What does the x-box 360 have to offer?

[shio]

mrstickball said:

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.

So an RPG needs to be traditional in order to be considered an RPG? Oh god please forgive developers for wanting to branch out a genre through innovative projects!!! I guess we should criticise the SRPGs, ARPGs and CORPGs next because they're not traditionals....

MMORPGS have existed for almost 15 years, and multiplayer rpgs have existed since the 80's. MMORPG deserves to called a sub-genre of RPG.

And as I said before, PC had 35 games over 70%, while X360 only had 9. Even if we go by your (wrong) assumption to remove MMORPGs and even expansions, it would still leave atleast the double of X360's titles.

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.

You should rethink how Dollar/Euro exchange rates affect the prices of products.... as in none. A 500$ purchase is equal to 500€. You should've known that already.......

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

600$ that you will easily retrieve from buying the cheaper PC 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.

Name me 1 Console game that is as big as The Sims 3? Just 1... there's none. You may say that console games are more profitable, but the truth is most of the times is just because you gang up ALL Console versions (which is something I never understod, since PC itself is just 1 platform).

Another truth is that PC is the one getting all the great exclusives from EA: Dragon Age, SPORE, The Sims 3, Warhammer Online, Battleforge, etc.... so what about X360? how many exclusives is it getting? How about the PS3? How good are EA's Wii exclusives coming out?

Another important thing you missed is that.... how many good exclusives are there in each console compared to last generation? I can tell you: barely any!

Wii : Lots of exclusives and the traditional Nintendo games, but 80% of third party support is just complete crap. Very, very few good games are on Wii, and most third party developers are still using the Wii as a cash-cow and not giving a decent backup to the console.

X360: Good exclusives from MS, but there is a chance that most of their great exclusives end up on PC. In terms of third party support... it's lacking, very lacking since almost all of it goes to another platform (PS3 and/or PC).

PS3: Almost no exclusives, and pretty much all third party support goes to other platforms too.

Last generation, each console had alot of exclusives. Hell, even Dreamcast had a better number of good exclusives than PS3 and Wii. What this shows is that console exclusive third party support is dieing and developers are forced to make their games multiplatform.

It's happening the same on PC... however, due to the cost and easiness of development, smaller (but talented) developers can live well on PC exclusiveness and with a lower risk. Add that to the fact that there are types of games that can only be done well on PC, the rise of indie development, and the juggernaut revenue of online gaming, and we have a buttload of PC exclusive games.

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.

Slow progress? Please, it was between middle 90's and 200 that 3D gaming boomed, and most computers weren't ready to support that change decently.

Besides, you completely missed the point. Soon, there will be a time when low end PCs will be able to run games at a very decent quality... that's just what anyone should expect. Hell, maybe the time has already come, because games like Crysis on lowest settings looks better than ANY console game from last generation. Same thing will happen in the next generation, when PC games on low settings will probably look better than any PS3/360 game.

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.

The PS2 is getting nowhere near what a 5yo PC gets today (playable games). Simple as that. And my brother's PC is still waiting for SPORE, The Sims 3, Battlefield Heroes, Starcraft 2 (which by then the PC will be 6yo), etc.

 

mrstickball said:

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.

6 years ago, PC also didn't get much Action/adventure games, and no music games or party games, or other console-oriented genres. But today we get alot more action/adventures, music games and party games... all thanks to console developers. I think you should know why this is happening on both sides, since it's easy to figure out.

Consoles get online, PCs get cheaper and more intuitive. Win-win for all.

 

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'd argue that consoles still haven't gotten an WRPG of the quality of Fallout 2 or Morrowind (on PC). It is simply impossible to make a deep RPG on consoles without making it frustrating for the gamer (which is what happened to Morrowind on Xbox). That's why Oblivion got alot of hate from Morrowind and WRPG fans... Oblivion was a dumbed-down experience that is nowhere near a great RPG.

PC also gets great FPS, but the best part is that I won't play with a gamepad (Kb+M ftw).

 

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.

I already explained this point, and how more and more console games are going to PC. The funny part is that PC is getting more exclusives than Wii/PS3/360 combined due to the sheer force of indie and small developers, the uniqueness of the keyboard+mouse and the revenue of online gaming.

Infact, PC is getting more exclusives than ever, and the best part is that they're are spread out and using a varied number of revenue schemes.

 

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.

World of Warcraft is a far better game than Halo 3 ever was. WoW has atrocious graphics? They're not powerful, but just like any other Blizzard game, the art style is incredibly appealing, and it's getting a visual upgrade this year too (an always improving game). Oh and you don't need a disc in the drive to play WoW, unlike Halo 3....

 

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.

Halo 3 has high end graphics? A 400$ PC makes better visuals than that.

And spoken like a true ignorant of the PC's strength... what implosion? Have you still not understood that the PC market is changing, but growing alot? Have you still not understod that the Computers are getting so advanced that they can run games on web browsers with a good visual quality? The revenue schemes are also changing to be in harmony with what the market is going through.

About Crysis, for a game that some people said could only run on 5% on PCs and wouldn't even sell 500k, and still blew EA's expectations and sold 1.5 millions Without almost any distribution in digital services...

Trackmania is one of the the best racers I've played. Galactic Civ is near Civilization quality. WoW is the best MMORPG ever.... I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than the Graphixxxx..... You see, I'm not a graphic whore, I just want the best gameplay possible, and that is why I barely play any console, since it does not offer the deeper experience the PC has.