How about Call of Duty 2?..doh! Perfect Dark?...doh!
The only thing I can think of are the upcoming X-Men and Justice League games.
I really think that co-op games (especially 4 way) deserve a lot more attention than they get. Playing with other people in the same room, all at the same time, is more fun to me than playing online. It's a shame that only shooters get that treatment, because not everyone I know likes shooter games. What's worse to me is the apparent disregard for 4 player racing in recent games. Both PGR3 and Burnout dropped it (though I think that last burnout only had 2-player split screen as well). That's a damn shame, because racing games are damn fun with more than 2 people.
Oh, I just remembered: Top Spin 2. The original Top Spin was a great 4 player game (doubles), and I got people to play it that normally wouldn't touch videogames.
Oh god, just go away. If you don't like something, it doesn't mean no one else does. Rephrase that last as "what the hell else is there for me to play" and your assumed answer of "nothing" can actually make sense.
I don't care if you or anyone else does or doesn't like any game or console in the universe. I am just getting sick of people assuming that everyone in the world thinks like them, so if they think something sucks then it inherently does.
Also, haven't pretty much all of the Final Fantasy games ever released on a Sony system come out on PC as well? And yet they still sold systems?
Oblivion is an RPG, and it is on 360, and it is doing quite well on that system. Fastest selling game since launch. It is also doing quite well on PC, but that's not stopping it from selling well on any other platform.
Point is, if the game is available on a system, that system has that game.
And why, pray tell, doesn't Oblivion count? Because it doesn't have a Saturday morning cartoon plotline and feature remarkable dice rolling that the player can watch (I mean combat)?
The meme police are looking for you. You're under arrest.
Seriously, insisting that the 360 is dead just to get the idea out there when all other evidence indicates that it's doing just fine is getting a bit old. really. We're tired of it. People won't start thinking "the 360 is dead" just because you planted the idea in their heads. Not when numbers speak otherwise. And even if they did, you're only talking about the slashdot community, who probably wouldn't buy a microsoft product anyway.
1. You don't like xbox. Xbox is not shit. Learn the difference, please. Lots of people do like it, and it has done well. People dropping lines like "xbox is a failure" sadden me in their desperation to get some sort of "meme" or something rolling about the xbox's supposed failure. Same goes for those who blindly say that the gamecube failed, because it didn't either. What you like or don't like isn't indicative of the success of anything.
2. Xbox was a huge boon to Sega fans, because many of the big games for Dreamcast (and saturn) saw extended life on xbox. Gamecube may have had Monkey Ball and Sonic, but xbox got Shenmue, Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio Future, and Phantasy Star Online (GC had that also). For Sega fans, the xbox was a great console.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The idea that backwards compatibility is an EXPECTED feature is new. It has popped up from time to time in the past but has never been a bullet point feature for a console until the PS2 did it, and the GBA after it (or maybe vice versa, though neither really had much influence on the other because they're in different markets). This generation of consoles (xbox360, ps3, rev) is the first generation where is was expected, and where companies got flak when they didn't promise it.
The original post was missing the "old days" of BC. If that's the case, he was missing the Atari 7800, because that's the only real console that offered BC in the past. Somehow, I doubt anyone misses the good old days of the 7800. BC has never been, until recently, a major feature of consoles. And no, add-ons just don't count. Not one of those add-ons came out with the system in question, and they had very little market penetration. Saying you miss the days of BC is like saying you miss the good old days of pixel shading.
OK, fine, you win, the Gameboy is a console. So now we've got
Atari 7800 - BC Jaguar - not BC Genesis - not BC without accessory Super Nintendo - not BC Saturn - not BC Nintendo64 - not BC Dreamcast - not BC Gamecube - not BC PS2 - BC Gameboy Advance - BC Nintendo DS - BC
So you've got 4 out of 11 that are backwards compatible in pretty much the history of gaming consoles. That's not exactly a golden heyday of backwards compatibility now, is it?
The numbers you'll see in the future will change that, of course, because now it's considered par for the course, but the idea that backwards compatibility is a given based on past history is false. The idea that it is a given is a recent phenomenon, mostly established by the PS2 and, as you point out, the gameboy line.
It is a new idea as far as being expected behavior. For consoles. The Atari backwards compatibility was an exception rather than the rule. Gameboy compatibility is a different affair, because that's not really console gaming. And the others you mention involve add-on modules, which isn't really system backwards compatibility. It's BC with a peripheral, which is something else entirely (especially for the ones that provide compatibility with games from another system). You're talking about add-on emulators, not system backwards compatibility.
To put it in perspective, Nintendo and Sega each produced 4 consoles over the lifetime of console videogaming. 3 of each were successors to an existing system. None of them offered backwards compatibility. That's 6 major consoles with the potential for BC with no BC. Sony has released 2 consoles, and their first successor did have BC. That's the first major console that actually offered it as a feature. So out of the following consoles, which make up the bulk of console history, only one offered it as a feature, hardware or otherwise:
Super Nintendo - no BC Genesis - no BC (unless you purchased a peripheral, which didn't come with the system and didn't come out when the system was first released) Nintendo 64 - no BC Saturn - no BC Dreamcast - no BC Gamecube - no BC PS2 - BC
So to say you missed the old days of BC is, statistically speaking, revisionist history.
Like on the old Nintendo and Sega systems? Oh right, they weren't BC.
Backwards compatibility is a relatively new idea with gaming consoles. The only major system to have done it before now was PS2 with PS1. So there really weren't ever any good ol' days for this feature.
I think that your usage is kind of an edge use case. most people who are going to use that feature will use it just like they do in iTunes and other applications: they'll just take what the machine gives them. They don't think to change the options, they just press or click the button that says "rip" and they're happy. I'm not saying that you're wrong, that it would be a good option, but I think the vast majority of people who would use this feature aren't concerned about the level of control you want. The question then is how much more effort would it have been to add the feature, and if it's not a lot, why didn't they do it. Of course, there's always the possibility this kind of thing could be added at a later date as part of a downloadable upgrade.
Personally, I prefer to rip things to my ipod, then just plug the ipod in via the USB port. If I'm going to the trouble of ripping something, why not do it once so that I can use it everywhere (on the xbox, in the car, on the go, etc.?) The interface makes no distinction between songs on my ipod and songs on the hard drive.
what is a decent game in your opinion? People need to calm the f down and to remember the difference between "I don't like a game" and "it's a bad game". As another poster put it, the games have scored consistently high, remarkably so for a launch. Compare these games to Smugglers Run, Timesplitters, and Kessen that came out with the PS2. Oooh, and Summoner too.
Also, for the poster who said they're all sequels, who cares? You think the PS3 isn't going to have the same issue? Or the Revolution? Any launch is going to have a bunch of sequels because they're proven sellers. There will also be a couple of original games, and usually they aren't much good unless your company's name is Nintendo. But the 360 did have Condemned and Kameo, both of which are new franchises and both of which are pretty darn good games.
I just don't understand it when people have such an agenda when they write about games and consoles. It feels like the cold war, but more ridiculous.
No one outside of people who read this site and other gamer sites is waiting for the carrot of launch information. When it happens, they might hear about it, but your average gamer does not wait on the edge of their seat for this sort of thing, as you or I might.
1. Defender sucked on Atari 2600. It was the most disappointing arcade conversion they ever did (well, besides pacman). I can understand now why they couldn't duplicate defender's vector graphics, but as a kid it was heart-wrenchingly disappointing.
2. The xbox 360 controller does have shoulder buttons.
Agreed on PS2 controller. I find that my thumbs have to be forced together, rather than just sit where they are most comfortable. This is especially irksome on games that rely on dual analog control, like most modern shooters. People forget that those analog sticks were an afterthought, and that most of the reason people like them isn't because it's a great ergonomic design, but because they're just used to it. It's no coincidence that both the xbox and gamecube have similar analog stick placement.
I agree wholeheartedly. I remember the days of the old Origin games, where you got full color maps, supplements, a history to read, etc. It was just fun, and made you feel like you'd got your money's worth. Now, PC games just throw a reference card in (if you're lucky) and have a CD booklet with install instructions. Console games have 5 page manuals, 3 of which include seizure warnings, a blank "notes" page (what the hell for?), and a diagram showing the buttons on the controller that DOESN'T even show what the buttons are used for in that game (it just shows the controller so you know what "A" and "B" refer to). The 2 pages of actual game material are in 20pt font and mostly tell you how to put the disc in the drive.
The glory days of buying a game and getting excited to take it home are long gone. I guess too much money is made licensing out to Brady and Prima for game guides. And even they're not that engaging.
The original poster was right. The hype around the Emotion Engine was spectacular even by Sony's marketing standards. Something about being able to convey emotions it was so painfully realistic. It wasn't as powerful as promised. The point isn't that it wasn't a successful chip by sales numbers, but rather that it was no where near worthy of the hype generated around it. Similar hype is being generated for the Cell chip, now.
If those merits is (sic) _mute_, then how will they ever be able to communicate with us? I'd hate to be in a room with a bunch of mute merits struggling mightly to get their point across. Someone could get hurt.
This is one of my HUGEST pet peeves in the grammatical world. Let's go through this again:
A point in argument can be MOOT. It can then be considered either up for debate, or unworthy of debate, having been previously settled. Depends on the definition you want to use. A point in argument cannot be MUTE. It does not have the capacity for communication, therefore it cannot lose that capacity and thus be rendered, unlike its brethren, mute.
Didn't anyone ever see that old SNL sketch with Jesse Jackson? The big sign behind Jesse said "The Question is Moot!", not mute. If we can't learn from television, we're truly lost.
Hell, I'm not even sure if a merit can be moot, let alone mute.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Call of Duty 2? ..doh! ...doh!
Perfect Dark?
The only thing I can think of are the upcoming X-Men and Justice League games.
I really think that co-op games (especially 4 way) deserve a lot more attention than they get. Playing with other people in the same room, all at the same time, is more fun to me than playing online. It's a shame that only shooters get that treatment, because not everyone I know likes shooter games. What's worse to me is the apparent disregard for 4 player racing in recent games. Both PGR3 and Burnout dropped it (though I think that last burnout only had 2-player split screen as well). That's a damn shame, because racing games are damn fun with more than 2 people.
Oh, I just remembered: Top Spin 2. The original Top Spin was a great 4 player game (doubles), and I got people to play it that normally wouldn't touch videogames.
Oh god, just go away. If you don't like something, it doesn't mean no one else does. Rephrase that last as "what the hell else is there for me to play" and your assumed answer of "nothing" can actually make sense.
I don't care if you or anyone else does or doesn't like any game or console in the universe. I am just getting sick of people assuming that everyone in the world thinks like them, so if they think something sucks then it inherently does.
Fanboy? Umm, how?
Also, haven't pretty much all of the Final Fantasy games ever released on a Sony system come out on PC as well? And yet they still sold systems?
Oblivion is an RPG, and it is on 360, and it is doing quite well on that system. Fastest selling game since launch. It is also doing quite well on PC, but that's not stopping it from selling well on any other platform.
Point is, if the game is available on a system, that system has that game.
And why, pray tell, doesn't Oblivion count? Because it doesn't have a Saturday morning cartoon plotline and feature remarkable dice rolling that the player can watch (I mean combat)?
The meme police are looking for you. You're under arrest.
Seriously, insisting that the 360 is dead just to get the idea out there when all other evidence indicates that it's doing just fine is getting a bit old. really. We're tired of it. People won't start thinking "the 360 is dead" just because you planted the idea in their heads. Not when numbers speak otherwise. And even if they did, you're only talking about the slashdot community, who probably wouldn't buy a microsoft product anyway.
1. You don't like xbox. Xbox is not shit. Learn the difference, please. Lots of people do like it, and it has done well. People dropping lines like "xbox is a failure" sadden me in their desperation to get some sort of "meme" or something rolling about the xbox's supposed failure. Same goes for those who blindly say that the gamecube failed, because it didn't either. What you like or don't like isn't indicative of the success of anything.
2. Xbox was a huge boon to Sega fans, because many of the big games for Dreamcast (and saturn) saw extended life on xbox. Gamecube may have had Monkey Ball and Sonic, but xbox got Shenmue, Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio Future, and Phantasy Star Online (GC had that also). For Sega fans, the xbox was a great console.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The idea that backwards compatibility is an EXPECTED feature is new. It has popped up from time to time in the past but has never been a bullet point feature for a console until the PS2 did it, and the GBA after it (or maybe vice versa, though neither really had much influence on the other because they're in different markets). This generation of consoles (xbox360, ps3, rev) is the first generation where is was expected, and where companies got flak when they didn't promise it.
The original post was missing the "old days" of BC. If that's the case, he was missing the Atari 7800, because that's the only real console that offered BC in the past. Somehow, I doubt anyone misses the good old days of the 7800. BC has never been, until recently, a major feature of consoles. And no, add-ons just don't count. Not one of those add-ons came out with the system in question, and they had very little market penetration. Saying you miss the days of BC is like saying you miss the good old days of pixel shading.
And BTW, you're wrong.
fine but I don't see how that changes my point
OK, fine, you win, the Gameboy is a console. So now we've got
Atari 7800 - BC
Jaguar - not BC
Genesis - not BC without accessory
Super Nintendo - not BC
Saturn - not BC
Nintendo64 - not BC
Dreamcast - not BC
Gamecube - not BC
PS2 - BC
Gameboy Advance - BC
Nintendo DS - BC
So you've got 4 out of 11 that are backwards compatible in pretty much the history of gaming consoles. That's not exactly a golden heyday of backwards compatibility now, is it?
The numbers you'll see in the future will change that, of course, because now it's considered par for the course, but the idea that backwards compatibility is a given based on past history is false. The idea that it is a given is a recent phenomenon, mostly established by the PS2 and, as you point out, the gameboy line.
irrelevant (the size of the gameboy market). Gameboy is huge in gaming, as are PCs. But we're talking about console compatibility.
Oh nevermind. You'll just disagree with me anyway.
It is a new idea as far as being expected behavior. For consoles. The Atari backwards compatibility was an exception rather than the rule. Gameboy compatibility is a different affair, because that's not really console gaming. And the others you mention involve add-on modules, which isn't really system backwards compatibility. It's BC with a peripheral, which is something else entirely (especially for the ones that provide compatibility with games from another system). You're talking about add-on emulators, not system backwards compatibility.
To put it in perspective, Nintendo and Sega each produced 4 consoles over the lifetime of console videogaming. 3 of each were successors to an existing system. None of them offered backwards compatibility. That's 6 major consoles with the potential for BC with no BC. Sony has released 2 consoles, and their first successor did have BC. That's the first major console that actually offered it as a feature. So out of the following consoles, which make up the bulk of console history, only one offered it as a feature, hardware or otherwise:
Super Nintendo - no BC
Genesis - no BC (unless you purchased a peripheral, which didn't come with the system and didn't come out when the system was first released)
Nintendo 64 - no BC
Saturn - no BC
Dreamcast - no BC
Gamecube - no BC
PS2 - BC
So to say you missed the old days of BC is, statistically speaking, revisionist history.
Like on the old Nintendo and Sega systems? Oh right, they weren't BC.
Backwards compatibility is a relatively new idea with gaming consoles. The only major system to have done it before now was PS2 with PS1. So there really weren't ever any good ol' days for this feature.
I think that your usage is kind of an edge use case. most people who are going to use that feature will use it just like they do in iTunes and other applications: they'll just take what the machine gives them. They don't think to change the options, they just press or click the button that says "rip" and they're happy. I'm not saying that you're wrong, that it would be a good option, but I think the vast majority of people who would use this feature aren't concerned about the level of control you want. The question then is how much more effort would it have been to add the feature, and if it's not a lot, why didn't they do it. Of course, there's always the possibility this kind of thing could be added at a later date as part of a downloadable upgrade.
Personally, I prefer to rip things to my ipod, then just plug the ipod in via the USB port. If I'm going to the trouble of ripping something, why not do it once so that I can use it everywhere (on the xbox, in the car, on the go, etc.?) The interface makes no distinction between songs on my ipod and songs on the hard drive.
Why would you pirate (or buy) something from some artist you hated?
what is a decent game in your opinion? People need to calm the f down and to remember the difference between "I don't like a game" and "it's a bad game". As another poster put it, the games have scored consistently high, remarkably so for a launch. Compare these games to Smugglers Run, Timesplitters, and Kessen that came out with the PS2. Oooh, and Summoner too.
Also, for the poster who said they're all sequels, who cares? You think the PS3 isn't going to have the same issue? Or the Revolution? Any launch is going to have a bunch of sequels because they're proven sellers. There will also be a couple of original games, and usually they aren't much good unless your company's name is Nintendo. But the 360 did have Condemned and Kameo, both of which are new franchises and both of which are pretty darn good games.
I just don't understand it when people have such an agenda when they write about games and consoles. It feels like the cold war, but more ridiculous.
No one outside of people who read this site and other gamer sites is waiting for the carrot of launch information. When it happens, they might hear about it, but your average gamer does not wait on the edge of their seat for this sort of thing, as you or I might.
well, they looked vector. At least how I remember them. But thinking about it, yeah, I guess you're right.
They certainly looked sharper than anything that could be done on the 2600, though. I guess it was a matter of resolution.
1. Defender sucked on Atari 2600. It was the most disappointing arcade conversion they ever did (well, besides pacman). I can understand now why they couldn't duplicate defender's vector graphics, but as a kid it was heart-wrenchingly disappointing.
2. The xbox 360 controller does have shoulder buttons.
Agreed on PS2 controller. I find that my thumbs have to be forced together, rather than just sit where they are most comfortable. This is especially irksome on games that rely on dual analog control, like most modern shooters. People forget that those analog sticks were an afterthought, and that most of the reason people like them isn't because it's a great ergonomic design, but because they're just used to it. It's no coincidence that both the xbox and gamecube have similar analog stick placement.
I think we can recognize you by your writing at this point, which is making these tired posts of yours actually amusing.
I think Bill Gates is getting so disappointed with MS in general, let alone their "360 fiasco". Word is he's going to shoot himself in the nuts.
Please continue your sterling efforts.
I agree wholeheartedly. I remember the days of the old Origin games, where you got full color maps, supplements, a history to read, etc. It was just fun, and made you feel like you'd got your money's worth. Now, PC games just throw a reference card in (if you're lucky) and have a CD booklet with install instructions. Console games have 5 page manuals, 3 of which include seizure warnings, a blank "notes" page (what the hell for?), and a diagram showing the buttons on the controller that DOESN'T even show what the buttons are used for in that game (it just shows the controller so you know what "A" and "B" refer to). The 2 pages of actual game material are in 20pt font and mostly tell you how to put the disc in the drive.
The glory days of buying a game and getting excited to take it home are long gone. I guess too much money is made licensing out to Brady and Prima for game guides. And even they're not that engaging.
Is the fact that the NR controllers are non-proprietary BT a selling point? Are you planning on using them with your phone?
The original poster was right. The hype around the Emotion Engine was spectacular even by Sony's marketing standards. Something about being able to convey emotions it was so painfully realistic. It wasn't as powerful as promised. The point isn't that it wasn't a successful chip by sales numbers, but rather that it was no where near worthy of the hype generated around it. Similar hype is being generated for the Cell chip, now.
I say we band together and kill him.
If those merits is (sic) _mute_, then how will they ever be able to communicate with us? I'd hate to be in a room with a bunch of mute merits struggling mightly to get their point across. Someone could get hurt.
This is one of my HUGEST pet peeves in the grammatical world. Let's go through this again:
A point in argument can be MOOT. It can then be considered either up for debate, or unworthy of debate, having been previously settled. Depends on the definition you want to use.
A point in argument cannot be MUTE. It does not have the capacity for communication, therefore it cannot lose that capacity and thus be rendered, unlike its brethren, mute.
Didn't anyone ever see that old SNL sketch with Jesse Jackson? The big sign behind Jesse said "The Question is Moot!", not mute. If we can't learn from television, we're truly lost.
Hell, I'm not even sure if a merit can be moot, let alone mute.