«

[Blood-Pigggy]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Nov 19 2005, 04:05 PM
Bloody Piggy, you do realise that Crimson Skies actually came out on the PC a long time before it came out on the XBox, along with free multiplayer and actually more features?

You can talk about XBox Live not having any lag or anything, but on the other hand if you have broadband anyway then lag isn't a problem. Obviously, Dial-up vs. XBox live will show much less lag on XBox Live, but then Broadband vs XBox Live will be pretty much equal, plus you don't have a to pay out ?5 a month.

Also, the GameCube was underpowered, there were very, very few good games for it and the controller wass terrible.

All of the games that are coming out for XBox are basically sequels - it'd be nice to see a new game to launch the platform, to be honest.

P.S. Far Cry Instincts was pure shite.

The Gamecube ranked about 1/3 more powerful than the Playstation, with the X-box being the most powerful.
You liar, either you made that up, or some idiot lied to you, go check a reliable source.
The controller was voted the most comfortable and useful on several surveys, reviews, and etc. so either YOU didn't like it, or you and a few of your friends decided so, and immediatly thought that it was crap and so must everyone else.
Very, very, few good games? Jesus man, I bet you haven't even played any games, Wind Waker, Metroid Prime1, 2, Eternal Darkness, Super Smash Brothers Melee, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine, Freedom Fighters...
Once again, Gamespot had a total of all the games they reviewed, and the Playstation totalled out as having the worst games, the X-Box the second best, and the GameCube turning out the best. And don't tell me that doesn't matter, numbers don't lie when it comes to a mass of good games, especially when you say "No good games."

And the Crimson Skies on the X-Box was a somewhat better game, and it wasn't ANYTHING like the PC one, it was a whole different game, it wasn't even a remake or port. To add on to that, it had MUCH more than the PC version, in fact, the split screen multiplayer was better than playing the PC internet multiplayer. Play the game first sirra.
And Far Cry Instincts to many people was a excellent game, there's a huge fanbase for it, the press loved it, and many other people enjoy it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean other people don't either.


Broadband won't change much, I said SERVERS are never crappy, it lies in the fact that some games have terrible net-code.

Translation of your post :

"X-Box versions of games are gay"
"I don't understand servers, net-code, and integrated networks"
"I am misinformed about the GameCube, biased against it, and have no actual gaming experience"
"I don't like sequels, and I say the X-Box 360 has mostly sequels, even while the whole line-up are completely original games"
"I don't like Far Cry Instincts, so it must be factual that it sucks."

[Havell]

Blood-Pigggy, what more can moogle or PrejSucks possibly give than their honest opinions?

Opinions that are not the same as yours aren't wrong.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Sorry, it's just that certain things like "Console sucks" really tick me off, I was just poking at factual errors, and where he stated certain stuff was crap, I don't like incorrect statements like "Was technically underpowered" which it wasn't.

[Sean]

In his world they are... he's very narrow minded at times.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Why I Act The Way I Do

That and the medication/therapy

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by TheGiantMidgit@Nov 19 2005, 07:42 PM

If you're referring to his comment towards Moogles GC games, neither are FPS games. Both are fighting.

Oops. Sorry. Well, I wouldn't know, really; the last console I bought was a SNES. So it was just a stab in the dark based on a vague idea of what sort of games Piggy likes.

[TheGiantMidgit]

Originally posted by A. J. Raffles+Nov 19 2005, 11:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (A. J. Raffles @ Nov 19 2005, 11:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheGiantMidgit@Nov 19 2005, 07:42 PM

If you're referring to his comment towards Moogles GC games, neither are FPS games. Both are fighting.

Oops. Sorry. Well, I wouldn't know, really; the last console I bought was a SNES. So it was just a stab in the dark based on a vague idea of what sort of games Piggy likes. [/b][/quote]
Ah, no problem. I was just confused by the comment.

The Snes, in my opinion, was the pinnacle of electronic gaming. Good choice.

[JimmyJ]

On my working snes, I have a cartredge of RPG Maker snes version

[Alf Hari]

I seem to remember someone posting about the lack of good RTS games on consoles. This is quite true, unfortunately. On the first 'new' generation consoles such as PSX and N64, I don't think there were many good titles. However, the Command and Conquer series was a notable exception, with fun gameplay if you could learn to use the digital controller. Actually, I own a PSX mouse, which is one of the wierdest console accessories ever mdae. It makes RTSs so much easier, more like a PC game, but with the instant playability of a console. I seem to remember that the mouse also worked with a post-apocalyptic game called Warzone, which had decent 3D graphics and a heap of missions - you could probably compare it with the Command and Conquer game on N64.

I now have a PS2, but haven't bought any RTS games for it, as I don;t know of any good ones. I think that RTS games will continue to decline on consoles. The reasons for this are probably that PC RTS games are easily playable on the internet, and also because any RTS made today is expected to have a nice rotatable 3D view as well as number buttons for assigning teams and other controls which the console controllers can't hope to match. So the point is that RTSs on consoles have probably had their day, unless you want to go and buy a PSX and hunt around for the half-dozen C&C titles on it.

[Borodin]

Originally posted by Stebbi@Nov 18 2005, 06:09 PM
Computer's get out dated much faster than consoles...

Computers can also be upgraded much more easily than consoles. I had my 1.3 gHz CPU with 256 MB RAM upgraded cheaply to 3 gHz with 1 GB RAM. I can selectively upgrade just the things I want, and I can do far more than just run a few games (individually, since on a console you can't multitask) with the result.

Mind, there's nothing wrong with consoles. Everybody basically can enjoy whatever they like: viva la difference! But it frustrates me to hear the PR arguments that make no sense whatever being put forward without thought. PC's dated more quickly than consoles? How long did the Xbox last before Microsoft tried to sell a new version? And can you run the latest high-end crop of console titles on the consoles released a few years ago?