|
|
| Page 5 of 7 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2005 18:31 Post subject: |
|
 |
Personally I havent been overly impressed with the 360 lineup wise, many of the games seem like rushed xbox rehashes with slightly improved graphics (namely ea titles). Being a pc gamer I see nothing appealing to me . . . I already have call of duty 2 and quake 4.
On the flipside sony has impressed even hard pressed pc gamers as their games actually look a step up from current generation pc games (providing they'll look as good in realtime that is).
Sony still have an iron grip on the asian market and I really cant see micro$oft dominating them at their ball game.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2005 19:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| LastRite wrote: | Personally I havent been overly impressed with the 360 lineup wise, many of the games seem like rushed xbox rehashes with slightly improved graphics (namely ea titles). Being a pc gamer I see nothing appealing to me . . . I already have call of duty 2 and quake 4.
On the flipside sony has impressed even hard pressed pc gamers as their games actually look a step up from current generation pc games (providing they'll look as good in realtime that is).
Sony still have an iron grip on the asian market and I really cant see micro$oft dominating them at their ball game. |
Sony's games haven't been shown. They're not ingame thus far (mostly).
I am pleased wtih CoD2 (but as you mention you have it), PGR3, Condemned
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Supino
Posts: 699
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2005 20:52 Post subject: |
|
|
oh you're on a quoteing spree here na... ehm.. stazi. : )
But you do have a lot of good points. Like this one: Who the Feck thought that the line up of XBOX 360 games would be BANG NEXT GEN!
-> there you have it people, the lineup! Next gen games. Go nuts! It will not get better than this I tell you. THIS is how far next gen will go. If you get dissapointed by this, well, this is it.
Who the hell concludes what the xbox 360 is capable of by just looking at the lineup, AND call himself a gamer?! It will take 1 to 2 years before we truly see next gen. This is just a transition.
No no.. it all makes sense. They are supporting theyr company like it was a footballteam. You can't argue with em'. You can't reason with them. They never give you relevant info. They are called FANBOYS, and there lives a little fanboy in everyone in here.
But we shouldn't care. YOU can choose whatever you want. I don't give a damn and nither should you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2005 22:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Supino wrote: | | It will take 1 to 2 years before we truly see next gen. This is just a transition. |
I totally agree and I think by the end of 2007, we're probably gonna be able to see which console will be the most popular one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
i m not saying that what x360 is showing in the line-up is its full power, but in comparison to previous generations it doesnt nearly have the same impact.
everyone was amazed when the consoles from the previous generation came out, same when the consoles of current generation were released, but this time its like, well its nice graphics, i think it even looks better than pc, i think.
cmon thats bullshit, thats not the way a next-gen console should start. before this it was always like, damn this new console´s graphics are out of this world, far better than anything i ve seen on pc, but this time people are actually debating whether the gaphics are better than pc or not. i dont care if its only the beginning of the console, its the weakest beginning ever.
if i m not completely blown away at the start i wont be ever.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 01:28 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree completley with Kuja.
Microsoft shuld have waited instead of rushing out their console. If they would have waited 6 more months they would have gotten some really kickass next-gen games at launch, but they choosed the desperate way. :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 01:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| D_A_Kuja wrote: | i m not saying that what x360 is showing in the line-up is its full power, but in comparison to previous generations it doesnt nearly have the same impact.
everyone was amazed when the consoles from the previous generation came out, same when the consoles of current generation were released, but this time its like, well its nice graphics, i think it even looks better than pc, i think.
cmon thats bullshit, thats not the way a next-gen console should start. before this it was always like, damn this new console´s graphics are out of this world, far better than anything i ve seen on pc, but this time people are actually debating whether the gaphics are better than pc or not. i dont care if its only the beginning of the console, its the weakest beginning ever.
if i m not completely blown away at the start i wont be ever. |
If I had a pen and could be bothered scanning, I'd show a curve (kind of similar to the product life cycle one in marketing theory), the start of video gaming was slow then it led to high growth (Whatever before PS>PS>Ps2). Now, the advances are in maturity and are almost plateuing, albeit increasing on an upward slope.
The problem with MS is that it wanted to have high sales before xmas. This was a poor decision (well, good from a marketers point of view). If it had waited until ghost recon 3 and morrowind to launch with these: well, you'd get an amazing launch line-up. 'Next-gen has arrived' would be something appearing in quotes all over the net and in publications. The other ports also wouldn't feel rushed.
The DoA4 delay was very unfortunate for MS, as they were relying on that to showcase the graphics.
Blame the PC gaming revolution for the constant comparissons. Even when PS2 was released the equivelant PC components were extremely expensive to buy. Now, due to high demand, suppliers can keep prices low for parts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 12:20 Post subject: |
|
|
The MGS4 teaser was like the game is supposed to look, when it comes out - and as you can see, there's a high probablity that it really WILL look like this, since it's not as utopian as the Killzone 2 trailer was. And if you look at the PS3 specs, it looks like it can easily handle this. I don't think Kojima is lieing.
And all this X360 vs PS3 is bullshit at this period of time. The PS3 is NOT out yet! How can you say what's better. Right now, you can only compare the specs, which may easily change during the development of Sony's new console.
But I must admit the PS3 looks much more promising (and I'm probably going to buy one).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 14:02 Post subject: |
|
|
all we have seen from "gameplay" on the ps3 had been uberfakez0red
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 14:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| pallebrun wrote: | I agree completley with Kuja.
Microsoft shuld have waited instead of rushing out their console. If they would have waited 6 more months they would have gotten some really kickass next-gen games at launch, but they choosed the desperate way. :/ |
Well they were supposed to have DOA4 and Elder scrolls: Oblivion at launch, but these got delayed, so...
We shall see how this pans out, microsoft are no idiots, they released the console early for a reason. But we've all seen how it can turn out if the process is rushed (i.e. Dreamcast).
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 14:48 Post subject: xbox better? hah give me a break idiot |
|
|
Dont know if this link has been posted but here are all the specs
http://www.ps3land.com/faq.php
As you can see ps3 will have a Live much compareable to xbox live
and the specs are alredy superior on the ps3 and lets not forget about the games
AND YES IM A SONY FANBOI EAT IT SUCKERS MUAHUAH OWNT1!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 14:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| D_A_Kuja wrote: | think a bit back in time, at first, when mgs1 was announced for psx and the first trailer was shown, ppl were in awe, everyone said that cant be game graphics, in the end it didnt disappoint a bit, it looked the same as in the trailers.
a few years later when the mgs2 trailer was shown, noone believed the game could look that good. everyone was sceptic, saying that it wont run like that in the release build.
guess what, everyone was wrong.
now, for the third time there is an mgs trailer that looks absolutely incredible and damn, the people still dont get it. hideo kojima proved it 2 times already why are there still people around who dont believe?
trust me, that game will look every bit as good as in that trailer, if not better.
kojima never disappointed, and he wont now either. |
A WRONG... where have you beeen? The first build of MGS2 was cut down for the ps2 hardware
B Kojima never fails...um??? If you ask me MGS2 pretty much failed in evry department except Grapichs/music/sound 99% videos/talk 1% gameplay
Thank God he listened to his fans, and we got MGS3 (similar to MGS1)
Another reason: 90% gayden 10% snake
God... this thread is full of sonyfanwhores
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:04 Post subject: |
|
|
but still didnt MGS2 get a score above 9 on every famous gamesite? thats right idiot think before you act mgs2 rocked
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:06 Post subject: |
|
|
what? the first trailer of mgs2 was exactly the way the game turned out to be in the end.
no clue what youre talking about here, no pre-rendered stuf in mgs ever.
also mgs2 was revolutionary, at that point it was the most realistic action game around, no other game came close, sure now when you look back what you see is mainly the unneeded complexity of the story which makes it seems a bit pretentious, but mind you with mgs3 being a much better game, mgs2 was the revolutionary one, the game that many people bought the console for, which actually turned out to be exactly what the trailer has shown.
show me that "first build" which was cut down.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| Episode wrote: | | but still didnt MGS2 get a score above 9 on every famous gamesite? thats right idiot think before you act mgs2 rocked |
stfu sonywhore, think of what? im a MGS fan you idiot....Why would I care what rating it got on sites?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| D_A_Kuja wrote: | what? the first trailer of mgs2 was exactly the way the game turned out to be in the end.
no clue what youre talking about here, no pre-rendered stuf in mgs ever.
also mgs2 was revolutionary, at that point it was the most realistic action game around, no other game came close, sure now when you look back what you see is mainly the unneeded complexity of the story which makes it seems a bit pretentious, but mind you with mgs3 being a much better game, mgs2 was the revolutionary one, the game that many people bought the console for, which actually turned out to be exactly what the trailer has shown.
show me that "first build" which was cut down. |
No I can't.. I don't own a ps2/mgs2 anymore.. I bought the MGS2 Limited edition and I viewed the trailers on the 2nd disc... since I don't own a scanner i can't show you the article either.. But MGS2 came out about year after ps2 launch, and I remember reading in article the first build had to be toned down since the ps2 hardware couldn't hande it, and at this time we saw a teaser... yeah I know not much to go on huh? You only got my word
also mgs2 was revolutionary, at that point it was the most realistic action game around, no other game came close
R-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-a-r-y, not really... sure the grapichs were awesome in 2001, but it wasn't a completly new experience since you rarely got a chance to play at all.
I didn't mean the ps2 version was a dumdowned lol not at all.. the gfx were awesome back in 01... but the teaser trailers we saw wasn't truly "ingame".
Sorry I wish I had a scanner and that article close by... I made a misstake I shouldn't have said anything without giving you a link or something :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 15:28 Post subject: |
|
|
mgs2 was 50% gameplay and 50% cutscenes/codec convo.
with the first average playthrough the game would total around 15-17 hours, which makes for atleast 8 hours of gameplay, that isnt really nothing if you ask me.
and i dont know about you but for over 90% of other mgs2 players it WAS a new experience at that time, everyone was amazed at the gameplay more than the graphics actually.
only because you didnt like its story doesnt mean you can deny the quality of its gameplay back in that time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 16:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| GP Force wrote: |
No I can't.. I don't own a ps2/mgs2 anymore.. I bought the MGS2 Limited edition and I viewed the trailers on the 2nd disc... since I don't own a scanner i can't show you the article either.. But MGS2 came out about year after ps2 launch, and I remember reading in article the first build had to be toned down since the ps2 hardware couldn't hande it, and at this time we saw a teaser... yeah I know not much to go on huh? You only got my word
also mgs2 was revolutionary, at that point it was the most realistic action game around, no other game came close
R-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-a-r-y, not really... sure the grapichs were awesome in 2001, but it wasn't a completly new experience since you rarely got a chance to play at all.
I didn't mean the ps2 version was a dumdowned lol not at all.. the gfx were awesome back in 01... but the teaser trailers we saw wasn't truly "ingame".
Sorry I wish I had a scanner and that article close by... I made a misstake I shouldn't have said anything without giving you a link or something :/ |
Me too have bought mgs2 special edition, I also viewed the trailers and none of the trailers were prerended..
acctualy the final version of game looks better than in those "prerended trailers ps2 cudnt handle" on the dvd
hello... new ere..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 17:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| D_A_Kuja wrote: | mgs2 was 50% gameplay and 50% cutscenes/codec convo.
with the first average playthrough the game would total around 15-17 hours, which makes for atleast 8 hours of gameplay, that isnt really nothing if you ask me.
and i dont know about you but for over 90% of other mgs2 players it WAS a new experience at that time, everyone was amazed at the gameplay more than the graphics actually.
only because you didnt like its story doesnt mean you can deny the quality of its gameplay back in that time. |
That is complete bullshit.... I can accept you got a different opinion, but please don't make up story's. I've finished MGS2 over 7 times since I got the game back in 01, and let's not mention my crazy who finished more then I can count. If you skip evry conversation/sequence you can finish the game a LOT sooner then 8 hours, trust me it's been done.
90% of the players, new experience, amazed at the gameplay, BOLLOX. The game was great until you saw trough evry code/sequence etc etc... and "amazed" the gameplay, what gameplay is that? Where you play as gayden, who I may remind most of the fans "hated", thank you very much kojim for making MGS3 ,less talk more focus on the story telling.
only because you didnt like its story doesnt mean you can deny the quality of its gameplay back in that time.[
Im a fan... remember? I love the MGS series, but MGS2 was easily one of kojimas worst games (doesn't mean it sucks, I'll give it a strong  , Some of the story elements were nice, liquid and snake's story/solid their DNA tree, but that's it... Gayden and every fucking codec talk as soon as you took 2 steps took away some of the nice story elements.
Once again evry mgs game is heavily based on a story, I don't mind the talking/sequences etce etc in fact I love IT!!! But when it removes gameplay and you have to sit and watch it like a movie (see xenosaga) it's not a game anymore. If I want to see a cool movie I'll rent one.
Kojim is a genious he doesn't have to have hours of mindless talk in order to achieve a great game, see MGS1-MGS3-MG2 (original version)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| pallebrun wrote: | The FIRST playthrough GP Force, and who the hell skips stuff on their first playthrough?!?
A normal first playthrough takes around 8 hours of full gameplay, and that's not too bad.
If you skip cutscenes and everything, even mgs1 can be beaten in just a few hours, it's common for any mgs game. It's the FIRST and the NORMAL playthrough that mathers.
And I find it quite funny that you have completed this "shitty" game 7 times too. 
It's always funny when people flame a game like hell, and then say "I know what I'm talking about, I've completed it 10 times". |
A im a fan (look it up)
B I didn't *flame* the game
C But no one asked you pellebrun.
D Im talking about the whole experience, not just a playtrough, and yes when I was done with the game I was disappointed, gayden was one of the major reasons and all the talking on the codec/sequences etc etc
E Yeah im sure you know the word "flaming" around nforce -console arena, eh pellebrun
 
EDIT check my above post plz I gave it a solid 8, is that a bad thing? MGS1 = 10 MGS3 weak 10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 17:57 Post subject: |
|
|
lol on the first playthrough for mgs3 you need around 20 hrs,
but you can easily complete it under 3 as well, means shit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 18:22 Post subject: |
|
|
I can see where this is going so I will just leave it at that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hahe
Posts: 1685
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 19:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| GP Force wrote: | | Episode wrote: | | but still didnt MGS2 get a score above 9 on every famous gamesite? thats right idiot think before you act mgs2 rocked |
stfu sonywhore, think of what? im a MGS fan you idiot....Why would I care what rating it got on sites? |
LOL. You call him a sonywhore just because he defended MGS2. I loved MGS2 and I am a MGS fan. Sure playing as Raiden was gay and there was a bit too much movies but I didn't mind it that much. It was still a very fun game and I enjoyed it. MGS1 & MGS3 were better though.
P.S. Xenosaga was also a great game even with the excess of LOOOONG cutscenes. One of the better RPGs out there. But of course it wasn't better than Xenogears. That's a classic.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GP Force
Posts: 861
Location: Hair today, gone tomorrow
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Dec 2005 19:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
