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

Forums - Sony - Cage: Heavy Rain not possible on Xbox 360

Staude on 18 May 2009
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Wierd is relative, but its definately a quality that can be ascribed to a game. So a quality game can be wierd if wierd is the quality you're going for? Funny isn't it, all the debates we have here about sales vs quality and the word quality isn't even a defined concept.

 

If you hadn't noticed, most things people proclaim on this site are speculation and/or rumor based.

 

But i agree. Some can find a game of great quality while another person will find the same game a piece of shit. I believe that we're generally looking for the common opinion in these situations and/or any that agrees with ours :p

Unfortunately..

Anyhow whilst I really have loved several badly reviewed games, my hit/miss ratio as the scores get higher as an aggregate definately improve quite markedly. I.E. if I had to live in just the 90+ list on metacritic for gaming I would probably be happier than at the 80-89 level, in spite of having far far fewer games to play.

 

I concider scores irrelevent.. Mostly. I'm not gonna lie and say completely, but for games i'm fairly certain i'll get, scores mean little. Games i'm on the fence about.. they can make or break it. But I don't concider +90 to be the criteria. :p

If you'd only play highly reviewed games you could miss out on some gems.

 

I play too many games, but I always rent first and I've found that as a whole the games which I enjoy the most are the ones which get higher reviews. I still enjoy lower rated games a lot and some of my favourite games of the generation have gotten 6-7's as an average. However often I notice that many of the really enjoyable games in say the 80's and 70s especially have lacked in sometimes very important ways. For example two of my favourite games are Mercenaries 2 and Crackdown, both are really fun but the former can suffer from bugs and both suffer from repetitiveness which hurt the replayability for me and how the gameplay is designed just work as smoothly as higher rated examples. Genji: Days of the Blade and Dark Kingdom are two of the lowest rated games that I have enjoyed considerably.

 

Hmm. I never rent games. If i really like it i'll wanna buy it.. And then it'll be wasted money, and i barely ever get games I don't like so :p (does happen though.. Farcry 2 is a example.. wow talk about underwhelming)

 

Also...


GENJI AY ?

say ! Did it have.. Crabs ?! :p

 

But yeah. When a game scores low there tend to be atleast some kind of technical issues, i'll give you that. Wether they're too annoying to ignore or barely noticable depends on the game though... And the gamer.

 



Check out my game about moles ^

Around the Network
Pk9394 on 18 May 2009

this thread still going ???? lets all predict how many page this thread will end up.

I predict page 60 by end of this year :)



Akvod on 18 May 2009
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Wierd is relative, but its definately a quality that can be ascribed to a game. So a quality game can be wierd if wierd is the quality you're going for? Funny isn't it, all the debates we have here about sales vs quality and the word quality isn't even a defined concept.

 

If you hadn't noticed, most things people proclaim on this site are speculation and/or rumor based.

 

But i agree. Some can find a game of great quality while another person will find the same game a piece of shit. I believe that we're generally looking for the common opinion in these situations and/or any that agrees with ours :p

Unfortunately..

Anyhow whilst I really have loved several badly reviewed games, my hit/miss ratio as the scores get higher as an aggregate definately improve quite markedly. I.E. if I had to live in just the 90+ list on metacritic for gaming I would probably be happier than at the 80-89 level, in spite of having far far fewer games to play.

 

I concider scores irrelevent.. Mostly. I'm not gonna lie and say completely, but for games i'm fairly certain i'll get, scores mean little. Games i'm on the fence about.. they can make or break it. But I don't concider +90 to be the criteria. :p

If you'd only play highly reviewed games you could miss out on some gems.

 

I play too many games, but I always rent first and I've found that as a whole the games which I enjoy the most are the ones which get higher reviews. I still enjoy lower rated games a lot and some of my favourite games of the generation have gotten 6-7's as an average. However often I notice that many of the really enjoyable games in say the 80's and 70s especially have lacked in sometimes very important ways. For example two of my favourite games are Mercenaries 2 and Crackdown, both are really fun but the former can suffer from bugs and both suffer from repetitiveness which hurt the replayability for me and how the gameplay is designed just work as smoothly as higher rated examples. Genji: Days of the Blade and Dark Kingdom are two of the lowest rated games that I have enjoyed considerably.

 

Hmm. I never rent games. If i really like it i'll wanna buy it.. And then it'll be wasted money, and i barely ever get games I don't like so :p (does happen though.. Farcry 2 is a example.. wow talk about underwhelming)

 

Also...


GENJI AY ?

say ! Did it have.. Crabs ?! :p

 

But yeah. When a game scores low there tend to be atleast some kind of technical issues, i'll give you that. Wether they're too annoying to ignore or barely noticable depends on the game though... And the gamer.

 

Yeah, I can't even bear the thought of starting the game up =/ I just have no incentive, and only annoyances that persuade me not to (almost how GTA IV has phone calls every time I go on [because I keep going off when I get one]).



Staude on 19 May 2009
Akvod said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Staude said:
Squilliam said:
Wierd is relative, but its definately a quality that can be ascribed to a game. So a quality game can be wierd if wierd is the quality you're going for? Funny isn't it, all the debates we have here about sales vs quality and the word quality isn't even a defined concept.

 

If you hadn't noticed, most things people proclaim on this site are speculation and/or rumor based.

 

But i agree. Some can find a game of great quality while another person will find the same game a piece of shit. I believe that we're generally looking for the common opinion in these situations and/or any that agrees with ours :p

Unfortunately..

Anyhow whilst I really have loved several badly reviewed games, my hit/miss ratio as the scores get higher as an aggregate definately improve quite markedly. I.E. if I had to live in just the 90+ list on metacritic for gaming I would probably be happier than at the 80-89 level, in spite of having far far fewer games to play.

 

I concider scores irrelevent.. Mostly. I'm not gonna lie and say completely, but for games i'm fairly certain i'll get, scores mean little. Games i'm on the fence about.. they can make or break it. But I don't concider +90 to be the criteria. :p

If you'd only play highly reviewed games you could miss out on some gems.

 

I play too many games, but I always rent first and I've found that as a whole the games which I enjoy the most are the ones which get higher reviews. I still enjoy lower rated games a lot and some of my favourite games of the generation have gotten 6-7's as an average. However often I notice that many of the really enjoyable games in say the 80's and 70s especially have lacked in sometimes very important ways. For example two of my favourite games are Mercenaries 2 and Crackdown, both are really fun but the former can suffer from bugs and both suffer from repetitiveness which hurt the replayability for me and how the gameplay is designed just work as smoothly as higher rated examples. Genji: Days of the Blade and Dark Kingdom are two of the lowest rated games that I have enjoyed considerably.

 

Hmm. I never rent games. If i really like it i'll wanna buy it.. And then it'll be wasted money, and i barely ever get games I don't like so :p (does happen though.. Farcry 2 is a example.. wow talk about underwhelming)

 

Also...


GENJI AY ?

say ! Did it have.. Crabs ?! :p

 

But yeah. When a game scores low there tend to be atleast some kind of technical issues, i'll give you that. Wether they're too annoying to ignore or barely noticable depends on the game though... And the gamer.

 

Yeah, I can't even bear the thought of starting the game up =/ I just have no incentive, and only annoyances that persuade me not to (almost how GTA IV has phone calls every time I go on [because I keep going off when I get one]).

LOL yeah XD I remember roman calling.. always when you're on a mission "hey cousin ! let's go bowling" "NOT NOW XD"

 

but yea farcry 2 was a major letdown. After all the hype it simply didn't have anything that gave you a reason to play it.

 



Check out my game about moles ^

headshot91 on 19 May 2009

lol this topic is soo derailed !



Around the Network
LordMatrix on 19 May 2009

This goes back and forth between 360 and PS3 exclusive titles seriously when will developers stop acting lazy. The systems are so much alike nearly any game on 360 could go to PS3 and nearly all PS3 games could go on 360 it all comes down to whether a developer will put forth the effort. Developers always say this crap for many exclusive titles no matter what system it is on.



 How our favorite systems are just like humans and sometimes have issues finding their special someone...

Xbox 360 wants to Kinect &  PS3 wants to Move!  Why are both systems having such relationship problems?  The reason is they both become so infactuated with desire while watching the Wii as it waggles on by. They simply want what they can't have.

 Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Staude on 20 May 2009
LordMatrix said:
This goes back and forth between 360 and PS3 exclusive titles seriously when will developers stop acting lazy. The systems are so much alike nearly any game on 360 could go to PS3 and nearly all PS3 games could go on 360 it all comes down to whether a developer will put forth the effort. Developers always say this crap for many exclusive titles no matter what system it is on.

 

The games could be made. But they'd be technically different. For instance, the 360 isn't good at streaming things..



Check out my game about moles ^

davygee on 20 May 2009

The proof is in the pudding....the 360 is full of FPS's yet, no one comes up to the technical standard of Killzone 2. And where is a game comparable to Uncharted?

On the other hand, there is no game on the 360 that does not have a comparable PS3 counterpart.

IMHO, the PS3 is a more powerful gaming machine and is being demonstrated and will continue to be demonstrated the futher into this generation we go.

Of course you could create a 360 version of Killzone 2, Uncharted and MGS4, but would it similar enough or better...I sincerely doubt it.



Prediction (June 12th 2017)

Permanent pricedrop for both PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro in October.

PS4 Slim $249 (October 2017)

PS4 Pro $349 (October 2017)

NightAntilli on 20 May 2009
davygee said:
The proof is in the pudding....the 360 is full of FPS's yet, no one comes up to the technical standard of Killzone 2. And where is a game comparable to Uncharted?

On the other hand, there is no game on the 360 that does not have a comparable PS3 counterpart.

IMHO, the PS3 is a more powerful gaming machine and is being demonstrated and will continue to be demonstrated the futher into this generation we go.

Of course you could create a 360 version of Killzone 2, Uncharted and MGS4, but would it similar enough or better...I sincerely doubt it.

The main reason is the engines... The best looking games on the X360 still use the basically outdated unreal engine 3, where Killzone 2 and Uncharted got their own engine specifically optimized for the PS3. That has nothing to do with the console's power. And the main reasons this is happening is:

1. Sony has a lot of 1st party devs, Microsoft has relied a lot on 3rd parties, and 3rd parties are not going to make a whole new engine for one system unless they are completely sure they will sell millions of a game.
2. The X360 looks very much like a pc and using an existing pc engine is an easy yet pretty effective way out. Look at Gears or Mass Effect, they both use the Unreal Engine and are arguably the best looking games on the X360 now

The PS3 might be more powerful overall, but for gaming, not so much, since the PS3 has a very limited memory bandwidth, weaker GPU and split memory, and that will bite them in the ass later. The X360 does have a lot of untapped potential. I still can't believe how people keep arguing that the PS3 is soooo much more powerful while in multi-platform games like Resident Evil 5 the PS3 version is really inferior.



Truth does not fear investigation

Squilliam on 20 May 2009

^ I hope your sexy eyes caught the low resolution particle effects in many PS3 exclusives?



Tease.