The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've titled this post "Xbox - an opinion". I was going call it "Xbox - a verdict" but that sounds conceited, and gives the impression that my thoughts are final and correct. That's not the case, so I stress that this is my *opinion*. You may agree, you may not; but don't rant at me about it. I do not care if you agree or disagree, I am simply giving my thoughts in the hope that you find them useful in deciding whether or not to buy one for yourself.
-----
I was looking at screens and videos of Halo on the Xbox all day yesterday, and got a strong urge to buy one.
So, after I got home from work, I went to my local Tesco's and bought one, together with a second controller, Halo and Project Gotham Racing.
I plugged everything in and powered it up. First thing you're presented with is the settings screen - very similar to the PS2's in what it offers, the main difference being that you can set 60Hz mode here, which is then used for all games - pretty cool. My major dislike about the menus and front-end is that it's all in shades of green, but that's just personal taste.
Other minor things I noticed were that (a) the machine is just as noisy as my PS2 (i.e. not very) and (b) there is a constant clickling sound from within - which I assume is the hard disk - but which you don't notice once a game is playing.
First game loaded up was Project Gotham Racing. This is the game that, according to Xbox magazine (not the official one) "makes GT3 look dump".
I can categorically say that this is not the case. The cars are well realised, but they just don't have the polish (no pun intended) that the cars in GT3 have. They're good, accurate models, but somehow don't have that 'real' look to them; they're more 'very lifelike cartoon' than photorealistic. The colours are bold and strong, rather than the subtleties of GT3.
Tracks are well designed, but the scenery again looks a little bland. There's plenty there, but the textures aren't particularly well detailed, with colour used in 'blocks'.
Replays are good, though again not up to GT3 standards. Reflections in the cars are a little blocky, and tend to move quite jerkily overy the surface of the car. And believe it or not, I did see pop-up in certain areas, and jaggies are just as evident here as in GT3; i.e. they are there, but are not significant. In terms of appearance, it probably falls somewhere between Ridge Racer V and GT3.
In terms of gameplay, it's good enough. The handling isn't anything like GT3, but then it's not supposed to be, as this is more of an arcade racer. It falls somewhere between GT3 and Burnout, I'd say. As with GT3, there are only 5 other cars in the race. Driver AI is also similar to GT3 in that cars will hit you if you're in their way - you can turn into a corner nice and smooth, and cars around you don't really deviate from their pre-determined racing line.
I have also found a fairly major bug! Quite frequently, when re-starting a race and having an automatic gearbox, the car suddenly goes into reverse gear and revs the engine without me touching a thing! Then when the countdown reaches "Go!" the car takes off backwards! I have found that some frantic pressing of the left (brake)and right (accelerate) trigger buttons solves the problem, but it gives the other cars one heck of a head start, and many times I've had to re-start the race again immediately.
Over all though, it's a solid arcade racer, similar to MSR on the Dreamcast. The only area this does have an advantage is the sound, because the music is presented as radio stations you can listen to, as in GT3 - but *real* radio stations, such as Capital FM and XFM. But in all honesty, I don't believe the over-all product is a patch on GT3.
Next up is Halo, the reason I bought the machine. The mother of all FPS games, apparently. And it really is rather good. You know how FPS games play, so I won't go into great details. What takes most getting used to is that you can only carry two weapons at any time, adding a significant strategy element to the game. As far as I have played, this hasn't really been an issue, as I've so far only had pistols and assault rifles in various forms; this may well become more of a factor later in the game.
At certain points you must control vehicles - so far I've only encountered the Warthog, and this is proving fairly difficult to control; you control acceleration with the left analogue stick, and steer by rotating the camera with the right analogue stick. Sounds easy, but wait until you try it... it's not!
While Halo certainly is a very good FPS game, I stand by my earlier claim that Edge magazine got it wrong; it's not 10/10 for me. The enemy AI is good - enemies duck for cover behind structures and shields - but it's not perfect; when they do come out, so far they have tended to run pretty much in straight lines and be fairly easy to kill. The main problem comes from the numbers that can attack at any one time. It is a very good game, but so far I wouldn't say that it is significantly better than Medal of Honour: Allied Assault or a few other PC FPS games. It certainly doesn't acheive anything that the PS2 (and probably Gamecube) couldn't do.
And finally, a few words on the controller. It is a little on the large side, and I find it a little painful after prolonged play. It's okay using the analogue sticks (though it feels very odd with them being offset as they are), but when needing to use the A, B, X or Y buttons, I find I have to re-adjust the grip of my right hand, otherwise it stretches the muscle between my thumb and forefinger, which eventually leads to cramp. I get the feeling that they could have reduced the size of the pad by about a third if they'd done away with that bloody great Xbox logo in the middle.
The A, B, X and Y buttons are also too close together for my liking, and I find myself distracted and having to look down at the pad to make sure I'm pressing the right one. When you consider the size of the pad, this seems quite ridiculous. Still, hopefully I'll get used to it.
The 'rumble effect' built into the pad is also not as good as that of the DualShock 2; it is very weak in comparison, and - for example - does not give the same level of feedback in PGR as the DualShock 2 does in GT3.
So, what about the over-all package?
Well, after my first play of both games, I was left feeling a little flat, not really knowing what to think. It certainly didn't 'wow' me as the PS2 did when I first got it. In fact, after an hour, I turned it off to watch some TV, and at one point contemplated returning it.
But after a few more hours playing time, I've pretty much decided against that, although I don't think I'll be buying any more games for it for a while; I'll just have to see what comes along. It *is* a good machine, but I've not yet seen anything that I don't believe could be done on the other platforms.
Others have mentioned that they plan to sell their PS2 to help fund an Xbox. That's their choice, but I would say don't be too hasty. Get some quality play time on some of the games available first, because you may not be as impressed as you think. I am lucky that I could afford an Xbox without trading in; I can tell you in all honesty now that, had I traded my PS2 for the Xbox, I would be kicking myself and regretting it severely.
This is my honest, unbiased opinion as an owner of both machines. Make of it what you will.
-----
I was looking at screens and videos of Halo on the Xbox all day yesterday, and got a strong urge to buy one.
So, after I got home from work, I went to my local Tesco's and bought one, together with a second controller, Halo and Project Gotham Racing.
I plugged everything in and powered it up. First thing you're presented with is the settings screen - very similar to the PS2's in what it offers, the main difference being that you can set 60Hz mode here, which is then used for all games - pretty cool. My major dislike about the menus and front-end is that it's all in shades of green, but that's just personal taste.
Other minor things I noticed were that (a) the machine is just as noisy as my PS2 (i.e. not very) and (b) there is a constant clickling sound from within - which I assume is the hard disk - but which you don't notice once a game is playing.
First game loaded up was Project Gotham Racing. This is the game that, according to Xbox magazine (not the official one) "makes GT3 look dump".
I can categorically say that this is not the case. The cars are well realised, but they just don't have the polish (no pun intended) that the cars in GT3 have. They're good, accurate models, but somehow don't have that 'real' look to them; they're more 'very lifelike cartoon' than photorealistic. The colours are bold and strong, rather than the subtleties of GT3.
Tracks are well designed, but the scenery again looks a little bland. There's plenty there, but the textures aren't particularly well detailed, with colour used in 'blocks'.
Replays are good, though again not up to GT3 standards. Reflections in the cars are a little blocky, and tend to move quite jerkily overy the surface of the car. And believe it or not, I did see pop-up in certain areas, and jaggies are just as evident here as in GT3; i.e. they are there, but are not significant. In terms of appearance, it probably falls somewhere between Ridge Racer V and GT3.
In terms of gameplay, it's good enough. The handling isn't anything like GT3, but then it's not supposed to be, as this is more of an arcade racer. It falls somewhere between GT3 and Burnout, I'd say. As with GT3, there are only 5 other cars in the race. Driver AI is also similar to GT3 in that cars will hit you if you're in their way - you can turn into a corner nice and smooth, and cars around you don't really deviate from their pre-determined racing line.
I have also found a fairly major bug! Quite frequently, when re-starting a race and having an automatic gearbox, the car suddenly goes into reverse gear and revs the engine without me touching a thing! Then when the countdown reaches "Go!" the car takes off backwards! I have found that some frantic pressing of the left (brake)and right (accelerate) trigger buttons solves the problem, but it gives the other cars one heck of a head start, and many times I've had to re-start the race again immediately.
Over all though, it's a solid arcade racer, similar to MSR on the Dreamcast. The only area this does have an advantage is the sound, because the music is presented as radio stations you can listen to, as in GT3 - but *real* radio stations, such as Capital FM and XFM. But in all honesty, I don't believe the over-all product is a patch on GT3.
Next up is Halo, the reason I bought the machine. The mother of all FPS games, apparently. And it really is rather good. You know how FPS games play, so I won't go into great details. What takes most getting used to is that you can only carry two weapons at any time, adding a significant strategy element to the game. As far as I have played, this hasn't really been an issue, as I've so far only had pistols and assault rifles in various forms; this may well become more of a factor later in the game.
At certain points you must control vehicles - so far I've only encountered the Warthog, and this is proving fairly difficult to control; you control acceleration with the left analogue stick, and steer by rotating the camera with the right analogue stick. Sounds easy, but wait until you try it... it's not!
While Halo certainly is a very good FPS game, I stand by my earlier claim that Edge magazine got it wrong; it's not 10/10 for me. The enemy AI is good - enemies duck for cover behind structures and shields - but it's not perfect; when they do come out, so far they have tended to run pretty much in straight lines and be fairly easy to kill. The main problem comes from the numbers that can attack at any one time. It is a very good game, but so far I wouldn't say that it is significantly better than Medal of Honour: Allied Assault or a few other PC FPS games. It certainly doesn't acheive anything that the PS2 (and probably Gamecube) couldn't do.
And finally, a few words on the controller. It is a little on the large side, and I find it a little painful after prolonged play. It's okay using the analogue sticks (though it feels very odd with them being offset as they are), but when needing to use the A, B, X or Y buttons, I find I have to re-adjust the grip of my right hand, otherwise it stretches the muscle between my thumb and forefinger, which eventually leads to cramp. I get the feeling that they could have reduced the size of the pad by about a third if they'd done away with that bloody great Xbox logo in the middle.
The A, B, X and Y buttons are also too close together for my liking, and I find myself distracted and having to look down at the pad to make sure I'm pressing the right one. When you consider the size of the pad, this seems quite ridiculous. Still, hopefully I'll get used to it.
The 'rumble effect' built into the pad is also not as good as that of the DualShock 2; it is very weak in comparison, and - for example - does not give the same level of feedback in PGR as the DualShock 2 does in GT3.
So, what about the over-all package?
Well, after my first play of both games, I was left feeling a little flat, not really knowing what to think. It certainly didn't 'wow' me as the PS2 did when I first got it. In fact, after an hour, I turned it off to watch some TV, and at one point contemplated returning it.
But after a few more hours playing time, I've pretty much decided against that, although I don't think I'll be buying any more games for it for a while; I'll just have to see what comes along. It *is* a good machine, but I've not yet seen anything that I don't believe could be done on the other platforms.
Others have mentioned that they plan to sell their PS2 to help fund an Xbox. That's their choice, but I would say don't be too hasty. Get some quality play time on some of the games available first, because you may not be as impressed as you think. I am lucky that I could afford an Xbox without trading in; I can tell you in all honesty now that, had I traded my PS2 for the Xbox, I would be kicking myself and regretting it severely.
This is my honest, unbiased opinion as an owner of both machines. Make of it what you will.
Page:
Weird Wonder wrote:
> wow... handbags at ten paces!
Handbags ? Nah, thats boring. Sports bag full of bricks.
;-)
> wow... handbags at ten paces!
Handbags ? Nah, thats boring. Sports bag full of bricks.
;-)
½pint wrote:
> Its strange how you contradict all you say with your last sentence...
About people having imaginations ? Its what brings ideas mate. If not for that you wouldn't be playing the games you play now.
> Its strange how you contradict all you say with your last sentence...
About people having imaginations ? Its what brings ideas mate. If not for that you wouldn't be playing the games you play now.
wow... handbags at ten paces!
Its strange how you contradict all you say with your last sentence...
What are you tarts doing? Stop mucking up one of the few decent threads in Chat.
½pint wrote:
> You really want a fight, don't you...
Why, you gonna provide me with one ?
**********
But you seem to misunderstand. The N64 was better than
> the PlayStation, but the reason that everybody got a PlayStation instead was
> because of the games. Popularity doesn't constitute quality, look at S-Club
> 7.
**********
At the same time, a handful of decent games doesn't make a console great. PS1 had tons of games and of course a number of utter crap ones. Nintendo had a small number of games in comparison and still managed to have a large number of crap ones. Goldeneye, CBFD, Mario 64, the Zelda games. These were all great to play, but god there were a hell of a lot of crud titles. With Nintendo having such a small collection to choose from in comparison with its rival, it was very noticable.
**********
How do you mean, 'taking
> the risks'. If anything, its Nintendo that are taking the risks, since people
> will buy an Xbox rather than wait for a GameCube. I'm sure that if they could,
> they would release the GameCube tomorrow. Its a bit like fine wine, it takes
> time to mature...
**********
What I mean by taking risks is the hardware and the directions to take a new console. A company can produce a game like Nintendo does with say Mario 64, if its a success, then great, if it flops, then it doesn't matter so much, its back to the drawing board. Experimenting with a console is a different matter. If you add things that are not going to take off, that pretty much screws up all the games. If a game flops, another can be put together, if a console flops, then that can damage a lot more. Just look at Sega, things like the Mega CD and Saturn took a dive big time. Sega released the Dreamcast which had some nice ideas and software, but because of the consoles before it, there were few people that had any faith in it. Most were happy to wait for the PS2. Knowone even needed to know about what the PS2 could do. People were ready to spend money on it purely on the basis that it was a new more powerful Sony console. It shows that Sony have done well for themselves.
**********
Halo is in a minority, because Halo is
> fun. But, I find realistic games much more boring than cartoony games. Like
> Gran Turismo. There was a big following of people with this game because it was
> so realistic. There was also a lot of people who thought it was dull. The Sims
> gets very boring, because it simulates life, which is dull at the best of times.
> I'd rather be running around in fantasy than the real world, after all, have
> you ever read a non-fiction book that beats the likes of JRR Tolkien and JK
> Rowling?
**********
Well good for you, enjoy your fantasy games. But a large number of people like realistic games. Personally, I enjoy both. I like a realistic driving game like Gran Turismo, at the same time I can enjoy the likes of Mario Kart. I just think Nintendo have relied too much on the cartoony side of things.
**********
You're right, the hard drive is much more. What I meant by
> the £20 thing, is that it only costs the producers an extra £20 or
> so to put a hard drive in a console. I don't disagree that its great keeping
> such extra detail like bullet holes in the walls, but would YOU spend an extra
> £150 for this little detail? I don't think so, and neither would the
> average Joe. And anyway, Consoles do have memory, so why not just increase this
> memory capacity, than have a hard drive? I don't think that an extra £150
> constitutes all of this extra stuff. If you want to divulge in face-mapping,
> costumes and skins, why don't you stick to PC gaming. The same goes for
> downloading things. And anyway, in most games you can save all your new
> costumes and skins onto memory cards, not to mention having demo discs with the
> saves on them to transfer to the memory
> card.
**********
Ok - 1. I like to play games on consoles over PC's cause I hate spending ages on a game only to watch it crash. Consoles have always been more reliable in this area.
2. Memory cards tend to be too small to hold all this info, particularly the idea of extra levels. The Dreamcast looked promising with its online capabilities, but the memory cards had too small a capacity to really save anything besides a few games. The mini games were a good idea, but they took up tons of space. A hard drive can really help to enhance a players gaming experience, not to mention get more out of the games we buy. If you completed a Mario game, wouldn't you be happy if you could download more levels to play on the game ? I used skins and costumes as examples because they are certain things you can add to genres such as FPS and beat em ups. Of course new characters and backgrounds could be done too.
But try fitting all this kind of stuff onto a memory card, at best you'll be spending hundreds on them to get the things you want.
And what if you love a game so much you want to download a lot of extra things a company may make available to you. I'll use Halo as an example. Say 10 new missions, a new vehicle, maybe new weapons, etc. A console tends to upload information from just 1 card. If you have stuff that is saved over 2 cards, your screwed if you want to combine certain things from each card.
**********
What always seems funny to me is the way that people
> think they're better than everybody else. I see it everywhere; at school, on
> TV, and on Special Reserve. I'm not a blind ninty, and I know that the Xbox is
> a great console. I don't think its crap, and never have done. In fact, its due
> to your surprisingly small IQ that you've jumped to the conclusion that I hate
> the Xbox. I was merely saying how wrong you were about the GameCube, which is
> also a great console. I'm not a Ninty, never have been, never will be. I don't
> believe I'm a 'gaming guru' as you so clearly put it, although I do pride myself
> in the fact that I know what's what about gaming, and obviously you don't. Go
> clear your head of all this crap that you're spewing about Microsoft. The Xbox
> is great, the GameCube is great, so you should expand on your single-minded
> opinion that the Xbox is great and everything else is crap. A wise person once
> told me that you should judge a console by what it has to offer, not what it
> seems to lack.
**********
You see this "I'm better than thou" crap eveyday and yet you then go on to say how you know your stuff while I know nothing about gaming. You attempt to have a go at my IQ when you know sod all about me. The fact I'm arguing with a school kid underlines a lot of that kind of crap. But I do agree that all consoles are great. I'm just sick of certain crowds slagging off the likes of Microsoft and Sega before them, when they are the ones that are really trying to do more than improved graphics and sound. Like I said earlier, its one thing to make a game, its a whole different thing to take gambles on what capabilities you give your console.
**********
Its funny the way you talk about Nintendo. I tell
> you, when it comes to the 'fans', Nintendo are much more friendly than everybody
> else. To think that Microsoft are the innovators in the industry is a plain
> lie, and to actually believe that Nintendo are just about maximising profits is
> absolutely laudable. Remember who are the innovator's? Who re-invented the
> analogue stick? Who first put to use rumble packs? Who were the first people
> to use microphones to communicate in games? And most of all, who are the people
> that are behind many of the new genres you see today, including kart racing,
> party games, 3D platformers etc. You think that Xbox are the originators, yet
> the only thing they've introduced is a compulsory hard drive which adds an extra
> £100 to the price. Very um... 'innovative'. Yeah right.
I usually
> get annoyed with people who go on about the PS2 being the best console, but to
> find an Xbox fan with such a one-track mind is surprising. I know what's what
> about the Xbox, and the GameCube, and the PlayStation 2. The only valid points
> which you like to say about the Xbox, is that the hard drive makes the console
> better than others, and constitues a massive price increase. I didn't realise
> that the mark-up was 800%. Realism is rarely fun, yet you'd have somebody
> believe that Jesus was going to be reincarnated the way you go on about Halo.
> Halo is a great game, yet it still isn't realistic in the boring way that Gran
> Turismo is. Have you ever encountered Aliens hiding behind laser-induced light
> shields? Nope.
As I've said, the Xbox is a great console, but you really
> ought to see other consoles for what they have. The fact that they're lacking a
> hard drive doesn't make them crap by any means.
>
**********
I'm not saying consoles without a hard drive are crap, I'm sayng that a hard drive opens up a lot more potential when it comes to not only giving players new experiences, but also increasing the longevity of games. You go on about Nintendo making a new analogue, rumble pack, etc, but these are all things that are controller based, they don't particularly effect the capabilities of a console. If you don't like a controller thats on a console, give it a few months and by then there are tons of pads to choose from. Nintendo added an analogue to their N64 controller, not exactly an earth shattering discovery into improving the world around you in your games is it ?
I don't see anymore commitment by Nintendo to their fans than any other company, particularly with us over here in Europe. As for microphones, I'd like to do more than talk to Pikachu. Sega were also toying around with the idea of the microphone with their Seaman game. If I remember right, they were also looking into making it useful for online gaming just like Microsoft are looking to do now. I'm not saying Microsoft invented this, but they are experimenting with it where Sega left off. Its nice to see companies doing this sort of thing as it will all improve the way we play games. Rather than a keyboard, you can simply talk to other players. What I don't like about Nintendo is the way they simply want to hold back while other companies do this kind of stuff before they come into it.
Nintendo can make excellent software. The party game is a laugh and of course Mario 64 was the first 3D platform game. But overall thats exactly what they are, 1 off titles. Things done with a console can affect a large number of titles. Knowone wants a console for anything but games, anyone who uses that arguement is pretty stupid. Its just that some want more out of their games. A Mario game is all well and good, but how long does a 1 player game last these days ? Players want to compete with their friends, maybe see more out of their favourite games. Companies actually looking into how they can do this deserve a lot of credit.
Nintendo have so much experience and knowledge when it comes to making games and of course controllers with little add ons, so why not actually use it to expand onto other ideas ?
The fact they only seem to stick with their tried and tested titles gets to me, it seems to be Rare that are putting out all the original titles for them.
I've never hated Nintendo. What I do hate is people slagging off a company who are trying to give players more than they are already experiencing. New graphics and sound is one thing, but its not long before the novelty of the new eye candy wears off. Most people want to see more than just improvements in these areas. Unfortunatly Nintendo don't seem in much of a hurry to give players this.
I find it so funny when people
> have to resort to their imaginations when finding a plausable argument for or
> against something.
Hey, well at least some have an imagination. If not for them we'd be stuck with the same stuff with nicer graphics.
> You really want a fight, don't you...
Why, you gonna provide me with one ?
**********
But you seem to misunderstand. The N64 was better than
> the PlayStation, but the reason that everybody got a PlayStation instead was
> because of the games. Popularity doesn't constitute quality, look at S-Club
> 7.
**********
At the same time, a handful of decent games doesn't make a console great. PS1 had tons of games and of course a number of utter crap ones. Nintendo had a small number of games in comparison and still managed to have a large number of crap ones. Goldeneye, CBFD, Mario 64, the Zelda games. These were all great to play, but god there were a hell of a lot of crud titles. With Nintendo having such a small collection to choose from in comparison with its rival, it was very noticable.
**********
How do you mean, 'taking
> the risks'. If anything, its Nintendo that are taking the risks, since people
> will buy an Xbox rather than wait for a GameCube. I'm sure that if they could,
> they would release the GameCube tomorrow. Its a bit like fine wine, it takes
> time to mature...
**********
What I mean by taking risks is the hardware and the directions to take a new console. A company can produce a game like Nintendo does with say Mario 64, if its a success, then great, if it flops, then it doesn't matter so much, its back to the drawing board. Experimenting with a console is a different matter. If you add things that are not going to take off, that pretty much screws up all the games. If a game flops, another can be put together, if a console flops, then that can damage a lot more. Just look at Sega, things like the Mega CD and Saturn took a dive big time. Sega released the Dreamcast which had some nice ideas and software, but because of the consoles before it, there were few people that had any faith in it. Most were happy to wait for the PS2. Knowone even needed to know about what the PS2 could do. People were ready to spend money on it purely on the basis that it was a new more powerful Sony console. It shows that Sony have done well for themselves.
**********
Halo is in a minority, because Halo is
> fun. But, I find realistic games much more boring than cartoony games. Like
> Gran Turismo. There was a big following of people with this game because it was
> so realistic. There was also a lot of people who thought it was dull. The Sims
> gets very boring, because it simulates life, which is dull at the best of times.
> I'd rather be running around in fantasy than the real world, after all, have
> you ever read a non-fiction book that beats the likes of JRR Tolkien and JK
> Rowling?
**********
Well good for you, enjoy your fantasy games. But a large number of people like realistic games. Personally, I enjoy both. I like a realistic driving game like Gran Turismo, at the same time I can enjoy the likes of Mario Kart. I just think Nintendo have relied too much on the cartoony side of things.
**********
You're right, the hard drive is much more. What I meant by
> the £20 thing, is that it only costs the producers an extra £20 or
> so to put a hard drive in a console. I don't disagree that its great keeping
> such extra detail like bullet holes in the walls, but would YOU spend an extra
> £150 for this little detail? I don't think so, and neither would the
> average Joe. And anyway, Consoles do have memory, so why not just increase this
> memory capacity, than have a hard drive? I don't think that an extra £150
> constitutes all of this extra stuff. If you want to divulge in face-mapping,
> costumes and skins, why don't you stick to PC gaming. The same goes for
> downloading things. And anyway, in most games you can save all your new
> costumes and skins onto memory cards, not to mention having demo discs with the
> saves on them to transfer to the memory
> card.
**********
Ok - 1. I like to play games on consoles over PC's cause I hate spending ages on a game only to watch it crash. Consoles have always been more reliable in this area.
2. Memory cards tend to be too small to hold all this info, particularly the idea of extra levels. The Dreamcast looked promising with its online capabilities, but the memory cards had too small a capacity to really save anything besides a few games. The mini games were a good idea, but they took up tons of space. A hard drive can really help to enhance a players gaming experience, not to mention get more out of the games we buy. If you completed a Mario game, wouldn't you be happy if you could download more levels to play on the game ? I used skins and costumes as examples because they are certain things you can add to genres such as FPS and beat em ups. Of course new characters and backgrounds could be done too.
But try fitting all this kind of stuff onto a memory card, at best you'll be spending hundreds on them to get the things you want.
And what if you love a game so much you want to download a lot of extra things a company may make available to you. I'll use Halo as an example. Say 10 new missions, a new vehicle, maybe new weapons, etc. A console tends to upload information from just 1 card. If you have stuff that is saved over 2 cards, your screwed if you want to combine certain things from each card.
**********
What always seems funny to me is the way that people
> think they're better than everybody else. I see it everywhere; at school, on
> TV, and on Special Reserve. I'm not a blind ninty, and I know that the Xbox is
> a great console. I don't think its crap, and never have done. In fact, its due
> to your surprisingly small IQ that you've jumped to the conclusion that I hate
> the Xbox. I was merely saying how wrong you were about the GameCube, which is
> also a great console. I'm not a Ninty, never have been, never will be. I don't
> believe I'm a 'gaming guru' as you so clearly put it, although I do pride myself
> in the fact that I know what's what about gaming, and obviously you don't. Go
> clear your head of all this crap that you're spewing about Microsoft. The Xbox
> is great, the GameCube is great, so you should expand on your single-minded
> opinion that the Xbox is great and everything else is crap. A wise person once
> told me that you should judge a console by what it has to offer, not what it
> seems to lack.
**********
You see this "I'm better than thou" crap eveyday and yet you then go on to say how you know your stuff while I know nothing about gaming. You attempt to have a go at my IQ when you know sod all about me. The fact I'm arguing with a school kid underlines a lot of that kind of crap. But I do agree that all consoles are great. I'm just sick of certain crowds slagging off the likes of Microsoft and Sega before them, when they are the ones that are really trying to do more than improved graphics and sound. Like I said earlier, its one thing to make a game, its a whole different thing to take gambles on what capabilities you give your console.
**********
Its funny the way you talk about Nintendo. I tell
> you, when it comes to the 'fans', Nintendo are much more friendly than everybody
> else. To think that Microsoft are the innovators in the industry is a plain
> lie, and to actually believe that Nintendo are just about maximising profits is
> absolutely laudable. Remember who are the innovator's? Who re-invented the
> analogue stick? Who first put to use rumble packs? Who were the first people
> to use microphones to communicate in games? And most of all, who are the people
> that are behind many of the new genres you see today, including kart racing,
> party games, 3D platformers etc. You think that Xbox are the originators, yet
> the only thing they've introduced is a compulsory hard drive which adds an extra
> £100 to the price. Very um... 'innovative'. Yeah right.
I usually
> get annoyed with people who go on about the PS2 being the best console, but to
> find an Xbox fan with such a one-track mind is surprising. I know what's what
> about the Xbox, and the GameCube, and the PlayStation 2. The only valid points
> which you like to say about the Xbox, is that the hard drive makes the console
> better than others, and constitues a massive price increase. I didn't realise
> that the mark-up was 800%. Realism is rarely fun, yet you'd have somebody
> believe that Jesus was going to be reincarnated the way you go on about Halo.
> Halo is a great game, yet it still isn't realistic in the boring way that Gran
> Turismo is. Have you ever encountered Aliens hiding behind laser-induced light
> shields? Nope.
As I've said, the Xbox is a great console, but you really
> ought to see other consoles for what they have. The fact that they're lacking a
> hard drive doesn't make them crap by any means.
>
**********
I'm not saying consoles without a hard drive are crap, I'm sayng that a hard drive opens up a lot more potential when it comes to not only giving players new experiences, but also increasing the longevity of games. You go on about Nintendo making a new analogue, rumble pack, etc, but these are all things that are controller based, they don't particularly effect the capabilities of a console. If you don't like a controller thats on a console, give it a few months and by then there are tons of pads to choose from. Nintendo added an analogue to their N64 controller, not exactly an earth shattering discovery into improving the world around you in your games is it ?
I don't see anymore commitment by Nintendo to their fans than any other company, particularly with us over here in Europe. As for microphones, I'd like to do more than talk to Pikachu. Sega were also toying around with the idea of the microphone with their Seaman game. If I remember right, they were also looking into making it useful for online gaming just like Microsoft are looking to do now. I'm not saying Microsoft invented this, but they are experimenting with it where Sega left off. Its nice to see companies doing this sort of thing as it will all improve the way we play games. Rather than a keyboard, you can simply talk to other players. What I don't like about Nintendo is the way they simply want to hold back while other companies do this kind of stuff before they come into it.
Nintendo can make excellent software. The party game is a laugh and of course Mario 64 was the first 3D platform game. But overall thats exactly what they are, 1 off titles. Things done with a console can affect a large number of titles. Knowone wants a console for anything but games, anyone who uses that arguement is pretty stupid. Its just that some want more out of their games. A Mario game is all well and good, but how long does a 1 player game last these days ? Players want to compete with their friends, maybe see more out of their favourite games. Companies actually looking into how they can do this deserve a lot of credit.
Nintendo have so much experience and knowledge when it comes to making games and of course controllers with little add ons, so why not actually use it to expand onto other ideas ?
The fact they only seem to stick with their tried and tested titles gets to me, it seems to be Rare that are putting out all the original titles for them.
I've never hated Nintendo. What I do hate is people slagging off a company who are trying to give players more than they are already experiencing. New graphics and sound is one thing, but its not long before the novelty of the new eye candy wears off. Most people want to see more than just improvements in these areas. Unfortunatly Nintendo don't seem in much of a hurry to give players this.
I find it so funny when people
> have to resort to their imaginations when finding a plausable argument for or
> against something.
Hey, well at least some have an imagination. If not for them we'd be stuck with the same stuff with nicer graphics.
Kid Rock wrote:
> XBOX is actually winning at the moment over the GameCube for me. Two
> questions
1) when does Jet Set Radio come out
2) am i right in thinking that
> the XBOX has built in broadband
1)Out NOW, hopefully get my copy from SR in the morning.
2)Yes it is. But Microsoft havent got any infostructure available, so you can connect to it. But when the online features become available in late 2002 early 2003, you will need only a broadband connection to your house to use it.
> XBOX is actually winning at the moment over the GameCube for me. Two
> questions
1) when does Jet Set Radio come out
2) am i right in thinking that
> the XBOX has built in broadband
1)Out NOW, hopefully get my copy from SR in the morning.
2)Yes it is. But Microsoft havent got any infostructure available, so you can connect to it. But when the online features become available in late 2002 early 2003, you will need only a broadband connection to your house to use it.
People have been saying PGR is slow. Well if PGR is slow GT3 is very slow. Today I used a Mitisbusi Lancer Evo 7 on both GT3 and PGR. On PGR the game was so much faster, so how come everyone thought it was slower than GT3?
½pint wrote:
> But you seem to misunderstand. The N64 was better than
> the PlayStation, but the reason that everybody got a PlayStation instead was
> because of the games.
True. Proof that superior power does not necessarily equate to a better console.
> But you seem to misunderstand. The N64 was better than
> the PlayStation, but the reason that everybody got a PlayStation instead was
> because of the games.
True. Proof that superior power does not necessarily equate to a better console.
Monkey_With_Attitude wrote:
> Thanks for that Wookie, a greta post which has aided me and probably many
> others.
Well, that's good news - that was my intention! :-)
> Whats this with the radio feature on PGR? Tell me more...
Basically, the Xbox features a "soundtrack" option. You can insert an audio CD, and record the tracks to the HD. The is basically to allow you to play music later without putting the CD in, but if a game supports it, you can use the recordings as the in-game soundtrack.
For example, I'm not too keen on the PGR soundtrack, so I recorded the Pink album "Missundaztood", and after setting the necessary options in the game, that is what I hear when I'm racing. More of a gimmick than anything else, but pretty neat.
Oh, and I finally played DoA3 today - and I had cramp after about 10 minutes. The Xbox controller, for me anyway, is too large for beat-em-up games.
> Thanks for that Wookie, a greta post which has aided me and probably many
> others.
Well, that's good news - that was my intention! :-)
> Whats this with the radio feature on PGR? Tell me more...
Basically, the Xbox features a "soundtrack" option. You can insert an audio CD, and record the tracks to the HD. The is basically to allow you to play music later without putting the CD in, but if a game supports it, you can use the recordings as the in-game soundtrack.
For example, I'm not too keen on the PGR soundtrack, so I recorded the Pink album "Missundaztood", and after setting the necessary options in the game, that is what I hear when I'm racing. More of a gimmick than anything else, but pretty neat.
Oh, and I finally played DoA3 today - and I had cramp after about 10 minutes. The Xbox controller, for me anyway, is too large for beat-em-up games.
Page: