Slashdot Mirror
First Xbox 360 Reviews Hitting the Web
An anonymous reader writes "The first reviews for Xbox 360 games are starting to hit the web! 1UP has reviewed Kameo, Project Gotham Racing 3, FIFA Soccer 2006, NBA 2K6, and Amped 3, while IGN has reviewed Madden NFL 06, Kameo, and NBA 2K6. Judging from both sets of reviews, it looks like Project Gotham Racing 3 - which scored a 10/10 on 1UP - is the only sure winner of the 360 launch games thus far."
What I find interesting about reviews during this time is that those who have to have the 360 have already bought, and likely already know which of the 20 or 30 games available they will buy. It's not like there will be anyone with a 360 who has not already been planning on buying one. So, just how useful is a review like this when, pretty much by definition, the likely consumers have already made up their minds?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Giving a game perfect score doesn't sound like something a respectable reviewer should do.
10 out of 10 possible indicates perfection, something that can't be improved. Suppose that a year later,
the game gets a sequel with some improvements. More cars, more levels - the usual sequel stuff. Shouldn't
that also receive a perfect score of 10, since it is the same "perfect" game, but just... better?
I do understand that scores are meant to be read like the bible, that they are just general guidelines and
that you really need to read the review. But scores are what will be quoted on advertisements, and a pretty clearly hype-influenced perfect score is just sad.
You know, that really is too bad, because for once I'd like to play a well-crafted, simple, addictive game that doesn't feature neurotic plumbers, walking mushrooms, giant monkeys, turtles with wings, pink princesses, rainbows and clouds with fucking faces on them.
Alright, I take back what I said about the monkeys.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
My perception of the PS1 is that it started slowly, uninterestingly, and eventually picked up steam with better and better titles, really taking off with FF7, and finally ending its career at a ripe old age where it can still be bought in micro form with a huge game library available. I still see new copies of some Greatest Hits on the shelves at Best Buy.
Enter the PS2. The Playstation has a track record of a platform with a ton of top titles, offers better graphics, backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and DVD movie playing capabilities. Any suprise people wanted this one?
Contrast this with the XBOX. It started off with lots of hype, never really went anywhere with its library, instead relying on technical superiority, and they're already coming out with the next console before this one has had five years.
Enter the XBOX360. Now, the XBOX didn't have a great library, and so there's not much track record there. It's got slightly improved graphics (but probably not as good as the competition will have), some backward compatibility (but to a meager library), and the same old DVD format. People say "there are interesting games on the horizon," but honestly, I want to know: what are they?
Contrast this to the competition. The PS3 promises what the PS2 promised (and delivered on): highly improved graphics, full backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and the ability to play next-gen movies. It's sitting on a vast library of 2 generations of games, and all indications point to the next generation being just as big.
The Revolution promises full backward compatibility to everything Nintendo owns (although details are fuzzy), a new form of controller that could really make console shooters something else (as well as open up new types of games), and most importantly, all the Nintendo franchise games.
I can see why someone would want a PS3. I can see why someone would want a Nintendo Revolution. But why would someone want an XBOX360?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
You miss the point. I had my XBMC set up in three hours. It can play just about any media, has digital audio out, hooks up to my TVs component inputs (and has done since it came out). Say a weeks work to produce something similar using off-the-shelf components? And at what cost? I've never even seen a video card with component-out that'll work in UK TVs. (we've always had RGB component inputs).
Also, you miss something MAJOR that most who undertake making a media pc miss out. The user interface. With the xbox, the UI is designed for the device. The remote control works out the box. No need to assign buttons to an existing remote, and "hack" buttons that don't exist on your remote. No "menu" button? Well, I'll use the "1" for that. No "display" button, guess I'll put that on "2" then. With XBMC the UI is specifically designed for the hardware, and it works beautifully. It has a better UI than ANY media device I've seen. Seriously, it's the dogs bollocks. The standard hardware is one of the things that benefits games developers, and guess what...it applies here too.
It's small, fits under the telly and it's cheap. I update it every other month and I am always pleasanly surprised by the new functionality they add. Last month it was an Apple website browser (lot's of quicktime media) as well as an iFilm browser. Watching streaming media to your TV over the net from the confort of your armchair? Bah, that's old news for us, and now we have a massive library to watch.
The only thing it doesn't do is TIVO style recording HOWEVER that's doable. It can display streams over the network, so all you need is a centralised PC doing the recording. And in essence this is a far superiour solution, as you can buy additional xbox "clients" for pennies now and watch the media in ANY room.
You really don't know what you are missing. Every tech-head who has seen my (cheap) setup now has one.
Whatever you say, my friend.
Honourable mention (Wario is not a plumbler).
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience