|
dissapointed with x360 games
|
|
|
RHCPfan
Account closed as per user's own request
|
2. April 2006 @ 05:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
i think that might be possible... but im guessing a little over
XBOX 360 ROX!!!
 |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
KenC
Newbie
|
3. April 2006 @ 00:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sadly,I think that what we are starting to see from nextgen consoles Game's is Visual Beauty more than Imersion and playability.
the best thing ive played on my 360 so far is Oblivion, its pretty sure but it lacks what Morrowind has, a great sense of Adventure IMO
I want to learn Stuff
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
3. April 2006 @ 04:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Maybe you should go to the PS3 forum here and look at the threads on prices. It'll definately cost Sony more than what they're gonna sell it for. But the best thing for them is to get the price as close to the XBox 360's as possible. Right now they're not caring about the loss because no matter how much they can earn it back quite quickly unlike Microsoft so they'll sell it for probably less than $500 to get a majority in the market. Plus back to topic most games nowadays are more graphics less gameplay. It's kind of difficult to make an innovative game nowadays. Most fo them come from Japanese developers anyway. They like to make all those weird but innovative games.
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
3. April 2006 @ 04:59 |
Link to this message
|
Hmm.. Maybe the PS3 will hit the $400 mark but one thing is absolute, if it does hit that mark then from all I've read Sony will be taking at least a $200 loss per unit. That is a pretty steep loss. You don't have to be a math expert to see the hole they are in to get the console out the door if they hit say.. 2 million units. Of course this is nothing new for consoles but it is my opinion that the PS3 will be the biggest loss per console in history if it launches at $400.
GrahamIII,
Game reviews is a good idea but I wish you had given a tad more info, especially on Condemned. I mean, was the actual game any good. I've been thinking about checking that one out.
My Reviews so far (short and sweet versions)
Call of Duty 2 - 8/10
The most true next gen launch title. The graphics were awesome and the story seemed to suck you in. The only negative I have about it is that it did seem a bit repetitive by the end of the game. Then again, what war fps doesn't. I mean you shoot people and then more people and then more people. lol.
PGR3- 7/10
If you love the style of PGR then you will love this one. Everything is stepped up and the graphics look amazingly real. The control felt dead on (for PGR type racer). The negative I already spoke of. You get totally cool cars with little effort. The other negative I have is the fact that they seem to take the same maps and make them more lifelike and give more variations. I'm tired of freaking London. Take me to Hawaii or somewhere new. Overall the score is based on expectation. The game met my expectation in graphics and gameplay and slipped a little in regurgitatid maps and ease of getting cool cars.
Oblivion - 9.5/10
If you are into RPGs (this style of totally open ended) then it doesn't get much better. It takes a little bit of adjustment to get used to the portions of the map loading but 90% of the time they are the super fast loads like in Halo 2 where it is so fast it almost just feels like a framerate issue for a split second. I'm not usually into something this deep but rented it yesterday. So far I'm blown away by the amount of creativity, variety and beautiful graphics. I can't remember when I've been able to look for miles and see hills, castles, trees, etc. and actually go as far as I can see. Excellent job done on this game if this type of game is your cup of tea.
King Kong - 5.5/10
Ok, so the graphics are pretty good and it is kid friendly but for the love of all that is holy can they make a player spend less time fighting and looking for freaking sticks? Considering the short amount of time spent playing Kong you almost wonder if it was worth the effort to get there.
Perfect Dark Zero - 8/10
I'm a fps fanatic and PD has a lot going for it. The graphics aren't on the same level as GR3 or COD2 but they are pretty good. The game plays smooth and has more gadgets and guns than you can shake a stick at. Although this isn't really my cup of tea (prefer the GR type games) it is still good at what it tries to accomplish.
Madden - 6/10
Umm.. Updated graphics and .... well.. that's it. A gutted Madden with slick graphics. Is the trade off worth it? Only the gamer can decide but it was pretty disturbing to me.
GR3- 9/10
Ahh.. They went back to getting more of the feel of the first two GR games released on Xbox and not the last one which felt more like Rainbow Six. By that I mean that GR has the simulation feel about it. You shoot someone in the head and they die, period. I like the slow and tactical game style that GR brings to the table. Not that they game can't be frantic and crazy at times but you won't be jumping to dodge bullets. The online play is awesome but I would have loved to have seen an online matchup system like Halo 2. The great thing is the new gametypes for GR that it has take from Halo 2 and others. Gone are the days when Siege and LMS is all you get. We now have hamburger hill, CTF and more. If you are into online play and this type of game then you could devote all of your time to GR3 for a LONG time. It's no wonder that places like teamcompete and gamebattles has already added them to their lineup of team competion games.
That about covers it for the games I know. I got on the list for the PS3 this weekend. Worst case scenerio would be me selling it on Ebay for a fortune.
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
3. April 2006 @ 06:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Jkhmmr-
"Right now they're not caring about the loss because no matter how much they can earn it back quite quickly unlike Microsoft so they'll sell it for probably less than $500 to get a majority in the market."
Not meaning to disagree but just how did you come to this conclusion? What makes Sony impervious to a huge financial loss while Microsoft is not? MS has shown many times in the past that they have the deep pockets to take HUGE financial losses to try to win a war. After all we are talking about a company who marketed a FAR INFERIOR Windows NT technology right past Novell and other networking OS that beat it in every category, except sales. MS has already shown, when in doubt steal the ideas (or in this case steal developers which is what they have been doing) from the competion and almost buy a victory with marketing. Just look at the difference between the Xbox and the 360. MS now has the support of practically every major 3rd party developers and will likely be playing hardball with Sony in trying to seal deals to keep more games exclusive to the 360. I think the PS3 will likely win the war but it will be a much closer war and it will look far different than the Xbox vs PS2 war. The 360 will not be lagging behind the PS3 like the Xbox did against the PS2.
I'm not saying MS will win this next console war but I think it is very naieve to think Sony is in any better position to start taking a $200 hit per system than MS which is my guess as to the hit they would take.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
3. April 2006 @ 15:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
yh i agree with both of your posts.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. April 2006 @ 15:25
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
3. April 2006 @ 16:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Even if the PS3 is released at a $400 price (which I doubt), Microsoft will no doubt lower the 360 price, still making it a cheaper buy.
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
3. April 2006 @ 17:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Exactly...and the war begins. Lower prices and HOPEFULLY better games. Thank goodness for competition.
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
4. April 2006 @ 04:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
@jaypugh
It's actually based on cold hard data. Sony unlike Microsoft made a profit overall on their Playstation department of like a few hundred million even though the PS2 was selling at a loss. They've been doing that for a long time so they're pros at getting profits of something taht's sellging below cost price. Microsoft however never got a profit from its XBox department ever. The best they did was reduce their loss. The only way Microsoft can win is as you said by simply dumping loads of money into it and not caring about losses. But in the long run as it's raking up losses Sony will be raking up profits. And most of that third party support is too limited to genre. Name one rhythm game on an XBox 360. Name some good platformers. Name more than a handful of RPGs. Sure they have lots of support but their game selection is still limited. Plus it doesn't matter about the cheaper one. Most who want to support Bluray would probably get PS3s as that better than just getting a Bluray player. Still this is getting too close to Sony and the PS3 already. Let's stick to topic. Got lots of these kinds of arguments in the PS3 forum.
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
4. April 2006 @ 07:36 |
Link to this message
|
Jkhmmr,
First off, I don?t dispute that they made money on their Playstation division but what does that have to do with anything? Sony and MS both use the same business model which is to sell units for a loss to try and gain market share and therefore recoup money in the long haul. Second, let?s face it. In reality the PS2 success was almost a direct result of the success of the Playstation. Gamers, even myself, bought the PS2 with blind faith that it would blow us away like the Playstation did. To this day the PS2 has not blown everyone away with it?s graphics and hasn?t shown a tenth of what it was supposedly going to be able to do. Heck, I would venture to say that the Dreamcast with the right developer would STILL compete with the PS2 if it were alive and well.
Next, you are basing your results of one console war between Sony and MS as your end result of the next console war that has a totally different set of issues. Do you honestly think the 360 will be lacking in platformers like the Xbox had when so many developers have jumped ship from the idea of being ?Sony only? developers? There is no doubt that the Xbox lacked in that area as well as many other areas just as the PS2 pretty much sucked for fps games. Yeah, they had SOCOM but that was a mess online to say the least. You want to talk RPGs? I need to look no further than the latest Final Fantasy game that will be on the 360. Do you honestly think that developers are going to invest totally in the PS3 which is already said by MANY developers to be MUCH more difficult to develop for, when they could port or develop on the 360? Don?t be so quick to draw that conclusion.
Lastly, I agree that many who want a blue ray player would likely prefer to buy a PS3 but this has already been proven, by Sony I might add, to be a bad thing as they saw tons of people snatching the PS2 up at launch in Japan but games were not selling. To have someone buy your console and make you lose a couple hundred a pop so they can watch High Definition movies is not beneficial to your strategy. In reality the PS2 was a good system for platformer games but it was boosted above all systems with games like Grand Theft Auto(if not announced for 360 yet you can bet the next game will be) which will no longer be exclusive. In the end it comes to how many fanboys buy which system and who has the best first party and exclusive games. I mean, we still have loyal Nintendo fans who will gladly buy the new Nintendo system which will likely suck tremendously. Sony is the best at creating hype and fanboys. If not then the PS2 would have never conquered the superior (in extreme ease of development for quality graphics and gameplay) Dreamcast. That?s my 2 cents. I?ll check the other forums like you mentioned.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. April 2006 @ 08:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
some good comments there. the way i see it is basically that the last generation was a little one sided, considering that everyone already new about playstaion from the last generation and it also launched a full year before xbox. but this generation is a lot more even, as a lot of people now know about the xbox and xbox 360, they have released the xbox 360 a year before the playstaion 3, therefore meaning that when the ps3 goes through the same probelms of buggs and crapy looking games the xbox 360 would have moved on to better looing and playing games. xbox live is also growing fast and lastly the nintendo rev will launch before the ps3 and the nintendo rev will be a big competitor in japan so by releasing it before a lot of japanease people would have spent there money on that therefore meaning less imideate buyers for the ps3.
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
5. April 2006 @ 03:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I doubt saying that there will be FFXI on an XBox 360 will help much. It's completely pointless. Plus what's with the comparing of graphics??? Usually most people disagree on that and simply put Sony still has the most diverse game lineup. Hands down. Basically the only reason to get an XBox or XBox 360 is to play shooters(third or first). And they are using the same model but MS has yet to make it work. You can't deny that Sony has better support from a wide range of games. And who really cares about games exclusive to that console much these days. Basically all the ones that have to do with shooting or voilence that sells well all around the world is cross platform while all the other stuff that mostly Japanese people like like RPGs, platformers and rhythm games like DDR. And yet again we're all going off topic. So let's stop before the moderators get mad.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. April 2006 @ 04:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
well actually i tend to find the best shooters to be exclusive, but there are some good cross platforms aswell, like ghost recon and soo on.
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
6. April 2006 @ 05:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Jkhmmr,
I have to say that I find one of your comments kind of comical. You say, "Who cares about exclusive titles?" Umm... If we don't have exclusive titles then what's the point in having more than one system? Better yet, what's the point of choosing one system over the other? You think people would pay an extra $400 to $600 (with accessories) to play the same exact games but with minor graphical differences? Of course they wouldn't!! You say exlusives isn't important and in the same post you say that Sony has the best variety. It couldn't have more variety if they weren't exclusive!
On that same note, as I already stated, MS has changed and grown a TON (enormous would be an appropriate word to use) when it comes to 2nd and 3rd party support. With that in mind you can place a bet in confidence that you will see far more platformers and more variety in general on the 360 then you did on the Xbox. I'll be interested to see Sony's online model and how they plan to implement it. We already know that they are pretty much going to copy that of MS but we have to wonder how closely. If they have a free online strategy and don't push it then they will fall miserably behind MS in this area once again. In the end I see value in both systems. This will by no means be a replay of the last gen war. The funny thing is you see MS copying Sony in the good things they did and you see Sony copying MS in the good things they did. It all means good things for the gamers IMO.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. April 2006 @ 05:45
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. April 2006 @ 06:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
i know what you mean when you say that M$ has come a long way when it comes to games. the xbox had some good games but not enough to take on the variety of the ps3, but with the xbox 360 its a totaly different, the 2006 line up is like nothing i have ever seen and i think sony will come out hard this year at e3 but will be shocked by what M$ has to offer.
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
6. April 2006 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ah but the variety for Sony came about not because they wanted it exclusive to it. It's that they can't hope to sell it on an XBox. Tell me who wants to play a platformer like Rachet & Clank or Final Fantasy on their XBox????? Like maybe 10-20% of all the people who owns XBoxes. Seems completely pointless to do that. So it's not that the variety came about because it was exclusive for it. It's more like developers know their main customers for those kind of games were all on the PS2 so why bother racking up development costs just to get a few more sales by making it cross platform. So the comment about the exclusive things and the one about variety both stand. But they're not really tied to each other from my point of view. Exclusive titles to me is more than games that don't go cross platform because they only appeal to the owners of a certain console. It's games like Halo that can do well on all consoles that are exclusive to XBox and PC. So basically games that can do well on all platforms but only released on one platform like Mario, Halo, etc etc are exclusive but games like Final Fantasy that stay on one console because that's where all their customers are are not considered exclusive titles to me.
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
6. April 2006 @ 06:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
So going back to topic. What IS the game lineup for XBox 360???? Is it all mostly sequels????
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. April 2006 @ 07:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
nooooooooooooo, way is it all sequals, you are thinkning about sony there.
i could name at least 20 top exclusive titles coming for the xbox 360 in 2006 whcih are all next gen quality.
games such as, mass effect, too human, gears of war, halo 3, saints row, crackdown, huxley, frame city killer, chrome hounds, lost plannet, war devil, lost oddesy, ninty nie nights, and many more which i can not be bothered to think of at this momment in time. also when i say 20 awesome exclusive titles, i only mean the best exclusive titles, there are many more good exclusive titles, and also many other games which are either ports like far cry and laura croft and also cross platfrom games like ghost recvon and battlefield.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. April 2006 @ 07:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh also jaypugh and Jkhmmr, you guys should come on to the ps3 forums, its slightly kore interesting over there.
|
|
Jkhmmr
Member
|
6. April 2006 @ 07:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Uh I do go there. Not really that interesting for me right now though. And you put in Halo 3 as not a sequel. So what??? It's a prequel??? Of all those in the game lineup how many have a story/gameplay that's not been done before?????
|
|
jaypugh
Junior Member
|
6. April 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
As far as your other comment. Games are about like movies and music, tell me just what HASN'T been done before. Ok ok.. so we can have a videogame with a plastic guitar connected to it like I saw at Fry's the other day. I think that was on the PS2 and that is new! Yippee!! I'm all for new and innovated games but if we are going to talk realistically then we must admit that 99% of the great games that people want to play have been done before in some form or fashion but they are doing it better and with graphic engines that give them the ability to add new characteristics to the gameplay. After all we have more Final Fantasy games then we have Friday the 13th movies if I'm correct. People want more of the same but better. Bring on better Metal Gear Solid XX, GR XX, Final Fantasy XX, Halo XX, Resident Evil XX, Gran Turismo XX, and the list goes on. As long as they keep making them better each time then people will be happy. I don't think the PS2 got sold as well as it did due to its innovative Eye Toy which is the only truly innovative and different thing about the system. This leaves the Xbox as an uninnovative hunk of plastic with nothing but the same old Halo plastic. Maybe they will create a 3D Eye Toy! Not likely...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. April 2006 @ 08:35
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. April 2006 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh sorry i meant to say exclusives not sequals, offcourse halo 3 is a sequal. lol sorry.
oh and you ask about the story line and gamplay well, huxley is a MMOFPS, it has a really good story line and it can hold up to 5000 people per server.
too human, is a trilogey, about gods, giants and machines.
loast oddesy is a janease rpg
crack down is a gta kinda game, but its in the form of shading like the zelda game on gamecube, and you are a cop, but b/c you are form the future you have abilities unlike of todays cops.
and i really can not be bothered right now to go through every game.
but they all have their own unique story line and gamplay. oh and they will all look awesome as a lot of them i mentioned are using the unreal engine 3, such as, lost odessy, huxley, mass effect, too human, and gears of war.
ok basically what i am trying to say is that this war between xbox and playstaion is a lot different to the one of the last generation.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
7. April 2006 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok, i just saw two trailers of chromehounds and rockstars ping pong game, and i have to say they look very promising in both gameplay and and especially graphics.
the graphics on both these games are truly next gen. if you have not already seent them then go and download them from either gamtrailers.com or ign.com.
|
Member
|
7. April 2006 @ 22:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
condemned is by far my favorite launch game and whould not be good with multiplayer. I wish F.E.A.R was put on the 360 great game o.k. multyplayer
both were made by the same company
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
8. April 2006 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
sega
|
