just bought Xbox360, regretting it now I think

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: supastar1568
played CS:source for about 2 years. Tried out Socom Multiplayer for the PS2.

Socom could not even compare.

I love the all out mayhem availible on PC games. BF2 64 players. Whats Halo 16 max?

How could you expect it to compare when you go from a higher end pc to the very slowest of the consoles?

Contrary to what the general populace says(they say PS2 is the god of anything), I find the PS2 to be both insufficient for both gaming needs and paper weight usage.

All PS2 games fall under one of these two categories: A. The graphics are okay(by console standards), the framerate is sub 30 99% of the time. B. The framerate is 60, the graphics are terrible.

99% of all PS2 games have terrible, terrible load times.

99% of all PS2 games are crap.

Of course there is that 1% of games that are worth it, with Gran Turismo being one of them.


Now that I have expressed my justified dislike of the PS2, the thread may continue.

Let's have some more statistical information, shall we?

99% of assholes insult a console without unbiased facts.
99% of retards flame a console just because it has lower-based hardware than a console that came out months after its release.
99% of buttheads compare a console to top-of-the-line systems that come out years after its release.
99% of idiots attack a console before playing any games on it thoroughly.
99% of crackheads only flame a console because they have no knowledge of its true value.

You have a reason to be proud. You fit into all 5 categories

L337 PWNEGE

I know my fair share of both consoles and pc games, here is what I have to say. Consoles are great for what they do (play games :shocked: ). You don't have the many many issues associated with pc's (viruses, spyware and all that crap, incompatibilitys and much more). Not that the consloes have no issues, but not nearly as much as pc's do. All you do is turn it on and play your game.

You never have to upgrade anything for the life of the system (other then buying extra accesories). Consoles cost MUCH less then gaming pc's. Granted pc's can do other things then gaming, but we're comparing gaming here so that's what counts. I have xbox live and its great, you can talk to people and have a list of your friends, but that's straying from the point.

Also games for consoles get better and better throughout the life of the system (graphics wise) and can't say the same for pc's without upgrading graphics card (which btw cost as much as a conolse or even twice as much for bleeding edge i.e. sli) every like 3 years or so. So each one brings different things to the table. Sure games will look better when you have a leet system, but try playing those games on a budget gaming pc and see which one looks better.

Originally posted by: Gomce


Maybe it's the current game lineup: PGR3 (joke), COD2 (compared to a 6800Ultra/X800XT+ PC is a dissapointment), and the other games in the lineup are nothing to write home about.

Are you joking? COD2 runs terribly on pc...

 

[solgae1784]

ahhh but there's really no choice if you're a diehard Final Fantasy fan........

 

[Shadow Conception]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: supastar1568
played CS:source for about 2 years. Tried out Socom Multiplayer for the PS2.

Socom could not even compare.

I love the all out mayhem availible on PC games. BF2 64 players. Whats Halo 16 max?

How could you expect it to compare when you go from a higher end pc to the very slowest of the consoles?

Contrary to what the general populace says(they say PS2 is the god of anything), I find the PS2 to be both insufficient for both gaming needs and paper weight usage.

All PS2 games fall under one of these two categories: A. The graphics are okay(by console standards), the framerate is sub 30 99% of the time. B. The framerate is 60, the graphics are terrible.

99% of all PS2 games have terrible, terrible load times.

99% of all PS2 games are crap.

Of course there is that 1% of games that are worth it, with Gran Turismo being one of them.


Now that I have expressed my justified dislike of the PS2, the thread may continue.

Let's have some more statistical information, shall we?

99% of assholes insult a console without unbiased facts.
99% of retards flame a console just because it has lower-based hardware than a console that came out months after its release.
99% of buttheads compare a console to top-of-the-line systems that come out years after its release.
99% of idiots attack a console before playing any games on it thoroughly.
99% of crackheads only flame a console because they have no knowledge of its true value.

You have a reason to be proud. You fit into all 5 categories

who are you again?

Not someone you know. I just registered a week ago

 

[Sonikku]

Hooray for judging hardware by using only one piece of software.

Personally, I think for the $400 I spent, I couldn't get better performance in ES4 or Call of Duty 2 and what not. I'm satisfied.

 

[BFG10K]

it's the DVD drive making the noise,

Wow, it must suck to watch movies on that thing then.

(And no, it's not the drive that makes the noise, it's the system cooling solutions).

 

[essasin]

Besdies emulators and watching movies, the majoirty of the time I played xbox for two games. Halo and halo 2. I will prob only play halo3 for the most part on xbox 360. I much rather game on a computer.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

it's the DVD drive making the noise,

Wow, it must suck to watch movies on that thing then.

(And no, it's not the drive that makes the noise, it's the system cooling solutions).

It spins the discs at a lower speed when watching movies, and yes, it is the drive. They switched models (from Hitachi to Samsung, IIRC) in newer consoles.

- M4H

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: supastar1568
played CS:source for about 2 years. Tried out Socom Multiplayer for the PS2.

Socom could not even compare.

I love the all out mayhem availible on PC games. BF2 64 players. Whats Halo 16 max?

How could you expect it to compare when you go from a higher end pc to the very slowest of the consoles?

Contrary to what the general populace says(they say PS2 is the god of anything), I find the PS2 to be both insufficient for both gaming needs and paper weight usage.

All PS2 games fall under one of these two categories: A. The graphics are okay(by console standards), the framerate is sub 30 99% of the time. B. The framerate is 60, the graphics are terrible.

99% of all PS2 games have terrible, terrible load times.

99% of all PS2 games are crap.

Of course there is that 1% of games that are worth it, with Gran Turismo being one of them.


Now that I have expressed my justified dislike of the PS2, the thread may continue.

Let's have some more statistical information, shall we?

99% of assholes insult a console without unbiased facts.
99% of retards flame a console just because it has lower-based hardware than a console that came out months after its release.
99% of buttheads compare a console to top-of-the-line systems that come out years after its release.
99% of idiots attack a console before playing any games on it thoroughly.
99% of crackheads only flame a console because they have no knowledge of its true value.

You have a reason to be proud. You fit into all 5 categories

Since you appear to enjoy the PS2, how about you prove to me that it is not what I stated?

99% of PS2 fanboys defend the PS2 for no reason other than the fact that they are slaves to the will of a single company.

I have owned a PS2, and have never truly enjoyed its library of games. I do not need solid facts as to why I dislike a PS2. Enjoyment and dislike are two things that are all about opinions. Stating one is better than the other and being challenged on it with the basis of lacking solid facts is like having like someone stating Democrats are better than Republicans and then being told to prove it. They cannot prove it as it is an opinion. Likewise, the challenger cannot prove otherwise.

Here are a few facts nonetheless:

For one thing, every single multi console game will run the worst on the PS2, that is solid fact.

Another, it is a fact that I(myself) enjoy the likes of Halo and Super Smash Bros. more than I do Jack and Daxtor or Gran Turismo.

I have stated earlier that the PS2 does have its moments with a few games, but if you just go down a list of every game on the PS2, you will find a far higher difference in ratio of good to bad games on the PS2 than you would have on another console. Did you know that Sony is the only console company that allows ANYONE to make a game for their console? Sony is the ONLY console company that has no guidelines or qualifications that a game must pass to be on its console. Because of this, there is no question as to why there is so much trash on the console.

You are likely to state that other consoles have garbage games as well. Yes, they do. However, PS2 has a far greater ratio of bad games to good games than either of the other two consoles.

The PS2 requires you to buy a multi tap just to play with more than two people.

The PS2 requires you to buy a hard drive or network adaptor just to play online.(This is also necessary for Gamecube, however it has only two online games that nearly no one plays, so it is not necessary to speak of)

PS2 is simply slower than the other two consoles.

Your facts have been provided.

Also, I did not compare a console to a high end pc. Someone else did, and commented on how terrible the PS2 was. I simply asked how could the individual expect anything more.

Lower hardware is no excuse. PS3 is comming out around a year after Xbox360, possibly more, and it will be no faster(assuming Sony's current specs are final), contrary to popular belief. Even if the Xbox 360 does end up to be slower, you will not hear me complaining, because it is fast enough to be competitive. The original Xbox has more than twice the power of the PS2, so the difference is quite large. That will not be the case with the PS3 and Xbox 360.

What is the PS2's true value? $149?

Just because I do not like the PS2 does not mean you have to defend it. Regardless of what you say, I will not like the PS2, I have tried and have not ended up with success, so defending it to me is pointless. If you like it and I dislike it, so what, what does it matter. I will end up buying an Xbox 360, another will buy the PS3, so what? I find the whole argument rather pointless actually. Arguing two opinions will never come to a settlement. Let each have their own and live in peace. Good Day :thumbsup:

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: supastar1568
played CS:source for about 2 years. Tried out Socom Multiplayer for the PS2.

Socom could not even compare.

I love the all out mayhem availible on PC games. BF2 64 players. Whats Halo 16 max?

How could you expect it to compare when you go from a higher end pc to the very slowest of the consoles?

Contrary to what the general populace says(they say PS2 is the god of anything), I find the PS2 to be both insufficient for both gaming needs and paper weight usage.

All PS2 games fall under one of these two categories: A. The graphics are okay(by console standards), the framerate is sub 30 99% of the time. B. The framerate is 60, the graphics are terrible.

99% of all PS2 games have terrible, terrible load times.

99% of all PS2 games are crap.

Of course there is that 1% of games that are worth it, with Gran Turismo being one of them.


Now that I have expressed my justified dislike of the PS2, the thread may continue.

Let's have some more statistical information, shall we?

99% of assholes insult a console without unbiased facts.
99% of retards flame a console just because it has lower-based hardware than a console that came out months after its release.
99% of buttheads compare a console to top-of-the-line systems that come out years after its release.
99% of idiots attack a console before playing any games on it thoroughly.
99% of crackheads only flame a console because they have no knowledge of its true value.

You have a reason to be proud. You fit into all 5 categories

Since you appear to enjoy the PS2, how about you prove to me that it is not what I stated?

99% of PS2 fanboys defend the PS2 for no reason other than the fact that they are slaves to the will of a single company.

I have owned a PS2, and have never truly enjoyed its library of games. I do not need solid facts as to why I dislike a PS2. Enjoyment and dislike are two things that are all about opinions. Stating one is better than the other and being challenged on it with the basis of lacking solid facts is like having like someone stating Democrats are better than Republicans and then being told to prove it. They cannot prove it as it is an opinion. Likewise, the challenger cannot prove otherwise.

Here are a few facts nonetheless:

For one thing, every single multi console game will run the worst on the PS2, that is solid fact.

Another, it is a fact that I(myself) enjoy the likes of Halo and Super Smash Bros. more than I do Jack and Daxtor or Gran Turismo.

I have stated earlier that the PS2 does have its moments with a few games, but if you just go down a list of every game on the PS2, you will find a far higher difference in ratio of good to bad games on the PS2 than you would have on another console. Did you know that Sony is the only console company that allows ANYONE to make a game for their console? Sony is the ONLY console company that has no guidelines or qualifications that a game must pass to be on its console. Because of this, there is no question as to why there is so much trash on the console.

You are likely to state that other consoles have garbage games as well. Yes, they do. However, PS2 has a far greater ratio of bad games to good games than either of the other two consoles.

The PS2 requires you to buy a multi tap just to play with more than two people.

The PS2 requires you to buy a hard drive or network adaptor just to play online.(This is also necessary for Gamecube, however it has only two online games that nearly no one plays, so it is not necessary to speak of)

PS2 is simply slower than the other two consoles.

Your facts have been provided.

Also, I did not compare a console to a high end pc. Someone else did, and commented on how terrible the PS2 was. I simply asked how could the individual expect anything more.

Lower hardware is no excuse. PS3 is comming out around a year after Xbox360, possibly more, and it will be no faster(assuming Sony's current specs are final), contrary to popular belief. Even if the Xbox 360 does end up to be slower, you will not hear me complaining, because it is fast enough to be competitive. The original Xbox has more than twice the power of the PS2, so the difference is quite large. That will not be the case with the PS3 and Xbox 360.

What is the PS2's true value? $149?

Just because I do not like the PS2 does not mean you have to defend it. Regardless of what you say, I will not like the PS2, I have tried and have not ended up with success, so defending it to me is pointless. If you like it and I dislike it, so what, what does it matter. I will end up buying an Xbox 360, another will buy the PS3, so what? I find the whole argument rather pointless actually. Arguing two opinions will never come to a settlement. Let each have their own and live in peace. Good Day :thumbsup:

wow. you started it, and NOW you are trying to take the moral high ground? :roll:

 

[dguy6789]

wow. you started it, and NOW you are trying to take the moral high ground? :roll:

Started what? Someone stated that they were disappointed with going from a high end pc to a ps2. I asked why would they expect anything more. I certainly did not start anything.

If someone goes from a Celeron 2.8Ghz to a Celeron 3Ghz and then complains about it, and I ask them how they could expect an improvment, that is starting an argument?

I do not like the PS2. I can openly state it. I even provided evidence as to why I dislike it.

This forum has quite the double standard. If I went and made a thread titled: "AMD is Great" not one person would challenge it and say I started an argument. Just because my opinion is not that of the majority, people get angry. Those who get angry need to learn tolerance. Many people have different ideas, and I respect them all. While you and I may disagree, I respect your opinion as your own and will not insult it. I may say as to why I disagree, but you will not catch me saying "Your stupid" or "Your an *******". I have no problem discussing things with people. We are all people, with differing opinions. Put downs and insults are unnecessary and do not progress the conversation.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Gomce
Was interested in the techonology and went and bought Xbox360 Premium (console, hard drive 20gb, wireless controller, headset (joke lol), adapter brick (lol))

Hardware Impressions:

Pros:
- Nice looking, solid build (dvd tray look kinda frail tho) although nothing special if you ask me
- Easy to grasp and use interface
- mp3 support, dvd playback (heh), network connectivity
- xbox live out of the box

Cons:
- No VGA out
- no DVI / HDMI out
- the console is too loud for my taste, 2 or 3? high speed (probably 3000rpm or so) 80mm fans
- Cables are bulky
- No Wifi, cmon, wifi chips are like $5 or something
- powerbrick too big
- the headset is a joke

---------------

Games:
Bought the console with Project Gotham Racing 3. Wow, what a load of crap. I used to play Gran Turismo 3 on PS2, 2 years ago, and if you rate Gran turismo 7 for gameplay and 5 for visuals (out of 10), I'd rate PGR3 3 for gameplay and 4 for visuals (considering it's next gen and expectations are higher)

PGR3 is not even an arcade, it's a joke. Need for speed franchise is a so-so arcade type of game, Gran Turismo is 70% of being the perfect simulation. PGR3 is like the 1980's cart racers on the arcades now ported to 3d, utterly dissapointed, played it like 15 minutes, opened the tray and returning it tommorow.

I'm not a fanboy. Im a realist.

Xbox360 as things stand now is a flop.

Maybe it's the current game lineup: PGR3 (joke), COD2 (compared to a 6800Ultra/X800XT+ PC is a dissapointment), and the other games in the lineup are nothing to write home about.

This is the first console that gets beaten by a PC even at launch, usually takes 1y+ for PC games/hardware to catch up and surpass a launching console.

I'm keeping the console and waiting for the new game lineup. I've seen some trailers of upcoming games and I hope the console delivers. PS3 delay is probably good, it will help the underdog (Microsoft / Xbox360) to gain some ground, this will help the competition and in the end us, consumers.

Xbox360 will probably collect dust for the next 3 months beside the SonyPSP while I play Oblivion, Star was: empire strikes back, Need for speed most wanted, Battlefield 2, Cod2, fear, far cry, colin mcrea 2005, godfather, gta san andreas, etc...

------------

Conclusion: If you have a PC in the lines of rig#2 (in my signature) or better, don't buy Xbox360 just yet, wait until some true next game titles show up.

Um it has wifi.. and it has VGA... and logitech has a kick ass headset for it.. what do you expect?
the system is already sold at a LOSS..

I use Wifi and the VGA cable on mine works great..

your review is poor and uninformed..
and yes Im a PC gamer
and the media center extender features of the 360 make it worth it to me without even havign a game system to it..

 

[BDawg]

Someone actually *wants* to use DVI/HDMI? I refuse to support this standard.

 

[BlacKJesuS]

MY QUESTION IS....why didnt you run over this stuff BEFORE you got the system...........................................................

 

[stardrek]

I would just like to throw in why I think the XBOX360 is a good system and some of its limitations in my eye.

I like the fact that I can connect it to my TV and have a Hi-Def means of watching movies that I can stream from my media center PC. I can stream any music that I want into any videogame and it automatically replaces the soundtrack of that game with what I?m listening too. You can still shuffle, advance, fast forward, rewind or do whatever you would with an independent sound system but have it nicely integrated with what I?m currently doing. The controllers are wireless and give nice feedback to what is going on in the game. I like the group atmosphere that a console can have with many people in the same room, experiencing the same sounds and visuals allowing everyone to express themselves face to face throughout the gaming experience.

Also, the dedicated hardware allows for some incredible graphics. When you have dedicated hardware you can make some amazing games because you know the exact limits and advantages of the hardware you are programming for. This is the only place that a PC looses. There is some sacrifice for compatibility across all of the x86 platform when it comes to the creation of games. Yes PCs can and do surpass XBOX360 visuals but for $400 you get something pretty amazing for at least a while. And programmers always figure out the best way to utilize dedicated hardware after a few years of a console being out.

Yes, a PC can do everything this console can. Yes it can do all of things better in almost all cases. But they tend to cost more and people don?t always have the room for PCs in their TV rooms. Being able to pull it out of the box, just plug it in, and have it up and running playing games in minuets is great.

I love my PC. I wouldn?t trade it for anything, accept a more powerful PC, but consoles do have a place in this world and it isn?t always for children. But isn?t it great that a child can just pick this up at a store and being playing games, even and extremely young ages? A large market always fosters the creation of great new products and I think the revolution will be a prime example of that. I can?t wait till a console or PC can interact on a more physical level with games. There are some of these now, the eyeToy shows that, but I mean a large pool of choices will come about. I for one am eager to see what is in store from both PCs and consoles in the next few years.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Someone actually *wants* to use DVI/HDMI? I refuse to support this standard.

Uh... are you maybe confusing HDMI with HDCP? HDMI is just DVI with digital audio bundled in the same cable -- and displays that can accept HDMI are also supposed to support HDCP (although not necessary devices that can output HDMI).

Or do you have some vicious hatred of DVI?

 

[stardrek]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Or do you have some vicious hatred of DVI?

DVI killed my family and raped my dog...I hate it...I hate it so very very much.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Since you appear to enjoy the PS2, how about you prove to me that it is not what I stated?

I have a PS2. I like it. There, I proved you wrong.

I have owned a PS2, and have never truly enjoyed its library of games.

Another, it is a fact that I(myself) enjoy the likes of Halo and Super Smash Bros. more than I do Jack and Daxtor or Gran Turismo.

If you don't like the games, you don't like the games, and you will therefore obviously not like the console.

If you are into RPGs, the PS2 has the best selection of games. If you are into driving sims, the GT series is probably still the best (although Forza has its moments).

For one thing, every single multi console game will run the worst on the PS2, that is solid fact.

You would have to define 'run the worst' a little better, but I would not argue that the XBox and GameCube have better visual capabilities overall (and the XBox360, of course, kills them all). Load times also tend to be worse on the PS2. I'm willing to overlook that sort of thing if the games are good enough.

I have stated earlier that the PS2 does have its moments with a few games, but if you just go down a list of every game on the PS2, you will find a far higher difference in ratio of good to bad games on the PS2 than you would have on another console.

I admit, there are a lot of bad games on the PS2. On the other hand:

1) The PS2 has a MUCH larger software library than either the XBox or GC, especially given that it can run all PS1 games.

2) Because it has that larger library, even with a bigger proportion of bad games, there are still a LOT of very good games on the PS2.

The factor that matters is the number of games on the console that you want to play. If a console had 10 absolute must-have games and 500 horrible ones, it might still be worth purchasing. Just look at the XBox; there's IMO nothing all that good except Halo, and MS sold millions of them.

Did you know that Sony is the only console company that allows ANYONE to make a game for their console? Sony is the ONLY console company that has no guidelines or qualifications that a game must pass to be on its console. Because of this, there is no question as to why there is so much trash on the console.

Non sequitur. I don't see that as being 'without question' why there are a lot of bad games on the PS2.

Since for years it had the largest install base, it often was the console of choice for games that were not going to be multi-platform. Many of these are cheaply-developed titles from smaller publishers, and would have been bad games even on another platform.

Developers have also complained that the console is difficult to develop for in general, making it more likely that a game will run badly or not look as good as it potentially could.

The PS2 requires you to buy a multi tap just to play with more than two people.

A legit gripe if you often have friends over to play on the console.

The PS2 requires you to buy a hard drive or network adaptor just to play online.(This is also necessary for Gamecube, however it has only two online games that nearly no one plays, so it is not necessary to speak of)

I don't have a PS2 for online play, so this is irrelevant to me, but it is an issue if you want to use it online.

PS2 is simply slower than the other two consoles.

I don't care about speed if the games are good.

What is the PS2's true value? $149?

I'm not sure what you mean by "true value"; the cost of the hardware? Significantly less than $149 at this point, I would think.

Just because I do not like the PS2 does not mean you have to defend it. Regardless of what you say, I will not like the PS2, I have tried and have not ended up with success, so defending it to me is pointless. If you like it and I dislike it, so what, what does it matter. I will end up buying an Xbox 360, another will buy the PS3, so what? I find the whole argument rather pointless actually. Arguing two opinions will never come to a settlement. Let each have their own and live in peace. Good Day :thumbsup:

Basically... yes.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: BDawg
Someone actually *wants* to use DVI/HDMI? I refuse to support this standard.

Uh... are you maybe confusing HDMI with HDCP? HDMI is just DVI with digital audio bundled in the same cable -- and displays that can accept HDMI are also supposed to support HDCP (although not necessary devices that can output HDMI).

Or do you have some vicious hatred of DVI?

I confused HDMI with HDCP. Still unsure why someone would use HDMI/DVI instead of component, given the choice (unless you're hooking up to a computer monitor).

From what I remember reading, component has around 2x the bandwidth of DVI. Most TVs only have one HDMI/DVI but at least 2 component.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Still unsure why someone would use HDMI/DVI instead of component, given the choice (unless you're hooking up to a computer monitor).

Single-cable connection for audio and video. End-to-end digital connection (nigh-immune to interference, potential 1:1 pixel mapping, no picture adjustments) if you are plugging into a digital display like a plasma or LCD.

From what I remember reading, component has around 2x the bandwidth of DVI. Most TVs only have one HDMI/DVI but at least 2 component.

Component is, IIRC, about the same bandwidth as single-link DVI, but both can do 1080p, so they're pretty much equivalent for HDTV use. Dual-link DVI (as used on big LCD monitors) can support much higher resolutions than component.

Input restrictions can be a problem unless you run everything through a video switcher that supports DVI, and those are expensive.

 

[stardrek]

Originally posted by: BDawg

From what I remember reading, component has around 2x the bandwidth of DVI. Most TVs only have one HDMI/DVI but at least 2 component.

Analog signals are continuous waves that can represent an unlimited number of values.
From a technical standpoint analog has near unlimited bandwidth.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Gomce
Maybe it's the current game lineup: PGR3 (joke), COD2 (compared to a 6800Ultra/X800XT+ PC is a dissapointment), and the other games in the lineup are nothing to write home about.

Heh, you couldn't figure that out before buying? All the demo machines in the stores had COD2 since the launch, and PGR3 a little later. I compared COD2 to the PC version and said no thanks. I get playable framerates at 1280x720 with the same quality on my low-midrange X700 Pro (with admittedly some bugginess. one mission crashed the computer with DX9 rendering on). PGR3 plays like Metropolis Street Racing on the DC (it's a sequel of it). It's fun for an arcade racer, but not a must-have.

I have a PS2 slim too. I bought it because GTA San Andreas was a PS2 exclusive before the PC version came out. It's a fun game despite the graphics, not because of them. Plus GT4 is fun. Even with the low-tech vintage graphics, it has a lot of fun games, and there's always a lot of bargain bin and used games in the stores.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Gomce
Maybe it's the current game lineup: PGR3 (joke), COD2 (compared to a 6800Ultra/X800XT+ PC is a dissapointment), and the other games in the lineup are nothing to write home about.

Heh, you couldn't figure that out before buying? All the demo machines in the stores had COD2 since the launch, and PGR3 a little later. I compared COD2 to the PC version and said no thanks. I get playable framerates at 1280x720 with the same quality on my low-midrange X700 Pro (with admittedly some bugginess. one mission crashed the computer with DX9 rendering on). PGR3 plays like Metropolis Street Racing on the DC (it's a sequel of it). It's fun for an arcade racer, but not a must-have.

I have a PS2 slim too. I bought it because GTA San Andreas was a PS2 exclusive before the PC version came out. It's a fun game despite the graphics, not because of them. Plus GT4 is fun. Even with the low-tech vintage graphics, it has a lot of fun games, and there's always a lot of bargain bin and used games in the stores.

LOL.. PGR3 is way closer of a "Sim" racer than GT4 and the other GT series..
Horrible graphics bad physics..
crappy licensing system and what about online?

PGR3 is 100x the game GT wanted to be.

it is a release must have and it is most certainlty "next gen".
CoD2 isnt half the game on PC or 360 that PGR is... beat CoD2 1 time youve seen it all..
where PGR offers lifetimes of playability.

 

[Lasthitlarry]

IMHO: Consoles are for party gamers. That's what I love about the XBOX, getting 3 other friends and fragging each other or others on Halo 2.

I prefer PCs of course, since I enjoy pc's, and online gaming, and single player gaming, and mouse and keyboard are MUCH better than gamepads.(mouse has much better precision).

The XBOX 360 and PS3 are ultimately marketing tools for non, lite, spoiled kid, or party gamers. The architectures are much more advanced than games developed today can handle, and the systems are not worth buying as of yet, since the games won't be great until a year or two.

This is just programming standard sense, have you tried playing Starcraft on a dual core system and saw any difference at all from your Pentium 3?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: stardrek
I would just like to throw in why I think the XBOX360 is a good system and some of its limitations in my eye.

I like the fact that I can connect it to my TV and have a Hi-Def means of watching movies that I can stream from my media center PC. I can stream any music that I want into any videogame and it automatically replaces the soundtrack of that game with what I?m listening too. You can still shuffle, advance, fast forward, rewind or do whatever you would with an independent sound system but have it nicely integrated with what I?m currently doing. The controllers are wireless and give nice feedback to what is going on in the game. I like the group atmosphere that a console can have with many people in the same room, experiencing the same sounds and visuals allowing everyone to express themselves face to face throughout the gaming experience.

Also, the dedicated hardware allows for some incredible graphics. When you have dedicated hardware you can make some amazing games because you know the exact limits and advantages of the hardware you are programming for. This is the only place that a PC looses. There is some sacrifice for compatibility across all of the x86 platform when it comes to the creation of games. Yes PCs can and do surpass XBOX360 visuals but for $400 you get something pretty amazing for at least a while. And programmers always figure out the best way to utilize dedicated hardware after a few years of a console being out.

Yes, a PC can do everything this console can. Yes it can do all of things better in almost all cases. But they tend to cost more and people don?t always have the room for PCs in their TV rooms. Being able to pull it out of the box, just plug it in, and have it up and running playing games in minuets is great.

I love my PC. I wouldn?t trade it for anything, accept a more powerful PC, but consoles do have a place in this world and it isn?t always for children. But isn?t it great that a child can just pick this up at a store and being playing games, even and extremely young ages? A large market always fosters the creation of great new products and I think the revolution will be a prime example of that. I can?t wait till a console or PC can interact on a more physical level with games. There are some of these now, the eyeToy shows that, but I mean a large pool of choices will come about. I for one am eager to see what is in store from both PCs and consoles in the next few years.

*cough*revolution*cough*physical*cough*

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: CVSiN
LOL.. PGR3 is way closer of a "Sim" racer than GT4 and the other GT series..
Horrible graphics bad physics..
crappy licensing system and what about online?

PGR3 is 100x the game GT wanted to be.

OK, I have to admit. Metropolis on the DC did have better physics in many ways than GT. The mid-engined cars were much more twitchy and harder to drive. The analog triggers beat the PS2, too. Maybe I'll try a mid engined car in GT4 with all driver aids off to compare. The Kudos system for drifting does take away from the "Sim" environment though.

Still, if the OP doesn't like PGR3 I wonder if he tried the demo in the stores first.