Hey, wait a minute, I thought we hated cinematics in video games? I guess since these are ending movies, they're okay? Or since they're nostalgic, they're okay?
Seriously, what a cool idea. Now get somebody working on capturing all the other cutscenes so I can watch complete mini-movies of favorite game storylines without having to dedicate 10-20 hours to playing them again.
You'll see reviews for games you're actually considering.
What about the games you're not considering?
One of the problems with internet usage is that, because it gets so intricate and tailor-made, the average person is likely to stick with only the content they already know. When was the last time you clicked the streaming video for something you knew nothing about? Getting to see a little of a wide variety of games is a benefit to the overview mags and tv shows out there... because you can't easily ignore a two-page article on Sly Cooper or a two-minute segment on Sly Cooper if you're reading a magazine or watching TV. On Gamespot, it's really easy to simply never click on a Sly Cooper link. I think a broad personal menu of internet, magazine and television covers the hobby nicely.
Answer the question. In order to remain in the club, are you required to purchase and wear special underwear? Can you safely ignore the special underwear if you choose to, and still remain in good standing? And I don't mean that you opt not to wear the special underwear in secret, I mean that you are forthright in your decision not to wear the special underwear and everyone in the church knows it and is okay with it.
Because if your answer is "Yes, I must buy and wear special underwear," then that is coercion, bunky. Does the church rake in a small profit on all that special underwear sold?
And if your answer is "No," do you allow that in some churches, these things are not optional, and that coercion - however gentle - does occur? Maybe your church is more "progressive."
If your religion requires you to do anything so that you get all the benefits of club attendance, no matter how small, it is coercion to some degree. Does your church expect you to show up every worship-day? Do some parishioners cluck their tongues when it comes to light that Husband X never seems to show up? Are you absolutely required to send your sons on a two year mission? Are you expected to talk to non-church members about your church and ask them to "try us out, maybe we have the answer you're looking for"? You have to pay the dues or you don't get to call yourself a member, that's how all social clubs work, am I right?
Yes, you may be entirely happy with your religion and you fully accept the standards and practices. But don't pretend to yourself or others that it isn't coercion. Heck, the very promise of Heaven or Valhalla or Exclusive Afterlife Planets is the ultimate blackmail... follow our rules or you don't get to go to the special afterlife world.
Just because you don't feel coerced doesn't mean that you're not.
That the sacred beliefs or practices of another religion are an object of ridicule to you demonstrates more about your own lack of maturity than anything about the religion your attempting to denigrate.
Believe me, dude, you do not want to open up a discussion of the golden tablets, the third testament, or of Jesus appearing in the American West around here. You're deflecting the point, that being that the folks behind your belief system expect and require certain things of you. And if you don't do them, you risk your membership. And is that not, to some degree, coercion. That is what I asked you to comment on, not rant off into a diatribe about how I don't respect your sacred undies. I do not consider your comments constructive in this discussion.
Answer the question and maybe we can continue this dialogue. Although to be honest, I've already pretty much got you written off as yet another hyper-sensitive religious nutjob clinging to a ludicrous belief system in hopes of getting a private planet after you die.
The plot to the game is surprisingly sophisticated.
No, it was not. It was obvious from the first cutscene that the Alpha Sections were corrupt. The leader of the Alpha Sections is a giant ugly Mussolini, and the Alpha Sections logo is the kind of spiky, angular affair you'd expect from the Third Reich. At no point did the game even attempt to convince you that the Alpha Sections were good, so when Jade finally exposes their true agenda (collaborating with the DomZ to enslave the people of Hillys) it is so painfully obvious that it makes everyone in the game look retarded. A good game would have built up the Alpha Sections as a valued and respected peacekeeping source, and then slowly revealed their treachery from within. Instead, this game trots out one of Tolkien's Cave Trolls and then wonders why we're not surprised when - SHOCK - he turns out to be evil.
Let's talk about that "evidence." It's about five photographs. You simply sneak through to linear checkpoints and take a picture. That's it. There's no deep interplay between the warring factions; there's no kidnapping opposing leaders or interrogation scenes. You take five photographs and you're done. Nothing happens in the game to make you question one faction's believability over another one's. The Alpha Sections are evil, the DomZ are evil, the Resistence Movement is good, end of story. Where are the twists? Where are the surprises? At what point do we get to consider what it means to be "good" and "evil"? BG&E can't even live up to its naval-pondering title.
And the populace? Their changing viewpoint consists of an increasing number of protestors endlessly looping chants and animations on a couple of side streets. Apart from a cute chant ("ALPHA SECTIONS MURDERERS! ALPHA SECTIONS MURDERERS!"), what was so rewarding about that? It's as fulfilling as freeing the birds at the end of a classic Sonic level... sure, it's great, but you only get it because the game is so linear.
Beyond Good and Evil was an overhyped, underplayed, waste of potential. They went to all the trouble to create an interesting sci-fantasy gameworld, and then trash it with a highly obvious, barely-there storyline. Nothing ever happens in this game that is worthy of the endless praise this mediocre game continues to receive from the press.
If you can't find games that you want to play, that's your problem.
+6,000,000,000 Absolutely Correct
I'm tired of all the whiners out there with their "sky is falling" claims. If you don't like video games, get the hell out of my way. Go post to the Linux board or something. I'd send you a care package of my favorite games, but they're all so awesome I can't bear to part with them.
You're ignoring my point, yet you still manage to prove it.
Once again, it is the enhanced online play that differentiates the Xbox, not the game's genre.
The original posting suggested that "these types of games" - of which Rainbow Six was mentioned - were indicative of the Xbox's game library and people who liked those types of games tended to stick with the Xbox rather than the PS2. Several people in this thread were complaining about "all the JRPGs" available for PS2 and seem to think that the larger number of JRPGs scared away developers and gamers who did not make/like JRPGs. My point was that "these types of games" are all available for the PS2 in near-enough form (come on, the difference between 72% and 88% is not all that much, especially in the world of game reviews!) and that it's not genre that distinguished the Xbox library, it's online play. Because the genres mentioned as being Super Awesome on Xbox are readily available everywhere else. There is no genre available on Xbox that PS2 does not have... and if there is, it certainly isn't among the games yet mentioned.
Now wait a minute... it's okay to buy a PS2 (inferior version) for GTA because it comes out there first instead of Xbox (superior version). And it's also okay to buy an Xbox (superior version) for Splinter Cell because it comes out there first instead of PS2 (inferior version). So your chief concern really isn't the quality of the game, it's which console gets it first.
And let's look at those release dates. Splinter Cell Xbox: 11/02. PS2: 04/03. GameCube: 04/03. That's pretty close, in my book, around 6 months. (And if I remember correctly, the PS2 version had an exclusive level and the GameCube version had GBA interactivity.) It sounds to me like this is the result of Microsoft's disengenous "exclusivity" marketing. Some people still think of Splinter Cell as an "Xbox game." Splinter Cell was marketed as an Xbox exclusive - and I heard of people who bought an Xbox specifically for SC - even though everyone who reads the press knew that the game was coming to PS2 and GameCube in a few months. Disgustingly, now we have accepted this practice under the label of "timed exclusives," which is probably this generation's most reprehensible addition to the marketing bag of tricks (although faked screenshots is a close second, also an Xbox innovation).
The release gaps for Pandora Tomorrow are similar to SC, and Chaos Theory was released for all three on the same day. And IGN really doesn't show much of a point difference in their review scores... not that they're the most trusted source in games journalism but at least that's one major player who didn't see much disparity across the versions. Rainbow Six is also awfully close among all the various iterations.
Top Spin, yeah, it came out 2 years later on PS2. Yes, that one is not even close. And yeah, same story with Crimson Skies.
But even with a big release gap, that wasn't really the point of the original commentary. The idea put forth was that "those types of games" were typical of Xbox and nothing else, and people who liked "those type of games" preferred Xbox over the others, especially given the JRPGs that typified the PS2 shelf stock (which is a false point anyway). My point was that "those type of games" are available for other systems, along with many other types of games, and that the Xbox really wasn't unique in that regard. Out of the four games quoted, only one is an Xbox exclusive (Crimson Skies) and that wasn't a wholly original IP anyway... nobody has listed any pure Xbox exclusives that truly defined, differentiated and sold the system. That's probably because there isn't that many of them, and most of them start with "Halo."
I also question what kind of Xbox Fanboy parameters unify a stealth action game, an airplane dogfighting game, a military simulation shooting game, and a tennis game... but, as I said, I think the true unifier for Xbox fans isn't genre preference at all, it's online play. People who preferred online play bought an Xbox... but having JRPGs on PS2 did not encourage developers to avoid releasing certain games on the system because they didn't think their games would cater to JRPG fans. That's absurd. The PS2 has the widest game library covering the most amount of genres simply because it is the better selling system and therefore has more consumers ready to throw money at it.
Games like Top Spin, Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six...those games interested me. And I think they did well on the Xbox, because of types of games they were, and the type of person who chose Xbox as their primary console.
This thread is absolutely crazy batshit nuts.
First of all, the games Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six were released for every gaming system under the sun, including PC, GBA and fucking cell phones, so they're hardly some kind of high-concept Xbox exclusive that gave people a reason to buy an Xbox above and beyond anything else. Top Spin was also released on PS2 (according to IGN's database) and Crimson Skies originally was a PC title! Are all Xbox owners so blinded to the Xbox's Obvious Brilliance that they don't even know that these games are literally everywhere?
Secondly, this is not a zero-sum system. If the PS2 has more RPGs, that doesn't mean it will have less games of another genre. The PS2 library is massive; there are plenty of games covering all genres. I have never heard anyone (aside from you lot) complain that the PS2 is a success primarily due to Japanese RPGs. The fact that Sony has the largest installed user base and therefore the biggest money pit to dive into is what kept developers making games for it. Nobody shied away from the PS2 because of all the JRPGs. If the Xbox had PS2-level sales, you would have seen a ton more RPGs released for it.
What you guys are dancing around isn't genre at all, it's online play. The Xbox has the best online setup and that is clearly the common demoninator in every Xbox game you mention. And, yeah, that could be a reason why a consumer or a developer chose Xbox over PS2 or GameCube. It wasn't because of JRPGs "crowding the game space."
I actually don't particularly care for either genre, RPG or FPS. My point was that any old wanker can show up and pontificate about his or her favorite/least favorite genre using almost exactly the same reasoning.
My point was to inspire you bottom-feeding troglodytes to avoid posting your crap opinions, but as your post proves, I was unsuccessful.
And don't forget that all those Trade-In programs make it super easy for folks to steal your stuff and trade it in for store credit, no questions asked. "And would you like a Disk Doctor with that, sir?"
Its funny that one of the biggest reasons for XBox's success( and most likely true ), is one of the biggest reason its my least favorite console of this generation... FPS's.
To this day, I still dont understand the obsession with these games and how they manage to sell consoles. The most lauded console FPS in the last decade has to be Halo, which I personally couldnt bring myself to finish. I played a handful of other FPS's on my PS2, and always came to the same conclussion, its always the same story/characters across different settings with random and mind numbingly boring combat throw into the mix.
Im sorry, maybe its my age coming into play here ( im 30 ), but the dialogue and especially violence in theses games seem to be written to target a 12 year old. Plots from the games I played were well... um.... I suppose unique is a nice way to say it... non-sensical is probrably a more accurate way to put it. Then again, maybe its because I was raised playing mostly PC based FPSs so I have developed a different mindset and expectations then most console RPG gamers. Then again... I found Duke Nukem fun... but hey wait... I was what, 12 at the time? Makes sense.
So, as I said, I avoid the XBox exactly because I prefer games outside the FPS mode. Yet, I know im the minority here.
Hell, forget about Tecmo, they're in line behind the Greco-Roman myth-writers. If you watch the God of War documentaries, Jaffe and Co. talk big about their exciting game and amazing character design when all they actually did is staple heavy-metal armor onto a minotaur.
purchasing game enhancing features like new texture elements
Hoo boy, am I looking forward to that.
Maybe Microsoft can sell me a game for $60, then nickel and dime me for another $30 so I can download newer textures. What a fanfuckingtastic business model. Oh yeah, they're in this "for the gamers."
Of course once you ask the employee to open the case for you, you can look at that back and tell them to put it back if you don't agree with the games content.
Yes, but most good American parents would prefer not to actually touch a video game box, for fear it might instantly corrupt them. It's better to just ban them all and get kids back to playing with hula hoops or something.
You're correct in that the "Ni-Fi", as you call it, is used when 2 DSs communicate locally. So why exactly would McDonald's need to generate that? You can take two DSs anywhere in the world and have them connect locally.
So the only levels with no time limit are a pair of smallish ones with limited objects. Lame.
I loved the eternal levels because you could roll up items you needed for catalog completion. I also thought it was fun just to dap around and see the bizarre sights and snap photos. Seems like an easy thing to include; I'm annoyed that they took that feature out for the sequel.
The first Katamari had unlockable infinite levels... so you could putter around the world rolling up junk without a time limit staring you in the face. I can't find any mention of unlockable infinite levels in K2 and that makes me very very sad. Anybody have any info on this?
I find it intersting that you ignore most of my other points to focus on the headphone adapter. What about the fact that the GBA was laughably fragile compared to any of the earlier models?
Really, where do you get the idea that the first edition GBA was "laughably fragile"? It was just as solid as every prior Game Boy... and I would say it was more solid than the Pocket, which was a tad flimsy. And the SP is a complete tank. You can flush them, drop them, give them to a three year old, and they consistently come out working and fine. Your whole argument rests on the GBA/GBASP hardware being easily breakable, and I have never seen any evidence for that being the case. When the PSP came out, everybody jumped on it for being fragile... not so with the GBA, SP or DS.
And as for the headphone adaptor, that was your big example. You moaned about it in post 1, manufacturing an inflated price for it in post 2, but now seem to want to downplay it. Maybe it doesn't sound like such a good point anymore.
Why do you think their market share in the console industry is shrinking?
It ain't their portable market share that's shrinking, except by completely marginal numbers due to the simple presence of the PSP. There is still a massive userbase of GBAs out there. We weren't talking about their console marketshare at all, so I wonder if this exposes you as one of those people who liked Nintendo once upon a time, maybe when they were younger, but now feel no longer served and have moved on to more "adult" gaming platforms. Therefore, all further Nintendo games and consoles are kiddie and inferior. The PS2 is "better hardware"? I don't know of anyone who would agree with that statement. Better than an N64, sure. You probably hate the GameCube because of the lack of online play, or the lack of a DVD player, therefore there must be no games worth playing on the system.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Game Boy line when the Play Station Portable hits full swing.
Really? How much longer will we have to wait for it do that?
But seriously, we know what's going to happen. Nintendo has the DS out now, and they will replace the SP/Micro models with some newfangled GBA2. After all your complaining about how Nintendo has ruined the Game Boy by released new lousy units too often, I'm surprised you couldn't predict that. When will it happen? '06, '07? I have no idea, but with GBAs and DSs still selling fine against the PSP, I think your doom prophecy is misplaced.
It's odd that a headphone adapter is a deal-breaker for you. I've known plenty of people (kids and adults), using every edition of the Game Boy from original to GBASP, and rarely seen anybody with headphones, unless it's kids in the back of a car. It's simply not critical equipment. If you had to buy the GBASP battery charger separate from the $100 purchase, then I would complain. But headphones? Come on. Nobody sane is going to deny the entire GBA library because of the SP model not having a headphone port.
but overall, they're less playable, less durable and poorly designed.
The entire world disagrees with you. The GBASP was lauded as being Nintendo's best portable hardware engineering to date. Clamshell to protect the screen. Frontlit screen. Pocket sized. Efficient layout (as opposed to the wasted space on the DS) Sturdy.
You have to shell out the cost of a good game to get the extras (Light, Headphone adapter and so on) just to make the new Game Boys get close to being as playable in as many situations as the earlier models. (Outside for example.)
Crazy talk. I'll agree that you had to get a light accessory or play under a lamp indoors for the original GBA. But OUTSIDE? Outside was the one place you could play the GBA without problem, thanks to the sun. Unless it was night, I guess. And you know what, I seem to recall playing my original Game Boy under a lamp or two as well in my day.
The "required" accessories were the cost of a good game? GBA games went from $20 to $30, mostly $30 in the first year of the GBA. A worm light cost $8 and the headphone adapter (which was only for the SP models) was $5. That's $13+tax over two hardware models. Quit making up numbers to prove your weak points. Aside from those two purchases, I've never bought any other optional accessories. No junky screen magnifier, no extra grips, no cigarette lighter adapter. So I really don't feel soaked by Nintendo (or third party vendors) on that score.
How long ago did the GBA come out? And they're just NOW offering a Game Boy with back lighting comparable to the Game Boy and Game Boy Color?
No, the GBASP solved the lighting issue on the original GBA. That came out some time ago. The new hardware revision you're all fantic about now is switching the GBASP frontlight to a backlight, which apparently, looks better. According to a press release anyway. Me, I'm happy with my original GBASP's lighting and will not bother to "upgrade." I can play it at the mall, I can play it on the subway. The GBASP looks and works great. I also had fun using the eReader thing and the few GameCube games they made that linked up with the GBASP.
And I have a Game Boy, a Game Boy Pocket and a Game Boy Color. They were not backlit, so I don't know what kind of comparison you're trying to make here.
I noticed you didn't address my point that Nintendo just may have been scrimping on lighting hardware to keep the GBA at the $100 price point, and that they didn't introduce a lit model until they could sell it for $100. I suppose it's more fun to imagine all the evil Nintendo execs sitting in Japan planning how they can "gouge the users just a little bit more."
You still haven't convinced me that you have any reason to hate modern-day Nintendo and the GBA line other than you're too cheap to buy new things.
Is it possible that when the GBA was released, including a built-in light was too expensive to keep the model at the price point Nintendo wanted? As time goes on, components get cheaper and tech gets better. Didn't the Afterburner sell for $30 and require a stupid amount of home DIY? Nintendo didn't want to sell a $130 Game Boy, so they kept the light out until they could get it to $100. Suck it up.
At no time did the SP headphone adapter cost $40 US. That is an absolute lie. Unless you're talking AUS$ or something, and if that's the case you should always note that when spreading FUD.
I have almost 50 GBA games. At no point have I mourned the lack of a C and D button. And even though the DS (which I assume is the "next model" you're talking about) has four buttons (plus 2 shoulder buttons), it's not like Nintendo is out there playing up the button count for SNES rereleases as the major reason to buy a DS. There is plenty other features to talk about. If anything, they're completely ignoring that in favor of stylus control, being that they're on a "simpler is better" kick these days, as evidenced by the goofy new Revolution controller.
You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist out to justify your anti-Nintendo rage at all cost. You liked your GBC and got pissed when Nintendo released a new model with games you couldn't play. Get over it. If you want to play, you have to pay. Every company in the world regularly releases new and better editions of their hardware. You must be the guy clogging the line at Circuit City because RCA just outmoded your home stereo system.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, what a cool idea. Now get somebody working on capturing all the other cutscenes so I can watch complete mini-movies of favorite game storylines without having to dedicate 10-20 hours to playing them again.
It's supposed to be, yes.
What about the games you're not considering?
One of the problems with internet usage is that, because it gets so intricate and tailor-made, the average person is likely to stick with only the content they already know. When was the last time you clicked the streaming video for something you knew nothing about? Getting to see a little of a wide variety of games is a benefit to the overview mags and tv shows out there... because you can't easily ignore a two-page article on Sly Cooper or a two-minute segment on Sly Cooper if you're reading a magazine or watching TV. On Gamespot, it's really easy to simply never click on a Sly Cooper link. I think a broad personal menu of internet, magazine and television covers the hobby nicely.
That said, G4 does suck.
You still haven't answered my question as to whether your church requests you to wear special underwear.
Answer the question. In order to remain in the club, are you required to purchase and wear special underwear? Can you safely ignore the special underwear if you choose to, and still remain in good standing? And I don't mean that you opt not to wear the special underwear in secret, I mean that you are forthright in your decision not to wear the special underwear and everyone in the church knows it and is okay with it.
Because if your answer is "Yes, I must buy and wear special underwear," then that is coercion, bunky. Does the church rake in a small profit on all that special underwear sold?
And if your answer is "No," do you allow that in some churches, these things are not optional, and that coercion - however gentle - does occur? Maybe your church is more "progressive."
If your religion requires you to do anything so that you get all the benefits of club attendance, no matter how small, it is coercion to some degree. Does your church expect you to show up every worship-day? Do some parishioners cluck their tongues when it comes to light that Husband X never seems to show up? Are you absolutely required to send your sons on a two year mission? Are you expected to talk to non-church members about your church and ask them to "try us out, maybe we have the answer you're looking for"? You have to pay the dues or you don't get to call yourself a member, that's how all social clubs work, am I right?
Yes, you may be entirely happy with your religion and you fully accept the standards and practices. But don't pretend to yourself or others that it isn't coercion. Heck, the very promise of Heaven or Valhalla or Exclusive Afterlife Planets is the ultimate blackmail... follow our rules or you don't get to go to the special afterlife world.
Just because you don't feel coerced doesn't mean that you're not.
That the sacred beliefs or practices of another religion are an object of ridicule to you demonstrates more about your own lack of maturity than anything about the religion your attempting to denigrate.
Believe me, dude, you do not want to open up a discussion of the golden tablets, the third testament, or of Jesus appearing in the American West around here. You're deflecting the point, that being that the folks behind your belief system expect and require certain things of you. And if you don't do them, you risk your membership. And is that not, to some degree, coercion. That is what I asked you to comment on, not rant off into a diatribe about how I don't respect your sacred undies. I do not consider your comments constructive in this discussion.
Answer the question and maybe we can continue this dialogue. Although to be honest, I've already pretty much got you written off as yet another hyper-sensitive religious nutjob clinging to a ludicrous belief system in hopes of getting a private planet after you die.
But they do make you buy and wear special underwear, right?
No, it was not. It was obvious from the first cutscene that the Alpha Sections were corrupt. The leader of the Alpha Sections is a giant ugly Mussolini, and the Alpha Sections logo is the kind of spiky, angular affair you'd expect from the Third Reich. At no point did the game even attempt to convince you that the Alpha Sections were good, so when Jade finally exposes their true agenda (collaborating with the DomZ to enslave the people of Hillys) it is so painfully obvious that it makes everyone in the game look retarded. A good game would have built up the Alpha Sections as a valued and respected peacekeeping source, and then slowly revealed their treachery from within. Instead, this game trots out one of Tolkien's Cave Trolls and then wonders why we're not surprised when - SHOCK - he turns out to be evil.
Let's talk about that "evidence." It's about five photographs. You simply sneak through to linear checkpoints and take a picture. That's it. There's no deep interplay between the warring factions; there's no kidnapping opposing leaders or interrogation scenes. You take five photographs and you're done. Nothing happens in the game to make you question one faction's believability over another one's. The Alpha Sections are evil, the DomZ are evil, the Resistence Movement is good, end of story. Where are the twists? Where are the surprises? At what point do we get to consider what it means to be "good" and "evil"? BG&E can't even live up to its naval-pondering title.
And the populace? Their changing viewpoint consists of an increasing number of protestors endlessly looping chants and animations on a couple of side streets. Apart from a cute chant ("ALPHA SECTIONS MURDERERS! ALPHA SECTIONS MURDERERS!"), what was so rewarding about that? It's as fulfilling as freeing the birds at the end of a classic Sonic level... sure, it's great, but you only get it because the game is so linear.
Beyond Good and Evil was an overhyped, underplayed, waste of potential. They went to all the trouble to create an interesting sci-fantasy gameworld, and then trash it with a highly obvious, barely-there storyline. Nothing ever happens in this game that is worthy of the endless praise this mediocre game continues to receive from the press.
+6,000,000,000 Absolutely Correct
I'm tired of all the whiners out there with their "sky is falling" claims. If you don't like video games, get the hell out of my way. Go post to the Linux board or something. I'd send you a care package of my favorite games, but they're all so awesome I can't bear to part with them.
Once again, it is the enhanced online play that differentiates the Xbox, not the game's genre.
The original posting suggested that "these types of games" - of which Rainbow Six was mentioned - were indicative of the Xbox's game library and people who liked those types of games tended to stick with the Xbox rather than the PS2. Several people in this thread were complaining about "all the JRPGs" available for PS2 and seem to think that the larger number of JRPGs scared away developers and gamers who did not make/like JRPGs. My point was that "these types of games" are all available for the PS2 in near-enough form (come on, the difference between 72% and 88% is not all that much, especially in the world of game reviews!) and that it's not genre that distinguished the Xbox library, it's online play. Because the genres mentioned as being Super Awesome on Xbox are readily available everywhere else. There is no genre available on Xbox that PS2 does not have... and if there is, it certainly isn't among the games yet mentioned.
And let's look at those release dates. Splinter Cell Xbox: 11/02. PS2: 04/03. GameCube: 04/03. That's pretty close, in my book, around 6 months. (And if I remember correctly, the PS2 version had an exclusive level and the GameCube version had GBA interactivity.) It sounds to me like this is the result of Microsoft's disengenous "exclusivity" marketing. Some people still think of Splinter Cell as an "Xbox game." Splinter Cell was marketed as an Xbox exclusive - and I heard of people who bought an Xbox specifically for SC - even though everyone who reads the press knew that the game was coming to PS2 and GameCube in a few months. Disgustingly, now we have accepted this practice under the label of "timed exclusives," which is probably this generation's most reprehensible addition to the marketing bag of tricks (although faked screenshots is a close second, also an Xbox innovation).
The release gaps for Pandora Tomorrow are similar to SC, and Chaos Theory was released for all three on the same day. And IGN really doesn't show much of a point difference in their review scores... not that they're the most trusted source in games journalism but at least that's one major player who didn't see much disparity across the versions. Rainbow Six is also awfully close among all the various iterations.
Top Spin, yeah, it came out 2 years later on PS2. Yes, that one is not even close. And yeah, same story with Crimson Skies.
But even with a big release gap, that wasn't really the point of the original commentary. The idea put forth was that "those types of games" were typical of Xbox and nothing else, and people who liked "those type of games" preferred Xbox over the others, especially given the JRPGs that typified the PS2 shelf stock (which is a false point anyway). My point was that "those type of games" are available for other systems, along with many other types of games, and that the Xbox really wasn't unique in that regard. Out of the four games quoted, only one is an Xbox exclusive (Crimson Skies) and that wasn't a wholly original IP anyway... nobody has listed any pure Xbox exclusives that truly defined, differentiated and sold the system. That's probably because there isn't that many of them, and most of them start with "Halo."
I also question what kind of Xbox Fanboy parameters unify a stealth action game, an airplane dogfighting game, a military simulation shooting game, and a tennis game... but, as I said, I think the true unifier for Xbox fans isn't genre preference at all, it's online play. People who preferred online play bought an Xbox... but having JRPGs on PS2 did not encourage developers to avoid releasing certain games on the system because they didn't think their games would cater to JRPG fans. That's absurd. The PS2 has the widest game library covering the most amount of genres simply because it is the better selling system and therefore has more consumers ready to throw money at it.
This thread is absolutely crazy batshit nuts.
First of all, the games Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six were released for every gaming system under the sun, including PC, GBA and fucking cell phones, so they're hardly some kind of high-concept Xbox exclusive that gave people a reason to buy an Xbox above and beyond anything else. Top Spin was also released on PS2 (according to IGN's database) and Crimson Skies originally was a PC title! Are all Xbox owners so blinded to the Xbox's Obvious Brilliance that they don't even know that these games are literally everywhere?
Secondly, this is not a zero-sum system. If the PS2 has more RPGs, that doesn't mean it will have less games of another genre. The PS2 library is massive; there are plenty of games covering all genres. I have never heard anyone (aside from you lot) complain that the PS2 is a success primarily due to Japanese RPGs. The fact that Sony has the largest installed user base and therefore the biggest money pit to dive into is what kept developers making games for it. Nobody shied away from the PS2 because of all the JRPGs. If the Xbox had PS2-level sales, you would have seen a ton more RPGs released for it.
What you guys are dancing around isn't genre at all, it's online play. The Xbox has the best online setup and that is clearly the common demoninator in every Xbox game you mention. And, yeah, that could be a reason why a consumer or a developer chose Xbox over PS2 or GameCube. It wasn't because of JRPGs "crowding the game space."
I actually don't particularly care for either genre, RPG or FPS. My point was that any old wanker can show up and pontificate about his or her favorite/least favorite genre using almost exactly the same reasoning.
My point was to inspire you bottom-feeding troglodytes to avoid posting your crap opinions, but as your post proves, I was unsuccessful.
And don't forget that all those Trade-In programs make it super easy for folks to steal your stuff and trade it in for store credit, no questions asked. "And would you like a Disk Doctor with that, sir?"
To this day, I still dont understand the obsession with these games and how they manage to sell consoles. The most lauded console FPS in the last decade has to be Halo, which I personally couldnt bring myself to finish. I played a handful of other FPS's on my PS2, and always came to the same conclussion, its always the same story/characters across different settings with random and mind numbingly boring combat throw into the mix.
Im sorry, maybe its my age coming into play here ( im 30 ), but the dialogue and especially violence in theses games seem to be written to target a 12 year old. Plots from the games I played were well... um.... I suppose unique is a nice way to say it... non-sensical is probrably a more accurate way to put it. Then again, maybe its because I was raised playing mostly PC based FPSs so I have developed a different mindset and expectations then most console RPG gamers. Then again... I found Duke Nukem fun... but hey wait... I was what, 12 at the time? Makes sense.
So, as I said, I avoid the XBox exactly because I prefer games outside the FPS mode. Yet, I know im the minority here.
I trust you see my point.
Hell, forget about Tecmo, they're in line behind the Greco-Roman myth-writers. If you watch the God of War documentaries, Jaffe and Co. talk big about their exciting game and amazing character design when all they actually did is staple heavy-metal armor onto a minotaur.
Wasn't that exactly how the last generation played out, and still PS2 stomped all over Xbox in almost every arena?
Yep. Fatal Frame 2 was excellent stuff. I liked it so much, I made a card game out of it.
Hoo boy, am I looking forward to that.
Maybe Microsoft can sell me a game for $60, then nickel and dime me for another $30 so I can download newer textures. What a fanfuckingtastic business model. Oh yeah, they're in this "for the gamers."
Yes, but most good American parents would prefer not to actually touch a video game box, for fear it might instantly corrupt them. It's better to just ban them all and get kids back to playing with hula hoops or something.
And I've never heard it called "Ni-Fi" before.
I loved the eternal levels because you could roll up items you needed for catalog completion. I also thought it was fun just to dap around and see the bizarre sights and snap photos. Seems like an easy thing to include; I'm annoyed that they took that feature out for the sequel.
The first Katamari had unlockable infinite levels... so you could putter around the world rolling up junk without a time limit staring you in the face. I can't find any mention of unlockable infinite levels in K2 and that makes me very very sad. Anybody have any info on this?
Really, where do you get the idea that the first edition GBA was "laughably fragile"? It was just as solid as every prior Game Boy... and I would say it was more solid than the Pocket, which was a tad flimsy. And the SP is a complete tank. You can flush them, drop them, give them to a three year old, and they consistently come out working and fine. Your whole argument rests on the GBA/GBASP hardware being easily breakable, and I have never seen any evidence for that being the case. When the PSP came out, everybody jumped on it for being fragile... not so with the GBA, SP or DS.
And as for the headphone adaptor, that was your big example. You moaned about it in post 1, manufacturing an inflated price for it in post 2, but now seem to want to downplay it. Maybe it doesn't sound like such a good point anymore.
Why do you think their market share in the console industry is shrinking?
It ain't their portable market share that's shrinking, except by completely marginal numbers due to the simple presence of the PSP. There is still a massive userbase of GBAs out there. We weren't talking about their console marketshare at all, so I wonder if this exposes you as one of those people who liked Nintendo once upon a time, maybe when they were younger, but now feel no longer served and have moved on to more "adult" gaming platforms. Therefore, all further Nintendo games and consoles are kiddie and inferior. The PS2 is "better hardware"? I don't know of anyone who would agree with that statement. Better than an N64, sure. You probably hate the GameCube because of the lack of online play, or the lack of a DVD player, therefore there must be no games worth playing on the system.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Game Boy line when the Play Station Portable hits full swing.
Really? How much longer will we have to wait for it do that?
But seriously, we know what's going to happen. Nintendo has the DS out now, and they will replace the SP/Micro models with some newfangled GBA2. After all your complaining about how Nintendo has ruined the Game Boy by released new lousy units too often, I'm surprised you couldn't predict that. When will it happen? '06, '07? I have no idea, but with GBAs and DSs still selling fine against the PSP, I think your doom prophecy is misplaced.
but overall, they're less playable, less durable and poorly designed.
The entire world disagrees with you. The GBASP was lauded as being Nintendo's best portable hardware engineering to date. Clamshell to protect the screen. Frontlit screen. Pocket sized. Efficient layout (as opposed to the wasted space on the DS) Sturdy.
You have to shell out the cost of a good game to get the extras (Light, Headphone adapter and so on) just to make the new Game Boys get close to being as playable in as many situations as the earlier models. (Outside for example.)
Crazy talk. I'll agree that you had to get a light accessory or play under a lamp indoors for the original GBA. But OUTSIDE? Outside was the one place you could play the GBA without problem, thanks to the sun. Unless it was night, I guess. And you know what, I seem to recall playing my original Game Boy under a lamp or two as well in my day.
The "required" accessories were the cost of a good game? GBA games went from $20 to $30, mostly $30 in the first year of the GBA. A worm light cost $8 and the headphone adapter (which was only for the SP models) was $5. That's $13+tax over two hardware models. Quit making up numbers to prove your weak points. Aside from those two purchases, I've never bought any other optional accessories. No junky screen magnifier, no extra grips, no cigarette lighter adapter. So I really don't feel soaked by Nintendo (or third party vendors) on that score.
How long ago did the GBA come out? And they're just NOW offering a Game Boy with back lighting comparable to the Game Boy and Game Boy Color?
No, the GBASP solved the lighting issue on the original GBA. That came out some time ago. The new hardware revision you're all fantic about now is switching the GBASP frontlight to a backlight, which apparently, looks better. According to a press release anyway. Me, I'm happy with my original GBASP's lighting and will not bother to "upgrade." I can play it at the mall, I can play it on the subway. The GBASP looks and works great. I also had fun using the eReader thing and the few GameCube games they made that linked up with the GBASP.
And I have a Game Boy, a Game Boy Pocket and a Game Boy Color. They were not backlit, so I don't know what kind of comparison you're trying to make here.
I noticed you didn't address my point that Nintendo just may have been scrimping on lighting hardware to keep the GBA at the $100 price point, and that they didn't introduce a lit model until they could sell it for $100. I suppose it's more fun to imagine all the evil Nintendo execs sitting in Japan planning how they can "gouge the users just a little bit more."
You still haven't convinced me that you have any reason to hate modern-day Nintendo and the GBA line other than you're too cheap to buy new things.
At no time did the SP headphone adapter cost $40 US. That is an absolute lie. Unless you're talking AUS$ or something, and if that's the case you should always note that when spreading FUD.
I have almost 50 GBA games. At no point have I mourned the lack of a C and D button. And even though the DS (which I assume is the "next model" you're talking about) has four buttons (plus 2 shoulder buttons), it's not like Nintendo is out there playing up the button count for SNES rereleases as the major reason to buy a DS. There is plenty other features to talk about. If anything, they're completely ignoring that in favor of stylus control, being that they're on a "simpler is better" kick these days, as evidenced by the goofy new Revolution controller.
You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist out to justify your anti-Nintendo rage at all cost. You liked your GBC and got pissed when Nintendo released a new model with games you couldn't play. Get over it. If you want to play, you have to pay. Every company in the world regularly releases new and better editions of their hardware. You must be the guy clogging the line at Circuit City because RCA just outmoded your home stereo system.