Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 360 Has Nothing On Atari 2600
MBCook writes "Forbes has posted their thoughts on the launch of the Xbox 360. They start out with 'Has there ever been as confused a launch as the Xbox 360?' and it continues from there. Citing multiple confusing variations, unoriginal games, expensive bundles, and complexity of controls (among other things) it concludes: 'If anything, the Xbox 360 is aptly named: Microsoft is trying to give gamers the spin.'" Next Generation's not-so-next-gen impressions are similar. From the article: "The games you can buy today for Xbox 360 at your local retailer are not the future. As evidenced by the litany of solid but not outstanding reviews, and, my own hands-on experiences, they are but a whisper of what this machine (or the next generation of hardware as a whole) will ultimately be capable of."
To me, old systems were a lot more fun than any of the new systems. Back when they couldn't rely on good graphics to sell a game, they actually had to have good gameplay. Atari was great, as was the NES. When the Genesis & SNES came out, is when gameplay started going downhill.
I have no desire for a PS3 or XBox 360. The Revolution might be interesting, it looks like they are actually trying to innovate, and come up with something new, besides fancier graphics. We'll see though. For now, I'm sticking with my NES.
What, exactly, is this potential? Sharper graphics? More movie cutscenes? Yet another FPS, this time with accurate gibs?
What matters in a game system is how much fun it is, not the graphics.
We can't rely on game technology to push gaming forward anymore. Quake 4 was greeted with a collective ho-hum. Now that everything has 3D and 5.1 sound, now we only care about how good the gameplay is. And that's not any particular console's fault, is it?
The first article could have been written with xbox 360 replaced with any console from the last 3 generations. Old gamers will generally think the games of their time are the best. In reality, the 2600 had a myriad of horrible games. Out of that there were a few good games. The bad games are fogotten and the good ones embraced.
Same goes for the NES. I still play NES games on emulators to this day. However, going to vimm.net and playing some of those games makes me shudder. There were some horrible ones.
The last generation of systems had some terrible games too. But there were some gems. Maybe the idea is that the gems are becoming fewer and far between? I can agree with that. The only company still making a console that I find puts out really enjoyable games is Nintendo. I was playing the new Mario Party the other day and someone brought up a point. On what other system can you spend a whole day enjoying a game designed for 8 year olds? Nintendo still produces games today that I would put head to head in enjoyablity with the 2600.
As for the second article... Have we missed the whole point of the gaming console? Gaming consoles have one purpose. It isn't the GUI (dvorak). It isn't for the graphics. It isn't for the startup music. It isn't for the cool factor. It's definately not for the weight. It's about games. I bought a PC for my PC needs. I bought a home theater for my multimedia needs. Why is my console going to be judged on the same criteria as the previous two?
And in reality you can't judge a system in it's first months out of the gate. In ten years, no one's going to care about the initial launch. If the games are still lame in a year, then write the system off. It's really too soon to say.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Earlier this year I got into eBay and bought an Atari 2600 game lot, more than doubling my collection. I pulled my Atari 2600 - the very one I've had since childhood - out of the closet, dusted it off, hooked it up, and started testing all the cartridges to see which ones still worked... ...And I noticed something: The games weren't nearly as fun any more. As I wandered around the maze in Adventure I realized that my tastes had changed over the years, and the simple gameplay - while still charming and laced with nostalgia - just wasn't as captivating any more as it was 20 years ago. I know that a lot of people will disagree, as evidenced by the popularity of remakes of these games on modern systems and cell phones. In my case however, I gradually gave up my Atari 2600 in favor of more sophisticated PC and Gameboy games. I'm now extremely picky about which games I like - shunning most console titles and playing only a few new PC games each year, along with a growing stash of older titles that still call out to me. I also increased my NES collection via eBay, and it seems to have fared much better in the enjoyment department (so far).
I still plan to keep my Atari 2600 around, but it will probably not get played very often except perhaps by curious house guests. I imagine that's a better fate than most XBox 360's will see 25 years from now though...
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
These new "talkie" motion-pictures are horrible! I remember when you had to imagine what people were saying on the screen, or watch ornate subtitle screens with delightful piano music, to follow the plot. And these new plots these "talkies" have: how awful! Whatever happened to tying a damsel to a train track? That little device has a lot of legs on it still, and these "stories" told by "talkies" are just making things more complicated. They take away from why I watch my motion-pictures in the first place!