Slashdot Mirror
CNN's Game Over On The 360
An anonymous reader writes "CNN's Chris Morris has taken a look at Microsoft's new system. He calls the system 'good, but not great' in a fairly lengthy, well thought out piece. The article also has an amusing gallery of rejected prototype designs." From the article: "Admittedly, tastes vary - so you could easily find a game out this month that's a 'must have' for you. (We'll have a closer look at the launch games early next week.) But if you're looking for something that's ground breaking and sets the trend for the system (as 'Halo' did with the original Xbox), you're not going to find it."
that's gotta hurt. I expect that's probably the last Microsoft product that CNN gets their hands on early for review.
How can it not be great with 3 3.2GHz processors?!
The first of the next gen video game machines hits store shelves next week. Should you get one?
The short answer: Not on Day One.
What if you plan on making money because of the shortages and selling one overpriced on ebay for an extra 100-500$?
God spoke to me.
X-Box isn't about cracking the best graphics or anything like that... its all about X-Box live and the multiplay capability.
Sony is still working strong on delivering the prettiest stuff. Nintendo is going for revolutionary technology (just look at the controller!).
The odd man out in this situation is Sony. Nintendo is taking a big chance which will (IMHO) cash them into tons of entertainment centers this upcoming year. X-Box has replayability simply due to the fact that you can play the same game over and over online and get a new experience everytime. Sony is just standing still. They either need to make some reliable online play a la Microsoft, go for something revolutionary a la nintendo, or they may be sitting in third place this time next year...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
That's right, just go ahead and wait until later to get one. Especially if you're in the Redmond/Bellevue, WA area. Don't go out and wait in line for an Xbox 360. Just keep on playing on your regular consoles. Really, there's no reason to get one. You really don't want it now. You want it later.
If you're thinking you're gonna go wait at Best Buy in Bellevue, you're not. It's not worth the trouble. Just pretend it's just another day, and don't go out.
Please wait? The fewer the people that go out, the better the chance of getting mine. And I'm already planning to take Tuesday off of work.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
when he said "good but not great" he was talking about the games, not the system. Poster needs to learn how to read, very wrong statement.
But when it comes to must-have games, the Xbox 360 falls short. While there are several good - and even very good - titles that will be available at launch, there's nothing truly great.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
What was so groundbreaking about Halo? It was a great game, but it was simply a first person shooter with a cool story. It was the first FPS with a cool story (Half Life). It didn't have extraordinary graphics. Very good, yes, but not like it embarassed the rest of the genre. Weapons were pretty standard. You got to drive vehicles but that had been done before too. I'm not knocking it but I don't see what was groundbreaking about it.
I consider myself a core gamer and I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot poll on launch day. I have my reservations about the 360 and to be honest, Microsoft hasn't done enough to get me excited about this launch. I'd pre-order a Revolution right now if I could. PS3 has some time still to either get me really excited or turn me off completely to the PS3.
I remember waiting eagerly for the PS2, Game Cube, and X-box. I couldn't wait for the release of these systems. I don't know if it's the fact that I'm a few years older or if it's the way these systems are marketed, or the fact that they just seem to be more of the same (except for the Revolution). But I'm taking a cautious approach to the 360 and unless things change will do more of the same with the PS3.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
I must be getting old.
Read the reviews of the games. The games visual quality varries drastically (reportadly). Take the GameSpot review of NBA 2K6. If you have a SDTV, it is almost indistinguisable between the XBox and XBox 360 versions (there are slight differences, but nothing noticible). But if you have an HDTV, things look agazing. During replays they say you could easily mistake it for real footage. There is supposed to be tons of animation and detail (ex: the player's shirts get wet with sweat during the course of the game). But while that looks great, they say that the croud and coach look almost like they did in the XBox version (so when compared to players, it is a bit of a visual jolt because of the quality difference). If you have an HDTV, it is supposed to be great.
Now take Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. With SDTV, it looks like the XBox version. At HDTV, it looks worse. That's what Gamespot says. The low resolution of the textures become apparent, they shimmer, and the models obviously have low poly counts (they mention it especially with the story footage scenes, as opposed to in game). This is what quick & dirty XBox 360 ports will often look like, I bet. If the game isn't designed for the system (or next gen) then it will probably look like this.
But the most important thing I've taken away in all the reviews is while things look beatuiful, there isn't that much difference if you still have a SDTV (like me). While I will buy an HDTV one day, it really sounds like buying an XBox 360 wouldn't be worth it right now for me (on a pure graphics basis). A killer game would be one thing, but they don't have any killer-apps for me yet (I want to play PGR3, but not that much).
I wonder how much this trend will continue. Will later games (1.5, 2nd gen) look better at SDTV than current games (excluding a little anti-aliasing), or have we reached the end of what SDTV can show us. My guess is the first category (because with games like Shadow of the Colossus you could have higher poly counts on the large monsters), but we'll see.
I've only seen the 360 in real life for about 5 minutes playing Call of Duty 2 on a 20" screen at Best Buy. While it looked nice, it looked just like any PC game to me (given: Call of Duty IS a PC game, so I realize that).
We'll have to reserve graphics judgements untill more native games come out (the few that are designed for the 360 like PGR3 are supposed to be amazing). But this SDTV thing is something I think more people should be aware of. I wonder how many people will plug in their 360 and their copy of Madden or NBA 2K6 and say to themselves "I spent HOW MUCH for this? It looks just like my XBox" because they only have a SDTV.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
When will Microsoft drop the price on the original XBox?
I agree that out of the box on release the 360 will be far from stellar, but thats to be expected. A system like this takes time to mature. Programmers have to gear up for a new platform and so on. There is definately no reason to jump on this especially at the high price. I would wait till Sony and Nintendo release theirs thus driving down prices.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/The title of this New York Post article - Don't Buy the Xbox 360 - pretty much sums up that paper's attitude toward the system. It's another interesting read.
Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
Who cares out the next gen consoles, good games for the current consoles are being released like crazy so they can release before the new console wars if you haven't been noticing.
Xbox 360: Good, but not great
Right there in bold in big letters at the top of the article.
The 360 has a disastrous lack of solid launch titles. Nothing is revolutionary.
They have no Halo.
They have no Elderscrolls.
They're left with Perfect Dark Zero (which at this point, being so close to launch and seeing no hype, we can only assume will be underwhelming), and Project Gotham (which most people already know will look stunning and be collecting dust within a week).
This is something of a disaster for MSFT, but not in anyway unpredictable. As someone who has worked closely with Microsoft for the last 10 years I've grown to understand how they make decisions: Its all about platform extension and repeat revenue streams. Very, very little thought tends to go in to creativity, design and consumer appeal. Microsofties tend to scoff at those things, holding instead to the belief that a superior business model leads to a superior product line. (What they forget is that they are now in the entertainment business and people could give a crap about their business model.)
More unfortunate for MSFT is the fact that Oblivion, one of their biggest system-sellers (if not *the* biggest) will be released for PC months before 360. Anyone who followed the Morrowind release knows why this is a big deal: The PC version was better supported, and had an enormous user community creating free (and amazingly good) mods for the game. That history, combined with the earlier release will cut deeply into the initial appeal for the 360.
I'll probably get a 360 -- next Xmas -- when there are some games to play.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The article isn't talking about the console so much as the games that are available at launch. Here are the quotes in context. Jesus editors, biased much?
I would have to say that the launch titles are ok/good and probably worth it for anyone who can afford it. I will be getting mine, but I have disposable money and already an HDTV. Why would microsoft waste a huge launch title like Halo 3, when they really need to save that one for the launch of the PS3! Come the PS3/Revolution Launch, Prices will drop, and they will drop the biggest title Halo 3 then. Its going to Hurt Sony!
Online gaming would never work without a central system like xbox live. I mean, look at the PC. Nobody ever plays PC games online. Why? Because PCs don't have xbox live. They just let each game do their online thing however they want. Obviously nobody wants that, but sony is doing it just like the PC anyways.
... or do half of those concepts look like George Foreman Grills???
I am Spartacus
Even Microsoft admits the first Xbox was ugly. ("It was big," Xbox's Peter Moore said in August. "It was the Humvee of consoles.")
No, it was more like the Aztec of consoles.
"And Microsoft continues to extend its lead in the online console marketplace."
They don't have a lead, Sony does. By a very large margin. "Close the gap on its competition" maybe?
Xbox 360: Good, but not great. Right there in bold in big letters at the top of the article.
Perhaps people should read the article before flaming the Slashdot editors for not doing so. Or at least read as far as the article title.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
If Microsoft wants to Beat Sony and dominate, they are going to have to capitalize on the online play. The orginal xbox was a good first step, with the 360 they really have to step up. I don't see this happening. I was a PC gamer than went over to xbox live, and I can tell you there are problems, fairly big problems. The first problem is how things are run. PC games typically have servers, you don't just connect to what ever PC has the best connection or whatever. In xbox live you are essientially running a non-dedicated server on a 700mhz Machine with an MX video card. Whuptidoo. This is why games are usually limited to 8 players or less. Some games function ok with 16-24, but those are rare, and never more that that. I want to play with 32, 64, 128 other people damnit. Not this 8 player BS. Sure The 360 will be more powerfull, but its the same exact non-scaling problem. So it will be better, but in the long run who knows.
Also with local hosts, and non-dedicated servers you get the infamous Halo standby cheats etc... Whenever a player on a team is also the server you can bet there this will be a problem. The cheating has to be minimaized to a reasonable level or people will just not play.
MMO, get them! Get them now! Sure it might take some kind of keyboard/mouse add-on, but you got smart people at Microsoft, figure it out! I don't just mean Final Fantasy XXI or whatever it is called. #1 Sony already has that... big deal. They had it awhile ago. To my knowlege it is only popular in like Korea etc.. Get some World of Warcraft, some City of Heros/Villens, hell you got a Marvel Licence, use it!
Anyway I had another point about online play but I cannot remember it right now. BUt online play is especially important at the beginning as MOST people do not have a HDTV, and while it would be nice MOST are not going to shell out the 2000-4000 dollars to get one. Thus all you graphical enhancments mean nothing, so you have to provide something else, and that something else is new features and equivelient online play as PC.
I know for myself I am thinking of going back to PC rather than 360, it just seems to make more sense. I am on wait on fence mode right now, so something better happen in the next 6 Months to a year or you will lose people like me.
Initial thoughts were that it was negative, but on re-reading, it's just the title that gives the wrong impression, and in this case the impression seems solely weighted on whether the console has any killer games at launch.
Now, whether halo came out at the X-Box launch or 3 months later is a moot point, either way it would still have been a success. The gameboy initially had Tetris, but long after its launch, Pokemon came along midway through the console's life and totally revitalised it.
What I'm saying is that the killer game doesn't need to be there at launch, just in the first half of the console's lifespan. In any case, good software makes a console, not a single title.
I also think he may have missed the point of the online and media capabilities of the 360. He mentions them with a great deal of enthusiasm, yet seems very blasé about them; to me these are some of the most exciting areas of the 360, especially when it's coupled with a Media Center PC and MP3 players to give you a digital entertainment center. The X-Box Live community is already a proven success and if Microsoft expand on this, they really do have some serious clout against Sony who have yet to roll out a coherent first generation online community for the PSX platform.
All in all, I think the 360 will be a big success, and ultimately one where Microsoft has played on equal terms with other contenders, but as I mentioned earlier, it's the good software that has to make the hardware shine, and I suppose I'm almost glad that that's out of Microsoft's hands...
No. That honor probably goes to Goldeneye on the N64. Which was made by Rare, ironically. Another games company bought by Microsoft.
Launch titles have never been revolutionary. What revolutionary title did the PS2 launch with? The Gamecube? The Dreamcast?
The PS2 launch lineup:
Armored Core 2 (Agetec, Action)
DOA2: Hardcore (Tecmo, Fighting)
Dynasty Warriors 2 (Koei, Action)
ESPN International Track and Field (Konami, Sports)
ESPN X-Games Snowboarding (Konami, Sports)
Eternal Ring (Agetec, RPG)
Evergrace (Agetec, RPG)
FantaVision (SCEI, Puzzle)
Gun Griffon Blaze (Working Designs, Action)
Kessen (EA, Adventure)
Madden NFL 2001 (EA, Sports)
Midnight Club (Rockstar, Racing)
Moto GP (Namco, Racing)
NHL 2001 (EA, Sports)
Orphen (Activision, RPG)
Q-Ball Billiards Master (Take-Two Interactive, Simulation)
Ready 2 Rumble Boxing: Round 2 (Midway, Sports)
Ridge Racer V (Namco, Racing)
Silent Scope (Konami, Shooter)
Smuggler's Run (Rockstar, Racing-Adventure)
SSX (EA, Sports)
Street Fighter EX3 (Capcom, Fighting)
Summoner (THQ, RPG)
Swing Away (Paradise Golf in Japan) (EA, Sports)
Tekken Tag Tournament (Namco, fighting)
TimeSplitters (Eidos, First-Person Shooter)
Unreal Tournament (Infogrames, First-Person Shooter)
Wild Wild Racing (Interplay, Racing)
X-Squad (EA, Action)
Not a huge number of classics, but I would argue that SSX was pretty revolutionary and it's still fun today. The only game that really sort of approximated what it did prior to that was 1080, but it wasn't nearly as tight.
There were also some good niche titles in that list, such as Silent Scope, Kessen, and Dynasty Warriors 2. The 360 launch is lacking quality niche titles to draw in those who aren't all about sports or FPS games. The PS2 also had *two* triple-A fighting games; the 360 has none.
Here's the Dreamcast launch list:
* Airforce Delta | Konami | $49
* Blue Stinger | Sega | $49
* CART Flag to Flag | Sega | $49
* Expendable | Infogrames | $49
* House of the Dead 2 | Sega | $49
* Hydro Thunder | Midway | $49
* Monaco Grand Prix | Ubi Soft | $49
* Mortal Kombat Gold | Midway | $49
* NFL 2000 | Sega | $49
* NFL Blitz 2000 | Midway | $49
* Pen Pen Tri-Icelon | Infogrames | $49
* Power Stone | Capcom | $49
* Ready 2 Rumble | Midway | $49
* Sonic Adventure | Sega | $49
* Soul Calibur | Namco | $49
* TNN Hardcore Heat | ASC | $49
* Tokyo Xtreme Racing | Crave | $49
* TrickStyle | Acclaim | $49
You'll never convince me that Power Stone was not revolutionary, Sonic Adventure wasn't the best platformer of its time, and Soul Calibur was not the best fighting game ever made. Beyond that, again a good mix of mainstream stuff (NFL 2K being the best sports title available at the time) and niche titles (HotD2, TXR, etc.). The 360 just doesn't have the mix right, and it's lacking *any* true standouts.
It's also worth noting that the Dreamcast launch had a much better proportion of original titles to sequels than the Xbox 360 does.
The GameCube I might grant you, although at least the GameCube did have some of Nintendo's best franchises represented (though no Mario) - and it had one of my favorite games of all time, Super Monkey Ball. Show me that kind of silly fun in the Xbox 360's launch lineup.
I would agree with those that say the 360's launch lineup is relatively weak. It's not the worst I've ever seen (go back a few years and you'll find systems that launched with only 2 or 3 games total!), but it's not great by recent standards.
The XBox was quite paranoid about refusing to run "unsigned" code. Unless Microsoft's really dumb, the hard-drive-resident emulator programs will similarly refuse to run if they've been modified (and thus no longer match Microsoft's cryptographic key). So a virus could probably only effect modchippers. Here's what makes me more curious:
:)
The XBox backwards compatibility is handled by a series of small emulator programs installed on the hard drive, and distributed by Microsoft either on CD or over XBox Live (your choice).
I cannot help but wonder, how long until someone manages to make some kind of pseudo-VMware program that allows you to run the XBox 360's XBox emulators on a Macintosh, or a Playstation 3? I'd probably be willing to modchip my PS3 if it meant I could play KOTOR
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Wow, talk about ignorance. Streaming from a PC is just one option. Also, you don't need a Media Center PC all you need is Windows Media Connect. Have you not seen the video of the 360 playing songs from an iPod?
I've played on the XBOX360 and I can say that the graphics are not as phenomenal as one would expect from a next-generation system.
The graphics are about the same as a modern day computer game with the latest graphics card and cpu.
When I was playing the XBOX360, I realized there's nothing really that cool about this next-gen system. A point the CNN article talks about. It really isn't that innovative. It's just the same games, made prettier.
There's only so much you can do to the graphics, until the gamer realizes hey this is the same thing! Except I paid a whole lot more money!
Playing the XBOX360 made me realize, the innovation of something like Nintendo's Revolution controller may be a greater leap in gaming than Microsoft and Sony. You could end up using the Revolution's controller as a lightsaber, a gun, a tennis racket, a baseball bat, a steering wheel (use your imagination), you can really revolutionize the interaction between the user and the game simply by changing the controller like Nintendo has done. And that thought makes me drool at how more fun games will be.
Otherwise there's no difference in me just going and buying Call of Duty 2 and playing it on my home PC.
You can flood slashdot with stories about your product but you can't buy out the mainstream media... oh wait
Basically, what if you consider "a wide range of tastes" to include things other than sports games and first person shooters? Because that's really all the 360 lineup offers this month. (Though if we are courteous enough to wait until December 1 there's one fighting game; we probably shouldn't think of those as sports games.)
There are literally three games in the XBox launch lineup which are not a sports game or a first person shooter. Kameo, King Kong, and Gun. Kameo is an adventure game-- but, I have yet to encounter anyone at all who considers Kameo a 'must-have' game, or really is particularly interested in it at all. If you like adventure games you'd be much more interested in King Kong and Gun, which do both look like absolutely fantastic games with wide-ranging appeal. But... both of these games are coming out for approximately every system known to man, from the PSP to the Gamecube to the PC. If you own any video game systems at all you can play these games already. Would anyone seriously buy an XBox 360 to play these? Aside from these three, there is one arcade-looking game on the XBox Live marketplace called "Geometry Wars" that looks really cool, but the article said 'must have', so I'm just trying to think about must-have, system seller games here. This is a minigame.
So we're left with what? Well, a niche system that caters to a "wide range" of sports gamers and first person shooter gamers, with a cop to the fighting game crowd coming next month. In other words, the XBox 360 caters to exactly those set of tastes who comprised the hardcore of XBox owners. If you weren't an XBox owner, it seems like the 360 launch library really doesn't do much for you. I can definitely see how the XBox 360 launch would look "must-own" to anyone who really, really liked the XBox! But for the rest of us... well, unless you want to spend $400 to play a $10 psychadelic arcade game, or for some reason you really, really, really want to play "Gun" in HD, the current window of XBox 360 games just seems to ignore your existence entirely.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Only a couple of titles are exclusive to Xbox 360 (that is, they can't be played on any other machine). "
... link mode, and online mode...
A bit off topic, but I would like to see less PS2 only and XBOX only titles.
In fact, I would like to see platform independent online modes (of course on same powered boxes) eg PS3 and 360..
I can understand that sometimes an XBOX map is bigger than a PS2 map, but network-wise I would really appreciate if there would be interoperability thru multiplayer titles.
Even with different single player maps, there should be multiplayer maps that could be played on ps2,ps3,xbox, and 360
clear that ps3 won't connect to Xbox Live, but manufacturer hosted game servers wold be cool for that, or using XBC or KAI Xlink...
Am I dreaming ? I know they are different architectures, but in multiplayer you send cordinates (persons. bullets. vehicles, objects) , button presses and the same map could be playable with e.g. lower res, less textures on Ps2 and Ps3..... (well a bit over simplyfied)
Someone kick me in the head if that is completely an idiotic idea ! And tell me why that does not exist?
I actually tried to find games that would be playable on my consoles - to no avail...
Circumcision is child abuse.
PS3 will play Blue Ray DVDs, which gives it a substantial advantage over the other two systems since no one has a Blue Ray player yet.