The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
X box with internet ready and games with realistic graphics
playstation 2 with not yet internet but very fast loading and good graphics,
playstation 2 with not yet internet but very fast loading and good graphics,
Page:
Mantis wrote:
> Games- Most games are multiplatform, but a few Xbox exclusives look
Bollards. :D
I'm sorry, but games-wise there is no way the X-Box is 'streets ahead' of the PS2. If anything it's the opposite.
Here's the first few fantastic games that come to mind on the PS2: MGS2, GT3, GTA3, Devil May Cry, Medal Of Honour: Frontline. When talking about the PS2, people will come up with games like that.
When talking about the X-Box, it's "Halo." And considering that Halo's nothing that special anyway, it's not exactly a justified argument that the X-Box is 'streets ahead' in terms of games.
And how can it be when the PS2's been out a couple of years longer? There's obviously going to be a bigger, and at the moment better choice.
And remember everyone, the X-Box COSTS quite a lot more too.
> Games- Most games are multiplatform, but a few Xbox exclusives look
Bollards. :D
I'm sorry, but games-wise there is no way the X-Box is 'streets ahead' of the PS2. If anything it's the opposite.
Here's the first few fantastic games that come to mind on the PS2: MGS2, GT3, GTA3, Devil May Cry, Medal Of Honour: Frontline. When talking about the PS2, people will come up with games like that.
When talking about the X-Box, it's "Halo." And considering that Halo's nothing that special anyway, it's not exactly a justified argument that the X-Box is 'streets ahead' in terms of games.
And how can it be when the PS2's been out a couple of years longer? There's obviously going to be a bigger, and at the moment better choice.
And remember everyone, the X-Box COSTS quite a lot more too.
In responce to orginal question.
I think Xbox is streets ahead of PS2 in many areas.
Hardware- You know, Xbox is better
Games- Most games are multiplatform, but a few Xbox exclusives look really special.
Online- PS2s plans look pathetic in comparason to XboxLive
Meh, I couldn't be bothered going into anymore detail. PS2 is good, I just think Xbox improves apon it in almost every way.
I think Xbox is streets ahead of PS2 in many areas.
Hardware- You know, Xbox is better
Games- Most games are multiplatform, but a few Xbox exclusives look really special.
Online- PS2s plans look pathetic in comparason to XboxLive
Meh, I couldn't be bothered going into anymore detail. PS2 is good, I just think Xbox improves apon it in almost every way.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Re-arrange these words to find the number one reason for being a dimbo
> and quoting large messages in their entirity, only to add a few words
> at the bottom:
>
> Count
>
> Word
This made me chuckle. Thanks. I always love it when people write smart remarks.
> Re-arrange these words to find the number one reason for being a dimbo
> and quoting large messages in their entirity, only to add a few words
> at the bottom:
>
> Count
>
> Word
This made me chuckle. Thanks. I always love it when people write smart remarks.
XBOX rules over Playstation 2
You need better topics,although I do not know how you won GAD
Re-arrange these words to find the number one reason for being a dimbo and quoting large messages in their entirity, only to add a few words at the bottom:
Count
Word
Count
Word
Why the hell did you quote the whole of the last message and keep on asking a stupid question that has been answered many a time before?
Pointless Babble wrote:
> savatt1668 wrote:
> What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone
> else.
>
> Nope, you're not. ;)
> Opinions are what everyone else has posted here, you're reply was that
> of a cocky little snot, who has nought between his ears to actually
> voice an opinion. Hence you made some cockshaw remark of an ignorant
> stance, you have yet to achieve anything other than that, as so far
> your use of fact is sadly lacking. ;)
>
> Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't
> care if you think Halo is crap.
>
> Read kiddo, and while you're at it do your background research, try
> taking a look at my review of Halo. I never said it was crap, I was it
> was a terrible disappointment, and that is exactly what it is.
>
>
> What you have to remember is there
> are reasons as to why games such as Halo grab so many sales while
> something like this Wrath you've supposedly come up with does not
> come
> even close to competing with it.
>
> WRATH is not for console retail, its an MMORPG being made after a game
> which inspired it was axed, but apparently again you are sadly lacking
> in any background knowledge (or knowledge, period, for that matter)
> which ultimately results in your posts being laughable.
>
> Halo grabs "so many sales" solely because of the name
> Microsoft, nothing else. Which also puts a little dampener on one of
> your later points. ;)
>
> I like the way you slate my "use of the English language"
> and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing.
>
> *Laughs*
>
> "BTW" is shorthand son, your use of the English language is
> flawed to the hilt, you couldn't even determine the context of my
> comment about games not BEING out and since then you have again missed
> the point on Halo. By claiming I said it was crap. ;)
>
>
> I don't
> know if you noticed, but the X-Box hasn't been out all that long so
> its not going to have all the games overnight.
>
> No, but launch titles should be something worthwhile buying the system
> for, and the sad truth of the matter is that they aren't in the case
> of the X-Box. You seem to cling quite desperately onto your little
> rants about Project Ego and Blinx, but it all bears very little
> relevance as THAT is the type of game that should've been made
> flagship. Not half-quality junk and rushed games like Halo.
>
> Metal Gear Solid:
> Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console.
>
> Substance is also on it's way for the PS2, which is slated for release
> before that of the X-Box port, so that point is null and void.
>
> Microsoft are in a tougher situation than Sony were when they
> released
> the first Playstation. Although Sega and Nintendo had big
> reputations, Sony were able to attract a new audience (i.e the older
> age groups). By releasing the right games and making the console
> available in places such as clubs, Sony not only got a foot in the
> door, but were able to build from that.
>
> Yet Microsoft foolishly believed that their system would immediately
> beat all competiton, solely due to the fact that they're Microsoft,
> and for their bravado they have been met with the exact opposite -
> high levels of console return and second hand sales, lots of
> skepticism, and an altogether unpopular console. Until they do
> anything to prove they deserve any treatment contrary to this, they
> will continue to receive the bad press they deserve.
>
> The PS2 was a sell out at
> launch purely on the reputation of the first console. It didn't
> have
> an excellent selection of games at launch, far from it, but people
> bought it because of the name.
>
> Not excellent, but still good, and none too many disappointing titles.
> Gran Turismo 3 was a perfect example of this, and it set the standard
> for visual quality on console systems, now I know from playing the
> Gamecube that Nintendo have kept on a par with this level of detail...
> why haven't Microsoft? The architecture on Halo is blocky, the terrain
> unbelievable, the actual character models just look like any old first
> person shooter on the PC (unimpressive after the spegith of them
> around), answer me why.
>
> If their system is so fantastic, why was Halo nowhere near the levels
> of detail found in the Gamecube and PS2 selections, surely Microsoft
> would want to show off their console to the best of it's ability to
> sell it. Yet they didn't.
>
>
> Its ashame really because I think the
> Dreamcast deserved a lot more than what it got. Sega had come up
> with
> an excellent console but it was doomed to fail because most people
> were only interested in the name Playstation.
>
> That wasn't why the Dreamcast failed at all. Yes it was a good system,
> I have one myself, and still use it to this day - its support for 3rd
> party, in house development makes for some excellent additions in
> fields like media playing and emulation, but the Playstation wasn't
> the cause of it's demise. The reason it failed to corner the market
> was due to the amount of custom Sega had lost from it's loyal fanbase,
> the Mega CD, 32X, Saturn and a range of mediocre titles meant a lot of
> people who would normally buy Sega systems just stopped, they were
> appauled by how much the quality had slipped.
>
> When the Dreamcast was released it was extremely unpopular, partly
> because of it's use of the Windows CE operating system, and the latter
> being the fans not wanting to fork out anymore cash to Sega for
> useless attempts at a console. Thats what started pushing Sega towards
> bankruptcy, thats why they decided to cut their losses and become an
> exclusive software developer, abandoning the hardware market.
>
> The reason the X-Box is unpopular is due to the fact Microsoft are
> completely inexperienced in the field of console development, yet like
> to think they're the best at everything, contrary to the reality that
> they're pretty useless at most things. Their operating systems are
> avoidable until they've been out for at least 2yrs, as until that
> point you can guarantee they won't work as planned, their prices are
> ludicrously high for such low quality goods, and the few games they've
> had a hand in on the PC have been quite forgettable. They then try to
> create a console, and end up just producing a PC in a console's casing
> (an oversized one at that), but praising themselves highly for doing
> so and boasting about their flagship title Halo... which does not meet
> the standards it should've done.
>
> And how many of these patches have there been ?
>
> You give it a few months and they'll start trying to create updates
> and add-ons for existing titles to boost sales, Microsoft are
> notorious for trying to milk every penny from their customers as they
> can, as is the case with the DVD playback function on the X-Box. The
> system is entirely capable of playing them out of the box, as is the
> PS2, yet they have hardcoded the machine to refuse to do so unless you
> have forked out the extra cash for the playback kit.
>
> Now the PS2 will play DVDs without the official PS2 remote, you use
> the control pad to activate the various functions, from an onscreen
> display designed to be transcluent. The X-Box could have done that,
> yet Microsoft are leeches, and refuse to do so.
>
> As for what the hard
> drive can be used for, take Project Ego. You can go into a village
> and cut another young characters cheek and when you return later on
> well into the game, he will have grown up with a scar on his cheek.
> Its not just a case of the character you control changing, all the
> other characters change too with things you do affecting them.
>
> All very good in concept, but remains to be executed in practice, also
> how good it LOOKS. You don't just puke out dodgy looking titles on a
> next gen' console, and then wonder why nobody is buying it anymore,
> and Project Ego will have to look 10x better than Halo's effort to
> give Microsoft any credence. It'll also be interesting to see how they
> address the method of storing this data, you can't just run a defrag
> on a HDD hooked into a console, to do that you'd have to either buy
> some kind of repair kit/software bundle from Microsoft (highly likely,
> as it means leeching yet more cash) or link the system to your PC and
> run the defrag program on Windows. It WILL need to be done at some
> point, all harddisks require maintenance after a stretch of time in
> use, and I'm sure the players of Project Ego will be ecstatic when
> they stick the game in one day and find out that it can't be played
> period because the HDD is on the fritz.
>
> You see, in the case of the X-Box, the system is dependant on the HDD.
> If that goes, the system is redundant, until repaired. The PS2 and
> Gamecube have similar plans for HDDs, but neither of these systems
> require the thing to run, as is the case now. They will merely be
> add-ons, which will allow them to produce the same types of game
> you're describing. The big difference, however, is that if these HDDs
> screw up - it isn't going to result in a written off console.
>
> Oh please, what a pile of crap. I've already explained Project Ego
> but I'll mention something about Blinx. The game uses an idea where
> your constantly messing around with time, this includes an idea
> where
> recent movement can be replayed, so you end up with two characters
> on
> screen at once.
>
> Which is no different from ghosts in time trial modes of existing
> games etc.
>
> As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing
> that
> ruins the game, not by a long shot.
>
> The point is it shouldn't stutter AT ALL, thats a problem associated
> with system load and multitasking on PCs, it is not meant to be an
> issue with consoles. The fact that Halo suffers from this is proof
> enough Microsoft need to pull their finger out and actually start
> thinking.
>
>
> But saying that Half-Life is
> roughly the same in looks to Halo just shows that you must have a
> very
> wide opinion of what comes into being a close resemblance.
>
> Not at all, see my comment above... it looks very similar in terms of
> polycounts, detail textures, mipmapping etc. There is nothing at all
> breathtaking about the game's graphics, the least I would expect is
> some fancy looking water and waterfall effects, but it doesn't even
> have those - they actually look LESS impressive than the ones you'd
> find in Unreal Tournament.
>
> Then of course theres the PC comment. Of course it doesn't look any
> better than a lot of recent PC games, basically because PC's are
> forever getting new upgrades. Tell me one console game that looks
> better than what a PC can do.
>
> Metal Gear Solid 2, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance... they've been
> mentioned earlier, and so far no title released for the PC at present
> looks anywhere near as good. Again, the systems due to the constant
> upgrades and jumps in technology are capable of doing so, but the
> people responsible for the creation of games just point blank can't be
> bothered to put the effort in.
>
> Go play MGS2, look at the level of detail in the game, look at the
> framerate, the animation, and the depth. Little things such as the
> complete interactivity with your surrounding environment, atmosphere
> lighting, and deformable lighting. Nothing on the PC has come close to
> it. Halo should've looked like that, because the Gamecube releases do,
> Rogue Leader etc. all have visuals that leave your jaw on the floor,
> but Halo was "just another PC game".
>
> But not everyone wants to play games on
> a PC no matter how wonderful its specs are. A lot of people want a
> console because its a matter of simply picking up and playing.
>
> Its meant to be. Although in the case of Microsoft this definition is
> trying to be blurred.
>
> Well hey I must be one of the more lucky ones cause I've had less
> trouble with my X-Box than I've had with the likes of my PS1, PS2
> and
> Dreamcast. I even had more trouble with my Gamecube than I've had
> with my X-Box.
>
> All PS2s including my own I've used or seen extensively in action
> since release are still running beautifully. The PS1 suffers from the
> mounting for its laser burning out, due to cheap materials, but the
> Dreamcast is quite a sturdy system. When the X-Box's HDD starts
> getting used properly (not tiny little savegame files like all
> system's currently have, but on SAFE removable media), it's going to
> need maintenance, defragging is going to be the main problem - if it
> isn't done then expect to see a huge hit to the console's performance,
> load times and saving times increased, and in a worst case scenario
> even the console becoming a complete write off. The system should NOT
> have been dependant on the HDD technology.
>
>
> Yes Sega were first to get a console online, I don't remember saying
> that Microsoft are the first to do this. Seeing as your so critical
> of everything though I didn't see any rush to mention the downfalls
> Sega had with their online capablities. For a start there was a
> massive problem with lag, then there was a lack in support for it in
> the long run with not many games being playable online.
>
> See my previous post about latency on dial-up connections. PSO and
> PSO2 have huge followings and player numbers, this was more than
> enough to prove Sega can handling online gaming, had the Dreamcast not
> been discontinued they would likely be at the forefront of it now.
> They had the jump on every gaming company, and likely would've kept
> it.
>
> The Playstation 2 already supports online gaming, its merely being
> expanded to network technology and broadband, along with having
> several developmental additions made. You can plug in a USB modem to
> one of it's ports, and you're able to play titles such as THPS3 head
> to head, online.
>
> Your also quick to crow about the PS2's DVD capabilities being ready
> from the box while X-Box needs a seperate peripheral to do the same.
> Shame Sony won't be giving their hard drive and modem away isn't it.
>
> Again, see my point about the benefits of not having these components
> integral to the system.
>
> Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2
> year head start - thought you might have noticed
>
> Diverting the topic yet again?
> You failed to address to mentioning of ports over original
> development, and have not addressed the slated release numbers, nor
> have you stated exactly how this would make a bearing to the number of
> games available in contrast to that of Nintendo and Sony's market.
>
> I've already explained Microsoft's position in entering the games
> market so I won't repeat it again. As for the real world, I know
> what
> its like "sonny" and prats like you are an unfortunate
> reality of it.
>
> The only prat here, unfortunately, is you kiddo. You're the one who
> spewed out that inane crap in your reply to my original comment, and
> having failed to quote fact since, along with your blatant inability
> to exercise comprehension and basic aptitude in the English language -
> have only further made yourself out to be a fool.
>
> So your little fit against everything Microsoft is sexual
> frustration
> ? Microsoft are in the games market now, deal with it. Just
> because
> they are a successful company doesn't mean they deserve to fail
>
> Nah kiddo, plenty fulfilled in that region too, guess you'll have to
> wait a few years before it becomes a realistic prospect for you
> though. :(
>
> Again I'll emphasise the whole point on comprehension, as apparently
> you're still lacking the debate skills required to execute this
> function; its not that Microsoft don't deserve to survive because
> they're a large company, its that they deserve to get a rude awakening
> because they're a lazy, and sloppy company. Pay attention. ;)
>
> I've been buying and
> playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't
> come into the matter.
>
> As is the case here, with all systems being enjoyed, bar that of the
> Microsoft effort. That judgement was reserved until I saw the system
> in ation, so it is an informed decision, unlike anything you've put
> forward here. ;)
>
> People like you can
> crow about what developers are doing wrong and how wonderfully
> educated they are until they're blue in the face, you might be able
> to
> programme a game, but that doesn't mean you know how to
> "make" a game. It takes imagination too, something that
> no
> Uni course can give you, this is where other developers are doing
> things right no matter how much you slate them.
>
> Something which Microsoft lack, the space normally occupied by
> imagination and talent in their departments, are filled by the
> excessive number of dollar signs they see before their eyes. You'll
> also find that I'm quite capable of "making" a game, as the
> playerbase of WRATH already states, the game was inspired by another
> one known as Legends of Kesmai - which was shutdown and killed off
> after EA decided it was competition for Ultima Online, having been a
> player of the game myself and knowing what was enjoyable about it -
> I'm more than qualified to create something similar but better. As for
> your comment on imagination, I take it you weren't estute enough to
> notice the "showroom" forum, I'm the lead artist kiddo - you
> can't be an artist without having an imagination or being creative,
> the work I've posted in there shows I have both qualities.
>
> But I can forgive your pitiful attempt here, as its obvious you're not
> entirely complete in the intellect department, tell me though; what is
> bliss like? ;)
>
> The feelings mutual.
>
> Only one problem there though son, I'm actually stating fact and
> giving extra info' to back my points up, whereas you're merely
> blathering on to no avail without any real stance in the argument.
> Hence you'll find that it is you who needs to put a little more time
> into your responses. ;)
What are you actually going on about love!!!!
There is a choice ---- X-Box or PS2? make your choice
> savatt1668 wrote:
> What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone
> else.
>
> Nope, you're not. ;)
> Opinions are what everyone else has posted here, you're reply was that
> of a cocky little snot, who has nought between his ears to actually
> voice an opinion. Hence you made some cockshaw remark of an ignorant
> stance, you have yet to achieve anything other than that, as so far
> your use of fact is sadly lacking. ;)
>
> Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't
> care if you think Halo is crap.
>
> Read kiddo, and while you're at it do your background research, try
> taking a look at my review of Halo. I never said it was crap, I was it
> was a terrible disappointment, and that is exactly what it is.
>
>
> What you have to remember is there
> are reasons as to why games such as Halo grab so many sales while
> something like this Wrath you've supposedly come up with does not
> come
> even close to competing with it.
>
> WRATH is not for console retail, its an MMORPG being made after a game
> which inspired it was axed, but apparently again you are sadly lacking
> in any background knowledge (or knowledge, period, for that matter)
> which ultimately results in your posts being laughable.
>
> Halo grabs "so many sales" solely because of the name
> Microsoft, nothing else. Which also puts a little dampener on one of
> your later points. ;)
>
> I like the way you slate my "use of the English language"
> and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing.
>
> *Laughs*
>
> "BTW" is shorthand son, your use of the English language is
> flawed to the hilt, you couldn't even determine the context of my
> comment about games not BEING out and since then you have again missed
> the point on Halo. By claiming I said it was crap. ;)
>
>
> I don't
> know if you noticed, but the X-Box hasn't been out all that long so
> its not going to have all the games overnight.
>
> No, but launch titles should be something worthwhile buying the system
> for, and the sad truth of the matter is that they aren't in the case
> of the X-Box. You seem to cling quite desperately onto your little
> rants about Project Ego and Blinx, but it all bears very little
> relevance as THAT is the type of game that should've been made
> flagship. Not half-quality junk and rushed games like Halo.
>
> Metal Gear Solid:
> Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console.
>
> Substance is also on it's way for the PS2, which is slated for release
> before that of the X-Box port, so that point is null and void.
>
> Microsoft are in a tougher situation than Sony were when they
> released
> the first Playstation. Although Sega and Nintendo had big
> reputations, Sony were able to attract a new audience (i.e the older
> age groups). By releasing the right games and making the console
> available in places such as clubs, Sony not only got a foot in the
> door, but were able to build from that.
>
> Yet Microsoft foolishly believed that their system would immediately
> beat all competiton, solely due to the fact that they're Microsoft,
> and for their bravado they have been met with the exact opposite -
> high levels of console return and second hand sales, lots of
> skepticism, and an altogether unpopular console. Until they do
> anything to prove they deserve any treatment contrary to this, they
> will continue to receive the bad press they deserve.
>
> The PS2 was a sell out at
> launch purely on the reputation of the first console. It didn't
> have
> an excellent selection of games at launch, far from it, but people
> bought it because of the name.
>
> Not excellent, but still good, and none too many disappointing titles.
> Gran Turismo 3 was a perfect example of this, and it set the standard
> for visual quality on console systems, now I know from playing the
> Gamecube that Nintendo have kept on a par with this level of detail...
> why haven't Microsoft? The architecture on Halo is blocky, the terrain
> unbelievable, the actual character models just look like any old first
> person shooter on the PC (unimpressive after the spegith of them
> around), answer me why.
>
> If their system is so fantastic, why was Halo nowhere near the levels
> of detail found in the Gamecube and PS2 selections, surely Microsoft
> would want to show off their console to the best of it's ability to
> sell it. Yet they didn't.
>
>
> Its ashame really because I think the
> Dreamcast deserved a lot more than what it got. Sega had come up
> with
> an excellent console but it was doomed to fail because most people
> were only interested in the name Playstation.
>
> That wasn't why the Dreamcast failed at all. Yes it was a good system,
> I have one myself, and still use it to this day - its support for 3rd
> party, in house development makes for some excellent additions in
> fields like media playing and emulation, but the Playstation wasn't
> the cause of it's demise. The reason it failed to corner the market
> was due to the amount of custom Sega had lost from it's loyal fanbase,
> the Mega CD, 32X, Saturn and a range of mediocre titles meant a lot of
> people who would normally buy Sega systems just stopped, they were
> appauled by how much the quality had slipped.
>
> When the Dreamcast was released it was extremely unpopular, partly
> because of it's use of the Windows CE operating system, and the latter
> being the fans not wanting to fork out anymore cash to Sega for
> useless attempts at a console. Thats what started pushing Sega towards
> bankruptcy, thats why they decided to cut their losses and become an
> exclusive software developer, abandoning the hardware market.
>
> The reason the X-Box is unpopular is due to the fact Microsoft are
> completely inexperienced in the field of console development, yet like
> to think they're the best at everything, contrary to the reality that
> they're pretty useless at most things. Their operating systems are
> avoidable until they've been out for at least 2yrs, as until that
> point you can guarantee they won't work as planned, their prices are
> ludicrously high for such low quality goods, and the few games they've
> had a hand in on the PC have been quite forgettable. They then try to
> create a console, and end up just producing a PC in a console's casing
> (an oversized one at that), but praising themselves highly for doing
> so and boasting about their flagship title Halo... which does not meet
> the standards it should've done.
>
> And how many of these patches have there been ?
>
> You give it a few months and they'll start trying to create updates
> and add-ons for existing titles to boost sales, Microsoft are
> notorious for trying to milk every penny from their customers as they
> can, as is the case with the DVD playback function on the X-Box. The
> system is entirely capable of playing them out of the box, as is the
> PS2, yet they have hardcoded the machine to refuse to do so unless you
> have forked out the extra cash for the playback kit.
>
> Now the PS2 will play DVDs without the official PS2 remote, you use
> the control pad to activate the various functions, from an onscreen
> display designed to be transcluent. The X-Box could have done that,
> yet Microsoft are leeches, and refuse to do so.
>
> As for what the hard
> drive can be used for, take Project Ego. You can go into a village
> and cut another young characters cheek and when you return later on
> well into the game, he will have grown up with a scar on his cheek.
> Its not just a case of the character you control changing, all the
> other characters change too with things you do affecting them.
>
> All very good in concept, but remains to be executed in practice, also
> how good it LOOKS. You don't just puke out dodgy looking titles on a
> next gen' console, and then wonder why nobody is buying it anymore,
> and Project Ego will have to look 10x better than Halo's effort to
> give Microsoft any credence. It'll also be interesting to see how they
> address the method of storing this data, you can't just run a defrag
> on a HDD hooked into a console, to do that you'd have to either buy
> some kind of repair kit/software bundle from Microsoft (highly likely,
> as it means leeching yet more cash) or link the system to your PC and
> run the defrag program on Windows. It WILL need to be done at some
> point, all harddisks require maintenance after a stretch of time in
> use, and I'm sure the players of Project Ego will be ecstatic when
> they stick the game in one day and find out that it can't be played
> period because the HDD is on the fritz.
>
> You see, in the case of the X-Box, the system is dependant on the HDD.
> If that goes, the system is redundant, until repaired. The PS2 and
> Gamecube have similar plans for HDDs, but neither of these systems
> require the thing to run, as is the case now. They will merely be
> add-ons, which will allow them to produce the same types of game
> you're describing. The big difference, however, is that if these HDDs
> screw up - it isn't going to result in a written off console.
>
> Oh please, what a pile of crap. I've already explained Project Ego
> but I'll mention something about Blinx. The game uses an idea where
> your constantly messing around with time, this includes an idea
> where
> recent movement can be replayed, so you end up with two characters
> on
> screen at once.
>
> Which is no different from ghosts in time trial modes of existing
> games etc.
>
> As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing
> that
> ruins the game, not by a long shot.
>
> The point is it shouldn't stutter AT ALL, thats a problem associated
> with system load and multitasking on PCs, it is not meant to be an
> issue with consoles. The fact that Halo suffers from this is proof
> enough Microsoft need to pull their finger out and actually start
> thinking.
>
>
> But saying that Half-Life is
> roughly the same in looks to Halo just shows that you must have a
> very
> wide opinion of what comes into being a close resemblance.
>
> Not at all, see my comment above... it looks very similar in terms of
> polycounts, detail textures, mipmapping etc. There is nothing at all
> breathtaking about the game's graphics, the least I would expect is
> some fancy looking water and waterfall effects, but it doesn't even
> have those - they actually look LESS impressive than the ones you'd
> find in Unreal Tournament.
>
> Then of course theres the PC comment. Of course it doesn't look any
> better than a lot of recent PC games, basically because PC's are
> forever getting new upgrades. Tell me one console game that looks
> better than what a PC can do.
>
> Metal Gear Solid 2, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance... they've been
> mentioned earlier, and so far no title released for the PC at present
> looks anywhere near as good. Again, the systems due to the constant
> upgrades and jumps in technology are capable of doing so, but the
> people responsible for the creation of games just point blank can't be
> bothered to put the effort in.
>
> Go play MGS2, look at the level of detail in the game, look at the
> framerate, the animation, and the depth. Little things such as the
> complete interactivity with your surrounding environment, atmosphere
> lighting, and deformable lighting. Nothing on the PC has come close to
> it. Halo should've looked like that, because the Gamecube releases do,
> Rogue Leader etc. all have visuals that leave your jaw on the floor,
> but Halo was "just another PC game".
>
> But not everyone wants to play games on
> a PC no matter how wonderful its specs are. A lot of people want a
> console because its a matter of simply picking up and playing.
>
> Its meant to be. Although in the case of Microsoft this definition is
> trying to be blurred.
>
> Well hey I must be one of the more lucky ones cause I've had less
> trouble with my X-Box than I've had with the likes of my PS1, PS2
> and
> Dreamcast. I even had more trouble with my Gamecube than I've had
> with my X-Box.
>
> All PS2s including my own I've used or seen extensively in action
> since release are still running beautifully. The PS1 suffers from the
> mounting for its laser burning out, due to cheap materials, but the
> Dreamcast is quite a sturdy system. When the X-Box's HDD starts
> getting used properly (not tiny little savegame files like all
> system's currently have, but on SAFE removable media), it's going to
> need maintenance, defragging is going to be the main problem - if it
> isn't done then expect to see a huge hit to the console's performance,
> load times and saving times increased, and in a worst case scenario
> even the console becoming a complete write off. The system should NOT
> have been dependant on the HDD technology.
>
>
> Yes Sega were first to get a console online, I don't remember saying
> that Microsoft are the first to do this. Seeing as your so critical
> of everything though I didn't see any rush to mention the downfalls
> Sega had with their online capablities. For a start there was a
> massive problem with lag, then there was a lack in support for it in
> the long run with not many games being playable online.
>
> See my previous post about latency on dial-up connections. PSO and
> PSO2 have huge followings and player numbers, this was more than
> enough to prove Sega can handling online gaming, had the Dreamcast not
> been discontinued they would likely be at the forefront of it now.
> They had the jump on every gaming company, and likely would've kept
> it.
>
> The Playstation 2 already supports online gaming, its merely being
> expanded to network technology and broadband, along with having
> several developmental additions made. You can plug in a USB modem to
> one of it's ports, and you're able to play titles such as THPS3 head
> to head, online.
>
> Your also quick to crow about the PS2's DVD capabilities being ready
> from the box while X-Box needs a seperate peripheral to do the same.
> Shame Sony won't be giving their hard drive and modem away isn't it.
>
> Again, see my point about the benefits of not having these components
> integral to the system.
>
> Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2
> year head start - thought you might have noticed
>
> Diverting the topic yet again?
> You failed to address to mentioning of ports over original
> development, and have not addressed the slated release numbers, nor
> have you stated exactly how this would make a bearing to the number of
> games available in contrast to that of Nintendo and Sony's market.
>
> I've already explained Microsoft's position in entering the games
> market so I won't repeat it again. As for the real world, I know
> what
> its like "sonny" and prats like you are an unfortunate
> reality of it.
>
> The only prat here, unfortunately, is you kiddo. You're the one who
> spewed out that inane crap in your reply to my original comment, and
> having failed to quote fact since, along with your blatant inability
> to exercise comprehension and basic aptitude in the English language -
> have only further made yourself out to be a fool.
>
> So your little fit against everything Microsoft is sexual
> frustration
> ? Microsoft are in the games market now, deal with it. Just
> because
> they are a successful company doesn't mean they deserve to fail
>
> Nah kiddo, plenty fulfilled in that region too, guess you'll have to
> wait a few years before it becomes a realistic prospect for you
> though. :(
>
> Again I'll emphasise the whole point on comprehension, as apparently
> you're still lacking the debate skills required to execute this
> function; its not that Microsoft don't deserve to survive because
> they're a large company, its that they deserve to get a rude awakening
> because they're a lazy, and sloppy company. Pay attention. ;)
>
> I've been buying and
> playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't
> come into the matter.
>
> As is the case here, with all systems being enjoyed, bar that of the
> Microsoft effort. That judgement was reserved until I saw the system
> in ation, so it is an informed decision, unlike anything you've put
> forward here. ;)
>
> People like you can
> crow about what developers are doing wrong and how wonderfully
> educated they are until they're blue in the face, you might be able
> to
> programme a game, but that doesn't mean you know how to
> "make" a game. It takes imagination too, something that
> no
> Uni course can give you, this is where other developers are doing
> things right no matter how much you slate them.
>
> Something which Microsoft lack, the space normally occupied by
> imagination and talent in their departments, are filled by the
> excessive number of dollar signs they see before their eyes. You'll
> also find that I'm quite capable of "making" a game, as the
> playerbase of WRATH already states, the game was inspired by another
> one known as Legends of Kesmai - which was shutdown and killed off
> after EA decided it was competition for Ultima Online, having been a
> player of the game myself and knowing what was enjoyable about it -
> I'm more than qualified to create something similar but better. As for
> your comment on imagination, I take it you weren't estute enough to
> notice the "showroom" forum, I'm the lead artist kiddo - you
> can't be an artist without having an imagination or being creative,
> the work I've posted in there shows I have both qualities.
>
> But I can forgive your pitiful attempt here, as its obvious you're not
> entirely complete in the intellect department, tell me though; what is
> bliss like? ;)
>
> The feelings mutual.
>
> Only one problem there though son, I'm actually stating fact and
> giving extra info' to back my points up, whereas you're merely
> blathering on to no avail without any real stance in the argument.
> Hence you'll find that it is you who needs to put a little more time
> into your responses. ;)
What are you actually going on about love!!!!
There is a choice ---- X-Box or PS2? make your choice
savatt1668 wrote:
> What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone else.
Nope, you're not. ;)
Opinions are what everyone else has posted here, you're reply was that of a cocky little snot, who has nought between his ears to actually voice an opinion. Hence you made some cockshaw remark of an ignorant stance, you have yet to achieve anything other than that, as so far your use of fact is sadly lacking. ;)
> Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't
> care if you think Halo is crap.
Read kiddo, and while you're at it do your background research, try taking a look at my review of Halo. I never said it was crap, I was it was a terrible disappointment, and that is exactly what it is.
> What you have to remember is there
> are reasons as to why games such as Halo grab so many sales while
> something like this Wrath you've supposedly come up with does not come
> even close to competing with it.
WRATH is not for console retail, its an MMORPG being made after a game which inspired it was axed, but apparently again you are sadly lacking in any background knowledge (or knowledge, period, for that matter) which ultimately results in your posts being laughable.
Halo grabs "so many sales" solely because of the name Microsoft, nothing else. Which also puts a little dampener on one of your later points. ;)
> I like the way you slate my "use of the English language"
> and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing.
*Laughs*
"BTW" is shorthand son, your use of the English language is flawed to the hilt, you couldn't even determine the context of my comment about games not BEING out and since then you have again missed the point on Halo. By claiming I said it was crap. ;)
> I don't
> know if you noticed, but the X-Box hasn't been out all that long so
> its not going to have all the games overnight.
No, but launch titles should be something worthwhile buying the system for, and the sad truth of the matter is that they aren't in the case of the X-Box. You seem to cling quite desperately onto your little rants about Project Ego and Blinx, but it all bears very little relevance as THAT is the type of game that should've been made flagship. Not half-quality junk and rushed games like Halo.
> Metal Gear Solid:
> Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console.
Substance is also on it's way for the PS2, which is slated for release before that of the X-Box port, so that point is null and void.
> Microsoft are in a tougher situation than Sony were when they released
> the first Playstation. Although Sega and Nintendo had big
> reputations, Sony were able to attract a new audience (i.e the older
> age groups). By releasing the right games and making the console
> available in places such as clubs, Sony not only got a foot in the
> door, but were able to build from that.
Yet Microsoft foolishly believed that their system would immediately beat all competiton, solely due to the fact that they're Microsoft, and for their bravado they have been met with the exact opposite - high levels of console return and second hand sales, lots of skepticism, and an altogether unpopular console. Until they do anything to prove they deserve any treatment contrary to this, they will continue to receive the bad press they deserve.
> The PS2 was a sell out at
> launch purely on the reputation of the first console. It didn't have
> an excellent selection of games at launch, far from it, but people
> bought it because of the name.
Not excellent, but still good, and none too many disappointing titles. Gran Turismo 3 was a perfect example of this, and it set the standard for visual quality on console systems, now I know from playing the Gamecube that Nintendo have kept on a par with this level of detail... why haven't Microsoft? The architecture on Halo is blocky, the terrain unbelievable, the actual character models just look like any old first person shooter on the PC (unimpressive after the spegith of them around), answer me why.
If their system is so fantastic, why was Halo nowhere near the levels of detail found in the Gamecube and PS2 selections, surely Microsoft would want to show off their console to the best of it's ability to sell it. Yet they didn't.
> Its ashame really because I think the
> Dreamcast deserved a lot more than what it got. Sega had come up with
> an excellent console but it was doomed to fail because most people
> were only interested in the name Playstation.
That wasn't why the Dreamcast failed at all. Yes it was a good system, I have one myself, and still use it to this day - its support for 3rd party, in house development makes for some excellent additions in fields like media playing and emulation, but the Playstation wasn't the cause of it's demise. The reason it failed to corner the market was due to the amount of custom Sega had lost from it's loyal fanbase, the Mega CD, 32X, Saturn and a range of mediocre titles meant a lot of people who would normally buy Sega systems just stopped, they were appauled by how much the quality had slipped.
When the Dreamcast was released it was extremely unpopular, partly because of it's use of the Windows CE operating system, and the latter being the fans not wanting to fork out anymore cash to Sega for useless attempts at a console. Thats what started pushing Sega towards bankruptcy, thats why they decided to cut their losses and become an exclusive software developer, abandoning the hardware market.
The reason the X-Box is unpopular is due to the fact Microsoft are completely inexperienced in the field of console development, yet like to think they're the best at everything, contrary to the reality that they're pretty useless at most things. Their operating systems are avoidable until they've been out for at least 2yrs, as until that point you can guarantee they won't work as planned, their prices are ludicrously high for such low quality goods, and the few games they've had a hand in on the PC have been quite forgettable. They then try to create a console, and end up just producing a PC in a console's casing (an oversized one at that), but praising themselves highly for doing so and boasting about their flagship title Halo... which does not meet the standards it should've done.
> And how many of these patches have there been ?
You give it a few months and they'll start trying to create updates and add-ons for existing titles to boost sales, Microsoft are notorious for trying to milk every penny from their customers as they can, as is the case with the DVD playback function on the X-Box. The system is entirely capable of playing them out of the box, as is the PS2, yet they have hardcoded the machine to refuse to do so unless you have forked out the extra cash for the playback kit.
Now the PS2 will play DVDs without the official PS2 remote, you use the control pad to activate the various functions, from an onscreen display designed to be transcluent. The X-Box could have done that, yet Microsoft are leeches, and refuse to do so.
> As for what the hard
> drive can be used for, take Project Ego. You can go into a village
> and cut another young characters cheek and when you return later on
> well into the game, he will have grown up with a scar on his cheek.
> Its not just a case of the character you control changing, all the
> other characters change too with things you do affecting them.
All very good in concept, but remains to be executed in practice, also how good it LOOKS. You don't just puke out dodgy looking titles on a next gen' console, and then wonder why nobody is buying it anymore, and Project Ego will have to look 10x better than Halo's effort to give Microsoft any credence. It'll also be interesting to see how they address the method of storing this data, you can't just run a defrag on a HDD hooked into a console, to do that you'd have to either buy some kind of repair kit/software bundle from Microsoft (highly likely, as it means leeching yet more cash) or link the system to your PC and run the defrag program on Windows. It WILL need to be done at some point, all harddisks require maintenance after a stretch of time in use, and I'm sure the players of Project Ego will be ecstatic when they stick the game in one day and find out that it can't be played period because the HDD is on the fritz.
You see, in the case of the X-Box, the system is dependant on the HDD. If that goes, the system is redundant, until repaired. The PS2 and Gamecube have similar plans for HDDs, but neither of these systems require the thing to run, as is the case now. They will merely be add-ons, which will allow them to produce the same types of game you're describing. The big difference, however, is that if these HDDs screw up - it isn't going to result in a written off console.
> Oh please, what a pile of crap. I've already explained Project Ego
> but I'll mention something about Blinx. The game uses an idea where
> your constantly messing around with time, this includes an idea where
> recent movement can be replayed, so you end up with two characters on
> screen at once.
Which is no different from ghosts in time trial modes of existing games etc.
> As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing that
> ruins the game, not by a long shot.
The point is it shouldn't stutter AT ALL, thats a problem associated with system load and multitasking on PCs, it is not meant to be an issue with consoles. The fact that Halo suffers from this is proof enough Microsoft need to pull their finger out and actually start thinking.
> But saying that Half-Life is
> roughly the same in looks to Halo just shows that you must have a very
> wide opinion of what comes into being a close resemblance.
Not at all, see my comment above... it looks very similar in terms of polycounts, detail textures, mipmapping etc. There is nothing at all breathtaking about the game's graphics, the least I would expect is some fancy looking water and waterfall effects, but it doesn't even have those - they actually look LESS impressive than the ones you'd find in Unreal Tournament.
> Then of course theres the PC comment. Of course it doesn't look any
> better than a lot of recent PC games, basically because PC's are
> forever getting new upgrades. Tell me one console game that looks
> better than what a PC can do.
Metal Gear Solid 2, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance... they've been mentioned earlier, and so far no title released for the PC at present looks anywhere near as good. Again, the systems due to the constant upgrades and jumps in technology are capable of doing so, but the people responsible for the creation of games just point blank can't be bothered to put the effort in.
Go play MGS2, look at the level of detail in the game, look at the framerate, the animation, and the depth. Little things such as the complete interactivity with your surrounding environment, atmosphere lighting, and deformable lighting. Nothing on the PC has come close to it. Halo should've looked like that, because the Gamecube releases do, Rogue Leader etc. all have visuals that leave your jaw on the floor, but Halo was "just another PC game".
> But not everyone wants to play games on
> a PC no matter how wonderful its specs are. A lot of people want a
> console because its a matter of simply picking up and playing.
Its meant to be. Although in the case of Microsoft this definition is trying to be blurred.
> Well hey I must be one of the more lucky ones cause I've had less
> trouble with my X-Box than I've had with the likes of my PS1, PS2 and
> Dreamcast. I even had more trouble with my Gamecube than I've had
> with my X-Box.
All PS2s including my own I've used or seen extensively in action since release are still running beautifully. The PS1 suffers from the mounting for its laser burning out, due to cheap materials, but the Dreamcast is quite a sturdy system. When the X-Box's HDD starts getting used properly (not tiny little savegame files like all system's currently have, but on SAFE removable media), it's going to need maintenance, defragging is going to be the main problem - if it isn't done then expect to see a huge hit to the console's performance, load times and saving times increased, and in a worst case scenario even the console becoming a complete write off. The system should NOT have been dependant on the HDD technology.
> Yes Sega were first to get a console online, I don't remember saying
> that Microsoft are the first to do this. Seeing as your so critical
> of everything though I didn't see any rush to mention the downfalls
> Sega had with their online capablities. For a start there was a
> massive problem with lag, then there was a lack in support for it in
> the long run with not many games being playable online.
See my previous post about latency on dial-up connections. PSO and PSO2 have huge followings and player numbers, this was more than enough to prove Sega can handling online gaming, had the Dreamcast not been discontinued they would likely be at the forefront of it now. They had the jump on every gaming company, and likely would've kept it.
The Playstation 2 already supports online gaming, its merely being expanded to network technology and broadband, along with having several developmental additions made. You can plug in a USB modem to one of it's ports, and you're able to play titles such as THPS3 head to head, online.
> Your also quick to crow about the PS2's DVD capabilities being ready
> from the box while X-Box needs a seperate peripheral to do the same.
> Shame Sony won't be giving their hard drive and modem away isn't it.
Again, see my point about the benefits of not having these components integral to the system.
> Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2
> year head start - thought you might have noticed
Diverting the topic yet again?
You failed to address to mentioning of ports over original development, and have not addressed the slated release numbers, nor have you stated exactly how this would make a bearing to the number of games available in contrast to that of Nintendo and Sony's market.
> I've already explained Microsoft's position in entering the games
> market so I won't repeat it again. As for the real world, I know what
> its like "sonny" and prats like you are an unfortunate
> reality of it.
The only prat here, unfortunately, is you kiddo. You're the one who spewed out that inane crap in your reply to my original comment, and having failed to quote fact since, along with your blatant inability to exercise comprehension and basic aptitude in the English language - have only further made yourself out to be a fool.
> So your little fit against everything Microsoft is sexual frustration
> ? Microsoft are in the games market now, deal with it. Just because
> they are a successful company doesn't mean they deserve to fail
Nah kiddo, plenty fulfilled in that region too, guess you'll have to wait a few years before it becomes a realistic prospect for you though. :(
Again I'll emphasise the whole point on comprehension, as apparently you're still lacking the debate skills required to execute this function; its not that Microsoft don't deserve to survive because they're a large company, its that they deserve to get a rude awakening because they're a lazy, and sloppy company. Pay attention. ;)
> I've been buying and
> playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't
> come into the matter.
As is the case here, with all systems being enjoyed, bar that of the Microsoft effort. That judgement was reserved until I saw the system in ation, so it is an informed decision, unlike anything you've put forward here. ;)
> People like you can
> crow about what developers are doing wrong and how wonderfully
> educated they are until they're blue in the face, you might be able to
> programme a game, but that doesn't mean you know how to
> "make" a game. It takes imagination too, something that no
> Uni course can give you, this is where other developers are doing
> things right no matter how much you slate them.
Something which Microsoft lack, the space normally occupied by imagination and talent in their departments, are filled by the excessive number of dollar signs they see before their eyes. You'll also find that I'm quite capable of "making" a game, as the playerbase of WRATH already states, the game was inspired by another one known as Legends of Kesmai - which was shutdown and killed off after EA decided it was competition for Ultima Online, having been a player of the game myself and knowing what was enjoyable about it - I'm more than qualified to create something similar but better. As for your comment on imagination, I take it you weren't estute enough to notice the "showroom" forum, I'm the lead artist kiddo - you can't be an artist without having an imagination or being creative, the work I've posted in there shows I have both qualities.
But I can forgive your pitiful attempt here, as its obvious you're not entirely complete in the intellect department, tell me though; what is bliss like? ;)
> The feelings mutual.
Only one problem there though son, I'm actually stating fact and giving extra info' to back my points up, whereas you're merely blathering on to no avail without any real stance in the argument. Hence you'll find that it is you who needs to put a little more time into your responses. ;)
> What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone else.
Nope, you're not. ;)
Opinions are what everyone else has posted here, you're reply was that of a cocky little snot, who has nought between his ears to actually voice an opinion. Hence you made some cockshaw remark of an ignorant stance, you have yet to achieve anything other than that, as so far your use of fact is sadly lacking. ;)
> Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't
> care if you think Halo is crap.
Read kiddo, and while you're at it do your background research, try taking a look at my review of Halo. I never said it was crap, I was it was a terrible disappointment, and that is exactly what it is.
> What you have to remember is there
> are reasons as to why games such as Halo grab so many sales while
> something like this Wrath you've supposedly come up with does not come
> even close to competing with it.
WRATH is not for console retail, its an MMORPG being made after a game which inspired it was axed, but apparently again you are sadly lacking in any background knowledge (or knowledge, period, for that matter) which ultimately results in your posts being laughable.
Halo grabs "so many sales" solely because of the name Microsoft, nothing else. Which also puts a little dampener on one of your later points. ;)
> I like the way you slate my "use of the English language"
> and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing.
*Laughs*
"BTW" is shorthand son, your use of the English language is flawed to the hilt, you couldn't even determine the context of my comment about games not BEING out and since then you have again missed the point on Halo. By claiming I said it was crap. ;)
> I don't
> know if you noticed, but the X-Box hasn't been out all that long so
> its not going to have all the games overnight.
No, but launch titles should be something worthwhile buying the system for, and the sad truth of the matter is that they aren't in the case of the X-Box. You seem to cling quite desperately onto your little rants about Project Ego and Blinx, but it all bears very little relevance as THAT is the type of game that should've been made flagship. Not half-quality junk and rushed games like Halo.
> Metal Gear Solid:
> Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console.
Substance is also on it's way for the PS2, which is slated for release before that of the X-Box port, so that point is null and void.
> Microsoft are in a tougher situation than Sony were when they released
> the first Playstation. Although Sega and Nintendo had big
> reputations, Sony were able to attract a new audience (i.e the older
> age groups). By releasing the right games and making the console
> available in places such as clubs, Sony not only got a foot in the
> door, but were able to build from that.
Yet Microsoft foolishly believed that their system would immediately beat all competiton, solely due to the fact that they're Microsoft, and for their bravado they have been met with the exact opposite - high levels of console return and second hand sales, lots of skepticism, and an altogether unpopular console. Until they do anything to prove they deserve any treatment contrary to this, they will continue to receive the bad press they deserve.
> The PS2 was a sell out at
> launch purely on the reputation of the first console. It didn't have
> an excellent selection of games at launch, far from it, but people
> bought it because of the name.
Not excellent, but still good, and none too many disappointing titles. Gran Turismo 3 was a perfect example of this, and it set the standard for visual quality on console systems, now I know from playing the Gamecube that Nintendo have kept on a par with this level of detail... why haven't Microsoft? The architecture on Halo is blocky, the terrain unbelievable, the actual character models just look like any old first person shooter on the PC (unimpressive after the spegith of them around), answer me why.
If their system is so fantastic, why was Halo nowhere near the levels of detail found in the Gamecube and PS2 selections, surely Microsoft would want to show off their console to the best of it's ability to sell it. Yet they didn't.
> Its ashame really because I think the
> Dreamcast deserved a lot more than what it got. Sega had come up with
> an excellent console but it was doomed to fail because most people
> were only interested in the name Playstation.
That wasn't why the Dreamcast failed at all. Yes it was a good system, I have one myself, and still use it to this day - its support for 3rd party, in house development makes for some excellent additions in fields like media playing and emulation, but the Playstation wasn't the cause of it's demise. The reason it failed to corner the market was due to the amount of custom Sega had lost from it's loyal fanbase, the Mega CD, 32X, Saturn and a range of mediocre titles meant a lot of people who would normally buy Sega systems just stopped, they were appauled by how much the quality had slipped.
When the Dreamcast was released it was extremely unpopular, partly because of it's use of the Windows CE operating system, and the latter being the fans not wanting to fork out anymore cash to Sega for useless attempts at a console. Thats what started pushing Sega towards bankruptcy, thats why they decided to cut their losses and become an exclusive software developer, abandoning the hardware market.
The reason the X-Box is unpopular is due to the fact Microsoft are completely inexperienced in the field of console development, yet like to think they're the best at everything, contrary to the reality that they're pretty useless at most things. Their operating systems are avoidable until they've been out for at least 2yrs, as until that point you can guarantee they won't work as planned, their prices are ludicrously high for such low quality goods, and the few games they've had a hand in on the PC have been quite forgettable. They then try to create a console, and end up just producing a PC in a console's casing (an oversized one at that), but praising themselves highly for doing so and boasting about their flagship title Halo... which does not meet the standards it should've done.
> And how many of these patches have there been ?
You give it a few months and they'll start trying to create updates and add-ons for existing titles to boost sales, Microsoft are notorious for trying to milk every penny from their customers as they can, as is the case with the DVD playback function on the X-Box. The system is entirely capable of playing them out of the box, as is the PS2, yet they have hardcoded the machine to refuse to do so unless you have forked out the extra cash for the playback kit.
Now the PS2 will play DVDs without the official PS2 remote, you use the control pad to activate the various functions, from an onscreen display designed to be transcluent. The X-Box could have done that, yet Microsoft are leeches, and refuse to do so.
> As for what the hard
> drive can be used for, take Project Ego. You can go into a village
> and cut another young characters cheek and when you return later on
> well into the game, he will have grown up with a scar on his cheek.
> Its not just a case of the character you control changing, all the
> other characters change too with things you do affecting them.
All very good in concept, but remains to be executed in practice, also how good it LOOKS. You don't just puke out dodgy looking titles on a next gen' console, and then wonder why nobody is buying it anymore, and Project Ego will have to look 10x better than Halo's effort to give Microsoft any credence. It'll also be interesting to see how they address the method of storing this data, you can't just run a defrag on a HDD hooked into a console, to do that you'd have to either buy some kind of repair kit/software bundle from Microsoft (highly likely, as it means leeching yet more cash) or link the system to your PC and run the defrag program on Windows. It WILL need to be done at some point, all harddisks require maintenance after a stretch of time in use, and I'm sure the players of Project Ego will be ecstatic when they stick the game in one day and find out that it can't be played period because the HDD is on the fritz.
You see, in the case of the X-Box, the system is dependant on the HDD. If that goes, the system is redundant, until repaired. The PS2 and Gamecube have similar plans for HDDs, but neither of these systems require the thing to run, as is the case now. They will merely be add-ons, which will allow them to produce the same types of game you're describing. The big difference, however, is that if these HDDs screw up - it isn't going to result in a written off console.
> Oh please, what a pile of crap. I've already explained Project Ego
> but I'll mention something about Blinx. The game uses an idea where
> your constantly messing around with time, this includes an idea where
> recent movement can be replayed, so you end up with two characters on
> screen at once.
Which is no different from ghosts in time trial modes of existing games etc.
> As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing that
> ruins the game, not by a long shot.
The point is it shouldn't stutter AT ALL, thats a problem associated with system load and multitasking on PCs, it is not meant to be an issue with consoles. The fact that Halo suffers from this is proof enough Microsoft need to pull their finger out and actually start thinking.
> But saying that Half-Life is
> roughly the same in looks to Halo just shows that you must have a very
> wide opinion of what comes into being a close resemblance.
Not at all, see my comment above... it looks very similar in terms of polycounts, detail textures, mipmapping etc. There is nothing at all breathtaking about the game's graphics, the least I would expect is some fancy looking water and waterfall effects, but it doesn't even have those - they actually look LESS impressive than the ones you'd find in Unreal Tournament.
> Then of course theres the PC comment. Of course it doesn't look any
> better than a lot of recent PC games, basically because PC's are
> forever getting new upgrades. Tell me one console game that looks
> better than what a PC can do.
Metal Gear Solid 2, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance... they've been mentioned earlier, and so far no title released for the PC at present looks anywhere near as good. Again, the systems due to the constant upgrades and jumps in technology are capable of doing so, but the people responsible for the creation of games just point blank can't be bothered to put the effort in.
Go play MGS2, look at the level of detail in the game, look at the framerate, the animation, and the depth. Little things such as the complete interactivity with your surrounding environment, atmosphere lighting, and deformable lighting. Nothing on the PC has come close to it. Halo should've looked like that, because the Gamecube releases do, Rogue Leader etc. all have visuals that leave your jaw on the floor, but Halo was "just another PC game".
> But not everyone wants to play games on
> a PC no matter how wonderful its specs are. A lot of people want a
> console because its a matter of simply picking up and playing.
Its meant to be. Although in the case of Microsoft this definition is trying to be blurred.
> Well hey I must be one of the more lucky ones cause I've had less
> trouble with my X-Box than I've had with the likes of my PS1, PS2 and
> Dreamcast. I even had more trouble with my Gamecube than I've had
> with my X-Box.
All PS2s including my own I've used or seen extensively in action since release are still running beautifully. The PS1 suffers from the mounting for its laser burning out, due to cheap materials, but the Dreamcast is quite a sturdy system. When the X-Box's HDD starts getting used properly (not tiny little savegame files like all system's currently have, but on SAFE removable media), it's going to need maintenance, defragging is going to be the main problem - if it isn't done then expect to see a huge hit to the console's performance, load times and saving times increased, and in a worst case scenario even the console becoming a complete write off. The system should NOT have been dependant on the HDD technology.
> Yes Sega were first to get a console online, I don't remember saying
> that Microsoft are the first to do this. Seeing as your so critical
> of everything though I didn't see any rush to mention the downfalls
> Sega had with their online capablities. For a start there was a
> massive problem with lag, then there was a lack in support for it in
> the long run with not many games being playable online.
See my previous post about latency on dial-up connections. PSO and PSO2 have huge followings and player numbers, this was more than enough to prove Sega can handling online gaming, had the Dreamcast not been discontinued they would likely be at the forefront of it now. They had the jump on every gaming company, and likely would've kept it.
The Playstation 2 already supports online gaming, its merely being expanded to network technology and broadband, along with having several developmental additions made. You can plug in a USB modem to one of it's ports, and you're able to play titles such as THPS3 head to head, online.
> Your also quick to crow about the PS2's DVD capabilities being ready
> from the box while X-Box needs a seperate peripheral to do the same.
> Shame Sony won't be giving their hard drive and modem away isn't it.
Again, see my point about the benefits of not having these components integral to the system.
> Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2
> year head start - thought you might have noticed
Diverting the topic yet again?
You failed to address to mentioning of ports over original development, and have not addressed the slated release numbers, nor have you stated exactly how this would make a bearing to the number of games available in contrast to that of Nintendo and Sony's market.
> I've already explained Microsoft's position in entering the games
> market so I won't repeat it again. As for the real world, I know what
> its like "sonny" and prats like you are an unfortunate
> reality of it.
The only prat here, unfortunately, is you kiddo. You're the one who spewed out that inane crap in your reply to my original comment, and having failed to quote fact since, along with your blatant inability to exercise comprehension and basic aptitude in the English language - have only further made yourself out to be a fool.
> So your little fit against everything Microsoft is sexual frustration
> ? Microsoft are in the games market now, deal with it. Just because
> they are a successful company doesn't mean they deserve to fail
Nah kiddo, plenty fulfilled in that region too, guess you'll have to wait a few years before it becomes a realistic prospect for you though. :(
Again I'll emphasise the whole point on comprehension, as apparently you're still lacking the debate skills required to execute this function; its not that Microsoft don't deserve to survive because they're a large company, its that they deserve to get a rude awakening because they're a lazy, and sloppy company. Pay attention. ;)
> I've been buying and
> playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't
> come into the matter.
As is the case here, with all systems being enjoyed, bar that of the Microsoft effort. That judgement was reserved until I saw the system in ation, so it is an informed decision, unlike anything you've put forward here. ;)
> People like you can
> crow about what developers are doing wrong and how wonderfully
> educated they are until they're blue in the face, you might be able to
> programme a game, but that doesn't mean you know how to
> "make" a game. It takes imagination too, something that no
> Uni course can give you, this is where other developers are doing
> things right no matter how much you slate them.
Something which Microsoft lack, the space normally occupied by imagination and talent in their departments, are filled by the excessive number of dollar signs they see before their eyes. You'll also find that I'm quite capable of "making" a game, as the playerbase of WRATH already states, the game was inspired by another one known as Legends of Kesmai - which was shutdown and killed off after EA decided it was competition for Ultima Online, having been a player of the game myself and knowing what was enjoyable about it - I'm more than qualified to create something similar but better. As for your comment on imagination, I take it you weren't estute enough to notice the "showroom" forum, I'm the lead artist kiddo - you can't be an artist without having an imagination or being creative, the work I've posted in there shows I have both qualities.
But I can forgive your pitiful attempt here, as its obvious you're not entirely complete in the intellect department, tell me though; what is bliss like? ;)
> The feelings mutual.
Only one problem there though son, I'm actually stating fact and giving extra info' to back my points up, whereas you're merely blathering on to no avail without any real stance in the argument. Hence you'll find that it is you who needs to put a little more time into your responses. ;)
Everyone i know thinks and says that the ps2 is way better than the X-box!!
If you think different then post your views here.
If you think different then post your views here.
Page: