lol X-Box
It looks better then the PS3 and has non-VIP controllers. But that's like saying the new Lindsey Lohan is an improvement over the old.
all these new machines are like new star trek series, ultimately it's just the same old shit repackaged as something new
although i'm kinda rooting for revolution, if only for this "it's not all about having 'turbo power.' It's about what you do with it."
If only somebody other than Nintendo were able to do something with it.
Satoru is claiming that Revolution will be a simple console to develop for, though.
lol n64
lets go back to sega saturn ヽ(ﾟ∀ﾟ)ﾉ
From what I hear, both xbox360 and the ps3 have in-order execution. That won't be unpleasant to develop on. The PS3 archictecture in particular looks to be a finicky beast.
What's the deal with Revolution? If it's out-of-order, it will be significantly easier to develop decently-performing code for, barring any other strange factors.
Your negations confuse us, earthling!
Your negations confuse us, earthling!
> That won't be pleasant to develop on.
fixed
Microsoft done stole my Perfect Dark
^ HA!
I just want to know how hackable will it be? Are they once again going to sell a low powered PC at an extremely cheap price?
I love how this is the only thing nintentards can say. "Its not about the graphics, its about the gameplay!!!!111".
I have one thing to say to you, Gameplay is built around graphics. Gameplay is built around disk size. Without spiffy graphics and a large disk (or cartridge) you wont be able to have a modern fun game. I say modern because there are hundreds of old crappy looking (atleast by todays standards) games that are still fun. But compare the original MGS to MGS3, which game is better? MGS3. Graphics are an evolution of games, gameplay will usually alwase stay the same unless you change the size of the game and the graphics of the game.
> Gameplay is built around graphics.
No, it's not. I can't believe I have to say this, because it's almost self-evident.
New games need glitzy graphics to compete in the marketplace, since glitz sells, but other than the text->2d->3d transition, it has had little to do with gameplay.
You took those words completly out of context. Not even gonna argue with you. I never said Gameplay is built around graphics. I said in order for games to evolve into better games you need better disk space and better graphics, or else you have the same old games.
Better graphics and better disk space do NOT equal better games. In fact, old games with better disk space and better graphics remain the same old games, just with better disk space and better graphics.
>>16
I never said Gameplay is built around graphics.
It is best to reword something if you want to assert that you didn't say it.
So do you then claim that the early games released for a console are pretty much the same as the games released late in its lifespan? After all, the graphics capabilities and disk space have remained the same.
Yes they are, this is exactly why most of the games released late in its lifespan are sequals. And graphics capabilities usually increase greatly at the end of a consoles lifespan. Look at some of the earlier games on ps1 and then games at the end of its lifespan, same with ps2.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. It's the exact same machine, yet the games are better and flashier. So apparently you don't actually need a better machine to make better games. How about that?
.....Yes you do, more disk space = longer games with more content. Better looking games = more detailed content and prettier content.
What would you rather play, a 3 hour game with no extra content, or a 50 hour game with craploads of content?
What would you rather play, a nes game where you can hardly tell what the character your playing as looks like, or a modern game where you can tell what your character looks like, not to mention give more detail to your surroundings.
You people don't seem to understand. The Xbox 360 is going to suck and blow in that order, just like the Xbox did. The graphics and disc space won't matter, especially since it's graphics and space will be pretty much the same as the other consoles. The reason why it will suck is because it won't have good games. Nobody wants to make good games on it, just like nobody made good games for the Xbox. Sure, there were a few exclusives and a bunch of PC ports.
For serious, lets just get back to hating.
> For serious, lets just get back to hating.
Here's a man with principles!
But you just said that the later games for the SAME CONSOLE are better too. So you don't need better hardware. Which is it?
And for the record, most modern games with their endless cut-scenes and hours-long introductiory sections bore me to death. I want games I can start up, blast away for a while, and put back down. Yoshi's Island on the GBA amuses me far more than most any PS2 title (there are, of course, notable exceptions - Rez isn't half bad, for instance).
> .....Yes you do, more disk space = longer games with more content.
It's clear you've never programmed any kind of game. There are a lot of factors that determine any sort of relationship between size and content. Now let me point out Doom3 compared to Civilization I or .kkrieger.
The correlation between game size and content is weak. Correlation between game length and content is probably nonexistent.
> Better looking games = more detailed content and prettier content.
Aii! I think you're putting the cart before the horse! Implication isn't commutative.
Regardless, this has what to do with gameplay? Oh, look, that vase by the window has beautiful phong shading, bump and cubic reflection mapping, and the caustics off its surface are just divine. I think I'll... uh... what...?
Sure, it helps immersion, but gameplay...? Methinks you do not know the definition of gameplay.
I think graphics are great for the most part. It helps people get into the game a lot better.
But the problem is that designers have fallen into the trap of worrying more about the graphics than the game. Actually for RPG games of late, the priorities seem to be (in order): FMV, Graphics, Music and VAs, Plotline, and last (and it seems least) gameplay. They seem to be turning from "Game with a Good Story" to "Movie in which you must occasionally fight a monster". It's happening with other games too, don't get me wrong.
This is why the classics held up so well compared to modern games. In the old SNES games, the game was a game first and an artistic project second. Not that they didn't care what the game looked like, just that they'd make the game fun first and then worry about graphics and music and whatever else.
X-Box 360 sux. Back to SNES! (>^_^)>
I agree. To me it's like Hollywood movies these days. Don't get me wrong, there are still a few (emphasis on few) gems in the rough, but they seem to follow a formula and turn out bland and generic. Tried and true = cash = let's do that.
When games were first created I assume it was purely for fun and not profit (I'm not old enough to state this as fact but I don't see people making profit from something that had no demand). After all that's the definition of game, isn't it? Something you play for enjoyment.
People were trying to create something that they wanted to create and something people would find entertaining. There was no FPS. There was no RTS. There was no RPG. Developers had free reign; they were limited only by their imaginations and expertise. Now, I don't know too much about all the IF games or even arcade classics first hand, so I'm not going to comment on them.
Nowadays you're rewarded for following the pack. I know that statement has been rehashed as many times as the game formulae themselves but it's the truth. It's really getting stagnant. I used to live for games, yet a few years ago I found myself playing and seeking them out less and less. Great, this is just like the last RTS I played but instead of knights they're robots. Fantastic, this is like the last FPS I played but instead of being on a spaceship I'm on a planet. Wonderful, this is like the last RPG I played but instead of saving the world I'm purging some crap from myself. Now RPG's are somewhat exempt to this as the storyline is what makes or breaks it, yet frankly the gameplay is recycled to the point of fucking abhorrence and I'd much rather read a book for a good story. After all I want to PLAY something fun in a game.
I suppose one could dispute that, say, an FPS like Wolfenstein was creating a new medium. Yet it's just getting ridiculous. Sure there have always been people copying others to make a quick buck, slightly rearranging things as to not be lynched, but they weren't worshipped as being groundbreaking or unique. They got booed off the stage and that was that. Now it's people taking no risks for guaranteed profit, but most importantly developers who can't break through. They can't deliver anything original because the public doesn't want it. They're not rewarded for creativity anymore. The public wants Halo 3, 4, 5, 6, n. The public wants something with a name on it. Perplexed as I may be at just WHY people want to buy boring shit, it's irrelevant; they buy it in droves (and yes I'm aware of this over-generalisation as I am part of the public, too).
Graphics play a major part I'd say. You don't need to actually play it to want to play more of it. You want to play more of it at a mere glance to unveil more purdy pictures. Using graphics as a hook is a weak yet sadly effective tactic (this is related to the Hollywood situation I believe). Now I'm all for graphics in the right context. I'd play all my old favourites with revamped graphics. What's to lose? But building a game around graphics is plain stupid.
I'm at a loss with the whole thing, really. I'm not sure if there can be anything original now outside of a storyline or an enemy model or a music score. I want to feel how I did when I was a kid: in awe of something I've never seen or experienced before. There have still been a few games like this thankfully, but the vast majority is depressing. This is brutally longwinded and I didn't intend that, so I'll just leave it here despite omissions.
tl;dr
Graphics does not the game maketh. Tried and true is shit. Fuck you game industry, I want my originality back. Xbox is hueg lol.
> People were trying to create something that they wanted to create and something people would find entertaining. There was no FPS. There was no RTS. There was no RPG.
True. There were overhead shooters, side-scrolling shooters, platformers, platform shooters, and strategy games. Don't fool yourself into thinking strict game genres are anything new.
That said, those old clichés were more fun than these new-fangled clichés! Get offa my lawn!
urrrr ummm.... so I guess these words were nothing more then a halucination on my part
>I have one thing to say to you, Gameplay is built around graphics.
what an idiot
Xbox 360>PS2/3
Why I hate the Xbox 360? Because all the good PC games go to the Xbox and become shitty.
because it is just a pc in game console clothing yet again, if microsoft is going to make something like that why don't they just make gamming PCs that can function as a normal PC yet will play their exclusive games as well which other computers could not, but then again they would have to get exclusive games
I tend to get pretty hooked on Nethack and other Roguelikes at random points in time. The story of my @ whooping up on a room full of Z and pillaging all their %, ", and $ pulls me in more effectively than most of the games that sit up on my shelves. There's nothing but text and yet I get so involved that I almost can't believe it when my latest awesome monk bites it due to some horrible unforseen circumstance like having a magic missile from a wand bounce off the wall and back into him, or drinking his last unidentified potion in hopes that it will turn the tide of a hopeless battle only to find out it's poison, or something like that. It's like that line in Fight Club, only when we have nothing are we truly free to do anything, right?
But then again, I'm missing the point of this topic. The Xbox 360 is the son of a polar bear and a whore, and said whore had a really ugly-looking everything. If I were to actually own such a monstrosity, I'd make sure that the faceplace was a picture of a Dreamcast so I wouldn't have to explain why I owned an Xbox 360. ALSO IT'S TOO FUCKING BIG.
>>39
Oh noes Xbox 360 is st1ll teh hueg!!!!1!
Seriously, if you have room for a VCR you have room for an Xbox, much less the smaller 360.
Yeah, but they tend to hang out in rooms full of the stuff. And anyway, a capital Z is a zombie of some sort, right?
oh, sorry, I think we're playing different games
Angband > Nethack
>>43
I don't mind a little Angband now and then, but my Roguelike playing style tends to be better suited for playing fast and dying early, way early, by means of YASD.
Speaking of YASD, whatever happened to people complaining about how dumb the Xbox 360? All I had to contribute is that no matter what Microsoft does, every console they make will be known as too fucking big, even if it's like the size of my eyeball or something.
I prefer Nethack myself.
Angband is too hack n'slashy while Nethack is much more focused on survival.
Xbox 360 doesn't seem as bad as its predecessor
MGS 3 lacked interactive enviroments
What does the X in XBOX mean?
XTRAOMFGWTBBQIT LARGE.
Does this mean the XBOX360 will be 360 times as large?
A rectangle is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 ( 90 x 4 )360 YOYO !
Xbox 360 hates Asians too.
Xbox 360 is so huge it caused a small gravitational vortex that led to the creation of hurrican katrina and all subsequent storms that ruin stuff
a horse named.. HIDALGO
Ulimate X-box 360 Unlimted: Extreme Unleashed Edition
I think what's killing the game experience in general is the insane amount of money it takes to produce the games. How can someone afford to take a risk on an experimental game when the production alone is several million dollars? It's frankly too much risk because if they make a failure of a game, they lose several million from production, plus a second couple of million in advertising.
And since all game companies are corprate first, they see those dollar signs. If they don't know as a fact that they will make back their money, the game dies.
>>61
thanks god there is japan
Thanks god japan does not like the LOL-Box
well, i played one today, for the first time (the time i got bored waiting for the intro of kameo to finish, without sound, on a shop demo unit doesn't count). and, my god, was i underwhelmed. even the graphics were nothing special. i don't know which game it was, but it had nazis in it.
>>63 Wait...you're trying to say that Call of Duty doesn't look good? Call of Duty looks good even on a phone.
The 360 is not large. It's significantly smaller than the Xbox. Probably not bigger than those eyesore PS3s.
Apparently they took out heat sinks to achieve this, because they are said to be prone to overheating.
Only a damn fool would enjoy the Xbox 360.
>>64
It just looked like an Xbox game. Maybe I'm just too jaded to tell the difference anymore. Meh.
Xbox 360>PS3>Gamecube>PS2
This thread is win. Xbox hate ftw.
I just saw Call of Duty running on a 360, and I thought it looked like every other WW2 FPS out there. If I yet another PC FPS, I'd be playing on my PC, now wouldn't I?
I also saw King Kong, which really was just a joke. Even Ubisoft is now telling people not to even bother buying it.
>>72
I think King Kong shows the folly of this generation's push for HD and hardware design centered around pushing polygons and high res textures. Yes, the Kong and Dino models look great. Yes, they have incredebly detailed textures and Kong's hair moves realistically.
Then you see them move, and fight. The massive amount of clipping between creature models during close combat is hideous, all the more so when done with such detailed models. The canned attack animations are also all too obvious, as well as the "pivot around the z-axis with your feet sliding on the ground". It looks like it would play exactly the same on any previous console.
Also, on a normal TV it's too dark to actually see those wonderful models. Ubisoft says: Oops! Our bad!
The part I saw had Kong and some dinosaurs stomping around in water, and the splashing water looked circa-1999.
wah! wah! mommy didn't buy me a x36 for christmas! i must vent my anger on the interbutt!!!11
XBOX POWER SUPLY IS HUEG
Since there are no actual post-christmas posts for him to be mocking, I guess >>76 is actually serious and didn't get his Xbox for christmas. It's sort of sad to see all his hopes and dreams crushed like that.
>>74
that's more like the folly of rushing first-gen software. i do think though, that if people were having trouble taking advantage of THIS generation of hardware (and they most certainly were; there are very, very few games that get the most out of ANY of the current consoles), that it's gonna be really tough to put together anything very impressive for the new stuff.