The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
If I think of an order, I guess mine is X-Box first with the other two in a joint second. I still play Halo a lot. :-) Don't think I've played a game so much since Metal Gear Solid on the PS1. :-)
True true. But at present, thats how my order goes
With the PS2 having the wider range of titles, thats really down to it having been around for a lot longer. In a couple of years the X-Box and Gamecube will probably have a good wide range of titles too. At the moment both are mainly concentrating on their target audiences first before they no doubt branch out as it were.
My order of console happiness is obviously, Gamecube, then the maybe not so techinically great but still has great gamed PS2, then the monster that is Xbox. It just doesn't have games that appeal to me, though the Gamecube has still got lots of kiddy but adulty games, and the PS2 is a really good compromise with stuff like Silent Hill and then Jak and Daxter
Pointless Babble wrote:
> Whats the matter kiddo? Jealous?
> Founding member of Artifical Entertainment, current project being
> WRATH, website being http://board.wrathgame.co.uk. WinterCloak would
> be me, and I'm nowhere near being on the dole son, sounds like you
> might be though - hence the bitterness when someone pokes fun at you.
> ;)
What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone else. Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't care if you think Halo is crap. 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. Seeing as you know everything thats good or crap, we should be in for a real treat when it comes to your games. Forgive me if I don't rush to pre-order though.
> Are they there now? ;)
> I suggest you stick in school bud, your grasp of the English language
> is fairly mediocre, and thats being polite. I said they aren't on the
> X-Box, I was entirely correct in my statement, do pay attention. Btw -
> Baldur's Gate 2 is NOT out, nor is it being developed for the X-Box.
> Again you show your ignorance to the fact, by neglecting to realise
> that BG:DA is not Baldur's Gate 2, as that was released on the PC
> several years ago.
I like the way you slate my "use of the English language" and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing. 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. Metal Gear Solid: Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console. I stand corrected on the Baldur's Gate thing, I actually meant Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance which is supposed to be out around September.
> Not really, no. Certainly not to the degree that the X-Box has been
> given, you'll find that it's sales are pathetically poor in comparison
> to that of the others, and that returns and second-hand sales are
> through the roof. Nobody sticks with it too long, it really isn't
> worth it.
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. 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. 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.
Overall though, Microsoft haven't got the same route to take. They have to attract people away from the other brands. Of course at the moment they're aiming towards the older audience and people who enjoy PC games. Like any company, they want original games for their console, but with the situation they are in to grab sales from Sony and Nintendo, they also need games that are popular and well known.
> Wrong. It gives them the oppurtunity to release patches for games
> which don't work correctly, despite the whole point of consoles being
> they work out of the box. It gives them the chance to release
> expensive, minor add-on packs, for the sole purpose of milking a few
> extra quid from the saps gullible enough to buy it in the first place,
> and it causes a whole load of issues in storage because hard drives
> have severe problems with fragmentation and allocation errors.
>
> I suggest you actually pay attention to your tutors at school, if you
> actually manage to pass your GCSEs, you might be able to get onto some
> REAL courses in computing architecture, information technology,
> network administration etc. Once you know enough about the platform to
> be able to comment w/o spewing forth this verbal diahorrea you're
> currently so full of, do feel free to come back and make a few
> educated responses. ;)
And how many of these patches have there been ? 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.
> You'll find that they can, as the developers working on the other two
> platforms aren't as sloppy as Microsoft, I found myself appauled at
> Halo's framerate, stutters when it autosaved or you hit a teleport
> etc. Its disgusting, as that is outright NOT meant to happen at all on
> a console game, the only risk is in over-using resources and causing
> slowdown - but 99% of the current games have been efficient enough to
> avoid it. Microsoft are the opposite extreme, Halo was a really
> disappointing use of the processing and rendering capabilities their
> machine supposedly has, the visuals were unimpressive - look just like
> any other PC game out at present. Even Half-Life, which is already
> dated, looks roughly the same in visual depth.
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. One being the recorded version of you running around while you control the other.
As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing that ruins the game, not by a long shot. 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.
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. 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. No need to constantly look at a games packaging to see if they have the specs they need to run it. They can get friends over for a good multiplayer without asking them all to bring their huge PC set ups along and network all of them up.
> Not "style", PC parts, period. Thats a GeForce chip in
> there, a standard HDD with a few alterations, RAM etc. It IS a poor
> man's PC, they're just stupid enough to think they can kid consumers
> into thinking it's a console, by sticking it in a console's casing...
> although listening to you harp on, maybe they can. ;)
>
> Its not more reliable for games at all, the fact its using existing PC
> architecture makes it LESS reliable, as its more prone to malfunction
> and errors in these components - making it's lifespan shorter than the
> other systems.
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.
> The X-Box is also bringing an excellent online service to console
> gaming.
>
> Hmmm... yes and?
> Sorry, but SEGA beat them to it with the Dreamcast's online
> capabilities, the PS2 already HAS online capabilities - which are soon
> to be expanded with several broadband and network devices. There has
> already been a Unix development kit produced (which comes with a HDD -
> as a seperate entity, not a required element of the PS2's make-up),
> which is on sale for budding PS2 developers, it plays DVDs out of the
> box (as the X-Box can, but WON'T, not unless you buy the handset), and
> has the ability for basic development included with it on purchase.
> What does the X-Box HAVE again? Oh yes... a harddrive.
>
> *claps*
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. All credit to Sega for taking the direction, but unfortunatly they didn't have the power at the time to really do much with their online service unlike Microsoft and no doubt Sony have.
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.
> It has the biggest line up of PORTS, theres a slight difference.
>
> There is very little change between the PC version and X-Box version
> of a game in terms of coding, as such a lot of older games are merely
> being ported, games being developed from scratch are distinctly fewer
> in number - and at present both the PS2 and GC outnumber the X-Box in
> terms of available titles, so its not about to catch up too quickly.
>
> You're really clutching at straws here sonny, perhaps you would've
> fared better had you just stuck to your inane post that you made
> previously, it certainly had more cogent content than this one does.
> ;)
Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2 year head start - thought you might have noticed. As for the GC having more available titles, feel free to put out a couple of lists because thats complete bull.
> *Laughs in the child's face yet again*
>
> I never said it was invincible kiddy-winkle, infact on several
> occasions already I have noted that the competition between a
> Nintendo/SEGA powerhouse will be a great thing to watch unfold, what I
> did say was that Microsoft's effort is pathetic. So do pay attention a
> little more, comprehension is something you should have down by now,
> if you don't its going to be highly amusing seeing you try to cope in
> the real world. ;)
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.
> As for the puberty comment, you'll find I passed that point many years
> ago, as did I finish my education - having already been through uni.
> You on the other hand, are so very blatantly a little boy its funny,
> its either that or a highly undereducated adult... I struggle to
> decide which one gives you the better stance in life, I suppose if it
> were the child, you can always swat up and make a change (however
> unlikely that is in your case).
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 - although thats always been a big part of this country's "build them up, knock them down" mentality. I've been buying and playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't come into the matter. If I see a console that appeals to me with great games I like to play, I'll buy it - simple. 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.
> Do me a favour next time? Actually know what you're talking about, and
> THINK about what it is you're trying to say, that way your retort
> might eventually pose a challenge to address - at present its a really
> pitiful cakewalk.
The feelings mutual.
> Have a peachy day, sonny. ;)
You've done nothing to stop it being just that "sonny". :-)
> Whats the matter kiddo? Jealous?
> Founding member of Artifical Entertainment, current project being
> WRATH, website being http://board.wrathgame.co.uk. WinterCloak would
> be me, and I'm nowhere near being on the dole son, sounds like you
> might be though - hence the bitterness when someone pokes fun at you.
> ;)
What bitterness ? I'm putting my opinion accross like everyone else. Just cause you think a console is crap doesn't make it so. I don't care if you think Halo is crap. 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. Seeing as you know everything thats good or crap, we should be in for a real treat when it comes to your games. Forgive me if I don't rush to pre-order though.
> Are they there now? ;)
> I suggest you stick in school bud, your grasp of the English language
> is fairly mediocre, and thats being polite. I said they aren't on the
> X-Box, I was entirely correct in my statement, do pay attention. Btw -
> Baldur's Gate 2 is NOT out, nor is it being developed for the X-Box.
> Again you show your ignorance to the fact, by neglecting to realise
> that BG:DA is not Baldur's Gate 2, as that was released on the PC
> several years ago.
I like the way you slate my "use of the English language" and then use terms such as "btw", very amusing. 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. Metal Gear Solid: Substance is on the way though which can only benefit a console. I stand corrected on the Baldur's Gate thing, I actually meant Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance which is supposed to be out around September.
> Not really, no. Certainly not to the degree that the X-Box has been
> given, you'll find that it's sales are pathetically poor in comparison
> to that of the others, and that returns and second-hand sales are
> through the roof. Nobody sticks with it too long, it really isn't
> worth it.
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. 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. 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.
Overall though, Microsoft haven't got the same route to take. They have to attract people away from the other brands. Of course at the moment they're aiming towards the older audience and people who enjoy PC games. Like any company, they want original games for their console, but with the situation they are in to grab sales from Sony and Nintendo, they also need games that are popular and well known.
> Wrong. It gives them the oppurtunity to release patches for games
> which don't work correctly, despite the whole point of consoles being
> they work out of the box. It gives them the chance to release
> expensive, minor add-on packs, for the sole purpose of milking a few
> extra quid from the saps gullible enough to buy it in the first place,
> and it causes a whole load of issues in storage because hard drives
> have severe problems with fragmentation and allocation errors.
>
> I suggest you actually pay attention to your tutors at school, if you
> actually manage to pass your GCSEs, you might be able to get onto some
> REAL courses in computing architecture, information technology,
> network administration etc. Once you know enough about the platform to
> be able to comment w/o spewing forth this verbal diahorrea you're
> currently so full of, do feel free to come back and make a few
> educated responses. ;)
And how many of these patches have there been ? 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.
> You'll find that they can, as the developers working on the other two
> platforms aren't as sloppy as Microsoft, I found myself appauled at
> Halo's framerate, stutters when it autosaved or you hit a teleport
> etc. Its disgusting, as that is outright NOT meant to happen at all on
> a console game, the only risk is in over-using resources and causing
> slowdown - but 99% of the current games have been efficient enough to
> avoid it. Microsoft are the opposite extreme, Halo was a really
> disappointing use of the processing and rendering capabilities their
> machine supposedly has, the visuals were unimpressive - look just like
> any other PC game out at present. Even Half-Life, which is already
> dated, looks roughly the same in visual depth.
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. One being the recorded version of you running around while you control the other.
As for Halo, yeah it does stutter during save points but nothing that ruins the game, not by a long shot. 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.
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. 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. No need to constantly look at a games packaging to see if they have the specs they need to run it. They can get friends over for a good multiplayer without asking them all to bring their huge PC set ups along and network all of them up.
> Not "style", PC parts, period. Thats a GeForce chip in
> there, a standard HDD with a few alterations, RAM etc. It IS a poor
> man's PC, they're just stupid enough to think they can kid consumers
> into thinking it's a console, by sticking it in a console's casing...
> although listening to you harp on, maybe they can. ;)
>
> Its not more reliable for games at all, the fact its using existing PC
> architecture makes it LESS reliable, as its more prone to malfunction
> and errors in these components - making it's lifespan shorter than the
> other systems.
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.
> The X-Box is also bringing an excellent online service to console
> gaming.
>
> Hmmm... yes and?
> Sorry, but SEGA beat them to it with the Dreamcast's online
> capabilities, the PS2 already HAS online capabilities - which are soon
> to be expanded with several broadband and network devices. There has
> already been a Unix development kit produced (which comes with a HDD -
> as a seperate entity, not a required element of the PS2's make-up),
> which is on sale for budding PS2 developers, it plays DVDs out of the
> box (as the X-Box can, but WON'T, not unless you buy the handset), and
> has the ability for basic development included with it on purchase.
> What does the X-Box HAVE again? Oh yes... a harddrive.
>
> *claps*
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. All credit to Sega for taking the direction, but unfortunatly they didn't have the power at the time to really do much with their online service unlike Microsoft and no doubt Sony have.
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.
> It has the biggest line up of PORTS, theres a slight difference.
>
> There is very little change between the PC version and X-Box version
> of a game in terms of coding, as such a lot of older games are merely
> being ported, games being developed from scratch are distinctly fewer
> in number - and at present both the PS2 and GC outnumber the X-Box in
> terms of available titles, so its not about to catch up too quickly.
>
> You're really clutching at straws here sonny, perhaps you would've
> fared better had you just stuck to your inane post that you made
> previously, it certainly had more cogent content than this one does.
> ;)
Of course the PS2 has a larger selection of titles, its had over a 2 year head start - thought you might have noticed. As for the GC having more available titles, feel free to put out a couple of lists because thats complete bull.
> *Laughs in the child's face yet again*
>
> I never said it was invincible kiddy-winkle, infact on several
> occasions already I have noted that the competition between a
> Nintendo/SEGA powerhouse will be a great thing to watch unfold, what I
> did say was that Microsoft's effort is pathetic. So do pay attention a
> little more, comprehension is something you should have down by now,
> if you don't its going to be highly amusing seeing you try to cope in
> the real world. ;)
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.
> As for the puberty comment, you'll find I passed that point many years
> ago, as did I finish my education - having already been through uni.
> You on the other hand, are so very blatantly a little boy its funny,
> its either that or a highly undereducated adult... I struggle to
> decide which one gives you the better stance in life, I suppose if it
> were the child, you can always swat up and make a change (however
> unlikely that is in your case).
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 - although thats always been a big part of this country's "build them up, knock them down" mentality. I've been buying and playing games for years, to me, sales, specs and company names don't come into the matter. If I see a console that appeals to me with great games I like to play, I'll buy it - simple. 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.
> Do me a favour next time? Actually know what you're talking about, and
> THINK about what it is you're trying to say, that way your retort
> might eventually pose a challenge to address - at present its a really
> pitiful cakewalk.
The feelings mutual.
> Have a peachy day, sonny. ;)
You've done nothing to stop it being just that "sonny". :-)
I'd say Gamecube then XBox, the PS2 may be selling well but it really isn't a very good console(IMO).
I'd say... Gamecube.
So everyone thinks that the Ps2 is better than the X-Box?
phi11ip wrote:
> And no don't say that you can use your normal dial up! Have you ever
> tried playing Quake 3 on a modem?!!?
That actually isn't down to the speed of the connection though, yes dial-up has inherrantly higher pings than broadband, but the latency you experience in he game is actually down to the network coding for that particular piece of software.
Take for example FreeSpace2 on the PC, if you don't have it, download the demo and give it a spin - great game. If you try that in multiplayer over a normal 56k/telephone line connection, you'll actually notice its pretty damned fast, you get the occasional lag spike but they're few and far between - and when they do happen you have to be paying close attention to the game to notice it.
If ID put as much time into the network aspect as they do into rendering and messing around with the latest incarnation of GeForce technology (which in all honestly they could do with cutting down on), the Quake series would be blisteringly fast to play online, even over a non-broadband connection. Problem with driving forward console networking over long distances now, is that broadband isn't available everywhere, and its going to result in distinctly lower profits than if it were put off till broadband is more widely available.
Still, there are a number of measures you can take to tweak up your internet connectivity over a normal dial-up, if enough people here are ignorant to these measures I don't have a problem writing up a quick guide on FOG for them. I'm on a 56k here, and tend to get *actual speed* (not the indicated one you see when you connect - which is never right) connections of between 38-48k, transfer rates of upto 8kb/s, usually ranging at around 6kb/s. Ask and thou shalt recieve. ;)
> And no don't say that you can use your normal dial up! Have you ever
> tried playing Quake 3 on a modem?!!?
That actually isn't down to the speed of the connection though, yes dial-up has inherrantly higher pings than broadband, but the latency you experience in he game is actually down to the network coding for that particular piece of software.
Take for example FreeSpace2 on the PC, if you don't have it, download the demo and give it a spin - great game. If you try that in multiplayer over a normal 56k/telephone line connection, you'll actually notice its pretty damned fast, you get the occasional lag spike but they're few and far between - and when they do happen you have to be paying close attention to the game to notice it.
If ID put as much time into the network aspect as they do into rendering and messing around with the latest incarnation of GeForce technology (which in all honestly they could do with cutting down on), the Quake series would be blisteringly fast to play online, even over a non-broadband connection. Problem with driving forward console networking over long distances now, is that broadband isn't available everywhere, and its going to result in distinctly lower profits than if it were put off till broadband is more widely available.
Still, there are a number of measures you can take to tweak up your internet connectivity over a normal dial-up, if enough people here are ignorant to these measures I don't have a problem writing up a quick guide on FOG for them. I'm on a 56k here, and tend to get *actual speed* (not the indicated one you see when you connect - which is never right) connections of between 38-48k, transfer rates of upto 8kb/s, usually ranging at around 6kb/s. Ask and thou shalt recieve. ;)
Personally, I think that the modem on the Xbox is a waste of time really. Sure it's good to have a modem to play online games here but I'm sure that many of us cannot afford to get ADSL and that we would just rather have a cheaper console that we could add a modem to later if we did get ADSL.
Having a modem is great but then you have got to pay out at least £30 a month to be able to use it!
And no don't say that you can use your normal dial up! Have you ever tried playing Quake 3 on a modem?!!?
Having a modem is great but then you have got to pay out at least £30 a month to be able to use it!
And no don't say that you can use your normal dial up! Have you ever tried playing Quake 3 on a modem?!!?
Page: