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

Forums - Microsoft - Does the 360 have any real exclusives?

nightsurge on 30 January 2009
phil said:
Onyxmeth said:

As funny as this is, I'm not including Arcade games. I wanted to make this as unbiased as possible so no one could come in here putting this in a negative light. A lot of people don't think they should count, so I'm giving them their own section later and everyone will see which console has more exclusives in that area also. What I've done is to use fair criteria, but all of which cannot realistically be disputed. XBLA has always been known as a huge 360 advantage but retail games have not for some reason. This is correcting that misconception.

 

If by as unbiased as possible you mean "counting dogshit that has 60% or less average ratings just as much as those that have 90% or above to help the 360 have a larger number of exclusives," then you have indeed done your job. However, if you want to do an ACTUAL unbiased survey of the market where games that are actually good are the only ones that count, then your precious 360 seems to do more poorly than your bullshit biased survey would indicate.

Really?  Seems to me like the 360 has more of the "actually good ones that count" too.

Who determines what is good, by the way?  Everyone has different opinions and places like Metacritic/Gamerankings are the only logical place to go unless you want to poll every single gamer who has played that particular game to get the total aggregate score (which would be impossible).

His survey shows that while the 360 has more lower rated games, it also has more highly rated games than the PS3. Just because it doesn't agree with what you want, doesn't mean it is biased.

If he wanted, he could have included the arcade games and that would have made things even more in the 360's favor.

 



Around the Network
FKNetwork on 30 January 2009

I've been into PC and console gaming for almost 16 years,

I have a very high spec PC (quad core, 4gb ram, 8600GT etc) which plays the latest games on high settings but I still left PC gaming late last year and went with console gaming instead,

Not had one regret and am so glad I ditched pc gaming! consoles are for gaming, pc's aren't (imo), there is a reason the pc gaming market is declining year after year while the console market is breaking records every year!

Go figure.....

 

 

P.S, Rpruett, Give it a rest as your just making yourself look rather silly now, people with a lot of knowledge of pc building/gaming/chipsets will know your so called "facts" are totally wrong.

And I don't know anyone that uses integrated graphics for their pc gaming, anyone with a bit of sense would get a decent dedicated graphics card for their pc,

 



Rpruett on 30 January 2009
nightsurge said:
Rpruett said:
nightsurge said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
I wouldn't call it much of a stipulation... someone on the low end of the low in terms of hardware is unlikely to know much about tweaking the settings unless they are a masochist or stuck with an extremely poor computer for gaming due to circumstance.

 

Almost every computer game available now will automatically adjust the best settings for your computer.  That's pretty pointless.  Simply but dropping the resolution to the 800x600 or 640x480 results will dramatically improve.

You seriously don't understand english, do you.  Or logic for that matter.  This whole time you are talking about how people with integrated chipsets don't care about good graphics and the enjoyment of the game at lowest resolution and settings is the same for these individuals.  That is what you said countless times, which is exactly what I said.  If you want to generalize it that way, go ahead... it's what you were saying after all.

Question,  do people playing Xbox360/PS3 games on a 480i television set get those wonderful HD graphics that you speak of?  Would you still enjoy a good game on a 480i TV set?  Ofcourse you would.  

The point is,  as long as the game is playable (With an integrated graphics card), people won't care.  They will have fun with the game.  The graphics even on low settings are still good.

 

My assertion was that people could not play games at high detail and resolution comparable to an HD console (which I was right every time and never once proven wrong on this respect, since you always ignored the point or tried to spin it off into a different argument)

You started the spin.  You've had to add stipulations to the argument. The whole basic premise (Dating back to my first post) is do you have the ability to play the game?  Playing a game on low settings is not a far cry from playing a 360/PS3 game on at 480i.

 

What's his specs?  Oblivion and Gears of War are not friendly on the hardware.  But if it still plays decent games today, he either upgraded it, or the original specs were rather high for 3-4 years ago.  And again, you are comparing people who don't care about HD graphics with people who do (seriously... don't you GET IT?).

Just because you buy a next gen console doesn't mean you 'care' about HD graphics.  You could just want to play good 'new' games.  True or False?    Buying an HD console does not = caring totally about HD graphics. 

 

 

Really?  All your points seem to revolve around the sole fact that integrated graphics can run games (even if it is at the lowest settings).  All I am saying is that all those arguments don't even apply to this situation at all.... only a small amount of people would prefer to "game" on integrated graphics playing the same games that are available at much better resolution and detail on consoles or better PCs.  You honestly think that the majority of individuals everywhere don't want or care for better graphics?  So we should stick with VHS, record tapes, and tube TVs?

 

Many Integrated graphics cards can run most newer games well enough,  that they are playable, enjoyable and don't require some extra purchase or specific console to play.  It's just that simple.  Understand yet? 

It's not a point of preference.  It's a point of logic.  Why would you purchase an Xbox 360 when about half of their Highly rated 'Good' titles could be played on something that already exists inside your home?  And you can play them well enough.   Remember to enjoy those wonderful HD console graphics,  you're going to need an HD TV.    Not something everyone currently has. So is the quality on the 360 that much better?  Truly doubtful. 

 

Bolded in red.  That's called a summary.  You should have learned about it in elementary.  Although, given your flawed concepts and your inability to read thoroughly or think logicly, you probably haven't reached that level of maturity yet. 

Says the kid whose highest level of education currently is a (Drum roll please) High School Diploma. Don't worry about my intelligence.  Just keep working at that Intro Level VB course.  

 

Also, I have not been proven wrong even once. 

You've been proven wrong numerous times.  You just change your argument to a more specific set of factors,  so you don't look like an idiot. First it was (Integrated Graphics cards) can't handle these games.  Completely proven wrong.  So then you changed it to (Integrated Graphics cards can't play games to the Xbox 360 standard).   Whatever floats your boat. Lol.

 

We (Squilliam, myself, other various users) keep showing you how badly integrated graphics perform, and how people who are even comparing it to HD consoles in the first place would prefer the better graphics and detail available on consoles, and you just keep making exceptions and trying to jump onto different topics/arguments that still do not apply to this situation.

 

Squil posted a graph from CoD 4 players playing at 1024x768.  Which is far from the lowest resolution setting on CoD 4.  Downgrading the resolution would immediately give better performance across the board.

And if performance was really THAT big of an issue,  consoles would not exist because they are always inferior in terms of power to a PC.

 

 

 

Wow, Squilliam, there is just no saving this guy. He's lost in his own little world where all his points and all his thoughts are 100% truth...

At least this guy's thinking is not the majority.  Imagine if all game producers started saying "These are our audience, the ones with crappy integrated video chipsets.  Lets make our games so they look like crap just to run on those PCs! Who cares about the much MUCH larger audience that wants better graphics and higher resolutions!"

 

News flash (Maybe when you possibly graduate from college you will understand),  the industry tries very hard to cater to it's audience with cheap rigs.  That is why games are scalable.  That's why games support resolutions of 640x480 still. 

If you believe the Computer Gaming industry as a whole is trying to make their games for the people with the best Rigs,  you are dumber than I thought. 

 

 

 



Squilliam on 30 January 2009

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-780g-chipset,1785-11.html

See? Even one of the "best" IGPs is outmatched by some very basic strategy games. Btw, you cannot run these games effectively at a low resolution because you simply cannot see a wide enough scale to perform effectively.



Tease.

Rpruett on 30 January 2009
Squilliam said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-780g-chipset,1785-11.html

See? Even one of the "best" IGPs is outmatched by some very basic strategy games. Btw, you cannot run these games effectively at a low resolution because you simply cannot see a wide enough scale to perform effectively.

 

You're right....If your resolution is set at 1280x1024.   Do you understand that by dropping your resolution you will see a drastic increase in terms of performance?  This is the second time you've posted something that really is not relevant in any way.



Around the Network
Rpruett on 30 January 2009
FKNetwork said:

P.S, Rpruett, Give it a rest as your just making yourself look rather silly now, people with a lot of knowledge of pc building/gaming/chipsets will know your so called "facts" are totally wrong.

And I don't know anyone that uses integrated graphics for their pc gaming, anyone with a bit of sense would get a decent dedicated graphics card for their pc,

 

I have every bit of the experience in building/gaming/chipsets as "the other two people" you mentioned.   Did you miss the posts by the guy whom works for Dell and deals with this on a daily basis?  Scroll back a few pages.  You might be surprised.

 

No one who considers their self as a "PC Gamer" would use integrated graphics.  Someone who wants to play a lot of good games, can't afford a sexy gaming PC and console but is interested in the exclusives by the various consoles will have a choice however and some options.    The bigger gamer will choose to play more overall games, by buying PC/360 exclusives to run on their PC and buying a console that provides them with games that they can't play anywhere else.

 



tommyhaynes on 30 January 2009

This is one of the first posts I've read on these forums, and I usually don't register or post on many of the sites I read, but I must say something to you Onyx:

I think you played right into the Sony Fanboy's hands by making a list that left out PC/360 games, now that they have a slightly more level playing field in the games department it seems like they feel they have the upper hand now with all the excessive nitpicking going on here.  Not many care that your original point was merely to show that the Xbox does have comparable exclusives to the PS3.  Now they can add insipid remarks like "now look at that, the PS3 games are so much better than the 360 games on your list" without taking into account any of the facts you posted.

Also, I must say, that of all the people stating that "PS3+PC is the way to go" to try to prove some point that the 360 is worthless, how many actually go that route, and how many just say it to make the PS3 seem better?  I won't post any approximates, but I feel safe in saying that the number is fairly low.

As an average gamer with an average PC(which, according to some on this thread would actually play games I had no idea it could, albeit at fairly low res)  I never considered playing current gen games on my PC, and I'm sure most other average gamers haven't either.  I don't think the PC should be brought into a console debate because they are vastly different from each other.  PC has a huge spectrum of range in both quality and use while consoles are gaming dedicated devices.  When people say "Gaming PC" rarely are they talking about a machine that cost sub $1000 to buy and those that purchase machines for less, to my average gamer mind, do not usually consider comparing them to Next Gen Consoles.

So, with all this in mind, I have a request for your OP Onyx, I have no Idea how hard it would be, but it would be nice for you to just add the numbers of 360games not on the PS3 and vice versa to your post.  Just numbers in parentheses would be fine enough for me just to point out the increasing gap for the majority of gamers that by games for gaming machines.

And, for all you readers that would like to nitpick my post as fanboyism, I actually own more Sony systems than I do any other(no PS3 yet though, as an average gamer the price point puts it out of range regardless of the games I'd like to play for it)

 

Currently Playing:

360 Gears 2

PS2 Dark Cloud(yes I know)

PSP Star Ocean 1st

GC Tales of Symphonia



Squilliam on 30 January 2009
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-780g-chipset,1785-11.html

See? Even one of the "best" IGPs is outmatched by some very basic strategy games. Btw, you cannot run these games effectively at a low resolution because you simply cannot see a wide enough scale to perform effectively.

 

You're right....If your resolution is set at 1280x1024.   Do you understand that by dropping your resolution you will see a drastic increase in terms of performance?  This is the second time you've posted something that really is not relevant in any way.

Do you have a strategy game on your computer? Try playing it at the lowest resolution and see how "easy" it is. This isn't a FPS where you could get away with a lot more.

Furthermore most IGPs out there would flat-out not run these games, the Intel kind which makes up the majority of the market. Its like scaling a game to run on the PS1 and PS3+, which is incredibly difficult to accomplish.

 



Tease.

Rpruett on 30 January 2009
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-780g-chipset,1785-11.html

See? Even one of the "best" IGPs is outmatched by some very basic strategy games. Btw, you cannot run these games effectively at a low resolution because you simply cannot see a wide enough scale to perform effectively.

 

You're right....If your resolution is set at 1280x1024.   Do you understand that by dropping your resolution you will see a drastic increase in terms of performance?  This is the second time you've posted something that really is not relevant in any way.

Do you have a strategy game on your computer? Try playing it at the lowest resolution and see how "easy" it is. This isn't a FPS where you could get away with a lot more.

Furthermore most IGPs out there would flat-out not run these games, the Intel kind which makes up the majority of the market. Its like scaling a game to run on the PS1 and PS3+, which is incredibly difficult to accomplish.

 

Is playing a strategy game on your computer at 800x600 or 640x480.....Much different than playing an Xbox 360 game on an SDTV? Since resolution is of utmost importance?

 

 

 



nightsurge on 30 January 2009
Rpruett said:
FKNetwork said:

P.S, Rpruett, Give it a rest as your just making yourself look rather silly now, people with a lot of knowledge of pc building/gaming/chipsets will know your so called "facts" are totally wrong.

And I don't know anyone that uses integrated graphics for their pc gaming, anyone with a bit of sense would get a decent dedicated graphics card for their pc,

 

I have every bit of the experience in building/gaming/chipsets as "the other two people" you mentioned.   Did you miss the posts by the guy whom works for Dell and deals with this on a daily basis?  Scroll back a few pages.  You might be surprised.

 

No one who considers their self as a "PC Gamer" would use integrated graphics.  Someone who wants to play a lot of good games, can't afford a sexy gaming PC and console but is interested in the exclusives by the various consoles will have a choice however and some options.    The bigger gamer will choose to play more overall games, by buying PC/360 exclusives to run on their PC and buying a console that provides them with games that they can't play anywhere else.

 

Rpruett.  You are talking about different audiences entirely.  As I've said many, many times.  Your idea of "PC gaming" is the casual afterthought of most PC buyers.

If it really was better to play these games on PC (better being a general term for more enjoyable, cheaper, etc), why is the PC games sales plummetting while consoles are on a rise year after year?  Another thing you've ignored.

Also, the Dell guy was smart enough to leave after he realized his arguments do not apply to this thread or the "I can play it on PC, so why get a 360?" that started it all.

 

For the casual PC user that wants to play games and doesn't care how they look, you are absolutely right that integrated could be enough for them.  For the people that actually want to play the newest games quite often and have the best experience graphically as well as enjoyably, they will either use a discrete graphcis card or get a console.  Again, you simply are not representing the correct audience here.  PC "Gaming" is aimed at the higher end spectrum, hence why many games have high "recommended system requirements."  Some individuals may buy these games and still enjoy them just as much on the lowest of low settings... but hey some people still like using VHS movies and record tapes

Also, a game at 480i standard definition on older televisions (non HD or ED) played on an xbox 360 will still "LOOK" better because even when it scales back on a 360/PS3, the details and other settings are still at a maximum, while on integrated graphics you would have to scale it down a ton AND turn down the settings.  By the way, many monitors these days don't support anything lower than 800x600..... so turning it down all the way to 640x480 would not be applicable in many situations.