|
Post by Destro on Apr 20, 2006 21:22:50 GMT -5
I know two of these systems haven't been released yet, but I thought I'd ask about what you do know. Which system do you think will end up being the best? Personally I don't see myself buying any of them except possibly the revolution so I can play old nes, snes, and genesis games, and it's supposedly going to be the cheapest. The 360 seems pretty crappy imo and I'm simply not willing to fork out $400 or so for a ps3. How 'bout you?
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 20, 2006 21:57:51 GMT -5
I am a little confused about your opinion on the 360 - it has me playing/trying out games I never thought I would play because of graphics and sound alone. This is pretty significant seeing as how I have always been a person to stress gameplay over graphics and sound. It isn't that I have abandoned gameplay, but rather that graphics and sound are finally getting to the point where they can actually "sell me" on a game. The games I have played on the 360 have been outstanding in terms of graphics - and I say this with the fact that we are in the "early games" stages of the consoles lifespan. Impressive even considering this.
The PS3 is one that I am looking forward to.....a lot. I am a huge Final Fantasy fan, and I can't wait to see what they churn out for that library of games with the new graphics ability. I'm actually a big fan of RPGs in general, and I anxiously await what some of the companies churn out in regard to that genre.
Sony boasts that this console is going to last 7+ years...perhaps 10. That is an incredible time period to claim considering the average lifespan of a console seems to be 5 or 6 years. (From what I have seen) The price point of the PS3 is projected to be pretty high, although it will also play the new DVD format blue ray (spellcheck me on the term). Well worth the purchase, and it should play most playstation games from the original playstation to present. This one is a must buy for me.
The Revolution is probably going to be the most disappointing. The big N seems to be behind the times with their lack of HD support (claiming it is not that big a deal), and that controller is an absolute joke. Most of the followers of the X-box/PS2/Gamecube era are either X-box or PS2 gamers. Nintendo has mostly leaned on its mascots (Zelda, Mario, and Samus) to carry its console. Games went a lot more platform independent in this era, but it was highly unlikely that most of those games would support all of the big 3. Many times you would see "PS2, X-box and PC" with Gamecube left out. They also (despite fanboy uprisings that try to claim otherwise) gear their games toward the younger audience. The Mario games were never really meant to have a serious feel, and even the last Zelda game was saturday morning cartooNESque. (Twilight princess should put that to bed, but who knows when it will come out)
I think that once again, Nintendo is relying on established names and nostalgia to sell their product - why buy a new console that leans mostly toward old games? You can always play the old games on an emulator OR dust off the old system and games. The only real added benefit would be the higher quality video output and possible multiplayer of some of the old games.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 20, 2006 22:08:09 GMT -5
My problems w/ the 360 are the overheating the first units had problems w/ and the fact that there are still very few games that are 360 exclusive; a friend of mine has a 360 and says that many games were simply ported over from the xbox w/ little improvement to graphics or sound. In my personal opinion, the games just have no appeal to me; same w/ ps3. My roomie has a gamecube and I play it every now and again; he hasn't bought a game for it in months so that factors in as well. As for the revolution, I've been told that nintendo is going for the "occasional gamer" market. As the ps3 and 360 seem to be made for the hardcore gamer, the rev will be for those of us who don't spend a ton of time on games, as too many newer games simply take too much time to really get into, imo. And I love my mario and zelda. Time will tell if the new rev controllers sink or swim, but from what I understand a gamecube-like controller can also be used. Also, while my main reason for getting a rev is the old games, I'm also interested in new games as well. I'm not sure if I'll even get a rev as I seldom play video games as it is, but a few friends of mine are planning on getting one over the 360 or ps3, so I'll probably try theirs before making a decision.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 20, 2006 23:27:58 GMT -5
Well, it is quite natural for many of the early games to be ports - giving it a full year should help solve those problems - for example - some sports games are simply a port with a slightly higher res to make things a bit sharper...but the graphics are not improved over the same game for Xbox or PS2. This happens with many consoles as the eras overlap.
I admit that some have been ported over, but you are going to go off your friend making that statement? Do you honestly think that all they are doing it porting things for the new system? Trust your own two days. Look at Fight Night Round 2, Dead or Alive 4, Project Gotham Racing and Madden. "Ain't no way your mamma's ps2/xbox/gcube can do that."
It is quite possible the same thing ("ports") will happen with the other new systems, but it isn't like the 360 is simply an emulator for games made within the past few years.
Seriously though - I would go emulation if you want to play old games. It is a LOT cheaper than buying a new system.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 21, 2006 12:43:01 GMT -5
Well, it is quite natural for many of the early games to be ports - giving it a full year should help solve those problems - for example - some sports games are simply a port with a slightly higher res to make things a bit sharper...but the graphics are not improved over the same game for Xbox or PS2. This happens with many consoles as the eras overlap. I admit that some have been ported over, but you are going to go off your friend making that statement? Do you honestly think that all they are doing it porting things for the new system? Trust your own two days. Look at Fight Night Round 2, Dead or Alive 4, Project Gotham Racing and Madden. "Ain't no way your mamma's ps2/xbox/gcube can do that." It is quite possible the same thing ("ports") will happen with the other new systems, but it isn't like the 360 is simply an emulator for games made within the past few years. Seriously though - I would go emulation if you want to play old games. It is a LOT cheaper than buying a new system. Well, since I haven't bought a system since saturn (what a great investment that was.. ), I really only get my video game info from my hardcore gamer friends. They seem to know what they're talking about. I just don't see why anyone would want a 360 when almost all the games so far are already for xbox. My point is, if you already have an xbox, which is the 360's core market, why would you buy a 360 when you probably have most/some of the games for xbox? I realize that new games will be 360 exclusive, but since there weren't many to start w/, I think some people weren't in a hurry to pick one up, which may have hurt sales..maybe. I think some may have hight hopes for the ps3 bc of that. Of course there's still the whole "it's the newest system I must have it" syndrome in there too. What exactly is an emulator and where can I get one?
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 21, 2006 18:54:07 GMT -5
Hahaha. I picked up a Saturn used a few years ago and...never bought any games for it. (I used to collect video game consoles) As far as the "when almost all the games so far are already for xbox" is concerned - it is just a false statement. Some are ports, others are same title...but a lot better graphics/framerate, and many are 360 only. There are going to be games that are ports for the first console released in a new era because the hardware is a generation above a lot of the current hardware on the market. Many software developers develop games that are "cross platform" (made for multiple consoles) so they can port it to a different console and tweak the code a little bit here and there to make it work across multiple consoles. Once the "new era" is fully established and all of the big three (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) have their consoles released, developers can raise the bar for their cross platform games & essentially bring the graphics into the new era. I wouldn't trust your hardcore gaming friends...because they sound like fanboys. Fanboys of console games are just as bad as anime fans regarding how anal (pardon the term) they can be. They pretty much get "this is this and that is that" in their head, formulate opinions and then push it as the biblical truth. It sounds like they have either decided that they personally think the 360 isn't worth it...or talked themselves out of it because of the price. I never trust anyone to "tell me what my opinion is" - EVER. Like I said - trust your own eyes. Play 360 only games. Play games available on both & compare the graphics. Some are simple ports, others have had major enhancements made to the graphics. You can't do Fight Night Round 2 (360) on your xbox and it look like that. You can't do Madden 2006 (360) on your Xbox and have it look exactly the same. The games look better. The 360 is young, yes - but the launch games for a console are always meant to show off graphics. You could argue the point of ...say...Madden being released for both & "why would you want it on 360 when you can just get it for Xbox?" Here are screenshots from Madden from Xbox and 360 in their actual resolution from the console. They are the same game in name - "Madden 06"...but I would say "give me the 360 version!" Wouldn't you? Xbox: 360: i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/estation/maddenxbox360_1.jpgi16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/estation/maddenxbox360_2.jpgi16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/estation/maddenxbox360_3.jpgAgain I ask you, which game would you rather have? I mean....they're the same game right? As for emulation - for Super nintendo (usually called "SNES"), the best emulator I know of is SNES9X. You can find the page with multiple links for a download here: www.snes9x.com/downloads.phpI checked the first link, and they have downloads available. The windows binaries link should give you the latest emulator for windows. After this, you will have to download ROMS. ROMS are the actual games. I should tell you that it is illegal to download these games if you do not own the games. The best way to find emulators and ROMS (outside of trying fileshare or bit torrent..whatever) is to just go to google and go with the console you want. So for original Nintendo, you would google NES emulator and NES ROMS and that should get you going.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 22, 2006 0:28:33 GMT -5
Well my point was if you already have madden 06 (or other games that are also on both xbox and 360), would you pay around $460 simply to play the game you have but w/ better graphics and sound? I sure wouldn't, and I think that's what my friends are saying. Makes sense to me. Thanks for the emulator info!
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Apr 22, 2006 9:22:34 GMT -5
The reason they port over games is so that the platform has a variety available when the new platform is released - having a new system with only one game available is not as appealing. Otherwise, it will start off with only a handful of games available (at best) without doing massive coordination with the game companies to do simultaneous releases - a marketing nightmare of potential miscommunication and leaked information.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 22, 2006 16:27:51 GMT -5
The reason they port over games is so that the platform has a variety available when the new platform is released - having a new system with only one game available is not as appealing. Otherwise, it will start off with only a handful of games available (at best) without doing massive coordination with the game companies to do simultaneous releases - a marketing nightmare of potential miscommunication and leaked information. I realize that, it just seemed like, at launch, there were too few 360-exclusive games.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 22, 2006 21:45:49 GMT -5
Nah...it was fine. The selection was actually really good for a launch.
Contrast it to:
Super Nintendo (1991) Super Mario World, F-Zero, Pilotwings
N64 (1996) Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64
The 360 launched with 18 games. Many of these were cross-platform, but many of those also looked a lot better than they did on other platforms.
360 only games were:
Amped 3 Perfect Dark Zero Call of Duty 2 (also PC/MAC) Condemned Criminal Origins (PC) Kameo Project Gotham Racing 3 Ridge Racer 6
I don't consider PC to be a "console system" so I included those other two. Those are plenty of xbox 360 exclusive games for launch. I also ask why is it so important that you have 360 only games at launch? Obviously there were enough, but I still don't see it as important. Not to mention the fact that most people are not going to buy tons of games at the game time they spend the money for a brand new console system. Knowing the gamers would itch for more games a little while after picking up their system and first one or two games, companies release even more games a week or two after the consoles release.
Destro - are you really going off real data on this, or are you just taking what your friends say as the "obvious truth." I am a little confused.
|
|
|
Post by ElvisAaronBU on Apr 22, 2006 22:53:41 GMT -5
So far, I have enjoyed the 360 and can vouch that it is not crappy. I think the launch titles were OK, but not stellar. I was more excited about the games coming out shortly after launch-- Ghost Recon 3 and Elder Scrolls 4, along with the new Splinter Cell later this year. And yes, GR3 is available on Xbox 1, but the two versions are vastly different graphically-- enough to make the 360 version far more exciting to play. The 360 is a very nice, very fast piece of hardware, and I expect a myriad of fantastic games to come out for it in the near future. The only real negative thing I can say about it is that I thought the $400 price tag was a bit outrageous.
Moving on to the PS3-- It sounds really cool, and it supports one of the two contenders in the upcoming High-Def format wars. Graphically, it stands to reason that it will be superior to 360 and Revolution, but probably not 1000x better like Sony would have us believe. There are two reasons I hesitate about this one though: 1. Sony lied to the world last year at E3, saying that the footage of games they showed was actual gameplay. At this point, if you've seen any movies or screens from PS3 games, they were probably faked. 2. Last I heard, the price is going to be more like $500!
Finally, the Revolution-- sounds like kind of wimpy hardware. I think the controller looks interesting, as I usually enjoy playing games with specialized input hardware-- DDR, shooting games, etc, -- but we'll see how well it works and if it is fun for more than just a couple of types of games.
But the bottom line is, you can't really make a rational decision about how awesome the Revolution or PS3 are going to be because there just isn't enough information out there. (Hopefully this will change in a couple of weeks at this year's E3).
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 23, 2006 18:09:00 GMT -5
I'm going off what I've seen in stores (games available, prices, etc.), friends, and what I've read around the net. I see your point about other systems having few launch titles, but then, those other systems didn't cost between 300 and $400. I already answered your 360 exclusive question earlier: "Well my point was if you already have madden 06 (or other games that are also on both xbox and 360), would you pay around $460 simply to play the game you have but w/ better graphics and sound? I sure wouldn't, and I think that's what my friends are saying. Makes sense to me." If you don't have a 360 it makes more sense, but for me, the price is just too steep, w/ games added on top of that. I'd rather get tfs and then play punch out.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 23, 2006 18:25:57 GMT -5
Also realize that if most people went with that statement, everyone would still be playing an Atari 2600. That makes no sense. Plus, it is as if you don't believe any more games would ever come out for the 360.
Ahh well, I guess I am going to have to just accept the fact your argument makes no sense. lol
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 23, 2006 18:59:38 GMT -5
Also realize that if most people went with that statement, everyone would still be playing an Atari 2600. That makes no sense. Plus, it is as if you don't believe any more games would ever come out for the 360. Ahh well, I guess I am going to have to just accept the fact your argument makes no sense. lol Uhh..what? I don't understand what you're saying either. For me, there's a cutoff point for how much I'll spend on a video game system. $400 is beyond that point. I think it's the same for others as well; a friend of mine returned his 360 bc he simply couldn't afford it. I don't know how much an atari 2600 cost vs. the newer system (nes I would assume), but the price jump wasn't enough to warrant people not buying the newer system. I've talked to other people as well who have told me that the cost was the reason they wouldn't buy a 360. Obviously I haven't taken a cross-country poll to prove if this is widespread, I can only go by what I see and hear. Yep, ya got me. I don't think 360 will ever have exclusive games, even though I've said differently in this very thread. For me, the bottom line is it's too expensive, offers too few games I would actually play, which adds up to no 360 for me.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 23, 2006 22:19:49 GMT -5
If it's the expensive thing, I understand - but too few games? I mean - they do release more games as time goes by. You aren't limited to only the games released on launch.
The main reason for price is because companies are looking to make the game console an all in one box. They want it to now take the place of your home theater's DVD player, etc... Microsoft plans on releasing an add-on HD-DVD unit & Sony will have blue ray in their ps3. Right now, an HD-DVD player will run you around $500. So the price points of the consoles make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Apr 24, 2006 0:13:40 GMT -5
If it's the expensive thing, I understand - but too few games? I mean - they do release more games as time goes by. You aren't limited to only the games released on launch. Yea, I know. It's also that so few new games interest me. I know, I'm just not willing to pay that much. I have a computer, I have a dvd player, and blueray discs will cost more than I'm willing to pay for a movie.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Apr 24, 2006 0:40:22 GMT -5
Of course, i am sure the consoles and the HD-DVD / Blue Ray stuff will drop in price before too long. I can't believe you can just about buy a DVD player at a convenience store nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Devastator_2000 on Apr 24, 2006 21:33:22 GMT -5
Wow. I must say that you two are naving the most civil disagreement that I have ever heard. It is really hard to say who is better. The type of CPU and GPU's in these thing, no matter who it is, are so powerfull that it really does not matter who you get. I really dont think that you will see that big of a difference between any of them. So for me I think that it will come down to 3 things: Price, Games and features. Even with that, it is still hard to pick a winner. Nintendo will have the best price, 360 the most games and I think PS3 the most features. I would have give 360 and PS3 a tie on features, but PS3 will have a BD-Drive. So I think the best thing to do is go in the games. If it plays all the games you like/want, then that is what you need.
|
|