Print Page - How Is Life With The 360?

just my opinion so dont slam me guys. there are some very good games out there. but most have seemed very novlety to me. i loved the games i played, but only one time thru. i dont think ill play most of them again. to this day i still load up all 3 gta games on my xbox, cant stop playing them, and battlefield 2 on pc, cant stop playing it. none of the games seem to have a real hook that want me to keep playing, after the movie is over im done. dont let it discourage you though, i thought every penny paid was worth it for all the games. im just not feeling the replay value.. =) HAM

jaxo001, I have never been so impressed with launch titles as I have with the 360s offerings. Condemned and CoD 2 made me change my overall top 10 list, they are that good. Its more next gen than I imagined it would be.

Games that I wasnt expecting 2 like, such as GUN and Kong(cross platform titles), are addicting. And games that I had an open mind towards(PD Zero), sucked terribly in my opinion.

It will only get better, 2 more weeks and Recon!

Noone can tell you how you'll feel after owning one, you need to get it and judge for yourself.

Out off all my friends that have the 360 maybe 2 said they like it. And these 2 were die hards people who's rooms are filled with every game and console to date and action figures of their favorite characters, and star wars light sabers that costed them more money than was worth and swears that every game purchase is worth it.

Basically people that are plain ole fashion die hards of gaming would vote for this console.

It's NOTHING to go crazy over, there haven't been any block buster games. Closest to that would be COD and most innovative is condemned, most replay value Geometry wars.

At 64 dollars a game I don't see the justification of spending all that money on subpar games but as some has said in previous post they do it because there is nothing else and MS has spaced it out perfectly in order for them to behave like fiends.

Maybe in a few more months like 6 months with better games, the camera, and others maybe the 360 would be a good buy as of this very moment I would recommend not to buy. I know it's hard not having something all the other kids are buying but trust me you could invest your money more wisely.

And if your that interested in it I will sell you my premium with remote and Condemned recharge kit and purchase some stock and recharge the 401k like I should have... but judge for yourself

's

seriously, once Recon comes out its worth it, March fares well for the 360.

depending on what people were expecting you will get different responses. IMHO, this is the best launch since the DC launch and even beats that one in some respects. so far i have played through DoA4, condemned, CoD2, PGR3, PDZ, and king kong and they are all quality titles. even though there wasnt a "killer app" i like it better to have many quality titles.

my main gripe with the 360? the d-pad on the controller

others will point to lack of features with movie playback or windows media center, but for someone who gets the game console just for gaming (like me) there are no complaints as it features more options then any system before it.

other then that, all is grand if your a gamer.

To tell the truth... The only game that I have found being worth the money I spent on this console is Dead or Alive 4.
Perfect Dark was'nt impressing at all... just a solid FPS with a few levels, nothing we have'nt seen before... and the graphics was'nt all that marvelous either... but the worst has to be the framerate... shame on RARE to release a game for a next-gen console that runs in 30fps.
COD2 could just aswell be played on the old XBOX cause the it's practiaclly the same game with a little bit better graphics, nothing more... and this is the truth.
King Kong was crap... end of story.
Kameo Was cute... fun... but did'nt have that extra sparkle that you want to see in a platform/adventure game... this game also runs in 30fps, a shame.
PGR3 is a boring racing game... after you have completed several races and played for some hours you start to wonder where the hell all the fun is?... the game has no feeling what soo ever and you start to think you are driving a snail on ice... this game also run in 30fps and that ruins alot of the feeling too.. racing games should have a smooth 60fps in my oppinion.
Condemned was too short... otherwise it would've been an ok game even though it suffers from the 30fps illness.

This is all out of my oppinion and I have really tried to like those games I have mentioned here... but in the end this is'nt what you expect from a next generation console.
When I play a release title on a next generation console I want to be stunned by the graphics, the smooth gameplay, the perfect feeling we all felt the day the first XBOX was released and we saw Halo for the first time.
I hope upcoming games will have what I am looking for... cause right now I only play DOA4 and the demo version of that Marble game on Xbox Live Arcade

I am not a hardcore gamer. I play my 360 about 2 or 3 hours a day, if that. I absolutely love it - It willt ake a lot to get me back to PC gaming.

I love how simple it is to play games on consoles.

Games wise - Kameo kicks ass, best game ive played in a long time. Call of Duty is very similar to the first version - which i loved, and so i love COD2 also.

PDZ is a bit meh, nothign that amazing.

Ridge Racer is a LOT better than I thought it would be, starts slow, but then gets very addictive - and online play is superb.

I dont know what everyone expects fromt he 360 - but I think its doing well - and as someone mentioned, in march we will be getting GR:AW and other great games!

QUOTE(TraZer @ Feb 22 2006, 09:02 AM)

To tell the truth... The only game that I have found being worth the money I spent on this console is Dead or Alive 4.
Perfect Dark was'nt impressing at all... just a solid FPS with a few levels, nothing we have'nt seen before... and the graphics was'nt all that marvelous either... but the worst has to be the framerate... shame on RARE to release a game for a next-gen console that runs in 30fps.
COD2 could just aswell be played on the old XBOX cause the it's practiaclly the same game with a little bit better graphics, nothing more... and this is the truth.
King Kong was crap... end of story.
Kameo Was cute... fun... but did'nt have that extra sparkle that you want to see in a platform/adventure game... this game also runs in 30fps, a shame.
PGR3 is a boring racing game... after you have completed several races and played for some hours you start to wonder where the hell all the fun is?... the game has no feeling what soo ever and you start to think you are driving a snail on ice... this game also run in 30fps and that ruins alot of the feeling too.. racing games should have a smooth 60fps in my oppinion.
Condemned was too short... otherwise it would've been an ok game even though it suffers from the 30fps illness.

This is all out of my oppinion and I have really tried to like those games I have mentioned here... but in the end this is'nt what you expect from a next generation console.
When I play a release title on a next generation console I want to be stunned by the graphics, the smooth gameplay, the perfect feeling we all felt the day the first XBOX was released and we saw Halo for the first time.
I hope upcoming games will have what I am looking for... cause right now I only play DOA4 and the demo version of that Marble game on Xbox Live Arcade

i understand that is all of your opinion, but dont you think your setting your expectations a bit too high?

PDZ: i usually can tell the difference between 30 and 60fps and i thought that PDZ ran at 60fps. also for a xbox port i thought the graphics were great, the only thing that really could have been addressed was the AI.

CoD2 is far beyond what the xbox can do and that is the truth. you base your assumptions on guessing when you dont even know the technical merits behind the game. the AI alone is next gen enough, its far beyond what the xbox could do ever.

as for the rest i have played and loved them all (accept kameo but only because im not into platformers). you cant compare games right with each other because game development isnt as black and white as that. also it would seem that your biggest issue with the games is the 30 fps. however you were impressed by halo which runs at 30 fps. i got the same impressions by these launch titles that i did with halo if not more. i think the jump from the previous generation to the xbox just spoiled a lot of us. you think that a game "suffers" by running in 30fps when that is the norm for most games that arent fighters or racers. 30fps is fine enough for me, i say keep it at 30 and give us more eye candy.

Didnt most xbox games run at only 30fps anyways?

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Feb 22 2006, 11:32 AM)

Didnt most xbox games run at only 30fps anyways?

thats what im saying, most games in general (on console atleast) run at 30 fps, which is more then fine for most games IMO.

there are devs who will lower the frame rate just to include more effects. most people think that just because the "next gen" is here we can do away with lower frame rates, pop-up, and other small issues. however, even though a system is 10x more powerful that just means that the devs will be pushing it even harder and still need to manage the resources of the console. just because something is more powerful doesnt mean that problems will cease to exist. IMHO, the more powerful and better looking graphics get, the easier it is to see flaws.

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Feb 22 2006, 11:32 AM)

Didn't most xbox games run at only 30fps anyways?

yeah they did, and the few games that ran at 60FPS or supported actual HD resolutions typically looked like crap otherwise (low poly models, no normal mapping, no decent effects, etc)
Interesting enough I've noticed most people who complain about 30FPS don't even own TVs capable of supporting frame rates higher then that. (not implying that's the case here just something I've noticed)

@Kage's first post

my sentiments EXACTLY

It's been my experience that the people who are "disappointed" with the 360 launch are typically either those who didn't participate in previous console launches, or those who's only other launch experience was the Xbox 1.

You have to realize that the the Xbox 1 was a bit ahead of it's time to begin with, "Last Gen" should be considered the capabilities of the DC, PS2, and GameCube. The Xbox 1 was a bit of an aberration, it was overpowered for it's time by console standards, and because it was built with essentially off the shelf PC hardware developers were able to jump right in and start doing amazing stuff with it.

Look at launch PS2 titles, and then look at PS2 titles coming out now, the difference is almost a generation in itself, Now look at Xbox 1 launch titles and look at more recent ones, There is a difference but it's not as dramatic as that of the PS2.

The PS2 works as a good example because it's a typical console; in that it uses highly specialized hardware that takes programmers a generations worth of time to fully milk it's potential. The Xbox 1 was an aberration of that because being based on a PC it was somewhat demystified from the get go.

If a games utilization of hardware potential can be measured on a scale from 1 to 10 the PS2's launch titles were a 1 or 2 and the ones coming out now are a 9 or 10. The Xbox started around 5 or 6 and is producing the 9s and 10s now.

The Xbox 360 is a typical console in that it uses specialized hardware, the games coming out now are a 1 or 2 out of the possible 10 for potential.

If you've never bought a launch console outside of the Xbox 1 then IMO you're expectations were probably much higher then what they should have been.

IMO, from someone who's owned about every console made in the last 15 years, the 360 is truly next-gen. The game line-up, while lacking a single "killer-app" has more AAA franchises and more of a solid variety of titles then any other console launch in history.

I didn't buy an Xbox 1 until months after it's launch, simply because it didn't have any games that I liked. I wouldn't have bought the 360 at launch if it didn't have any games that I liked, but it did.... and I currently own 9 games for it.

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Feb 22 2006, 04:40 PM)

i understand that is all of your opinion, but dont you think your setting your expectations a bit too high?

PDZ: i usually can tell the difference between 30 and 60fps and i thought that PDZ ran at 60fps. also for a xbox port i thought the graphics were great, the only thing that really could have been addressed was the AI.

CoD2 is far beyond what the xbox can do and that is the truth. you base your assumptions on guessing when you dont even know the technical merits behind the game. the AI alone is next gen enough, its far beyond what the xbox could do ever.

as for the rest i have played and loved them all (accept kameo but only because im not into platformers). you cant compare games right with each other because game development isnt as black and white as that. also it would seem that your biggest issue with the games is the 30 fps. however you were impressed by halo which runs at 30 fps. i got the same impressions by these launch titles that i did with halo if not more. i think the jump from the previous generation to the xbox just spoiled a lot of us. you think that a game "suffers" by running in 30fps when that is the norm for most games that arent fighters or racers. 30fps is fine enough for me, i say keep it at 30 and give us more eye candy.

I'm not setting my expectations too high I think... sure... Xbox 360 is technically really great... but this kind of hardware should be able to cope with soo much more than this.
When Halo was released it was astonishing... it was something beyond what we saw in games at that time... but today is 2006... hardware and games are evolving, and so I expect a next-gen console to run games in 60fps instead of laggy 30.
30fps was a norm for both PS2 and XBOX.... but 60fps should be a norm for a next-gen, just as most PC gamers today consider it to be a norm to play games in 60fps and above... again... my oppinion

I have a sharp eye when it comes to the framerate, and I can assure you that PDZ does run in somewhere about 30fps... and the graphics are'nt really anything we have'nt seen before... I expect a next-gen console to run games with graphics such as in F.E.A.R for PC.

And believe me... CoD2 for 360 is'nt as far beyond what the original XBOX version is... I have CoD2 for the 360 myself and I play it on a HDTV, and the graphics is pretty much it.
My neighbour has CoD2 for the original XBOX and it's basically the same games with some cut down graphics.
The AI is exactly the same in both versions and what I cant understand is that you say that the AI alone is next-gen, cause "that's" based purely on assumptions itself.

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Feb 22 2006, 01:06 PM)

thats what im saying, most games in general (on console atleast) run at 30 fps, which is more then fine for most games IMO.

Yeah, I dont really get why that bothers him.

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 07:22 PM)

I hope you're blaming the developer here....

Read what Kage and Twisted just posted, read it a couple of times while you're at it.

I love 60 fps, (yes Twisted it makes a difference even on a standard CRT) but I understand that frame rates are up to the developer.

As far as graphics are concerned, again it's up to the developer.
Compare GOW with COD2, how can you even question the hardware when both games are running on the same chip sets?
This last part isn't directed at you but it's directed at most people in general who for some strange reason, conveniantly forget that Gears of War and games like GUN are running on the same console....

Ofcourse I am blaming the developer... as I said... the hardware is really great, it's nothing wrong with it... but when it's coming to a game like PDZ I expect it to run in 60fps or else I get the feeling that it's all just bad programming... seriously... the machine does have the power to cope with it just as the original XBOX had the power to run Ninja Gaiden (for examle) in 60fps, and did it look crap?... I guess we all have the answer to that one.
I did read what Kage and Twisted wrote, but I believe that the fact about most 60fps games looked crap is just totally wrong.

Ofcourse the graphics and framerates are up to the developer, noone can rule over the developers of a game... but even though it's up to them I have my wishinglist, it's pretty natural.

QUOTE(TraZer @ Feb 22 2006, 01:13 PM)

...When Halo was released it was astonishing... it was something beyond what we saw in games at that time...

Just out of curiosity which Xbox 360 FPS style launch games (Condemned, COD2, King Kong, PDZ, or Quake 4) do you consider to not look next gen when compared to the only FPS style Xbox 1 launch game (Halo)

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 01:55 PM)

I see!
Well then, this ones on me

I share your distate for devs that take the 30fps route.
I was hoping this was a thing of the past with the next generation but it seems as long as the silver screen remains at 25-29 fps (if I'm not mistaking), we will have to settle for 30 fps.

Thank folks like Sega who always take the 60 fps approach when ever possible, and pay even more thanks to Mr. Itagaki who promises to deliver 60 fps only

I like 60FPS as much as the next guy... but I also run a progressive scan display
and yes Movies run at 27FPS and interlaced 50Hz sets run at 25...

however 30FPS =! laggy
and on an interlaced based display I'm sorry but as long as the frame rate does drop below 30 (which is a different problem altogether) your picture will be identical at 60fps as it is at 30fps.

progressive scan sets can display a max of 1 frame per Hz and interlaced can only max at 1 frame per 2Hz

NTSC is 60Hz and most PAL is 50Hz

if it's progressive you can get 60FPS and 50FPS respectively and if it's interlaced you can only get 30FPS and 20FPS respectivly... it's not theory, it's not speculation, it's a physical fact of life, if you think you can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps on an interlaced set you're flat out imagining things

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 08:03 PM)

Am I the only one who wasn't "blown away" by Halo's graphics when it first came out?

Nope I really failed to see why everyone except us 2 were not totally shocked and awed by which is known as Halo's graphics.

I still fail to be impressed by it or H2

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 02:03 PM)

Am I the only one who wasn't "blown away" by Halo's graphics when it first came out?

...

More blown away by the gameplay and ai myself.

QUOTE(TraZer @ Feb 22 2006, 01:40 PM)

Ofcourse I am blaming the developer... as I said... the hardware is really great, it's nothing wrong with it... but when it's coming to a game like PDZ I expect it to run in 60fps or else I get the feeling that it's all just bad programming... seriously... the machine does have the power to cope with it just as the original XBOX had the power to run Ninja Gaiden (for examle) in 60fps, and did it look crap?... I guess we all have the answer to that one.
I did read what Kage and Twisted wrote, but I believe that the fact about most 60fps games looked crap is just totally wrong.

Ofcourse the graphics and framerates are up to the developer, noone can rule over the developers of a game... but even though it's up to them I have my wishinglist, it's pretty natural.

its not so simple that its up to the developers, a lot has to do with the design of the game. yes the developers have the choice to include a set number of effects and technologies that would play a part of the frame rate but if their vision needs all effects to be used and 30fps is the only option then where is the choice so simple?

also about NG, i love itigaki and team ninja, own every game on xbox they made. however their artistic aproach allows them to achieve 60fps more then anything else. yes it looks beautiful and runs at 60 fps, but there isnt anything really taxing about the games when it comes to effects. a lot of the beauty comes from great texture work, but there isnt much lighting, shadowing, particles, bump mapping, or any other really resource hungry effects going on. the art direction allows them to keep a very clean and colorful scene without the need of normal mapping, stencil shadows, and other effects used in other games.

yes a lot can be pointed to the developers but there are things that need to be considered, like PDZ was originally a xbox1 game which will hold it back in its next gen debut. also since this console is so different when it comes to architecture, it may be some time before we even see the true power of these systems.

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Feb 22 2006, 01:56 PM)

Just out of curiosity which Xbox 360 FPS style launch games (Condemned, COD2, King Kong, PDZ, or Quake 4) do you consider to not look next gen when compared to the only FPS style Xbox 1 launch game (Halo)
I like 60FPS as much as the next guy... but I also run a progressive scan display
and yes Movies run at 27FPS and interlaced 50Hz sets run at 25...

however 30FPS =! laggy
and on an interlaced based display I'm sorry but as long as the frame rate does drop below 30 (which is a different problem altogether) your picture will be identical at 60fps as it is at 30fps.

progressive scan sets can display a max of 1 frame per Hz and interlaced can only max at 1 frame per 2Hz

NTSC is 60Hz and most PAL is 50Hz

if it's progressive you can get 60FPS and 50FPS respectively and if it's interlaced you can only get 30FPS and 20FPS respectivly... it's not theory, it's not speculation, it's a physical fact of life, if you think you can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps on an interlaced set you're flat out imagining things

i agree, for the most part, with you. however call me crazy but even on my older TV i can tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps regardless of how many frames my TV displays. i like to think that i have a sharp eye when it comes to whats on the screen and when playing PGR3 and ridge racer on my 360 i can clearly see a difference. even if all the frames are being displayed there is still a level of fidelity that 60 fps displays. a great example is PGR3 itself, the game runs at 60 fps, but the physics in the game runs at 60fps, and when you see crashes and mistakes the "animation" (dont know what else to call it) looks a lot smoother then everything else in the game.

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 02:03 PM)

Am I the only one who wasn't "blown away" by Halo's graphics when it first came out?

Perhaps I was spoiled by the Dreamcast since it was my first current gen, next gen console of that time.
But Halo's graphics were nothing special, actually that's the first thing that hit me when I first fired up my Xbox. I was like, "Oh, so this is the powerful Xbox?".
Of coarse, I was blown away by the game. But the graphics had very little to do with it....

i owned a DC since launch but i was still impressed by halo's graphics. it wasnt the game as a whole but the little attentions to detail that caught my attention. i also think that the DC played a large part in the last gen. and that is why i was not impressed at all with the ps2 when it came out and if the xbox wasnt going to be much better i wouldnt have owned it.

QUOTE(miggidy @ Feb 22 2006, 02:03 PM)

Am I the only one who wasn't "blown away" by Halo's graphics when it first came out?

Perhaps I was spoiled by the Dreamcast since it was my first current gen, next gen console of that time.
But Halo's graphics were nothing special, actually that's the first thing that hit me when I first fired up my Xbox. I was like, "Oh, so this is the powerful Xbox?".
Of coarse, I was blown away by the game. But the graphics had very little to do with it....

You arent the only one. I knew the xbox had it in her when I loaded up pgr and doa 3, so I put no stock into Halos blandicity(is that a word?, if not it is now). The story was good enough though that I only bitched a few times

Just thinking about that cutscene b4 he meets the Flood still gives me the chills.

I thought film was 24FPS....which is why all these new DV and HD cameras are 24p, to get that film look as they call it....it's the effects in halo that got me, like the way ice looked....that's why I dig PDZ's gfx, zooming in on steps and wall tiles etc have all this detail crammed into them that you'll probably never see just running through it....I appreciate that, and heck, I can tell if a game is running at 30 or 60 fps on my old 480i tube job...a 720p "signal" is running at 60fps at all times, I understand that....I think actual game animation is another story, I just don't know how I can explain it...it's like with XBMC, keeping it set to 720p means it's at 60fps at all times correct? When I watch a XVID/Divx flick on it, it's encoded at 25 or 23.98FPS...just my 2cents.

Edit: I was just thinking, back when I had Sega Saturn, Virtua Fighter came out at around 30fps...but when VF2 came out, it was hailed for it's 60fps gfx (remember Gamefan?, I miss that mag)....you could definitely see the difference there, and this was over 10yrs ago....but back on topic, I'm very happy with my 360 and I know things are gonna get even way better so I'm not worried or regretful of anything.

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Feb 22 2006, 07:56 PM)

Just out of curiosity which Xbox 360 FPS style launch games (Condemned, COD2, King Kong, PDZ, or Quake 4) do you consider to not look next gen when compared to the only FPS style Xbox 1 launch game (Halo)

Ofcourse the 360 launch titles look next-gen compared to the original XBOX launch titles, I can agree with you on that one... but as we live in 2006 and see games such as F.E.A.R and Battlefield 2 (PC version) I kind of expect that a next-gen console should have such killer games too.
I dont play PC games often... but when I for example saw F.E.A.R on my friends PC the other day running completely smooth, I start to wonder what stops the Xbox 360 to run the same games just as top notch as on a PC.

Well... I have read rumors on gamespot that the next installment of F.E.A.R actually is coming out for 360 (speculations?)... and we have battlefield 2 modern combat coming out for 360 in mars.
I look forward seeing upcoming games... but I'm utterly disapointed with the launch titles... I did'nt feel like any of those games had a "soul".
I dont know if DoA4 is considered a launch title, but this is the only game I have enjoyed soo far (except marble blast).

I don't remember the link, but take Gears of War for example.

Cliffy B and his crew are optimizing the game to run at a solid 60 FPS frame rate, and then they pile on more effects and repeat the process. If Gears of War plans to run at 30FPS, that's good enough for me. I would trade a little smoothness for alot of effects. It means enough to Cliffy B, because he is getting 60 working just so he can bring it down again.

xboxscene.org forums

Xbox360 Forums => Xbox360 Game Forums => Xbox 360 Games General Chat (wip) => Topic started by: hamwbone on February 21, 2006, 10:40:00 PM