Like

XBOX 360

 

Bronze Member
Username: Stars

Post Number: 36
Registered: Apr-05
The Xbox 360 will be coming out this holiday season, only half as powerful of the PS3 w/ a single teraflop but it's more than just a game system! The Xbox 360 will function also as a media center, w/ music DVD and video support.
What do u guys think of the Xbox 360? Will it be cool or whatever or not?
 

Gold Member
Username: British_power

Post Number: 1327
Registered: Jan-05
it seems cool but im going with the ps3...my bro is taking the old ps2 to college so my mom is getting me a ps3
 

Mike360
Unregistered guest
I'll be getting a 360 on release day. The PS3 will not be twice as powerful, the way these companies add up power ratings is useless. For me it comes down to the games. Xbox has the better games and any good games on Playstation always end up on the xbox.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Stars

Post Number: 68
Registered: Apr-05
yep
 

Bronze Member
Username: Spanky34

IL

Post Number: 30
Registered: Aug-05
360 all the way, the ps3 will be "more powerful" but powerful in the sense of getting dial up internet on a 3.4 ghz 2 gbs of ram comp. It will be fast, but it just wont have the bandwith. Their graphics cards arent that much different. The 360 will use all of its power, the ps3 will lose a lot of power due to the graphics card. The ps3 will also have an OUTRAGEOUS price tag. Its gonna be rigodamndiculous, no average guy will be able to afford it. I will get one eventually, proabably after the first price cut. But the Xbox will have the better games, just ps3 will have games i still want to play.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stars

Post Number: 214
Registered: Apr-05
uh-huh.
 

TomW
Unregistered guest
Hmmm.....I say wait and see. Can only speculate right now. If you want ALL of the bells and whistles, get the PS3. If you want your toy now, get the XBox 360.

I plan on getting both, but like the PS3 being able to use 1080p and that you can use it on two tv's from the one box for a panoramic view.
 

Ranee
Unregistered guest
I really, really wanted the Nintendo Revolution to stand out since it will be last to be released.
But the new controller for it is just way too funky.
And the fact that it will not be Hi-Def nor 16:9 format. Boooooo!!
 

JaG 2525
Unregistered guest
sony is old know they should just join nintendo in the crap club, microsoft is the future n the xbox 360 has a way better controller than ps3. The ps3 controller looks like 2 D I L D O S
 

Anonymous
 
lots of xbox mods and more here.got to reg but is cool.all is welcome
http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/conardsdesigns.html
 

JaG2525
Unregistered guest
Somone plz tell me what colour the xbox 360 is and will xbox controllers work on the 360?????
 

JaG 2525
Unregistered guest
Somebody please tell me what colour the xbox 360 is and will xbox 1 controllers work on the xbox 360?????
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 271
Registered: Jul-05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 272
Registered: Jul-05
Upload
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 273
Registered: Jul-05
Nintendo Rev SUX already
 

Velocity
Unregistered guest
from what i see,why would you buy a ps3 for $300- $400,when you can get a 360 for $299?you paying 100-200 dollars for the ps3 for what?????they are going to be practiclly the same in graphics,you won't notice the diffrence....so sony fans.....what's up?why do you think ps3 is beeter in graphics,when it looks like the 360 has the same equality as the ps3???at least microsoft had games to play at e3...unlike sony who lnly showed what....a video?and everyone got all excited to a video?????sony sure can reel in alot of suckers!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 322
Registered: Jul-05
so can microsoft. Case and point Xbox Live (u have 2 pay for it, while Sony's was free)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

The ps3 will be about the same amount as the 360 after you buy all the stuff you will need to play,save, and enjoy your game
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 323
Registered: Jul-05
Money's no object to me when it comes to video games, so im going to get them both
 

vin benzine
Unregistered guest
I'm realy looking forword to the 360; I had a hell of a time with the original and with all the new features added to the 360 this can't go wrong.
but I am wondering. It all is turing around high definition etc and i'm planning to hook this baby up to a computer monitor. but many questions remain unanswered. like will this look as good as on an HDTV. what would be the best way to connect a Pc monitor to the 360? Or what will be the refresh rate of the monitor when hooking it up to the 360?
 

vin benzine
Unregistered guest
ow and for those thinking that the PS3 would be more powerfull than the 360 read this http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
Not that it mathers to me, because I realy don't care about wheter you prefer PS3 or 360 both look like good systems to me.
 

JaG2525
Unregistered guest
will xbox 1 controllers be compatible with the xbox360??????
 

Silver Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 468
Registered: Jul-05
I dont think so
 

JaG2525
Unregistered guest
Damn i got six xbox controllers!!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Agentxfile

Post Number: 21
Registered: Jun-05
A Best Buy here in Las Vegas had an Xbox360 set-up with demos and videos.
The demo of "Call of Duty 2" and "Need for Speed: Most Wanted" were really cool. The graphics are so realistic, looks just like real life. Those two demos were the coolest looking games that I have ever played, it may have helped that the Xbox360 was connected to a 27in Samsung hdtv.

From what I understand the "Xbox360 Core System" for $299.99 is somewhat useless compared to the "Xbox System with harddrive" for $399.99, because the "core system" will not be backward compatable with the original Xbox games as it has something to do with the harddrive that is included in the $399.99 "Xbox system with harddrive". Also a harddrive can not be added to the "Xbox Core System", like if you bought the "Xbox Core System" and later on you want to add a harddrive it can not be done. That was what I was told by an employee at Best Buy, and I also read that from a review on the internet too.

agentxfile

 

Bronze Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 87
Registered: Nov-05
I'm jittery about this next generation, but not from excitement. I'm actually afraid for the industry.

First off, the economy is not in good shape. I'm feeling that people will be more inclined to buy games for their existing systems than buy a new system at this time. Let's face it: most people's money is going towards spending to keep the house warm and the car running than buying gifts unless you're well enough off to deal with the extra expense of energy and unemployment.

Secondly, and this is what's really got me worried: IBM.

IBM currently has supplied major technological support to all contenders for the next generation. This has the makings of another shakeout that helped to bring about the videogame crash of the early 1980s.

Back in the 80's, MOS supplied technologies to all the major contenders of that day (Atari 2600 VCS, Intellivision, Colecovision). Commodore bought MOS and then later used their resources to make the VIC-20 and then the C64 computers at a features-to-price ratio that the videogame consoles of that day couldn't match, and Commodore marketed that point aggressively. People who originally wanted to buy a game system now had the option to buy a computer for the same price. That was a factor which helped to bring an industry-wide crash for home videogames. (Bad games was another major factor, of course.)

Now, IBM is supplying technology to the three contenders. What's to stop IBM from pulling the rug from under Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? IBM could conceivably make their own system, using their own technological and manufacturing resources (including those they provided to their clients), and undercut them all by selling their own system at a much lower pricepoint. - Reinhart
 

Gold Member
Username: Chaunb3400

Huntsville, Alabama U.S.

Post Number: 1309
Registered: Jul-05
well yes they could, but then they would get sued, for having a monopoly over the video game industry, and they would be forced to break it up into smaller companies and change the name
 

Bronze Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 88
Registered: Nov-05
"well yes they could, but then they would get sued, for having a monopoly over the video game industry, and they would be forced to break it up into smaller companies and change the name"

Maybe, maybe not. Nintendo essentially had a monopoly with the NES, but did they suffer a breakup? They were investigated by the FTC, but Nintendo complied and loosened up, but not without wiping out the competition first and keeping everyone at bay until Sega was able to come out with the Genesis.

Texas Instruments essentially had the calculator market all to itself in the 1970s for the same reason that Commodore trounced the home videogame systems in the early 1980s, but did TI get into trouble that was serious enough to push them into ruin?

Look at Microsoft with their Windows and Internet Explorer products. No need to elaborate there.

And then there's Wal-Mart. They are essentially crusading towards a monopoly in the retail business yet they haven't really been successfully pursued. This is because their monopoly is offering people products at prices the other stores are not able to match, much less beat. How can you prove a monopoly in its traditional definition in this case if you're apparently not ripping your customers off?

The problem with accusing a company of having a monopoly is that you have to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, it's hard to prove a monopoly when you are in a leadership position due to being competitive: if the competition wanted to compete with IBM if they decided to enter the market, they would have to react by dropping the prices of their own products to reattract customers. The other problem is that the competition would also be able to react to IBM's entry by introducing another new generation of hardware.

That's where the loophole is: being able to undercut your competitors while still allowing them options, albeit difficult options, but options that can still allow effective competition nonetheless.

It's easy to prove a monopoly if you do the business in such a way that your competition has no options, which wouldn't be the case here. These points would help to make the accusation of an attempted monopoly against IBM groundless as the competition would still have viable options to compete.

IBM would be monopolistic only if they implemented tactics that obviously would undermine the competition beyond their capabilities to reasonably react, which was what Nintendo did in the 1980s with restrictive licensing, keeping third parties from developing on anything else and, therefore, ensuring that the bulk of videogame software would stay on the NES therefore limiting customer choice.

But, a shakeout theoretically still allows for competition and, therefore, will not hinder customer choice and may even make all the products cheaper for the customers in the end, and that's where proving a monopoly would be difficult, if not impossible, if IBM tried to enter the market themselves in this circumstance.

The concern is that IBM has a potential advantage where they could produce hardware at a lower cost and pass those savings on to customers while the competition would have to cut their losses even further and sell their hardware, with IBM technology no less, at a lower price and end up seeing red for longer than they want to. The only truly significant factor for everyone in this case would be the quality and quantity of software available on each of the consoles.

Plus, it helps to know that a business monopoly mainly has to do with how the **customer** is able to choose what they want and how much they want to pay for it. A business is a monopoly if they implement tactics that directly doesn't allow for competition, thereby restricting customer choice and leaving that market open for pricing that is disproportionate of the product's actual value, but the customer is forced to pay for it in order to have the affected goods or services they want. A shakeout is a clever veil for a monopoly in that you cannot prove the intention of the shakeout without doubt and that it still allows for options and choices for the competitors and, more importantly, the customers. - Reinhart
 

Bronze Member
Username: D_singh

Post Number: 38
Registered: Sep-05
One question: will the 360 have blu-ray of HD-DVD? If not, it's already out-dated. I'm thinking the ps3 use one of the two, which ever one Hollywood decides to back
 

Bronze Member
Username: Saaketham

Post Number: 53
Registered: Jul-05
If IBM screws with them, what's to stop Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo to go to Intel or AMD? Aftr all, XBOX 1 has Intel processors.

As for XBox 360 vs PS3 - my understanding is that PS3 will be more powerful, but the main attraction of the PS3, to me, its capable of 1080p, whereas XBox is 1080i, 1080i is nearly the same visual quality as 720p, so PS3 should rule when 1080p games come out in the not-so-distant future.

Secondly, 360 will support HD-DVD, while PS3 will support Blu-Ray. But, since 360 is releasing this month, and HD-DVD drives are not available yet, initialiy produced 360's will not have HD-DVD. And future versions might - so, what happens to the folks who buy the 360 now? Will MS make HD-DVD drives available for free for early adopters?

I currently own a XBox and resoluton-wise, it ruled the PS2 I tried for a short while - I played GTA:VC on both and with the PS2, I was unable to see the map properly, without squinting. But, now, I'm planing to switch to PS3. Who knows, in the months ahead, MS might be planning a revised 360, just in time for the PS3's launch.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Agentxfile

Post Number: 22
Registered: Jun-05
Anil,

I with you on that I want a PS3 more then the Xbox360. I have never had the current Xbox system that is out now, as I only have a PS2 and my pc that I upgrade once a year or so with a new motherboard/processor/video card/memory/etc.
The only way that I would get an Xbox360 System would be if a friend at work can get me her mother's discount on the Xbox360, where her mother works at she gets a 25% discount, so that means I can $100.00 off of the Xbox System with harddrive or I can get $75.00 off the Xbox360 Core System. :-)

agentxfile

 

lileclerc20
Unregistered guest
I won an xbox 360 from mountain dew.. www.every10minutes.com its cool i get it the 19th.. i also got a party in a box with shirts and hats.. they may have in th furture a usb attachment for the xbox controllers... but MS is still deciding on that, and yes there are tons of the kiosks out there.

http:www.xboxscene.com Go to forums, plenty on the xbox 360.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Saaketham

Post Number: 56
Registered: Jul-05
>> The only way that I would get an Xbox360 System would be if a friend at work can get me her mother's discount on the Xbox360, ...
agentxfile

That's a problem I'm facing right now. I have a $200 Amazon promotional certificate, as part of a cell phone rebate. It expires on Dec 1 2005. So, I can't use it for the PS3. But, I can use it for either a 360 or a Sony PSP. Can't make up my mind. If I get a 360, I'll spend lots on games, so that I won't feel like switching platforms when the PS3 rolls out.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Agentxfile

Post Number: 23
Registered: Jun-05
Anil,

Well that is a hard choice, because the PSP is a great portable system with great graphics and the Xbox360 has some of the best graphics that I have ever seen.
I bought a PSP the day it come out and I can't be happier. The graphics on this thing is soo unbelievable, if not better then some games on PS2. I have seven PSP games they all have great graphics, expect one and that is "Star Wars: Battlefront II" as I am really not happy with at all because the graphics suck and they took out the "Story" mode/game that the other versions(PC,PS2,Xbox) has.

So you have a hard choice to make, and I can't really say which one I would get of those two(2) systems.

agentxfile

 

Bronze Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 99
Registered: Nov-05
X-Box360 will likely not support Blu-Ray. Part of this is due to the fact that it is largely a Sony format.

By the time the next generation rolls out, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray as videodisc formats will be in their infancy if they ever make their debut. Regardless of either format, one of them will stick around at least as a proprietary format for one console or the other.

Right now, and off-topic, the only home video format that supports HDTV is, believe it or not, D-VHS (and we can see where that format is going). - Reinhart
 

Bronze Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 100
Registered: Nov-05
Forgot to add.

The X-Box360 is also more likely to support HD-DVD than Blu-Ray due to the fact that Microsoft, at this time, officially supports HD-DVD. - Reinhart
 

Silver Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 101
Registered: Nov-05
"If IBM screws with them, what's to stop Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo to go to Intel or AMD? Aftr all, XBOX 1 has Intel processors."

XBox does use an Intel processor since that's what was used in the final product with the choice not being made due to serious competitive pressure.

If IBM decided to go to market, the other players could go to the other processor manufacturers. But, the problem here is that means another system would have to be designed: this means years more work and billions more dollars to develop a new system to compete against IBM. By the time that the competitors can come up with a system to respond against an IBM system, it would be too late.

And, you can't just go with another processor manufacturer and ask them to make a generic equivalent of IBM's technologies since that would prompt a patent violation suit against them by IBM. You'd have to duplicate the PowerPC architecture at least somewhat to make a generic equivalent for any of the next gen systems from Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, and PowerPC is a proprietary technology owned by IBM.

Perhaps the biggest thing that would stop IBM from trying a shakeout stunt is the fact that they do have a significant partnership between themselves, Sony, and Toshiba in regards to the Cell architecture. Cell is a joint development.

However, PowerPC was also a joint development between IBM, Apple, and Motorola. Years later, that grouping fell apart with IBM retaining the rights to PowerPC.

"As for XBox 360 vs PS3 - my understanding is that PS3 will be more powerful, but the main attraction of the PS3, to me, its capable of 1080p, whereas XBox is 1080i, 1080i is nearly the same visual quality as 720p, so PS3 should rule when 1080p games come out in the not-so-distant future."

The PS-3 is more due to the fact that it uses a system architecture that's less conventional and probably more efficient than the one used in the X-Box 360.

The numbers seem to favor the X-Box 360, but numbers mean nothing. How well the hardware is implemented by the software in real world usage will tell the true story.

If the system has a more efficient design, this means that you can achieve more with less. In the end, it may mean that the PS-3 is more capable in number crunching for integer and floating point operations in real world usage than the XBox360. But, this remains to be seen until it actually happens. And, we'll never see this until the systems and games actually come out. PR numbers, in my opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt.

"Secondly, 360 will support HD-DVD, while PS3 will support Blu-Ray. But, since 360 is releasing this month, and HD-DVD drives are not available yet, initialiy produced 360's will not have HD-DVD. And future versions might - so, what happens to the folks who buy the 360 now? Will MS make HD-DVD drives available for free for early adopters?"

They'd better do something that doesn't burn the customer. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the X-Box360 is. If the customer feels like they're being shafted by Microsoft, they will gladly switch alliances to Sony or Nintendo.

A game console is quite a major purchase to most people. If they have to spend more just to keep their current system "current" or, worse yet, have to spend on yet another system for the same format, all they will do is anger and infuriate their customers. - Reinhart
 

Anonymous
 
PS3 looks like a waffle maker... lol
 

Bronze Member
Username: Hallen1007

Charlotte, North Carolina USA

Post Number: 29
Registered: Jul-05
I have paid for my 360 and will be in line Monday night at midnight to pick it up.That said, I still will buy a PS3 also. I do not understand why MS is hellbent on releasing early. To get a head start on Sony? Being 1st is not always the best way to go. Some of the launch titles do look good, and you can never gauge these as the end all be all anyway, but when you come out so-so, that makes everyone say I'll wait and see what else is coming out. that and the fact they don't even have enough units for people to buy. I asked the MS rep at my local EB, who happens to be a very knowledgeable woman, and she too is suprised they did not manufacture enough at least for black friday. Once again, the sytem will sell well at first, but I just have a feeling SOny is sitting back, taking notes, and getting at least 1 killer game ready. Halo will probably come out when the PS3 does to steal some thunder, but if the average person has not yet bought the 360, then you wasted the 6-8 month headstart you had by launching early. And if games are so easy to develop for the 360, then where are they? Once again, I am buying the system now cause I'm one of those people who has to have it. It just feels like MS is rushing a little bit. The XBOX wasn't making them enough money?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Hallen1007

Charlotte, North Carolina USA

Post Number: 30
Registered: Jul-05
i'm also concerned about the escalating cost of systems and games. That is what helped put arcades out of business. Nintendo may be on to something.
 

Silver Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 147
Registered: Nov-05
"I do not understand why MS is hellbent on releasing early."

Simple. If you can get your next-gen system out earlier, you stand a better chance of gaining a lead ... just so long as you have a good number of killer apps available to use with the system and if more good games keep on coming later on.

That was one of many things that helped to bring bad luck to the Saturn. The Sega Saturn came out before the PlayStation and the N64 (with Sega citing a later release date for the press but then releasing the system months earlier than publicized to supposedly catch the competition off-guard), but the release date was also months before some of the better games could come out to help it.

The games that ended up showcasing the Saturn when it first came out were mostly crap, some which were rushed to completion at the last minute to make the release date.

To make it worse, the release date even preceeded the release of the Saturn devkits! This meant that programmers still had to deal with writing code in assembly for a system architecture that was not only highly capable and powerful, but was also highly difficult to properly program on since you had to write code to properly manage the limited parallel CPU capability between the two Hitachi SH-2 CPUs if you actually wanted to take advantage it.

Otherwise, you'd either write a game that was buggy to where one CPU had to wait for the other to finish its tasks, or write a game that only used one CPU while leaving the other one out of the picture.

It would be months before the Saturn would start to get decent games that could properly take advantage of what it could do. By that time, people and even third parties were already starting to distance themselves from the Saturn and going with the PlayStation, which used an architecture that was about as capable but was infinitely more efficient.

"And if games are so easy to develop for the 360, then where are they?"

A system that's easier to work on only means that less time and effort is expended to program the game. But, it still takes significant effort and time, as well as good imagination and creativity, to design a game that's worth playing. A system that's easier to write on lessens only one challenge out of many that exist in a creatively diverse and highly competitive field. - Reinhart
 

Bronze Member
Username: Hallen1007

Charlotte, North Carolina USA

Post Number: 32
Registered: Jul-05
I like your way of thinking Kip. This launch reminds me a lot of the Saturn launch also. The games are they driving force,a nd Microsoft is dropping the ball. I cannot believe that after all this time Rare has not yet been able to make a game to push the hardware. how long have they been working on Perfect dark? I see why Nintendo sold them.
As for creativity in games, it is surely lacking. I own all 3 systems currently, bit I must say that all my Xbox games are either sports or shooters. I do not like all the games on the PS2 or Gamecube, but at least there is variety. the donkey Kong games were interesting, and Katamary was a breath of fresh air. The more I think about it, I hope Nintendo does well. I don't know if you remember this, but the PS1 had some kiddie games (elmo and sesame street) that came out late in its cycle.It would be nice to see those type of games in the coming years, so my kids could get involved with gaming.
 

Silver Member
Username: Reinhart

Post Number: 165
Registered: Nov-05
"I like your way of thinking Kip. This launch reminds me a lot of the Saturn launch also."

Thanks! And, yeah, I think it somewhat resemebles it as well, although Microsoft didn't try to pull a surprise like Sega did in the release date.

"I cannot believe that after all this time Rare has not yet been able to make a game to push the hardware. how long have they been working on Perfect dark? I see why Nintendo sold them. "

There could be many reasons why. I would have to say that this is just a normal cycle for game companies. They may hit a time where they reach their prime and all they do is churn out great stuff. Then, they start to cool off and go right back down. Eventually, they may go right back up, but this may depend on what they've got planned for the future. This has happened to many companies, including some well-regarded companies like Square-Enix and Tecmo. It's even happened to some companies that have met their demise at their lowest points and just weren't able to recover due to finnancial constraints from the low, like Interplay and Acclaim.

"As for creativity in games, it is surely lacking. I own all 3 systems currently, bit I must say that all my Xbox games are either sports or shooters. I do not like all the games on the PS2 or Gamecube, but at least there is variety."

Part of the reason why this is could be due to the fact that the business is so big in the first place. High profiles and high budgets do provide distinct benefits, but they also have distinct disadvantages. Along with the high budget, and therefore high potential, from the investor there is also the concern about how that money will be earned back, so it's not unexpected to see a level of micromanagement of the developers by the investors to get a finished product that is what the investors themselves think the people want.

It's similar to what happens in the commerical movie business, except that dealing with videogames incurs a higher finnancial risk.

Unfortunately, this level of micromanagement from people who should only manage the business aspect and not the creative have been largely responsible for poor games in the first place.

Mainly, these are the people that see what became a hit and has to jump in the bandwagon instead of having the balls to allow the developers to do what they do best: create something original. Either that, or marketing has their own warped ideas of what should make the game and applies their level of nonsensical butchering, arguing with such "logic" like "Well, it's a bicycle, but should we include the chain?"

"I don't know if you remember this, but the PS1 had some kiddie games (elmo and sesame street) that came out late in its cycle."

Yep. I believe this was around the time that the PlayStation was being replaced by the PS-2 as Sony Computer Entertainment's moneymaker. The PlayStation would be reduced in cost and began to be marketed as a system "for the kids" or "on the go."

"It would be nice to see those type of games in the coming years, so my kids could get involved with gaming."

Well, the biggest part of the market are twentysomething males, so the majority of product will be marketed to appeal to that demographic.

But, I do agree that the market should be flexible and also allow much more diverse products than currently available to satisfy more groups of people. Perhaps even create content that could be used as an entertaining but highly effective teaching aid for kids beyond what's being done right now by both the industry and the edutainment companies, like LeapFrog, for that part of the market alone. That would also help to get those darn senators off the industry's back. - Reinhart
 

Gold Member
Username: Rovin

Trinidad & T...

Post Number: 2847
Registered: Jul-05
Personally i think all next gen consoles could have held back about 2 yrs more !

look @ the graphics that is still on the current systems - could still get us by . I think too, that too many games are coming too fast over the past 3yrs or so & its getting too generic .

Its war with xbox 360 /ps3 cause neither of them will be lacking in the hardware section but its the console exclusive games that will make ppl buy either 1 .
Doesn't mean that all those ppl yesterday will not buy to a ps3 too - more than 1/2 of them will also rush the ps3 & maybe less will also buy new Nintendo revolution .

Just like car audio - ppl have their brands & there are also the 'must have them all crowd' too .....
 

Gold Member
Username: Mikechec9

Http://www.cardomain.c...

Post Number: 1659
Registered: May-05
oh, how i so disagree rovin. i've been a gamer for quite a time now. i recall how elated i felt when i got my first 2600 at 11 (showing age) and how by the time the first comodor 64 showed it's face, i couldn't bare to look at the atari's "graphics". then came the nintendo. this was the true revolution. because you could actually see faces and play ongoing games. no cpu required. supernintendo , ps1, to ps2. each time the same problem that i'm experiencing now.
the ps2 games have reached a plateu. they have grown each year until now. now they just alter the programs to make it different in some regard, but the overall games are the same. case in point, live 2006. it's the same sandwich from '05, just with a couple of different moves. socom is also pretty much similar. the game is expanded, but imo, socom 2 was a more involved game. it's actually the online aspect that makes the expanded territories so fun.
san andreas and grand tourismo4 have pretty much made the platform obselte. there is no getting better. these 2 games are the pennicle of the ps2's capability imo. i welcome the arrival of the ps3 and really, i don't think it could be more timely. (actually, xmas would have been better,:-))
 

Anonymous
 
the xbox 360 does not have a DVI port how will the hdtv get full use of the vidio.
 

Bronze Member
Username: D_singh

Post Number: 44
Registered: Sep-05
you don't need DVI for HDTV
 

Cscliff4
Unregistered guest
HDTV is carried by Component Cables or DVI.
Keep in mind, many of the games are only in 720p and not 1080i, although the 360 is capable of 1080i.

Has anyone experienced any crashes with their 360?
 

Gold Member
Username: Drsmith

Montana USA

Post Number: 2130
Registered: Nov-04
i'll take some stuff if you will do COD lol
 

Bronze Member
Username: Kewinn89

Grand bay, Alabama Usa

Post Number: 19
Registered: Dec-06
i have an xbox 360 the graphics and game play is just as good as the ps3 but, for a cheaper price thats y u have to go with the xbox 360
 

Gold Member
Username: Basshead86

FTW

Post Number: 9739
Registered: Aug-05
well, as of right now, and GOD DANG do i hate arguing about graphics...probably one of the most USELESS things to argue about, just play the damn thing, BUUUUUUUUUUUUT the Xbox looks cleaner, and that is ONLY b/c the developers(game) have had more time with it. but ps3 is only a shade behind here, and soon, it will edge out in front, but damnit who cares. the 360 graphics in HD are MORE than good enough for me. :-)
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us