No.

Not even remotely. My PC3 has a PC2 in it.

Anyway, I would play the PC original. It was much better then the second (I have played both). Plus, the second can be gotten for the PC as well, so if you really want to play it, you can.

Both games have ridiculously low requirements by todays standards. 

^ you mean PS3 and PS2....>_> right?

Either way, alot of people forget that every PS3 has BC. It comes down to library and the amount of games that are compatible. Every PS3 can play every PS1 game, which happens to be far larger than the xbox library. Besides, it doesn't matter since the 60gb/80gb PS3 has full/ or near full BC, though I really don't like the disrespect Sony shows to Japanese and European gamers by only offering the 40gb.

That sucks Zen. I bought Cold Fear because I was in the mood for some shovelware survival horror and the 360 doesn't support it. I should have checked the list before buying. Here's the list for you:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

They underestimated how much people wanted BC, so they now have to go back, game by game and basically force each one to work on 360. Some games were not budging, and basically can't be emulated. The two most famous of Burnout Revenge and Chronicles of Riddick, and both developers, Critereon and Starbreeze decided to remake the games for HD exactly because Microsoft couldn't emulate the originals. I guess in a small way there's a little silver lining in the clouds. Check the list next time before you purchase and keep looking at it since it gets updated every month. 

You could always play it on the PC. I hear that the original is far better though.

not being able to play this game BC pissed me off, I tried to play it on my original xbox, but I just couldn't. I play my 360 on a mini dvd player, and playing on a reg. sized tv with no tv in the bckground on just feels wrong. (and huge-ass size of the orig. xbox makes playing on a mini dvd impossible almost)

Invisible War is totally underrated, but the prequel has it beat by miles. A true, epic classic! Don't miss out on it Zen, I regard it as one of the 10 best games I've ever played (in fact; I just finished it again for the tenth time or so a few months back)!

Full backwards compatibility is a nightmare when you look at consoles that switch their architecture from generation to generation; you don't have enough processing power to do a full software emulation so you're forced to do instruction translation which has compatibility issues. Now you can continue to develop the software and provide alternatives to how you translate instructions but then you have to store configuration information about particular games which involves testing various games under various settings to determine which works well.

Well you people want low price point, better graphics, full backwards compatibility, motion controls, diverse library out of the gate, Bluray...anything else the next gen consoles need to work on?

Its a shame you cant play that game... I can't play Capcom Fighting Jam either. But still, i don't blame xbox for not playing some games or 40 gb ps3 for not playing any ps2 stuff... Those companies need to make money too...

PS. Xbox is selling you a console with minimal profits. PS3 is still being sold at a loss... The only one who could afford to give you more stuff for the money is the wii...yet I don't even have an ethernet port on mine. So saying "For howmuch it costs...it should include original xbox" is not really justified. You get plenty for what you pay...

This is called a straw man argument for a number of reasons:

1. Nobody expects a console to be cheap when it's released, especially the people posting here.

2. Better graphics are to be expected at least every five years, period. Technology moves on and you can get, at the very least, a substantial increase in performance at the same price you paid for a console debuting half a decade earlier--even if they're 'only' Wii-caliber.

3. You can't bang the drum about backwards compatibility then fail to deliver it. People act as if anyone that expects this expects it because they are owed it--people expect it because the companies promised it. When they take it away a la MS and, to a lesser degree, Sony, consumers have a right to be upset about it, especially when they paid money for a product that they were under the impression would have something more than, at best, a half-hearted effort (I'm with those that don't care how 'how hard it is'--the people at MS are not stupid and knew exactly how difficult it would be. The *only* reason it's as lackluster as it is is because they do not devote the resources to it...the difficulty factor is another straw man, btw, constructed by the fans and not even by MS).

4. Who expects motion controls? As I recall, outside of the Wii which comes with them, nobody really wanted them in the PS3--most preferred rumble, given the choice, instead of the half-assed implementation Sony used (the method, as it turns out, that MS tried back in the 90s that *nobody* cared about--I had one of those pads, and I sure as hell didn't care either because the implementation in games was mostly shoddy).

5.  As for the library comment, who expects there to be a game that meets every taste out of the gate? Does anyone really expect this? That plays games a great deal? When looking at the landscape of console launches of the past?

6. Nobody wanted Blu-ray except Sony--especially after the initial price was mooted.

7. You should blame them: they made promises they aren't keeping. It's thinking like this that allowed MS to walk all over people about the RROD for as long as they did (and same for Sony with the PS2) and, if not for the fact that it was a near-terminal illness for all first-gen hardware, they would have happily ignored it forever. By your logic they had a right to do it: after all, "those companies need to make money too..."

8. *You* think we get plenty for what we pay and a lot of people would disagree with that--most would believe that getting a console that actually functions for its entire 5-year (at least!) lifespan would be the top of the list on what we should get for our money. Hell, i can't even use the $100 wireless adapter on my 360 because MS lied about it being compatible with WPA2, but that's OK because "companies nee to make money too...", right?