Blow up, shut down, crash or any of that? Apparently its a VERY large problem, with some estimates saying nearly 10% of the shipped X360's are faulty (That number is probably lower than that though). And yes, it's a problem with the hardware, not the software (Meaning the games, not the internal software).
Assault Andy Administrator
I make other people create vaporware
Registered 29/07/2002
Points 5686
25th November, 2005 at 19:13:41 -
Yum Yum! It's not out in Australia yet, so hopefully it will all be cool for the release here in a few months. I'm not sure if I'll get one, I may wait for a price drop, or I may get one of the other nextgen consoles.
Theres no doubt PS3 will be better, even if the E3 graphics were pre-rendered, I still think that overall, they'll be alot better the Xbox 360's. The XBox 660 really wont make a difference to many people unless they have an HD-TV, because other then that, the graphics are maybe only 25% better, even though the processor is alot more powerful. In the end, its not that impressing if you ask me.
I didn't get one. Some of my crazy friends actually spent from 11PM to 10AM waiting in line for their 360s, which apparently work fine. Actually, just today I went to Best Buy to check out the 360 demonstration kiosk...it overheated and died in the plastic display case that Microsoft sent!
"Omg. Where did they get the idea to not use army guys? Are they taking drugs?" --Tim Schafer on originality in videogames
I would never buy a console thats just come out, I'll wait until there are a large amount of games to choose from (and some that I know i'll want anyway) and maybe a price drop.
Ive not had my ps2 and Gamecube for that long.
Mine has some disc read errors, but EB is going to replace it with a system from the second shipment. It still runs everything, but it's really picky on the intial load.
I'm sure we'll know more about the lineup when it's closer to release. It is unlikely that the company with the leading market share in the current generation wouldn't have developer interest for their next console, even if it is a walking joke.
Apparently when Bill Gates unveiled the X360 to the public, he started it up and immediatly got the blue screen of death. Of coarse, that was about 3 months ago I think, so maybe they have fixed it up a little since then. My Microsoft computer crashes quite a bit, so I decided not to buy another Microsoft product when there are 2 more gaming systems on the horizon that look better. I will probabally wait til the Revolution comes out (I like it's remote control system).
I won't buy a Sony or Microsoft system on launch. No way in hell. They just can't design systems (Durability wise) well. I've abused the hell out of my cube (And every other Nintendo System) and it (and they) still work, but if you look at a PS2 or Xbox wrong, it'll either burst into flames, or the DVD drive will die. I mean I dropped my cube down a flight of wooden stairs, and aside from some cosmetic damage (To both the stairs and the cube) it worked fine.
Sony hasn't designed a decent system ever, the original PS for example used to overheat badly, sometimes catching fire if used for too long, and I lost more than one disc due to heat warping. Then the Ps2 came out and the damned DVD drives were absolute shit (Same problem with the Xbox actually) And the system itself wasn't designed to take any type of beating. (My roommate broke his original PS2 by dropping a controller on the system from a height of about a foot). The closest they've gotten is the PSP, and that even has it's fair share of problems (UMDs pop out if you "bend the system" [which to be honest, you should NOT be able to bend a portable game system, I couldn't bend my DS], you press the square button too hard and you can crack the screen (Only if you REALLY jam the button though), and sometimes the square button just gets stuck. Oh, and they lied about the processor too. That doesn't exactly inspire trust in me for the PS3 either.
I do have to say I never thought I'd see the day that a launch console would crash because of it's own internal software/hardware and not because the game they were playing was buggy. So kudos to Microsoft for looking like jackasses.
It's the revolution for me baby, I'll use the money I save from the lower launch price to buy a bunch of games.
I agree with Shab as far as durability. Often I play my GameCube with 3 other friends of mine, and we play basicly on the other side of the room, where the couch is, and the GameCube falls off the dresser more then enough times, and as long as the plugs dont come lose, it still runs perfectly once it smacks the ground. I think I recall XPlay running a small test to see which system was more durable, I might be wrong on the show how ever, it was a while ago. The results came out as fallow:
PS2 died first.
Xbox died second.
GameCube took everything, and still worked in the end. (Never Died)
Anyway, on that note, I'd also add that the multiable collisions my GBA has had with the walls and floor because of never being able to get from point A to B without interfearence in Pokemon (great RPG), & the GBA still works like new. I think its because Nintendo's systems get so compact, that theres no room for anything to shift out of place.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
26th November, 2005 at 15:09:16 -
It's stupid to judge a console on physical durability. They're not designed to be thrown around or dropped down stairs. Sure, it makes sense to compare things like MP3 players or mobile phones on that criterion, but they're far more likely to suffer physical abuse. Consoles should just sit there; if they're doing anything else, it's not the manufacturer's fault if they break.
XBOX in general is crappy in my opinion. I believe that the physical looks are Equally as important as the game play. If its something thats going in my bedroom i want it to look good, and shitty-shaped, poorly color-shemed wank boxes are just NOT acceptable. PS3 ALL THE WAY! (AND Nintendo revolution)I wont be buying a psp. ive got the DS and im happy with that. Im hopefully getting the old GP32 for xmas and im gonna save up for the PS3 or N Revolution next year.
Shab my brother spilled a large fountain coke inside of his xbox and it worked fine afterwards and never gave him any problems.He sold it to a friend and they have also never had problems out of it. I have an xbox myself and its never given me problems.
People need to stop being so uptight and saying "fuck this system , this ones gonna own it 1!!!1!!!~"
Thats not the point. The point is to play the games, not bring another system down because you cant afford it or dont really want to get it.Being a fanboy is lame.Im sure pretty much everyone that owns or wants to own a nextgen console, would like to own the others, even if they bring them down all the time.
I've heard about the problems with the xbox 360s , and im disappointed. I wonder what the hell went wrong over at microsoft to cause the xboxes to do that. Thats unlike them .
Chocolate covered cherries > what the fuck makes an xbox different? A gamecube is . . well a cube, and its not very pretty. A ps2 is basically a rectangle, so is a ps 1. older systems are squares and rectangles too. All you people that bring systems down probably havent played them much at all.
Edited by the Author.
Also , about the good/bad ps2s. Didn't sony have a recall or something like that? I think the ps2s made before a certain time had problems reading discs and such. It was corrected, but i dont remember how.
Edited by the Author.
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
27th November, 2005 at 00:40:38 -
I bought a new slim PS2 3 days before it came out, and it's not had any troubles yet. Although, they did send me some return thing about the power cord.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
I still have an NES that'll run provided the cartridge is good.
But as for the Xbox360, I'm not even sure if I'm going to get one, I can live without FPS, and Halo is about the only thing I'd be interested in on the Xbox360 that isn't coming out on the PC.
I'm just gonna save my money and get myself a Revolution when it comes out.
(I'm sorry if I just turned this into a console war thread)
Mr Derek_Reaves. please call me CCC is thats any easier, (not meant to be an insult although it could be?) The Gamecube was daring. The idea of a cube may sound boring but infact Nintendo managed to pull it off just fine. it is in my opinion, one of the best looking consoles out there. Ps2 may have been a "rectangle" but i dont recall Xboxes being able to lay horizontally or stand vertically for practicality? The xbox was ugly. Microsoft take a basic shape and deform it slightly or add little bits and pieces, like the orignal Xbox and 360. However, their shapes are so unique or unusual that they are not always to everyones taste and most certainly not to mine. Also, Shiny plastic illuminous green shit stuck onto matte black shit looks cheap and nasty. Microsoft were trying to look futuristic and ossum but seemed to fail miserably. the controls also have too much going on, can be tricky to use, and like the console, look frigging cheap. But hey this is all just my opinion. Alot of peeps think the looks and style dont matter but i think they are damned important. I dont think the Psp is that special nor the DS. Nintendo Revolution is the sexiest outta all the new consoles i recon....
I think the Xbox 360 looks great. It comes out here in the UK on Friday 2nd December, but I have a *gloat* arrangement where I can get one a couple of days earlier
I hope it does work, but according to Gamespot these problems are in the minority of Xboxes. Its probably the best looking console at the moment.
Hey, all I'm saying is that Sony and Microsoft need to improve their manufacturing/design. Both PS2 designs were fundamentally flawed, and so was the Playstation. Microsoft relied on some of the crappiest manufacturer's to make the first Xbox, and it showed; from the dozens that stopped reading DVD's because the Thompson Electronics DVD drive died (Though, I give them credit, if your Xbox did this and you had a Thompson DVD drive, they replaced it for free; even after the warrenty). I'm waiting to hear what the problems actually are in the X360, but I'd suspect crappy manufacturing again. (And obvious lack of QC)
I'm not saying that every PS2 and Xbox is going to die, or that cubes don't. But it's obvious that Nintendo has better manufacturing processes. I'd love if I could go out and buy and X360 or Ps3 on launch and known within a 99% chance that I won't need to get another one 2 years down the line because it was crappily manufactured. (Especially with the increased cost this generation.) I'm going to wait a year or two, just like I did for my ps2.
I agree, the X360 looks sleek as hell. There won't be a problem with fitting that anywhere. The graphics are nice and crisp as well (CoD looks beautiful, that's the best smoke I have ever seen period) but I want to see what the next wave of games are going to be like.
I hate these kind of topics because it always ends up as console wars, and I have to say I have a ps1 + ps2 and neither have had any problems, what have you been doing to make a playstation burn or melt a disc, or even make the console fry at all? That is crazy poo.
For the PS1, I tried to play resident evil and watched all the videos, doing so heated up the playstation enough to warp my RE disc, Keep in mind, it was a First Generation PS, the really heavy one with the cd reading track on the opposite side of the rest of the playstations.
For the Ps2, it just stopped working. (And no, it's not that ribbon cable problem, where after a time, the thin band that attaches to the DVD lens eventually wears down and breaks the connection.)
Between myself and my friends, we have about 5 or 6 dead playstation 2's, that we occasionally steal parts from to fix other PS2's that have stopped working.
My PS1 died after a month. A tooth on one of the little sprockets in the laser assembly broke or something, and the laser extended enough to scratch up my CDs.
There's no question that Nintendo builds better quality consoles. MS and Sony don't make bad ones, exactly, but they're no better quality than normal consumer electronics. The difference is that it's rare for a million people to rush out and buy a VCR on launch day.
I think it's always a bad idea to buy launch consoles. Production is rushed to meet demand, and that demand means you'll get ripped off more often than not. The X360 launch lineup was abysmal, too. But I guess there's no accounting for fanboyism.
I only have handheld systems, all of which are from Nintendo, so I can't really compare them to the Xbox, the X360, or the PS, PS2, or PSP. All I can say is that the DS has great features that really lead to interesting gameplay, and interesting games (I don't think you will ever see another system that has a game that's all about dogs). The Revolution sounds pretty cool too. I think that Nintendo is really the leader in new technologies, any everybody else is just sort of following them. Ever see a feature in a Sony or Microsoft machine that Nintendo hasn't already released? Anyway, that's just my opinion.
Custom soundtracks
Online play on a grand scale
Dual-Analog controls
3D graphics
CD-based game format
High-def graphics output
3rd-party support (zing!)
Custom soundtracks
Although not by Nintendo (unless you count Mario Paint minigames), that's not a MS or Sega innovation. PC games have done that for ages.
Online play on a grand scale
Ever heard of the Sattelaview? Nintendo was running huge online competitions with special games in like 1995. They were very popular.
But in respect to the modern massive online play we enjoy today, Sega did it first in consoles.
Dual-Analog controls
That's been around for ever in arcades. I remember a couple of N64 games that allowed you to use two analogue sticks at a time, too. Robotron for example.
3D graphics
Star Fox, Mechwarrior, others. Elite and old vector games on the 386.
CD-based game format
Yep, Nintendo neeeeever thought of that. Sega actually released one.
High-def graphics output
IIRC it was possible to order special Gamecubes directly from Nintendo that had the high-definition output they scrapped in the production model (they determined that only a miniscule fraction of users would benefit from it).
I was under the impression we were talking about consoles only, and features that actually made it into final production units (or were implemented on a grand scale and not on a few select titles) rather than being scrapped by Nintendo for whatever reason. I was also under the impression that we were simply talking about stuff Nintendo hadn't accomplished first. I'm well-aware that Sega had online on consoles first (long live the Dreamcast, the last great home-arcade system), but the point was that Nintendo didn't. I do have hope for the Revolution though. Nintendo is finally taking initiative and thinking outside the box rather than trailing behind their competition as they have the last 10 years. It's the first time they've done anything significant since the SNES and here's hoping it works out.
I was also under the impression that we were simply talking about stuff Nintendo hadn't accomplished first.
So you listed a bunch of stuff that neither Sony nor MS did first either? You know, Nintendo didn't invent plastic either. Better add that to your list.
It's the first time they've done anything significant since the SNES
Analogue sticks. Rumble packs. Pronged controllers. Memory cards. The 3D Platformer. Dedicated camera controls. The controller trigger. Quad controller ports. Digital click on analogue buttons. Wireless controllers. If none of those are significant, how come they're on every console now?
3rd party support? you mean how the PS3 is lacking it and the Rev is gaining it?
i love a good console argument especially when its based on myths. OMG NENTINDO HAS KIDDIE GAEMS ONLY!
funny thing about the online too. even the NES had online, where users could go shopping, check bank accounts etc. The Snes had that satellite system. The N64 had the best. you could stream music, download games, browse the internet, play against other folk. They dropped online support in the cube because online wasn't working at that time. but they're sure as hell making up for it now. Mario Kart DS anyone? 45% of players have been online with it.
I'll get a 360 when they drop in price (something reasonable would be nice), stop charging for full online play, if Halo 3 is better than the terrible Halo 2 and if they make it just a teeny bit smaller.
All consoles suck. PCs are better than any, graphically, technically, or otherwise... with the only disadvantage being a non-vibrating controller that's hard to hold (for now) and a small problem playing multiplayer games on the same thing without a LAN.
Consoles are an outlet for casual gamers who don't have the time or space to install games. I just wish the developers would stick with putting hardcore games on PCs and leave the casual ones to consoles.
As for durability, Sony makes the worst hardware in the world... and that's not just consoles. CD drives, portable CD/tape players, speakers, EVERYTHING. The PS2 is the MOST durable thing they've ever made. They used to make fairly ok stuff, but it seems that they tossed aside quality for profits since the digital era. I'm surprised that Sony's still considered a quality brand name by some people . I dare anyone to find me a Sony appliance that could be used for 3 years without breaking (besides the PS2).
Microsoft's actually a good company, but the only problem with them is that they tend to rush into things too fast, only to forget one VERY important thing that the media people have fun bashing. I'd feel sorry for them if only they had better customer support. And less profits.
And Pete, surely you'd be pissed if you spent about $1000 on a console that blows up while you're away having lunch . Of course, the point isn't about whether you can drop it down the stairs, it's about whether it'll still work if you accidentally kick it in the middle of the night.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
All consoles suck. PCs are better than any, graphically, technically, or otherwise... with the only disadvantage being a non-vibrating controller that's hard to hold (for now) and a small problem playing multiplayer games on the same thing without a LAN.
Consoles are an outlet for casual gamers who don't have the time or space to install games. I just wish the developers would stick with putting hardcore games on PCs and leave the casual ones to consoles.
Your anus must seriously hurt after extracting all that.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Muz, you realize the console industry makes more money right? Console games have their advantages; you don't have to configure the controllers to all hell (Ever try to play Quake 2 on a Dual Analog Setup, I did, it was a failed experiment), patches are all but non existant, and consoles have a cleaner appearance and cost less than a properly maintained PC.
The things that PC gaming has that is leagues better than consoles? Freeware games, and Mods. It's that simple, there are thousands upon thousands of free games for the PC, and thousands more mods that add infinite hours of replayability to old products. Better graphics and such also naturally come with the PC, but at a huge cost.
More money coz it's easier and trendier to buy a console rather than a PC. Doesn't mean it's better though. Ever compared GTA: Vice City on PC and PS2? For the more hardcore among thee, there's Mafia... and there's a significant difference in fun between the PS2 and PC versions. How bout the classic PC Baldur's Gate 2 vs PS2's Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance? What about strategy games, turn-based or RTS?
Only part where consoles truly shine over PCs is when it comes to sports/racing games, wrestling games, and beat-em-up. But those games tend to be over a bit too quickly. Though BG: DA 2 and the WWE Smackdown games aren't too bad..
In this country, you could get a PC twice as powerful as the latest console at about the same price. Much, much cheaper power-cost ratio if you wait a few years.
Either way, I still prefer PCs. Can't play X-Com 2 on an X-Box 360. Though if they ever made a good-looking remake for that game on any console, there might be a chance that I'd buy one. Heck, if there were graphical versions of ADOM, Conquest of Elysium, or some other obscure, yet fun PC game, I'd reconsider my stance.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Non-existent patches = unfixable bugs
No. Ever seen a fatal bug that necessitates patching immediately after purchase in a console game? Because of the dedicated and standard hardware, not only do developers have an easier time developing games but they can reliably make them bug-free to begin with.
More money coz it's easier and trendier to buy a console rather than a PC.
What? The profit margin for consoles is fucking insignificant in comparison to PC software, unless you're Nintendo. Very few people that have a console don't also have a PC.
Doesn't mean it's better though. Ever compared GTA: Vice City on PC and PS2? For the more hardcore among thee, there's Mafia... and there's a significant difference in fun between the PS2 and PC versions. How bout the classic PC Baldur's Gate 2 vs PS2's Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance? What about strategy games, turn-based or RTS?
RTS games simply don't work on consoles, but that's an interface problem. Besides that, what the hell are you on about? Ever play Resident Evil 4 on a PC? No, you haven't because it's a console title. If it were cross-cross-platform, it would require one damn monster of a PC to render. Which would cost you what, upwards of US$1000? As opposed to playing it on the GCN, which would cost you maybe US$170 max, software, hardware and required periphs (a memory card...) included.
Paying an extra eight hundred buckazoids for the same game doesn't make you 'hardcore', it makes you a fucking moron.
Consoles are dedicated gaming machines. They can provide high-end performance at a much lower cost because they're designed to do only one thing well. The standard hardware, devkits and manufacturer support makes then exceptionally developer-friendly, leading to better games.
PCs are great, and I say this as someone who uses a computer more hours a day than he sleeps, but they aren't jesus' gaping rectum of gaming goodness.
In this country, you could get a PC twice as powerful as the latest console at about the same price. Much, much cheaper power-cost ratio if you wait a few years.
No. Seriously, no. Consoles are designed with specialized game-oriented architecture that lends them performance superior to what their specs would indicate. Even if that weren't the case, MICROSOFT AND SONY ARE SELLING AT A LOSS. If they can't build a machine with exactly the power of the latest console at exactly the cost of the latest console, even given Sony's ungodly in-house manufacturing facilities and MS's third-party love, how in the blue centipede-packed vagina universe can you possibly expect anyone you believe you could?
Can't play X-Com 2 on an X-Box 360
Uh, if you were 'hardcore' you could. Easily. You could do it on an original Xbox if you wanted.
Just a quick note, I found the PC Baulders Gate games to be crap, I tried to play them and like them, but didn't. I ten times more fun with 4 PS2 pads and 3 friends.
Strategy games, Advance Wars is probably the most addictive TBS game I have ever played. It's simple, effective, and great fun.
I just want a DS port of Master of Orion 2 with wifi, then my life would be completely over.
Fatal bugs CAN exist in console games. The only difference is that they KNOW they can't fix them with a patch, so they make damn sure that there's nothing wrong with the game when it's out. It's not about hardware commitment, it's about developer commitment. And developers are a lot more commited when it comes to something that makes more profit (and can generate a hell lot more loss with a fatal bug).
By today's standards, the PS2 and Xbox are trash compared to the average $500 PC, which is one of the main reasons that so many people look forward to the 360, PS3, and Revolution. You might need to fork out $1000 for the big, ugly PC to play a console-equivalent, but in a few years, all it takes is $30 and you'll have a graphics accelerator twice as powerful and a PC version twice as pretty as the console version. AND you don't have to go out and buy a new PC 480 to play the latest games.
Games for the PS2 and original XBox will no longer be made in a few years from now, meaning that you've just wasted a whole lot of money on something that's no longer useful. But for PCs, while they may be a bit slow when you neglect to upgrade them, you can still use them for a few years. Heck, I've played Civilization 4 and The Movies on a PC I had BEFORE the PS2 even existed. How much did the whole PC cost me? Only the RM 335 (about $80) I spent on the graphics card + DVD-writer. The rest was salvage . MS and Sony may be selling at a loss now, but in half a decade, their top secret modern technology will be so obsolete, people would just laugh at the specs. And they're still selling at a loss, till the expensive new PS4 comes out.
And on costs, what about the expensive 8 MB memory cards on the PS2? Hardly enough for a fun game. Sure, PC games can't store anything on 8 MB, but there's usually more memory than you ever need to worry about. 120 GB hard drives are cheap these days, compared to the state-of-the-art 20 GB XBox drive, which still won't be enough for The Sims 4.
Sure, you can play X-Com 2 on an XBox if you really wanted to. But just the same, there are ways of playing Resident Evil 4 on a PC.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Fatal bugs CAN exist in console games. The only difference is that they KNOW they can't fix them with a patch, so they make damn sure that there's nothing wrong with the game when it's out. It's not about hardware commitment, it's about developer commitment.
So you say that fatal bugs can exist in console software, but they don't. That's one hell of an argument you have there.
Again, the reason game-wrecking bugs don't exist in consoles is because the standard hardware means that if the game runs for the developer, it'll run for the consumer.
By today's standards, the PS2 and Xbox are trash compared to the average $500 PC
Five-year-old console software, averaging at $500 at launch (five years ago), is equivalent to a present-day $500 PC in terms of gaming. Think about that.
And no, they're hardly 'trash'. Look at Far Cry, a game with excellent graphics by PC standards. It has been ported as a sequel to the Xbox, and from what I've heard it's even better than the original.
You might need to fork out $1000 for the big, ugly PC to play a console-equivalent, but in a few years, all it takes is $30 and you'll have a graphics accelerator twice as powerful and a PC version twice as pretty as the console version. AND you don't have to go out and buy a new PC 480 to play the latest games.
Twice as pretty? I want some of whatever the hell you're smoking.
Console hardware, at least in the last few generations, has been relatively future-proof. They're designed to allow for future developments and generally have many times the processing capacity utilised by launch titles, as demonstrated by the Far Cry example.
Games for the PS2 and original XBox will no longer be made in a few years from now, meaning that you've just wasted a whole lot of money on something that's no longer useful.
Useful for five years, though. And it's not as though you have to throw it out when a new machine comes along. Fuck, I still play my NES and I'm still collecting games I never got to play the first time around. Not to mention the homebrew scene.
Heck, I've played Civilization 4 and The Movies on a PC I had BEFORE the PS2 even existed. How much did the whole PC cost me? Only the RM 335 (about $80) I spent on the graphics card + DVD-writer. The rest was salvage .
"The rest was salvage." Right. So that makes it free? I could build a Gamecube out of parts of other Gamecubes, that means nothing.
And it's four years old, ja? The same age as the Xbox? I can guarantee you the Xbox could play ports of both games without an upgrade.
Oh yeah. There's an Xbox, PS2 and GCN version of The Movies already.
The PS2 is five years old, by the way. Seems unlikely you could have had a four-year-old computer since before it existed.
And on costs, what about the expensive 8 MB memory cards on the PS2? Hardly enough for a fun game. Sure, PC games can't store anything on 8 MB, but there's usually more memory than you ever need to worry about. 120 GB hard drives are cheap these days, compared to the state-of-the-art 20 GB XBox drive, which still won't be enough for The Sims 4.
The X360 HDD is an ordinary sata drive. Why do I get the feeling you don't know what you're talking about? People are already replacing them with off-the-shelf HDDs.
Sure, you can play X-Com 2 on an XBox if you really wanted to. But just the same, there are ways of playing Resident Evil 4 on a PC.
That's wonderfully irrelevant and has nothing to do with your original point, which I'll remind you was "Can't play X-Com 2 on an X-Box 360." But in any case, no there aren't. There are no decently-working PS2 or GCN emulators yet. Hell, the best GCN emu plays like two commercial games.
So I guess the disappearing bugs in xbox games ive played online were just my imagination. No way the developers could have fixed them with a patch. . .
For the most part, I agree with Radix in almost every way possible .
X-Box 360 has some good stuff, perfect dark looks average but it has games like a new ninja gaiden on the horizon. ps3 will have metal gear and the final fantasy series. revolution will have Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc etc. PC will have...high resolution graphics...
PS3 will have the best graphics, slightly better than X360. Revo will have the worst graphics but the most original games, and possibly the best (metroid prime 3 omfg). damn fan boys. im a nintendo fanboy at heart but you can at least admit other consoles have good games. damn kids these days.
But if that feature was added to MMF2 we would have to wait even longer for it. I very much doubt it was be feasible for someone to make an extension that can compile rom images for any given console.
"PS3 will have the best graphics, slightly better than X360"
how so? doesn't it depend on the games? They're supposed to be very close aren't they? Maybe potentially it's better graphically but I don't pay attention to technical crap that comes from the actual companies and the ps3 isn't even out yet.
I am really not much of a gamer, therefore I like the PC more than anything else. For games the PC is probabally not the best choice, but since I already have one that is what I use for all of my really high-tech games. As for the others, they are all for either my DS, my GBA, or my GB. As you can see I only have Nintendo systems, so I can't really make a good comparison, but all of my systems have been dropped, kicked, frozen in a car, and heated in a car. After all of that, only the DS's touch screen broke, and Nintendo replaced it for free.
If I had an Xbox or a PS2 I probabally wouldn't upgrade to the next-gen version because really the only new features in either one are faster proccesors and built in Wi-Fi connectivity. If I had a GameCube, I would probabally upgrade to the Revolution because it acctually has cool, useful new features. Maybe it's just me, but I think Nintendo is really the leader in technology, while everybody else is just sorta following. I also think that Nintendo has the widest variety of games; XBox has mostly violent, gory, shoot-em-up kinda games (my parents would never let me buy one of those); the PS2 is better, but it still doesn't have as many as nintendo. As I said, you will probabally never see another game that's all about dogs. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think Nintendo is really the way to go when it comes to consoles. For now, I think I'm happy with my computer.
Radix...
Assuming you have the at least half the average kliker's technical knowledge, I'm sure you know that fatal bugs can exist on any system. You don't find them in consoles, but then again, they're hard to find on PCs as well (unless it's one of those expensive applications, which are loaded to the brim with fatal bugs. Though the part about the standardized hardware helps.
If you really think that $500 PCs these days are equivalent to old consoles, either PCs are helluva expensive in your place, 4 years out of date, or you're buying from a crappy PC manufacturer like Dell. $500 is more than enough to get me a nice 3 Ghz Pentium IV, 512 MB DDRAM, a 80 GB HDD, and one of those old, crappy graphics cards (which still exceed the XBox's) with a TV-out so I can play it on my massive plasma screen TV (if I had one). Far Cry ran perfectly well on the computer I bought 3 years ago and I've never even modified a thing inside.
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
Salvage for PCs is very, very easy to obtain. All you have to do is look in salvage pit of some university or fairly stable company that throws out perfectly good PCs to replace them with the shiny latest ones just so they have something to finish their budget money on. Finding scrap GC's in a university's trash? Not very likely.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD. Kinda annoys me how some idiot electronic engineering undergrads out there used to compare it's l33tness to the PS2's 8 MB memory card. PC scrap r0x0rs the latest Microsoft hardware technology any day .
Finally, while you can technically play X-Com 2 on an PS2, where's the fun in that? Personally, while I'm good enough at PS2 Quake II and FIFA 2004 for all my buddies to gang up on me in them, I still can't use an analog controller as well as a mouse. All in all, I feel more control having 3 fingers on a mouse & 3 on the arrow keys over a thumb on analog and another on the arrow keys.
Playing a PS2 game on a computer is nothing. Forget emulators, all you have to do is plug in a PS2 card into the computer. With a TV-out gfx card, you can plug it straight to the TV and play it like an actual PS2. I've seen a buddy who owns a cyber cafe do it when he needed more PS2s, and the game ran like a charm on his scrap computer-PS2 thingy. Though I'm not really sure whether those cards are legal in all countries and I think the drastically falling prices are making the actual thing cheaper than the card..
However, I still respect controllers on console games. I think wierd games like Black & White and Darwinia with those miracle gestures would actually do better on them. And Fight Night R2 used them very nicely. I'm looking out for Nintendo's latest controller, as well as one I'm planning to make once I get out of uni .
Yeah, Clickteam should focus on handheld game portability. Their attempt to get into the the 3D world sucked bad... should at least focus on finding a bigger market for something that already works decently.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
AndyUK: It wouldn't really need to be built-in to MMF. Someone would have to make an interpreter/runtime for the target hardware, and then you'd attach it to a specially compiled source to form the ROM or whatever.
Muz: Come on dude, give it a rest. Your initial comment was clearly ignorant. Just quit embarrassing yourself.
I'll keep responding to you, but remember all of these were originally your points, all you're doing is repeatedly throwing up smokescreens after I show where you're wrong. It's getting tiring.
Assuming you have the at least half the average kliker's technical knowledge, I'm sure you know that fatal bugs can exist on any system. You don't find them in consoles, but then again, they're hard to find on PCs as well (unless it's one of those expensive applications, which are loaded to the brim with fatal bugs. Though the part about the standardized hardware helps.
For the second time I must reiterate this point: fatal bugs can exist on console games, but don't. The reason for this is irrelevant, and it is extremely common for one to have to patch a PC game directly after purchase.
You claimed: Non-existent patches = unfixable bugs. However, significant bugs do not emerge on console games.
If you really think that $500 PCs these days are equivalent to old consoles, either PCs are helluva expensive in your place, 4 years out of date, or you're buying from a crappy PC manufacturer like Dell. $500 is more than enough to get me a nice 3 Ghz Pentium IV, 512 MB DDRAM, a 80 GB HDD, and one of those old, crappy graphics cards (which still exceed the XBox's) with a TV-out so I can play it on my massive plasma screen TV (if I had one). Far Cry ran perfectly well on the computer I bought 3 years ago and I've never even modified a thing inside.
We're talking about playing games. You claimed: By today's standards, the PS2 and Xbox are trash compared to the average $500 PC. However, consoles 5 years old are capable of playing games comparable to cutting-edge cgames on the PC without an upgrade.
You said that. And despite the fact that it's a false claim, even considering that a five-year-old, 500-dollar console is comparable to a contemporary $500 PC shows the superiority of dedicated hardware in the realm of games.
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
This is the four-year-old PC that's older than the five-year-old PS2, yeah?
Salvage for PCs is very, very easy to obtain. All you have to do is look in salvage pit of some university or fairly stable company that throws out perfectly good PCs to replace them with the shiny latest ones just so they have something to finish their budget money on. Finding scrap GC's in a university's trash? Not very likely.
Completely fucking irrelevant. You can get anything no-cost, that doesn't decrease the value of the hardware. Your magical time-travelling PC has a value. That value plus the cost of upgrades is the expendature required to play contemporary games. That cost will be significantly greater than the one-time expendature of a console, which itself has a play life of five years without upgrades.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD.
No you weren't. You're backpedalling. I'm sure this is fairly evident to everyone.
Finally, while you can technically play X-Com 2 on an PS2, where's the fun in that?
You claimed: Though if they ever made a good-looking remake for that game on any console, there might be a chance that I'd buy one. I doubt the motivation for this is lack of fun.
Playing a PS2 game on a computer is nothing. Forget emulators, all you have to do is plug in a PS2 card into the computer.
Console-On-Cards are what it says on the can. It's console hardware on a card. If I plug my Master System into a TV, that doesn't mean the TV is playing Sega games.
Radix, you should know me by now. I never argue to prove that I'm right. I just do it for the sake of having something to argue about .
It's true that significant bugs don't emerge... but the lack of patches means that those that somehow might slip in to a rushed release mean that the game is doomed. The only difference is that jerks like Microsoft don't go all, "Oh, sorry about the major security flaws, blue screens, fatal crashing. But it's not our fault you didn't download the patch". You won't even FIND the really buggy, yet fun games on consoles, e.g. Temple of Elemental Evil, Uplink, Fallout Tactics, etc. Despite the higher profits of console games, smaller companies without proper QA and testers will never make console games because of this patch deal.
However, consoles 5 years old are capable of playing games comparable to cutting-edge cgames on the PC without an upgrade. You said that. And despite the fact that it's a false claim, even considering that a five-year-old, 500-dollar console is comparable to a contemporary $500 PC shows the superiority of dedicated hardware in the realm of games.
The 5 year old console is only able to play the contemporary $500 PC game when that game is severely downgraded, with lots of chunky, blocky, graphics, and things that use processing power taken out (like AI and physics). Compare any contemporary PC game to its console equivalent... unless it's a sports/racing game, any reviewer will say that the PC one is far more fun. Not sure about Far Cry, though, haven't tried the console version. But I'd say that most games I've played on both... Prince of Persia: SOT, Max Payne, FIFA 2004, Counter-Strike, Quake II, are a lot more fun on the PC.
Dedicated hardware means nothing if the game is no more fun . Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
This is the four-year-old PC that's older than the five-year-old PS2, yeah?
No, no, it's the PC that's that's EVEN older than the 4-year old PC, the PS2, the XBox, but not as old as the PS1. Got 2 PCs, one stuffed with preservatives, the other one still fresh, new, and capable of running the best PS2 and XBox equivalent games at full quality and higher resolutions. Also have other salvaged PCs, but let's not get to that .
Completely fucking irrelevant. You can get anything no-cost, that doesn't decrease the value of the hardware.
Value != cost. Supply & demand, buddy. There be excessive supplies of valuable PCs, while there just aren't many scrap consoles. That makes the cost of valuable PCs significantly lower than that of equivalently powerful consoles. A PS2 goes for an average of $100 at Ebay. All I can do to get something better is find a scrap pc at one of the unis, then buy a $50 graphics card and a $50 to get something better.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD.
No you weren't. You're backpedalling. I'm sure this is fairly evident to everyone.
What I said was 120 GB hard drives are cheap these days, compared to the state-of-the-art 20 GB XBox drive. If that doesn't sound like sarcasm to you, I guess there's just too many noobs in the community .
Yes, I'd play an X-Com 2 remake on an XBox, especially if the gfx were as nice as Halo, but the original just isn't worth porting over to a console.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
It's true that significant bugs don't emerge
Yes, it is.
The 5 year old console is only able to play the contemporary $500 PC game when that game is severely downgraded, with lots of chunky, blocky, graphics, and things that use processing power taken out (like AI and physics).
Untrue. Console architecture is specifically designed to handle things like physics and graphics, and downgrading ports of PC games doesn't happen anymore. Unecessary details like high-res textures tend to be removed because they'd be invisible on an ordinary TV.
Compare any contemporary PC game to its console equivalent... unless it's a sports/racing game, any reviewer will say that the PC one is far more fun.
Untrue, and I don't know where you're pulling this from. It's probably often true PC-to-console ports of FPS games, but hardly exclusively, and you'll find the opposite happening with console-to-PC ports.
Dedicated hardware means nothing if the game is no more fun
Does it make them less fun? Hardly. This lends nothing to your claim, even if true (and it's subjective so I'll not bother).
Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
That's great, but we're talking about games. Nobody's saying you shouldn't have a PC, but I don't expect my stereo to make toast.
The state-of-the-art comment was clearly sarcasm, but that doesn't mean you didn't intend the rest of the paragraph to be a serious argument, which you clearly did. You were suggesting that the Xbox HDD is inferior to a PC HDD, yet the Xbox HDD is a PC HDD.
SNES games can very easily be emulated on a PC . As well as the Sega Gen.. er Megadrive.
There's quite a difference between high-res and low-res textures on TV, quite obvious when you compare some of the prettier high-res textures like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance to say... GTA 3. And when it comes to games where your face is often against the wall, it makes a huge difference .
Hmm... I'm not sure what game you mean from a PC-to-console port or vice versa, but it seems that all my favorite games work out that way. My main trusted reviewers are usually Gamespot and XPlay. I don't know why I bothered but it seems that just about every game I typed in on GS, except the horror games got higher ratings on the PC. Some, like the Total War series, don't even exist on consoles. But after all, when you port a PC game to a console, you'll have to chop down on graphics and memory loading/saving, but by porting a console to a PC, you don't lose anything except maybe an analog controller and it's vibrator.
I was suggesting the XBox HDD is inferior to a PC HDD in terms of costs. You could buy a 120 GB HDD for the price that some people are willing to pay for the XBox one. The serious argument was on the idiocy of the people praising something that's existed for years .
Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
That's great, but we're talking about games. Nobody's saying you shouldn't have a PC, but I don't expect my stereo to make toast.
Another remark saying that the PC can do yet another of the "main features" of the XBox 360. Don't get me wrong... it's a good thing, but dammit... you could do that with any roadside PC. Of course, I don't have to tell you guys that, but I've probably had to repeat it to almost every other layman 360 fanatic.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I wouldn't call them main features. I mean, they shouldn't be. There's a heap of bloaty crap on the X360 because MS are trying to push their media center garbage.
You should be aware that Gamespot is a terrible website. Its reviews, in fact any of its content, mean jack shit.
The point was that while PC-to-console ports (mainly FPSs, as most other genres benefit greatly from a console interface) may rate lower, console-to-PC ports will also rate low. Its a problem with porting, not the hardware.
On high-res textures: televisions take analogue input at around a resolution of 640x480, although the effective resolution is greater due to the natural sort of blur filter you get on TV CRTs. So porting over high-res textures that would be used in PC games by some players is pointless. This is another factor in why current-gen (next gen hasn't really started yet) consoles can handle modern games competently: they're rendering at 640x480 per frame, as opposed to the 1024x768p/f or whatever the upper limit is on PC cards.
Next-gen will be different, with HDTV support (although since the Rev is dropping it they'll have a graphical advantage on analogue displays).
I must say, the new gen consoles look quite impressive, but I'm going to stick with my PC for gaming because I prefer the types of games you can get on a pc, mainly RTS and FPS. I would choose the precision of a mouse and keyboard over a controller any day, especially for those types of games.
PC games are also significantly cheaper. Xbox & PS2 games cost around £30 here in the UK, and xbox 360 games £40, PC games typically cost around £18-25 for the new releases, £27 at the most unless you're shopping somewhere awful. That doesn't sound like much but if you buy a lot of games that extra few pounds adds up to quite a bit. Also with the PC you have a huge back catalogue of games where you're bound to find something decent you haven't played yet which costs next to nothing.
Edited by the Author.
-
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
1st December, 2005 at 12:40:52 -
"You should be aware that Gamespot is a terrible website."
Perhaps you want to back that up Radix? I use GameSpot regularly and I agree with its reviews 95% of the time. Compared to IGN it's brilliant.
My godfather (wow I love saying that) brought his US import Xbox 360 over today, hooked it up to my HDTV and I gotta say it does look nice in HD. None of his games interested me though. much like the original Xbox when that first came out. until I realised I liked Halo 1 and bought it purely for that game. even HD graphics doesn't make it a fun console to play, as little game makers ourselves we all know that graphics mean shit.
This was only my 720p room TV. it would probably have looked better on the downstairs 1080p. if it even supports 1080p.
@Radix and Muz: Your argument is getting pointless, I'm not even bothering to read the most recent "additions" because they all sound the same. The PC and Consoles both have their advantages and disadvantages, end of argument.
Natress: Both Gamespot and IGN have built themselves terrible reputations (though like phizzy I use GS for trailers as well as IGNs database). Their rating system isn't consistant, hell Gamespot's bias against MS is the stuff of fucking legend. Their reviews, and articles especially, are packed with innaccuracies and I often wonder if they've actually played what they're talking about. Who are these two big sites owned by again? There's no way they can be impartial.
@CCC: Yeah, the DS is the best handheld system out there (as I've already said, all of my systems are handheld so I can't really compare it to non-handheld systems). I really like it because of all of it's original games and it's super cool features (Dual Screens, a touch screen, a good microphone, Wi-Fi, Stereo sound, Wireless networking, ect...). I think nintendo will be able to do a lot with this system as long as they don't forget about it when the Revolution comes out.
Yeah, the argument was getting pointless. I still prefer PC any day, considering that you could play just about any game most consoles could handle on one. I'd rather spend money buying new upgrades to my comp rather than buying a new console to cope with the ever increasing standards of the game industry. I kinda wish
GS is OK for the most part. At least they bother to add a 'tilt' criteria to their ratings. If you know a better review site, let me know. There are far, far worse reviewers. One reviewer once rated a really great game I know as "too difficult", but screenshots show that the reviewer forgot to don on any weapons and armor.
Are you sure that's the Gamespot I know? Like all people, they sometimes make their mistakes and their review on Empire Earth II makes me question their judgement a bit, but overall, they're OK. I see no evidence of any bias against MS at all... if they did, they'd have an easy time beating up Age of Empires III.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Can I just go back a few posts and agree on the DS being a fantastic piece of equipment? I've never loved a game so much as Mario Kart DS, Advance Wars is digital crack and Nanostray is second only to Ikaruga. I haven't really played much on my Cube or Xbox since the DS.
Anyone seen the Japan sales figures for Animal Crossing? in 3 days it sold 300,000. it took Nintendog's a week to get 150,000. Animal Crossing is going to own the handheld world. though i've never played the cube version
Jimmi, what you said is extremely true, animal crossing and nintendogs RULE, animal crossing more so perhaps, it really depends if you like interation-simulation games like that though i suppose, which i certainly do.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
. I dare anyone to find me a Sony appliance that could be used for 3 years without breaking (besides the PS2).
