Click to expand...

Hey, I don't disagree. The XBox has much more potential then the PS2 and GC and it does have the best online experience and the best looking games. But numbers don't lie, na dthe PS2 is the undisputed king of the current consoles judging by hardware and software sales. Even after the XBox was relesed, it was still going strong, which deals a huge blow to the arguments people are making about one console's superiority over another based on specs. At the end of the day, it comes down to the experience the console can deliver, and you can't put specs on something as subjective as that.

Personally, I've had more fun (and continue to) with the Dreamcast than any of the newer consoles, but that's just me.
 
Are we possibly comparing apples to oranges? I have heard the term "crossover consoles" referring to the 360, Rev, and PS3. But in truth, the PS2 and first Xbox were the initial crossover. They allowed cd's and dvd's to be played on them and Xbox came up with XBL. Comparing them to the PS1 and SuperNintendo is unfair to them. They were geared to do much more. Now the 360 (and I think the PS3) are looking to be the media hub for all things digital in the house. Comparing them to current gen is again too narrow-sighted. We (as gamers) are focusing on the games. That is the lion's share of the LAST gen of systems.

This is the future. I think that Microsoft is trying to reach beyond gamers into those that wouldn't necessarily buy a $400 system. The company I work for does something similar. They have two main products they will sell to a credit union (online banking, bill pay) that's the bread-and-butter. However, they are integrating themselves deeper within the clients by offering online credit alerts (anything that messes with their credit and they are sent an email). Now the clients are using our systems for many more things (with more to come) and we are much more important.

Now take a family that is looking at having to buy a game system for Jr, a new high def movie player, dvd, cd, and has surround sound. Add into this the online capabilities of downloading music and I'm betting movies, mom and dad playing the arcade games they grew up with, and parental controls so that jr doesn't watch any of daddy's "special" movies. I also don't know what the entirety of the digital hub is capable of. Will it work as a router? Will it support a phone? Email? Browsers? IM?

The next gen victor will be decided by more than just gamers.
 
The DVD drive in the PS2 didn't mke it a "crossover" system. People didn't buy it as a DVD player; they bought it as a game console, with the nice addition of a DVD player, not the other way around.

These are not systems that are going to get people who aren't gaming into gaming. If you were trying to introduce someone who's never played a game, or who hasn't played anything since the NES or Atari, what would you have them play? Not halo or Grand Theft Auto. If you handed them a Dualshock, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

Now, I don't think that' snecessarily what you're talking about. You're going with the "media hub" concept that the companies are feeding us. I don't know about that, it seems a little far-fetched, and if anything I don't think the average consumer is ready for it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom