Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Halo? Metroid? Red Faction? Why is your console the best?
#1
Posted 17 May 2005 - 04:24 PM
what good is a great system going to do you if you only have a handful of titles such as xbox has (not to knock those games though they are great)
but when you think about it why is halo so famous?
i say marketing
there are more realistic games, more fantasticalgames, better weapon systems, whatever your fix may be halo is not the only first person shooter
it doesnt have any ground breaking features
its not the best story (obvious open to opinion)
i just see it as a great marketing scheme by microsoft
again dont get me wrong it is a high quality game; very enjoyable
but since the "great" games are so few and far between for xbox it was a must have for those who owned the console
let's move on before i steal too many points...
on the other end of the spectrum you have sony who has every conceiveable game made...twice.
again some with high quality, some without
but putting out so many, shall i say, shitty games in public is really damaging the reputation of the PS series
again ill leave a lot to discuss yet for these...
nintendo is a different story
they are (without giving a big history lesson) a software company gone hardware, much like sega.
nintendo knows software (games) and they know it well.
thats why you see many great game titles publisized beyond belief. and then on top of that they have under the radar games that are innovative and just damn fun to play (pikmin, animal crossing)
before i start to sound biased ill start knocking the nintendo corperation
since they lack the financial backing nintendo had to find that niche in the market relatively fast
they ended up with a younger audience focusing most of their "only for" game titles towards the ESRB rating at E (everyone)
and for many of us that sucks. we want to kill and explode and such.
of course there are solution routes for each one of these systems
but i want to here your opinions before i throw those out
if you read this all before you posted i would like to shake your hand.

#3
Posted 17 May 2005 - 04:38 PM
I play xbox the most, then GC, then PS2.
I don not like halo. Either one of them and I agree with you on everything you said about the game that I don’t think its anything special. Its popular because the amount of multiplayer stuff available and xbox live. w/o xbox live it wouldn’t be that big. Personally I’m not big on FPS.
My favorite genres are
Sports (anything sports)
RPGs
Action/ Adventure
Survival Horror
Platform
FPS
GC is targeted towards a younger audience
PS2 is targeted in Japan (not America) they get everything there first for it
XBOX is the only console targeted for the USA. XBOX live is the best invention in gaming to date. Nobody can deny that. That alone makes the xbox a better system. It has better graphics- less loading times- better and cheaper online play- online voice and using IGN rating system both systems(xbox, PS2) have about 10 percent of there games as a 9.0 or higher. So the quality is the same. PS2 has a bigger selection but I think xbox only games are way better then PS2 only games. I rate the systems like this
1 Xbox
2 GC
3 PS2
#4
Posted 17 May 2005 - 05:05 PM
yes
ill deny it
of course ill be all technical and wormy about it and say the atari 2600 was the best invention in gaming history
haha
but i do think xbox live was the best invention since...hmmm... 3d graphics
now getting to your point about xbox live being the factor that sets xbox apart from the rest i agree
but it is not a pattened feature and (i can garuntee this) it will be mimicked by every upcoming system. not to mention it could have done by both PS2 and gamecube as well (why they didnt is beyond me)
now with all three having "online capabilities" what would set xbox apart from the other two?
graphics?
well without pulling out the fact sheet (please dont make me i hate browsing the internet) i can confidently say nintendo has the largest capacity for graphics (fast pixel rendering speed officially termed "refresh rate")
but that's irrelevant now because the sytems about to be released will be different comparatively
anyhow i highly doubt that graphics alone will dominate a market (other than PC but let's leave that out)
so again what makes xbox better?

#5
Posted 17 May 2005 - 11:28 PM
Xbox is the best system for multiplatform games (most of the time. Soul Caliber 2 was best on GCN for example). Live is great but I hate the fee. Halo is amaizng and Halo 2 is even better. I play my sports games on it.
GCN is the best for gaming. Gaming means like getting into the game, addicted to it, and playing it till there's nothing left to explore. SImply put: Nintendo knows how to make games. But they also know how to innovate better then anyone. I cannot wait for the New Zelda game opffially entitled The Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Prince. It will have 70 hours of gameplay, link will transform into a warewolf, and the world will be HUGE! Metroid PRime 1 and 2 rocked my world as well.
PS2. It broke on me twice. It is my DVD player at this point. I got sick of the same games (MGS, GTA, Grand Tourismo). Right now I'm only keeping it for the new Final Fantasy. I love Squarenix.
#6
Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:48 AM
PS2- Pros. Biggest selection of games. Slim design, doubles as a DVD player, familiar controllers (same as PS1)
Cons. Online play is pay per game and dial up. No internal memory. Durability issues. Only 2 controller ports. Slowest processor of the 3. worst graphics of the 3.
GC- Pros. Small design. 4 controller ports. A lot of first party games. Familiar name. 50$ cheaper
Cons. No online play. Weird controller (why is the a button so big?). speed and graphics are better then PS2 but less then xbox. No DVD compatibility. No internal memory. Smallest selection of games.
Xbox-Pros- Online high speed play. Best graphics. Fastest processor. Internal hard drive (for 70 bucks you can get it moded to play burned games and have 80 games installed into the hard drive). 4 controller ports. A lot of companies switching to xbox over PS2. Custom soundtracks in games (great feature in 2k5)
Cons- huge and heavy. DVD compatibility is 35 dollars extra. Not as many games for it as the PS2.
That’s pretty much the rundown of the systems.
#7 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:10 AM
That is, of course, a blatant lie. Nintendo's games aren't market towards kids, they just aren't filled with sex, violence, or other adult themes. I wouldn't expect a lot of Nintendo's "clean" (as opposed to kiddy) to be really appreciated by anyone under the age of sixteen.
To sum it up, is what Nintendo putting out now any different than what they did in the eighties or early nineties? The answer is no. Other companies have gone out of their way to develop "adult themed" games (GTA, Conker, etc), which may have changed the general perception of what an "adult" game is and what a "children's" game is. But when I think of a game designed with players under the age of 10, I think of something like Luigi's Mansion (which is Nintendo). That is a game that is actually made with a child's abilities in mind.
As fas as Halo is concerned, yeah it isn't anythign breath takingly revolutionary (although the first game's AI is superior to everything before it and a lot after it). But I'm pretty tired of games that introduce some amazing new feature but still aren't any good because the development team spent all their time working on that one feature (see Fable). Halo is like Chess, Checkers, or that brillant piece of art called Tetris. It is a simple game that offers tons of depth and takes a long time to master. It is nothing but strengths. Halo doesn't have glitches, useless weapons, or aimless walks down a long corridor with nothing in it. Halo is a almost perfectly crafted game that has been fine tuned to the poitn that there is almost nothing there that lacks anything. I personally think both Halos are among the top twenty games of all time, maybe even top ten.
Fianlly, reports have been coming out since XBox first came out that comapnies were switching over to XBox because it is easier to develop games for, but Nintendo is always going to have the very best gaems and PS continues to put out a much larger volume than the XBox.
#8
Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:47 AM
#9 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 18 May 2005 - 10:09 AM
Tell that to all the magazines that have released statements about how much easier it was to develop for the XBox because it had more straightforward hardware and was more selfcontained.
#10
Posted 18 May 2005 - 11:49 AM
pay attention to what i post and you'll realize i did address your issue
i basically said...
that all three of the systems will have only a small margin between one another for graphics performance (xbox 360 may be first im sure it wont be all that noticeable)
and all three systems will have online gameplay
now.
what will make the xbox 360/PS3/Nintendo Revolution better?

#11 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 18 May 2005 - 12:28 PM
THe point I made about Volume is this:
reports have been coming out for a long time (about two years, as they were coming out when I stopped getting EGM, and that was about that long ago) about how developers were switching to XBox, but Sony still is getting more games for their system. If so many developers were claiming they were planning on switching, why is it that the XBox still isn't getting as many games as PS? The answer (and Jets0n posted an article that addressed this in the other video game thread) is that companies still don't trust MS enough to make a hardline switch. Until these reports start getting substantiated by actual output, using it as an reason SBox is better is illogical.
#12
Posted 18 May 2005 - 01:13 PM
Also I said they paid so it would be wayyy better. They wouldn’t up all that money for a slightly better graphics. Microsoft dumped over a billion alone in xbox live so far so there willing to spend way more then sony is on the new systems. Bill gates isn’t cheap. Sony is. That’s why the PS2 was so similar to the PS1.
#13
Posted 18 May 2005 - 01:19 PM
1) better games is an opinion only. No fact behind it. Its just a preference.
2) Xbox 360 and PS3 can’t be debated util they are both officially released. Period.
3) Xbox is a way better system then the PS2
4) Controllers once again are opinion but the xbox controllers have the most functionality because they have the most precise joystick and 2 way more pressure sensitive triggers then GC and PS2
5) All we know is what is reported. Were not really there so honestly its all second hand info and speculation. Nothing solid. Those writers are just like us and basically write their opinion. Its like the power rankings everyone will have them different. I doubt 2 people would make the exact same for all 32 teams
#14
Posted 18 May 2005 - 04:54 PM
Xbox or PS2?
#15
Posted 18 May 2005 - 07:46 PM
(having the deciding factors being graphics game quality and such)
and since im the owner of this glorious topic
lets steer it in this direction
What makes a game a "good game?" (don't worry we'll get to graphics soon enough)
just to get this up in the air: i took a class that is based on that specific question more or less, (what makes a game sell?) so keep the bullshit to a minimum, or i will slice your points down fairly effeciently. disclaimer now aside...
...again
What makes a game a "good game?"

#18
Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:57 PM
Also what makes a good game is opinion but in my opinion its just flat out something fun to play. Something that takes skill in both physical and mental ability as well as good enough of a challenge but not unbeatable.
#20
Posted 19 May 2005 - 10:59 PM
screen.width*0.7) {this.resized=true; this.width=screen.width*0.7; this.alt='Click here to open new window';}" onmouseover="if(this.resized) this.style.cursor='hand';" onclick="if(this.resized) {window.open('http://images.newsx.cc/News14Charlotte_Media/2005/1/9/images/02_09-jets1.jpg');}" />

Sign In
Register
Help



MultiQuote







