 |
|
#1
03-01-2003, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Just out of curiousity...
Would most people here prefer SR3 on the Xbox, Gamecube, or PS2? We all know there will be a PC version, so that's immaterial. Personally, I have all 3 systems, and I'd prefer an xbox version simply due to technical issues. Soul Reaver 1 was graphically impressive, SR2 and BO2 had varying degrees of visual mediocrity(Mostly in terms of character models, lighting and such, SR2 had some great environments, but pea soup fog.) and I'd really like to see the series actually look good again, so I'd push for a xbox exploiting version followed by cutdowns on other platforms if needed, rather than a lowest common denomenator creation.
|
|
#2
03-01-2003, 05:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I could settle for either/or any of the systems. In fact, I believe they will actually come out for all of them. (Xbox is a little shaky in sales, but I still think it's somewhat of a contender in the market).
I doubt that they will do the same thing they did with SR2 and sign an exclusive contract with any one of the aboved mention platforms. BO2's release on GC made it quite apparent that the intention is to go with multi-platform versions. Personally I didn't have many qualms with any game on any system that the games came out for. The PS2 version of BO2 was a bit "iffy" in aspects (as we are all well aware    ) but not enough to make me frown upon the series. Things happen, I am sure it will be taken as a "learning experience" .The PS2 version of SR2 had little things to nit-pick at as well (Sarafan Raziel's character model was painful to look at ), but again, it was a PS2 exclusive and I really didn't have an option to be too picky and really didn't focus too much on it. (BTW, I prefer console games as opposed to PC games, although I am broadening my horizons with a few PC-only titles I've recently addded to my collection). I have heard/seen nothing but good things from the Xbox and GC versions of BO2, (I've seen what the Xbox version looks like and have heard about the GC version) but I am still sticking to my guns and waiting for the price to drop on the Xbox before I rush out to buy it. (Either that or they start offering better titles to get for free if I want to buy one like, tomorrow ). I just found out that a title I have been anticipating for awhile is a GC-only exclusive so needless to say I really feel I will be purchasing a GC before I get around to the Xbox. (You would have thought I would've kept up on the title? ).
|
|
#3
03-01-2003, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
You people aggravate me.......
You know, I do not mean to be rude, or nasty, but you seem to have the same attitude as my friend justin. He seems to have this impression that his microsoft machine is superior to the "aging, and uncompetitive" PS2 in every respect. Now, I am fully aware of the statistical differences between the two machines, but let us ask ourselves, how much does it really matter? Let me ask you a question, and I am being honest here, I really want a truthful answer, I am not being snide or snotty. Do you really think that the xbox is so superior because it is new that the differences will be apparent? I for one have played BO2 on both consoles, and I noticed absolutely no difference at all. I honestly think that the only real advantage of the xbox is the fact that it has a hard drive, but that bell/whistle is eclipsed by the fact that every time i load a game up of my friends xbox, it takes two forevers to boot up. So, my question is, what is the real difference? That the xbox can push 2 more polygons a second than the PS2? Sorry, but that isn't worth my 300 dollars. And yes, the fog was aggravating on SR2, but it is just as bad on Morrow Wind(sp?) for the xbox, so that is a non-issue. I actually purchased my PS2 for the sole reason of playing SR2, and I have been totally satisfied with everything about it. As soon as I see a game that I get super excited about that is an xbox exclusive title, I might buy the machine, but I certainly will not buy one to play a game that "looks better on xbox", especially if the system I own is perfectly capable of running the game. Again, do not be offended, I wasn't lashing out, just trying to get some insight into the mind of the xbox lobbyists.
|
|
#4
03-01-2003, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only system that I have is a PS2, I bought mine the day it came out. PS1 had an awesome selection of games(most of which have sequils on PS2), moreso than N64 and Dreamcast so i stuck with Sony. I thought about getting a Gamecube just for Resident Evil but I'm hoping that Capcom will port RE1 and RE0 for the PS2(just like they did with Code Veronica)
|
|
#5
03-01-2003, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You people aggravate me.......
Quote:
A- On crack B- played some super magical copies that only you are aware of C-not very observant or D- All of the above Because I actually have played both versions. And the Xbox version loads quicker, has cleaner textures and has none of the glitches the PS2 version was plagued with. And what in flying purple hell are you doing comparing SR2 to Morrowind (on separate consoles!)? That's absurd, they were made quite far apart (SR2 came out 10/02 and Morrowind was released on 6/02) and comparing games on separate consoles is like comparing an apple to a donkey. Not only are they considered to be different generations of games but also you're comparing a console game designed for the PS2 to a PC game ported to the Xbox. And your friends Xbox boots slowly? Well I'd have that checked because mine boots up quicker than my PS2 (it's about the same boot up speed as the GameCube). Quote:
The thing is, the Xbox has the potential to have a superior version, because it is has the power to... the HDD does add a lot. It's up to the developer to make a specific version better than another. You can never use the argument of "do you honestly believe that it really matters" because it does, it can... and it has. But it's up to the developer to make that decision.
|
|
#6
03-01-2003, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
03-01-2003, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
........ research people
Code Veronica was designed specifically for Dreamcast...
The Resident Evil series is now contractually obligated to keep the series GameCube exclusive. Code Veronica was never under contract; it was simply a game made for one specific console in mind at the time.
|
|
#10
03-01-2003, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
X-Box rules shouts the fat kid in line to buy his favorite systems extra controller just so he can say he has a lot of microsoft stuff...
No! PS2 all the way yells the drug adict who just has a PS2 so he can play the GTA games... you are both wrong says a short japanese kid with real thick glasses Game Cube is by far better... PC says the old man........... THE CONSOLE WARS WHEN WILL THEY END?????? the facts are that PC is the best thing for gamers but in the long run costs a whole lot more to be updated and such.. The X-Box is the Best console but lacks a market to support it ( except for the hard core microsoft fans).. PS2 has the best games but lack in the graphics department... Gamecube has the best designers and over all quality but has no real market apeal for adults..... There really is no " Best System" it really just depends on the game 
|
|
#11
03-01-2003, 09:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 The Xbox obviously isn't the best console seeing that it keeps reporting a steady-drastic decline in sales upon every finanacial quarter. They had the market for the console when it came out but didn't market any blockbuster games for the stupid thing and people began to focus on other consoles. Why do you think they are pawning off their no-name titles along with the system lately? To attempt to generate the business and herd the sheep in to buy it. Unfortanately, their marketing strategy is a little late IMO, and their sales are reflecting it. It is hanging on by the skin of its teeth. They single-handedly did not take advantage of the market and let it slip through their hands. The PS2 has a wide variety of titles with excellent graphics. FF, DMC, ICO as well as other various titles. I will admit some of the games offered also have less than perfect graphics as well, but how much of that is actual developer error? Most of the masses here blame BO2 on developer error. I feel its a matter of some developers not being able to properly utilize the technology. It happens, especially with the early PS2 games, when the console was relatively new. It was something to adjust to. I will dispute your notion of Nintendo continuing with their "child-oriented gaming" strategy. Eternal Darkness, Soul Calibur 2, BO2, and even Resident Evil are geared to an adult audience and it is very clear to me that they are trying to market more in the direction of adults. So it has taken them a little longer than the "heavy hitter consoles", who cares? At least they figured out that was their problem and started to fix it. Out with the Pokémon and in with the Survival Horror. Why do you think its such a popular console? Because it's trying to shed a lot of it's "kiddie image". EDIT: Slight grammatical corrections. Last edited by Umah Bloodomen; 03-01-2003 at 10:04 PM.
|
|
#12
03-02-2003, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
stop being so goddamn stubborn
Quote:
And the supposed "decline of Xbox" is a little overstated there. The thing is, this always happens every generation and Microsoft and Nintendo have been trading places every 5 months for the "who is doing poorly" title. The truth is they're all doing fairly well, the gaming market has been making a lot of money these past few years and neither Microsoft or Nintendo are doing very badly, sure they're not doing as well as Sony, but they're fighting a good fight for second place in the run- and neither of them are pulling ahead in that race... it's neck and neck. In about 4 months you'll be reading on how Nintendo sales are down and Microsoft is doing a little better; it's just the nature of the market. The only reason Nintendo is doing better right now is because of their hot properties- Metroid Prime came out a bit ago and Zelda: the Wind Waker is just about to be released. Nintendo has a strong first party support, but Microsoft has a stronger third party support.
|
|
#13
03-02-2003, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
willow:
First up, from the manner of your response, I get the impression that you are another xbox fanperson. There was no need to insinuate that I am a drug user( yes I know it wasn't meant literally), nor was there any need for the line about 'super-magical' copies of games that only I am aware of. Now, I will admit that I wasn't perfectly clear in my earlier post. That is my fault entirely. I have not completed BO2 on xbox, since I do not as yet own one, this would be difficult for me to do. From what I did play, I perceived no noticable graphical differences, or if I did, they were of such small significance that I do not remember them, and nor did my subconsious begin screaming at me to purcahse the xbox. I cannot justify buying a console just because it can push slightly better graphics than another console. And as Umah stated earlier, the PS2 does just fine with what it has. I am sure that if the developers of BO2 had more time to play around with the PS2 hardware, they could have made that version just as "good" as the xbox version. As for the bugs, like I said, I didn't play the entire xbox version, for the aforementioned reason(see above), and so I didn't come to any point where I was expecting one of those notorious bugs. I can only conclude, from common sense, unfaltering faith in CD, and what you stated earlier that the programmers took care of that silliness. Nevertheless, that is a software issue, not a hardware issue, so who is now comparing apples and donkeys? Also, let us not forget that graphical prowess in a title is determined by the software just as much as by what the machine is capable of pushing. I do not think that you could put Super Mario Brothers on xbox and expect to get graphics comparable to Super Mario 64. As for comparing Morrowind to SR2, let me say this. I was comparing one instance of one to the same thing in the other, namely the fog that masks the inability of the software/hardware to render the entire visible environment at once. This is something that shows up in both games, regardless of console or generation. In fact, this tactic has been employed since the days of games like Turok: Dinaso' Killa. The point I am trying to make here is that no current console is so vastly superior to the others to make the others obsolete. This is the notion that aggravates me, that, and things like this: Quote:
I also have a few other issues with Microsoft's console. While I applaud the implementation of a hard drive, which eliminates the need to spend another $20-$30 on a memory card, I am befuddled at why one has to purchase a separate remote device to utilize the DVD feature. I guess you trade one for the other. Another problem is the controller. Much like the bulky and awkward dreamcast contoller, I have a hard time using the device. Nintendo and Sony, for the time being, have the best controller schemes, IMO. They are small, light, and comfortable, and I do not feel as though I am going to dislocate my thumb reaching for a button. Seanbaby of once made the statement that the Dreamcast controller "looks like a robot barfed on a boomerang." Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly, and will extend such sentiments to the current xbox controller as well. So, I actually have real problems with xbox. These sentiments are not emanating from the fact that I currently own a PS2 and a Gamecube. I don't feel that any console is better than the others to the point of necessitating my purchasing of a new console. However, all this anti-microsoft silliness is not to say that I will never purchase an xbox. That would make me a hypocrite after all of the fanperson bashing I just did. I actually enjoyed Morrowind, Halo, and a few others. However, given the sales of the xbox recently, I will more than likely wait until they have a solid foothold in the market before I waste money on another Sega-esque disaster(We all remember those, right?).
|
|
#14
03-02-2003, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I choose no sides, I only defend when I see something attacked.
Well allow me to clarify my standpoint. I am by no means an Xbox fanboy. I actually prefer my PS2 to it (as it has a better selection of games) but it's my business to notice differences for games as I review them. I have reviewed games for a number of years for various different game sites and publications and I'm now the senior editor for an upcoming site (it's under construction atm), so I actually have to look for the little differences. I in turn have every major console on the market (I actually have every major console released since the NES- but that's only because I collect them).
Also when I do a compare and contrast I hook games up to a 57in HDTV to view (otherwise I'm on a 37in tube)... so it may just be more obvious on that. You may also have only played the 'fixed' PS2 version that doesn't seem to have all the sound glitches and clipping problems that I encountered. But the textures are indeed cleaner and the game does load quicker on the Xbox version. And as far as calling you a crack head- that was a multiple choice question, and besides, anyone could see that it was meant in a jocular sense. If I didn't take it in a playful manner I would have been far worse- i.e. i would have called you ignorant or something to that effect- but I don't believe you to be ignorant so I didn't need to state it. And I am well aware of the use of fog- it's been around ever since we've had 3D games. And I was commenting on 'software' generation- not hardware generation. The truth of the matter is if they wanted to make the Xbox version superior to the others they can easily do it, basically if for no other reason being the HDD. It would be noticeably different to anyone, but that's a highly unlikely scenario. Again I state that multiplatform games are by no means designed to sell a specific console. they're designed to sell more units of that particular game. Ere go, it's not logical to make one version vastly superior to another as the developer doesn't want to inconvenience the consumer into believing they have to purchase another console- delaying the purchase of said game. You'll only notice large graphical differences in console exclusive games. FACT: -The Xbox is a superior console -hardware wise, it has the capacity to give a significant difference in graphical aesthetics. -That doesn't make it a better console. -The PS2 has a better third party support then any other console on the market. -The GC has better first party support than any other company in existence. Play what you like. But you asked for a truthful answer.... so I gave one to you; the Xbox has the power to make a noticeable difference, but it’s unlikely that developers will cater specifically to that, they’re more concerned with selling their game- not selling a console. Making one version overly superior to another only confuses the consumer into what to purchase.
|
|
#15
03-02-2003, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm in a rush, so I've just read the first post... sorry people!
Personally I think PS2 will exceed its limitations (as Sony so often do) but I don't know about the X-Box though. I have one (well, my brother does) but I wouldn't call it suprior, not by a long shot. Personally, X-Box and PS2 are equal, but I expect PS2 will improve in time to come, I mean, compare FF7 to FF8, then to FF9.... Okay there are no comparisons for the X-Box of this nature... but still... I'm a huge supporter of the PS2. I don't think game developers should "cutdown" (as you said) its graphics and whatnot, the formats are different for each console and its limitations understood. Sony have a nack for pushing their hardware... whereas Microsoft just expect it to do well by pushing money in to it. As for console wars... strange, that over the course of time - not one console has dominated the market (however hard they've tried...).
|
|
#16
03-02-2003, 03:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just to clarify, I was not bashing the performance of the Xbox. I don't own the system, and haven't played enough titles to formulate a clear-cut opinion. From what I have seen (with the little I've played of it) and what others have told me, it is a decent system and performs very well. I do plan on purchasing one but I don't feel that all of my support will be thrown behind it alone. My opinion was based on the marketing of the system. Microsoft keeps announcing a slow to steady decline in its sales, suggesting to me that the majority of game consumers are looking elsewhere for their entertainment (PS2 and GC respectively).
|
|
#17
03-02-2003, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right, I’ve had time to read it all now
 Umah hit the nail right on the head when she said: Quote:
I have not played the X-Box version of BO2 – so I shan’t comment on that, although I do agree that the PS2 version of SR2 was buggy. The scenery when going from area to area loaded in jerks, and I occasionally got the ‘Loading’ status on screen (without using any cheats, before anyone moans). I mean no disrespect to CD who have worked hard on the game series that I love, but that “jerking” just isn’t needed in today’s games with today’s hardware at their disposal. Quote:
When (of if ever) I get a job, I’m going to buy the GC – and the X-Box version of BO2 purely so I can comment on it, and not seem to be anti-console. In all honesty, I’m not – I just prefer one to the other…
|
|
#18
03-02-2003, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So then, willow, I take it from your last response that you agree with me on this particular statement made by the originator of this thread:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, btw willow, I do in fact have the first version of BO2, bugs and all. In my thirst for the next installment, I went to my local Gamestop and reserved a copy.
|
|
#19
03-02-2003, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Really the main Reason X-Box isn't doing spectactular is because you need to have a hold on the Japanese market. X-Box only has 4% Compared to the PS2 have a whopping over 80% majority. Really I've seen all three of the systems and the differences aren't really that far apart. I don't see the reason to have console wars. Eidos will make its decesion for the best of its customers like all respectable businesses do.
|
|
#21
03-03-2003, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
SR2 was one of the main reasons I bought my PS2. I can't afford to buy every console that comes out. It just makes things difficult one series is spread across a number of consoles. I'd be OK with it being on other machines as well as PS2 as long as they don't move away from it completely. For SR2 to be on both it would not be able to make full use of X-box or GC so that it wouldn't be to complex for PS2, but IMO graphics are getting so good on the newer consoles that the game would be just as enjoyable on PS2 as X-box.
Quote:
|
|
#22
03-03-2003, 11:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Lovely. another console war topic.....
this is gonna get really nasty everyone....
Here's my say though that's as unbiased as I can be: PS2 - all the best games available (IMO) aside fom the res evil series. The system may be dated but the Xbox is too seeing as it's just a PC in disguise. controller is pretty much perfect GAMECUBE - I think this console is amazing (and hope to buy one in the near future but probably won't do due to games not appealing the way they used to). The graphics and everything are really nice but the controller needs work. Wish they'd get rid of mario and co once and for all though, they really put me off nintendo Xbox - The controller is OK (better than NGC) and it is the most powerful. But so what? There aren't enough decent games to warrant this as a decent games console just because everything LOOKS prettier. And why is his thing so BIG???? honestly. VHS recorders are smaller than this thing IMO all games should be released on all consoles but perhaps with small differences. like soul calibur is doing. and I don't understand saying SR2 had AVERAGE graphics.. I think they're fantastic for a game that's so old now. The water looks fantastic. What is everyone's obsession with perfection? I'd sooner SR3 have the EXACT same graphics as SR2 if it made the game itself bigger and have more extras. Graphics mean nothing to me. I still enjoy some snes games! can you say chrono trigger?
|
|
#23
03-03-2003, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sorry for starting this topic, I was more interested in some kind of poll sort of a result, but in retrospect I was just stupid.
|
|
#24
03-03-2003, 03:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have no respect for ANYONE who could POSSIBLY EVER want to take Soul reaver to the Xbox. I'm done now
|
|
#25
03-03-2003, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Gates needs to do in the console world what he has already done to the PC industry. Before Microsoft, there was very little compatability between manufacturers creating the same hardware and software. (So if you bought an IBM PC, you had to get an IBM printer, and IBM monitor, etc.) Anytime a company decided to upgrade its system it was forced to use the same brand name. If the company decided to upgrade to a different brand name because of better features from that brand, they would have to spend a significant huge amount more because they would have to transport the entire system to the new brand, and none of the old systems would be compatible with any the new systems. So the entire life of the company would have depend on a single brand name, otherwise they would have to spend a huge fortune on upgrading the entire system.
When Microsoft came along, they did two important things. They set a single industry standard and introduced backward compatibility. Now Microsoft could combine hardware and software from a variety of different manufacturers into a single PC, thus enabling them to combine best features with the best price for each individual component. Now you could combine various components from different manufacturers and still create a quality product. Because parts were now made to similar standards and created to be backward compatible, it greatly frees the consumer to choose which options are most important and then pick among manufacturers for the parts that will meet the consumers demands. That's why I now have a PC that is a combination of a legion of different brand names and variety of different software packages - and the end result is a machine that beats the crap out of my step-dad's PC, despite the fact that his is a Pentium 4 and mine is only a Pentium 2. The only reason why I purchased a PS2 is so that I could play SR2. And since then, I have steadily added to my PS2 game collection. Switching to another console, or adding another console to go with my PS2 is just plain stupid and a waste of money. Even though X-box has a bunch of titles that are X-Box-exclusive that I would love to play, I will not play them unless they come out for the PS2. If Bill really wants to make an impact in the gaming world, then he needs to solve the current console problems rather than adding to already relevant weaknesses of consoles. Bill needs to help the consumer SAVE money, instead of adding another cash-draining console to the mix. The problems of the current gaming environment are these: 1 - Having to buy a new console because it has games not available on any other console. 2 - Having to buy a separate remote control. 3 - Having to buy a separate adapter in order to support multiple players. 4 - Having to spend big bucks to make your PC compatible on all the different gaming standards. 5 - Having a ton of awesome PC games that are not available on any console at all. 6 - Having to spend more cash on all the "extras" for your console. Even though the price has dropped to an average of $200 for the latest console, you can easily pay up to $600 after you have bought all the other parts needed for a "complete" system. Bill Gates will earn my money for a new console once he designs a system that solves all the problems of the current gaming industry. Mr. Gates needs to stop making consoles, and instead make an "entertainment system" that does all of the following: 1 - Can play any game regardless of the console it is meant for. 2 - Comes with a remote control standard with the package. 3 - Sold with standard multiple ports for multiple players. 4 - Sets a single gaming standard so that game manufacturers make games that are playable on any system. 5 - Is compatible with PC games so that you can play them even if you don't have a PC. 6 - Offer upgrades to the system for free when they decide to change something, the same way Web-TV accesses your unit remotely and automatically downloads the changes to your system. 7 - Includes at least two controllers of different colors in the package. 8 - Include all of the "extras" already built into the system. 9 - Does not need an additional part to make it internet-ready. 10 - Can be connected to a surround-sound system or to a stereo speaker system when you use the console to Play CD's. 11 - Has a built-in AM/FM radio that you can listen to also. 12 - Has a built-in harddrive for saving MP3 music (or the MP3 storage could be an optional feature) that allows you to listen to your favorite tunes while playing your favorite games. 13 - BASICALLY COMBINE THE BEST ASPECTS OF A CD-PLAYER, A DVD-PLAYER, AN MP3-PLAYER, AN AM/FM-RADIO, A PC-GAME-PLAYER, AND A CONSOLE-GAME-PLAYER ALL ROLLED INTO ONE SYSTEM. What we need now is a mating of the technologies for the PC, music players, internet, and television. A combination of all audio and video media. And make them all compatible and connectible the same way USB is making it extremely easy to add new components to your PC. If Bill Gates comes out with a system like that, I'd gladly pay the extra cash for a system that does it all. Or at least make each component so that they can be stacked, attached, and connected together so that the customer can purchase each desired component individually if necessary and then combine them together easily. I'd gladly pay more money for something like that.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:06 AM.