Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games)

Are the 360 Launch Titles Actually Next-Gen? 99

Posted by Zonk
from the waiting-for-oblivion dept.
An anonymous reader writes "1UP has a feature up entitled 'Is This Really The HD Era?' The article begs the question: How many of the games ported to the Xbox 360 (12 of the 18 launch titles were ports) are truly next gen, and how many are just trying to cash in on the hype of the new console? There are some interesting conclusions, but best are the quotes from Peter Moore explaining the HD Era throughout the whole thing: 'Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream.' Right."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are the 360 Launch Titles Actually Next-Gen?

Comments Filter:
  • Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brantano (908473) on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:25PM (#14188988)
    I think just about everyone who has done some research could of realised this without looking at this article, although it does introduce some new complaints (Such as Quake 4 being utterly unplayable, didnt know that). It seems that even though microsoft tried to release some great games for there launch, they just ended up with a bunch of ports and a few decent games. Sadly its been toted as one of the best launches to console date, but this is only because most of the games released for it arnt new at all.

    But the article speaks truth, 12 ported games where nearly all of them dont add a reason (and even take some gameplay away) to add a 10 dollar price tag. Hopefully they can actually release some decent games (or atleast decent ports) or there is going to be some rough tides ahead for microsoft.
    • Re:Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by creimer (824291) on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:33PM (#14189068) Homepage
      The Nintendo GameCube had the same problem. A lot of the early titles were PS2 ports. Nintendo started rejecting titles that came straight over from the PS2 without using any of the GameCube polish to make the games stick out. Unfortunately, Nintendo made game development a living hell for the developers that they no longer support the GameCube as much as PS2/XBox. I don't think anything will change for the Revolution.
      • What are you smoking? I really want some.
        • Worked in the game industry for six years at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari, three of those years as a lead tester on the Nintendo GameCube and GameBoy Advance titles. If you want to smoke the good stuff, apply at any video game company. If you want to make money and have a life, try working anywhere but the video game industry. Sad but true.
          • All the money is going to the publishers. EA MUST fall as a prime example to all the other publishers in the video game industry.

            The money has got to flow to the developers and game makers. Not the guy doing the marketing and printing the CDs on the shelf.

            • I've got sad news for you buddy. Marketing is all that matters. In society today people care more about what you tell them about yourself than they do about what others tell them about you. Drug companies spend more on marketing than on research. You want to be a big partner at a law firm? Don't try and do it by ingenuously working for your clients to get them out of tight spots. You have to do it by plain, brute force, small talk marketing.

              All these industries which should have only a very sm
          • I love games so much I don't think big money would really mean that much to me. I'd take a pay cut from my current software dev position in a heart beat. It just seems like a lot of big shops have forgotten about making great games, and instead focus on what will make them the most money. Sadly they don't go hand in hand.
          • Just out of interest, how did Nintendo make developers' lives hell?
            • Re:Truth (Score:4, Interesting)

              by creimer (824291) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:14PM (#14190529) Homepage
              Withholding critical information about their debugging hardware and APIs for their multiplayer hardware. Nintendo has standards but they don't tell you what the standards are (unlike Microsoft and Sony who provide too much information). If you do a pre-lot check, they won't tell you everything that they find that should be fixed for the final submission and your title will get rejected if you don't figure it out on your own. Trying to get a title through Nintendo was like getting a football through a minefield that's being bombed by friendly fire.

              Before I left the game industry a few years ago, Nintendo starting being more helpful when it became painfully obvious that publishers strongly preferred PS2 and XBox over the GameCube. Hopefully, they learned their lesson from the GameCube and developer support for the Revolution will be similiar to Microsoft and Sony. If not, only Nintendo's titles will be popular on that console.
              • Before I left the game industry a few years ago, Nintendo starting being more helpful

                Was that when or shortly after their management changed, perchance?
      • A lot of the early titles were PS2 ports.

        Which ones? I can't think of any off the top of my head, except maybe Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid, and I wouldn't call those early.
        • Maybe I should rephrase that. Men In Black and Monopoly Party had their codebase developed for the PS2 first, and the XBox and GameCube versions was created off of that. Nintendo was not thrilled to see references to the PS2 controller on the GameCube version during pre-lot checks, and demanded that the GameCube version look better than PS2 version. Did that happen? Not really. Microsoft had the same complaint but got a better response.
    • What else is new?

      DOA2 for the Dreamcast had antialiasing, they had to drop that for the PS2 version. First-gen titles usually look a bit like ass these days. The only re4ason I want to get my hands on a 360 now and not in 6 months is that I have a HDTV projector, so I really want the increased resolution.
    • Re:Truth (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jchenx (267053)
      You, when I first read the headline for the article, I thought it was going to be pretty biased garbage, but then reading through it, find it rather spot on. The games they focus on are ports, and it almost goes without saying that they're not going to look that great. Two big reasons:

      1) They're first-gen titles. 'nuff said.
      2) Companies spend most of their time and money on the "current-gen" products, and won't spend that much more on improving the next-gen version

      Unfortunately, we won't be seeing a large q
    • Actually, I've played-seen small parts of 3 games: PGR3, Call of Duty 2, and King Kong (1).

      PGR3: Now, this one I played on a HD projector with surround sound. Multiplayer looks OK, but when you do cockpit mode on single player, it becomes immersive. And I mean immersive. When my friend was driving through a small arch, and didn't take into account that he was sitting on the right of the car, not the left (it was an Atom 300), he hit the edge of the arch. Both of us, fairly hardcore 10+ year gamers,
  • To be expected... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pjh3000 (583652) *
    It's a known fact that "First Gen" titles usually don't take full advantage of the hardware. It takes a couple years or more to develop a title, so the devs haven't had enough time with the hardware to maximize it's potential. Same thing will happen with the PS3. It's not news.
    • Jak & Daxter struck me as very well done, much more so than most of the steaming piles of EA crap and sequel orgies.

      Super turbo turkey puncher 3!
      • The original was great (I haven't played the sequels because they decided to make it "dark"). However, it was released Dec 4th, 2001. The PS2 was released in the US in September 2000. That game came out a year after the system. Thus, it wasn't a first-gen title for the system.
    • There is a difference between a first-gen title (like PGR3) and a port (like most of the 360 games). The games on the 360 are mostly developed for current-gen systems (the sports games), the PC (call of duty 2), or were previously in development for a current-gen system (Kameo was PS2 then XBox, PD0 was a GC title).

      Those titles they are talking about aren't "first-gen". They are "last-gen". They are titles from a PS2 or Xbox with higher textures and AA turned on. This isn't a case of not using the hardware

    • I thought Wave Racer and Mario 64 were really impressive.
    • Since when? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MMaestro (585010)
      Before the PS1 came out, "First Gen" titles usually, and rightfully, became instant classics. NES? Super Mario Bros 1 is considered to be the first classic game after Pong. Sega Master System? Phantasy Star 1 for early RPG fans. SNES, Super Mario World was beautiful, entertaining and the hidden star worlds were a treat. Sega Genesis, Sonic 1 showed that hardware was no longer a limit for bright, good looking, speedy-looking 2D games. N64, Super Mario 64 was a tech demo, a giant playground for people new to
      • Sega Genesis, Sonic 1 showed that hardware was no longer a limit for bright, good looking, speedy-looking 2D games.

        Maybe it was just the crappy TV my family used to have back then, but aside from the Sonic games, I always found the color on Genesis games to be lacking a sort of vibrance and brightness that most SNES games had. And even the Sonic games looked pretty dull sometimes, especially the later ones.
      • Re:Since when? (Score:4, Informative)

        by hal2814 (725639) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @10:14AM (#14192988)
        I think you're looking back through some awfully rose-colored glasses. Sonic (1991) was NOT a 1st gen title for the Genesis (1989) and Phantasy Star (December 1987) was not a 1st gen title for the Master System (July 1986). They're both great games, but they each came out at least a year after the North American release of their respective console. Also, there are a TON of classic games that came out between Pong and Super Mario Brothers. Most of them were arcade titles (Pac-Man, Ms. Pac, Galaga, Donkey Kong, Joust, Defender, Centipede) but even the home releases of a lot of them were at least decent (as long as they weren't the 2600 versions).

        The best early games for a console tend to come from in-house development. Microsoft did not release this console with a single game developed in-house from what I've seen.
    • by cgenman (325138) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:36PM (#14190349) Homepage
      It takes a couple of generations of games for the full potential to be unlocked, but first-gen titles are considered "showcases" for what is to come. The PS2 launched with SSX, Ridge Racer V, and a bunch of other titles that made people lust after the little machine. The Xbox ping pong videos were completely lickable. Mario 64 was light years ahead of the 16 bit era, as was Ridge Racer 1. NFL and NBA 2K on the Dreamcast were shocking. Panzeer Dragoon on the Saturn was light years ahead of the Genesis. Super Mario World on the SNES and Altered Beast on the Genesis both blew away the 8-bit offerings of the time.

      This is the first system launch that I've ever heard of where people are seriously questioning whether or not this is any better than the previous generation. Microsoft has the unfortunate position of both having the last-released current generation system and the earliest-released next one, so that the inevitable comparisons won't find much gulf. But still... wow us now!

      Even Fantavision on the PS2 showed off the system's power. Remember being stunned by the realistic water in Wave Racer? It looks like there was a rush to get the X360 into people's hands, and none of the potential of the system have been tapped. At least, I hope that is what happened. There just isn't much to get excited about currently besides potential, and potential as a satisfying gameplay experience doesn't last very long.
    • The game which had the most chance of being called a truly next gen title has been delayed somewhat, by that I mean The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. It takes advantage of the multi-core architecture and the graphics could truly be called next-gen IMHO. And that is without going into detail about the new Radiant AI system.
  • Ports (Score:3, Insightful)

    by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <<elmuerte> <at> <drunksnipers.com>> on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:28PM (#14189022) Homepage
    Well... obviously they are ports, not new games specially designed for it.
    Interesting to note, 50% of the games are (EA) sports games.
  • by Jtheletter (686279) on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:29PM (#14189032)
    'Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream.'

    This should read: 'Next generation games could blahblahblah...'
    Fact of the matter is it will be a while before titles actually start looking and - more importantly - playing like true 'next generation' games most of us imagine. Is the power there in this next round of consoles? I think it is, there is definitely a lot of potential, but it's still a ways off. Developers will have to learn the platform and its nuances, and they will also have to create all that higher detailed art and better audio, just because you can render a bazillion pixels doesn't mean the pictures are automatically prettier, someone has to create all the high-res art first. Additionally gameplay itself, AI, multiple paths to completion etc are better supported with these consoles but it will take time for game designers to figure out how to take advantage of all that. And just as importantly, publishers are going to have to give those developers the leeway and the opportunity to take chances with new gaming experiences that push the boundaries of gameplay as well as the system. There's a lot of potential in this new round of consoles, but I think it will take a few years before it really feels like next-gen.

    • No doubt. A lot of ridiculously high expectations out there. They're just video games. People take it way too serious, and at this stage in the evolution of games will anything less than absolute virtual reality or Shadowrun style BTL chips be good enough today's (or tomorrow's) overly critical gamer?
  • As the console and the games exist today, they are by definition not next-gen. They are this-gen.
  • Next Gen? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302)
    Are any games ever "Next Gen"? If you ignore pre-3d platforms and concentrate on any from the PSX1/N64/Saturn/PC-with-decent-3d-card onwards, which game can't be ported to any other console without losing more than the odd polygon, or slightly smaller levels? Battlefield2 for the latest PC would play the same on a PSX, wouldn't it? Halo could be adequately ported to the N64, no?

    Good gaming is about gameplay, and I don't see that being something that is improved with a few more polygons or an even-uglier-
    • Off-hand?

      Actually I'm looking at a list of PS2 launch titles, and I pull a few out.

      The big one, the one I say really is this generation, is Dynasty Warriors 2. WTF? you may say. Think of all the games out there featuring massive melee style battles. This is something that was only really possible with this generation. From Spartan:Total Warrior, to Shining Force Neo.

      SSX:The level of detail in the levels...which yes, does affect gameplay a whole lot is only possible on the current gen, I believe.

      As well, th
      • > The level of detail in the levels...which yes, does affect gameplay a whole lot

        The level of graphical details makes *no* difference to gameplay. A game will play the same at 320*256 in 32 colours to a game at 1280*1024 in 32 bit colour.

        > As well, the jump from 30-FPS to 60FPS is a huge difference IMO when it comes to
        > gameplay

        I've played games in 50fps (I'm in the UK) on platforms prior to the ones I listed previously, so that's hardly only available now. In fact, modern games (such as Battlefiel
        • #1. I'm not talking about graphical detail. I'm talking about level detail. Being able to render outside of the main course, allowing for multiple ways down the course, getting the feeling of weaving between trees...how possible would have this stuff been done before this gen? #2. You're right. That's why I ratchet down the graphics in those type of games until I get fluid 60 FPS gameplay. It's THAT important to me. And if my computer can't render it? I don't play it.
          • > #1. I'm not talking about graphical detail. I'm talking about level detail.
            > Being able to render outside of the main course, allowing for multiple ways down
            > the course, getting the feeling of weaving between trees...how possible would
            > have this stuff been done before this gen?

            Sounds like you're talking about whether there's only one - or a small predefined number of - linear progression(s) through the level; like in a racing car game, where you're not allowed to leave the track or even turn
        • The level of graphical details makes *no* difference to gameplay. A game will play the same at 320*256 in 32 colours to a game at 1280*1024 in 32 bit colour.

          Tell that to the Counter Strike snipers that jack up their res in order to see (and head shot) people farther away from them.
          I understand your point, but in certain cases resolution does add to gameplay. For strategy games it is particularly important.
          • > Tell that to the Counter Strike snipers that jack up their res in order to see
            > (and head shot) people farther away from them.

            Altering the resolution won't let you see people further away from you in Battlefield 2. If Counter Strike works in the way you describe then it's because the coders are combining two variables - the max plotting distance and the resolution. There's no reason why they can't - and shouldn't - be seperately configurable.

            > I understand your point, but in certain cases resolut
            • In my experience strategy games often have far more scrolling and are more likely to zoom out when increaseing the resolution insead of increasing detail.
              • I'm sorry, what does your statement add to the discussion about whether or not games can be ported back to previous generations of consoles without affecting gameplay?
                • You said that
                  A game will play the same at 320*256 in 32 colours to a game at 1280*1024 in 32 bit colour.

                  While lowering the resolution can be a minor affect to the gameplay of some games.
                  In others a lower res can have a detrimental affect on gameplay in a by substantively limiting the playing area ,making scrolling far more necessary.

                  and you asked

                  > I understand your point, but in certain cases resolution does add to gameplay.
                  > For strategy games it is particularly important.
                  Why?

                  A factor that is more o
                  • > While lowering the resolution can be a minor affect to the gameplay of some games.
                    > In others a lower res can have a detrimental affect on gameplay in a by substantively limiting
                    > the playing area ,making scrolling far more necessary.

                    As I've already said, lowering the resolution will have no impact on the size of the playing area, unless the programmers have decided that when you lower the resolution they'll also lower the size of the playing area. A playing area of 2 miles by 2 miles displayed
            • "Altering the resolution won't let you see people further away from you in Battlefield 2."

              True the draw distance is what determines that. However on a higher res display a character displayed at max draw distance is represented by more pixels with greater detail to differentiate body parts. It makes getting a headshot from a distance easier.
              Resolution in strategy games allows you to see a greater amount of the playing field. This means you can monitor more troops/cities/locations without actively scrolling.
    • Re:Next Gen? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138)
      A game is not just the sum of its systems, but an aesthetic experience.

      Power should help with that experience.

      Battlefield 2 would be a much less satisfying experience on the PSX.

      • I think the point is more, would PacMan be a better game on PS2? And the answer is most certainly no, it'd be worse, as would Tetris. The constant movement from one generation to the next, just as developers figure out how to get the best out of a console, seems to force developers to concentrate on improving the graphics first so the games look next-gen and they never have the time to create new experiences. Imagine an artist who's brushes and canvas change every couple of years, he's never going to progr
  • Of course not (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MilenCent (219397) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {hwnhoj}> on Monday December 05, 2005 @06:35PM (#14189082) Homepage
    Come on now. Are the X-Box 360 titles truly "next gen?" Depends on what your definition of "next gen" is.

    Improved graphics? Sure as hell.

    Improved gameplay? Wellll... no. Consider that, of what are widely considered to be the two best non-sports games, one is a sequel to an N64 game, and the other was shown at previous E3s in an N64 incarnation. One could thus say, indeed, that the best X-Box 360 games are last gen.

    But by the definition of improved gameplay, just how many games are next gen from their era? Not a whole lot. Indeed, the games with the most engaging gameplay (I'm thinking most especially of Katamari) seem to be those that purposely recall previous generations.
  • "The article begs the question: How many of the games ported to the Xbox 360"

    It does not beg any question. It might raise a question though.
  • HD Era (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Targon (17348)
    Considering that games on the PC tend to be intended to run at 1024x768 or above(1280x1024 or 1600x1200 are very common), that's the video level people want to see from a HD title. I don't think we will see this quality video for quite a while yet. Improved textures are easy enough to implement, but that doesn't mean that the graphics or feel of a game has improved much.

    Now, companies CAN prepare well in advance for next generation computers and equipment by developing well beyond the current abilities of
    • It has always been a practice for most game development houses, (in the modern era, and those who have the financial ability to design this way) to design games exactly like this. To use high res textures, with movie quality poly counts, then scale down for system requirements. This is nothing new, to me, the whole goal for getting on HD is just not at the time period where we should be focusing on it. I know very few people who have an HD screen, and even less willing to upgrade their TV just to get the
      • Um, what? Definitely not because you pretty much have to rebuild a model from scratch when you're downrezzing from highpoly to ingame. Highpoly assets are only built if absolutely required (for movies, normalmaps or perhaps promotional purposes) because they are time-consuming as hell and follow different construction rules than ingame assets (e.g. on a hipoly model you'd model the belt, on an ingame model you'd paint it on). Textures are painted at the highest resolution that could occur in the game (but n
        • there are utilities built into many of the high end modellers (3ds max's optimizer utility) that will do alot of that.. regarding specific details, a good modeller often considers that when designing the high poly model, but you definitely aren't rebuilding anything from scratch there. Read some tutorials about modelling online, even mod developers use this approach nowadays.
          • I don't need tutorials, I'm doing 3d art for roughly five years now. Talked with plenty of industry folks. Never have I heard of anyone doing a highpoly first when they're working on something that's meant for ingame and doesn't use normalmaps (and some even make the lowpoly first when working with normalmaps!). The optimizer modifier is pretty useless when you're chopping off more than maybe 30% of the triangle count since it neither knows what details you consider necessary nor how you'd like the meshflow
            • i remember reading that doom3 did the same thing. but im too lazy to find a link
              • Doom 3 uses normalmaps (aka dot3 bumpmaps), textures that describe the difference between the interpolated vertex normals and the normals of the highpoly model surface. For that you need two different models, one at "movie resolution" (high poly) and one at game resolution. Many games either don't use normalmaps at all or use handpainted ones (Halo 2). For those there is no need for a high poly model of the ingame assets and normalmapping is a rather recent technology, while it'll be more common next gen (a
      • The thing is that we arn't seeing games re-released for the new consoles with the higher polygon count though. We only see the higher resolution textures without the other stuff that would make a "new port" seem like a good improvement.
  • HD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SteveX (5640) on Monday December 05, 2005 @08:25PM (#14189896) Homepage
    The killer for me is HD. I have an HDTV, and the XBox 360 games look beautiful on it.

    If you take away the HD advantage (ie, hook the XBox 360 up to a standard TV) then yeah, there's nothing advanced about the current generation of games. But on a good TV, nothing compares.
    • How about actual gameplay? Or are you one of those people who is simply satiated by eye-candy?

      • Gameplay is good (PGR3, CoD2, Kameo), and partly due to the eye candy. This is more true for Call of Duty than the other games IMO, but even the game menus being clean and sharp is pleasing too. It's also nice to go to then Live Marektplace and download 720p trailers and music videos too.

        And the quality of the MCE content is quite nice (SD right now since I'm still up in the air over the HD solution.

        It's the total integration of the 360 that makes it a pleasure to use. Drop on an iPod and have access to all
    • all the games stores have the XBOX360 playing on HD tv's. Plasmas or LCD's. If it isn't on an HDTV it isn't much of an upgrade over the Xbox. Like has been said before. There is no real advantage from this gen over next gen.
    • "But on a good TV, nothing compares."

      Oh yeah, 1600x1200 resolution on my PC doesn't compare to your HDTV...

      One thing I find funny about xboxes view of "nex-gen" is that consoles are no longer less expensive alternatives to PC gaming... they are just becoming a more restricted version of PC gaming.

      (BTW, not trying to start a PC vs console debate, just stating an observation... I happen to enjoy both)
    • The killer for me is HD. I have an HDTV, and the XBox 360 games look beautiful on it.

      Did you have your original XBox connected to your HDTV and play any of the available 720 or 1080 games on it? If so, then what is the 360 offering that's any different from what you already had available?

      I don't understand today's hype over the 360 offering improved HD graphics when the old box offered what should be seemingly the same thing. Don't get me wrong -- I'm thrilled that the 360 and PS3 are focusing on HD,

  • There are two things in the 360's favor:
    • Launch titles ALWAYS look like shit. It was true this generation, it was true before, and it'll probably be true of the Revolution and PS3 also. But they always get better as developers get a handle on the platform. If you judged the PS2 based on Armored Core 2 or Tekken Tag Tournament, would you have ever guessed it could handle something like God of War?
    • Xbox Live. This is a truly next-generation feature in that it's never been done before, period. Downloadable de
    • Except, launch titles don't always look like "shit", except in comparison to titles released after them.

      People are complaining that 360 titles look like "shit" in comparison to titles that were released before them. That's what the concern is.

      Sure, Ocarina of Time blew Mario 64 out of the water in every way (graphics, sound, control, world design), but when Mario 64 first came out, people's jaws dropped, because even with the PS1 having already released, people had never seen anything like it. Now it look

  • by Generic Guy (678542) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:52AM (#14191195)

    The thing which concerns me is that instead of just moving on with building the true next generation titles, some shops (EA I'm looking at you) seem to be content with re-writing existing titles again just for the 360 unit.

    I was just reading an article about how EA is converting Burnout Revenge over to Xbox 360 format. Keep in mind this is a very recent title, and I would have expected an Xbox backwards-compatiblity "profile" for this game. EA seem to think people should buy it all over again. To me, this not undermines the whole backwards-compatible angle of the 360 (it shouldn't carry the Xbox name if it can't handle the Xbox games), but smells of extreme laziness on the part of the developer. A re-hash instead of a new gameplay, very this-gen instead of next. But you can bet it'll be sold at a new-game price.

    It's these kind of things which make me, and I'm sure others, wait until next year to see what the competition brings.

    • Keep in mind, EA has been doing this for years with almost all of their licenses. I'm surprised anyone thought they'd come up with something original for the next generation, instead of just doing incremental upgrades to their existing lineups. I mean, it's the company that releases 200x versions of practially everything they have, adding almost nothing new and even taking away things at the same time.

      You're correct that it IS extreme laziness on the part of the developer, but if it's one thing gamers hav
      • I'll agree wholeheartedly with the Burnout line continuing to get worse, but Madden changes enough to keep me happy. I'd rather play Madden 2006 than Madden 2005 with a roster update. QB Vision, a slightly improved AI on defense, and some better handling of Hot Routes make it a good game that still sticks to a good formula but has changed for the better since 2005. This hasn't always been true of Madden games, but at least the last few years have been decent upgrades. And I am aware that they've taken a
    • I don't understand the economics of what you're suggesting here.

      You're saying that EA should be ashamed of converting their recent release on Xbox to Xbox360? That's the same as saying they're lazy because they made the same game for both PS2 and Xbox. It's a new platform. EA wants to deliver the Burnout title on every platform they possibly can, so they're porting it to the 360 as well as the current consoles.

      If, instead, EA had said "We're not making it for 360, wait for MSFT to get it into their emula
  • "Next generation games will combine unprecedented audio and visual experiences to create worlds that are beyond real and they'll deliver storylines and game play so compelling that it will feel like living a lucid dream."

    Hmmm... Oh yeah... I have a game here that says something very similar on the back. You know, along the lines of "unprecedented video and audio" and "beyond real" and "live the game". It's for the Commodore 64... on a casette.

    It didn't live up to the hype then... I doubt this will now. It w
  • by NBarnes (586109) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @07:45AM (#14192494)
    Blah blah blah better graphics blah blah.

    Is there an Intel Twain-class chip in the 360 that'll offer hardware acceleration to game storylines? I hadn't heard about that feature, the one that offers support for a full megaGaiman's worth of plot processing with integrated character development support.

    Or maybe the 360 won't do one single damn thing to help developers offer us better plotlines or story. Or gameplay, for that matter; feel free to count all the games that took the move to true physics engines and gave us truly novel gameplay experiences with them. Don't worry, I'll wait.

    Any game designer that really wants to be Neil Gaiman when they grow up, or Sid Meier or Peter Molyneux for that matter, has already noticed that there's no place for them on the cutting edge of console development. That area is well and truly the domain of the very large, the very rich, and the very branded.

    There's good gameplay and good story on consoles, but it's nothing the console makers are doing. And the 360 isn't doing anything except escalating the price of doing business on a console, pushing more creative thinkers onto other platforms.
    • I don't know how you only get modded 2, while some asshole above got modded +4 Insightful for suckling on MS's peepee because of HD. Microsoft bet on mindless fanboys to support and hype their new console even though they don't have the games to back it up. Sadly they bet right.
  • After all, the XBox 360 is not "next generation" any more, it's "current generation" now.
  • Face it, developers only have a few months to really get a title ready for a new game console's release.

    Even though they may have had development kits long before the actual hardware is ready, generally you have to be very conservative when releasing a new title for new hardware. You never know if specs will change, and if you focus too much on optimizing on the development platform, you may find the game unstable or unplayable on the release hardware. Developers were probably only given 3 - 6 months tops

  • But Gun looks like a PS2 game -- at best! There are moments when its vaguely reminiscent of the N64. What on earth is with the low-poly stuff???

    I bought three titles when I got my 360: Gun, Condemned and Perfect Dark. All in all I have to say that Condemned is far and away the winner -- a very, very nice job by Monolith. Perfect Dark I give a low B, and Gun I give an F -- not for gameplay, but for the absolutely miserable job they did visually.

  • Page 1:
    Sports game
    Sports game
    Sports game
    Sports game

    Page 2:
    Sports game
    Sports game
    Racing game
    First Person Shooter -- probably a mistake

    This is a trend that caused me to lose interest in console gaming. Pretty happy with my DS now, especially for the 2D GBA platformers and shooters. And thank god for the PC and the eclectic selection of games available.

    The article mentioned that some of the games had new features, and felt more immersive. But t

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Working...