What does the x-box 360 have to offer?

[mrstickball]

shio said:

mrstickball said:

And how many good RPGs are released on Xbox 360? I checked Gamerankings, and it said there were only 15 RPGs out for it, in almost 3 years. Then I checked decent rated RPG exclusives and 360 only had Lost Odissey, Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata and Enchanted Arms.

While PC had in the last 2 years:

The Witcher - 80.9%
The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar - 87.2%
Neverwinter Nights 2 - 82.1%
Tabula Rasa - 78.9%
SpellForce 2: Shadow Wars - 78.9%
Titan Quest - 80.1%
Space Rangers 2: Rise of the Dominators
Dungeon Runners - 78.8%
Pirates of the Burning Sea - 77.0%
And some more...

In it's lifetime, Xbox 360 only had 9 games over 70% rated.... while PC had 35 games over 70% in the same period. Ofcourse I can't personally judge the quality of them since I didn't play them.

And how many of these aforementioned games are MMOs? I am sure that if you like MMORPGs, the PC is the platform of choice. Unfortunately, last I checked, Tabula Rasa, LOTR: SoA, DR and Pirates are all MMOs, and not traditional RPGs. So then you have just the Witcher, NWN, Titan Quest, and Spellforce for traditional signle-player RPGs.


1000 Euro, but at that time the Euro was weaker or around the same as the American Dollar. And we're talking about 5 year old systems... does a 5yo Xbox play today's games? No.

Ah. So we're talking about a $1,500+ USD (via old conversion rates when it was purchased) not being able to handle anything remotely new or graphical versus a $200 Xbox that can't play X360 games. Brilliant.

A 2 years and 8 months old 1000$ PC would definitely play all games currently (2y and 8m was around release of X360), but an upgrade would be wise. Btw, at that time the Xbox 360 cost 400$.

I won't argue that. But again, a $1000 PC would play them OK, and it's still $600 more than a X360.

Rock Band was never the type of game that was on popular on PC, but recently Guitar Hero franchise seems to have found some profit, because they're now releasing them on PC.

Mega Man 9.... sory but there's higher quality and innovative free games than that. If we do want to compare it to a game of the same pricepoint, then there's Audiosurf.

Army of Two....lol.

Battlefield: Bad Company... ok, probably a good game from what I heard. But there's Battlefield Heroes coming to PC (and is free) in the summer, plus the inevitable PC exclusive Battlefield 3.

Facebreaker... might be decent, but it definitely isn't in hte league of Spore and Dragon Age.

Other 15 titles? Maybe if you count the DS games, PSP games, and the milked NFL, NCAA, NBA sports games.

My point was/is that you can list a few piecemeal exclusives like the Sims or Spore, but console-side exclusives are far more prolific at this point in time. Remember when every good RTS, FPS, or Western RPG was exclusive to the PC? That was years ago. Now we see every RTS being on the X360, most major WRPGs, and every FPS being on the X360 or PS3. The PC has utterly failed at keeping it's market. Left 4 Dead, a game that would easily of been a PC exclusive 4 years ago is going to launch day-and-date on my 360. All the while we've seen a "few" console games go PC-side, and usually with little fanfare, or care.

Bullshit, I never heard someone say that in the 90's. Think, 10 years ago the graphics were primitive, and 3D was only starting to take baby steps.. there was still a HUGE amount of progression in terms of visuals.

Then you weren't in the PC circles I was in. Thats what some felt was the case - that games were making slow progress (primarily still 2d), and that "modern" $2,500 PCs would handle gaming for quite some time. My brother just got a freebie USB Flash Card that holds more memory than that said $2,500 PC I got in 95. Times change, and graphics will always get better. Did you ever think that 5 years ago, we'd be seeing quad-core PCs generally available to the public, and 1TB HDDs all the time? I didn't. Yet it's the same logic that drives the graphical argument.

The technology is also much cheaper than 10 years ago. When $1000 only lasted you 3 years, 10 years ago... Today, with that same price, it will last you 6 years of playing ALL games, and 4 more years of playing some more games.

I will gladly agree that technology is much cheaper. I paid $2,500 in 1995 for a top-of-the-line PC of the day with monitor and a free printer. I could get a comparible computer (in terms of relative preformance) for about $1,500 w/ monitor. Nevertheless, I still believe that a middle-range computer is going to not be able to play games for as long as you'd believe. And video game systems are just as argued - again, the PS2 is still getting a ton of games, and with Persona 4 selling over 150,000 units first week, I don't think you could argue that an 8 year old PC at any sort of decent price would of had the same longevity that any given PS2 has had.

I think that's it for now. Again, PC gaming is OK if you really want to invest the time and patience into spending THAT much cash on a gaming medium. Feel free to do it if you like.

 But as a hardcore PC gamer since buying my first PC in 95, PC gaming has changed, A LOT. And all for the worse. 13 years ago, PC games were 90% exclusive to their medium, and surpassed console gaming in nearly every medium aside from platforming, and JRPGs. You couldn't buy an RTS, FPS, Western RPG, play online, have decent save files, have decent 2d/3d graphics, and a pleothora of other advantages that the PC market enjoyed.

The console world never saw the likes of quality WRPGs like the Betrayl series, or Fallout, or Elder Scrolls. Only a few elite FPS games such as Doom or Quake saw renditions on the SNES, N64 or PSX, while the majority of the genre (Wolf 3d, Rise of the Triad, ect) never saw any love on such systems. But 2008 is totally different. As a Xbox 360 owner, I get all the Western RPGs I could care about in Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and so on. I get great FPS games like Halo, and Call of Duty.

I actually get Real Time Strategy games such as Command & Conquer, and will be getting World in Conflict and Red Alert. However, in addition to the old hardline PC-exclusive genres that the 360 (and to a much lesser extent, PS3) has, I'm actually getting platformers, JRPGs, and other typical console-exclusive genres. So I'm getting the cream of the PC world for under half the price. Argue as you like, but it's rather useless. Unless you like upgrading your computer a lot, or play tons of MMOs, the PC isn't as viable as it used to be.

Technology is getting cheaper, and the entry point on gaming PCs is indeed better, but technology in consoles is far more capible, and viable for long-term market strategies for companies.And look at what the top games are for each medium:PC:World of WarcraftXbox 360:Halo 3The difference? WoW is a 5 year old game with atrocious graphics that get installed on 5 CDs.

Halo 3 is a top-notch FPS with high-end graphics. One can easily see that with the implosion we've seen on PC game sales where things are ending up: visually stunning games like MGS4, Halo, Gears, and the like are multi-million sellers. On PC, you either have to be an MMO or something like the Princess Bride game to do well in the market. I know this because I work for a PC gaming company. Guess which way we're going? Catering to lower-specced PCs, because that's the only market that's viable anymore. Being able to run a FPS like our recent Tribes sequel, Fallen Empire: Legions on an achient laptop computer makes you far more money than a Crysis that can be run on 15% of PCs. Thats why you see games like Trackmainia, Galactic Civs, Eschalon, WOW and other, lower-specced games getting pushed at lower price points: it's all that the typical PC gamer can afford to buy, and run on their PCs.