The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Taken from www.officialxboxmagazine.co.uk: -
"The results of the largest survey of gamers this year has revealed that Xbox is the top console of choice this Christmas.
Over 12,000 US gamers were asked, "What console do you plan to buy in the coming year?" and 39 percent answered Xbox! 27 percent answered PlayStation 2, and 17 percent plan to pick up a GameCube.
The study also showed that game demos are the most influence over game purchase decisions. When asked "Which of these items highly influence your game purchase decisions?" nearly 8 out of 10 respondents (78%) ranked game demos the number 1 factor, far ahead of the number 2 response: game reviews (47%). Both television commercials (35%) and magazine ads (31%) trailed furthest behind as drivers."
Not bad eh?
"The results of the largest survey of gamers this year has revealed that Xbox is the top console of choice this Christmas.
Over 12,000 US gamers were asked, "What console do you plan to buy in the coming year?" and 39 percent answered Xbox! 27 percent answered PlayStation 2, and 17 percent plan to pick up a GameCube.
The study also showed that game demos are the most influence over game purchase decisions. When asked "Which of these items highly influence your game purchase decisions?" nearly 8 out of 10 respondents (78%) ranked game demos the number 1 factor, far ahead of the number 2 response: game reviews (47%). Both television commercials (35%) and magazine ads (31%) trailed furthest behind as drivers."
Not bad eh?
Page:
garbe123 wrote:
> But does it really matter? Saying getting into Halo takes longer than
> a Nintendo game is like admitting Nintendo's simplicity which then
> brings up the topic of 'no mature games' which is a load of rubbish!
But it does matter how easy a game is to get into in this case.
I'm fine with FPS games, and anyone else who is will get into Halo within about 5 minutes and enjoy it immensely.
Unfortunately, not everyone's a hardcore gamer who'll take time to get the hang on Halo's complex control system (yes, it comes naturally to us, but have you seen a gaming newbie try and use it? It's almost too painful to watch...) meaning that very few people I know can play it.
With a game like Smash Brothers, you don't have to have mastered it to enjoy it, and it's not down to a lack of complexity because there is plenty in this game to master.
It's good because while a complete newbie can have fun and enjoy it, there's also plenty of depth for the gaming expert to master.
The only real problem with Smash Brothers is being a multiplayer based games, it wasn't so strong on the single player side, so if you didn't have anyone to play against, it did get boring relatively quickly.
If you DO have someone to play against, though, it'll last for years.
> But does it really matter? Saying getting into Halo takes longer than
> a Nintendo game is like admitting Nintendo's simplicity which then
> brings up the topic of 'no mature games' which is a load of rubbish!
But it does matter how easy a game is to get into in this case.
I'm fine with FPS games, and anyone else who is will get into Halo within about 5 minutes and enjoy it immensely.
Unfortunately, not everyone's a hardcore gamer who'll take time to get the hang on Halo's complex control system (yes, it comes naturally to us, but have you seen a gaming newbie try and use it? It's almost too painful to watch...) meaning that very few people I know can play it.
With a game like Smash Brothers, you don't have to have mastered it to enjoy it, and it's not down to a lack of complexity because there is plenty in this game to master.
It's good because while a complete newbie can have fun and enjoy it, there's also plenty of depth for the gaming expert to master.
The only real problem with Smash Brothers is being a multiplayer based games, it wasn't so strong on the single player side, so if you didn't have anyone to play against, it did get boring relatively quickly.
If you DO have someone to play against, though, it'll last for years.
I agree with Strafex. Both consoles have the same amount of games that boast good multiplayer but it takes something more, like a certain kind of imagination, to make those games special (examples of these are Halo, and Super Smash Bros. Melee). I just think Nintendo has more of those games.
But does it really matter? Saying getting into Halo takes longer than a Nintendo game is like admitting Nintendo's simplicity which then brings up the topic of 'no mature games' which is a load of rubbish! Can't we just game and talk about them instead of comparing all the time? Its boring to compare now as each of us has our own opinion and its getting annoying going around in big circles.
Savatt78 wrote:
> Which is why all X-Box Live games will use the headset which will
> enable players to chat to eachother as they play the games. No typing
> messages and playing in silence.
Yep. Like I said, MS is way ahead of Nintendo in the online department.
> I wouldn't say Nintendo are strictly the kings of multiplayer as
> consoles such as the X-Box offer the chance to let more than 4 players
> join in.
Ok, Nintendo are still the kings of offline multiplayer.
Plus the X-Box has a large number of games that offer the
> option for 4 players or even more.
I know, but it's not so much how many games...
It's hard to explain...
Halo has a very good four player mode, but there are plenty of FPS games across the formats that are almost as good, and only hardcore gamers can get into Halo anyway, (bring a friend from school and they won't be able to control it properly!).
Smash Brothers is much more unique (other than it's N64 predecessor), as is Monkey Ball. They're both simple enough for anyone to get into, with enough depth to take skillful mastering and offer a strong challenge.
Also, there's much more scope in these games for toying with your opponent and generally humiliating them in ways that can't be done when you can't see your character.
It might not sound like much, but it does make a huge difference.
> Which is why all X-Box Live games will use the headset which will
> enable players to chat to eachother as they play the games. No typing
> messages and playing in silence.
Yep. Like I said, MS is way ahead of Nintendo in the online department.
> I wouldn't say Nintendo are strictly the kings of multiplayer as
> consoles such as the X-Box offer the chance to let more than 4 players
> join in.
Ok, Nintendo are still the kings of offline multiplayer.
Plus the X-Box has a large number of games that offer the
> option for 4 players or even more.
I know, but it's not so much how many games...
It's hard to explain...
Halo has a very good four player mode, but there are plenty of FPS games across the formats that are almost as good, and only hardcore gamers can get into Halo anyway, (bring a friend from school and they won't be able to control it properly!).
Smash Brothers is much more unique (other than it's N64 predecessor), as is Monkey Ball. They're both simple enough for anyone to get into, with enough depth to take skillful mastering and offer a strong challenge.
Also, there's much more scope in these games for toying with your opponent and generally humiliating them in ways that can't be done when you can't see your character.
It might not sound like much, but it does make a huge difference.
Which is why all X-Box Live games will use the headset which will enable players to chat to eachother as they play the games. No typing messages and playing in silence.
I wouldn't say Nintendo are strictly the kings of multiplayer as consoles such as the X-Box offer the chance to let more than 4 players join in. Plus the X-Box has a large number of games that offer the option for 4 players or even more.
I wouldn't say Nintendo are strictly the kings of multiplayer as consoles such as the X-Box offer the chance to let more than 4 players join in. Plus the X-Box has a large number of games that offer the option for 4 players or even more.
I think the phone bill will be included in the monthly fee, and you've got to admit, it's good to have options.
Anyway, the GameCube is best for multiplayer and I'd rather be doing that and having a laugh than playing against someone who could just as well be the computer.
Anyway, the GameCube is best for multiplayer and I'd rather be doing that and having a laugh than playing against someone who could just as well be the computer.
What I'm saying is that it seems a bit wrong to charge players using an inferior connection a similar price, possibly even more than someone using the broadband connection.
Microsoft made X-Box Live broadband only because they want all players to be given the same service. A 56k modem just can't deal with half as much as broadband which would limit the things MS want to achieve with it.
Ninties with a 56k will be basically experiencing the same as they would usually - a 4 player game.
Nintendo aren't exactly keen to get online anyway so I guess a 4 player maximum is fine with them. But personally I think the best online experience is when your part of a game with a lot of players (i.e. 16 or more).
If online gaming is going to take off, its really going to have to offer something a little different such as these large scale multiplayers. Otherwise why will a large amount of people spend money on something they can experience just by phoning up 3 friends at local call rate and then play for free ?
A 56k will also be crap for downloads (Project Gothem Racing 2 will apprently be using this). That means another possible service is taken away or made a hell of a lot more expensive due to having to wait a lot longer.
Microsoft made X-Box Live broadband only because they want all players to be given the same service. A 56k modem just can't deal with half as much as broadband which would limit the things MS want to achieve with it.
Ninties with a 56k will be basically experiencing the same as they would usually - a 4 player game.
Nintendo aren't exactly keen to get online anyway so I guess a 4 player maximum is fine with them. But personally I think the best online experience is when your part of a game with a lot of players (i.e. 16 or more).
If online gaming is going to take off, its really going to have to offer something a little different such as these large scale multiplayers. Otherwise why will a large amount of people spend money on something they can experience just by phoning up 3 friends at local call rate and then play for free ?
A 56k will also be crap for downloads (Project Gothem Racing 2 will apprently be using this). That means another possible service is taken away or made a hell of a lot more expensive due to having to wait a lot longer.
Nintendo do have online plans.
But they obviously won't be as big as MS's.
And although the 56K modem is available, it's only for people who don't have broadband, and can't take the Xbox online FULL STOP.
Anyway, people bought the Gamecube for it's offline abilities.
But they obviously won't be as big as MS's.
And although the 56K modem is available, it's only for people who don't have broadband, and can't take the Xbox online FULL STOP.
Anyway, people bought the Gamecube for it's offline abilities.
Aren't both of the adapters the same price ? Plus theres going to be the charges on top of that so when it comes to using the phoneline with a 56k, will Nintendo do something to stop players having to pay on the phonebill ?
Cause if not I can tell you now, anyone who wants a decent amount of time online will soon be paying a whole lot more than a broadband fee every month and on a good portion of it, they may have been not getting a decent service (i.e lag and being charged for time spent trying to connect properly).
I remember when I had the Dreamcast and I wasn't too pleased at being charged a hefty amount for a month where I hardly got a decent play online. Most of the charges were me just trying to get onto Phantasy Star Online and not actually playing it !
And Nintendo aren't exactly known for their online knowledge, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with if online gaming does become big.
Cause if not I can tell you now, anyone who wants a decent amount of time online will soon be paying a whole lot more than a broadband fee every month and on a good portion of it, they may have been not getting a decent service (i.e lag and being charged for time spent trying to connect properly).
I remember when I had the Dreamcast and I wasn't too pleased at being charged a hefty amount for a month where I hardly got a decent play online. Most of the charges were me just trying to get onto Phantasy Star Online and not actually playing it !
And Nintendo aren't exactly known for their online knowledge, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with if online gaming does become big.
Actually it's going to be cheaper, and though it won't be as good, it definitely won't be half ..... Nintendo have Online Gaming in hand, but aren't rushing into it as it doesn't look profitable. Fair play, I say.
Page: