By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Apparantly the 360 won 2007...

Dodece on 01 January 2008

@HappySqurriel

Your comment about the library for the 360 was grossly uninformed. I highly recommend you make use of the release list functions on many sites. You might be surprised by the volume of those genres on the 360. While the shooters snag the headlines there are quite a number of titles in each genre you listed. More so the 360 actually has more titles in those genres listed then either the PS3 or the Wii.

Part of the reason I ended up buying a 360 was, because my Wii had no RPGs. Hell it didn't have much of anything. I am hoping that Nintendo announces some titles that will catch my eye next year, but right now the library on the Wii is by far the weakest in my humble opinion.

Do yourself a service compare the lineups and the libraries. Were those genres really important to you. Well you might be playing on the wrong machine. I was desperately bored until I got my 360. Then I suddenly has a whole bunch of games to play.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece

Around the Network
Rath on 01 January 2008
Legend11 said:
Rath said:

Oh and his TMNT point, sure XBLA may upgrade games but doesn't VC just blow XBLA away as far as number and quality of games goes?

Interesting that you should say that. Many new 360 and PS3 games are bashed by Wii owners because some of them feel that they're basically offering the same old thing. They then praise Wii games for being different or adding something new to gaming (motion controls). Yet in this case it's the XBLA games that are offering something new compared to VC games which are literally the same old games and you're defending VC.

Oh and Grey Acumen you've gained a lot of respect from me because you've shown in this thread that you're consistent in your beliefs and are willing to give another console credit for something if it deserves it.


 Indeed I believe that games should offer new experiences and be different when possible but it is still undeniable that Ocarina of Time for example is one of the highest quality games ever released. The same applies to many old games on VC.

I never claimed that XBLA has less innovative games that VC because that would be untrue as VC only has games that were innovative in past years. I'm merely saying that the level of innovation in XBLA games does not make them higher quality than VC games. 



mrstickball on 01 January 2008

But more effort is going into what makes the XBLA list - old or new.

For $5 we get multiplayer-enabled console games, whereas VC players do not.

Classics are classics when you consider the top-tier VC games with OOT, and XBLA's SOTN - you don't need more. But when it comes to those multiplayer games, why not get the extras?

I mean, we get all kinds of goodies for Sega games like Sonic 1/2, Streets of Rage, Fatal Fury Special, and such. Why doesn't Nintendo ask for the same quality MS demands?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath on 01 January 2008
mrstickball said:
But more effort is going into what makes the XBLA list - old or new.

For $5 we get multiplayer-enabled console games, whereas VC players do not.

Classics are classics when you consider the top-tier VC games with OOT, and XBLA's SOTN - you don't need more. But when it comes to those multiplayer games, why not get the extras?

I mean, we get all kinds of goodies for Sega games like Sonic 1/2, Streets of Rage, Fatal Fury Special, and such. Why doesn't Nintendo ask for the same quality MS demands?

 More effort always goes into new games than ports but that does not mean higher quality.

 I agree that it would be nice to get the extras but I maintain that through their library alone Nintendo has higher quality and quantity than XBLA.



fooflexible on 01 January 2008
Sri Lumpa said:
fooflexible said:
Remember this wasn't about market share, sales, or business, this was what he felt was the best game system for gaming for 2007. And it's hard to not feel he's justified. 360 had a huge year, and if you like fps titles, then this probably was the best year ever for a system for shooters period. You had Bioshock and Orange Box for the two best single player experiences in fps gaming, and cod4 and Halo3 did the same for online. I also love Mass Effect one of my favorite games of all time, Assassin's Creed has been amazing too. I know that also a matter of opinion but thats alot of peoples opinion.

He called it winning 2007 so yes it is about marketshare, sales and business. If he had called it "Calling it: 360 was the best console of 2007" I would totally agree with him as Kotaku is a hardcore site and 360 was the best console for hardcore gamers last year (Wii was for lapsed/casual/new gamers but they don't go and read Kotaku so it wouldn't matter).

You can't go and declare something and then to justify it apply the definition for something else. There is a serious problem between the title and the article as the article doesn't support the premise of the title and the title is wrong on the face of it (how is selling more than twice as many hardware units as your main competition losing the year to them?).

One could argue that the 360 won because it sold more software but given that it only did so because of the small install base of the Wii at the beginning of the year and that the Wii software sales momentum has clearly overtaken that of the 360 (Worldwide, not quite yet in NA) unlike the PS3 that barely exceeded 360 hardware in the last few months and who might not once the holiday sales effect wear off (or might but the point is it is not clear) it is a tie at best as even if 360 sold more this year it clearly lost its dominance of the worldwide software market.

BTW, Happy newyear everyone and sorry for any mistakes/spelling... I didn't catch.

 


 Maybe he should of titled it different then so not to confuse people. But if it was what you say about market share then why didn't he once state the sales of these games? He didn't mention sales or marketshare, he mentioned the games he had fun playing. it was about experience. You don't think the Kotaku guys know the Wii and the DS are selling better? And what are Nintendo fans afraid of? That people who don't have a clue are going to read his article and run out and buy a 360 instead of the 2007s real winner the Wii/ds? come on, there is no point in stating the obvious, DS sold more then anything this year, Wii second. That's not a tribute to how many great hardcore games there are out there, it's a tribute to the variety of it's library and variety of it's appeal. Sad to say DS has way to much crap on it. Seriously other then a hand full of good games the DS is a barrel of crap, I mean look at any review site there are so many games with reviews below 5 out of 10.