The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok its a console made by microsoft and the first, so we can give it a chance but does it have what it takes to compete with all the other consoles?
Page:
I feel that people concentrate so much on the sales figures that they are losing out on a quality console! After 4 months that the PS2 was out there weren't 10 games that I wanted to own and yet with the Xbox I have found my own little gaming Niche.
The so called "ports" that Microsoft and Nintendo have are bound to appear as they help to increase sales and entise more people to their console. One of the main reasons I got an Xbox was to play Max Payne without slow down and poor graphics. I did own a PS2 with 8 games (including Max Payne) but I stopped enjoying the games they brought out and lost interest in their release calendar, Microsoft signed me up!
I am not exhaggerating when I say this but after 4 months of owning an Xbox I have had more enjoyment than the 8 months I had with the PS2. So far I own:
Halo
RalliSport Challenge
Spider Man: The Movie
Max Payne
Dead Or Alive 3
And to be truthful to myself but with no-disrespect to PS2 owners but I do not feel that I would have ever got the same amount of enjoyment than I have with my Xbox. I owned 8 PS2 games but there were only ever 2 that I really liked and one of them is coming to the Xbox this year with massive improvements! So far 4 of the games I listed above I really like and the other is still a very good title. This is how I way up which console I prefer, firstly I see how many games I owned, then I seperate the good ones from the outstanding ones and finally I compare with other consoles which I have played/owned.
On top of the games which I own already I am desperate to own:
Hunter: The Reckoning
Project Gotham Racing
Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding
that would take my really like collection to quadruple the amount of what my PS2 gave me, yet it is in half the time :)!
I must admit the games have not been knocking on my door in their hundreds, but slowly and surely they are coming and by the list I have on my computer there are over 25 games which I am desperate to own by Christmas and that is really saying something!
Sony and Nintendo are very expereinced in the Video-gaming industry and so far I feel that Microsoft have exceeded expectations of challenging such prevailing monsters in the industry. By christmas the console will have over 200 games available for it and with 50 games that are/will be outstanding, the future looks very strong for Microsoft and I think that *no-one* can argue with that!
The so called "ports" that Microsoft and Nintendo have are bound to appear as they help to increase sales and entise more people to their console. One of the main reasons I got an Xbox was to play Max Payne without slow down and poor graphics. I did own a PS2 with 8 games (including Max Payne) but I stopped enjoying the games they brought out and lost interest in their release calendar, Microsoft signed me up!
I am not exhaggerating when I say this but after 4 months of owning an Xbox I have had more enjoyment than the 8 months I had with the PS2. So far I own:
Halo
RalliSport Challenge
Spider Man: The Movie
Max Payne
Dead Or Alive 3
And to be truthful to myself but with no-disrespect to PS2 owners but I do not feel that I would have ever got the same amount of enjoyment than I have with my Xbox. I owned 8 PS2 games but there were only ever 2 that I really liked and one of them is coming to the Xbox this year with massive improvements! So far 4 of the games I listed above I really like and the other is still a very good title. This is how I way up which console I prefer, firstly I see how many games I owned, then I seperate the good ones from the outstanding ones and finally I compare with other consoles which I have played/owned.
On top of the games which I own already I am desperate to own:
Hunter: The Reckoning
Project Gotham Racing
Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding
that would take my really like collection to quadruple the amount of what my PS2 gave me, yet it is in half the time :)!
I must admit the games have not been knocking on my door in their hundreds, but slowly and surely they are coming and by the list I have on my computer there are over 25 games which I am desperate to own by Christmas and that is really saying something!
Sony and Nintendo are very expereinced in the Video-gaming industry and so far I feel that Microsoft have exceeded expectations of challenging such prevailing monsters in the industry. By christmas the console will have over 200 games available for it and with 50 games that are/will be outstanding, the future looks very strong for Microsoft and I think that *no-one* can argue with that!
Halo is not the best ever - Excellent, but nowhere near as good as Perfect Dark and Goldeneye were.
Like Your Honour said, its single-player mode is reasonable. I disagree. Its dull. However, in multiplayer thins brighten up, and co-operative is its best feautre, and is great fun.
Like Your Honour said, its single-player mode is reasonable. I disagree. Its dull. However, in multiplayer thins brighten up, and co-operative is its best feautre, and is great fun.
Your Honour wrote:
> Another thing to bear in mind is that Microsoft are doing what Sony
> did 7 or 8 years ago with the PSX. This is obviously well known, but
> what people seem to forget is that the PSX was not an instant hit. It
> wasn't released, and then lapped up.
That's true, but it also needs to be remembered that before PS1 was released, the games industry/market was a completely different beast, and consoles were never really a mass-market product.
Outside of Japan, it was mainly an industry that sold to kids and early-teens, and adults bought machines for their kids. Now, adults buy machines for themselves and many games aren't suitable for children at all.
Everyone knew Sega and Nintendo were 'the machines to own', and a number of other companies made abortive attempts to break in to their monopoly. Then, partly thanks to Nintendo, Sony came along and almost literally changed the world.
The difference between the PS1 and the Xbox, and the reason that PS1 took off in such a spectacular fashion, is that PS1 marked a drastic change in game styles, from predominantly 2D into 3D. PS1 was really quite a huge leap from everything that had gone before in home consoles.
Decent 3D games had until that point been exclusively in the domain of expensive arcade machines, and yet here was a little grey brick giving perfect home conversions of many of the top arcade games of the time.
But the Xbox isn't a significant leap over the machines that came before it. It might have more memory, higher resolution graphics and a faster CPU, but the games it plays are essentially the same as any you could buy on the PS1.
And before anyone rants at me, exactly the same can be said of PS2 and Gamecube.
With the slow sales of Xbox and Gamecube (compared to the PS2), it's probably safe to assume that the only reason that PlayStation2 took off like it did is because of one word: "PlayStation"
As you say, YH, the initial PlayStation took some time to get going, being new and untested, and now it's the same with Xbox and Gamecube.
With PS2, that wasn't really the case. It had a name that millions of people already knew, loved and trusted. And even if the games were slow coming, they had hundreds of PS1 games they could play on it, so software wasn't an issue.
People said that the backwards compatibility was unnecessary and that Sony were unoriginal in naming the machine. Hindsight (as they say) is a wonderful thing, but I think that two years on, those people would now have to admit that Sony played two very decisive masterstrokes.
> But the sales need to be high enough to make the Xbox a viable
> development platform.
I'm fairly sure it will be. Microsoft may not be able to buy the number one slot, but they can certainly make it viable.
> As long as Xbox sells enough units to keep it going, and keep the top
> games coming, I don't care if it's in third place.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?! Who *cares* who sells the most machines, as long as there are enough sold to keep the games coming.
> Another thing to bear in mind is that Microsoft are doing what Sony
> did 7 or 8 years ago with the PSX. This is obviously well known, but
> what people seem to forget is that the PSX was not an instant hit. It
> wasn't released, and then lapped up.
That's true, but it also needs to be remembered that before PS1 was released, the games industry/market was a completely different beast, and consoles were never really a mass-market product.
Outside of Japan, it was mainly an industry that sold to kids and early-teens, and adults bought machines for their kids. Now, adults buy machines for themselves and many games aren't suitable for children at all.
Everyone knew Sega and Nintendo were 'the machines to own', and a number of other companies made abortive attempts to break in to their monopoly. Then, partly thanks to Nintendo, Sony came along and almost literally changed the world.
The difference between the PS1 and the Xbox, and the reason that PS1 took off in such a spectacular fashion, is that PS1 marked a drastic change in game styles, from predominantly 2D into 3D. PS1 was really quite a huge leap from everything that had gone before in home consoles.
Decent 3D games had until that point been exclusively in the domain of expensive arcade machines, and yet here was a little grey brick giving perfect home conversions of many of the top arcade games of the time.
But the Xbox isn't a significant leap over the machines that came before it. It might have more memory, higher resolution graphics and a faster CPU, but the games it plays are essentially the same as any you could buy on the PS1.
And before anyone rants at me, exactly the same can be said of PS2 and Gamecube.
With the slow sales of Xbox and Gamecube (compared to the PS2), it's probably safe to assume that the only reason that PlayStation2 took off like it did is because of one word: "PlayStation"
As you say, YH, the initial PlayStation took some time to get going, being new and untested, and now it's the same with Xbox and Gamecube.
With PS2, that wasn't really the case. It had a name that millions of people already knew, loved and trusted. And even if the games were slow coming, they had hundreds of PS1 games they could play on it, so software wasn't an issue.
People said that the backwards compatibility was unnecessary and that Sony were unoriginal in naming the machine. Hindsight (as they say) is a wonderful thing, but I think that two years on, those people would now have to admit that Sony played two very decisive masterstrokes.
> But the sales need to be high enough to make the Xbox a viable
> development platform.
I'm fairly sure it will be. Microsoft may not be able to buy the number one slot, but they can certainly make it viable.
> As long as Xbox sells enough units to keep it going, and keep the top
> games coming, I don't care if it's in third place.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?! Who *cares* who sells the most machines, as long as there are enough sold to keep the games coming.
I feel that a number of people haven't bought an Xbox yet, even though there are interested, simply because they want to wait and see how things go. When it comes to Christmas, if a large number of top quality titles are released, people will see this, and get one.
At the moment people are treating the Xbox with a little caution. A number of my friends are thinking of getting an Xbox now that they have played mine, but they just want to be assured that the Xbox won't flop. This kind of attitude, while fair enough, annoys me somewhat, as if all the people that thought like that went out and bought one, then there is no way it would be a flop!
Another thing to bear in mind is that Microsoft are doing what Sony did 7 or 8 years ago with the PSX. This is obviously well known, but what people seem to forget is that the PSX was not an instant hit. It wasn't released, and then lapped up.
It was the new kid on the block. It used CD's instead of cartridges, it had 3D graphics and CD qaulity sound, it had a new style of game. Because of all this, people were naturally cautious. It took many many months for the PSX to become big.
People seem to expect the Xbox to suddenly be the number 1 selling console, and it's just not going to happen.
The Xbox has only been out over here for 4 months. Out of a 6 year lifespan, that is nothing. However, we have seen that the power of the Playstation brand can knock Sega out of the hardware market, so we have to be realistic. Microsoft can throw all the money in the world at the Xbox, but they can't *make* people buy one.
Only the games can do that. Software sells a console, end of story, and with the software lineup for Xbox this autumn, we should see sales of the console rise dramatically.
There's no way that sales will beat the PS2, which has had a 2 year headstart. But the sales need to be high enough to make the Xbox a viable development platform. I.e developers need to know that they can sell enough copies of their games on Xbox, to make back the amount of money spent on developing the title in the first place.
As long as Xbox sells enough units to keep it going, and keep the top games coming, I don't care if it's in third place. I have better things to do than look at sales charts, like play games!
At the moment people are treating the Xbox with a little caution. A number of my friends are thinking of getting an Xbox now that they have played mine, but they just want to be assured that the Xbox won't flop. This kind of attitude, while fair enough, annoys me somewhat, as if all the people that thought like that went out and bought one, then there is no way it would be a flop!
Another thing to bear in mind is that Microsoft are doing what Sony did 7 or 8 years ago with the PSX. This is obviously well known, but what people seem to forget is that the PSX was not an instant hit. It wasn't released, and then lapped up.
It was the new kid on the block. It used CD's instead of cartridges, it had 3D graphics and CD qaulity sound, it had a new style of game. Because of all this, people were naturally cautious. It took many many months for the PSX to become big.
People seem to expect the Xbox to suddenly be the number 1 selling console, and it's just not going to happen.
The Xbox has only been out over here for 4 months. Out of a 6 year lifespan, that is nothing. However, we have seen that the power of the Playstation brand can knock Sega out of the hardware market, so we have to be realistic. Microsoft can throw all the money in the world at the Xbox, but they can't *make* people buy one.
Only the games can do that. Software sells a console, end of story, and with the software lineup for Xbox this autumn, we should see sales of the console rise dramatically.
There's no way that sales will beat the PS2, which has had a 2 year headstart. But the sales need to be high enough to make the Xbox a viable development platform. I.e developers need to know that they can sell enough copies of their games on Xbox, to make back the amount of money spent on developing the title in the first place.
As long as Xbox sells enough units to keep it going, and keep the top games coming, I don't care if it's in third place. I have better things to do than look at sales charts, like play games!
http://gameplay.co.uk/shop/compare
Compares each console.
Compares each console.
garbe123 wrote:
> I think if you buy a game with a positive attitude you will enjoy it
> more than if you are expecting nothing extra.
I had a very positive attitude about Halo - I bought the machine specifically for it. But I found it disappointing.
Whereas MoH:AA I expected to be just another good FPS, but found it outstanding. I would say it depends what you're looking for, but there's only so much to expect from an FPS - yet they either work, or they don't.
> It is a bit like you Wookie with your Xbox, you aren't expecting alot
> out of it
Partly right. I was expecting a lot out of it, which has only added to my disappointment and is partly why I'm so outspoken about it. I don't dislike the machine, I just think MS have blown it with the games.
> yet I think we can safely say Quality over Quantity!
I wish I could agree, but as you already know, for me there are still only three games worth looking at for the machine, four months after launch.
> The PS2 has so many poor games and mediocre games out for it and it
> releases about 50 games a week for it!
True, there's a lot of crap. There's even more crap for the PC. But as we've proved between us, not everyone likes the same thing; one man's heaven is another man's hell - so choice is far more important.
This would seem to be borne out by the fact that people aren't exactly rushing to buy the machine at the moment.
There's little point releasing a system with "the best game on the planet" if 90% of the people on the planet don't like games. So while Halo might be fantastic, there are many FPS gurus who won't want to know, simply because FPS games never work as well on a console controller as they do with a keyboard and mouse, no matter how intuitive the control setup.
> The Xbox by Christmas will have some truly outstanding titles
> to its name
In my view, if you want to release a system and establish is as a serious contender, you need to fill the months immediately following release with a number of high-quality titles.
So far, MS don't seem to have done that. They seem far more interested in keeping everything for release around Christmas. I'm sure being the number-one selling platform at Christmas will be a nice feather in Xbox's cap, but that's only temporary glory.
We all know that neither Xbox or Gamecube is going to take PS2's place as market leader any time soon, so I think MS should be concentrating on the bigger picture before it's too late.
> and on top of the best console release list in History for
> the consoles release there will be even more to follow.
Everyone keeps saying this (well, Xbox fans anyway), but I have to ask: if the launch line-up is genuinely that good, why aren't people falling over themselves to buy the machine?
We constantly hear that the PS2's launch line-up was crap, and yet you couldn't buy a PS2 off-the-shelf in any country for weeks after launch. Sure, you can say it was down to the hype and things that were promised... but then Xbox supposedly promises so much more, and supposedly has the best games, so why aren't even more people rushing to buy it? The claims don't tie in with the reality.
> I think if you buy a game with a positive attitude you will enjoy it
> more than if you are expecting nothing extra.
I had a very positive attitude about Halo - I bought the machine specifically for it. But I found it disappointing.
Whereas MoH:AA I expected to be just another good FPS, but found it outstanding. I would say it depends what you're looking for, but there's only so much to expect from an FPS - yet they either work, or they don't.
> It is a bit like you Wookie with your Xbox, you aren't expecting alot
> out of it
Partly right. I was expecting a lot out of it, which has only added to my disappointment and is partly why I'm so outspoken about it. I don't dislike the machine, I just think MS have blown it with the games.
> yet I think we can safely say Quality over Quantity!
I wish I could agree, but as you already know, for me there are still only three games worth looking at for the machine, four months after launch.
> The PS2 has so many poor games and mediocre games out for it and it
> releases about 50 games a week for it!
True, there's a lot of crap. There's even more crap for the PC. But as we've proved between us, not everyone likes the same thing; one man's heaven is another man's hell - so choice is far more important.
This would seem to be borne out by the fact that people aren't exactly rushing to buy the machine at the moment.
There's little point releasing a system with "the best
> The Xbox by Christmas will have some truly outstanding titles
> to its name
In my view, if you want to release a system and establish is as a serious contender, you need to fill the months immediately following release with a number of high-quality titles.
So far, MS don't seem to have done that. They seem far more interested in keeping everything for release around Christmas. I'm sure being the number-one selling platform at Christmas will be a nice feather in Xbox's cap, but that's only temporary glory.
We all know that neither Xbox or Gamecube is going to take PS2's place as market leader any time soon, so I think MS should be concentrating on the bigger picture before it's too late.
> and on top of the best console release list in History for
> the consoles release there will be even more to follow.
Everyone keeps saying this (well, Xbox fans anyway), but I have to ask: if the launch line-up is genuinely that good, why aren't people falling over themselves to buy the machine?
We constantly hear that the PS2's launch line-up was crap, and yet you couldn't buy a PS2 off-the-shelf in any country for weeks after launch. Sure, you can say it was down to the hype and things that were promised... but then Xbox supposedly promises so much more, and supposedly has the best games, so why aren't even more people rushing to buy it? The claims don't tie in with the reality.
It comes down to the style of the genre as well as how good it is. Halo has a psce and Alien theme where as Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault is real time war where you fight against almost human beings. I have to say, everyone ranted about how good Rainbow Six was and I thought it was a very poor game and I never really settled into playing it properly, Halo I settled in more or less straight away as the story sucked me in and kept me there.
I think if you buy a game with a positive attitude you will enjoy it more than if you are expecting nothing extra. Tomorrow I am picking up a Dreamcast with Shenmue and I am really excited about doing so, therefore I know I will enjoy the game immensly and get 100% out of it.
It is a bit like you Wookie with your Xbox, you aren't expecting alot out of it and although the games aren't arriving fast yet I think we can safely say Quality over Quantity! The PS2 has so many poor games and mediocre games out for it and it releases about 50 games a week for it! The Xbox by Christmas will have some truly outstanding titles to its name and on top of the best console release list in History for the consoles release there will be even more to follow.
I think if you buy a game with a positive attitude you will enjoy it more than if you are expecting nothing extra. Tomorrow I am picking up a Dreamcast with Shenmue and I am really excited about doing so, therefore I know I will enjoy the game immensly and get 100% out of it.
It is a bit like you Wookie with your Xbox, you aren't expecting alot out of it and although the games aren't arriving fast yet I think we can safely say Quality over Quantity! The PS2 has so many poor games and mediocre games out for it and it releases about 50 games a week for it! The Xbox by Christmas will have some truly outstanding titles to its name and on top of the best console release list in History for the consoles release there will be even more to follow.
garbe123 wrote:
> Halo is definatley the best First-Person shooter out in stores.
I think Medal of Honor: Allied Assault is better.
:-p
> Halo is definatley the best First-Person shooter out in stores.
I think Medal of Honor: Allied Assault is better.
:-p
I think it excells in both departments. How many FPS include awesome vehicles that can be driven and flown? how many games have an AI system that enables your enemies to team up and ambush you? How many FPS are realistic enough to only let you carry 2 weapons at a time? How may games have a story as original and exciting to play as Halo? The answer to those questions lies in only one FPS shooter I have played so far and that is Halo!
In single player, Halo is merely good. It is not a classic, it just takes a number of good ideas from previous FPS games, and puts them all together. It is nothing revolutionary, it just puts all the ideas together, and does them well.
However, in Multiplayer, it rocks! I haven't been online with mine yet as I don't have broadband, but I've done 4 player on one box, and it is so much fun. And I have only tried a small number of game modes so far as well. King of the Hill went down well with me and my mates.
All in all, it is an overhyped game when you look at the single player, but in multiplayer it excels.
However, in Multiplayer, it rocks! I haven't been online with mine yet as I don't have broadband, but I've done 4 player on one box, and it is so much fun. And I have only tried a small number of game modes so far as well. King of the Hill went down well with me and my mates.
All in all, it is an overhyped game when you look at the single player, but in multiplayer it excels.
Page: