Microsoft Rant...
Captain
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
From: NE Ohio
RE: Microsoft Rant...
Yeah, I think there are tons of games that are better or just as good as halo but get no credit. My theory of why halo has so much hype is from the start the xbox. It came out, sales were terrible. There were no games for it at all. The xbox owners were left standing. Once halo came out it was said to be a good game. Xbox owners bought the game. I think they compared it to other xbox games(not PS2 or gamecube games). If they only owned the xbox then Halo is a god send game to them. Word of mouth tells it to be the best game ever. Thats the only reason I can think that a game like that is so popular. Personally I think games like Gears, Counter-strike, Socom, and COD are much much better games. But they don't sell because of halos hype. Its crazy!
The article that graphite posted is interesting. I really never thought about splitting up the GPU and the CPU. I always figured them the same, not sure why. lol. I don't know when that was writting but I know the GPU has been upgraded in the 360 a few times. Which is pointless because you have to make all games compatible with the original version. So maybe it was written after. I think for the most part that guy is right. Right now the xbox may be easier to achieve better graphics. Maybe thats EAs reason. But in testing PS3 has proven better than the 360 several times for graphics. I think the when you develope for the PS3 you just have to get creative. Sony lacked on the GPU for cost im sure. There are ways around it as well(says the testing). The writer mentioned that he thinks that in the future a high budget game will come out showing off the PS3's abilities that the 360 doesn't have. I think he is right. But I think he is missing something very key. Things get tougher for programmers. To keep up with customer demands you gotta get creative and work a little harder. If a high budget game does come out showing off stuff on the PS3 than the standard of a good game is raised. The processing power of the PS3 is incredible and once its shown people won't settle for anything less. I think he is right but I disagree with his thinking. I too thinking that PS3 is bad now but good in the future. Programmers will learn and master the PS3, prices will drop, standards will be set, the 360 will be outdated quicker. Another question is, how quickly will the 360 be outdated.
The article that graphite posted is interesting. I really never thought about splitting up the GPU and the CPU. I always figured them the same, not sure why. lol. I don't know when that was writting but I know the GPU has been upgraded in the 360 a few times. Which is pointless because you have to make all games compatible with the original version. So maybe it was written after. I think for the most part that guy is right. Right now the xbox may be easier to achieve better graphics. Maybe thats EAs reason. But in testing PS3 has proven better than the 360 several times for graphics. I think the when you develope for the PS3 you just have to get creative. Sony lacked on the GPU for cost im sure. There are ways around it as well(says the testing). The writer mentioned that he thinks that in the future a high budget game will come out showing off the PS3's abilities that the 360 doesn't have. I think he is right. But I think he is missing something very key. Things get tougher for programmers. To keep up with customer demands you gotta get creative and work a little harder. If a high budget game does come out showing off stuff on the PS3 than the standard of a good game is raised. The processing power of the PS3 is incredible and once its shown people won't settle for anything less. I think he is right but I disagree with his thinking. I too thinking that PS3 is bad now but good in the future. Programmers will learn and master the PS3, prices will drop, standards will be set, the 360 will be outdated quicker. Another question is, how quickly will the 360 be outdated.
Record Breaker
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Microsoft Rant...
ORIGINAL: blackflame
Yeah, I think there are tons of games that are better or just as good as halo but get no credit. My theory of why halo has so much hype is from the start the xbox. It came out, sales were terrible. There were no games for it at all. The xbox owners were left standing. Once halo came out it was said to be a good game. Xbox owners bought the game. I think they compared it to other xbox games(not PS2 or gamecube games). If they only owned the xbox then Halo is a god send game to them. Word of mouth tells it to be the best game ever. Thats the only reason I can think that a game like that is so popular. Personally I think games like Gears, Counter-strike, Socom, and COD are much much better games. But they don't sell because of halos hype. Its crazy!
The article that graphite posted is interesting. I really never thought about splitting up the GPU and the CPU. I always figured them the same, not sure why. lol. I don't know when that was writting but I know the GPU has been upgraded in the 360 a few times. Which is pointless because you have to make all games compatible with the original version. So maybe it was written after. I think for the most part that guy is right. Right now the xbox may be easier to achieve better graphics. Maybe thats EAs reason. But in testing PS3 has proven better than the 360 several times for graphics. I think the when you develope for the PS3 you just have to get creative. Sony lacked on the GPU for cost im sure. There are ways around it as well(says the testing). The writer mentioned that he thinks that in the future a high budget game will come out showing off the PS3's abilities that the 360 doesn't have. I think he is right. But I think he is missing something very key. Things get tougher for programmers. To keep up with customer demands you gotta get creative and work a little harder. If a high budget game does come out showing off stuff on the PS3 than the standard of a good game is raised. The processing power of the PS3 is incredible and once its shown people won't settle for anything less. I think he is right but I disagree with his thinking. I too thinking that PS3 is bad now but good in the future. Programmers will learn and master the PS3, prices will drop, standards will be set, the 360 will be outdated quicker. Another question is, how quickly will the 360 be outdated.
Yeah, I think there are tons of games that are better or just as good as halo but get no credit. My theory of why halo has so much hype is from the start the xbox. It came out, sales were terrible. There were no games for it at all. The xbox owners were left standing. Once halo came out it was said to be a good game. Xbox owners bought the game. I think they compared it to other xbox games(not PS2 or gamecube games). If they only owned the xbox then Halo is a god send game to them. Word of mouth tells it to be the best game ever. Thats the only reason I can think that a game like that is so popular. Personally I think games like Gears, Counter-strike, Socom, and COD are much much better games. But they don't sell because of halos hype. Its crazy!
The article that graphite posted is interesting. I really never thought about splitting up the GPU and the CPU. I always figured them the same, not sure why. lol. I don't know when that was writting but I know the GPU has been upgraded in the 360 a few times. Which is pointless because you have to make all games compatible with the original version. So maybe it was written after. I think for the most part that guy is right. Right now the xbox may be easier to achieve better graphics. Maybe thats EAs reason. But in testing PS3 has proven better than the 360 several times for graphics. I think the when you develope for the PS3 you just have to get creative. Sony lacked on the GPU for cost im sure. There are ways around it as well(says the testing). The writer mentioned that he thinks that in the future a high budget game will come out showing off the PS3's abilities that the 360 doesn't have. I think he is right. But I think he is missing something very key. Things get tougher for programmers. To keep up with customer demands you gotta get creative and work a little harder. If a high budget game does come out showing off stuff on the PS3 than the standard of a good game is raised. The processing power of the PS3 is incredible and once its shown people won't settle for anything less. I think he is right but I disagree with his thinking. I too thinking that PS3 is bad now but good in the future. Programmers will learn and master the PS3, prices will drop, standards will be set, the 360 will be outdated quicker. Another question is, how quickly will the 360 be outdated.
I think Gears is so damn awesome, but what is that game about? HUMANS VS. ALIENS lol ( i know you didn't say it but someone else up top did lol)
as far as when the 360 will be outdated. It is hard to determine, but as for now it is still going strong IMO, by this time (ps3 being out a year) the xbox already had good games, it is just too hard to program the ps3 from what i have read that it is just easier and cost effective to release stuff on the xbox. I LOVE MY XBOX!! i do disklike microsoft a bitthough lol
Captain
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
From: NE Ohio
RE: Microsoft Rant...
IMO I really don't think it did set any standards. Halo should just be a non-competitive fun game. I don't think any game that is multiplayer should mimmick it at all really. All of the popular game types are already in other games. Plus halo has aim assist which makes it easy for anyone. The guns are generic as well. The skinds are extremely generic too. You have two to chose from and most of the time its the same one. One person is blue and the other is red. I don't think it set any standards at all. Gears of War is human versus aliens. When I play that game thats not what makes it good. Its the creativity they used in the character skins and how fast paced and difficult the game can be.
If blu-ray doesn't make it that doesn't mean that PS3 is done. The xbox 360 doesn't have an HD-DVD player unless you pay extra, and the wii doesn't either. It will just get rid of a bonus the PS3 has. Plus they could always make a new version that supports blu-ray and HD-DVD. Xbox is doing that kinda stuff :P
If blu-ray doesn't make it that doesn't mean that PS3 is done. The xbox 360 doesn't have an HD-DVD player unless you pay extra, and the wii doesn't either. It will just get rid of a bonus the PS3 has. Plus they could always make a new version that supports blu-ray and HD-DVD. Xbox is doing that kinda stuff :P
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,019
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
RE: Microsoft Rant...
FPS have been around for years... I was playing the original Doom &Wolfenstein 3D in the early 90's. Those are the games that paved the way for the FPS we see today.
Captain
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
From: NE Ohio
RE: Microsoft Rant...
oh, and I think halo is a good game. Dont get me wrong. I don't think it deserves all the hype for something thats really no different than any other game. I just recently picked up the newest version of Socom which was released way before Halo3. I noticed that they stole the co-op scoring, ranks, and possibley the 4 player co-op from that game. the 4 player co-op isn't probably true but I think socom had it first. The only sweeeeeet new thing Halo 3 has that other games don't is the replay system. I give it credit for that.
Record Breaker
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Microsoft Rant...
i still think it has solid gameplay. doom is good, wolfenstein i hate lol. of course there were other FPS before halo, but the gameplay and how smooth it plays is what i think started to make it the standard for FPS.
gears of war isn't difficult at all, even on its hardest difficulty. multiplayer isn't very difficult either...the gameplay is actually slower than halo by a lot IMO
as i said every game is gonna take what is successful from its predecessor to make it better. i could have sworn there was co-op before socom.
gears of war isn't difficult at all, even on its hardest difficulty. multiplayer isn't very difficult either...the gameplay is actually slower than halo by a lot IMO
as i said every game is gonna take what is successful from its predecessor to make it better. i could have sworn there was co-op before socom.
Captain
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
From: NE Ohio
RE: Microsoft Rant...
Halo does have solid gameplay. Sure, halo was probably the first FPS success on the console. Analog sticks are just hard to use with FPS games. So they added auto aim...so cheap. Counter-strike IMO the best FPS ever made. I'm sure a lot of people would agree. Its the most competitive out there for sure.
Gears...I wasn't talking about single player. But its definitely harder than halo because it doesn't have aim assist lol. When you say slow you mean that you have to think and use strategy. Yet its once you do something its still pretty quick. Halo is fast too. like you said its faster, i agree. But its all just running out there and holding the R trigger and hoping you don't die. There really isn't too much strategy involved when you compare it to other games. The top strategy that I have known from the past 2 halos that never fails is luck. Get lucky and spawn next to the good weapons then camp. You win, yay.
Yeah, there was co-op before socom. Then co-op came out for socom online and it was 4 player. It also had the co-op score first. I'm not saying anyone stole...co-op from anyone. Co-op is so old that its just a given lol. Co-op is just an obvious thing that should be in games. When I said,. "the 4 player co-op isn't probably true but I think socom had it first." I didn't explain very well. I meant that socom probably wasn't the reason they added 4 players.
Gears...I wasn't talking about single player. But its definitely harder than halo because it doesn't have aim assist lol. When you say slow you mean that you have to think and use strategy. Yet its once you do something its still pretty quick. Halo is fast too. like you said its faster, i agree. But its all just running out there and holding the R trigger and hoping you don't die. There really isn't too much strategy involved when you compare it to other games. The top strategy that I have known from the past 2 halos that never fails is luck. Get lucky and spawn next to the good weapons then camp. You win, yay.
Yeah, there was co-op before socom. Then co-op came out for socom online and it was 4 player. It also had the co-op score first. I'm not saying anyone stole...co-op from anyone. Co-op is so old that its just a given lol. Co-op is just an obvious thing that should be in games. When I said,. "the 4 player co-op isn't probably true but I think socom had it first." I didn't explain very well. I meant that socom probably wasn't the reason they added 4 players.
Record Breaker
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Microsoft Rant...
i mean as far as movement is concerned on gears multiplayer. i have never played counter strike but have heard many mixed reviews on it. While many would agree with you on Counter-strike im sure there are many that would agree halo is tops. I should have clarified, I am talking about FPS on consoles lol, i dont know jack about computer games, except old ones like doom etc lol.
i disagree on the luck part, you can just like any other game, play halo with strategy. if you know what you are doing, you don't always have to "camp" to win. i dont know i enjoy both games a lot, but i just love how smoothly halo plays, i haven't played gears lately but i remember having fun on there lol. TO ME it all boils down to what YOU enjoy and think is fun.
on gears i can frequently walk around and randomly shoot my shotgun and get kills without aiming, i think that is pretty gay. lol\
i do agree that gears requires more strategy which is cool, but halo can also be played with strategy, i just like fast paced i guess.
i disagree on the luck part, you can just like any other game, play halo with strategy. if you know what you are doing, you don't always have to "camp" to win. i dont know i enjoy both games a lot, but i just love how smoothly halo plays, i haven't played gears lately but i remember having fun on there lol. TO ME it all boils down to what YOU enjoy and think is fun.
on gears i can frequently walk around and randomly shoot my shotgun and get kills without aiming, i think that is pretty gay. lol\
i do agree that gears requires more strategy which is cool, but halo can also be played with strategy, i just like fast paced i guess.