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

Forums - Microsoft - What does the x-box 360 have to offer?

@shio & mrstickball

Guitar hero? Whats that?

Frets on Fire

 

Crysis warhead $30

Devil may cry 4 $40

 

Cya... :)



Around the Network

The Xbox 360 has the best games to play today and a year ago. Isnt that the point?? Blue ray movies? DVD is fine and has a larger selection. If you really just want the best games today, then the Xbox 360. However, it will even stay competetive in the future agaisnt other heavy hitters. Not everyone loves Final Fantasy games and they have lost their luster alot since 1997. Its not 1997 now however and it looks like they are are stuck in it looking at FF XIII trailers.



Deneidez said:

@mrstickball

Uh, all I can say(Not going to comment those monster posts.) that what is HD gaming? I have played every game with 1280x1024 resolution since 2004. Can PS360 do it? ;)

Those rpgs

@Barozi

It doesn't have any probs with Mass Effect(X360 did have :D). Crysis on medium requires a lot more resources than PS360 can handle.

lol even my shitty PC with a 3 years old GPU and a 4 1/2 years old CPU can do that. (But not in Full HD ;) ) Of course the PS3 or the 360 could handle medium settings.

@ shio:

Nice list with RPG's, but please not so much Add-Ons. That's stupid

BTW: Army of Two is one of the greatest Coop-Games and overall one the best EA made in the last years



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.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

shio said:
Xbox 360 offers nothing the PC doesn't offer better.

 

shio, I am a pc gaming fanboy, but you say some of the dumbest shit sometimes.



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

Around the Network
mrstickball said:
Deneidez said:

There are lots of JRPGs for PC and many of those are hentai games(thats a big win :D).

[/quote]

Name a few higher-end ones that can compete with Lost Odyssey, Star Ocean, or a Tales game, please.

 

Well, thats only few games. On PC its every game.

If the game is digitally distributed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 100% of games aren't DD.

 

My 2 years old 600€ computer can play anything there is and with no prob. With new video card it can play games that PS360 players only can dream. (Actually my PC is already much better.)

We're talking 5-8 year old computers. And then you mention that if you dropped a few hudred dollars in a new card, it can play games that PS360 games could only dream (which ones exactly? Crysis? Thats about it). 

 

$400 PC , 2005 and $100 upgrade for each second year = $750 (2012)

$400 X360, 2005 and $50 every year for live gold = $750 (2012)

If you pay for live. And if you actually pay $50/yr for it (for me, its closer to $35)

+ games are a lot cheaper on PC. Here new PS360 games are like 60-70€ and PC games 40-50€. Prices also go down a lot faster on PC. For example after few months crysis did cost only half what it did cost as new. Thats really not how PS360 games go.

 

Right. Unfortunately, games don't tank on the PS3/X360 like they do on PC anymore. 

 

 You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

You are talking about a effing 2.4 GHZ, 1GIG RAM Radeon 9600 PC and bragging that is can play many games?

YES it can....but it can't PLAY THEM WELL. Try playing ANY Full BLOWN game made within the last 3 to 4 years and it will play LIKE CRAP.

Radoen 9600 iS OLD...

1 GIG of RAM is A JOKE for gaming...don't even let me get started on a 2.4 GHZ processor.

 

I've been a PC gamer since the BEGINING. Yes, I'm that old.

PC gaming is MUCH more expensive. You see if you want to play a game properly (FPS > 20 ), you need to have a video card that is good at playing games....so you are going to drop $300- $400 easily on a video card ALONE.

And Video cards can't keep the FPS > 20 by themselves. You need a good processor to go with that....enough memory...and a good motherboard...etc.

Put it like this. I currently have a 3.0 GHZ, 2 GIG RAM, GEFORCE 7800...which is MUCH better than your PC...and yet, I wouldn't even think about playing any of the current games on it...it just isn't good enough.

 

 



Oh, and for the record, my current laptop setup (a gift from work):

Intel Dual Core T7800 @ 2.6ghz
4GB DDR2 (667mhz)
Nvida GeForce 8600M (256mb)
320GB 2.5" Internal HDD


And unfortunately for the lovely "optimization" of some games, I can't play UFO: Alien Invasion above >3 FPS at points. I love the fact that PC games are rarely optimized properly.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

^^How much do you reckon that laptop costs, stickball?



New, about $1,750. Mine was bought about 3 months ago via my company, and Dell has recently had a huge price drop on them, so when it was purchased, it was around ~$2,100 or so.

Of course, it's a laptop so the price is a bit higher than a standard desktop. Beyond a good laptop, but still...It could possibly run a few high-end games as-is. But due to some issues with wonderful PC archatecture, it can't run some simple games with graphics equal to an early PS2 game very well (like UFO: AI)



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

 amrstickball said:
New, about $1,750. Mine was bought about 3 months ago via my company, and Dell has recently had a huge price drop on them, so when it was purchased, it was around ~$2,100 or so.

Of course, it's a laptop so the price is a bit higher than a standard desktop. Beyond a good laptop, but still...It could possibly run a few high-end games as-is. But due to some issues with wonderful PC archatecture, it can't run some simple games with graphics equal to an early PS2 game very well (like UFO: AI)

I am pretty sure that PS2 can't handle nothing but maybe graphics of that game. Also laptops really aren't for games. Well, if it goes for that PS360 can't run game that looks 80s game. Its called Dwarf Fortress and looks like this.

(And thats a fact. Because of some architectural stuff PS360 will run such a game lower than playable FPS. No game isn't turn based. Just saying. Graphics isn't everything you know. :) )

P.S. Dwarf Fortress is good... wait... GREAT game ;) (Uhm, incredible is even better. I am just not as good as MikeB with this. :/)