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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft has done a lot of innovations

McDonaldsGuy said:
Tachikoma said:

.

I'm being factual, you are the one trying to claim things like the above that totally got owned.

Incidentally, the achievements on the atari and nes were BETTER than the achievements on the xbox, physical goods such as stickers and sewn patches marking your achievements are much cooler than a virtual score.

Oh and on that last one, Dreamcast also had quake and unreal tournament.

No they are totally different and not comparable. I said a killer first person shooter. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament were good but Halo 2 broke new ground.

They were all very well received and popular games, to this very day people play an updated version of quake 3 (now named quake live) in online tournaments.

Your statement was "who did first on console"

It wasnt Microsoft, sorry if thats too hard to accept.



Around the Network
jetforcejiminy said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

No they are totally different and not comparable. I said a killer first person shooter. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament were good but Halo 2 broke new ground.

unreal tournament and quake did online multiplayer fps almost a decade before halo 2... combat evolved was all local multiplayer... what are you even claiming at this point?

At this point its no longer a case of adhering to reality, but illogical defense mechanism of a percieved attack on a favored console.

Funny thing is, if someone actually posts genuine, factual innovations, i will have no problem with saying "sure, thats an innovation by x", just really sick of people trying to bend reality to favor their arguments, and use words like innovation in a way that just isnt the meaning of innovation, and with that all i can say is..





Scoobes said:
Most of those point to Microsoft bringing a more PC-like experience to consoles, which makes sense considering their PC background. Halo helped popularise FPS on consoles (previously a PC genre), Live popularised online play for console games (previously only done on PC) and hard drives, whilst obvious, reduced loading times and allowed users to download content (again, previously PC-only).

They can also be credited with helping to convince previous PC-centric devs make the jump to consoles (hence the wRPG and Gears points).

I suppose the question is, are these really innovations, or would PC devs with Sony and Nintendo have brought these experiences to consoles anyway? We can be sure even if they did, without MS, it would have taken a lot longer.


They already worked with Sony and Nintendo before the box.This guy must not know gaming or have short term memory.The SNES had Doom and other PC ports.The PSX was the first console to get GTA,Wing Commander,games from pc developers like Eidos with Tomb Raider, Blizzard and Ubisoft did games for the SNES,N64,PSX and Saturn and Half-Life came to the PS2 first as well as other former PC franchises.He is completely wrong in everything except achievements,but that is not innovative as games have had award systems in game for years.



McDonaldsGuy said:
SanAndreasX said:
The only thing I agree with is Xbox Live. The rest are not innovations.


Which console had a hard drive standard before Xbox? Which console had triple A WRPGs before the Xbox? Which console had achievements? Which console had a killer first person shooter with online play? I may have stretched a bit with Gears though.


The lone true innovation I see here is HDDs, and I wouldn't say MS innovated there. Sony did have a HDD for PS2. There wasn't really a need for a HDD on sixth-generation consoles. Console makers have always been looking at mass-storage solutions, and as another poster said below, HDDs were cheap enough by 2006 that Sony would have included one in the PS3 anyway.

The rest of it is inconsequential. Achievements are for measuring e-penis length only, and a six-digit Gamerscore is more a testament to your Gamefly habits than your skill at gaming.

There have always been Western RPGs on consoles. People simply chose the Eastern stuff. Tastes were simply different at the time. SNES owners could have chosen Ultima or Wizardry over Final Fantasy VI, PS1 owners Diablo over FFVII, PS2 owners Baldur's Gate: DA, Summoner, or Fallout Tactics over games like FFX or Dragon Quest VIII. But they didn't. And frankly, I'm not impressed with Bioware or Bethesda beyond Fallout 3/New Vegas. And what about Sony having the first big console MMORPG in Final Fantasy XI?

I could also argue that FPSs got kicked off on consoles with Goldeneye on the N64, which was multiplayer and hugely popular.  But I don't think one genre of game gaining supremacy over another necessarily counts as "innovation". That's just the pendulum swinging as it always does.



Tachikoma said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
Tachikoma said:

 

McDonaldsGuy said:

Which console had a hard drive standard before Xbox?

HDD is just another form of internal storage, many consoles that released in the 80s and early 90s had internal memory, but if you want me to be super flippant, then the Sharp X68000. Internal memory only switched to HDD when the costs involved with doing so had dropped enough, the price was the only factor preventing earlier consoles for using them - utilizing alternative technologies to perform the same task is progression not innovation.

McDonaldsGuy said:

Which console had triple A WRPGs before the Xbox?

Snes, GBA, PS1, Ps2, Megadrive, Saturn, Dreamcast.

McDonaldsGuy said:

Which console had achievements?

Atari 2600, Atari 7200, Nes, Snes.

McDonaldsGuy said:

Which console had a killer first person shooter with online play?

Quake 3 arena on the dreamcast.


Lol come on man you can't compare the NES stuff to what the Xbox brand did in the 2000s you're really reaching.

I'm being factual, you are the one trying to claim things like the above that totally got owned.

Incidentally, the achievements on the atari and nes were BETTER than the achievements on the xbox, physical goods such as stickers and sewn patches marking your achievements are much cooler than a virtual score.

Oh and on that last one, Dreamcast also had quake and unreal tournament.


I did not know this about the Atari as I never had one,but he is wrong again I see.



Around the Network
Tachikoma said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
Tachikoma said:

.

I'm being factual, you are the one trying to claim things like the above that totally got owned.

Incidentally, the achievements on the atari and nes were BETTER than the achievements on the xbox, physical goods such as stickers and sewn patches marking your achievements are much cooler than a virtual score.

Oh and on that last one, Dreamcast also had quake and unreal tournament.

No they are totally different and not comparable. I said a killer first person shooter. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament were good but Halo 2 broke new ground.

They were all very well received and popular games, to this very day people play an updated version of quake 3 (now named quake live) in online tournaments.

Your statement was "who did first on console"

It wasnt Microsoft, sorry if thats too hard to accept.

Quake 3 on the Dreamcast did not sell 8 million or close to it, or revolutionize online gaming. By the way I used to own Quake 3 on the Dreamcast and liked it.



I think we need to start labeling this sort of thing as "Spinnovation".



Tachikoma said:
I think we need to start labeling this sort of thing as "Spinnovation".


What have I said that is wrong?



McDonaldsGuy said:

Quake 3 on the Dreamcast did not sell 8 million or close to it, or revolutionize online gaming. By the way I used to own Quake 3 on the Dreamcast and liked it.

Kindly stop moving the goalposts, here is your statement.

McDonaldsGuy said:

Which console had a killer first person shooter with online play?

I dont see a sales requirement here, just a false claim that you seem hell bent on defending to the death rather than simply doing the mature thing of saying "actually yeah, im wrong, my bad"

SkyHold said:

I did not know this about the Atari as I never had one,but he is wrong again I see.

To be accurate, for the Atari, it was more Activision themselves that offered them with their range of games, this is a near complete range of them offered for people reaching certain achievements in their games.

Im my opinion, far cooler than a meaningless numerical gamerscore, though scores were also done, gaming magazines such as nintendo power would post highscores from games along with the name of the submitter in their monthly highscore columns, which would equate to the earliest version of a gamerscore.



McDonaldsGuy said:

- Xbox Live. Seriously, the gold standard for online gaming. So many innovations - friends list, party chat, Xbox Live Arcade/Store, great matchamking, etc. etc. Compare it to the PS2's online! Now online gaming is probably the biggest part of gaming now, and Microsoft is the one that really pushed for it by including ONLY broadband for the Xbox instead of dialup (Sega's huge mistake)

The gold standard is when you didn't have to pay to play online and it still works well.  Xbox Live introduced nothing that I couldn't already do on my PC.  Microsoft did nothing but show that people will pay for something they could have got for free all along, and because of that now Sony is doing the same. 

Sure it's an innovation I guess.  Innovated screwing over not one but two fanbases, maybe three if Nintendo jumps on the pay to play online next gen.