What a flop. Of something like 20 launch titles, 15 are mediocre or worse. And almost all of them have framerate issues because - you guessed it - its hardware sucks.
So, let's do a roundup:
Costs like $400 or something.
Has 2 good games (Perfect Dark, Project Gotham)
Every other game is mediocre or worse
Costs a handsome monthly fee for the luxury of multiplayer gaming with up to 16 players
Has a limit of 4 controllers
Is made by Microsoft
Now, here's a proposition for you. Let's say you buy an X360 - and not a bundled one that costs even more outrageously - and both of its games. You pay for a "Live" subscription for a few months. You've now spent at least 500 dollars, and more likely something to the tune of 600. Then you go out and buy a few controllers, the needed accessories, etc. 700.
Try this. Instead of doing that, buy:
2+ ghz cpu - $200
motherboard - $150
Some RAM - $150
Budget video card - $100
Voila! You've spent a hundred bucks less, can now surf the internet, send email, download music (legally of course), have free multiplayer for life (with as many as 128 players in a multiplayer game), have a wider game selection, decent controls, hundreds of peripherals, the ability to do things besides play games, the ability to play things besides just shooters and RPGs, and on top of it all, you didn't give microsoft a cent. Well, unless you bought Windows. Heh. Not likely. And hell, if you got a good deal, you probably got a dozen accessories thrown into the package.
Now, granted, I haven't actually played on one. But when every review says that Quake 4 has muddy textures on X360, and during even minor scuffles with baddies the framerate drops to less than 15 FPS... ugh. What a waste. I can't believe there were so many people dumb enough to buy into the hype. Hey, look at us, we paid a bunch of chicks and an out-of-work hobbit to jump up and down on an MTV special. And we have INTERCHANGEABLE FACEPLATES! Now your Xbox can be hip to your vibe! We is dah shit, yo! Xbox is dah future, we's got dah faceplate!
Xbox 360: Was I right or what?
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
You don't need framerates higher then 15 on a TV screen... Ugly TV methods of rendering pixles and motion bluring make 15 FPS much more comfortable on console then it is on a PC monitor.
I had little doubt the 360 would be a dissapointment, as will the revolution and PS3... The more hyped things are the worse they always end up. Sure cool stuff will come out for all 3 systems, but they are still hyped way above thier actual ability to preform.
I had little doubt the 360 would be a dissapointment, as will the revolution and PS3... The more hyped things are the worse they always end up. Sure cool stuff will come out for all 3 systems, but they are still hyped way above thier actual ability to preform.
Either way
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they're not really any worse than any of their competators. I'm avoiding the 360 becaue I just don't think there's anything there for me. Both MS and Sony are making games that are time-sinks - lengthy single-player adventure titles with the same little splitscreen tack-on multiplayer we've been seeing for a decade. Nothing new. I got bored of that stuff back on the PS1.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is trying new things. Most of my gaming is casual fun with non-gamers, so the Rev will be my only next-gen console.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is trying new things. Most of my gaming is casual fun with non-gamers, so the Rev will be my only next-gen console.
You say that more than 15 FPS isn't necessary on TV? Are you quite mad? Even the worst NTSC tv has a 60 refresh rate, which is why console games in general are expected to only give about 60 FPS. However, I can understand your argument. The problem is, it has a flaw - many X360 games, it would seem, such as the astoundingly horrid NBA '06, *REQUIRE* a HDTV or else you just won't be able to read the text because it's so tiny.
Furthermore, check this out. Regular TVs have a screen resolution maximum of about 640x480. HDTVs, depending on how much money you're willing to blow, can go about as high as 1024x768, but it's interlaced, so it's actually only 1024x384. I, with my 3-generation-old Radeon 9800, can play Quake 4 without dropping to 15 FPS at any time. AND I don't have muddy textures. And yeah, I'm playing at 1024x768.
"Next Generation"? My ass. Barely a step up from the original Xbox.
Furthermore, check this out. Regular TVs have a screen resolution maximum of about 640x480. HDTVs, depending on how much money you're willing to blow, can go about as high as 1024x768, but it's interlaced, so it's actually only 1024x384. I, with my 3-generation-old Radeon 9800, can play Quake 4 without dropping to 15 FPS at any time. AND I don't have muddy textures. And yeah, I'm playing at 1024x768.
"Next Generation"? My ass. Barely a step up from the original Xbox.
BBC channels in the UK broadcast at DVD resolution which is somewhere around PAL 780x580, with more detailed versions for widescreen programs.
A lot of channels however use a smaller resolution and interlace their broadcasts. An example of this in the UK would be ITV ch4 and e4
The most people can see a noticeable difference once framerate drops below 25fps. Some people can see the difference between 29 and 30. All my televisions run at 60hz or above.
A lot of channels however use a smaller resolution and interlace their broadcasts. An example of this in the UK would be ITV ch4 and e4
The most people can see a noticeable difference once framerate drops below 25fps. Some people can see the difference between 29 and 30. All my televisions run at 60hz or above.
PAL TV's run at 100hrts if any good. Only older TV's run at 50hrts (so they update the screen with teh same image twice at 50, 4 times at 100)
PAL's resolution is better. Its also got nothing to do with DVD's as Alantai is suggesting, the resoultion taht it comes out on your TV was decided when they first uped teh TV resolution to teh current standards (way way long time ago befor i remember...)
25FPS is the lowest you can go befor you will notice the drop, hence why teh smart british chose to use it as teh frame rate, and have a greater resolution, as opposed to americans that decided that they needed a needless extra 5 fps. Also 25 is neatly half of the refresh rate of the TV (or 1/4 opn newer ones) so the images are always showen exactly teh same number of times...
Of course all this is irelevent when HiDef is around teh corner, (were once again... we british have it better!!
) and taht is infact what teh nexgen counsols were desinged for.
I dont like XBox 360, nor PS3, but im temped by teh waky contolls on teh Revolution. Atleast thats different from what i can do on my computer!
aGorm
PAL's resolution is better. Its also got nothing to do with DVD's as Alantai is suggesting, the resoultion taht it comes out on your TV was decided when they first uped teh TV resolution to teh current standards (way way long time ago befor i remember...)
25FPS is the lowest you can go befor you will notice the drop, hence why teh smart british chose to use it as teh frame rate, and have a greater resolution, as opposed to americans that decided that they needed a needless extra 5 fps. Also 25 is neatly half of the refresh rate of the TV (or 1/4 opn newer ones) so the images are always showen exactly teh same number of times...
Of course all this is irelevent when HiDef is around teh corner, (were once again... we british have it better!!
) and taht is infact what teh nexgen counsols were desinged for. I dont like XBox 360, nor PS3, but im temped by teh waky contolls on teh Revolution. Atleast thats different from what i can do on my computer!
aGorm
Yeah, it didnt seem worth it. But as a die-hard Perfect Dark fan...i really wanted to play it. Perfect dark is such a great game. I remember playing it with my cousins. They were all girls, and tipped and leaned the controller in the direction they wanted to go. It was funny. But when the Revolution comes out, all that tipping and leaning will be usefull. They just might win a few rounds :)
And PRG3 is awesome. I love that game!
What do you mean it "only supports 4 controllers"??? I dont want more than that. Imagine playing split-screen with 8 people. You would have a 3-inch viewing area!
I know im gonna get flamed for this, but i also wanted it for Halo 3. Even though Halo 2 was dissapointing, i still have faith in Bungie.
And PRG3 is awesome. I love that game!
What do you mean it "only supports 4 controllers"??? I dont want more than that. Imagine playing split-screen with 8 people. You would have a 3-inch viewing area!
I know im gonna get flamed for this, but i also wanted it for Halo 3. Even though Halo 2 was dissapointing, i still have faith in Bungie.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Well maybe the good games are gonna come later, but I heard that the hardware on Xbox 360 is really good stuff, especially the graphics card. It's a special card made by ATI, with shader technology that's not even available yet on the PC. I've been keenly watching Oblivion, which is developed for both PC and Xbox 360, and will probably be the best RPG ever made, and the developers say that the Xbox's GPU "cuts through their longest shaders like hot butter" and other nice stuff. So it seems you need a pretty high-end PC to match the Xbox.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
One word. Fallout.Gabba wrote:Well maybe the good games are gonna come later, but I heard that the hardware on Xbox 360 is really good stuff, especially the graphics card. It's a special card made by ATI, with shader technology that's not even available yet on the PC. I've been keenly watching Oblivion, which is developed for both PC and Xbox 360, and will probably be the best RPG ever made, and the developers say that the Xbox's GPU "cuts through their longest shaders like hot butter" and other nice stuff. So it seems you need a pretty high-end PC to match the Xbox.
You can't make the best RPG ever, simply because no RPG can ever beat fallout. It's just so futile to try.
[edit] some nice previews, it's like HL2 with shitty player models and way better gameplay!
Makes me kind of excited that bethesda got the licence to fallout after black ile crashed.
You seem to have made a typo. You misspelled the best RPG ever. It's spelled S-T-A-R C-O-N-T-R-O-L T-W-OSwiftSpear wrote:One word. Fallout.Gabba wrote:Well maybe the good games are gonna come later, but I heard that the hardware on Xbox 360 is really good stuff, especially the graphics card. It's a special card made by ATI, with shader technology that's not even available yet on the PC. I've been keenly watching Oblivion, which is developed for both PC and Xbox 360, and will probably be the best RPG ever made, and the developers say that the Xbox's GPU "cuts through their longest shaders like hot butter" and other nice stuff. So it seems you need a pretty high-end PC to match the Xbox.
You can't make the best RPG ever, simply because no RPG can ever beat fallout. It's just so futile to try.
[edit] some nice previews, it's like HL2 with shitty player models and way better gameplay!
Makes me kind of excited that bethesda got the licence to fallout after black ile crashed.
Meh, im more into games where skill or tatic based combat is used and stress the mind. Most RPG's i play are bland easytouse shit, where the combat is 1: Same old counter system 2: Autoattack or the very smilar"This attack wins".
"Use fire to kill ice!"
"OMFG USE "L33t sp33l that kills everything" NOOOB!!!1!!!"
And thats why i hate MMORPG's and refuse to pay 5$ a month to play em. That and that they attaract 10 yearolds.
AND WHERE IS MY ADVENTURE-MMO? Hell, where is my multiplayer Adventure game? I DEMAND OOT WITH SEVRAL CHARATERS!
Ontopic?
The X-Box is totaly fine with me. I don't think the paying for online service is good. Yay, i pay for an extra fee + internet and can play Halo 3 with pepole? But wait, why stop paying that fee and play some other games on PC instead of console? this way, you don't have to use shitty sticks, you can have a mouse and keyboard witch is like 50 times better for FPS's and strategy games. Ops, Consoles don't have Strategy games that don't suck, whops, my bad.
Consoles should be a thing for mulitplay when you have(real) pepole over! Like " yo man wanna go over to my place and play some halo? Ya, sure"
Not for you to be antisocial and sit in your room playing with other suckers.
No, thats what PC's are for!
PC's have MUCH better thingys for being antisocial! You can order pizza so you don't have to leave your aparment, you can meet pepole who laugth at the same penis jokes as you, you can aculy play many fun games FREE and you don't have to leave the comftyness of your chair.
In short, im not really fond of any online service for consoles. ESPACILY if they cost money.
Grapichs wise... It's cool, but still recomend a PC if your a grapichs junkie/nazi.
meh...
EDIT: Diablo is aculy dispised bye most real RPG users. It's hack and slash. Click and point. Like starcraft, cept with more wepons, less units, much less strategy.
EDIT2: Oh, and: IM bAcK!
"Use fire to kill ice!"
"OMFG USE "L33t sp33l that kills everything" NOOOB!!!1!!!"
And thats why i hate MMORPG's and refuse to pay 5$ a month to play em. That and that they attaract 10 yearolds.
AND WHERE IS MY ADVENTURE-MMO? Hell, where is my multiplayer Adventure game? I DEMAND OOT WITH SEVRAL CHARATERS!
Ontopic?
The X-Box is totaly fine with me. I don't think the paying for online service is good. Yay, i pay for an extra fee + internet and can play Halo 3 with pepole? But wait, why stop paying that fee and play some other games on PC instead of console? this way, you don't have to use shitty sticks, you can have a mouse and keyboard witch is like 50 times better for FPS's and strategy games. Ops, Consoles don't have Strategy games that don't suck, whops, my bad.
Consoles should be a thing for mulitplay when you have(real) pepole over! Like " yo man wanna go over to my place and play some halo? Ya, sure"
Not for you to be antisocial and sit in your room playing with other suckers.
No, thats what PC's are for!
PC's have MUCH better thingys for being antisocial! You can order pizza so you don't have to leave your aparment, you can meet pepole who laugth at the same penis jokes as you, you can aculy play many fun games FREE and you don't have to leave the comftyness of your chair.
In short, im not really fond of any online service for consoles. ESPACILY if they cost money.
Grapichs wise... It's cool, but still recomend a PC if your a grapichs junkie/nazi.
meh...
EDIT: Diablo is aculy dispised bye most real RPG users. It's hack and slash. Click and point. Like starcraft, cept with more wepons, less units, much less strategy.
EDIT2: Oh, and: IM bAcK!
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Agorm, BBC broadcast at the same reolution as DVD 4:3 dimensions because DVD's use those dimensions and resolutions together. They did this because of the push for digital television. That doesnt mean that that is the standard resolution of PAL, PAL can run at many different resolutions.
When the TV recieves the signal it changes it into the required format to display be ti cinematic widescren, 4:3 with black abrs at the side etc...It's all a matter of how clear it shows up on your television when you try to read the text.
Try watching Aliens on dvd, not the latest remastered one, when i play ti on ym TV it's interpolated and I can see the black lines if I go up close, doesnt mean ym TV displays it squashed though..
When the TV recieves the signal it changes it into the required format to display be ti cinematic widescren, 4:3 with black abrs at the side etc...It's all a matter of how clear it shows up on your television when you try to read the text.
Try watching Aliens on dvd, not the latest remastered one, when i play ti on ym TV it's interpolated and I can see the black lines if I go up close, doesnt mean ym TV displays it squashed though..